by liberal japonicus
Wanted to riff a bit off of something that has come up in Sebastian’s thread on court packing, which is Russell saying “Win elections. There is no substitute.” Which had me think about this Jamelle Bouie piece (via LGM), where something the Count mentioned stood out:
Under the Trump administration, even naturalized citizens are now a target. The government agency that oversees immigration applications is hiring lawyers and immigration officers to review cases of immigrants suspected of obtaining citizenship through fake identities or other false information on their applications. Cases would be referred to the Department of Justice, where offenders could lose their citizenship or legal status.
“We finally have a process in place to get to the bottom of all these bad cases and start denaturalizing people who should not have been naturalized in the first place,” L. Francis Cissna, director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said in an interview with the Associated Press last month. “What we’re looking at, when you boil it all down, is potentially a few thousand cases.”
The small scale of this effort belies its significance. As a country, the United States makes few distinctions between naturalized citizens and their native-born counterparts. The naturalization process, which includes long-term residents with deep ties to the U.S., is assumed to be permanent. This new task force on denaturalization throws that permanence into question, bringing suspicion on anyone who received their citizenship through means other than birth.
I’ve got a number of things to say about this, but I’ll just start this off by noting that winning elections can be viewed as reducing the number of them. That suggests that it also means getting behind proposals mentioned by Nigel from here, such as
The list of those changes is dizzying. Grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, and break California in seven, with the goal of adding 16 new Democrats to the Senate. Expand the Supreme Court and the federal courts, packing them with liberal judges. Move to multi-member House districts to roll back the effects of partisan gerrymandering. Pass a new Voting Rights Act, including nationwide automatic voter registration, felon enfranchisement and an end to voter ID laws. Grant citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants, creating a host of new Democratic-leaning voters: “Republicans have always feared that immigration would change the character of American society. Democrats should reward them with their very worst nightmare.”
It’s interesting that the discussion of breaking up California moved to questions of the electoral college. One would assume that it is not simply to win the presidential election, it would be to change the complexion of the House in a way that would make it more hospitable to progressive notions.
But my main focus is taking away citizenship and if anyone is as horrified as I am about it. Or is it just another day in the US?
No, it’s not just another day in the US. And neither is this.
We need to quit pretending that this isn’t a fight against the Nazis, and do what’s necessary.
Who is going to organize this? I organized a couple of people to hold a sign for three weeks on Thursdays, so obviously I’m not so good an organizer. Let’s get it together to do something. I noticed, while I was organizing, that mostly it was women who stepped up. Ummm. Yeah. Sebastian, in addition to refusing to donate body parts, are you doing anything? I know russell is. Others?
No, it’s not just another day in the US. And neither is this.
We need to quit pretending that this isn’t a fight against the Nazis, and do what’s necessary.
Who is going to organize this? I organized a couple of people to hold a sign for three weeks on Thursdays, so obviously I’m not so good an organizer. Let’s get it together to do something. I noticed, while I was organizing, that mostly it was women who stepped up. Ummm. Yeah. Sebastian, in addition to refusing to donate body parts, are you doing anything? I know russell is. Others?
oops. forgot to preview.
oops. forgot to preview.
We’re a quiet group here, talking about peripheral things.
I suggest that we should strategize about what to do with the Nazis.
I get voting. I’m working on that in my state, and encourage everyone to do make it happen in theirs. But what do you think the traitor Republicans were doing hanging out with Putin apparatchiks on July 4?
I’m talking about Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.), Steve Daines (Mont.), John Thune (S.D.), John Kennedy (La.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), John Hoeven (N.D.), and Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas).
Electoral intervention for them?
Traitors.
How are we going to actually do something? What are we doing, each of us? GOTV your hearts out until November. If that helps, that’s a start. If not, we need to have other plans and we need to start thinking about them now.
We’re a quiet group here, talking about peripheral things.
I suggest that we should strategize about what to do with the Nazis.
I get voting. I’m working on that in my state, and encourage everyone to do make it happen in theirs. But what do you think the traitor Republicans were doing hanging out with Putin apparatchiks on July 4?
I’m talking about Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.), Steve Daines (Mont.), John Thune (S.D.), John Kennedy (La.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), John Hoeven (N.D.), and Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas).
Electoral intervention for them?
Traitors.
How are we going to actually do something? What are we doing, each of us? GOTV your hearts out until November. If that helps, that’s a start. If not, we need to have other plans and we need to start thinking about them now.
the military is also discharging immigrant recruits.
this country has lost it’s freaking mind.
the military is also discharging immigrant recruits.
this country has lost it’s freaking mind.
oops, posted before i clicked through sapient’s link.
oops, posted before i clicked through sapient’s link.
Keep making it about whites and Nazis. That’s worked wonders so far. This crap will bury us all, dammit.
Keep making it about whites and Nazis. That’s worked wonders so far. This crap will bury us all, dammit.
Yama, I suggest you keep hiding.
Yama, I suggest you keep hiding.
the military is also discharging immigrant recruits.
I wish I could say I’m surprised. But consider how intent Trump et al are about stopping immigrants from coming here. Why wouldn’t he shut down a program which lets a bunch of d*mn furriners become citizens for nothing more than serving in the US military. I mean, Trump’s high opinion of the military is obvious from the lengths he went to in order to enlist himself….
the military is also discharging immigrant recruits.
I wish I could say I’m surprised. But consider how intent Trump et al are about stopping immigrants from coming here. Why wouldn’t he shut down a program which lets a bunch of d*mn furriners become citizens for nothing more than serving in the US military. I mean, Trump’s high opinion of the military is obvious from the lengths he went to in order to enlist himself….
I actually found the Army discharge story to be strangely more shocking than the rest of the recent stories. I’m not totally sure why, but I did.
I actually found the Army discharge story to be strangely more shocking than the rest of the recent stories. I’m not totally sure why, but I did.
Yama, is your comment directed at the OP or sapient’s comment? Fair warning, I was going to draw a nazism parallel with ‘denaturalization’ (perhaps Hartmut can give us the German word for when they revoked the citizenship of the Jewish citizens that I think Hilberg discusses), so I was thinking that, but I’m curious precisely what triggered your comment.
About the army discharging immigrant recruits, it also parallels some of Hilberg’s arguments about the fact that Hitler should not be considered central to the Holocaust. I would be very interested to know if there were specific orders asking the armed forces to discharge immigrants and DACA or if this was taken because it was assumed that this is what the current administration wants.
Yama, is your comment directed at the OP or sapient’s comment? Fair warning, I was going to draw a nazism parallel with ‘denaturalization’ (perhaps Hartmut can give us the German word for when they revoked the citizenship of the Jewish citizens that I think Hilberg discusses), so I was thinking that, but I’m curious precisely what triggered your comment.
About the army discharging immigrant recruits, it also parallels some of Hilberg’s arguments about the fact that Hitler should not be considered central to the Holocaust. I would be very interested to know if there were specific orders asking the armed forces to discharge immigrants and DACA or if this was taken because it was assumed that this is what the current administration wants.
I had a similar question: Who, exactly, gave the orders that led to this?
I had a similar question: Who, exactly, gave the orders that led to this?
it would be to change the complexion of the House in a way that would make it more hospitable to progressive notions.
Aka more… representative of the actual electorate.
it would be to change the complexion of the House in a way that would make it more hospitable to progressive notions.
Aka more… representative of the actual electorate.
The Nazis went step by step, not in one go. The most important legal step were the two 1935 Nuremberg laws, the one being the Reichsbürgergesetz ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrgergesetz )(citizenship law), the other the „Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre“ (Law for the protection of the German blood and the German honour).
In essence the first made Jews second class citizens (legal residents as opposed to full citizens), the second made miscegenation illegal. One detail that might have special meaning for USians is that the first law banned Jews from using the German flag in any form while ‘granting them the privilege to fly the Jewish colours under the protection of the state’.
The latter was of course a cruel joke but, as we know from RW media, even that pseudo-privilege would be anathema to US nationalists that see any Cinco de Mayo celebration as mass treason. Iirc there were attempts not that long ago to require that the US flag always fly higher even on official state events than that of other nations (e.g. state visits by foreign dignitaries or international sporting events taking place on US soil).
The Nazis went step by step, not in one go. The most important legal step were the two 1935 Nuremberg laws, the one being the Reichsbürgergesetz ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrgergesetz )(citizenship law), the other the „Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre“ (Law for the protection of the German blood and the German honour).
In essence the first made Jews second class citizens (legal residents as opposed to full citizens), the second made miscegenation illegal. One detail that might have special meaning for USians is that the first law banned Jews from using the German flag in any form while ‘granting them the privilege to fly the Jewish colours under the protection of the state’.
The latter was of course a cruel joke but, as we know from RW media, even that pseudo-privilege would be anathema to US nationalists that see any Cinco de Mayo celebration as mass treason. Iirc there were attempts not that long ago to require that the US flag always fly higher even on official state events than that of other nations (e.g. state visits by foreign dignitaries or international sporting events taking place on US soil).
Thanks Hartmut. That wikipedia link gave me enough to find what I was thinking about, which was
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz_%C3%BCber_den_Widerruf_von_Einb%C3%BCrgerungen_und_die_Aberkennung_der_deutschen_Staatsangeh%C3%B6rigkeit
Using this law, when Jews were deported to the camps that were outside the borders of the Reich, they automatically lost their citizenship. The wikipedia article notes that Theresienstadt was in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (part of Czech Sudetenland) that was declared part of the Reich in 1939, so when Jews were sent there, they had bailiffs formally serve injunctions in order to follow legal procedures.
Interestingly, it wasn’t until 1968 that the legality of stripping the citizenship those who left the Reich was legally rejected.
Thanks Hartmut. That wikipedia link gave me enough to find what I was thinking about, which was
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz_%C3%BCber_den_Widerruf_von_Einb%C3%BCrgerungen_und_die_Aberkennung_der_deutschen_Staatsangeh%C3%B6rigkeit
Using this law, when Jews were deported to the camps that were outside the borders of the Reich, they automatically lost their citizenship. The wikipedia article notes that Theresienstadt was in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (part of Czech Sudetenland) that was declared part of the Reich in 1939, so when Jews were sent there, they had bailiffs formally serve injunctions in order to follow legal procedures.
Interestingly, it wasn’t until 1968 that the legality of stripping the citizenship those who left the Reich was legally rejected.
there were attempts not that long ago to require that the US flag always fly higher even on official state events than that of other nations…
With a special exception for besties … ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44435035
there were attempts not that long ago to require that the US flag always fly higher even on official state events than that of other nations…
With a special exception for besties … ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44435035
Nigel, I was going to say that under Trump we don’t appear to have besties any more.
But, as your photo makes clear, we apparently do . . . just not any of the folks that would normally be preferred.
Nigel, I was going to say that under Trump we don’t appear to have besties any more.
But, as your photo makes clear, we apparently do . . . just not any of the folks that would normally be preferred.
The government agency that oversees immigration applications is hiring lawyers and immigration officers to review cases of immigrants suspected of obtaining citizenship through fake identities or other false information on their applications.
Hmm, so it’s a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it’s not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi?
Is that really where we are now?
The government agency that oversees immigration applications is hiring lawyers and immigration officers to review cases of immigrants suspected of obtaining citizenship through fake identities or other false information on their applications.
Hmm, so it’s a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it’s not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi?
Is that really where we are now?
Hmm, so it’s a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it’s not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi?
I wonder which citizens are suspected of this. I wonder why it’s a priority all of a sudden.
Your tax dollars at work, McKinney.
Hmm, so it’s a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it’s not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi?
I wonder which citizens are suspected of this. I wonder why it’s a priority all of a sudden.
Your tax dollars at work, McKinney.
I don’t have a problem with prosecuting (and expelling) those who got citizenship via fraud. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem like the best possible use of resources at the moment. For openers, the courts which process applicants for asylum are seriously shorthanded. If we had enough lawyers and judges there, we could have avoided a lot of the family separation fiasco.
It’s like the branch of ICE that goes after actual serious criminals asking to be separated from ICE because it can’t get resources. On account of all resources being devoted to finding illegal immigrants who aren’t breaking any other law — apparently just because they are soft targets and can run the numbers up.
I don’t have a problem with prosecuting (and expelling) those who got citizenship via fraud. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem like the best possible use of resources at the moment. For openers, the courts which process applicants for asylum are seriously shorthanded. If we had enough lawyers and judges there, we could have avoided a lot of the family separation fiasco.
It’s like the branch of ICE that goes after actual serious criminals asking to be separated from ICE because it can’t get resources. On account of all resources being devoted to finding illegal immigrants who aren’t breaking any other law — apparently just because they are soft targets and can run the numbers up.
Maybe Trump’s DHS would better serve the country by spending some of your tax dollars on this, McKinney. I mean, separating families, and then not knowing how to put them back together again – that seems kind of important. Also, spending tons of money (to private prison profiteers) to incarcerate asylum seekers who were doing just fine with the ankle bracelet system – all good, McKinney?
Suddenly you’re very much okay with government spending!
Maybe Trump’s DHS would better serve the country by spending some of your tax dollars on this, McKinney. I mean, separating families, and then not knowing how to put them back together again – that seems kind of important. Also, spending tons of money (to private prison profiteers) to incarcerate asylum seekers who were doing just fine with the ankle bracelet system – all good, McKinney?
Suddenly you’re very much okay with government spending!
Suddenly you’re very much okay with government spending!
In other words, in answer to your question, (this one: Hmm, so it’s a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it’s not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi?
Yes. It’s all of a piece.
Suddenly you’re very much okay with government spending!
In other words, in answer to your question, (this one: Hmm, so it’s a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it’s not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi?
Yes. It’s all of a piece.
The protocol for the US flag when displayed with flags of other nations on US soil is that the US flag must be no smaller than any other flag, and all the flags should be displayed at the same height, with the US flag leftmost (from viewer’s point of view).
When displayed with flags of lesser jurisdictions – states, counties, etc. – the US flag should be higher.
FWIW.
Regarding revoking citizenship for folks who obtained it fraudulently, I will be curious to see what gets counted as ‘fraud’. And, I’m curious to see what the countries of origin are for the folks singled out for this treatment.
Here are the top 25 countries of origin for folks here illegally. Which of them will get the most attention?
I don’t agree with the “nazi” characterization. It’s not needed, we have our own history and tradition of singling out people from certain places, and people who look certain ways, for special consideration when it comes to immigration and naturalization.
This is just more of the same old bigotry, warmed over and served up for a new generation.
It’s the cruel bitch side of America. Always been part of the mix.
The protocol for the US flag when displayed with flags of other nations on US soil is that the US flag must be no smaller than any other flag, and all the flags should be displayed at the same height, with the US flag leftmost (from viewer’s point of view).
When displayed with flags of lesser jurisdictions – states, counties, etc. – the US flag should be higher.
FWIW.
Regarding revoking citizenship for folks who obtained it fraudulently, I will be curious to see what gets counted as ‘fraud’. And, I’m curious to see what the countries of origin are for the folks singled out for this treatment.
Here are the top 25 countries of origin for folks here illegally. Which of them will get the most attention?
I don’t agree with the “nazi” characterization. It’s not needed, we have our own history and tradition of singling out people from certain places, and people who look certain ways, for special consideration when it comes to immigration and naturalization.
This is just more of the same old bigotry, warmed over and served up for a new generation.
It’s the cruel bitch side of America. Always been part of the mix.
If He, Trump’s administration has enough time on its hands to “review” naturalization “fraud”, I wonder what little white lies Melania Knaus (current Third Lady of the United States) will turn out to have told in Her quest for US citizenship. I don’t know that she told any, and I bet McKinney doesn’t know either. But I suspect only one of us wonders about it.
I immigrated to the US at age 9 through a port of entry. AFAIK, McKinney immigrated to the US at age 0 through a maternity ward. Obviously, McKinney is more entitled to US citizenship than Melania or I are; McKinney’s is in some sense a higher class of citizenship, since his is irrevocable. Right, McKinney?
–TP
If He, Trump’s administration has enough time on its hands to “review” naturalization “fraud”, I wonder what little white lies Melania Knaus (current Third Lady of the United States) will turn out to have told in Her quest for US citizenship. I don’t know that she told any, and I bet McKinney doesn’t know either. But I suspect only one of us wonders about it.
I immigrated to the US at age 9 through a port of entry. AFAIK, McKinney immigrated to the US at age 0 through a maternity ward. Obviously, McKinney is more entitled to US citizenship than Melania or I are; McKinney’s is in some sense a higher class of citizenship, since his is irrevocable. Right, McKinney?
–TP
I wonder what little white lies Melania Knaus (current Third Lady of the United States) will turn out to have told in Her quest for US citizenship.
Just for openers, I have to wonder how she qualified for the exception (aka the “Einstein exception”) that goes to those who have very rare abilities. Is it really that difficult to find a model among Americans? Even a “super model”?
I wonder what little white lies Melania Knaus (current Third Lady of the United States) will turn out to have told in Her quest for US citizenship.
Just for openers, I have to wonder how she qualified for the exception (aka the “Einstein exception”) that goes to those who have very rare abilities. Is it really that difficult to find a model among Americans? Even a “super model”?
AFAIK, McKinney immigrated to the US at age 0 through a maternity ward. Obviously, McKinney is more entitled to US citizenship than Melania or I are; McKinney’s is in some sense a higher class of citizenship, since his is irrevocable. Right, McKinney?
You make a lot of assumptions, TP. Seems to be a lot of that lately. The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud. Is that ok or not ok? Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism? It’s a simple question.
AFAIK, McKinney immigrated to the US at age 0 through a maternity ward. Obviously, McKinney is more entitled to US citizenship than Melania or I are; McKinney’s is in some sense a higher class of citizenship, since his is irrevocable. Right, McKinney?
You make a lot of assumptions, TP. Seems to be a lot of that lately. The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud. Is that ok or not ok? Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism? It’s a simple question.
This is just more of the same old bigotry, warmed over and served up for a new generation.
It’s the cruel bitch side of America. Always been part of the mix.
I disagree that we shouldn’t use the term “Nazi.” The United States certainly does have its own history, exactly as you say, but when we saw what it looked like in WWII, when we were fighting against it, we made a lot of progress in the ensuing years to fight what that looked like at home. We (many of us) learned a lesson, in other words, that we didn’t want to look like that.
The fight for civil rights, and the idea that our society would continue to identify and eradicate bigotry, those things became popular as a result of the lessons that we learned. Obviously, that post-war American ethic wasn’t shared by all, and wasn’t reflected in all of our policies.
I don’t reject the quest to identify and understand the ugliness in American history, especially racism. I do reject that idea that it has any place in our modern mythology, or public self-image. Trump is trying to put it back there, to glorify it as part of our national identity. You can call it neo-Confederatism if you want, but that confuses the issue for a lot of people, especially since their leader comes from Manhattan.
Settling on a term that everyone understands, about a movement that glorified violence, hatred, nihilism, and racism – I think it’s easy for people to understand, and it fits them just fine.
This is just more of the same old bigotry, warmed over and served up for a new generation.
It’s the cruel bitch side of America. Always been part of the mix.
I disagree that we shouldn’t use the term “Nazi.” The United States certainly does have its own history, exactly as you say, but when we saw what it looked like in WWII, when we were fighting against it, we made a lot of progress in the ensuing years to fight what that looked like at home. We (many of us) learned a lesson, in other words, that we didn’t want to look like that.
The fight for civil rights, and the idea that our society would continue to identify and eradicate bigotry, those things became popular as a result of the lessons that we learned. Obviously, that post-war American ethic wasn’t shared by all, and wasn’t reflected in all of our policies.
I don’t reject the quest to identify and understand the ugliness in American history, especially racism. I do reject that idea that it has any place in our modern mythology, or public self-image. Trump is trying to put it back there, to glorify it as part of our national identity. You can call it neo-Confederatism if you want, but that confuses the issue for a lot of people, especially since their leader comes from Manhattan.
Settling on a term that everyone understands, about a movement that glorified violence, hatred, nihilism, and racism – I think it’s easy for people to understand, and it fits them just fine.
Also, the big lie. Another similarity with the Nazis, or the Soviets, or the Maoists. Pick your totalitarian movement.
Also, the big lie. Another similarity with the Nazis, or the Soviets, or the Maoists. Pick your totalitarian movement.
That’s certainly one question, McKinney.
Tell us, when you’re not giving us yes/no questions (which are perfectly reasonable ones, actually), I’d like to know what your feelings are about immigrant soldiers, serving in the US military, being dismissed with no cause given. This is not a yes/no question. It’s possible some of these servicemen may have comitted fraud, but there’s no particular reason to think so. We know you despise Trump and disapproved of his equivalencies after Charlottesville. How does this kind of stuff make you feel, McKinney?
That’s certainly one question, McKinney.
Tell us, when you’re not giving us yes/no questions (which are perfectly reasonable ones, actually), I’d like to know what your feelings are about immigrant soldiers, serving in the US military, being dismissed with no cause given. This is not a yes/no question. It’s possible some of these servicemen may have comitted fraud, but there’s no particular reason to think so. We know you despise Trump and disapproved of his equivalencies after Charlottesville. How does this kind of stuff make you feel, McKinney?
Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism? It’s a simple question.
No.
I’m curious to know what you would call it.
We have had programs of denaturalization before, for various reasons. They have typically not been our proudest moments as a nation.
What we’re living through right now is not one of our proudest moments as a nation. We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this bullshit to go on.
Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism? It’s a simple question.
No.
I’m curious to know what you would call it.
We have had programs of denaturalization before, for various reasons. They have typically not been our proudest moments as a nation.
What we’re living through right now is not one of our proudest moments as a nation. We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this bullshit to go on.
Making things sh*tty for some of the most powerless among us is our national priority.
Making things sh*tty for some of the most powerless among us is our national priority.
Read this, McKinney, and tell me how our priority right now should be digging into citizenship files and trying to denaturalize people.
If this doesn’t make you violently ill, than I have to wonder ….
Now the government is asking for more time to reunite families, because they never were going to do it in the first place, after having lied to these people. This is United States policy, and it’s nauseating. Yes, I’ll call them Nazis. Anyone else can use whatever term they find convenient.
Read this, McKinney, and tell me how our priority right now should be digging into citizenship files and trying to denaturalize people.
If this doesn’t make you violently ill, than I have to wonder ….
Now the government is asking for more time to reunite families, because they never were going to do it in the first place, after having lied to these people. This is United States policy, and it’s nauseating. Yes, I’ll call them Nazis. Anyone else can use whatever term they find convenient.
I’d like to know what your feelings are about immigrant soldiers, serving in the US military, being dismissed with no cause given. This is not a yes/no question.
If they were contracted with full disclosure–or all of the disclosure requested–and if this is a ‘thing’ about not allowing otherwise eligible and qualified immigrants to serve and nothing else, then it’s pretty shitty, but that case has yet to be made.
I’m curious to know what you would call it.
I’m a lawyer. All of my training and my personal instincts are that if you get something by fraud, you have to give it back and pay any attendant damages. So, no problem in principle with declassifying under these specific circumstances and I don’t care who is president when it happens.
I’d like to know what your feelings are about immigrant soldiers, serving in the US military, being dismissed with no cause given. This is not a yes/no question.
If they were contracted with full disclosure–or all of the disclosure requested–and if this is a ‘thing’ about not allowing otherwise eligible and qualified immigrants to serve and nothing else, then it’s pretty shitty, but that case has yet to be made.
I’m curious to know what you would call it.
I’m a lawyer. All of my training and my personal instincts are that if you get something by fraud, you have to give it back and pay any attendant damages. So, no problem in principle with declassifying under these specific circumstances and I don’t care who is president when it happens.
All of my training and my personal instincts are that if you get something by fraud, you have to give it back and pay any attendant damages.
Please do a damages valuation.
All of my training and my personal instincts are that if you get something by fraud, you have to give it back and pay any attendant damages.
Please do a damages valuation.
What about the fraud committed when snatching people’s children under false pretenses? A valuation of that too, while you’re at it, would be appreciated.
What about the fraud committed when snatching people’s children under false pretenses? A valuation of that too, while you’re at it, would be appreciated.
Read this, McKinney, and tell me how our priority right now should be digging into citizenship files and trying to denaturalize people.
Ok, let’s be clear about one thing: I’m not going to get into a debate about anything with you. Even when you are right, you are generally so over the top that reasoned discourse just isn’t going to happen. Anyone who doesn’t buy into your specific and incredibly demanding program is on the suspected Nazi list. You probably don’t appreciate the irony of that.
Read this, McKinney, and tell me how our priority right now should be digging into citizenship files and trying to denaturalize people.
Ok, let’s be clear about one thing: I’m not going to get into a debate about anything with you. Even when you are right, you are generally so over the top that reasoned discourse just isn’t going to happen. Anyone who doesn’t buy into your specific and incredibly demanding program is on the suspected Nazi list. You probably don’t appreciate the irony of that.
So, no problem in principle with declassifying under these specific circumstances and I don’t care who is president when it happens.
I’m not sure how to square “in principle” with “under these specific circumstance.” What specific circumstances? Why in principle rather than in practice?
So, no problem in principle with declassifying under these specific circumstances and I don’t care who is president when it happens.
I’m not sure how to square “in principle” with “under these specific circumstance.” What specific circumstances? Why in principle rather than in practice?
Anyone who doesn’t buy into your specific and incredibly demanding program
It is your choice not to interact with me. My specific and incredibly demanding program requires that the United States should consider the claims of asylum seekers and not treat them as criminals. My specific and incredibly demanding program requires that the United States not engage in a witch hunt to ferret out citizens who are causing no trouble whatsoever, in order to strip them of their citizenship and make them miserable.
We live in a country made up of immigrants, descendants of immigrants, native Americans, and slaves. There is a white supremacist program of ethnic cleansing going on, and I refuse to pretend that it’s okay. That’s my specific and incredibly demanding program.
Anyone who doesn’t buy into your specific and incredibly demanding program
It is your choice not to interact with me. My specific and incredibly demanding program requires that the United States should consider the claims of asylum seekers and not treat them as criminals. My specific and incredibly demanding program requires that the United States not engage in a witch hunt to ferret out citizens who are causing no trouble whatsoever, in order to strip them of their citizenship and make them miserable.
We live in a country made up of immigrants, descendants of immigrants, native Americans, and slaves. There is a white supremacist program of ethnic cleansing going on, and I refuse to pretend that it’s okay. That’s my specific and incredibly demanding program.
The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud. Is that ok or not ok?
Well, that’s one question. Another is, what are our priorities? Your local police department can increase its number of arrests by focusing on (minor) crimes that are easy to close. Say littering.
No question that’s illegal. No question that it’s a problem. But do you cut staff devoted to homicide or grand theft in order to get more littering arrests and convictions? Because that’s the kind of thing that a focus on obtaining citizenship by fraud instead of drug traffic or human trafficing is doing.
The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud. Is that ok or not ok?
Well, that’s one question. Another is, what are our priorities? Your local police department can increase its number of arrests by focusing on (minor) crimes that are easy to close. Say littering.
No question that’s illegal. No question that it’s a problem. But do you cut staff devoted to homicide or grand theft in order to get more littering arrests and convictions? Because that’s the kind of thing that a focus on obtaining citizenship by fraud instead of drug traffic or human trafficing is doing.
I’m not sure how to square “in principle” with “under these specific circumstance.” What specific circumstances? Why in principle rather than in practice?
I tend toward hedging my bets when I’m working off of a one or two sentence blurb. Years of unpleasant experience in and out of the courtroom has taught me that what is *said* to have happened or *said* to be the case and what actually *happened* or what actually is the case are often different things, sometimes very different. Everyone tends to be the hero in their own story, few take ownership of a bad result. So I’m buying in in principle assuming the facts are as represented. Covering my bets, so to speak.
I’m not sure how to square “in principle” with “under these specific circumstance.” What specific circumstances? Why in principle rather than in practice?
I tend toward hedging my bets when I’m working off of a one or two sentence blurb. Years of unpleasant experience in and out of the courtroom has taught me that what is *said* to have happened or *said* to be the case and what actually *happened* or what actually is the case are often different things, sometimes very different. Everyone tends to be the hero in their own story, few take ownership of a bad result. So I’m buying in in principle assuming the facts are as represented. Covering my bets, so to speak.
So what are we talking about here?
LJ says: “But my main focus is taking away citizenship and if anyone is as horrified as I am about it. Or is it just another day in the US?”
I will repeat two of his words: “Main Focus”.
However, as I’ve noted, the circumstances for declassification are fraud in the inducement.
Then the subject gets changed–not unusual in my experience–to nit-picking such as WJ’s “priorities”.
LJ says it’s the ‘main focus’. Do the rest here agree with that?
If we are going to rend ourselves over something, shouldn’t we first agree that that the “something” is worth the candle?
So what are we talking about here?
LJ says: “But my main focus is taking away citizenship and if anyone is as horrified as I am about it. Or is it just another day in the US?”
I will repeat two of his words: “Main Focus”.
However, as I’ve noted, the circumstances for declassification are fraud in the inducement.
Then the subject gets changed–not unusual in my experience–to nit-picking such as WJ’s “priorities”.
LJ says it’s the ‘main focus’. Do the rest here agree with that?
If we are going to rend ourselves over something, shouldn’t we first agree that that the “something” is worth the candle?
lj and wj are two different people, thus the l and the w.
I’m not sure wj is nitpicking, in light of the resources being taken away from the people who go after drug and human traffickers. The concept of priority is rather important.
lj and wj are two different people, thus the l and the w.
I’m not sure wj is nitpicking, in light of the resources being taken away from the people who go after drug and human traffickers. The concept of priority is rather important.
I’m a lawyer
I’m not a lawyer, so my avenue of discourse is common sense and noting the obvious.
Since 1990, there have been about 300 civil denaturalization proceedings. Trump’s program anticipates ‘several thousand’. So, this will not be business as usual.
The bar for fraud as a justification for denaturalization has apparently been fairly high, historically. People are denaturalized for things like hiding the fact that they were Nazis. For example.
Is that what we’re talking about? The sudden discovery that ‘several thousand’ nazis or their like have, somehow, fraudulently acquired US citizenship?
What I expect from this administration is harassment of people who are living useful, productive, law-abiding lives, and the denaturalization and immediate deportation of several thousand of them, in many cases based on ‘fraud’ of the caliber of mis-stating simple facts. Wrong address, incorrect name, got the wrong dates for previous residence, omission of less-than-consequential detail.
You know, like the bullshit the insurance companies pulled when they wanted to kick sick people off of their health insurance coverage.
The value of this exercise relative to its cost and intrusiveness will be minimal, other than to demonstrate hostility to ‘foreigners’ and to appease the malice of Trump’s supporters.
That’s how this particular non-lawyer sees it.
It is not only possible, it’s quite common for people to abide by every letter of the law, while using it to screw other people over, for no particularly good reason.
Even you, a lawyer, must be familiar with that phenomenon.
That’s what this is. It’s a petty, malicious vendetta against people that Trump’s people don’t like.
Shame on him, and on them.
I’m a lawyer
I’m not a lawyer, so my avenue of discourse is common sense and noting the obvious.
Since 1990, there have been about 300 civil denaturalization proceedings. Trump’s program anticipates ‘several thousand’. So, this will not be business as usual.
The bar for fraud as a justification for denaturalization has apparently been fairly high, historically. People are denaturalized for things like hiding the fact that they were Nazis. For example.
Is that what we’re talking about? The sudden discovery that ‘several thousand’ nazis or their like have, somehow, fraudulently acquired US citizenship?
What I expect from this administration is harassment of people who are living useful, productive, law-abiding lives, and the denaturalization and immediate deportation of several thousand of them, in many cases based on ‘fraud’ of the caliber of mis-stating simple facts. Wrong address, incorrect name, got the wrong dates for previous residence, omission of less-than-consequential detail.
You know, like the bullshit the insurance companies pulled when they wanted to kick sick people off of their health insurance coverage.
The value of this exercise relative to its cost and intrusiveness will be minimal, other than to demonstrate hostility to ‘foreigners’ and to appease the malice of Trump’s supporters.
That’s how this particular non-lawyer sees it.
It is not only possible, it’s quite common for people to abide by every letter of the law, while using it to screw other people over, for no particularly good reason.
Even you, a lawyer, must be familiar with that phenomenon.
That’s what this is. It’s a petty, malicious vendetta against people that Trump’s people don’t like.
Shame on him, and on them.
Effing illegal immigrants, they should have chosen to be born in the United States, not my fault you chose some sh1thole country to crawl out of your mother’s uterus in.
I say, let ’em crash.
Effing illegal immigrants, they should have chosen to be born in the United States, not my fault you chose some sh1thole country to crawl out of your mother’s uterus in.
I say, let ’em crash.
The concept of priority is rather important.
Especially when this priority is seen in light of other priorities, it all adds up to ethnic cleansing.
This article recounts an interesting history of denaturalization. I wonder why it’s suddenly seen as a problem. I’m sure that intimidation, and making people feel unwelcome and insecure has nothing at all to do with it. Nothing at all.
The concept of priority is rather important.
Especially when this priority is seen in light of other priorities, it all adds up to ethnic cleansing.
This article recounts an interesting history of denaturalization. I wonder why it’s suddenly seen as a problem. I’m sure that intimidation, and making people feel unwelcome and insecure has nothing at all to do with it. Nothing at all.
It is not only possible, it’s quite common for people to abide by every letter of the law, while using it to screw other people over, for no particularly good reason.
Even you, a lawyer, must be familiar with that phenomenon.
That’s what this is. It’s a petty, malicious vendetta against people that Trump’s people don’t like.
Well, what I do see is a lot of moving targets and subject changing. Generally speaking, using BS pretexts to screw someone out of anything is bad business. So far, that hasn’t been demonstrated in this particular instance. It could be demonstrated later, but right now, it’s supposition.
Taking something away obtained by fraud–if the deception is material–doesn’t bother me. It is well short of declassifying and gassing all of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other undesirables.
It is not only possible, it’s quite common for people to abide by every letter of the law, while using it to screw other people over, for no particularly good reason.
Even you, a lawyer, must be familiar with that phenomenon.
That’s what this is. It’s a petty, malicious vendetta against people that Trump’s people don’t like.
Well, what I do see is a lot of moving targets and subject changing. Generally speaking, using BS pretexts to screw someone out of anything is bad business. So far, that hasn’t been demonstrated in this particular instance. It could be demonstrated later, but right now, it’s supposition.
Taking something away obtained by fraud–if the deception is material–doesn’t bother me. It is well short of declassifying and gassing all of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other undesirables.
To pour some extra oil into the fire: The Nazi laws in question here were directly inspired and heavily influenced by US laws existing at the time (also Hitler repeatedly referred to them both in his book and in speeches, and in the post-war trials it was a standard part of the defense to cite those laws chapter and verse.)
As for those directly involved in the child separation program, SOME of them ARE G#DDAMNED NAZIS IN ALL BUT UNIFORM!!! and Himmler would be proud of them.
To pour some extra oil into the fire: The Nazi laws in question here were directly inspired and heavily influenced by US laws existing at the time (also Hitler repeatedly referred to them both in his book and in speeches, and in the post-war trials it was a standard part of the defense to cite those laws chapter and verse.)
As for those directly involved in the child separation program, SOME of them ARE G#DDAMNED NAZIS IN ALL BUT UNIFORM!!! and Himmler would be proud of them.
wrs
the #1 consistent policy-based (as opposed to rampant corruption) priority of this administration from day 1 has been to sh1t on Hispanics and Muslims, American citizens or not, legally, and illegally if they can get away with it.
Stephen Miller got his dream position and the racist sociopath is taking full advantage.
wrs
the #1 consistent policy-based (as opposed to rampant corruption) priority of this administration from day 1 has been to sh1t on Hispanics and Muslims, American citizens or not, legally, and illegally if they can get away with it.
Stephen Miller got his dream position and the racist sociopath is taking full advantage.
“pretty shitty” seems to me to best describe actions by individuals. What if it turns out to have been some kind of “policy” under the circumstances you describe, how would you see it then?
“pretty shitty” seems to me to best describe actions by individuals. What if it turns out to have been some kind of “policy” under the circumstances you describe, how would you see it then?
wus
wus
McTX,
Forgive me for having “assumed” that you are a maternity-ward immigrant rather than that lesser kind of citizen whose citizenship is open to “review”.
But just to get your “principles” nailed down:
If it turns out that Melania Trump, or Rupert Murdoch for that matter, lied on some naturalization form — IF, I said — would you advocate that they be deported? Or merely be absolved from jury duty, removed from the voter rolls, and have their US passports confiscated?
As for your “don’t cry until you’re bitten” theme: nice try at changing the subject.
–TP
McTX,
Forgive me for having “assumed” that you are a maternity-ward immigrant rather than that lesser kind of citizen whose citizenship is open to “review”.
But just to get your “principles” nailed down:
If it turns out that Melania Trump, or Rupert Murdoch for that matter, lied on some naturalization form — IF, I said — would you advocate that they be deported? Or merely be absolved from jury duty, removed from the voter rolls, and have their US passports confiscated?
As for your “don’t cry until you’re bitten” theme: nice try at changing the subject.
–TP
Wrong address, incorrect name, got the wrong dates for previous residence, omission of less-than-consequential detail.
Indeed, and since when you start digging into the historical records there turns out to be almost no such thing as an incontrovertible fact, there will be a plethora of flimsy excuses.
Example. Every now and then I spend some time trying to find more information about my ancestors. For a while, http://www.ellisisland.org made if very easy to search their database and see photos of the ship manifests that recorded information about passengers who were coming to this country.
My paternal grandfather came to the US from Italy as a child, with his mother and half a dozen siblings. Finding them was quite a quest: names are often misspelled in the database — easy to understand why, since it was transcribed by volunteers trying to read old-fashioned handwriting that quite often probably recorded misspellings in the first place, or equally often was just misread. Also, it would appear that a woman traveling with her children was recorded under her maiden name. So it took me a long, long time to find the family grouping (with my g-g-grandmother under her mistranscribed maiden surname), all the more so since they apparently tried to come over twice and didn’t make it (maybe one of the kids was sick and so the family wasn’t allowed to board the ship). I found this out by looking at two ship manifests where the relevant names were recorded and then crossed out; the database does not reflect that level of refinement.
But finally they got here, where admitted, and headed from Ellis Island to Ohio to join my great-grandfather, who had come a couple of years previously to find work.
Meanwhile, one of my second cousins had done some other digging and had come up with a copy of my grandfather’s naturalization form. He was maybe nine or ten when he came over, and IIRC he was in his late twenties when he became a citizen.
Interestingly, the year recorded on the ship manifest (of which the website has a photo) was one year different from the year on his citizenship application.
I’m as sure as I can be that this was exactly the kind of mistake russell is talking about. He came as a child; in my experience, they weren’t a family to get very worried about precision of numbers and dates. (That’s my mom’s side. 😉
Is this fraud? I hardly think so. Would Clickbait and his minions treat it as such if the person in question was the wrong color, the wrong religion, or otherwise qualified for Jeff Sessions’s fever dreams of undesirables? I’m quite sure they would.
Any system will have cheaters, and there’s a tipping point in any system where it costs more (in $ and other things) to root them out. Saying that this is an evilly-inspired expensive witch hunt is not the same (no matter who cleverly McKinney twists the logic) as saying that fraud is okay.
If they reallyl care about fraud, I have a few suggestions for them.
Wrong address, incorrect name, got the wrong dates for previous residence, omission of less-than-consequential detail.
Indeed, and since when you start digging into the historical records there turns out to be almost no such thing as an incontrovertible fact, there will be a plethora of flimsy excuses.
Example. Every now and then I spend some time trying to find more information about my ancestors. For a while, http://www.ellisisland.org made if very easy to search their database and see photos of the ship manifests that recorded information about passengers who were coming to this country.
My paternal grandfather came to the US from Italy as a child, with his mother and half a dozen siblings. Finding them was quite a quest: names are often misspelled in the database — easy to understand why, since it was transcribed by volunteers trying to read old-fashioned handwriting that quite often probably recorded misspellings in the first place, or equally often was just misread. Also, it would appear that a woman traveling with her children was recorded under her maiden name. So it took me a long, long time to find the family grouping (with my g-g-grandmother under her mistranscribed maiden surname), all the more so since they apparently tried to come over twice and didn’t make it (maybe one of the kids was sick and so the family wasn’t allowed to board the ship). I found this out by looking at two ship manifests where the relevant names were recorded and then crossed out; the database does not reflect that level of refinement.
But finally they got here, where admitted, and headed from Ellis Island to Ohio to join my great-grandfather, who had come a couple of years previously to find work.
Meanwhile, one of my second cousins had done some other digging and had come up with a copy of my grandfather’s naturalization form. He was maybe nine or ten when he came over, and IIRC he was in his late twenties when he became a citizen.
Interestingly, the year recorded on the ship manifest (of which the website has a photo) was one year different from the year on his citizenship application.
I’m as sure as I can be that this was exactly the kind of mistake russell is talking about. He came as a child; in my experience, they weren’t a family to get very worried about precision of numbers and dates. (That’s my mom’s side. 😉
Is this fraud? I hardly think so. Would Clickbait and his minions treat it as such if the person in question was the wrong color, the wrong religion, or otherwise qualified for Jeff Sessions’s fever dreams of undesirables? I’m quite sure they would.
Any system will have cheaters, and there’s a tipping point in any system where it costs more (in $ and other things) to root them out. Saying that this is an evilly-inspired expensive witch hunt is not the same (no matter who cleverly McKinney twists the logic) as saying that fraud is okay.
If they reallyl care about fraud, I have a few suggestions for them.
What I expect from this administration is harassment of people who are living useful, productive, law-abiding lives, and the denaturalization and immediate deportation of several thousand of them, in many cases based on ‘fraud’ of the caliber of mis-stating simple facts. Wrong address, incorrect name, got the wrong dates for previous residence, omission of less-than-consequential detail.
Yes.
These investigations are not neutral. And often they will be inaccurate or unfair. “Gave us the wrong birthdate? Out with you.”
Is it ” a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? ” Depends. It is a very nasty play to start investigating right and left, and trying to deport people whose “fraud” may have been an honest error.
Come on, McKinney. You’re a lawyer. Surely you are aware that coming under government investigation, even if innocent as a babe, is an extremely unpleasant experience. And surely you also know that when the investigator is a vindictive thug, which is the default assumption for this Administration, bad things can easily happen.
So let’s not pretend they are rooting out war criminals or the like and that it’s all fine. We know how the Administration”enforces the law” when brown people are involved.
What I expect from this administration is harassment of people who are living useful, productive, law-abiding lives, and the denaturalization and immediate deportation of several thousand of them, in many cases based on ‘fraud’ of the caliber of mis-stating simple facts. Wrong address, incorrect name, got the wrong dates for previous residence, omission of less-than-consequential detail.
Yes.
These investigations are not neutral. And often they will be inaccurate or unfair. “Gave us the wrong birthdate? Out with you.”
Is it ” a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? ” Depends. It is a very nasty play to start investigating right and left, and trying to deport people whose “fraud” may have been an honest error.
Come on, McKinney. You’re a lawyer. Surely you are aware that coming under government investigation, even if innocent as a babe, is an extremely unpleasant experience. And surely you also know that when the investigator is a vindictive thug, which is the default assumption for this Administration, bad things can easily happen.
So let’s not pretend they are rooting out war criminals or the like and that it’s all fine. We know how the Administration”enforces the law” when brown people are involved.
As for those directly involved in the child separation program, SOME of them ARE G#DDAMNED NAZIS IN ALL BUT UNIFORM!!! and Himmler would be proud of them.
Anyone who reads the court documents that I linked to at 2:49 pm, and ignores that what’s happening to those families, taken together with the Muslim ban, the threat to denaturalize citizens, and to incarcerate asylum seekers for unlimited amounts of time, focusing instead on petty justifications for policies that are far from normal, are enabling something very, very dark.
As for those directly involved in the child separation program, SOME of them ARE G#DDAMNED NAZIS IN ALL BUT UNIFORM!!! and Himmler would be proud of them.
Anyone who reads the court documents that I linked to at 2:49 pm, and ignores that what’s happening to those families, taken together with the Muslim ban, the threat to denaturalize citizens, and to incarcerate asylum seekers for unlimited amounts of time, focusing instead on petty justifications for policies that are far from normal, are enabling something very, very dark.
It seemed like such a simple question. I guess not.
It seemed like such a simple question. I guess not.
A quick googling spat out this, just in case someone is asking for evidence (concerning US influence on the Nuremberg Laws):
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10925.html
The author states in an interview that he even looked into the stenographic notes of the sessions wherein the laws were crafted and they were full of references to US law.
A quick googling spat out this, just in case someone is asking for evidence (concerning US influence on the Nuremberg Laws):
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10925.html
The author states in an interview that he even looked into the stenographic notes of the sessions wherein the laws were crafted and they were full of references to US law.
Taking something away obtained by fraud–if the deception is material–doesn’t bother me.
Ah, but is it material? Given the Trump administration track record, that doesn’t seem to be something that one can assume. Rather the contrary, when it comes to immigrants — legal or illegal.
Taking something away obtained by fraud–if the deception is material–doesn’t bother me.
Ah, but is it material? Given the Trump administration track record, that doesn’t seem to be something that one can assume. Rather the contrary, when it comes to immigrants — legal or illegal.
The author states in an interview that he even looked into the stenographic notes of the sessions wherein the laws were crafted and they were full of references to US law.
I’ve read this as well. What we need to have learned is that resurgent racism is common among humans and we have to fight it before it turns into institutionalized genocide. What’s happening is not trivial.
The author states in an interview that he even looked into the stenographic notes of the sessions wherein the laws were crafted and they were full of references to US law.
I’ve read this as well. What we need to have learned is that resurgent racism is common among humans and we have to fight it before it turns into institutionalized genocide. What’s happening is not trivial.
Well, what I do see is a lot of moving targets and subject changing.
And what I see is a dogged determination to not address any point raised other than “sapient called them Nazis” and “if it’s fraud the law says you can take it back”.
If there are multiple subjects under discussion and you only want to talk about one or two very narrow ones, I’m not sure you get to claim “moving targets”. We’re not obliged to only talk about the points you want to argue against.
right now, it’s supposition.
You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Well, what I do see is a lot of moving targets and subject changing.
And what I see is a dogged determination to not address any point raised other than “sapient called them Nazis” and “if it’s fraud the law says you can take it back”.
If there are multiple subjects under discussion and you only want to talk about one or two very narrow ones, I’m not sure you get to claim “moving targets”. We’re not obliged to only talk about the points you want to argue against.
right now, it’s supposition.
You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
It seemed like such a simple question. I guess not.
There were actually three questions: Hmm, so it’s a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it’s not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi? Is that really where we are now?
None of them were simple, and all of them were lawyerly traps made of convoluted logic and the usual putting words into people’s mouths that they didn’t say and thoughts into their heads that they didn’t think, with an accusatory sneer as icing on the cake.
I, for example, trying to untwist the logic a bit, would happily agree that “it’s not okay to obtain citizenship under false pretenses.” But that really has nothing to do with the actual issue, which is that what the Clickbait administration is doing is a witch hunt that has almost nothing to do with true fraud. It’s their patented petty viciousness and fear-mongering and nothing much else.
IOW, “simple” question #2 mischaracterized what people are objecting to. I leave the rest as an exercise for anyone who doesn’t any anything better to do.
It seemed like such a simple question. I guess not.
There were actually three questions: Hmm, so it’s a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it’s not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi? Is that really where we are now?
None of them were simple, and all of them were lawyerly traps made of convoluted logic and the usual putting words into people’s mouths that they didn’t say and thoughts into their heads that they didn’t think, with an accusatory sneer as icing on the cake.
I, for example, trying to untwist the logic a bit, would happily agree that “it’s not okay to obtain citizenship under false pretenses.” But that really has nothing to do with the actual issue, which is that what the Clickbait administration is doing is a witch hunt that has almost nothing to do with true fraud. It’s their patented petty viciousness and fear-mongering and nothing much else.
IOW, “simple” question #2 mischaracterized what people are objecting to. I leave the rest as an exercise for anyone who doesn’t any anything better to do.
Finding them was quite a quest: names are often misspelled in the database
A friend of mine of Russian Jewish extraction has a historical family name of Faybusovitch.
By the time they left Ellis, it was ‘Bishop’.
Finding them was quite a quest: names are often misspelled in the database
A friend of mine of Russian Jewish extraction has a historical family name of Faybusovitch.
By the time they left Ellis, it was ‘Bishop’.
The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud. Is that ok or not ok? Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism?
On the second question, I’d lean toward no. I’d have to assume the proper execution of executive/administrative functions as well as judicial processes though. Which is what I think people are fighting you on here.
On the first, meh, tell me what counts as material fraud.
The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud. Is that ok or not ok? Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism?
On the second question, I’d lean toward no. I’d have to assume the proper execution of executive/administrative functions as well as judicial processes though. Which is what I think people are fighting you on here.
On the first, meh, tell me what counts as material fraud.
One of the reasons immigrants have been given for their being discharged from the military is that the DoD has been unable to complete a background check. So, not that the background check revealed a problem – just that they “couldn’t” do one.
Along the lines of what wj wrote, I’m not sure why the burden of proof should be on those who don’t trust the Trump administration. What good faith have they demonstrated? What competence?
One of the reasons immigrants have been given for their being discharged from the military is that the DoD has been unable to complete a background check. So, not that the background check revealed a problem – just that they “couldn’t” do one.
Along the lines of what wj wrote, I’m not sure why the burden of proof should be on those who don’t trust the Trump administration. What good faith have they demonstrated? What competence?
I’m listening to the radio. They’re discussing the discharge issue. A review of the paperwork for an interviewed Pakistani immigrant being discharged revealed that the reason was “foreign ties.” His parents and fiancé are in …Pakistan!
Immigrants with foreign ties. Who knew?
I’m listening to the radio. They’re discussing the discharge issue. A review of the paperwork for an interviewed Pakistani immigrant being discharged revealed that the reason was “foreign ties.” His parents and fiancé are in …Pakistan!
Immigrants with foreign ties. Who knew?
UPDATE: Govt tells judge only half of the ~100 children under 5 separated from their parents will be reunified by July 10 deadline. 20 pct of parents have been released and their whereabouts largely unknown.
But hey
UPDATE: Govt tells judge only half of the ~100 children under 5 separated from their parents will be reunified by July 10 deadline. 20 pct of parents have been released and their whereabouts largely unknown.
But hey
Govt lawyer tells judge she has dogsitting responsibilities so will have to leave town and cannot meet tomorrow for status update on 100 children under 5. I love my dog but…but this is a new one!
Govt lawyer tells judge she has dogsitting responsibilities so will have to leave town and cannot meet tomorrow for status update on 100 children under 5. I love my dog but…but this is a new one!
A friend of mine of Russian Jewish extraction has a historical family name of Faybusovitch.
By the time they left Ellis, it was ‘Bishop’.
Besides the problems Janie describes, there is also the issue that many immigrants – Russian, Greek, Armenian, others, came from countries that did not use the Latin alphabet. Many European Jews, even if their home country did use it, were more accustomed to using Yiddish, written with the Hebrew alphabet, as their everyday language.
There is an old joke about some Jewish immigrants at Ellis Island being so nervous they forgot their names. When asked they responded, “Schoen Vergessen” – I just forgot – which the officer duly recorded as “Sean Ferguson.”
A friend of mine of Russian Jewish extraction has a historical family name of Faybusovitch.
By the time they left Ellis, it was ‘Bishop’.
Besides the problems Janie describes, there is also the issue that many immigrants – Russian, Greek, Armenian, others, came from countries that did not use the Latin alphabet. Many European Jews, even if their home country did use it, were more accustomed to using Yiddish, written with the Hebrew alphabet, as their everyday language.
There is an old joke about some Jewish immigrants at Ellis Island being so nervous they forgot their names. When asked they responded, “Schoen Vergessen” – I just forgot – which the officer duly recorded as “Sean Ferguson.”
I don’t know why that makes me think of John Smoketoomuch.
I don’t know why that makes me think of John Smoketoomuch.
Hitler was born in Austria. CHECKMATE, LIBS!
Hitler was born in Austria. CHECKMATE, LIBS!
McKinney,
Your argument presupposes good faith on the part of the Administration. I am not willing to grant that, especially not in immigration cases. Do you truly believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Not only did they separate children from their parents, they apparently couldn’t be bothered to keep track of the whole process.
Now, they are crying for more time, and expressing amazement, in court, that the judge’s reunification order extends to parents who have been deported while their children continued to be held.
Nazis or not, the people doing this are racist thugs.
McKinney,
Your argument presupposes good faith on the part of the Administration. I am not willing to grant that, especially not in immigration cases. Do you truly believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Not only did they separate children from their parents, they apparently couldn’t be bothered to keep track of the whole process.
Now, they are crying for more time, and expressing amazement, in court, that the judge’s reunification order extends to parents who have been deported while their children continued to be held.
Nazis or not, the people doing this are racist thugs.
Papers please
Papers please
The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud.
The issue is the reallocation of resources to what appears to be a rather minuscule matter. The issue is how this sudden priority fits into a grander theme….the racist anti-immigrant tenor of this administration and the public policies that result.
I would assert it is reasonable to characterize Trump as a racist pig. It would also seem reasonable to hold the opinion that he is trying to shape public policy in light of this fact.
Reasonable enough for you? Yes or no!
Is that ok or not ok?
That depends (Really, I am not a lawyer!). What do you mean by “OK”?
The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud.
The issue is the reallocation of resources to what appears to be a rather minuscule matter. The issue is how this sudden priority fits into a grander theme….the racist anti-immigrant tenor of this administration and the public policies that result.
I would assert it is reasonable to characterize Trump as a racist pig. It would also seem reasonable to hold the opinion that he is trying to shape public policy in light of this fact.
Reasonable enough for you? Yes or no!
Is that ok or not ok?
That depends (Really, I am not a lawyer!). What do you mean by “OK”?
It seemed like such a simple question. I guess not.
Jesus wept.
It seemed like such a simple question. I guess not.
Jesus wept.
Papers please
Just to be clear, within 100 miles of the border ICE can stop anyone and require them to prove that they are in the country legally. That “within 100 miles of the border” includes the coasts — so if you are in such notable border states as Virginia or Oregon, you can still be required to show papers.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I do not routinely carry my passport. So how would I go about proving my right to be here? A drivers license, after all, is ID but proves nothing about citizenship. (Or course, being a blue-eyed blond I would be extremely unlikely to be stopped….)
Papers please
Just to be clear, within 100 miles of the border ICE can stop anyone and require them to prove that they are in the country legally. That “within 100 miles of the border” includes the coasts — so if you are in such notable border states as Virginia or Oregon, you can still be required to show papers.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I do not routinely carry my passport. So how would I go about proving my right to be here? A drivers license, after all, is ID but proves nothing about citizenship. (Or course, being a blue-eyed blond I would be extremely unlikely to be stopped….)
JUST IN: Federal judge agrees to delay next meeting about extending deadline to reunite 101 children under the age of 5 until Monday because Trump administration lawyer has “dog sitting responsibilities” this weekend.
@JuliaEAinsley
I love this country.
JUST IN: Federal judge agrees to delay next meeting about extending deadline to reunite 101 children under the age of 5 until Monday because Trump administration lawyer has “dog sitting responsibilities” this weekend.
@JuliaEAinsley
I love this country.
The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud.
No, that isn’t the issue. Or, wrs about narrowness of focus.
Jesus wept
A much better response than mine.
The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud.
No, that isn’t the issue. Or, wrs about narrowness of focus.
Jesus wept
A much better response than mine.
So what are we talking about here?
LJ says: “But my main focus is taking away citizenship and if anyone is as horrified as I am about it. Or is it just another day in the US?”
I will repeat two of his words: “Main Focus”.
Sorry, the time zone difference (and the World Cup game) had me late to the party.
McT, in the phrase above, ‘main focus’ is modified by the possessive pronoun ‘my’. Ya see, I’m in the process of getting Japanese citizenship, hence the ‘my’. (also, as Janie points out, Lj is not Wj. Two different people)
Anyway, MY main focus doesn’t have to be yours and it isn’t the ‘blog’s’, unless you believe that the Blog is Me. So you may want to drop tnat line of argument and get to the main thing, which is to explain to all us fuzzy headed C/S progressives what constitutes ‘material’.
Of course, again, being the fuzzy headed C/S progressive that I am, I would point out that your viewpoint comes from your privilege, making it hard for you to understand and sympathize with a situation such as this
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/immigrant-parents-fragile-state-interviews-asylum-child-separation
I’d also note that when you try to reduce the issue to simple yes/no questions, it makes you look like a racist, something you might want to avoid if you aren’t.
So what are we talking about here?
LJ says: “But my main focus is taking away citizenship and if anyone is as horrified as I am about it. Or is it just another day in the US?”
I will repeat two of his words: “Main Focus”.
Sorry, the time zone difference (and the World Cup game) had me late to the party.
McT, in the phrase above, ‘main focus’ is modified by the possessive pronoun ‘my’. Ya see, I’m in the process of getting Japanese citizenship, hence the ‘my’. (also, as Janie points out, Lj is not Wj. Two different people)
Anyway, MY main focus doesn’t have to be yours and it isn’t the ‘blog’s’, unless you believe that the Blog is Me. So you may want to drop tnat line of argument and get to the main thing, which is to explain to all us fuzzy headed C/S progressives what constitutes ‘material’.
Of course, again, being the fuzzy headed C/S progressive that I am, I would point out that your viewpoint comes from your privilege, making it hard for you to understand and sympathize with a situation such as this
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/immigrant-parents-fragile-state-interviews-asylum-child-separation
I’d also note that when you try to reduce the issue to simple yes/no questions, it makes you look like a racist, something you might want to avoid if you aren’t.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/among-the-putative-parents
But it also seems clear that the government is holding out the specter that substantial numbers of these “putative parents” may be human smugglers or unrelated criminals when there is really no evidence that’s the case. It is, as the judges sometimes put it, something that shocks the conscience that, having first separated these families, the government would now make itself the judge of the parents’ fitness to be parents. It is impossible to read these arguments and not be convinced that the same aggressive and punitive desire to do harm isn’t motivating the nominal reunification process just as it drove the decision to separate the families in the first instance.
The same applies to asking to be let off the hook about parents who’ve already been deported. I don’t doubt that there are cases where it actually will be difficult to reunify … say, an impoverished mother in Guatemala who is hiding from her abusive husband with two children who’ve been transported from Texas to Ohio. But who’s fault is that? It goes without saying that that is going to make unification a real challenge and create a real risk the family will never be reunited. That was obvious going in. But they did it anyway. Certainly the government has a deep, affirmative responsibility to do everything it can to bring these parents and children back together.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/among-the-putative-parents
But it also seems clear that the government is holding out the specter that substantial numbers of these “putative parents” may be human smugglers or unrelated criminals when there is really no evidence that’s the case. It is, as the judges sometimes put it, something that shocks the conscience that, having first separated these families, the government would now make itself the judge of the parents’ fitness to be parents. It is impossible to read these arguments and not be convinced that the same aggressive and punitive desire to do harm isn’t motivating the nominal reunification process just as it drove the decision to separate the families in the first instance.
The same applies to asking to be let off the hook about parents who’ve already been deported. I don’t doubt that there are cases where it actually will be difficult to reunify … say, an impoverished mother in Guatemala who is hiding from her abusive husband with two children who’ve been transported from Texas to Ohio. But who’s fault is that? It goes without saying that that is going to make unification a real challenge and create a real risk the family will never be reunited. That was obvious going in. But they did it anyway. Certainly the government has a deep, affirmative responsibility to do everything it can to bring these parents and children back together.
within 100 miles of the border ICE can stop anyone and require them to prove that they are in the country legally.
Apparently a guy in Harvard Square, the very heart of the very heart of the good old People’s Republic, was stopped by ICE, interrogated, and fingerprinted. Because he looked kinda foreign, to them.
The guy was a native American. I.e., an indigenous resident of this continent.
And they say irony is dead.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me what the freaking problem is. There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. That includes everything from the dreaded MS-13 nutjobs to some guy that overstayed his visa because he met a nice girl.
By far, most of those people are working. They don’t qualify for all of the welfare state stuff that everything thinks they’re stealing. Many of them if not most are paying taxes. Basically all of them are contributing in some way to the local and national economy.
Folks who are in favor of the current direction of immigration policy talk about these people as if they were some kind of invading army.
They want to pick your lettuce.
I’m open to any discussion about immigration policy that is rooted in something resembling reality. What Trump and his folks are selling is harassment and persecution. And if calling it racist bugs you, I’ll settle for noticing that it is, by far, disproportionately focused on people whose skin ranges across various shades of brown and tan.
This is an exercise in malice and fear-mongering. We should be ashamed of ourselves for treating people this way.
within 100 miles of the border ICE can stop anyone and require them to prove that they are in the country legally.
Apparently a guy in Harvard Square, the very heart of the very heart of the good old People’s Republic, was stopped by ICE, interrogated, and fingerprinted. Because he looked kinda foreign, to them.
The guy was a native American. I.e., an indigenous resident of this continent.
And they say irony is dead.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me what the freaking problem is. There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. That includes everything from the dreaded MS-13 nutjobs to some guy that overstayed his visa because he met a nice girl.
By far, most of those people are working. They don’t qualify for all of the welfare state stuff that everything thinks they’re stealing. Many of them if not most are paying taxes. Basically all of them are contributing in some way to the local and national economy.
Folks who are in favor of the current direction of immigration policy talk about these people as if they were some kind of invading army.
They want to pick your lettuce.
I’m open to any discussion about immigration policy that is rooted in something resembling reality. What Trump and his folks are selling is harassment and persecution. And if calling it racist bugs you, I’ll settle for noticing that it is, by far, disproportionately focused on people whose skin ranges across various shades of brown and tan.
This is an exercise in malice and fear-mongering. We should be ashamed of ourselves for treating people this way.
Young man, are you not aware that entering the country without permission is a CRIME?”
Young man, are you not aware that entering the country without permission is a CRIME?”
from bobbyp’s link
Just look at that. Don’t look at it and feel sorry for the kid, necessarily, although I’m sure you do feel that way. Look at that and think about how many adults participating in this farce are able to keep in character while doing it. Kids as young as three are being obligated to appear alone in whatever they’re calling these obviously illegitimate on their face pseudo-legal proceedings, conducted in a language they do not understand, and somehow everyone involved was told this was to be the case and they nodded and said “OK see ya tomorrow at 8 AM, then!”
Juxtaposed with McT
Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism? (emph. mine)
from bobbyp’s link
Just look at that. Don’t look at it and feel sorry for the kid, necessarily, although I’m sure you do feel that way. Look at that and think about how many adults participating in this farce are able to keep in character while doing it. Kids as young as three are being obligated to appear alone in whatever they’re calling these obviously illegitimate on their face pseudo-legal proceedings, conducted in a language they do not understand, and somehow everyone involved was told this was to be the case and they nodded and said “OK see ya tomorrow at 8 AM, then!”
Juxtaposed with McT
Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism? (emph. mine)
by judicial process
Quick question, for any of the lawyers here: Does “you have a right to an attorney” include an attorney with whom you share a language, so that you can actually communicate?
Or, alternatively, is it even still a “judicial process” if you have no Miranda rights?
by judicial process
Quick question, for any of the lawyers here: Does “you have a right to an attorney” include an attorney with whom you share a language, so that you can actually communicate?
Or, alternatively, is it even still a “judicial process” if you have no Miranda rights?
Quick question, for any of the lawyers here: Does “you have a right to an attorney” include an attorney with whom you share a language, so that you can actually communicate?
Translators are assigned in most courts. There is no right to an attorney for immigration cases however.
Quick question, for any of the lawyers here: Does “you have a right to an attorney” include an attorney with whom you share a language, so that you can actually communicate?
Translators are assigned in most courts. There is no right to an attorney for immigration cases however.
Jesus wept.
Normal reaction to discovering that He shares a “base” with He, Trump.
Anyway, pity poor McKinney. He, Trump (who McKinney claims to dislike) undertakes to poke librul commie socialists in the eye, and McKinney gets triggered into defending Him by asking “simple” questions. Sad.
–TP
Jesus wept.
Normal reaction to discovering that He shares a “base” with He, Trump.
Anyway, pity poor McKinney. He, Trump (who McKinney claims to dislike) undertakes to poke librul commie socialists in the eye, and McKinney gets triggered into defending Him by asking “simple” questions. Sad.
–TP
McKinney gets triggered into defending Him by asking “simple” questions. Sad.
Tax cuts are a hell of a drug.
McKinney gets triggered into defending Him by asking “simple” questions. Sad.
Tax cuts are a hell of a drug.
McKinney – if you want to get into a debate about legal issues on an antiseptic basis I’m happy to have that with you.
Does full Due Process as currently understood under the U.S. Constitution in the course of de-naturalizing a U.S. citizen make us Nazi Germany? Of course not.
Is material fraud in obtaining U.S. citizenship “okay”? I wouldn’t think so, though I can think of substantial mitigating factors that would augur against both bringing a de-naturalization case in the first instance or a judge deciding against de-naturalization in a judicial proceeding.
Great, that’s settled. Now what?
Well, the comments above are “now what.”
McKinney – if you want to get into a debate about legal issues on an antiseptic basis I’m happy to have that with you.
Does full Due Process as currently understood under the U.S. Constitution in the course of de-naturalizing a U.S. citizen make us Nazi Germany? Of course not.
Is material fraud in obtaining U.S. citizenship “okay”? I wouldn’t think so, though I can think of substantial mitigating factors that would augur against both bringing a de-naturalization case in the first instance or a judge deciding against de-naturalization in a judicial proceeding.
Great, that’s settled. Now what?
Well, the comments above are “now what.”
McKinney – if you want to get into a debate about legal issues on an antiseptic basis I’m happy to have that with you.
McKinney’s probably spending time with his grandkids. That’s right, the kids who haven’t been separated from their families.
McKinney – if you want to get into a debate about legal issues on an antiseptic basis I’m happy to have that with you.
McKinney’s probably spending time with his grandkids. That’s right, the kids who haven’t been separated from their families.
He, Trump (who McKinney claims to dislike) undertakes to poke librul commie socialists in the eye, and McKinney gets triggered into defending Him by asking “simple” questions.
Just to clarify, I don’t think McT is a racist (except for the quotient of racism that I believe every American has, which is something else to argue about, but maybe somewhere else), I think that _he_ (i.e. McT) is so intent on poking us C/S libruls in the eye that he loses track of who he ends up in bed with.
This is a perfect example. I say I want to discuss something that is of interest to me and he leaps in with the ‘I’m just asking simple questions’ shtick. He’s worked up enough to not even give the ‘oh, I’m so busy, I can only drop in to note…’ routine. And his lawyerly training refuses to allow him to admit error. It’s sad cause I think he’s capable of better, but to do better, he’ll have to stop treating the comments like a court room.
Some more stories
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/my-son-is-not-the-same-new-testimony-paints-bleak-picture-of-family-separation
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/05/migrants-seeking-asylum-legally-ports-entry-turned-away-separated-fami/
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/they-came-seeking-asylum-now-they-want-their-children-back-n886781
He, Trump (who McKinney claims to dislike) undertakes to poke librul commie socialists in the eye, and McKinney gets triggered into defending Him by asking “simple” questions.
Just to clarify, I don’t think McT is a racist (except for the quotient of racism that I believe every American has, which is something else to argue about, but maybe somewhere else), I think that _he_ (i.e. McT) is so intent on poking us C/S libruls in the eye that he loses track of who he ends up in bed with.
This is a perfect example. I say I want to discuss something that is of interest to me and he leaps in with the ‘I’m just asking simple questions’ shtick. He’s worked up enough to not even give the ‘oh, I’m so busy, I can only drop in to note…’ routine. And his lawyerly training refuses to allow him to admit error. It’s sad cause I think he’s capable of better, but to do better, he’ll have to stop treating the comments like a court room.
Some more stories
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/my-son-is-not-the-same-new-testimony-paints-bleak-picture-of-family-separation
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/05/migrants-seeking-asylum-legally-ports-entry-turned-away-separated-fami/
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/they-came-seeking-asylum-now-they-want-their-children-back-n886781
Just to clarify, I don’t think McT is a racist (except for the quotient of racism that I believe every American has, which is something else to argue about, but maybe somewhere else), I think that _he_ (i.e. McT) is so intent on poking us C/S libruls in the eye that he loses track of who he ends up in bed with.
lj is so much more generous than I am. Seems to fly in the face of evidence, but whatever. By the way, I’m not denying that we all have our racist blind spots, including me, but being blind to these kids and their parents takes a lot of work.
Just to clarify, I don’t think McT is a racist (except for the quotient of racism that I believe every American has, which is something else to argue about, but maybe somewhere else), I think that _he_ (i.e. McT) is so intent on poking us C/S libruls in the eye that he loses track of who he ends up in bed with.
lj is so much more generous than I am. Seems to fly in the face of evidence, but whatever. By the way, I’m not denying that we all have our racist blind spots, including me, but being blind to these kids and their parents takes a lot of work.
Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat)…
Why is this not a legislative function?
Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat)…
Why is this not a legislative function?
Why is this not a legislative function?
For a single citizen? Bill of attainder.
Why is this not a legislative function?
For a single citizen? Bill of attainder.
The legislative function would involve (potentially) creating a process and criteria for denaturalization. But execution of the process would either be judicial or administrative.
Except in the case of impeachment, the legislature does not hear cases and make judgements.
The legislative function would involve (potentially) creating a process and criteria for denaturalization. But execution of the process would either be judicial or administrative.
Except in the case of impeachment, the legislature does not hear cases and make judgements.
I think the Nazi analogy is appropriate but I dont use it because it does not communicate outside of well people who think we are dealing with nazis. I have rightwing facebook friends and I am trying to communicate with them. I have been explaining the elements of authoritarianism. I have been explaining who Karl Rove is and what his tactics are. I have been explaining the difference between policy and name-calling. Etc. I have been explaining the division of power, the rule of law…They honestly don’t know. Because they literally are the same people who supported Hitler in his early days.
The Republican party is authoritarian and has the goal of ending representative government by over throwing it from the inside on behalf of the kleptocrats. We know this but Republican voters don’t.
I read a quote from a Russian immigrant something to the efect that demoguges grwo their bas by corrupting their base. That’s what I see happening. Those who gave their allegiance to Trump have to corrupt themselves to keep that allegiance. For example in Montana Trump told his audiance that Putin was a great guy and we Americans can be friends with him. And his audiance of so-called patriots all went right along with that, lets be freinds with the foregn government that interfered with our elections! They gave up their patriotism without a second thought. Just as they gave up civiity long ago in order to vote R and just as they are giving up basic huand decency over Trump’s immigration policy. Little by little his supporters– and this includes members of Congress have to choose what values they are willing to throw in to the garbage can to keep up their support for him.
And so far they look to be willing to throw ALL of their state values. All of them.
Yeah, Trummp supporters are fucking Nazis. But they dont recognize that about themselves and I do want to be able to communicate with them.
I think the Nazi analogy is appropriate but I dont use it because it does not communicate outside of well people who think we are dealing with nazis. I have rightwing facebook friends and I am trying to communicate with them. I have been explaining the elements of authoritarianism. I have been explaining who Karl Rove is and what his tactics are. I have been explaining the difference between policy and name-calling. Etc. I have been explaining the division of power, the rule of law…They honestly don’t know. Because they literally are the same people who supported Hitler in his early days.
The Republican party is authoritarian and has the goal of ending representative government by over throwing it from the inside on behalf of the kleptocrats. We know this but Republican voters don’t.
I read a quote from a Russian immigrant something to the efect that demoguges grwo their bas by corrupting their base. That’s what I see happening. Those who gave their allegiance to Trump have to corrupt themselves to keep that allegiance. For example in Montana Trump told his audiance that Putin was a great guy and we Americans can be friends with him. And his audiance of so-called patriots all went right along with that, lets be freinds with the foregn government that interfered with our elections! They gave up their patriotism without a second thought. Just as they gave up civiity long ago in order to vote R and just as they are giving up basic huand decency over Trump’s immigration policy. Little by little his supporters– and this includes members of Congress have to choose what values they are willing to throw in to the garbage can to keep up their support for him.
And so far they look to be willing to throw ALL of their state values. All of them.
Yeah, Trummp supporters are fucking Nazis. But they dont recognize that about themselves and I do want to be able to communicate with them.
Yeah, Trummp supporters are fucking Nazis. But they dont recognize that about themselves and I do want to be able to communicate with them.
I agree with this, and I don’t call them Nazis to their face. But, say, someone like McKinney, who is doing his very best to justify his apathy towards those who are suffering because of Trump’s policies in order to enjoy his tax cut, I don’t really care to “communicate” with him, and he doesn’t with me.
The fact is this: McKinney is a wealthy, perhaps respected, lawyer, who lives within a quick flight (or a long drive) of the border. He could make a difference. He could sponsor someone from his firm to do that. I asked him about that in an honest way, knowing that I was prying, but he demurred.
If he cared about it, he’d be championing it. And he’s in a great position to do so. But he’s not. Will I be like lj, and give him the benefit of being like all the other people? Nope. He’s like a physician who refuses to treat the heart attack victim on the plane. I think of him like that.
Yeah, Trummp supporters are fucking Nazis. But they dont recognize that about themselves and I do want to be able to communicate with them.
I agree with this, and I don’t call them Nazis to their face. But, say, someone like McKinney, who is doing his very best to justify his apathy towards those who are suffering because of Trump’s policies in order to enjoy his tax cut, I don’t really care to “communicate” with him, and he doesn’t with me.
The fact is this: McKinney is a wealthy, perhaps respected, lawyer, who lives within a quick flight (or a long drive) of the border. He could make a difference. He could sponsor someone from his firm to do that. I asked him about that in an honest way, knowing that I was prying, but he demurred.
If he cared about it, he’d be championing it. And he’s in a great position to do so. But he’s not. Will I be like lj, and give him the benefit of being like all the other people? Nope. He’s like a physician who refuses to treat the heart attack victim on the plane. I think of him like that.
The thing is, if he is as you say, sapient, he’s not going to change and he’s only participating here to get a rise out of us, so why bother? If that’s the case, it’s not apathy, it’s him choosing not to do anything, right? On the other hand, if I’m right, there is a chance that he might change his mind.
I’m also not really sure I understand why writing to someone on a blog can be so different to the way you treat them face to face? I suppose you could say that if you are deferent on a blog, in face to face interactions, you might be even more so, too much so in our current situation, like an overton window, but then you are arguing that you should be more combative online so you can be more combative offline. I’m not for ‘civility’, but if you start out looking for a fight, you’ll probably find one.
The thing is, if he is as you say, sapient, he’s not going to change and he’s only participating here to get a rise out of us, so why bother? If that’s the case, it’s not apathy, it’s him choosing not to do anything, right? On the other hand, if I’m right, there is a chance that he might change his mind.
I’m also not really sure I understand why writing to someone on a blog can be so different to the way you treat them face to face? I suppose you could say that if you are deferent on a blog, in face to face interactions, you might be even more so, too much so in our current situation, like an overton window, but then you are arguing that you should be more combative online so you can be more combative offline. I’m not for ‘civility’, but if you start out looking for a fight, you’ll probably find one.
I understand what you’re saying, lj, and you’re right, I’m sure. At some point though, don’t we have to be honest with people, especially in a forum where violence isn’t a possibility?
I don’t think McKinney will change his mind. He’s certainly not going to be listening to me. But what do other people here think of the fact that he has special gifts to offer to make a difference to the people suffering on the border. But he turns a blind eye. You, lj, and they, keep hoping for the McKinney who will do the right thing in favor of human rights. I keep hoping that Sebastian will crusade for a law for people to donate body parts. This is where we talk about that.
Probably McKinney is hiding his light under a bushel. I have no doubt that he has [tax deductible] charities that he supports. Maybe he’s modestly contributing hours or dollars in a way that we’ll never know. I totally hold that out as a possibility, and that in this forum he just wants to be a PITA. That’s fine, and in that case he’s getting what he wants from me.
I see no harm in being honest about what I see, and allowing for whatever I don’t.
I understand what you’re saying, lj, and you’re right, I’m sure. At some point though, don’t we have to be honest with people, especially in a forum where violence isn’t a possibility?
I don’t think McKinney will change his mind. He’s certainly not going to be listening to me. But what do other people here think of the fact that he has special gifts to offer to make a difference to the people suffering on the border. But he turns a blind eye. You, lj, and they, keep hoping for the McKinney who will do the right thing in favor of human rights. I keep hoping that Sebastian will crusade for a law for people to donate body parts. This is where we talk about that.
Probably McKinney is hiding his light under a bushel. I have no doubt that he has [tax deductible] charities that he supports. Maybe he’s modestly contributing hours or dollars in a way that we’ll never know. I totally hold that out as a possibility, and that in this forum he just wants to be a PITA. That’s fine, and in that case he’s getting what he wants from me.
I see no harm in being honest about what I see, and allowing for whatever I don’t.
The thing about nazis most of them were very nice people in most aspects of their lives. That’s why they did not recognize their descent into evil. So I am trying to point that descent out to people by explaining how Trump and Republians in general violate their (ny freinds’)m values. I am making headway with one of them.
The thing about nazis most of them were very nice people in most aspects of their lives. That’s why they did not recognize their descent into evil. So I am trying to point that descent out to people by explaining how Trump and Republians in general violate their (ny freinds’)m values. I am making headway with one of them.
I am making headway with one of them.
That is truly admirable, and I envy you.
Everyone here knows that patience isn’t a quality of mine. I have to put my energy elsewhere.
I am making headway with one of them.
That is truly admirable, and I envy you.
Everyone here knows that patience isn’t a quality of mine. I have to put my energy elsewhere.
Sapient, if you don’t see how that same thing can be turned on you, I’m not sure I can explain it to you. You can’t get people to join on to your causes without providing compelling reasons. (and saying ‘this isn’t my cause, this has to be our cause’ is not even minimally compelling, at least to me) Sebastian is not going to go all in for body donation because you use it to score debating points. I know you think it is a knock down argument, but it is, in a very real sense, ad hominem because the issue is not what is being discussed, but how you think Sebastian should be living his life to accord with your moral principles.
Probably (!?!) McKinney is hiding his light under a bushel. … I totally hold that out as a possibility, and that in this forum he just wants to be a PITA. That’s fine, and in that case he’s getting what he wants from me.
So is he an unregenerate racist or a secret samaritan? And by having you play the moral scold so he’s ‘getting what he wants’, do you think you are helping provide any clarity to the discussion at all?
It seems that you haven’t really thought out why you react the way you do and I wish you’d give it some thought. Yes, it’s great that this forum doesn’t have the possibility of violence, but I don’t think that means we should try to make up for it. That’s what I see, though if I’m wrong, I’d love to know why.
Sapient, if you don’t see how that same thing can be turned on you, I’m not sure I can explain it to you. You can’t get people to join on to your causes without providing compelling reasons. (and saying ‘this isn’t my cause, this has to be our cause’ is not even minimally compelling, at least to me) Sebastian is not going to go all in for body donation because you use it to score debating points. I know you think it is a knock down argument, but it is, in a very real sense, ad hominem because the issue is not what is being discussed, but how you think Sebastian should be living his life to accord with your moral principles.
Probably (!?!) McKinney is hiding his light under a bushel. … I totally hold that out as a possibility, and that in this forum he just wants to be a PITA. That’s fine, and in that case he’s getting what he wants from me.
So is he an unregenerate racist or a secret samaritan? And by having you play the moral scold so he’s ‘getting what he wants’, do you think you are helping provide any clarity to the discussion at all?
It seems that you haven’t really thought out why you react the way you do and I wish you’d give it some thought. Yes, it’s great that this forum doesn’t have the possibility of violence, but I don’t think that means we should try to make up for it. That’s what I see, though if I’m wrong, I’d love to know why.
First of all, lj, I’ve never called McKinney a Nazi. I do think the program that is being undertaken by the Republicans is leading to a similar path that was taken by Nazis. If I’m to understand Hartmut, and other people here, I’m not the only one who thinks that. And I think that people who are ignoring the clear signs of that, and doing nothing but making excuses for parts of their program, are enabling them. Perhaps you disagree.
I’ve been here commenting, as has McKinney, for many years. Am I going to persuade McKinney by recognizing that he’s a “decent guy”? No. No one who has or has not recognized McKinney as a “decent guy” has persuaded him of anything.
So is he an unregenerate racist or a secret samaritan?
I think he’s a wealthy lawyer from Texas, who wants to keep his estate in good order to give it over to his kids and grandkids. I am not under the impression he cares about much else. That’s basically my impression, and I may be totally wrong, because I only know him from his comments here.
On the other hand, from what he says here, he is in a uniquely privileged position to use his talents to help people who are being oppressed, and instead he’s making excuses for the oppressors. What’s wrong with pointing that out?
Are my comments on this blog effective to produce justice? Probably not. Is standing around with a sign effective? Not likely. When I took the opportunity during a calm time at work to represent a Central American child who sought special immigration status, was that effective? My representation resulted in a good outcome, but the case isn’t finished in the immigration court, so maybe not. Maybe nothing helps. Maybe nothing.
But this blog allows me to speak. Thanks for letting me speak.
First of all, lj, I’ve never called McKinney a Nazi. I do think the program that is being undertaken by the Republicans is leading to a similar path that was taken by Nazis. If I’m to understand Hartmut, and other people here, I’m not the only one who thinks that. And I think that people who are ignoring the clear signs of that, and doing nothing but making excuses for parts of their program, are enabling them. Perhaps you disagree.
I’ve been here commenting, as has McKinney, for many years. Am I going to persuade McKinney by recognizing that he’s a “decent guy”? No. No one who has or has not recognized McKinney as a “decent guy” has persuaded him of anything.
So is he an unregenerate racist or a secret samaritan?
I think he’s a wealthy lawyer from Texas, who wants to keep his estate in good order to give it over to his kids and grandkids. I am not under the impression he cares about much else. That’s basically my impression, and I may be totally wrong, because I only know him from his comments here.
On the other hand, from what he says here, he is in a uniquely privileged position to use his talents to help people who are being oppressed, and instead he’s making excuses for the oppressors. What’s wrong with pointing that out?
Are my comments on this blog effective to produce justice? Probably not. Is standing around with a sign effective? Not likely. When I took the opportunity during a calm time at work to represent a Central American child who sought special immigration status, was that effective? My representation resulted in a good outcome, but the case isn’t finished in the immigration court, so maybe not. Maybe nothing helps. Maybe nothing.
But this blog allows me to speak. Thanks for letting me speak.
to do better, he’ll have to stop treating the comments like a court room.
yes.
But this blog allows me to speak. Thanks for letting me speak.
pretty much where i’m at.
i gave up on ‘changing minds’ a long time ago. i’m just here to state my own point of view.
it’s an indulgence. thanks for indulging me.
mck is who he is. as is marty. as am i, as is everyone else here. it’s fun to hang out.
when we’re not hanging out here, let’s find a way to get these bastards the hell out. they’re greedy corrupt mendacious hateful liars, they need to go.
there really is no thoughtful dialog to have about the shit that is going on right now. across the board. it just needs to stop.
to do better, he’ll have to stop treating the comments like a court room.
yes.
But this blog allows me to speak. Thanks for letting me speak.
pretty much where i’m at.
i gave up on ‘changing minds’ a long time ago. i’m just here to state my own point of view.
it’s an indulgence. thanks for indulging me.
mck is who he is. as is marty. as am i, as is everyone else here. it’s fun to hang out.
when we’re not hanging out here, let’s find a way to get these bastards the hell out. they’re greedy corrupt mendacious hateful liars, they need to go.
there really is no thoughtful dialog to have about the shit that is going on right now. across the board. it just needs to stop.
Just rereading here for a moment, and thinking about what you said about my request of Sebastian. You said this:
Sebastian is not going to go all in for body donation because you use it to score debating points. I know you think it is a knock down argument, but it is, in a very real sense, ad hominem because the issue is not what is being discussed, but how you think Sebastian should be living his life to accord with your moral principles.
But it actually is what’s being discussed. It’s about asking someone to donate their body (medical situation, health, possibility of permanent health problems) to save the life of another.
Why is asking people to do something radical to their bodies in order to save a life different than asking a woman to do something radical to her body to save a life? I keep asking people to explain the difference. Is it because the woman had sex? Is childbirth not radical enough?
I notice no one debates this on the merits.
Just rereading here for a moment, and thinking about what you said about my request of Sebastian. You said this:
Sebastian is not going to go all in for body donation because you use it to score debating points. I know you think it is a knock down argument, but it is, in a very real sense, ad hominem because the issue is not what is being discussed, but how you think Sebastian should be living his life to accord with your moral principles.
But it actually is what’s being discussed. It’s about asking someone to donate their body (medical situation, health, possibility of permanent health problems) to save the life of another.
Why is asking people to do something radical to their bodies in order to save a life different than asking a woman to do something radical to her body to save a life? I keep asking people to explain the difference. Is it because the woman had sex? Is childbirth not radical enough?
I notice no one debates this on the merits.
lj: You can’t get people to join on to your causes without providing compelling reasons.
Really???
I hold you in tremendous respect. lj, but I think you’re making an unwarranted assumption there. Either that, or you have a particular definition of “compelling” that needs arguing about.
I mean, does He, Trump offer “compelling reasons” to people who join His causes? In a purely operational sense, of course He does. People who cheer Him on, or engage in sophistry on His behalf, must have their “reasons”, which they must find “compelling” enough to make them do things like that. But do YOU find those reasons “compelling” yourself?
It seems to me that all sorts of people join all sorts of causes for all sorts of “reasons”, not all of which are “compelling” in an abstract, objective sense. Let’s not fall prey to the proposition that only right-wingers are entitled to invoke bogey-men, beat dead horses, engage in ad hominem attacks, and otherwise propagandize for their “causes”, while decent people must confine themselves to politely offering them “compelling reasons”.
At the very least, let’s not pretend that McKinney has offered “compelling reasons” here and sapient hasn’t.
–TP
lj: You can’t get people to join on to your causes without providing compelling reasons.
Really???
I hold you in tremendous respect. lj, but I think you’re making an unwarranted assumption there. Either that, or you have a particular definition of “compelling” that needs arguing about.
I mean, does He, Trump offer “compelling reasons” to people who join His causes? In a purely operational sense, of course He does. People who cheer Him on, or engage in sophistry on His behalf, must have their “reasons”, which they must find “compelling” enough to make them do things like that. But do YOU find those reasons “compelling” yourself?
It seems to me that all sorts of people join all sorts of causes for all sorts of “reasons”, not all of which are “compelling” in an abstract, objective sense. Let’s not fall prey to the proposition that only right-wingers are entitled to invoke bogey-men, beat dead horses, engage in ad hominem attacks, and otherwise propagandize for their “causes”, while decent people must confine themselves to politely offering them “compelling reasons”.
At the very least, let’s not pretend that McKinney has offered “compelling reasons” here and sapient hasn’t.
–TP
there really is no thoughtful dialog to have about the shit that is going on right now. across the board. it just needs to stop.
wrs
there really is no thoughtful dialog to have about the shit that is going on right now. across the board. it just needs to stop.
wrs
In terms of the history of Nazism, I’m a functionalist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism
As a functionalist, I look to see what things happen without direct orders, so both the separation of children from their parents and the rejection of immigrant recruits are of interest to me. I think it is important to figure that out because if the explanation is intentionalism, then the ’cause’ is confined to the leaders.
If the case that there is a functional explanation, then it is important to explain who particular functions lend themselves to these situations. McT provides a nice example when he writes
Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism? It’s a simple question.
Using the term as if it is simply a question of sorting people into different piles without considering the effects that it may have is one of the things that should be identified. But those sorts of subtle points are lost when everyone starts yelling. While McT probably won’t change because I point that out, I’m positive that he Is not going to change because you are yelling at him. So in that case, you are simply yelling to make yourself feel better. Is that really what you think is best? Russell draws parallels to what you write and what he writes, but if we weigh the number of times people have said ‘what russell said’ and ‘what sapient said’, what do you think we would see. In short, do you really think you are helping here?
In terms of the history of Nazism, I’m a functionalist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism
As a functionalist, I look to see what things happen without direct orders, so both the separation of children from their parents and the rejection of immigrant recruits are of interest to me. I think it is important to figure that out because if the explanation is intentionalism, then the ’cause’ is confined to the leaders.
If the case that there is a functional explanation, then it is important to explain who particular functions lend themselves to these situations. McT provides a nice example when he writes
Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism? It’s a simple question.
Using the term as if it is simply a question of sorting people into different piles without considering the effects that it may have is one of the things that should be identified. But those sorts of subtle points are lost when everyone starts yelling. While McT probably won’t change because I point that out, I’m positive that he Is not going to change because you are yelling at him. So in that case, you are simply yelling to make yourself feel better. Is that really what you think is best? Russell draws parallels to what you write and what he writes, but if we weigh the number of times people have said ‘what russell said’ and ‘what sapient said’, what do you think we would see. In short, do you really think you are helping here?
if we weigh the number of times people have said ‘what russell said’ and ‘what sapient said’, what do you think we would see. In short, do you really think you are helping here?
By that measure, a lot of people’s comments are worthless. I agree, lj, my comments are worthless. Will I try harder? I’m not sure I can. I’m just a person, and this is where I rant. I do other stuff elsewhere.
If I’m not welcome, you know how to handle that.
if we weigh the number of times people have said ‘what russell said’ and ‘what sapient said’, what do you think we would see. In short, do you really think you are helping here?
By that measure, a lot of people’s comments are worthless. I agree, lj, my comments are worthless. Will I try harder? I’m not sure I can. I’m just a person, and this is where I rant. I do other stuff elsewhere.
If I’m not welcome, you know how to handle that.
While McT probably won’t change because I point that out, I’m positive that he Is not going to change because you are yelling at him.
True. But you have to practice to hone the craft of political argument. Those who have honed good political arguments have a greater chance of having influence and affecting opinions (notice, I do not say ‘change their mind’) in their close circle. If nothing else, the crass racist uncle might learn to STFU in your presence.
Sometimes you have to yell to know what does not work, and sometimes it actually works. True story.
So in that case, you are simply yelling to make yourself feel better
Emotional release in a setting (internets) when said release does no real harm is OK by me. Feeling better about yourself, and the ‘effing situation we are in can be cathartic. Embolisms are not nice.
As we descend to or blow by the inevitable Godwin singularity, it is well to remember Hannah Arendt and the banality of evil. What do you say to a “good German” in 1938? Yelling may well have been the only rational alternative because after that we had the most destructive and violent human slaughter the world has ever seen.
While McT probably won’t change because I point that out, I’m positive that he Is not going to change because you are yelling at him.
True. But you have to practice to hone the craft of political argument. Those who have honed good political arguments have a greater chance of having influence and affecting opinions (notice, I do not say ‘change their mind’) in their close circle. If nothing else, the crass racist uncle might learn to STFU in your presence.
Sometimes you have to yell to know what does not work, and sometimes it actually works. True story.
So in that case, you are simply yelling to make yourself feel better
Emotional release in a setting (internets) when said release does no real harm is OK by me. Feeling better about yourself, and the ‘effing situation we are in can be cathartic. Embolisms are not nice.
As we descend to or blow by the inevitable Godwin singularity, it is well to remember Hannah Arendt and the banality of evil. What do you say to a “good German” in 1938? Yelling may well have been the only rational alternative because after that we had the most destructive and violent human slaughter the world has ever seen.
Russell draws parallels to what you write and what he writes, but if we weigh the number of times people have said ‘what russell said’ and ‘what sapient said’….
Russell yells well.
Russell draws parallels to what you write and what he writes, but if we weigh the number of times people have said ‘what russell said’ and ‘what sapient said’….
Russell yells well.
It seems like we might have an interesting conversation on the topic of
Why Do I Hang Out Here
Me, I come here because
– I learn new stuff occasionally.
– I find perspectives, even on stuff I already know, that hadn’t occurred to me.
– Sometimes those new perspectives persuade me to revise my own opinions. Or, at least, to see how a reasonable person might arrive at a different opinion.
– I would like to think that occasionally I manage to return the favor.
It seems like we might have an interesting conversation on the topic of
Why Do I Hang Out Here
Me, I come here because
– I learn new stuff occasionally.
– I find perspectives, even on stuff I already know, that hadn’t occurred to me.
– Sometimes those new perspectives persuade me to revise my own opinions. Or, at least, to see how a reasonable person might arrive at a different opinion.
– I would like to think that occasionally I manage to return the favor.
Hey Tony,
First, thanks for the kind words. I realize that there is a genre of reporting about how poor Trump voters need to be coddled that is akin to the calls for civility, a genre I think is profoundly wrong. However, I do think that Trump gives his people “compelling reasons”. They wouldn’t compel me, but they are ‘compelling’. They are
-a promise to try and keep things the same, i.e. when white privilege was unquestioned, or at least return to that time.
-a promise to support goals that his supporters feel are important on things such as abortion and immigration
-a promise to honor American exceptionalism
I’d also point out that there is something in the zeitgeist that is pushing these narratives. I just saw the trailer for Peppermint, where Jennifer Garner plays a mother whose husband and daughter are killed by MS-13 style drug dealers. She goes off the grid for 5 years and, as one does, trains herself to be an assassin so she can mete out justice. Or American Assassin, which does the same except the killers are Arab terrorists. Or the Equalizer, where the additional complication of a CIA rouge operation empowers the bad guy. Add to that movies like Mission Impossible, where technology allows a small cell of high trained operatives to deal with bad guys. Society is falling apart is the message and it requires extraordinary measures to save it.
Now, if McKinney finds those reasons compelling, I would guess that no amount of political rhetoric will change his mind. He suggests that he doesn’t, but when he talks about ‘declassifying’ naturalized citizens or reducing everything to simple questions (and I’m sorry, citizenship is anything but simple), I have to wonder. So I generally only comment to him when he comments about something I say. Anything else is just noise.
You use an interesting phrase when you ask if “entitled to invoke bogey-men, beat dead horses, engage in ad hominem attacks, and otherwise propagandize for their “causes”, while decent people must confine themselves to politely offering them “compelling reasons”.” I’m not saying anything about entitlement, I’m just saying that they aren’t going to be effective with people who are thoughtful and cognizant of the world situation. (And if someone says there are no problems, everything is hunky-dory, well, there you go)
This leads into bobby’s comment about ‘honing the craft of political argument’. I don’t want to crap on sapient, but does anyone here think calling out Sebastian on organ donation or invoking McT’s grandkids is a finely honed political argument? Sapient tries to defend the former, but I’m not convinced, and I don’t think anyone else is either. It seems to me that it’s more like trying to get Sebastian and/or McT angry enough to respond in kind and we are off to the races. It’s like realizing that talking about someone’s parent or spouse may really piss them off. I don’t think you’ve really accomplished anything if you do that. Other people’s ‘worthless comments’ (a valuation I don’t believe) don’t aim to piss people off. That’s why these tangents are not simply worthless, they actually devalue the rest of the conversation. That’s why I’d like her to argue better, not stop arguing.
Also, I am totally sympathetic to emotional release on the internet. But if the emotional release is directed at a person, the logical conclusion is that if that the person who the emotional release is directed at is the source and getting rid of him/her is going to solve the problem.
This is an important point in the age of Trump. Would simply removing Trump have things go back to normal? I don’t think so. So much crap has been normalized that a stop Trump movement is simply going to encourage people (perhaps like McT) that they were right, leaving their principle beliefs, beliefs which led to Trump, untouched.
It’s also interesting that you cite Arendt and the banality of evil. The banality of evil is, as I understand it, a functional notion, underlying the fact that a large number of seemingly defensible decisions (like McT’s simple questions) conspire to form a much larger pattern. Could anything be more banal than ‘doing what you were told’?
I disagree with Russell when he says that we don’t need to look at Nazism. The interlocking of the bureaucracy and aims is what made things happen, so failing to note the parallels merely convinces us that somehow this is an aberration rather than events and notions that are connected. These include
policies and practices that dehumanize
When I took off his clothes he was full of dirt and lice. It seemed like they had not bathed him the 85 days he was away from us.”
and
According to her statement, Jimenez was not allowed “to bathe or brush her teeth for the eight days that she spent in the ‘dog pound.’”
using bureaucratic procedures to place people at a disadvantage and create fear and doubt
Francisco Serrano, a Washington, D.C., resident whose niece Maria crossed the U.S. border at San Ysidro in Southern California with her two children, age 2 and 7, as part of a caravan. A week later, a shelter called Serrano, informing him that Maria was going to separated from her children, and that she had asked for Serrano to be a sponsor. Serrano describes trying to become an approved sponsor as a process marked by complications and insufficient communication. In June, he said a social worker told him he would have to restart the sponsorship process again “because the rules changed.” Maria is on her way to Washington, D.C., but the boys are still in custody.
and
“The guards would wake all the girls up at 4 a.m. to count them by kicking on their mats
and
“ORR does not provide information to [relevant state agencies] about the specific location or placement of unaccompanied minors.
This then allows those who wish to indulge in petty cruelties and assert power
“…One of the officers asked me, “In Guatemala do they celebrate Mother’s Day?” When I answered yes he said, “then Happy Mother’s Day” because the next Sunday was Mother’s Day. I lowered my head so that my daughter would not see the tears forming in my eyes. That particular act of cruelty astonished me then as it does now. I could not understand why they hated me so much, or wanted to hurt me so much,” she wrote as part of her statement.
and
“For eight days I was held in a small room with over 60 men. We called it The Freezer because the air conditioning was so strong that we felt like ice. The men got sick inside and we had to sleep, use the toilet, and pass the time all in the same tiny room.”
all from
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/my-son-is-not-the-same-new-testimony-paints-bleak-picture-of-family-separation
Hey Tony,
First, thanks for the kind words. I realize that there is a genre of reporting about how poor Trump voters need to be coddled that is akin to the calls for civility, a genre I think is profoundly wrong. However, I do think that Trump gives his people “compelling reasons”. They wouldn’t compel me, but they are ‘compelling’. They are
-a promise to try and keep things the same, i.e. when white privilege was unquestioned, or at least return to that time.
-a promise to support goals that his supporters feel are important on things such as abortion and immigration
-a promise to honor American exceptionalism
I’d also point out that there is something in the zeitgeist that is pushing these narratives. I just saw the trailer for Peppermint, where Jennifer Garner plays a mother whose husband and daughter are killed by MS-13 style drug dealers. She goes off the grid for 5 years and, as one does, trains herself to be an assassin so she can mete out justice. Or American Assassin, which does the same except the killers are Arab terrorists. Or the Equalizer, where the additional complication of a CIA rouge operation empowers the bad guy. Add to that movies like Mission Impossible, where technology allows a small cell of high trained operatives to deal with bad guys. Society is falling apart is the message and it requires extraordinary measures to save it.
Now, if McKinney finds those reasons compelling, I would guess that no amount of political rhetoric will change his mind. He suggests that he doesn’t, but when he talks about ‘declassifying’ naturalized citizens or reducing everything to simple questions (and I’m sorry, citizenship is anything but simple), I have to wonder. So I generally only comment to him when he comments about something I say. Anything else is just noise.
You use an interesting phrase when you ask if “entitled to invoke bogey-men, beat dead horses, engage in ad hominem attacks, and otherwise propagandize for their “causes”, while decent people must confine themselves to politely offering them “compelling reasons”.” I’m not saying anything about entitlement, I’m just saying that they aren’t going to be effective with people who are thoughtful and cognizant of the world situation. (And if someone says there are no problems, everything is hunky-dory, well, there you go)
This leads into bobby’s comment about ‘honing the craft of political argument’. I don’t want to crap on sapient, but does anyone here think calling out Sebastian on organ donation or invoking McT’s grandkids is a finely honed political argument? Sapient tries to defend the former, but I’m not convinced, and I don’t think anyone else is either. It seems to me that it’s more like trying to get Sebastian and/or McT angry enough to respond in kind and we are off to the races. It’s like realizing that talking about someone’s parent or spouse may really piss them off. I don’t think you’ve really accomplished anything if you do that. Other people’s ‘worthless comments’ (a valuation I don’t believe) don’t aim to piss people off. That’s why these tangents are not simply worthless, they actually devalue the rest of the conversation. That’s why I’d like her to argue better, not stop arguing.
Also, I am totally sympathetic to emotional release on the internet. But if the emotional release is directed at a person, the logical conclusion is that if that the person who the emotional release is directed at is the source and getting rid of him/her is going to solve the problem.
This is an important point in the age of Trump. Would simply removing Trump have things go back to normal? I don’t think so. So much crap has been normalized that a stop Trump movement is simply going to encourage people (perhaps like McT) that they were right, leaving their principle beliefs, beliefs which led to Trump, untouched.
It’s also interesting that you cite Arendt and the banality of evil. The banality of evil is, as I understand it, a functional notion, underlying the fact that a large number of seemingly defensible decisions (like McT’s simple questions) conspire to form a much larger pattern. Could anything be more banal than ‘doing what you were told’?
I disagree with Russell when he says that we don’t need to look at Nazism. The interlocking of the bureaucracy and aims is what made things happen, so failing to note the parallels merely convinces us that somehow this is an aberration rather than events and notions that are connected. These include
policies and practices that dehumanize
When I took off his clothes he was full of dirt and lice. It seemed like they had not bathed him the 85 days he was away from us.”
and
According to her statement, Jimenez was not allowed “to bathe or brush her teeth for the eight days that she spent in the ‘dog pound.’”
using bureaucratic procedures to place people at a disadvantage and create fear and doubt
Francisco Serrano, a Washington, D.C., resident whose niece Maria crossed the U.S. border at San Ysidro in Southern California with her two children, age 2 and 7, as part of a caravan. A week later, a shelter called Serrano, informing him that Maria was going to separated from her children, and that she had asked for Serrano to be a sponsor. Serrano describes trying to become an approved sponsor as a process marked by complications and insufficient communication. In June, he said a social worker told him he would have to restart the sponsorship process again “because the rules changed.” Maria is on her way to Washington, D.C., but the boys are still in custody.
and
“The guards would wake all the girls up at 4 a.m. to count them by kicking on their mats
and
“ORR does not provide information to [relevant state agencies] about the specific location or placement of unaccompanied minors.
This then allows those who wish to indulge in petty cruelties and assert power
“…One of the officers asked me, “In Guatemala do they celebrate Mother’s Day?” When I answered yes he said, “then Happy Mother’s Day” because the next Sunday was Mother’s Day. I lowered my head so that my daughter would not see the tears forming in my eyes. That particular act of cruelty astonished me then as it does now. I could not understand why they hated me so much, or wanted to hurt me so much,” she wrote as part of her statement.
and
“For eight days I was held in a small room with over 60 men. We called it The Freezer because the air conditioning was so strong that we felt like ice. The men got sick inside and we had to sleep, use the toilet, and pass the time all in the same tiny room.”
all from
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/my-son-is-not-the-same-new-testimony-paints-bleak-picture-of-family-separation
What LJ said, 10.:20, expresses more clearly than I could my thoughts about the back and forth.
I don’t think the Nazi analogy particularly useful, either. Sure, there are correspondences with the propaganda and authoritarianism. The administration is effectively racist in its policies and composition – but it does not, as far as I’m aware, have as its central tenet the idea of a war to the death between the races.
The Nazis had a very particular ideology, and the term carries a huge weight of historical baggage. Calling your opponents Nazis gives them an easy out to denying what they actually are, and an easy out to those who vote Republican in the age of Trump.
What LJ said, 10.:20, expresses more clearly than I could my thoughts about the back and forth.
I don’t think the Nazi analogy particularly useful, either. Sure, there are correspondences with the propaganda and authoritarianism. The administration is effectively racist in its policies and composition – but it does not, as far as I’m aware, have as its central tenet the idea of a war to the death between the races.
The Nazis had a very particular ideology, and the term carries a huge weight of historical baggage. Calling your opponents Nazis gives them an easy out to denying what they actually are, and an easy out to those who vote Republican in the age of Trump.
As per the definition in the wiki article linked by lj, I’d call myself a moderate intentionalist as far as the historical Nazis are concerned. I think in the phase that shows parallels to the current US situation the intent was not yet the holocaust but ‘just’ a radical reversion of Jewish emancipation, a ‘back to the ghetto’. That was a goal shared by many that did not consider themselves Nazis (e.g. old conservatives that saw Hitler and his guys as plebeian upstarts). Those would have been fully content with the Nuremberg laws (=goal achieved).
For the US, I think a functionalist interpretation comes much closer to the truth. The Donald is not the main mover but a catalyst. There are people (like Miller) that influence him from up close, and there are people in the lower apparatus and the base that simply waited to get a chance to pet their inner brown Schweinehund. Those were always there and now they are off the leash. The Donald has never read Nazi laws and regulations but those mentioned above clearly have. Some actions are too specific to be coincidence. The Donald has given them licence (and that was intentional) but not because he has any master plan but because he is a rear digestive exit that loves to treat people like sh|t either personally or by proxy and because he sees a political advantage (although I think that is more of a bonus). But some in his environment clearly have ideas running along Nazi* lines but (for the most part) go not as far as actual extermination. In the base on the other hand there are enough guys who’d love to go all the way (and dream of nuking most of the planet or have fantasies about genetically engineered ‘racist germs’ that kill anyone not Aryan**)
*I mean Nazi in the specific, not as a synonym for RW extremist or fascist. The latter need an enemy of course but it is not necessarily one defined in racist terms.
**the actual Aryans are of course fair game. I mean the term as understood in white supremacist circles
As per the definition in the wiki article linked by lj, I’d call myself a moderate intentionalist as far as the historical Nazis are concerned. I think in the phase that shows parallels to the current US situation the intent was not yet the holocaust but ‘just’ a radical reversion of Jewish emancipation, a ‘back to the ghetto’. That was a goal shared by many that did not consider themselves Nazis (e.g. old conservatives that saw Hitler and his guys as plebeian upstarts). Those would have been fully content with the Nuremberg laws (=goal achieved).
For the US, I think a functionalist interpretation comes much closer to the truth. The Donald is not the main mover but a catalyst. There are people (like Miller) that influence him from up close, and there are people in the lower apparatus and the base that simply waited to get a chance to pet their inner brown Schweinehund. Those were always there and now they are off the leash. The Donald has never read Nazi laws and regulations but those mentioned above clearly have. Some actions are too specific to be coincidence. The Donald has given them licence (and that was intentional) but not because he has any master plan but because he is a rear digestive exit that loves to treat people like sh|t either personally or by proxy and because he sees a political advantage (although I think that is more of a bonus). But some in his environment clearly have ideas running along Nazi* lines but (for the most part) go not as far as actual extermination. In the base on the other hand there are enough guys who’d love to go all the way (and dream of nuking most of the planet or have fantasies about genetically engineered ‘racist germs’ that kill anyone not Aryan**)
*I mean Nazi in the specific, not as a synonym for RW extremist or fascist. The latter need an enemy of course but it is not necessarily one defined in racist terms.
**the actual Aryans are of course fair game. I mean the term as understood in white supremacist circles
Thanks Nigel.
About calling people Nazis, I’d observe that since Sapient is unhappy with me being too easy on McT and since she says she doesn’t call McT a Nazi, I think I’m safe. In fact, I’d observe that McT is the one who calls the name down on himself when he writes
Hmm, so it’s a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it’s not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi?
If McT doesn’t like wearing the stahlhelm, he shouldn’t stick his pointy head in it.
But, just to be clear, I think it is important to point out parallels. For me, they are
-an unsubstantiated belief in the innate superiority of the in group and the need to protect that group from other groups
-a use of bureaucratic procedures to deal out punishment to other groups
-the use of nationalism and populism to achieve desired goals
-reduction of policies to short catchphrases in order to have people not consider the ramifications
and now, the consideration that rights are only available to citizens which is matched with steps to, as McT states in his Orwellian way, ‘declassify’ naturalized citizens.
This is not to say that anyone who supports these is a Nazi, it’s to say that this constellation of beliefs also happened in the run up to WWII. If that bothers someone, maybe they should not try to defend those points so vigorously.
Thanks Nigel.
About calling people Nazis, I’d observe that since Sapient is unhappy with me being too easy on McT and since she says she doesn’t call McT a Nazi, I think I’m safe. In fact, I’d observe that McT is the one who calls the name down on himself when he writes
Hmm, so it’s a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it’s not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi?
If McT doesn’t like wearing the stahlhelm, he shouldn’t stick his pointy head in it.
But, just to be clear, I think it is important to point out parallels. For me, they are
-an unsubstantiated belief in the innate superiority of the in group and the need to protect that group from other groups
-a use of bureaucratic procedures to deal out punishment to other groups
-the use of nationalism and populism to achieve desired goals
-reduction of policies to short catchphrases in order to have people not consider the ramifications
and now, the consideration that rights are only available to citizens which is matched with steps to, as McT states in his Orwellian way, ‘declassify’ naturalized citizens.
This is not to say that anyone who supports these is a Nazi, it’s to say that this constellation of beliefs also happened in the run up to WWII. If that bothers someone, maybe they should not try to defend those points so vigorously.
What Nigel said at 04.46.
But I also agree with much of what lj says. Clearly, dark and dangerous impulses are being tapped into, consciously or sometimes unconsciously, and the historically reminiscent consequences are already manifesting themselves, with no doubt worse to come.
On the civility question, as our recent spat with McKinney illustrated, I am all for calling out public figures in the administration who support vile and despicable actions and policies of which they are a part (e.g. Sarah H-S). But I think that maintaining civility here, on the blog, is more than worthwhile. This is because a) I do not believe anybody here is in fact vile and despicable, and b) I also agree with lj that there is a (vanishingly small) chance that some views can be affected, at least round the edges. Which is not to say I see this as a forum for changing views, it’s just that on the whole I think most people here try to maintain a reasonably open mind to people they think are arguing in good faith. It should, I hope, be clear that my own views are much more closely aligned with sapient’s than say McKinney’s, but I believe that it is worth arguing with the McKinneys of this world because, in the end, I don’t think they are motivated by the poisonous impulses now loose in your (and my) land, and also because, as bobbyp says, it hones one’s political arguments.
And that’s where I come to McKinney, and his recent interactions here. I said before I thought his interjections, and what they prompt, add to the snap and sparkle among the commentariat. And historically, and even now occasionally, I still think that. But it is very noticeable that his whole shtick has qualitatively changed; it is now much more mean-spirited and seemingly designed to provoke and insult. The kind interpretation, if he is indeed, as I have always thought, a decent man, is that he is seeing “his people” (conservatives, tax-cutters, deregulators) doing things even he deplores, and he is trying to make himself feel better by outraging and provoking the liberals into attitudes he can condemn. We will probably never know. But, FWIW, when I said Jesus wept, I was not so much referring to WWJD, but expressing a kind of disbelief at the kind of level his argumentation has sunk to.
I’d like to finish this comment with something that has a good, non-pessimistic ring to it, but I’ve got nothing. So all I can say is WRS:
when we’re not hanging out here, let’s find a way to get these bastards the hell out. they’re greedy corrupt mendacious hateful liars, they need to go.
and:
it just needs to stop.
What Nigel said at 04.46.
But I also agree with much of what lj says. Clearly, dark and dangerous impulses are being tapped into, consciously or sometimes unconsciously, and the historically reminiscent consequences are already manifesting themselves, with no doubt worse to come.
On the civility question, as our recent spat with McKinney illustrated, I am all for calling out public figures in the administration who support vile and despicable actions and policies of which they are a part (e.g. Sarah H-S). But I think that maintaining civility here, on the blog, is more than worthwhile. This is because a) I do not believe anybody here is in fact vile and despicable, and b) I also agree with lj that there is a (vanishingly small) chance that some views can be affected, at least round the edges. Which is not to say I see this as a forum for changing views, it’s just that on the whole I think most people here try to maintain a reasonably open mind to people they think are arguing in good faith. It should, I hope, be clear that my own views are much more closely aligned with sapient’s than say McKinney’s, but I believe that it is worth arguing with the McKinneys of this world because, in the end, I don’t think they are motivated by the poisonous impulses now loose in your (and my) land, and also because, as bobbyp says, it hones one’s political arguments.
And that’s where I come to McKinney, and his recent interactions here. I said before I thought his interjections, and what they prompt, add to the snap and sparkle among the commentariat. And historically, and even now occasionally, I still think that. But it is very noticeable that his whole shtick has qualitatively changed; it is now much more mean-spirited and seemingly designed to provoke and insult. The kind interpretation, if he is indeed, as I have always thought, a decent man, is that he is seeing “his people” (conservatives, tax-cutters, deregulators) doing things even he deplores, and he is trying to make himself feel better by outraging and provoking the liberals into attitudes he can condemn. We will probably never know. But, FWIW, when I said Jesus wept, I was not so much referring to WWJD, but expressing a kind of disbelief at the kind of level his argumentation has sunk to.
I’d like to finish this comment with something that has a good, non-pessimistic ring to it, but I’ve got nothing. So all I can say is WRS:
when we’re not hanging out here, let’s find a way to get these bastards the hell out. they’re greedy corrupt mendacious hateful liars, they need to go.
and:
it just needs to stop.
Why is asking people to do something radical to their bodies in order to save a life different than asking a woman to do something radical to her body to save a life? I keep asking people to explain the difference. Is it because the woman had sex? Is childbirth not radical enough?…
That is an argument that has a great deal of merit, IMO.
Perhaps better put in the more general case, though – what if the government were to introduce a lottery for mandatory kidney donation to save the lives of those requiring transplants ?
After all, the comparable mortality rates are not wildly different…
Why is asking people to do something radical to their bodies in order to save a life different than asking a woman to do something radical to her body to save a life? I keep asking people to explain the difference. Is it because the woman had sex? Is childbirth not radical enough?…
That is an argument that has a great deal of merit, IMO.
Perhaps better put in the more general case, though – what if the government were to introduce a lottery for mandatory kidney donation to save the lives of those requiring transplants ?
After all, the comparable mortality rates are not wildly different…
As as a simple matter of fact, I would like to point out that correctly answering the US immigration questions is, for a normal adult, quite difficult. And as far as I understand, giving wrong information in even a few of these forms at any phase of the immigration-naturalisation process is, technically, grounds for denaturalisation.
My personal favourite is the visa question asking you about all the professional, social or charitable organisations you have worked for, contributed to or belonged to. Technically, this includes any random 1-euro-contribution you may have made in passing, without even remembering it. Similarly, at least in Finland, it is quite typical to join organisations simply as a means of showing support to a cause. (In my old Alma Mater, the student union clubs were obligated to accept all comers, and it was commonplace to pay a two euro membership fee for a number of clubs where you would not be particularly active.) So, to be honest, I have no idea about all the societies the member of which I have been during my life, let alone about all to which I have made a charitable contribution. (We Finns don’t get tax deductions for them, so there is no reason to keep paperwork.) In my most recent US visa, I listed dozens of organisations, but there might be others, too.
For work history, the situation is similar. If you’ve worked a series of odd jobs, listing all previous employers is definitely not an easy task.
So, the US immigration forms of any naturalised person are bound to include omissions and errors that make them eligible for denaturalisation.
As as a simple matter of fact, I would like to point out that correctly answering the US immigration questions is, for a normal adult, quite difficult. And as far as I understand, giving wrong information in even a few of these forms at any phase of the immigration-naturalisation process is, technically, grounds for denaturalisation.
My personal favourite is the visa question asking you about all the professional, social or charitable organisations you have worked for, contributed to or belonged to. Technically, this includes any random 1-euro-contribution you may have made in passing, without even remembering it. Similarly, at least in Finland, it is quite typical to join organisations simply as a means of showing support to a cause. (In my old Alma Mater, the student union clubs were obligated to accept all comers, and it was commonplace to pay a two euro membership fee for a number of clubs where you would not be particularly active.) So, to be honest, I have no idea about all the societies the member of which I have been during my life, let alone about all to which I have made a charitable contribution. (We Finns don’t get tax deductions for them, so there is no reason to keep paperwork.) In my most recent US visa, I listed dozens of organisations, but there might be others, too.
For work history, the situation is similar. If you’ve worked a series of odd jobs, listing all previous employers is definitely not an easy task.
So, the US immigration forms of any naturalised person are bound to include omissions and errors that make them eligible for denaturalisation.
A very good point, Lurker.
For a nation which supposedly has a libertarian streak, the US takes the small print of regulations very seriously indeed.
A very good point, Lurker.
For a nation which supposedly has a libertarian streak, the US takes the small print of regulations very seriously indeed.
A curiously optimistic story in these times:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/07/supreme-court-state-gerrymandering-218955
A curiously optimistic story in these times:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/07/supreme-court-state-gerrymandering-218955
Nigel, thanks for taking my argument seriously. Also, thanks for the optimistic story. I actually think (have some hope, at least) that Virginia has a good chance to do some constructive redistricting soon.
Lurker: So, the US immigration forms of any naturalised person are bound to include omissions and errors that make them eligible for denaturalisation.
This. Selective enforcement is how bureaucratic harassment works.
GftNC: The kind interpretation, if he is indeed, as I have always thought, a decent man, is that he is seeing “his people” (conservatives, tax-cutters, deregulators) doing things even he deplores, and he is trying to make himself feel better by outraging and provoking the liberals into attitudes he can condemn.
I think this might explain it. As to having civil dialog here, I think civility is generally preferable to rudeness, but I’m not sure how to express what I see as a major problem, that conservatives like McKinney by denying the disturbing implications of what goes on around them, are enabling these policies as the situation goes from bad to worse. After all, denial of the Holocaust happened at the time, and still happens.
it just needs to stop.
That’s the bottom line, but it won’t happen by itself. We have to stop it. I have some hope that the elections will make a difference, but some fear that they won’t.
Nigel, thanks for taking my argument seriously. Also, thanks for the optimistic story. I actually think (have some hope, at least) that Virginia has a good chance to do some constructive redistricting soon.
Lurker: So, the US immigration forms of any naturalised person are bound to include omissions and errors that make them eligible for denaturalisation.
This. Selective enforcement is how bureaucratic harassment works.
GftNC: The kind interpretation, if he is indeed, as I have always thought, a decent man, is that he is seeing “his people” (conservatives, tax-cutters, deregulators) doing things even he deplores, and he is trying to make himself feel better by outraging and provoking the liberals into attitudes he can condemn.
I think this might explain it. As to having civil dialog here, I think civility is generally preferable to rudeness, but I’m not sure how to express what I see as a major problem, that conservatives like McKinney by denying the disturbing implications of what goes on around them, are enabling these policies as the situation goes from bad to worse. After all, denial of the Holocaust happened at the time, and still happens.
it just needs to stop.
That’s the bottom line, but it won’t happen by itself. We have to stop it. I have some hope that the elections will make a difference, but some fear that they won’t.
I do see, and sympathise with, your point sapient. We just have different approaches to dealing with it.
And, FWIW, I too think your organ donation argument is reasonably apposite.
I do see, and sympathise with, your point sapient. We just have different approaches to dealing with it.
And, FWIW, I too think your organ donation argument is reasonably apposite.
Well, hope that’s enough naval gazing. Lurker’s comments remind me of the problems currently faced by Windrush generation
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/windrush-scandal
Well, hope that’s enough naval gazing. Lurker’s comments remind me of the problems currently faced by Windrush generation
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/windrush-scandal
In terms of the history of Nazism, I’m a functionalist.
Interesting read, lj. I guess I would lean toward the “synthesis” position. As for the USA, the observed ‘cumulative radicalization’ and ‘group shift’ of our political right wing may not yet be dispositive of a radical break with our democratic norms, but it is deeply disturbing.
thanks
In terms of the history of Nazism, I’m a functionalist.
Interesting read, lj. I guess I would lean toward the “synthesis” position. As for the USA, the observed ‘cumulative radicalization’ and ‘group shift’ of our political right wing may not yet be dispositive of a radical break with our democratic norms, but it is deeply disturbing.
thanks
This post has me thinking of how I would try to go about discussing what’s going on under this administration with my Trump-supporting friends. I’m feeling more and more internal pressure to do so. I don’t want it to be a debate. I want them to understand why I’m upset and why it bothers me that they support what’s going on, seemingly without any question. From what I can tell, many of them see Trump as at least doing a very good job, if not being virtually flawless.
I think it has to be one-on-one. It think I have to head off any diversions into all the terrible things that are supposedly wrong with Obama and Clinton (and liberals in general – and welfare cheats, Antifa, whiny college snowflakes, etc.).
I would make the point that my tax dollars are being used to inflict needless cruelty on powerless people, and that that cruelty is needless regardless of how much or how little immigration you think we should allow. I would add that this is but one example of the sort of thing that is being normalized in people’s minds, using the “boiling the frog slowly” analogy to describe what is happening in terms of what people find acceptable for their government to do on their behalf. Other examples might be cozying up to dictators while damaging our relationships with democratic (small “d”) allies. I don’t know if it would help to get into the dangerously unthinking deregulation that’s going to damage the environment and put non-wealthy people into even weaker positions with respect to avaricious corporations. Maybe that’s too wonky.
So, riffing off the discussion of what purpose commenting here serves, expressing and clarifying my thoughts by writing them out and getting feedback from smart people I respect is but one reason I participate on this blog.
This post has me thinking of how I would try to go about discussing what’s going on under this administration with my Trump-supporting friends. I’m feeling more and more internal pressure to do so. I don’t want it to be a debate. I want them to understand why I’m upset and why it bothers me that they support what’s going on, seemingly without any question. From what I can tell, many of them see Trump as at least doing a very good job, if not being virtually flawless.
I think it has to be one-on-one. It think I have to head off any diversions into all the terrible things that are supposedly wrong with Obama and Clinton (and liberals in general – and welfare cheats, Antifa, whiny college snowflakes, etc.).
I would make the point that my tax dollars are being used to inflict needless cruelty on powerless people, and that that cruelty is needless regardless of how much or how little immigration you think we should allow. I would add that this is but one example of the sort of thing that is being normalized in people’s minds, using the “boiling the frog slowly” analogy to describe what is happening in terms of what people find acceptable for their government to do on their behalf. Other examples might be cozying up to dictators while damaging our relationships with democratic (small “d”) allies. I don’t know if it would help to get into the dangerously unthinking deregulation that’s going to damage the environment and put non-wealthy people into even weaker positions with respect to avaricious corporations. Maybe that’s too wonky.
So, riffing off the discussion of what purpose commenting here serves, expressing and clarifying my thoughts by writing them out and getting feedback from smart people I respect is but one reason I participate on this blog.
Just to add one thing, I think we’re in “when good people do nothing” territory.
Just to add one thing, I think we’re in “when good people do nothing” territory.
As we descend to or blow by the inevitable Godwin singularity
it’s worth noting that Godwin – the actual Godwin, the guy who coined the rule – considers comparisons to nazis not out of line at this point in time.
link previously shared, it’s readily google-able if it’s of interest.
i may have been unclear in stating my own thoughts.
the issue with using the term ‘nazi’, imo, is not that there are no parallels worth looking at. it’s that it is too specific, and thus too easy to disclaim and distance yourself from.
we may be singling out a particular ethnicity or demographic for harassment and abuse, but we aren’t making them wear insignia or murdering them en masse.
so, we’re all good!
it ends up giving people a way to avoid confronting what we actually are doing, and becoming. yeah, we do *this*, but at least we don’t do *that*!
i find lj’s list of parallels at 6:01 to be on point, but they aren’t specific to naziism. they are, more generally, characteristic of states on, for lack of a better term, the fascist spectrum. and even saying fascism is problematic – it’s another ‘boogie-man’ word. what we’re talking about is people using the institutions of government and the state to abuse other people.
it is, i think, sufficient to call out the things we are doing and tolerating that are bloody well wrong. when you invoke the label, then the conversation is suddenly about the label, rather than the thing itself.
the things that trump draws on – race, class and regional resentments, a weird combination of victimization and entitlement – are kind of baked in to the american psyche. they compete with other things, more worthwhile things, that are likewise part of our history and character.
minds are not going to change at a scale sufficient to make the national id go away. we need to get off of our asses and give our more worthwhile impulses a larger and more effective political expression.
we – which is to say, the majority of people in this country – need to win more elections, and get these fuckers the hell out of office.
As we descend to or blow by the inevitable Godwin singularity
it’s worth noting that Godwin – the actual Godwin, the guy who coined the rule – considers comparisons to nazis not out of line at this point in time.
link previously shared, it’s readily google-able if it’s of interest.
i may have been unclear in stating my own thoughts.
the issue with using the term ‘nazi’, imo, is not that there are no parallels worth looking at. it’s that it is too specific, and thus too easy to disclaim and distance yourself from.
we may be singling out a particular ethnicity or demographic for harassment and abuse, but we aren’t making them wear insignia or murdering them en masse.
so, we’re all good!
it ends up giving people a way to avoid confronting what we actually are doing, and becoming. yeah, we do *this*, but at least we don’t do *that*!
i find lj’s list of parallels at 6:01 to be on point, but they aren’t specific to naziism. they are, more generally, characteristic of states on, for lack of a better term, the fascist spectrum. and even saying fascism is problematic – it’s another ‘boogie-man’ word. what we’re talking about is people using the institutions of government and the state to abuse other people.
it is, i think, sufficient to call out the things we are doing and tolerating that are bloody well wrong. when you invoke the label, then the conversation is suddenly about the label, rather than the thing itself.
the things that trump draws on – race, class and regional resentments, a weird combination of victimization and entitlement – are kind of baked in to the american psyche. they compete with other things, more worthwhile things, that are likewise part of our history and character.
minds are not going to change at a scale sufficient to make the national id go away. we need to get off of our asses and give our more worthwhile impulses a larger and more effective political expression.
we – which is to say, the majority of people in this country – need to win more elections, and get these fuckers the hell out of office.
hsh: I think it has to be one-on-one. It think I have to head off any diversions into all the terrible things that are supposedly wrong with Obama and Clinton (and liberals in general – and welfare cheats, Antifa, whiny college snowflakes, etc.).
and: I think we’re in “when good people do nothing” territory.
What follows is mostly about talking to friends, it isn’t intended to have anything to do with strangers in MAGA hats.
I’m with you, hsh, and it’s a hard challenge, but just trying is important. None of us know the secret way to success — if we did, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
I’ve quoted my old “guru,” Danaan Parry, before, and probably this very quote, about conflict resolution: “You have to make it safe for the other guy to make it safe for you to tell your truth.”
The core of that advice: you probably have to listen before you talk, or at least if you expect to be given the space to talk. Also, the conversation that may get you somewhere is not one made up of debating points. If your friend wants to talk about all the horrible things Obama did but you’re going to deflect that somehow as a diversion, what grounds do you have for asking that person to let you talk about all the horrible things Trump is doing? The trick is not to turn it into a debate, because that will get you nowhere.
In Danaan’s workshops we used to do an exercise called “I hear you say.” Three people, one in a “facilitator” role, whose job was to make sure the communication got through. The other two people were in conflict. Person #1 had one minute to talk (one minute turns out to be a long time to listen!!!), and then person #2 had to feed it back: no arguing, nothing about how person #2 felt, no defending yourself no evaluating good or bad, just a crystal clear attempt to say, “I hear what you said and took it in.” The facilitator and person #1 had to agree that person #2 had heard. Then the roles were reversed.
The point was to listen to how people felt; it had nothing to do with debating points or proofs or ego-boosting. Even “I heard that you’re angry with me” — as hard as it is to hear it and acknowledge it, just feed it back, and there it sits.
It’s extremely hard to do this without a safe space and/or a facilitator. We don’t remotely have the instincts for it, or the training/practice. I don’t know if we have time, in the present emergency, but who knows.
It takes courage to speak up (don’t I know it! — and I am especially un-glib out loud, and I have a temper, and I’m ashamed to say I haven’t practiced, all these years after I had my “fling” in the conflict resolution world), so it’s worth doing for the practice if nothing else. I’ve done a little of it with people I’m close to, but I’m also trying to add to my list of other things: money donated to places I wouldn’t have thought of before (RAICES e.g.), some political involvement, etc.
I have a cab driver story, but this is long enough for the moment and I need breakfast.
hsh: I think it has to be one-on-one. It think I have to head off any diversions into all the terrible things that are supposedly wrong with Obama and Clinton (and liberals in general – and welfare cheats, Antifa, whiny college snowflakes, etc.).
and: I think we’re in “when good people do nothing” territory.
What follows is mostly about talking to friends, it isn’t intended to have anything to do with strangers in MAGA hats.
I’m with you, hsh, and it’s a hard challenge, but just trying is important. None of us know the secret way to success — if we did, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
I’ve quoted my old “guru,” Danaan Parry, before, and probably this very quote, about conflict resolution: “You have to make it safe for the other guy to make it safe for you to tell your truth.”
The core of that advice: you probably have to listen before you talk, or at least if you expect to be given the space to talk. Also, the conversation that may get you somewhere is not one made up of debating points. If your friend wants to talk about all the horrible things Obama did but you’re going to deflect that somehow as a diversion, what grounds do you have for asking that person to let you talk about all the horrible things Trump is doing? The trick is not to turn it into a debate, because that will get you nowhere.
In Danaan’s workshops we used to do an exercise called “I hear you say.” Three people, one in a “facilitator” role, whose job was to make sure the communication got through. The other two people were in conflict. Person #1 had one minute to talk (one minute turns out to be a long time to listen!!!), and then person #2 had to feed it back: no arguing, nothing about how person #2 felt, no defending yourself no evaluating good or bad, just a crystal clear attempt to say, “I hear what you said and took it in.” The facilitator and person #1 had to agree that person #2 had heard. Then the roles were reversed.
The point was to listen to how people felt; it had nothing to do with debating points or proofs or ego-boosting. Even “I heard that you’re angry with me” — as hard as it is to hear it and acknowledge it, just feed it back, and there it sits.
It’s extremely hard to do this without a safe space and/or a facilitator. We don’t remotely have the instincts for it, or the training/practice. I don’t know if we have time, in the present emergency, but who knows.
It takes courage to speak up (don’t I know it! — and I am especially un-glib out loud, and I have a temper, and I’m ashamed to say I haven’t practiced, all these years after I had my “fling” in the conflict resolution world), so it’s worth doing for the practice if nothing else. I’ve done a little of it with people I’m close to, but I’m also trying to add to my list of other things: money donated to places I wouldn’t have thought of before (RAICES e.g.), some political involvement, etc.
I have a cab driver story, but this is long enough for the moment and I need breakfast.
the issue with using the term ‘nazi’, imo, is not that there are no parallels worth looking at. it’s that it is too specific, and thus too easy to disclaim and distance yourself from.
I hadn’t read russell’s when I posted mine. Let me add that just as russell’s point about the term “Nazi” is a practical one, so my snippets from long-ago conflict resolution workshops come from a practical perspective. It may be satisfying to shout at people and call them Nazis, but far from doing any good (other than making the shouter feel good), it is highly likely to just further cement the problem. From a problem-solving perspective, it’s probably better to just keep quiet.
McKinney came on here recently and after pages and pages of lecturing, admitted that he had been trying to get us to see that “people don’t like being lectured to by assholes.” When I pointed out the hall of mirrors irony of that admission by turning it back on him, AFAICT he totally declined to take in the fact that he was no more exempt than any other lecturer (I will leave aside the other epithet for the moment) from the practical fact that when you yell at other people about how awful they are, *they can’t hear you.*
minds are not going to change at a scale sufficient to make the national id go away. we need to get off of our asses and give our more worthwhile impulses a larger and more effective political expression.
wrs
the issue with using the term ‘nazi’, imo, is not that there are no parallels worth looking at. it’s that it is too specific, and thus too easy to disclaim and distance yourself from.
I hadn’t read russell’s when I posted mine. Let me add that just as russell’s point about the term “Nazi” is a practical one, so my snippets from long-ago conflict resolution workshops come from a practical perspective. It may be satisfying to shout at people and call them Nazis, but far from doing any good (other than making the shouter feel good), it is highly likely to just further cement the problem. From a problem-solving perspective, it’s probably better to just keep quiet.
McKinney came on here recently and after pages and pages of lecturing, admitted that he had been trying to get us to see that “people don’t like being lectured to by assholes.” When I pointed out the hall of mirrors irony of that admission by turning it back on him, AFAICT he totally declined to take in the fact that he was no more exempt than any other lecturer (I will leave aside the other epithet for the moment) from the practical fact that when you yell at other people about how awful they are, *they can’t hear you.*
minds are not going to change at a scale sufficient to make the national id go away. we need to get off of our asses and give our more worthwhile impulses a larger and more effective political expression.
wrs
If your friend wants to talk about all the horrible things Obama did but you’re going to deflect that somehow as a diversion, what grounds do you have for asking that person to let you talk about all the horrible things Trump is doing?
When I wrote “diversion,” I meant that the entire conversation becomes about all the bad things everyone but Trump did or does. And that would simply become a pointless and stupid debate. I’m not going to try to convince anyone they should have voted for Clinton or supported Obama. I’m not even going to try to make anyone regret voting for Trump. I just want to plant the seed that it’s not necessary to support everything Trump does, and that doing so might actually be bad for the country.
I didn’t support Obama’s use of drones, for example. I opposed it, in fact, and for the very same general reasons I oppose the current immigration mess – because it caused needless suffering for powerless people. Also because I thought it was counterproductive and stoked hate against the United States, breeding more future terrorists (or whatever kind of anti-American actors) than it did to eliminate current ones.
What I don’t want to do is spend 15 minutes talking about things like the Cincinnati IRS office’s processing of applications for tax-exempt status.
If your friend wants to talk about all the horrible things Obama did but you’re going to deflect that somehow as a diversion, what grounds do you have for asking that person to let you talk about all the horrible things Trump is doing?
When I wrote “diversion,” I meant that the entire conversation becomes about all the bad things everyone but Trump did or does. And that would simply become a pointless and stupid debate. I’m not going to try to convince anyone they should have voted for Clinton or supported Obama. I’m not even going to try to make anyone regret voting for Trump. I just want to plant the seed that it’s not necessary to support everything Trump does, and that doing so might actually be bad for the country.
I didn’t support Obama’s use of drones, for example. I opposed it, in fact, and for the very same general reasons I oppose the current immigration mess – because it caused needless suffering for powerless people. Also because I thought it was counterproductive and stoked hate against the United States, breeding more future terrorists (or whatever kind of anti-American actors) than it did to eliminate current ones.
What I don’t want to do is spend 15 minutes talking about things like the Cincinnati IRS office’s processing of applications for tax-exempt status.
I meant that the entire conversation becomes about all the bad things everyone but Trump did or does…What I don’t want to do is spend 15 minutes talking about things like the Cincinnati IRS office’s processing of applications for tax-exempt status.
If you don’t respond to those points, why should “the entire conversation” be about them, unless your friend refuses to let you talk at all? In which case, really, why are you bothering?
You don’t actually have to debate that stuff when it’s brought up. You can listen, and when it’s your turn to talk, you talk about what’s worrying you about what’s going on right now. Maybe just a point or two. (Side note, relevant to very recent stuff here: If someone is trying to force you to respond to their points, i.e. to control what they say and also what you get to say, then again, why bother? A conversation is (or should be) a collaborative production. If someone tries to force me onto a playing field where they’re making the rules and doing the reffing and also have all the experience, then that’s not a conversation, it’s a bulldozing. Best to stay away, although I often don’t manage it.)
Your friend (“friend”?) could be saying the exact thing you’re saying, but in reverse: The entire conversation becomes about all the bad things Trump is doing. What I don’t want to do is spend 15 minutes talking about things like the families being separated at the border.
The difficult challenge is to figure out how to break the mirror image pattern. Debating is not the way.
Stepping outside the frame – we can call this the McKinney Lecturing Asshole Paradox: here I am, debating with you about learning how not to let conversations turn into debates. 😉
I meant that the entire conversation becomes about all the bad things everyone but Trump did or does…What I don’t want to do is spend 15 minutes talking about things like the Cincinnati IRS office’s processing of applications for tax-exempt status.
If you don’t respond to those points, why should “the entire conversation” be about them, unless your friend refuses to let you talk at all? In which case, really, why are you bothering?
You don’t actually have to debate that stuff when it’s brought up. You can listen, and when it’s your turn to talk, you talk about what’s worrying you about what’s going on right now. Maybe just a point or two. (Side note, relevant to very recent stuff here: If someone is trying to force you to respond to their points, i.e. to control what they say and also what you get to say, then again, why bother? A conversation is (or should be) a collaborative production. If someone tries to force me onto a playing field where they’re making the rules and doing the reffing and also have all the experience, then that’s not a conversation, it’s a bulldozing. Best to stay away, although I often don’t manage it.)
Your friend (“friend”?) could be saying the exact thing you’re saying, but in reverse: The entire conversation becomes about all the bad things Trump is doing. What I don’t want to do is spend 15 minutes talking about things like the families being separated at the border.
The difficult challenge is to figure out how to break the mirror image pattern. Debating is not the way.
Stepping outside the frame – we can call this the McKinney Lecturing Asshole Paradox: here I am, debating with you about learning how not to let conversations turn into debates. 😉
The MLAP – it’s a thing!
The MLAP – it’s a thing!
You have to make it safe for the other guy to make it safe for you to tell your truth.
just wanted to comment about how many times and ways I have shared this, and tried to use it myself (with varying degrees of success). it’s become a fundamental part of my point of view and approach to people I don’t necessarily agree with, or share a view of the world with.
many thanks for sharing this, and many thanks for bringing it up again now and then as a reminder.
if that is all i get out of 15+ years of hanging out on blogs, i’m calling it a big win.
You have to make it safe for the other guy to make it safe for you to tell your truth.
just wanted to comment about how many times and ways I have shared this, and tried to use it myself (with varying degrees of success). it’s become a fundamental part of my point of view and approach to people I don’t necessarily agree with, or share a view of the world with.
many thanks for sharing this, and many thanks for bringing it up again now and then as a reminder.
if that is all i get out of 15+ years of hanging out on blogs, i’m calling it a big win.
I don’t respond to the forced donation query because it seems to be in bad faith and non serious. There are lots of pretty intuitive objections to the analogy, such that if someone really wants to talk about it, they would address them upfront. Like how when I raise Gosnell, I know it’s going to trigger an “you’re unfairly attacking all abortion doctors response” so I always pre-emptively say that I mentioning his case only to point out that more than a hundred women sought abortions for fully viable fetuses from a bit rate doctor in a single city. And I only do that when someone brings up the “late term abortions are almost always to protect the life of the mother/elective late term abortions are so rare why bother making them illegal” talking point. And even then it triggers a “you’re unfairly attacking all abortion doctors” response.
If you don’t know the numerous and obvious objections to the analogy I definitely don’t want to start that particular conversation. That’s going to be too exhausting. If you do know the objections and just slide past it, I definitely don’t want to talk about it, because it makes me feel like you’re just scoring points.
Now you don’t normally go for just scoring points, but we all have our blind spots.
I don’t respond to the forced donation query because it seems to be in bad faith and non serious. There are lots of pretty intuitive objections to the analogy, such that if someone really wants to talk about it, they would address them upfront. Like how when I raise Gosnell, I know it’s going to trigger an “you’re unfairly attacking all abortion doctors response” so I always pre-emptively say that I mentioning his case only to point out that more than a hundred women sought abortions for fully viable fetuses from a bit rate doctor in a single city. And I only do that when someone brings up the “late term abortions are almost always to protect the life of the mother/elective late term abortions are so rare why bother making them illegal” talking point. And even then it triggers a “you’re unfairly attacking all abortion doctors” response.
If you don’t know the numerous and obvious objections to the analogy I definitely don’t want to start that particular conversation. That’s going to be too exhausting. If you do know the objections and just slide past it, I definitely don’t want to talk about it, because it makes me feel like you’re just scoring points.
Now you don’t normally go for just scoring points, but we all have our blind spots.
russell, you are the only person I know who does it as a matter of daily practice (at least on this blog!). You are my role model and my reminder on a daily basis! I get the theory, but for a long time (may years pre-Trump) I have been too angry and/or too lazy to try. Well, here we go again.
russell, you are the only person I know who does it as a matter of daily practice (at least on this blog!). You are my role model and my reminder on a daily basis! I get the theory, but for a long time (may years pre-Trump) I have been too angry and/or too lazy to try. Well, here we go again.
Cab driver story. When I go to Cambridge, I usually end up taking cabs at both ends of the trip and sometimes once or twice in between. The vast majority of the drivers are immigrants, mostly not white. (Though once I had a guy from Moldova…white’s a rarity, Moldova is unique in my experience.) The most common are Haitians. I’ve learned the hard way that some people don’t like to talk about ethnicity (one of my favorite subjects, remembering my Italian grandparents and relatives), but especially with Haitians I can bring up language and usually end up with a lively conversation. They know at least English, French, and Haitian Creole, and I know only English, with a dabbling vocabulary but no fluency in other languages. I can find out whether their kids know French and Creole, and talk about how disappointed my cousins and I were that our grandfather had said of his kids: “They’re American, they can talk American.” If there hadn’t been such overwhelming pressure to assimilate, we too might have been bilingual!
Anyhow.
Last week I got a local white guy. There’s a certain Boston-area type that russell would surely recognize (he pointed out such a guy in a video of one of the protests in Boston a year or so ago). These guys never concede an inch about anything. It can be pouring outside and if you comment on it they would die sooner that sound agreeable about whether it’s raining or not.
So, I confess I tossed up the topic of the ethnicity of cab drivers, and ethnicity in general, and my immigrant grandparents, etc. For me, the usual. (I should try Uber as a topic sometime…..resting easy in the fact that I don’t use Uber and don’t intend to.) That eventually got us to where he said, “Look, I’m just curious about what people think…..” and then launched into a speech (not really a rant, he was being very careful about tone) about how we don’t take care of our veterans, we don’t take care of our homeless, it costs $2000 for a tiny apartment in Somerville now, and though a hundred years ago we needed immigrants to build the country, at this point we’re full, and we have to take care of all these other problems and we don’t have the resources to take care of immigrants too.” (Well rehearsed: you and I should take a lesson, hsh! Also, not a word about Trump.)
He obviously wasn’t *really* curious about what I thought, because he never asked a question or even gave me a chance to get a word in edgewise. Meanwhile, I was mildly ill at ease, knowing that, as hsh says, it’s time for good people not to do nothing, but also knowing that my chances of changing this cab driver’s mind about any of this stuff, even if I got a turn to talk before we got to where I was going, were nil to negative.
But he never gave me an opening, and I, not being sure how to use one if I got it, said nothing until I had paid him (including a good tip) and was getting out of the cab. Then I said, “Here’s one thing that I think is relevant to what you’re saying. In the last several decades, all the wealth in this country has gone straight to the top, and that’s a big factor in all the problems you listed.”
He said, “I agree with you about that.” I left him in the rain, or he left me in the rain, or both, and I came home to Maine.
I’d like to think I at least didn’t cement the guy further in his notions by debating them and in effect telling him he was wrong. It would be wonderful if my comment about the concentrating of wealth got him thinking in slightly new ways. But even at best that’s probably a years-long project, so as russell suggests, the main work is elsewhere. Still……..who knows.
And that brings me back to the “don’t debate” part of how to talk to people. Another Danaan quote: “That which you resist, persists” (originally Jung, I believe – except he said that what you resist…grows).
Cab driver story. When I go to Cambridge, I usually end up taking cabs at both ends of the trip and sometimes once or twice in between. The vast majority of the drivers are immigrants, mostly not white. (Though once I had a guy from Moldova…white’s a rarity, Moldova is unique in my experience.) The most common are Haitians. I’ve learned the hard way that some people don’t like to talk about ethnicity (one of my favorite subjects, remembering my Italian grandparents and relatives), but especially with Haitians I can bring up language and usually end up with a lively conversation. They know at least English, French, and Haitian Creole, and I know only English, with a dabbling vocabulary but no fluency in other languages. I can find out whether their kids know French and Creole, and talk about how disappointed my cousins and I were that our grandfather had said of his kids: “They’re American, they can talk American.” If there hadn’t been such overwhelming pressure to assimilate, we too might have been bilingual!
Anyhow.
Last week I got a local white guy. There’s a certain Boston-area type that russell would surely recognize (he pointed out such a guy in a video of one of the protests in Boston a year or so ago). These guys never concede an inch about anything. It can be pouring outside and if you comment on it they would die sooner that sound agreeable about whether it’s raining or not.
So, I confess I tossed up the topic of the ethnicity of cab drivers, and ethnicity in general, and my immigrant grandparents, etc. For me, the usual. (I should try Uber as a topic sometime…..resting easy in the fact that I don’t use Uber and don’t intend to.) That eventually got us to where he said, “Look, I’m just curious about what people think…..” and then launched into a speech (not really a rant, he was being very careful about tone) about how we don’t take care of our veterans, we don’t take care of our homeless, it costs $2000 for a tiny apartment in Somerville now, and though a hundred years ago we needed immigrants to build the country, at this point we’re full, and we have to take care of all these other problems and we don’t have the resources to take care of immigrants too.” (Well rehearsed: you and I should take a lesson, hsh! Also, not a word about Trump.)
He obviously wasn’t *really* curious about what I thought, because he never asked a question or even gave me a chance to get a word in edgewise. Meanwhile, I was mildly ill at ease, knowing that, as hsh says, it’s time for good people not to do nothing, but also knowing that my chances of changing this cab driver’s mind about any of this stuff, even if I got a turn to talk before we got to where I was going, were nil to negative.
But he never gave me an opening, and I, not being sure how to use one if I got it, said nothing until I had paid him (including a good tip) and was getting out of the cab. Then I said, “Here’s one thing that I think is relevant to what you’re saying. In the last several decades, all the wealth in this country has gone straight to the top, and that’s a big factor in all the problems you listed.”
He said, “I agree with you about that.” I left him in the rain, or he left me in the rain, or both, and I came home to Maine.
I’d like to think I at least didn’t cement the guy further in his notions by debating them and in effect telling him he was wrong. It would be wonderful if my comment about the concentrating of wealth got him thinking in slightly new ways. But even at best that’s probably a years-long project, so as russell suggests, the main work is elsewhere. Still……..who knows.
And that brings me back to the “don’t debate” part of how to talk to people. Another Danaan quote: “That which you resist, persists” (originally Jung, I believe – except he said that what you resist…grows).
Trump isn’t a Nazi, not close, but he is in most respects a fascist.
National renewal, protectionism, militarism, racism, the cult of the leader, manipulating the electoral system, corporate welfare: these are all fascist themes.
Trump isn’t a Nazi, not close, but he is in most respects a fascist.
National renewal, protectionism, militarism, racism, the cult of the leader, manipulating the electoral system, corporate welfare: these are all fascist themes.
here I am, debating with you about learning how not to let conversations turn into debates. 😉
Just to increase the irony, we’re debating even though I’m pretty sure we’re in complete agreement.
here I am, debating with you about learning how not to let conversations turn into debates. 😉
Just to increase the irony, we’re debating even though I’m pretty sure we’re in complete agreement.
I know I’ve said this before, but Danaan sounds like a particularly wise man. Everything you’ve quoted by him resonates.
Your cab driver story illustrates something I believe is always worth bearing in mind: if you respect people (in this case by deciding not to argue with him and make him feel that you see him as “wrong” or “bad”),it allows for the possibility of a constructive outcome. Which is probably just another way of saying:
You have to make it safe for the other guy to make it safe for you to tell your truth
I know I’ve said this before, but Danaan sounds like a particularly wise man. Everything you’ve quoted by him resonates.
Your cab driver story illustrates something I believe is always worth bearing in mind: if you respect people (in this case by deciding not to argue with him and make him feel that you see him as “wrong” or “bad”),it allows for the possibility of a constructive outcome. Which is probably just another way of saying:
You have to make it safe for the other guy to make it safe for you to tell your truth
hsh — yes. 🙂
hsh — yes. 🙂
And just like that, something from one of my friends:
Here I thought the IRS thing was an example of some relatively obscure thing far enough in the past that only a political crank would bring it up now. Oh, wait. I guess I was right! And the logic in the analysis of the stand-down order is … something.
And just like that, something from one of my friends:
Here I thought the IRS thing was an example of some relatively obscure thing far enough in the past that only a political crank would bring it up now. Oh, wait. I guess I was right! And the logic in the analysis of the stand-down order is … something.
It’s an open thread, so it’s “and now for something completely different” time.
“Travis Mills, a former Army staff sergeant who is one of only five living veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who have had all four limbs amputated,” started a foundation and bought an old “estate” once owned by Elizabeth Arden (of cosmetics fame) to use as a retreat for vets and their families. They’re into their second year; see the article. Mills is well-known and much celebrated around where I live. I’ve never met him, but I’ve heard him talk on the radio, and he’s funny, enthusiastic, humble, and basically amazing. He inspires me to never give up, and to stop dreaming and get to work.
It’s an open thread, so it’s “and now for something completely different” time.
“Travis Mills, a former Army staff sergeant who is one of only five living veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who have had all four limbs amputated,” started a foundation and bought an old “estate” once owned by Elizabeth Arden (of cosmetics fame) to use as a retreat for vets and their families. They’re into their second year; see the article. Mills is well-known and much celebrated around where I live. I’ve never met him, but I’ve heard him talk on the radio, and he’s funny, enthusiastic, humble, and basically amazing. He inspires me to never give up, and to stop dreaming and get to work.
This is a fascinating comparison of the US and Canada. Just a snippet (read the whole thing):
Makes a whole lot of sense. Especially when he says “Among the American right, by contrast, the conversation about taxes often seems infused with magical thinking.” And, like with all magic, there’s a lot of distraction and slight of hand.
This is a fascinating comparison of the US and Canada. Just a snippet (read the whole thing):
Makes a whole lot of sense. Especially when he says “Among the American right, by contrast, the conversation about taxes often seems infused with magical thinking.” And, like with all magic, there’s a lot of distraction and slight of hand.
He said, “I agree with you about that.”
the elevator pitch about trump supporters:
the typical trump supporter is a dentist with a boat. the marginal trump supporter is someone trying to make it on $10/hour because the job they used to have is gone.
i have found the same point of agreement that you found with the cabbie, with every marginal trump supporter i’ve ever talked to.
He said, “I agree with you about that.”
the elevator pitch about trump supporters:
the typical trump supporter is a dentist with a boat. the marginal trump supporter is someone trying to make it on $10/hour because the job they used to have is gone.
i have found the same point of agreement that you found with the cabbie, with every marginal trump supporter i’ve ever talked to.
i find lj’s list of parallels at 6:01 to be on point, but they aren’t specific to naziism. they are, more generally, characteristic of states on, for lack of a better term, the fascist spectrum. and even saying fascism is problematic – it’s another ‘boogie-man’ word. what we’re talking about is people using the institutions of government and the state to abuse other people…
Exactly – and it should be remembered that many of those parallels are also true of totalitarian communist regimes. These things ought to be of concern to both the democratic right and the left in a democracy.
i find lj’s list of parallels at 6:01 to be on point, but they aren’t specific to naziism. they are, more generally, characteristic of states on, for lack of a better term, the fascist spectrum. and even saying fascism is problematic – it’s another ‘boogie-man’ word. what we’re talking about is people using the institutions of government and the state to abuse other people…
Exactly – and it should be remembered that many of those parallels are also true of totalitarian communist regimes. These things ought to be of concern to both the democratic right and the left in a democracy.
These things ought to be of concern to both the democratic right and the left in a democracy.
These things ought to be of concern to both the democratic right and the left in a democracy.
Oops Hope this fixes the italic mistake.
Oops Hope this fixes the italic mistake.
lj: but does anyone here think calling out Sebastian on organ donation or invoking McT’s grandkids is a finely honed political argument? Sapient tries to defend the former, but I’m not convinced, and I don’t think anyone else is either.
I was heartened to see that other people took this question seriously, as I meant it. And sorry that you’re not “convinced” but perhaps you should state why.
Sebastian: I don’t respond to the forced donation query because it seems to be in bad faith and non serious.
I find it quite disrespectful to decline to consider this, especially when Sebastian repeatedly calls out pregnant women to put fetal welfare over their own.
I would invite both of you to reconsider, or state your reasons for believing that only pregnant women, and no one else, should be forced to favor other [potential] lives over their own.
On the other hand, Sebastian is well-known for thread jacking to promote his anti-abortion views, so others here should feel free to disregard this issue entirely.
lj: but does anyone here think calling out Sebastian on organ donation or invoking McT’s grandkids is a finely honed political argument? Sapient tries to defend the former, but I’m not convinced, and I don’t think anyone else is either.
I was heartened to see that other people took this question seriously, as I meant it. And sorry that you’re not “convinced” but perhaps you should state why.
Sebastian: I don’t respond to the forced donation query because it seems to be in bad faith and non serious.
I find it quite disrespectful to decline to consider this, especially when Sebastian repeatedly calls out pregnant women to put fetal welfare over their own.
I would invite both of you to reconsider, or state your reasons for believing that only pregnant women, and no one else, should be forced to favor other [potential] lives over their own.
On the other hand, Sebastian is well-known for thread jacking to promote his anti-abortion views, so others here should feel free to disregard this issue entirely.
This is totalitarianism:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/born-in-the-gulag-why-a-north-korean-boy-sent-his-own-mother-to-her-death/255110/
This is totalitarianism:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/born-in-the-gulag-why-a-north-korean-boy-sent-his-own-mother-to-her-death/255110/
Thanks (?), Nigel. That’s a horrifying story. But totalitarianism doesn’t have to be that gruesome to be real.
On a different note, regarding North Korea, the fact that Kim Jong Un has benefited so significantly from Trump’s presidency, and reading what life there is like, is very [disturbing] . . . no real words to describe the distress.
Thanks (?), Nigel. That’s a horrifying story. But totalitarianism doesn’t have to be that gruesome to be real.
On a different note, regarding North Korea, the fact that Kim Jong Un has benefited so significantly from Trump’s presidency, and reading what life there is like, is very [disturbing] . . . no real words to describe the distress.
Hi all,
The World Cup will kill me. I thought we were going to have an all European final, but then England got in (just joking!)
Anyway, thanks to everyone for cooling things down a bit. I agree with the point that the list is not unique to Nazism, the point that I take from Richard Rubenstein is that Nazism is the culmination of _Western_ civilization. In our last round about Communism, I pointed out that both Russia and China went from feudal nations into the 20th century. On the other hand, as Rubenstein points out, Germany was at the apex of Western society. Music, art, literature, science, take away German contributions and the list would be considerably thinned. Yet in a place that was the ideal in so many ways for Western society, we have this boogie-man concept. So I think, when the conversation wanders in that direction, it is useful to point out. Like now, when the government is seeking bureaucratic means to take away citizenship as well as all of the procedural apparatus that has enforced what is apparently the whim of Trump to separate children from their parents at the border. I suppose, at it’s heart, it’s different because they just wanted to create a policy that would drastically drop the number of illegal immigrants, thus allowing then to show their toughness, and the way was to find an approach that could be justified legally (as opposed to say setting a shoot on sight policy or mining the Texas-Mexico border) but the resort to using the bureaucracy in this way seems to be a lot different than totalitarian regimes. The reason that they are characteristic of states is because states is a Western concept. I’m not proposing that it’s better or even possible to recreate the world political system, but not attending to the parallels means that the current situation is treated as something unique rather than a possibility within the system that should have been guarded against. Discussion like this isn’t going to change the cab driver’s mind, however I think it is an important perspective for people who have wider horizons and are willing to think about how history plays out.
Which leads to my last observation, which is if you are really really offended by something I wrote, then I’m probably not writing it for you. I’d like to say 99 times out of 100, but there is no bright line dividing a tweak and an offense, but if my discussions about parallels between the current situation and pre-war Germany offend you to the core, then you are not the person who I’m speaking to.
Hi all,
The World Cup will kill me. I thought we were going to have an all European final, but then England got in (just joking!)
Anyway, thanks to everyone for cooling things down a bit. I agree with the point that the list is not unique to Nazism, the point that I take from Richard Rubenstein is that Nazism is the culmination of _Western_ civilization. In our last round about Communism, I pointed out that both Russia and China went from feudal nations into the 20th century. On the other hand, as Rubenstein points out, Germany was at the apex of Western society. Music, art, literature, science, take away German contributions and the list would be considerably thinned. Yet in a place that was the ideal in so many ways for Western society, we have this boogie-man concept. So I think, when the conversation wanders in that direction, it is useful to point out. Like now, when the government is seeking bureaucratic means to take away citizenship as well as all of the procedural apparatus that has enforced what is apparently the whim of Trump to separate children from their parents at the border. I suppose, at it’s heart, it’s different because they just wanted to create a policy that would drastically drop the number of illegal immigrants, thus allowing then to show their toughness, and the way was to find an approach that could be justified legally (as opposed to say setting a shoot on sight policy or mining the Texas-Mexico border) but the resort to using the bureaucracy in this way seems to be a lot different than totalitarian regimes. The reason that they are characteristic of states is because states is a Western concept. I’m not proposing that it’s better or even possible to recreate the world political system, but not attending to the parallels means that the current situation is treated as something unique rather than a possibility within the system that should have been guarded against. Discussion like this isn’t going to change the cab driver’s mind, however I think it is an important perspective for people who have wider horizons and are willing to think about how history plays out.
Which leads to my last observation, which is if you are really really offended by something I wrote, then I’m probably not writing it for you. I’d like to say 99 times out of 100, but there is no bright line dividing a tweak and an offense, but if my discussions about parallels between the current situation and pre-war Germany offend you to the core, then you are not the person who I’m speaking to.
I’m not proposing that it’s better or even possible to recreate the world political system
Just putting it out there, and possibly some actual credentialed people have come up with this too, but I predict that the nation state will fall in favor of corporations. To whom will you pledge allegiance? I was thinking maybe Google.
I’m not proposing that it’s better or even possible to recreate the world political system
Just putting it out there, and possibly some actual credentialed people have come up with this too, but I predict that the nation state will fall in favor of corporations. To whom will you pledge allegiance? I was thinking maybe Google.
If that is (or becomes, to hedge) the case, it’s still a Western system. It’s turtles all the way down.
I mentioned the zeitgeist of movies where some ordinary person has something happen and then trains themselves to be the instrument of revenge, but the other genre that probably bears noting here is the end of the world/zombie apocalypse genre, which makes me think that people really like these because they long for society crumbling around them and they are then empowered to take action. And of course, in that scenario, they are going to be the ones on top because it is only the web of interlocking commitments and rules that keeps them down now.
It’s a lot like all the gun violence in movies, bullets never travel errantly, they always hit their target, and innocent bystanders never get hit. Just like real life, eh?….
If that is (or becomes, to hedge) the case, it’s still a Western system. It’s turtles all the way down.
I mentioned the zeitgeist of movies where some ordinary person has something happen and then trains themselves to be the instrument of revenge, but the other genre that probably bears noting here is the end of the world/zombie apocalypse genre, which makes me think that people really like these because they long for society crumbling around them and they are then empowered to take action. And of course, in that scenario, they are going to be the ones on top because it is only the web of interlocking commitments and rules that keeps them down now.
It’s a lot like all the gun violence in movies, bullets never travel errantly, they always hit their target, and innocent bystanders never get hit. Just like real life, eh?….
If it’s really an open thread…
Binge-read the new Honor Harrington book this week (for those who don’t know, space opera military porn, porn in the million-missile broadside sense rather than sex). I’m thinking David Weber, the author, has some sort of non-publicized health issue. Last year he published a book in his Safehold series that abruptly upped the pace and wound up all the loose ends — in effect, ended the series. In this 14th Harrington book, he… abruptly upped the pace, wound up the Harrington loose ends, and tossed the rest into a sub-series that Eric Flint writes.
If it’s really an open thread…
Binge-read the new Honor Harrington book this week (for those who don’t know, space opera military porn, porn in the million-missile broadside sense rather than sex). I’m thinking David Weber, the author, has some sort of non-publicized health issue. Last year he published a book in his Safehold series that abruptly upped the pace and wound up all the loose ends — in effect, ended the series. In this 14th Harrington book, he… abruptly upped the pace, wound up the Harrington loose ends, and tossed the rest into a sub-series that Eric Flint writes.
Weber has said that the masses, accelerations, velocities, trajectories, time elapses in his books are mathematically correct.
Weber has said that the masses, accelerations, velocities, trajectories, time elapses in his books are mathematically correct.
I predict that the nation state will fall in favor of corporations. To whom will you pledge allegiance? I was thinking maybe Google.
Might want to reconsider that. Currently Google (their famous “Do no evil” motto notwithstanding) is working hard to tweek the technical specs for the Internet to give themselves maximum access to your personal information — the better to sell it to all comers.
Not alone, of course. Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon — pretty much everybody selling targetted advertising is helping. It looks a lot like the late 1800s and the various trusts that motivated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
I predict that the nation state will fall in favor of corporations. To whom will you pledge allegiance? I was thinking maybe Google.
Might want to reconsider that. Currently Google (their famous “Do no evil” motto notwithstanding) is working hard to tweek the technical specs for the Internet to give themselves maximum access to your personal information — the better to sell it to all comers.
Not alone, of course. Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon — pretty much everybody selling targetted advertising is helping. It looks a lot like the late 1800s and the various trusts that motivated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Ha ha ha, wj.
Probably better than the Handmaid’s Tale, which I feel is coming, thanks to people like ….
I almost forgot. Not supposed to be personal.
Ha ha ha, wj.
Probably better than the Handmaid’s Tale, which I feel is coming, thanks to people like ….
I almost forgot. Not supposed to be personal.
While people here are talking about how to connect to Trump supporters in a compassionate and open minded way, parents on the border (or who have been incarcerated and sent elsewhere) are trying to figure out how to connect to their lost children.
I couldn’t care less about McKinney and his hurt feelings, or any other Nazi enabler, or totalitarian supporter, or whatever long form name you want to call them. Maybe we should just call them assholes.
While people here are talking about how to connect to Trump supporters in a compassionate and open minded way, parents on the border (or who have been incarcerated and sent elsewhere) are trying to figure out how to connect to their lost children.
I couldn’t care less about McKinney and his hurt feelings, or any other Nazi enabler, or totalitarian supporter, or whatever long form name you want to call them. Maybe we should just call them assholes.
re to whom do you pledge allegiance:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/07/07/interesting-read-tim-berners-lee-the-man-who-created-the-world-wide-web-has-some-regrets/
I’ve deleted six rants before posting here in the past few days.
Going to try and clean the spittle flecks off, sweep for IEDs, and suture the bullet holes in them and make them presentable.
Say thank you.
re to whom do you pledge allegiance:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/07/07/interesting-read-tim-berners-lee-the-man-who-created-the-world-wide-web-has-some-regrets/
I’ve deleted six rants before posting here in the past few days.
Going to try and clean the spittle flecks off, sweep for IEDs, and suture the bullet holes in them and make them presentable.
Say thank you.
The only one which seems to take data privacy remotely seriously is Apple… which of course have its own set of issues.
The only one which seems to take data privacy remotely seriously is Apple… which of course have its own set of issues.
liberal japonicus,
the use of bureaucracy to fulfil political objectives is not a particularly Western or non-totalitarian trait. It is common to all industrial countries. Using an inhuman, but administratively “justifiable” means is no different from Nazi anti-Jewish legalism or of Soviet practice of classifying dissidents as mental health patients. I would even go so far as to venture that creating clever catch-22s is part and parcel of any repressive system.
liberal japonicus,
the use of bureaucracy to fulfil political objectives is not a particularly Western or non-totalitarian trait. It is common to all industrial countries. Using an inhuman, but administratively “justifiable” means is no different from Nazi anti-Jewish legalism or of Soviet practice of classifying dissidents as mental health patients. I would even go so far as to venture that creating clever catch-22s is part and parcel of any repressive system.
The US torture program used translated Red Chinese manuals for the practical parts but the legalese used for justification and regulation was of German origin. There have even been claims that the euphemism ‘enhanced interrogation’ was taken directly from an SS directive.
Imo pure evil pragmatism. The Nazis had simply the greatest talent to cloak their atrocities in aseptic wording*. Eastern bloc bureaucracies (including the GDR) on the other hand developed an openly ideologically charged legalese far less suited to US purposes. Unfortunately, I have no idea what style e.g. fascist Italy or Spain used in their legal documents.
Also, I think it is ‘natural’ that US RW extremists tend more towards ‘aryan’ Nazi Germany than to Spain (they speak Spanish!) or Italy (image spoiled by too many war movies). Austrofascism did not last long enough and lost to the Nazis.
Only Trump seems to prefer the Mussolini style (and I think that is a case not of deliberate imitation but convergent evolution: bufo rectalis Americanus vs. buffo ducensis Italicus**).
*not in public speeches, I am talking about legal documents
**no typos, spelling deliberate in both cases
The US torture program used translated Red Chinese manuals for the practical parts but the legalese used for justification and regulation was of German origin. There have even been claims that the euphemism ‘enhanced interrogation’ was taken directly from an SS directive.
Imo pure evil pragmatism. The Nazis had simply the greatest talent to cloak their atrocities in aseptic wording*. Eastern bloc bureaucracies (including the GDR) on the other hand developed an openly ideologically charged legalese far less suited to US purposes. Unfortunately, I have no idea what style e.g. fascist Italy or Spain used in their legal documents.
Also, I think it is ‘natural’ that US RW extremists tend more towards ‘aryan’ Nazi Germany than to Spain (they speak Spanish!) or Italy (image spoiled by too many war movies). Austrofascism did not last long enough and lost to the Nazis.
Only Trump seems to prefer the Mussolini style (and I think that is a case not of deliberate imitation but convergent evolution: bufo rectalis Americanus vs. buffo ducensis Italicus**).
*not in public speeches, I am talking about legal documents
**no typos, spelling deliberate in both cases
Sapient, enjoy your all expenses paid vacation from the blog! We will see you after the World Cup final!
The reason, posting rules have these two gems
Don’t disrupt or destroy meaningful conversation for its own sake.
Do not consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake.
I was going to ignore smarmy 6:58 post (to paraphrase Janie, when Sebastian and I are in agreement on something, you may want to take notice), but 10:54 just blows past the lines.
A final thought, given the number of times you have contacted the kitty and others offlist to express your concern about the ability to comment to this list, it sure looks like you need this list a lot more than it needs you. So it stands to reason that you should be the one making sure you color inside the lines. Regardless how little you care for the feelings of others.
Sapient, enjoy your all expenses paid vacation from the blog! We will see you after the World Cup final!
The reason, posting rules have these two gems
Don’t disrupt or destroy meaningful conversation for its own sake.
Do not consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake.
I was going to ignore smarmy 6:58 post (to paraphrase Janie, when Sebastian and I are in agreement on something, you may want to take notice), but 10:54 just blows past the lines.
A final thought, given the number of times you have contacted the kitty and others offlist to express your concern about the ability to comment to this list, it sure looks like you need this list a lot more than it needs you. So it stands to reason that you should be the one making sure you color inside the lines. Regardless how little you care for the feelings of others.
On to more interesting stuff, namely Lurker’s observation. I feel like the whole notion of bureacracy is Western, and the fact that the Soviet Union adopted it doesn’t make it non Western. Sure, the Chinese, probably the Aztecs and the Incas had something that was functionally equivalent to bureaucracy, but the idea of Western bureaucracy is reducing individuals to ciphers so they are easier to manage. Obviously bureaucracy is from French, and it should be no surprise that the French pioneered extermination (cf the Noyades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drownings_at_Nantes
About Hartmut’s comment, I’d note that Hilberg’s thesis is that Jews had historically always accepted whatever pogram or attack with the knowledge that it would pass and the ill will would be spent. This passivity then interacted with the German attention to detail that Harmut talks about leading to the Holocaust.
Another point is that when writing their eugenic laws, the Germans based them on American laws
https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-US-Law-Inspired-the/239494
as well as getting practical help from Americans who were eugenic researchers or supported eugenics
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/06/race.usa
I agree with Russell that talk about Nazis can distract, but I disagree that somehow we have these American antecedents that we can talk about that will tell us the story. All these things are connected and if we fail to observe this, we are missing a big part of the story.
On to more interesting stuff, namely Lurker’s observation. I feel like the whole notion of bureacracy is Western, and the fact that the Soviet Union adopted it doesn’t make it non Western. Sure, the Chinese, probably the Aztecs and the Incas had something that was functionally equivalent to bureaucracy, but the idea of Western bureaucracy is reducing individuals to ciphers so they are easier to manage. Obviously bureaucracy is from French, and it should be no surprise that the French pioneered extermination (cf the Noyades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drownings_at_Nantes
About Hartmut’s comment, I’d note that Hilberg’s thesis is that Jews had historically always accepted whatever pogram or attack with the knowledge that it would pass and the ill will would be spent. This passivity then interacted with the German attention to detail that Harmut talks about leading to the Holocaust.
Another point is that when writing their eugenic laws, the Germans based them on American laws
https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-US-Law-Inspired-the/239494
as well as getting practical help from Americans who were eugenic researchers or supported eugenics
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/06/race.usa
I agree with Russell that talk about Nazis can distract, but I disagree that somehow we have these American antecedents that we can talk about that will tell us the story. All these things are connected and if we fail to observe this, we are missing a big part of the story.
I was thinking maybe Google.
I went and looked at some of the companies that I would be willing to which i would be willing to ‘pledge me allegiance’. They were all closely held, mostly family owned and operated.
I feel like the whole notion of bureacracy is Western
This doesn’t sound quite right to me.
What we know about, frex, Sumer, comes from bureaucratic record keeping.
How does any organization manage more than, say, 1000 people, without ‘reducing them to ciphers’? i.e., treat them not as distinct individuals, but as fungible units for some purpose?
I was thinking maybe Google.
I went and looked at some of the companies that I would be willing to which i would be willing to ‘pledge me allegiance’. They were all closely held, mostly family owned and operated.
I feel like the whole notion of bureacracy is Western
This doesn’t sound quite right to me.
What we know about, frex, Sumer, comes from bureaucratic record keeping.
How does any organization manage more than, say, 1000 people, without ‘reducing them to ciphers’? i.e., treat them not as distinct individuals, but as fungible units for some purpose?
A useful data point when discussing the Republican Party.
A useful data point when discussing the Republican Party.
The confrontation was the latest example of the Trump administration siding with corporate interests on numerous public health and environmental issues.
In one way, nothing new here. Interesting that the Russians stepped in though, and curiously enough were not blackmailed as the other countries were.
The confrontation was the latest example of the Trump administration siding with corporate interests on numerous public health and environmental issues.
In one way, nothing new here. Interesting that the Russians stepped in though, and curiously enough were not blackmailed as the other countries were.
In the past, the federal government has strongarmed other countries when they sought to discourage and restrict tobacco smoking.
In the past, the federal government has strongarmed other countries when they sought to discourage and restrict tobacco smoking.
While people here are talking about how to connect to Trump supporters in a compassionate and open minded way, parents on the border (or who have been incarcerated and sent elsewhere) are trying to figure out how to connect to their lost children.
I couldn’t care less about McKinney and his hurt feelings, or any other Nazi enabler, or totalitarian supporter, or whatever long form name you want to call them.
I want to clarify a couple of things, and try to separate substance from straw.
Nothing I wrote yesterday about connecting with people was about McKinney. I never said a word about McKinney’s feelings, and I don’t particularly care about them, since he seems to come here specifically to stir up sh!t and put people in the wrong in lawyerly games of gotcha. I can’t imagine he ever goes away feeling anything but the way he felt when he arrived, which always looks to me like “smug.” Maybe I’m doing him an injustice, but it would take some convincing to get me to believe that.
But nor do I particularly care about the cab driver’s feelings; that was not the point of the story. The point was practical: If you’re nasty to people, they won’t listen to you. So, if you care about your message, don’t be nasty. Plus, you might have to listen before you speak.
Of course, if your only message is that everyone but you is doing it wrong, they’re not going to listen to you anyhow.
More MLAP, perhaps, it seems to go with the territory.
While people here are talking about how to connect to Trump supporters in a compassionate and open minded way, parents on the border (or who have been incarcerated and sent elsewhere) are trying to figure out how to connect to their lost children.
I couldn’t care less about McKinney and his hurt feelings, or any other Nazi enabler, or totalitarian supporter, or whatever long form name you want to call them.
I want to clarify a couple of things, and try to separate substance from straw.
Nothing I wrote yesterday about connecting with people was about McKinney. I never said a word about McKinney’s feelings, and I don’t particularly care about them, since he seems to come here specifically to stir up sh!t and put people in the wrong in lawyerly games of gotcha. I can’t imagine he ever goes away feeling anything but the way he felt when he arrived, which always looks to me like “smug.” Maybe I’m doing him an injustice, but it would take some convincing to get me to believe that.
But nor do I particularly care about the cab driver’s feelings; that was not the point of the story. The point was practical: If you’re nasty to people, they won’t listen to you. So, if you care about your message, don’t be nasty. Plus, you might have to listen before you speak.
Of course, if your only message is that everyone but you is doing it wrong, they’re not going to listen to you anyhow.
More MLAP, perhaps, it seems to go with the territory.
All these things are connected and if we fail to observe this, we are missing a big part of the story…
And of course the idea of lebensraum was said to be inspired by the conquest of the American west (and a German writer of westerns). But things being connected does not make them the same thing.
All these things are connected and if we fail to observe this, we are missing a big part of the story…
And of course the idea of lebensraum was said to be inspired by the conquest of the American west (and a German writer of westerns). But things being connected does not make them the same thing.
Another small, but telling example of the excruciating narcissism of Trump:
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1015947163292008451
Another small, but telling example of the excruciating narcissism of Trump:
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1015947163292008451
I think we can all be sure that if Trump had happened to be there, he would have rushed into the cave even without breathing equipment….
I think we can all be sure that if Trump had happened to be there, he would have rushed into the cave even without breathing equipment….
One thing I didn’t really understand until Trump is how very differently political junkies (which would be most of us) process scandals from non political junkies (which would be most people).
For political junkies, if we hear about a scandal, we relate it to other possible scandals so that it builds on itself unless one of the pieces is refuted somewhere.
For non political junkies the heuristic is something like this: politicians say mean things to each other all the time, so I’m not going to worry about a scandal or anything terrible until I’ve heard about it 3 or 4 times.
Trump floods the channels with scandals so for someone who pays attention to politics maybe once every three or four weeks, they never hear the same scandal, so they figure most of it can’t be really that important.
Whoever is the next big Democratic leader really needs to appreciate the value of sticking to a good message and hammering it home well past the time political junkies are sick of it.
One thing I didn’t really understand until Trump is how very differently political junkies (which would be most of us) process scandals from non political junkies (which would be most people).
For political junkies, if we hear about a scandal, we relate it to other possible scandals so that it builds on itself unless one of the pieces is refuted somewhere.
For non political junkies the heuristic is something like this: politicians say mean things to each other all the time, so I’m not going to worry about a scandal or anything terrible until I’ve heard about it 3 or 4 times.
Trump floods the channels with scandals so for someone who pays attention to politics maybe once every three or four weeks, they never hear the same scandal, so they figure most of it can’t be really that important.
Whoever is the next big Democratic leader really needs to appreciate the value of sticking to a good message and hammering it home well past the time political junkies are sick of it.
GftNC: Interesting that the Russians stepped in though, and curiously enough were not blackmailed as the other countries were.
At this point, not even a little surprising. The Russians, after all, are our special friends during this administration.
Why would they miss the diplomatic coup opportunity we were handing them on a silver platter? The only real surprise to me is that the Chinese didn’t get there first.
Besides, bullies focus on the weak. Which is why we would pick on Ecuador, etc. to show how strong and important we are.
GftNC: Interesting that the Russians stepped in though, and curiously enough were not blackmailed as the other countries were.
At this point, not even a little surprising. The Russians, after all, are our special friends during this administration.
Why would they miss the diplomatic coup opportunity we were handing them on a silver platter? The only real surprise to me is that the Chinese didn’t get there first.
Besides, bullies focus on the weak. Which is why we would pick on Ecuador, etc. to show how strong and important we are.
It was kind of a (not very good) joke, wj, at least at the “curiously enough” bit. I’m also kind of assuming the Russians don’t have any huge multi-nationals making formula, so it’s a win-win for them.
It was kind of a (not very good) joke, wj, at least at the “curiously enough” bit. I’m also kind of assuming the Russians don’t have any huge multi-nationals making formula, so it’s a win-win for them.
Whoever is the next big Democratic leader really needs to appreciate the value of sticking to a good message and hammering it home well past the time political junkies are sick of it.
yes.
most folks have neither the time nor the interest to get down in the weeds. the successful (D) messages of the last 40 tears have been:
1. it’s the economy, stupid
2. hope and change
simple, short, easy to see the upside.
repeat until it sinks in. then, repeat some more. then, repeat some more, in case you missed anyone in the back row.
slogan-wise, I like “make America great for everyone”. on a blue hat. made in the United states.
make America great for everyone. say it loud.
and…..
Say thank you
thank you, much appreciated.
Whoever is the next big Democratic leader really needs to appreciate the value of sticking to a good message and hammering it home well past the time political junkies are sick of it.
yes.
most folks have neither the time nor the interest to get down in the weeds. the successful (D) messages of the last 40 tears have been:
1. it’s the economy, stupid
2. hope and change
simple, short, easy to see the upside.
repeat until it sinks in. then, repeat some more. then, repeat some more, in case you missed anyone in the back row.
slogan-wise, I like “make America great for everyone”. on a blue hat. made in the United states.
make America great for everyone. say it loud.
and…..
Say thank you
thank you, much appreciated.
GftNC, I did catch the joke. Really! 😉
But the opportunity to snark further proved irresistible.
GftNC, I did catch the joke. Really! 😉
But the opportunity to snark further proved irresistible.
Russell, I suppose there is a brand-related argument for “hope and change.” But to me it feels . . . recycled. Perhaps something like
2. We can do this!
Not that I expect the Democratic nominee to come looking for my input, of course.
Russell, I suppose there is a brand-related argument for “hope and change.” But to me it feels . . . recycled. Perhaps something like
2. We can do this!
Not that I expect the Democratic nominee to come looking for my input, of course.
Sorry wj. After my Trump cave joke, I’m hardly in a position to complain about snark!
Sorry wj. After my Trump cave joke, I’m hardly in a position to complain about snark!
Hey, these days we all need to get our amusements anywhere we can.
Hey, these days we all need to get our amusements anywhere we can.
Politics as entertainment. Perhaps that’s why so many people are determined to root for their team even though some of the players are despicable people.
Politics as entertainment. Perhaps that’s why so many people are determined to root for their team even though some of the players are despicable people.
Make America Decent Again.
–TP
Make America Decent Again.
–TP
TP: no way. Even if it’s an echo designed to upend the original, echoing him and the vileness his followers have signed up for is still a compliment, however backhanded. Blech.
TP: no way. Even if it’s an echo designed to upend the original, echoing him and the vileness his followers have signed up for is still a compliment, however backhanded. Blech.
echoing him
or, taking back what he defiled
echoing him
or, taking back what he defiled
I shouldn’t have been so snarky.
And — I’m all in favor of taking back what he defiled. But for crying out loud, surely “we” can think up a message of our own that doesn’t consist of making a small tweak to that awful, lying slogan of his.
I said something like this in response to you (russell) the other day. I think “we” (for the record, I think “we” should always put the word “we” in quotes 🙂 should have some message beyond just “we are not Trump.”
I shouldn’t have been so snarky.
And — I’m all in favor of taking back what he defiled. But for crying out loud, surely “we” can think up a message of our own that doesn’t consist of making a small tweak to that awful, lying slogan of his.
I said something like this in response to you (russell) the other day. I think “we” (for the record, I think “we” should always put the word “we” in quotes 🙂 should have some message beyond just “we are not Trump.”
Nigel: “But things being connected does not make them the same thing.”
On the other hand, if they aren’t ducks, what’s all the quacking about?
I agree that nazi is a poor choice of words, despite my unimaginative and increasing use of it, with Godwin’s permission. I think the word Comanche is better suited for these killers. Derived from the Ute language, meaning “enemy, stranger”, but I rather prefer the secondary meaning as applied to the so-called conservative movement: “anyone who wants to fight me all the time”.
Much more on this later. Lucky, you guys.
I want to destroy the republican party physically. The Texas Rangers figured that out about the Comanche and became nazis to carry out a final solution to the Comanche problem.
Having observed the “evolution” of the “republican party” over the past 50 years, I view what is required much the same as the idiots who continue to venture into Jurassic Park view velociraptors. Oh, now they wear bullet-proof vests and operate via algorithms to eat us. Why didn’t we nuke them long ago while they were mere reptiles?
“I think we can all be sure that if Trump had happened to be there,”
Once Musk inserts his inflated tube through the cave passageway, mp plans to feed the several thousand brown children he kidnapped from their parents and has lost track of (I’m quite sure several, at least, have been sexually molested by republican ICE c*nts, and others murdered in cold blood and the remains will never be located) into the cave just in time for the next monsoon rain.
He’ll tweet that the kids are now in a safe place.
The bureaucratic aspect to this immigration debacle is interesting. More on this later as I believe the mp phenomenon, as with the nationalist uprisings in so many countries now around the world, many in seeming concert, is a radically altered phenomenon with qualities of course derived from earlier similar epochs, that make it and their bureaucracies more savagely dangerous.
These are bureaucracies that aren’t keeping track, purposefully. The Nazi and Soviet bureaucracies kept relatively immaculate and detailed records of their victims.
What mp means by draining the swamp is we aren’t writing down the names of those we are fucking. Witness Pruitt’s corrupt machinations at EPA.
Make ME President. On my first day, I will order Pruitt arrested and executed. And since EPA is now a ruined agency, like the State Department and others, I’ll order it shuttered and defunded.
The funds instead will be diverted into outfitting militias who will show up at polluters’ homes and offices and execute them in their fucking bathrobes.
The hell with bureaucracy.
As to Ecuador and breastfeeding, (there’s only one titty mp wants sucked and that is his; all others are only fit as anchors for decorative tassels) I have recommendations for what they should do to American corporate conservatives if the latter dare step off a plane at the Quito airport.
It’s much the same recommendation I have for North Carolinians about what to do about Art Pope, and the other 100 to 200 monied fascists who have infested each state in the Union and armed Americans, while curtailing their voting franchise and their protections, and now weaponizing the First Amendment, as Justice Kagan so artfully put it recently, on behalf of corporate vermin, (vermin who need vermin are the kuckiest vermin in the world), and now want to fuck all of us with both the First and Second Amendments.
Ask yourself this: “How is it that the NRA wants to put military weaponry in the hands of all Americans, ostensibly, to protect them against government and brown people, but it can powwow with authoritarian autocrats, Soviets by any other name, at the highest reaches of the Kremlin to open chapters in that police state.
WHO, precisely, is being protected?”
Are they going to start a sister organization with the mission of placing Novichok and Polonium-10 and pointy umbrellas in the hands of Russian dissidents? Ya think, assholes?
The NRA is going to be butchered.
The problem is now that we live under an authoritarian security state that exists only to protect the republican fraction of the top one percent.
Funny how cuck fucks who hate government have now wrapped themselves in its judicial and legislative finery for their own protection, bullet-proofing it against the ballots and bullets they deserve.
It will be their death shroud.
Nigel: “But things being connected does not make them the same thing.”
On the other hand, if they aren’t ducks, what’s all the quacking about?
I agree that nazi is a poor choice of words, despite my unimaginative and increasing use of it, with Godwin’s permission. I think the word Comanche is better suited for these killers. Derived from the Ute language, meaning “enemy, stranger”, but I rather prefer the secondary meaning as applied to the so-called conservative movement: “anyone who wants to fight me all the time”.
Much more on this later. Lucky, you guys.
I want to destroy the republican party physically. The Texas Rangers figured that out about the Comanche and became nazis to carry out a final solution to the Comanche problem.
Having observed the “evolution” of the “republican party” over the past 50 years, I view what is required much the same as the idiots who continue to venture into Jurassic Park view velociraptors. Oh, now they wear bullet-proof vests and operate via algorithms to eat us. Why didn’t we nuke them long ago while they were mere reptiles?
“I think we can all be sure that if Trump had happened to be there,”
Once Musk inserts his inflated tube through the cave passageway, mp plans to feed the several thousand brown children he kidnapped from their parents and has lost track of (I’m quite sure several, at least, have been sexually molested by republican ICE c*nts, and others murdered in cold blood and the remains will never be located) into the cave just in time for the next monsoon rain.
He’ll tweet that the kids are now in a safe place.
The bureaucratic aspect to this immigration debacle is interesting. More on this later as I believe the mp phenomenon, as with the nationalist uprisings in so many countries now around the world, many in seeming concert, is a radically altered phenomenon with qualities of course derived from earlier similar epochs, that make it and their bureaucracies more savagely dangerous.
These are bureaucracies that aren’t keeping track, purposefully. The Nazi and Soviet bureaucracies kept relatively immaculate and detailed records of their victims.
What mp means by draining the swamp is we aren’t writing down the names of those we are fucking. Witness Pruitt’s corrupt machinations at EPA.
Make ME President. On my first day, I will order Pruitt arrested and executed. And since EPA is now a ruined agency, like the State Department and others, I’ll order it shuttered and defunded.
The funds instead will be diverted into outfitting militias who will show up at polluters’ homes and offices and execute them in their fucking bathrobes.
The hell with bureaucracy.
As to Ecuador and breastfeeding, (there’s only one titty mp wants sucked and that is his; all others are only fit as anchors for decorative tassels) I have recommendations for what they should do to American corporate conservatives if the latter dare step off a plane at the Quito airport.
It’s much the same recommendation I have for North Carolinians about what to do about Art Pope, and the other 100 to 200 monied fascists who have infested each state in the Union and armed Americans, while curtailing their voting franchise and their protections, and now weaponizing the First Amendment, as Justice Kagan so artfully put it recently, on behalf of corporate vermin, (vermin who need vermin are the kuckiest vermin in the world), and now want to fuck all of us with both the First and Second Amendments.
Ask yourself this: “How is it that the NRA wants to put military weaponry in the hands of all Americans, ostensibly, to protect them against government and brown people, but it can powwow with authoritarian autocrats, Soviets by any other name, at the highest reaches of the Kremlin to open chapters in that police state.
WHO, precisely, is being protected?”
Are they going to start a sister organization with the mission of placing Novichok and Polonium-10 and pointy umbrellas in the hands of Russian dissidents? Ya think, assholes?
The NRA is going to be butchered.
The problem is now that we live under an authoritarian security state that exists only to protect the republican fraction of the top one percent.
Funny how cuck fucks who hate government have now wrapped themselves in its judicial and legislative finery for their own protection, bullet-proofing it against the ballots and bullets they deserve.
It will be their death shroud.
Perhaps something like 2. We can do this!
yes we can!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%AD_se_puede
Perhaps something like 2. We can do this!
yes we can!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%AD_se_puede
I shouldn’t have been so snarky.
Well, what fun would that be? 🙂
Snark on, no worries from this quarter.
I shouldn’t have been so snarky.
Well, what fun would that be? 🙂
Snark on, no worries from this quarter.
cleek,
Busted!
Comes of living in California, I suppose. Even though my Spanish is pretty minimal (for a native Californian), some stuff sticks.
Sí, se puede!
cleek,
Busted!
Comes of living in California, I suppose. Even though my Spanish is pretty minimal (for a native Californian), some stuff sticks.
Sí, se puede!
Russel wrote
What we know about, frex, Sumer, comes from bureaucratic record keeping.
How does any organization manage more than, say, 1000 people, without ‘reducing them to ciphers’? i.e., treat them not as distinct individuals, but as fungible units for some purpose?
I tried to suggest that when I noted that the Chinese and others must have had something like bureaucracies. And I can’t imagine an alternative _if you want to organize larger groups of people_ But to assume that any civilization would have the same trajectory as the West seems off. And I’m western, so it’s very difficult to place myself in a position to imagine the alternative.
There’s a lot more, about pre-literate societies and memory, writing and all that, I think they are connected. But as Nigel pointed out, saying things are connected doesn’t make them the same thing and I agree with that. But if they are connected you shouldn’t be surprised that the same ingredients end up giving you the same taste…
Russel wrote
What we know about, frex, Sumer, comes from bureaucratic record keeping.
How does any organization manage more than, say, 1000 people, without ‘reducing them to ciphers’? i.e., treat them not as distinct individuals, but as fungible units for some purpose?
I tried to suggest that when I noted that the Chinese and others must have had something like bureaucracies. And I can’t imagine an alternative _if you want to organize larger groups of people_ But to assume that any civilization would have the same trajectory as the West seems off. And I’m western, so it’s very difficult to place myself in a position to imagine the alternative.
There’s a lot more, about pre-literate societies and memory, writing and all that, I think they are connected. But as Nigel pointed out, saying things are connected doesn’t make them the same thing and I agree with that. But if they are connected you shouldn’t be surprised that the same ingredients end up giving you the same taste…
Urk! sorry about misspelling your name russell…
Urk! sorry about misspelling your name russell…
Maybe I’m mixed up, but I thought the general consensus was that China was so successful because of its bureaucracy. It allowed rule from afar and long term continuity.
Maybe I’m mixed up, but I thought the general consensus was that China was so successful because of its bureaucracy. It allowed rule from afar and long term continuity.
Well, I guess that depends on what we define as the general consensus. Do most people consider China ‘a success’? Or do we reduce this to people with a knowledge of China? I’d say most people assume that the West has ‘won’ something, so it’s useful to consider why we have something like the Holocaust occur in the West. People get hung up on body counts, but for me, the key thing about the Holocaust was its industrial nature, so then one has to wonder why did the things that we claim to be so valuable in the West create such a horrible outcome?
It is possible that it is human nature, and humans are always going to assemble themselves into larger groupings to take on larger enterprises and things like bureaucracy are inevitable.
I think Russell often makes the point, especially in discussing libertarian arguments, that people have done X for thousands of years so it is baked into the cake as it were (my restatement is probably off in many ways, but that’s what I take as the gist) and I’m pretty sympathetic to that. If it hadn’t been ‘the West’, it would have been someone else. But if you take that seriously, it seems problematic to go on about how ‘the West’s’ way of life is ultimately superior to other ways of life as if it were some reasoned choice. Not that anyone is doing that here, but I think it is worthwhile to interrogate what we think of as ‘the West’ and why it is so easily assumed that we ‘won’.
Well, I guess that depends on what we define as the general consensus. Do most people consider China ‘a success’? Or do we reduce this to people with a knowledge of China? I’d say most people assume that the West has ‘won’ something, so it’s useful to consider why we have something like the Holocaust occur in the West. People get hung up on body counts, but for me, the key thing about the Holocaust was its industrial nature, so then one has to wonder why did the things that we claim to be so valuable in the West create such a horrible outcome?
It is possible that it is human nature, and humans are always going to assemble themselves into larger groupings to take on larger enterprises and things like bureaucracy are inevitable.
I think Russell often makes the point, especially in discussing libertarian arguments, that people have done X for thousands of years so it is baked into the cake as it were (my restatement is probably off in many ways, but that’s what I take as the gist) and I’m pretty sympathetic to that. If it hadn’t been ‘the West’, it would have been someone else. But if you take that seriously, it seems problematic to go on about how ‘the West’s’ way of life is ultimately superior to other ways of life as if it were some reasoned choice. Not that anyone is doing that here, but I think it is worthwhile to interrogate what we think of as ‘the West’ and why it is so easily assumed that we ‘won’.
This Guardian interview, with Madeline Albright, pointed to something that Hartmut wondered about
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/08/madeleine-albright-fascism-is-not-an-ideology-its-a-method-interview-fascism-a-warning
She reminds us who first coined the Trumpian phrase “drain the swamp”. It was drenare la palude in the original, Mussolini Italian.
Who woulda thunk it?
This Guardian interview, with Madeline Albright, pointed to something that Hartmut wondered about
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/08/madeleine-albright-fascism-is-not-an-ideology-its-a-method-interview-fascism-a-warning
She reminds us who first coined the Trumpian phrase “drain the swamp”. It was drenare la palude in the original, Mussolini Italian.
Who woulda thunk it?
Mussolini wasn’t the first. But Trump is a lot like him. Is there any chance that his sympathisers can see the resemblance?
Mussolini wasn’t the first. But Trump is a lot like him. Is there any chance that his sympathisers can see the resemblance?
JanieM: … surely “we” can think up a message of our own that doesn’t consist of making a small tweak to that awful, lying slogan of his.
Being neither a politician nor a marketer, I am entirely willing to adopt a better slogan than “Make America Decent Again”. As long as it fits on a bumper sticker.
–TP
JanieM: … surely “we” can think up a message of our own that doesn’t consist of making a small tweak to that awful, lying slogan of his.
Being neither a politician nor a marketer, I am entirely willing to adopt a better slogan than “Make America Decent Again”. As long as it fits on a bumper sticker.
–TP
“Nazi Punks F**k Off”?
“Nazi Punks F**k Off”?
TP, here’s one that’s flawed for the same reason yours was, but a direct theft of the initials would make all their hats unwearable:
Make America Generous Again. 😉
But okay, I said no echoing Clickbait, so: America the Generous, sung to a certain tune….
Obviously (painfully so!), I’m not a marketer or a politician either, and the Democrats are not going to listen to me regardless. But now you’ve got me intrigued, and this will be nagging at me.
TP, here’s one that’s flawed for the same reason yours was, but a direct theft of the initials would make all their hats unwearable:
Make America Generous Again. 😉
But okay, I said no echoing Clickbait, so: America the Generous, sung to a certain tune….
Obviously (painfully so!), I’m not a marketer or a politician either, and the Democrats are not going to listen to me regardless. But now you’ve got me intrigued, and this will be nagging at me.
Janie,
“Make America Decent Again” is not exactly mine, although I confess to thinking it up before I found out it’s an existing twitter hashtag.
“Decent” is not, IMO, a “small tweak” on “Great”. I see it as a bit of snark with a pinch of humility added. “Decent” also has the advantage of its initial letter.
Opinions can differ on what “Decent” means, of course, just as they can on what “Great” means. Both MAGA and MADA, standing alone, are vacuous slogans. And therein lies their power. I am not averse to using the Devil’s own weapons against him. Even Thomas More might have approved.
But I repeat: what the hell do I know?
–TP
Janie,
“Make America Decent Again” is not exactly mine, although I confess to thinking it up before I found out it’s an existing twitter hashtag.
“Decent” is not, IMO, a “small tweak” on “Great”. I see it as a bit of snark with a pinch of humility added. “Decent” also has the advantage of its initial letter.
Opinions can differ on what “Decent” means, of course, just as they can on what “Great” means. Both MAGA and MADA, standing alone, are vacuous slogans. And therein lies their power. I am not averse to using the Devil’s own weapons against him. Even Thomas More might have approved.
But I repeat: what the hell do I know?
–TP
make America good again
or maybe just make America good
regarding the west ‘winning’, I’m not completely clear about what is meant by ‘the west’, or what ‘winning’ means.
European countries enjoyed a couple of centuries as dominant colonial powers and hegemons, in between slaughtering each other. The US had the ‘american century’ in the 20th, which it shared, frankly, with significant rivals.
I don’t see us holding on to that position too much longer at the rate we’re going.
we’re rich, and will probably continue to be, in the aggregate, rich, for a while yet. the pattern for the last 40 years has been that that wealth has gone to fewer and fewer hands.
we can exert a lot of military force, but our recent track record of leveraging that to achieve constructive political goals is, I would say, mixed. our recent track record of being able to *articulate* constructive political goals, let alone achieve them, is, I would say, mixed.
did we win?
my opinion is that it’s time to stop thinking in terms of ‘winning’, and start thinking in terms of achieving useful, tangible, constructive political goals. not as sexy, but way more useful.
make America good again
or maybe just make America good
regarding the west ‘winning’, I’m not completely clear about what is meant by ‘the west’, or what ‘winning’ means.
European countries enjoyed a couple of centuries as dominant colonial powers and hegemons, in between slaughtering each other. The US had the ‘american century’ in the 20th, which it shared, frankly, with significant rivals.
I don’t see us holding on to that position too much longer at the rate we’re going.
we’re rich, and will probably continue to be, in the aggregate, rich, for a while yet. the pattern for the last 40 years has been that that wealth has gone to fewer and fewer hands.
we can exert a lot of military force, but our recent track record of leveraging that to achieve constructive political goals is, I would say, mixed. our recent track record of being able to *articulate* constructive political goals, let alone achieve them, is, I would say, mixed.
did we win?
my opinion is that it’s time to stop thinking in terms of ‘winning’, and start thinking in terms of achieving useful, tangible, constructive political goals. not as sexy, but way more useful.
also, no worries about name spellings.
also, no worries about name spellings.
TP, you might almost convince me. I think “Make America Decent Again” is a great sentiment, and a great slogan, but I’m resisting it as the, shall we say, battle cry of campaigning Democrats, because I want the damned Democrats to say loud and clear — and in simple enough form for a bumper sticker sometimes! — what they (we) *do* stand for in terms of policy and platform, and I think Make America Decent Again is too reactive, and gives too much attention to Clickbait, which is what he likes. Starve the fucker.
I picked up a cast-off copy of Time magazine the other day, dated 7/2. There’s a piece in it called “American Values,” by one Karl Vick (whom I’ve never heard of). It’s about presidential language, among other things, and how and what presidents tell us about who we are. Toward the end is this paragraph:
This overlaps stuff russell has written about often, and touches on something that has bothered me for a long time. People write incessantly about government as if it is some evil, unmanageable “other.” (I think it was Bellmore who used to do this ad nauseam.) But the government is supposed to be us, and I would love to see “us” (a different grammatical form of “we,” of course 🙂 reclaim both the word and the fact of good government. There are things we should be doing together — after we’ve decided together which things to do, which I think should (and maybe would, if we could get the messaging right) be a vast number more things than those currently in power, and those financing them for the past umpteen years, want.
(Consider all instances of “we” to be in quotes; it gets tedious writing them out, and cluttery to the eye. Also, I have never understood why the internet decided to call them “scare quotes.” I consider them to be “words are never adequate to the task” quotes. And in the case of “we,” also “words should sometimes not be left as fuzzy as we tend to leave them” quotes. Especially when the word “we” is followed by the word “should.” I prefer not to be included in any “shoulds” I haven’t consented to.)
TP, you might almost convince me. I think “Make America Decent Again” is a great sentiment, and a great slogan, but I’m resisting it as the, shall we say, battle cry of campaigning Democrats, because I want the damned Democrats to say loud and clear — and in simple enough form for a bumper sticker sometimes! — what they (we) *do* stand for in terms of policy and platform, and I think Make America Decent Again is too reactive, and gives too much attention to Clickbait, which is what he likes. Starve the fucker.
I picked up a cast-off copy of Time magazine the other day, dated 7/2. There’s a piece in it called “American Values,” by one Karl Vick (whom I’ve never heard of). It’s about presidential language, among other things, and how and what presidents tell us about who we are. Toward the end is this paragraph:
This overlaps stuff russell has written about often, and touches on something that has bothered me for a long time. People write incessantly about government as if it is some evil, unmanageable “other.” (I think it was Bellmore who used to do this ad nauseam.) But the government is supposed to be us, and I would love to see “us” (a different grammatical form of “we,” of course 🙂 reclaim both the word and the fact of good government. There are things we should be doing together — after we’ve decided together which things to do, which I think should (and maybe would, if we could get the messaging right) be a vast number more things than those currently in power, and those financing them for the past umpteen years, want.
(Consider all instances of “we” to be in quotes; it gets tedious writing them out, and cluttery to the eye. Also, I have never understood why the internet decided to call them “scare quotes.” I consider them to be “words are never adequate to the task” quotes. And in the case of “we,” also “words should sometimes not be left as fuzzy as we tend to leave them” quotes. Especially when the word “we” is followed by the word “should.” I prefer not to be included in any “shoulds” I haven’t consented to.)
Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!
An oldie, but a goodie.
Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!
An oldie, but a goodie.
regarding the west ‘winning’, I’m not completely clear about what is meant by ‘the west’, or what ‘winning’ means.
I would say “the West” is a somewhat moving target. Initially, I would say, it encompased Western Europe and North America. (Plus Australia and New Zealand, which would be acknowledged part of it if someone raised the point, but otherwise not recalled.)
Over time, it expanded to include other areas which embraced democracy and a basically market economy. Specifically first Japan and South Korea, and more recently much of Eastern Europe. The exact label is, thereby, clearly no longer a matter of geographic reality but now basically a matter of convenience and habit.
As for “winning”, I would say that it was a matter of the general acceptance (at least in public) of the idea that the population should select who will run the government. Witness the fact that even most blatant dictatorships (e.g. Russia) routinely take the trouble to hold at least sham elections.
Also the idea that commerce should go forth basically without government management of the details, albeit within the limits of regulations set by the government. There are vigorous arguments about just how much regulation is appropriate. But the practice of the government completely running the economy is now confined to a very few places like North Korea.
The victory isn’t set in stone. As we can see close up in the US, and in various European countries like Hungary and Poland.
regarding the west ‘winning’, I’m not completely clear about what is meant by ‘the west’, or what ‘winning’ means.
I would say “the West” is a somewhat moving target. Initially, I would say, it encompased Western Europe and North America. (Plus Australia and New Zealand, which would be acknowledged part of it if someone raised the point, but otherwise not recalled.)
Over time, it expanded to include other areas which embraced democracy and a basically market economy. Specifically first Japan and South Korea, and more recently much of Eastern Europe. The exact label is, thereby, clearly no longer a matter of geographic reality but now basically a matter of convenience and habit.
As for “winning”, I would say that it was a matter of the general acceptance (at least in public) of the idea that the population should select who will run the government. Witness the fact that even most blatant dictatorships (e.g. Russia) routinely take the trouble to hold at least sham elections.
Also the idea that commerce should go forth basically without government management of the details, albeit within the limits of regulations set by the government. There are vigorous arguments about just how much regulation is appropriate. But the practice of the government completely running the economy is now confined to a very few places like North Korea.
The victory isn’t set in stone. As we can see close up in the US, and in various European countries like Hungary and Poland.
Start America Over Again
Whatever we do, can we avoid the slogan that spells out the acronym F.A.R.T, though it is an accurate description of the hot gas emitted by the Flatulent-in-Chief.
http://myepb.net/front_controller.php/news/read/category/Politics/article/newser-trump_trade_legislation_has_unfortunate_acronym_fa-rnewsersyn
One of the principal jobs of a competent government bureaucrat is to police the acronyms for unfortunate spellings.
Clearly, those positions have been eliminated.
Start America Over Again
Whatever we do, can we avoid the slogan that spells out the acronym F.A.R.T, though it is an accurate description of the hot gas emitted by the Flatulent-in-Chief.
http://myepb.net/front_controller.php/news/read/category/Politics/article/newser-trump_trade_legislation_has_unfortunate_acronym_fa-rnewsersyn
One of the principal jobs of a competent government bureaucrat is to police the acronyms for unfortunate spellings.
Clearly, those positions have been eliminated.
Interesting stuff. I’m not sure if I can go with wj’s definition of the west. Japan? South Korea? As soon as a place gets a certain standard of living, they move over to the West column? And if they slide back down, they get kicked out? Is it possible for an Islamic country to be defined as ‘western’?
(funny aside, when I was at the Linguistics Summer Institute many years ago, one of the guys there was always playing cassettes (yes, it was a long time ago) of Tuvan throat singing, and one wag mentioned that he was playing that ‘country and Eastern music’.)
I agree with Russell that a rethink of winning is involved, but that still leaves ‘the West’ undefined. And there are some points of wj’s I’d agree with. I imagine it would start with
-Greeks and democracy. Perhaps Hartmut can remember which Greek historian defined the difference between the Greeks and the Persians (something about accepting the leader as a living god or not) So wj’s point about people ruling rather than royal families as well as individuality which then flows to the idea of the rights of Man
-Christianity, not simply the teachings of Christ but the whole Protestant Reformation.
-Mercantilism and Empire building, which we like to celebrate (Columbus Day anyone?)
-Industrial Revolution
-The nation-state
4 out of 5 of those points plug into the Holocaust (Anti semitism from Christianity, Lebensraum, the industrial mechanisms involved and the idea that the state grants protection and if a person is a stateless person, they are under no nation’s protection.) I’d use those points as a starting point to define the ‘West’. I feel like that seems reasonable, but I’d be interested in what others feel.
Interesting stuff. I’m not sure if I can go with wj’s definition of the west. Japan? South Korea? As soon as a place gets a certain standard of living, they move over to the West column? And if they slide back down, they get kicked out? Is it possible for an Islamic country to be defined as ‘western’?
(funny aside, when I was at the Linguistics Summer Institute many years ago, one of the guys there was always playing cassettes (yes, it was a long time ago) of Tuvan throat singing, and one wag mentioned that he was playing that ‘country and Eastern music’.)
I agree with Russell that a rethink of winning is involved, but that still leaves ‘the West’ undefined. And there are some points of wj’s I’d agree with. I imagine it would start with
-Greeks and democracy. Perhaps Hartmut can remember which Greek historian defined the difference between the Greeks and the Persians (something about accepting the leader as a living god or not) So wj’s point about people ruling rather than royal families as well as individuality which then flows to the idea of the rights of Man
-Christianity, not simply the teachings of Christ but the whole Protestant Reformation.
-Mercantilism and Empire building, which we like to celebrate (Columbus Day anyone?)
-Industrial Revolution
-The nation-state
4 out of 5 of those points plug into the Holocaust (Anti semitism from Christianity, Lebensraum, the industrial mechanisms involved and the idea that the state grants protection and if a person is a stateless person, they are under no nation’s protection.) I’d use those points as a starting point to define the ‘West’. I feel like that seems reasonable, but I’d be interested in what others feel.
As soon as a place gets a certain standard of living, they move over to the West column?
I think wj might have been referring to democratic institutions rather than prosperity ?
(As an aside, Christianity is the largest religion in South Korea.)
the idea that the state grants protection and if a person is a stateless person, they are under no nation’s protection…
True, but note that the Holocaust was at its most unrestrained in precisely those places where the state had been most completely destroyed.
As soon as a place gets a certain standard of living, they move over to the West column?
I think wj might have been referring to democratic institutions rather than prosperity ?
(As an aside, Christianity is the largest religion in South Korea.)
the idea that the state grants protection and if a person is a stateless person, they are under no nation’s protection…
True, but note that the Holocaust was at its most unrestrained in precisely those places where the state had been most completely destroyed.
Make America Sane Again
A Better Future for All
For a Better Future
Renew America
Let America Shine
Clearly I’m no advertising genius either, but this seems like a worthwhile exercise to me. FWIW, liberate, egalite, fraternite is still the best.
Make America Sane Again
A Better Future for All
For a Better Future
Renew America
Let America Shine
Clearly I’m no advertising genius either, but this seems like a worthwhile exercise to me. FWIW, liberate, egalite, fraternite is still the best.
Sorry, on a phone so posted before proper itallicide!
Sorry, on a phone so posted before proper itallicide!
I think wj might have been referring to democratic institutions rather than prosperity ?
I still have a hard time imagining Japan as part of ‘the West’.
True, but note that the Holocaust was at its most unrestrained in precisely those places where the state had been most completely destroyed.
Not sure what you mean by that. The largest number of Jews lived in Poland and the Ukraine, so that is where the bulk of murders were, but the idea of first using Jews as industrial labor and working them to death would be the thing that distinguishes the Holocaust from other genocide campaigns for me.
I think wj might have been referring to democratic institutions rather than prosperity ?
I still have a hard time imagining Japan as part of ‘the West’.
True, but note that the Holocaust was at its most unrestrained in precisely those places where the state had been most completely destroyed.
Not sure what you mean by that. The largest number of Jews lived in Poland and the Ukraine, so that is where the bulk of murders were, but the idea of first using Jews as industrial labor and working them to death would be the thing that distinguishes the Holocaust from other genocide campaigns for me.
Not sure what you mean by that. The largest number of Jews lived in Poland and the Ukraine, so that is where the bulk of murders were
This was a thesis, fairly convincingly demonstrated, of Timothy Snyder’s book Black Earth:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/hitler-holocaust-antisemitism-timothy-snyder/404260/
Where states were destroyed, Jews were murdered; where the state remained intact, Jews could find some protection in bureaucracies and passports…
The figures he cites were independent of size of Jewish population, or tendency towards anti-semitism in the various pre-war societies, and indeed showed a marked difference between the regions of Poland – those which had been occupied successively by the Soviets and then the Nazis witnessing the most complete slaughter.
A harrowing book, but an important Holocaust document.
Not sure what you mean by that. The largest number of Jews lived in Poland and the Ukraine, so that is where the bulk of murders were
This was a thesis, fairly convincingly demonstrated, of Timothy Snyder’s book Black Earth:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/hitler-holocaust-antisemitism-timothy-snyder/404260/
Where states were destroyed, Jews were murdered; where the state remained intact, Jews could find some protection in bureaucracies and passports…
The figures he cites were independent of size of Jewish population, or tendency towards anti-semitism in the various pre-war societies, and indeed showed a marked difference between the regions of Poland – those which had been occupied successively by the Soviets and then the Nazis witnessing the most complete slaughter.
A harrowing book, but an important Holocaust document.
it expanded to include other areas which embraced democracy and a basically market economy
When did a market economy become a distinctive feature of ‘the west’?
Not saying it is or isn’t, and not saying it is a good or bad thing. But it’s certainly not discussed in (for instance) the constitution.
Are we a republic, or a capitalist enterprise?
it expanded to include other areas which embraced democracy and a basically market economy
When did a market economy become a distinctive feature of ‘the west’?
Not saying it is or isn’t, and not saying it is a good or bad thing. But it’s certainly not discussed in (for instance) the constitution.
Are we a republic, or a capitalist enterprise?
Are we a republic, or a capitalist enterprise?
Thank you. This line of discussion has been sort of lost on me, and I haven’t been able to figure out why. This is why. The triumphalism at the fall of the Soviet Union was really all about capitalism, not democracy, however much lip service was given to the latter. (“Freedom” really means freedom of corporations to do what they want, when it doesn’t mean freedom to carry assault rifles downtown.)
My two cents, surely not worth more than that: “the West” is another bit of obscurantism, like “democracy.” But I would say it’s rooted in the same era as the phrase “the third world.” There was “the West” (the US hegemon and its European allies); the Commies, consisting of the Soviet Union (Reagan’s “Evil Empire”) and its satellites and, somewhat in the background, Red China and its sphere of influence; and the poor, downtrodden, ignorant, “undeveloped” rest of the world, which was at constant risk of being taken over by the Commies and therefore needed to be constantly saved from that fate by “the West.” Angola, Vietnam, Cuba — those are the first places that come to mind as battlegrounds in that war during my childhood and coming of age. To this day I remember names like Patrice Lumumba and Fulgencio Batista because those conflicts were in the news 60 years ago when I was a little kid.
Are we a republic, or a capitalist enterprise?
Thank you. This line of discussion has been sort of lost on me, and I haven’t been able to figure out why. This is why. The triumphalism at the fall of the Soviet Union was really all about capitalism, not democracy, however much lip service was given to the latter. (“Freedom” really means freedom of corporations to do what they want, when it doesn’t mean freedom to carry assault rifles downtown.)
My two cents, surely not worth more than that: “the West” is another bit of obscurantism, like “democracy.” But I would say it’s rooted in the same era as the phrase “the third world.” There was “the West” (the US hegemon and its European allies); the Commies, consisting of the Soviet Union (Reagan’s “Evil Empire”) and its satellites and, somewhat in the background, Red China and its sphere of influence; and the poor, downtrodden, ignorant, “undeveloped” rest of the world, which was at constant risk of being taken over by the Commies and therefore needed to be constantly saved from that fate by “the West.” Angola, Vietnam, Cuba — those are the first places that come to mind as battlegrounds in that war during my childhood and coming of age. To this day I remember names like Patrice Lumumba and Fulgencio Batista because those conflicts were in the news 60 years ago when I was a little kid.
I think all y’all need to look further back than the Cold War for this notion of The West. I’d argue that it’s rooted in the schism between Rome and the Eastern Empire (hence the term “Near East”) and really seized hold of the European imaginary during the time of Charlemagne and The Song of Roland.
Check out Anthony Pagden’s introduction to The Idea of Europe, Europe: Conceptualizing a Continent. He gets at a lot of the problematics. Whatever the case, I think he shows that the idea of “The West” and of “Europe” are deeply linked.
I think all y’all need to look further back than the Cold War for this notion of The West. I’d argue that it’s rooted in the schism between Rome and the Eastern Empire (hence the term “Near East”) and really seized hold of the European imaginary during the time of Charlemagne and The Song of Roland.
Check out Anthony Pagden’s introduction to The Idea of Europe, Europe: Conceptualizing a Continent. He gets at a lot of the problematics. Whatever the case, I think he shows that the idea of “The West” and of “Europe” are deeply linked.
nous — good point. I was thinking more narrowly, in relation to who “won” after the fall of the Soviet Union.
nous — good point. I was thinking more narrowly, in relation to who “won” after the fall of the Soviet Union.
I’d say Nous is on to something!
Another battle cry: “Workers of the World Unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!”
Maybe too much baggage?
I’d say Nous is on to something!
Another battle cry: “Workers of the World Unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!”
Maybe too much baggage?
lj: I still have a hard time imagining Japan as part of ‘the West’.
Nous: I think all y’all need to look further back than the Cold War for this notion of The West.
I’d agree that the origin of the notion of “the West” has a distant historical basis. But during the Cold War the concept evolved. By that point, it became essentially a counterpoint to “the East/communism.” With “Third World” used to designate those who were a) not politically aligned with either and b) not all that well developed economically.
Once a country no longer met the criteria for Third World, they got slotted into whichever side they were politically aligned with. Which, in the case of Japan, was the West. The culture remained very different. But the political and economic features were quite similar to the rest of the West, and quite different from the East — regardless of geography.
lj: I still have a hard time imagining Japan as part of ‘the West’.
Nous: I think all y’all need to look further back than the Cold War for this notion of The West.
I’d agree that the origin of the notion of “the West” has a distant historical basis. But during the Cold War the concept evolved. By that point, it became essentially a counterpoint to “the East/communism.” With “Third World” used to designate those who were a) not politically aligned with either and b) not all that well developed economically.
Once a country no longer met the criteria for Third World, they got slotted into whichever side they were politically aligned with. Which, in the case of Japan, was the West. The culture remained very different. But the political and economic features were quite similar to the rest of the West, and quite different from the East — regardless of geography.
“Workers of the World Unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!”
That resonates because the New Gilded Age has some features in common with the original. But, as you say, it has baggage. Perhaps a rephrase, and something which is a bit more nationally focused — this being, after all, a national political issue.
“Workers of the World Unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!”
That resonates because the New Gilded Age has some features in common with the original. But, as you say, it has baggage. Perhaps a rephrase, and something which is a bit more nationally focused — this being, after all, a national political issue.
What you are talking about, wj, is not “The West,” but rather “Western Aligned” nation states. Otherwise “Western” collapses into meaning little more than “capitalist,” and we lose taxonomies like the split between Eastern and Western philosophy.
Note that with the fall of the Soviet Union there was only a brief pause before the ideas of The West and Europe started to revert to the earlier notion of Westernness.
Is Russia Western? Is Turkey Western?
What you are talking about, wj, is not “The West,” but rather “Western Aligned” nation states. Otherwise “Western” collapses into meaning little more than “capitalist,” and we lose taxonomies like the split between Eastern and Western philosophy.
Note that with the fall of the Soviet Union there was only a brief pause before the ideas of The West and Europe started to revert to the earlier notion of Westernness.
Is Russia Western? Is Turkey Western?
Think we also need to throw Edward Said’s Orientalism into the mix.
Think we also need to throw Edward Said’s Orientalism into the mix.
What you are talking about, wj, is not “The West,” but rather “Western Aligned” nation states.
Yup. But “the West” is routinely used in exactly that sense.
To your specific questions:
– No, Russia is not “Western.” And never really has been IMHO. Its upper class has occasionally had pretensions. But the political environment has never come close.
– Turkey was what I would consider “Western”, or at least close. But by this point, I would say that Erdogan has taken them out. Being part of “the West” is, as noted, not set in stone.
On the other hand, India is getting close. Needs a little more economic progress, but the straws are visible in the wind.
What you are talking about, wj, is not “The West,” but rather “Western Aligned” nation states.
Yup. But “the West” is routinely used in exactly that sense.
To your specific questions:
– No, Russia is not “Western.” And never really has been IMHO. Its upper class has occasionally had pretensions. But the political environment has never come close.
– Turkey was what I would consider “Western”, or at least close. But by this point, I would say that Erdogan has taken them out. Being part of “the West” is, as noted, not set in stone.
On the other hand, India is getting close. Needs a little more economic progress, but the straws are visible in the wind.
Since this is an Open Thread….
Would any of you folks in the UK care to comment on what the resignations of Boris Johnson and David Davis portend? Not just for the current PM’s government, but for the course of Britain going forward.
Thanks
Since this is an Open Thread….
Would any of you folks in the UK care to comment on what the resignations of Boris Johnson and David Davis portend? Not just for the current PM’s government, but for the course of Britain going forward.
Thanks
I think of the West as any place where you might find a cowpoke punchin’ doggies.
I think of the West as any place where you might find a cowpoke punchin’ doggies.
Into the West, where two little boys head for Tír na nÓg. There aren’t any cowboys, but at least there’s a horse.
Into the West, where two little boys head for Tír na nÓg. There aren’t any cowboys, but at least there’s a horse.
Not much time, but:
1. Contrary to the impression he gives, Boris Johnson is extremely clever. But his sole focus is on personal ambition and advancement. I hope this decision finally shoots his fox, but as W C Fields said, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public, and the public adores him because he is very funny, and adept as presenting himself as a bumbling but nice bloke, whereas in fact he is a vindictive and amoral self-server. But the elements of the Tory party which believe in his Euroscepticism (which may mainly have been calculated for advancement) think because of his popularity with the public he could beat the Labour Party in the next election. I hope they’re wrong. Diplomats say he was a hopeless Foreign Secretary (surprise surprise), and his resignation when a UK citizen has just died after exposure to Novichok shows his priorities.
2. David Davis, about whom I know much less, seems a more principled character, but apparently he was absolutely hopeless on the Brexit beat. In fact, the handling of Brexit has left even soft-Brexiteers aghast at the Tories’ incompetence.
Going forward, people like me are still holding out some hope (in vain, I’m sure) for a second referendum. However, polls suggest that the result might not be that different. So it looks like we are leaving Europe alright, and pundits seem to agree today’s events will not lead to Theresa May’s immediate downfall. What the public will make of us ending up with a sort-of Norwegian model, so still subject to lots of EU rules without voting rights, remains to be seen. I guess it makes Labour’s victory at the next election more likely, despite widespread public uncertainty about Corbyn’s fitness to be leader.
Over to people like Pro Bono who, unlike me, understand about the economic implications!
Not much time, but:
1. Contrary to the impression he gives, Boris Johnson is extremely clever. But his sole focus is on personal ambition and advancement. I hope this decision finally shoots his fox, but as W C Fields said, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public, and the public adores him because he is very funny, and adept as presenting himself as a bumbling but nice bloke, whereas in fact he is a vindictive and amoral self-server. But the elements of the Tory party which believe in his Euroscepticism (which may mainly have been calculated for advancement) think because of his popularity with the public he could beat the Labour Party in the next election. I hope they’re wrong. Diplomats say he was a hopeless Foreign Secretary (surprise surprise), and his resignation when a UK citizen has just died after exposure to Novichok shows his priorities.
2. David Davis, about whom I know much less, seems a more principled character, but apparently he was absolutely hopeless on the Brexit beat. In fact, the handling of Brexit has left even soft-Brexiteers aghast at the Tories’ incompetence.
Going forward, people like me are still holding out some hope (in vain, I’m sure) for a second referendum. However, polls suggest that the result might not be that different. So it looks like we are leaving Europe alright, and pundits seem to agree today’s events will not lead to Theresa May’s immediate downfall. What the public will make of us ending up with a sort-of Norwegian model, so still subject to lots of EU rules without voting rights, remains to be seen. I guess it makes Labour’s victory at the next election more likely, despite widespread public uncertainty about Corbyn’s fitness to be leader.
Over to people like Pro Bono who, unlike me, understand about the economic implications!
p.s. I loved “country and eastern music”!
p.s. I loved “country and eastern music”!
apparently he [Davis] was absolutely hopeless on the Brexit beat.
Yeah, I’d say only one meeting in 3 months with the EU’s Brexit guy would count as hopeless for someone who is supposed to be negotiating terms. You could almost think he wanted no agreement, so things would just collapse entirely when the deadline arrived….
apparently he [Davis] was absolutely hopeless on the Brexit beat.
Yeah, I’d say only one meeting in 3 months with the EU’s Brexit guy would count as hopeless for someone who is supposed to be negotiating terms. You could almost think he wanted no agreement, so things would just collapse entirely when the deadline arrived….
The triumphalism at the fall of the Soviet Union was really all about capitalism, not democracy, however much lip service was given to the latter…
With all due respect, that is a most US centric view.
If it were entirely true, what did the EU enthusiastically welcome so many former soviet satrapies as members – into a union whose membership includes explicit tests for democracy and rule of law (which incidentally Turkey is, for now, failing miserably) ?
Did we cock up engagement with post soviet Russia ? Probably.
But that is a separate issue.
The triumphalism at the fall of the Soviet Union was really all about capitalism, not democracy, however much lip service was given to the latter…
With all due respect, that is a most US centric view.
If it were entirely true, what did the EU enthusiastically welcome so many former soviet satrapies as members – into a union whose membership includes explicit tests for democracy and rule of law (which incidentally Turkey is, for now, failing miserably) ?
Did we cock up engagement with post soviet Russia ? Probably.
But that is a separate issue.
Contrary to the impression he gives, Boris Johnson is extremely clever.
‘Extremely’ is going a bit far, I think. And he can also be exceptionally idle.
He’s basically a blagger, who has been more or less found out, I hope.
What happens next is anyone’s guess. My own is that there are sufficient Brexit enthusiasts who will remain in the government (for example, Gove), and that no one* really wants to take over from May right now, as they have little idea what to do if they did.
We’lll probably muddle on for a while longer, and even possibly achieve some kind of Brexit fudge. At which point May can take the blame and be kicked out by whichever minister is in the ascendency…
The combination of the Fixed Term Parliament Act and the Tory leadership contest rules make getting rid of May quite difficult.
*Apart from the fanatics who’d rather seem no deal at all with the EU, and damn the consequences.
Contrary to the impression he gives, Boris Johnson is extremely clever.
‘Extremely’ is going a bit far, I think. And he can also be exceptionally idle.
He’s basically a blagger, who has been more or less found out, I hope.
What happens next is anyone’s guess. My own is that there are sufficient Brexit enthusiasts who will remain in the government (for example, Gove), and that no one* really wants to take over from May right now, as they have little idea what to do if they did.
We’lll probably muddle on for a while longer, and even possibly achieve some kind of Brexit fudge. At which point May can take the blame and be kicked out by whichever minister is in the ascendency…
The combination of the Fixed Term Parliament Act and the Tory leadership contest rules make getting rid of May quite difficult.
*Apart from the fanatics who’d rather seem no deal at all with the EU, and damn the consequences.
Davis – another blagger, promoted beyond his competence (though indeed rather more principled, albeit erratically, than Johnson).
Davis – another blagger, promoted beyond his competence (though indeed rather more principled, albeit erratically, than Johnson).
me: The triumphalism at the fall of the Soviet Union was really all about capitalism, not democracy, however much lip service was given to the latter…
Nigel: With all due respect, that is a most US centric view.
With all due respect, why not? I did mention Reagan later in the comment (and was thus being more or less explicitly and admittedly US-centric), and I am an American, and we were at one point in this thread talking about American politics and possible effective political slogans post-Trump.
Sometime, when it’s not so hot and I embark on my long-postponed study of the dynamics of blog conversations, I’ll go back and trace how we got from slogans to the definition of “the West.” But it’s too hot for that today.
me: The triumphalism at the fall of the Soviet Union was really all about capitalism, not democracy, however much lip service was given to the latter…
Nigel: With all due respect, that is a most US centric view.
With all due respect, why not? I did mention Reagan later in the comment (and was thus being more or less explicitly and admittedly US-centric), and I am an American, and we were at one point in this thread talking about American politics and possible effective political slogans post-Trump.
Sometime, when it’s not so hot and I embark on my long-postponed study of the dynamics of blog conversations, I’ll go back and trace how we got from slogans to the definition of “the West.” But it’s too hot for that today.
He’s basically a blagger
Quite a useful word.
He’s basically a blagger
Quite a useful word.
American triumphalism! We are kind of good at it, I think.
American triumphalism! We are kind of good at it, I think.
No problem, JanieM.
I am perhaps a bit too quick to take exception to implications (in this case clearly not intended) that the US and the ‘West’ are synonymous.
No problem, JanieM.
I am perhaps a bit too quick to take exception to implications (in this case clearly not intended) that the US and the ‘West’ are synonymous.
No argument on Boris’s idleness, Nigel, and I think it’s because of that combined with cleverness which makes him think he can wing it so often to such awful effect. Apart from that, your analysis seems pretty sound to me.
No argument on Boris’s idleness, Nigel, and I think it’s because of that combined with cleverness which makes him think he can wing it so often to such awful effect. Apart from that, your analysis seems pretty sound to me.
are we a republic, or a capitalist enterprise….
Well Franklin and Jefferson were certainly not unaware of Adam Smith….
http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2005/10/adam-smith-and-us-declaration-of.html
are we a republic, or a capitalist enterprise….
Well Franklin and Jefferson were certainly not unaware of Adam Smith….
http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2005/10/adam-smith-and-us-declaration-of.html
American triumphalism! We are kind of good at it, I think.
It’s easy for us to get there.
– We were mostly isolated from foreign threats for the bulk of our existence. So no losses and, except for the War of 1812, no serious attacks/invasions.
– We “conquered” the continent (against minimal effective opposition, but we can and do ignore that detail).
– Then, in the 20th century, we got into WW I late enough that we could (at least in our own minds) take credit for the victory — we arrived and presto!
– WW II we do deserve credit for, even if we did have the enormous advantage that our industrial infrastructure (unlike that of everybody else involved) didn’t come under attack. We got to fight on other people’s ground.
– Finally, we used our advantage at the end of WW II to lead the Western** opposition which eventually triumphed over the USSR. (And if you doubt that we won and Russia lost, just ask Putin.)
Triumph after triumph! And, outside Trump’s fevered imagination, no significant losses — Vietnam was a non-win, and an expensive one, but we didn’t actually lose any ground there.
** Sorry. But I don’t really know what other term to use.
American triumphalism! We are kind of good at it, I think.
It’s easy for us to get there.
– We were mostly isolated from foreign threats for the bulk of our existence. So no losses and, except for the War of 1812, no serious attacks/invasions.
– We “conquered” the continent (against minimal effective opposition, but we can and do ignore that detail).
– Then, in the 20th century, we got into WW I late enough that we could (at least in our own minds) take credit for the victory — we arrived and presto!
– WW II we do deserve credit for, even if we did have the enormous advantage that our industrial infrastructure (unlike that of everybody else involved) didn’t come under attack. We got to fight on other people’s ground.
– Finally, we used our advantage at the end of WW II to lead the Western** opposition which eventually triumphed over the USSR. (And if you doubt that we won and Russia lost, just ask Putin.)
Triumph after triumph! And, outside Trump’s fevered imagination, no significant losses — Vietnam was a non-win, and an expensive one, but we didn’t actually lose any ground there.
** Sorry. But I don’t really know what other term to use.
Nigel, thanks. Peace.
wj: WW II we do deserve credit for
Some of the credit. Taking the other side of the coin this time (the “let’s not be so US-centric” one), I’d say that as an American you have to dig deep to find out that the Soviet Union played a bit of a role in that war too.
The USSR’s death tolls, both civilian and military, are staggering. I don’t know what they teach kids now, but we certainly didn’t hear a whole lot about Russia’s role in the war when I was a kid. Then again, for me personally, my dad and uncles were mostly in the Pacific and/or in Korea, so it wasn’t until much later that I realized that for some people the war in the Pacific was a bit of a sideshow.
Nigel, thanks. Peace.
wj: WW II we do deserve credit for
Some of the credit. Taking the other side of the coin this time (the “let’s not be so US-centric” one), I’d say that as an American you have to dig deep to find out that the Soviet Union played a bit of a role in that war too.
The USSR’s death tolls, both civilian and military, are staggering. I don’t know what they teach kids now, but we certainly didn’t hear a whole lot about Russia’s role in the war when I was a kid. Then again, for me personally, my dad and uncles were mostly in the Pacific and/or in Korea, so it wasn’t until much later that I realized that for some people the war in the Pacific was a bit of a sideshow.
Lots of really interesting observations and I’ll hope folks don’t mind if I think about them for a while. I remember Nigel recommending Black Earth and I’ll have to get on to that. Looking over the references for functionalism vs intentionalism, I see there were a whole slew of books that I hadn’t read, but I’m not sure if I can summon the mental energy to catch up with the field. It’s a subject I could read in my 20’s, but in my late 50’s, I find I don’t have the stamina…
Lots of really interesting observations and I’ll hope folks don’t mind if I think about them for a while. I remember Nigel recommending Black Earth and I’ll have to get on to that. Looking over the references for functionalism vs intentionalism, I see there were a whole slew of books that I hadn’t read, but I’m not sure if I can summon the mental energy to catch up with the field. It’s a subject I could read in my 20’s, but in my late 50’s, I find I don’t have the stamina…
“No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”
That was the second sentence of Brett Kavanaugh’s acceptance speech in tonight’s episode of “He, Trump Presents”.
In case anybody like Marty or McKinney has ever wondered what I mean by “lickspittle”, let THIS serve as an illustrative example.
In case any Democratic Senators are reading this, please be sure to ask Judge Kavanaugh where he got this little faux-factoid, and whether it’s a fair sample of his “judgement”.
–TP
“No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”
That was the second sentence of Brett Kavanaugh’s acceptance speech in tonight’s episode of “He, Trump Presents”.
In case anybody like Marty or McKinney has ever wondered what I mean by “lickspittle”, let THIS serve as an illustrative example.
In case any Democratic Senators are reading this, please be sure to ask Judge Kavanaugh where he got this little faux-factoid, and whether it’s a fair sample of his “judgement”.
–TP
Am I alone in thinking that Kavanaugh looks a bit like a weaker chinned Matthew Perry ?
Am I alone in thinking that Kavanaugh looks a bit like a weaker chinned Matthew Perry ?
And why Trump picked him:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/brett-kavanaugh-is-devoted-to-the-presidency/564764/
One could imagine, of course, that Kavanaugh’s experience pursuing wrongdoing in the Clinton White House might incline him to a jaundiced view of presidents generally, thus offering a hope that, on the bench, he will be independent of the president who appointed him. But in a 2009 article in Minnesota Law Review, Kavanaugh, by then a life-tenured judge, announced that the independent-counsel investigation in which he served had been a mistake after all: “[T]he nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama Bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal-investigation offshoots.” He suggested instead that Congress should, by statute, simply provide that a sitting president could neither be sued, indicted, tried, investigated or even questioned by prosecutors while in office. Problem solved.
And why Trump picked him:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/brett-kavanaugh-is-devoted-to-the-presidency/564764/
One could imagine, of course, that Kavanaugh’s experience pursuing wrongdoing in the Clinton White House might incline him to a jaundiced view of presidents generally, thus offering a hope that, on the bench, he will be independent of the president who appointed him. But in a 2009 article in Minnesota Law Review, Kavanaugh, by then a life-tenured judge, announced that the independent-counsel investigation in which he served had been a mistake after all: “[T]he nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama Bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal-investigation offshoots.” He suggested instead that Congress should, by statute, simply provide that a sitting president could neither be sued, indicted, tried, investigated or even questioned by prosecutors while in office. Problem solved.
A (rather right-wing) friend sent me this, if you can get past the firewall. The writer should certainly know!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-english-love-a-buffoon-but-the-boris-johnson-joke-went-tragically-wrong-2m3fmt5km?shareToken=e949a7c5131f0077c42aeb9a3a450dda
A (rather right-wing) friend sent me this, if you can get past the firewall. The writer should certainly know!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-english-love-a-buffoon-but-the-boris-johnson-joke-went-tragically-wrong-2m3fmt5km?shareToken=e949a7c5131f0077c42aeb9a3a450dda
For those who can’t get past the firewall, a sample:
Johnson’s glittering intelligence is not matched by self-knowledge. He sees his place in the nation’s history in Churchillian terms, whereas others — including most of the parliamentary Conservative Party — would cast him as Blackadder in a blond wig.
He is a man of remarkable gifts, flawed by an absence of conscience, principle or scruple. It has been a misfortune for Britain that through two years when diplomacy has been critically important we have been represented abroad by a jester.
For those who can’t get past the firewall, a sample:
Johnson’s glittering intelligence is not matched by self-knowledge. He sees his place in the nation’s history in Churchillian terms, whereas others — including most of the parliamentary Conservative Party — would cast him as Blackadder in a blond wig.
He is a man of remarkable gifts, flawed by an absence of conscience, principle or scruple. It has been a misfortune for Britain that through two years when diplomacy has been critically important we have been represented abroad by a jester.
why Trump picked him
hip deep in the Starr investigation, principal author of the Starr report.
involved in the Vince Foster BS, argued before the SCOTUS for the suspension of attorney-client privilege in that context.
worked the Florida recount thing for W, then was a staff attorney for W. W nominated him for a circuit court judgeship, it took him 3 years to be approved because of his obviously partisan history.
balls and strikes!
why Trump picked him
hip deep in the Starr investigation, principal author of the Starr report.
involved in the Vince Foster BS, argued before the SCOTUS for the suspension of attorney-client privilege in that context.
worked the Florida recount thing for W, then was a staff attorney for W. W nominated him for a circuit court judgeship, it took him 3 years to be approved because of his obviously partisan history.
balls and strikes!
From:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-brett-kavanaugh-would-change-the-supreme-court/
Score 1 for … hmmmm … oh, I got it! – shareholder value!
From:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-brett-kavanaugh-would-change-the-supreme-court/
Score 1 for … hmmmm … oh, I got it! – shareholder value!
If Kavanaugh is confirmed, the US will be a significant step further from democracy. In a proper democracy, the minority party doesn’t get to pack the Supreme Court with hard-line partisan Justices.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed, the US will be a significant step further from democracy. In a proper democracy, the minority party doesn’t get to pack the Supreme Court with hard-line partisan Justices.
And now Susan Collins has her out. It was all going to be about Roe v Wade, and that might have been tricky for her because people seem to be on to her at last. But since instead it’s going to be all about how he’s there to make sure Clickbait doesn’t get indicted, impeached, or whatever, her litmus test (or lack of one) is irrelevant. Republicans love them some shareholder value!
Good times.
And now Susan Collins has her out. It was all going to be about Roe v Wade, and that might have been tricky for her because people seem to be on to her at last. But since instead it’s going to be all about how he’s there to make sure Clickbait doesn’t get indicted, impeached, or whatever, her litmus test (or lack of one) is irrelevant. Republicans love them some shareholder value!
Good times.
the US will be a significant step further from democracy
strictly speaking, we’re a republic, not a democracy. and, the founders were creatures of their time and class, and were remarkably suspicious of democratic ‘mob rule’.
so, lots of baked-in institutional speed-bumps to curb majority rule.
in the American republican (small r) model, a minority of the population can, and presently does, have a majority voice in governance.
it happens, and I’m pretty sure has happened before. not sure that it’s sustainable.
the US will be a significant step further from democracy
strictly speaking, we’re a republic, not a democracy. and, the founders were creatures of their time and class, and were remarkably suspicious of democratic ‘mob rule’.
so, lots of baked-in institutional speed-bumps to curb majority rule.
in the American republican (small r) model, a minority of the population can, and presently does, have a majority voice in governance.
it happens, and I’m pretty sure has happened before. not sure that it’s sustainable.
with reference to an earlier conversation about the SCOTUS pick – i’m curious to know if wj would consider Kavanaugh ‘another Kennedy’.
with reference to an earlier conversation about the SCOTUS pick – i’m curious to know if wj would consider Kavanaugh ‘another Kennedy’.
For our collection of campaign slogans. Stolen from an Anne Laurie post at BJ, quoting Amanda Marcotte on Twitter:
For our collection of campaign slogans. Stolen from an Anne Laurie post at BJ, quoting Amanda Marcotte on Twitter:
SAVE THE WHALES (while preventing them from dismembering you)!
SAVE THE WHALES (while preventing them from dismembering you)!
I once knew a guy who liked to wear a “Nuke the whales” t-shirt, just to get people riled up.
He’s the friend I was with in Provincetown one year when I saw my all-time favorite t-shirt slogan (surely I’m repeating myself). On the front, “Jesus is coming.” On the back, “Look busy.”
Stupid jokes: the only way to get through this mess?
I once knew a guy who liked to wear a “Nuke the whales” t-shirt, just to get people riled up.
He’s the friend I was with in Provincetown one year when I saw my all-time favorite t-shirt slogan (surely I’m repeating myself). On the front, “Jesus is coming.” On the back, “Look busy.”
Stupid jokes: the only way to get through this mess?
i have a t-shirt that says
“I found Jesus!”
[picture of Jesus standing behind a couch]
“He was behind the couch!”
i wore it once, to a bar, and some meathead got physical with me about it.
i have a t-shirt that says
“I found Jesus!”
[picture of Jesus standing behind a couch]
“He was behind the couch!”
i wore it once, to a bar, and some meathead got physical with me about it.
There are few things Jesus loved more than a good bar fight.
There are few things Jesus loved more than a good bar fight.
My favourite bumper sticker, in california decades ago, was I brake for hallucinations
My favourite bumper sticker, in california decades ago, was I brake for hallucinations
GftNC, I was particularly taken by this about Johnson:
Gosh, what American political could that have been written about, almost word for word…?
GftNC, I was particularly taken by this about Johnson:
Gosh, what American political could that have been written about, almost word for word…?
russell: with reference to an earlier conversation about the SCOTUS pick – i’m curious to know if wj would consider Kavanaugh ‘another Kennedy’.
Nope. Hardiman, mught have been (based on this https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-4-potential-nominees-would-change-the-supreme-court/ ). But Kavanaugh? No way.
I’d guess that his views on Presidential immunity on absolutely everything were the overwhelming reason he got tapped.
russell: with reference to an earlier conversation about the SCOTUS pick – i’m curious to know if wj would consider Kavanaugh ‘another Kennedy’.
Nope. Hardiman, mught have been (based on this https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-4-potential-nominees-would-change-the-supreme-court/ ). But Kavanaugh? No way.
I’d guess that his views on Presidential immunity on absolutely everything were the overwhelming reason he got tapped.
wj: yes, he has been compared to Trump before, with many people also commenting on their respective hairstyles. But unlike Trump, pace Nigel, he is very clever (and highly educated), although we are living in a period where it is possible to debate whether Trump’s stupidity and ignorance make him more or less dangerous….
wj: yes, he has been compared to Trump before, with many people also commenting on their respective hairstyles. But unlike Trump, pace Nigel, he is very clever (and highly educated), although we are living in a period where it is possible to debate whether Trump’s stupidity and ignorance make him more or less dangerous….
Trump’s stupidity and ignorance probably make him less dangerous than he would be otherwise. Although his inability to focus on much of anything except himself is probably a bigger plus — hard as that may be to believe.
And that’s doubly true if it turns out that there is anything to this
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html
Trump’s stupidity and ignorance probably make him less dangerous than he would be otherwise. Although his inability to focus on much of anything except himself is probably a bigger plus — hard as that may be to believe.
And that’s doubly true if it turns out that there is anything to this
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html
I’d guess that his views on Presidential immunity on absolutely everything were the overwhelming reason he got tapped.
I can see the attraction.
We should have sent Nixon to jail. For, like, 10 years. Real jail, not La Quinta Inns and Suites jail.
My expectation at this point is:
And, Trump will continue to FUBAR the cause of small-l liberal democracy for another couple of years. To say nothing of the environment, and working Americans, and brown people, and women, and anyone else who doesn’t own or speak for great big piles of money.
Maybe six, if the (D)’s can’t get their act together.
There might be a hotel in Moscow when all is said and done, but maybe not. If there is, Trump’s name will be on it, but Putin will own it. Because Trump is Putin’s mark.
Trump is used to ‘winning’ by cheating people out of their wages, and screwing over creditors, and laundering kleptocrat money, and generally being a dick.
Putin is used to winning by killing people. Not personally, they just end up dead, somehow.
Advantage Putin.
Anyway, I’m starting a book on all of the above, if anyone’s interested.
I’d guess that his views on Presidential immunity on absolutely everything were the overwhelming reason he got tapped.
I can see the attraction.
We should have sent Nixon to jail. For, like, 10 years. Real jail, not La Quinta Inns and Suites jail.
My expectation at this point is:
And, Trump will continue to FUBAR the cause of small-l liberal democracy for another couple of years. To say nothing of the environment, and working Americans, and brown people, and women, and anyone else who doesn’t own or speak for great big piles of money.
Maybe six, if the (D)’s can’t get their act together.
There might be a hotel in Moscow when all is said and done, but maybe not. If there is, Trump’s name will be on it, but Putin will own it. Because Trump is Putin’s mark.
Trump is used to ‘winning’ by cheating people out of their wages, and screwing over creditors, and laundering kleptocrat money, and generally being a dick.
Putin is used to winning by killing people. Not personally, they just end up dead, somehow.
Advantage Putin.
Anyway, I’m starting a book on all of the above, if anyone’s interested.
Manafort, Flynn, Papadopolous, probably Cohen, will do some kind of time. At La Quinta.
You don’t think Clickbait will pardon them before it gets to that point?
Manafort, Flynn, Papadopolous, probably Cohen, will do some kind of time. At La Quinta.
You don’t think Clickbait will pardon them before it gets to that point?
He probably will. Although perhaps only after 2020.
Unfortunately for them, there are also significant state charges. Which Trump is in no position to do anything about.
He probably will. Although perhaps only after 2020.
Unfortunately for them, there are also significant state charges. Which Trump is in no position to do anything about.
From wj’s NY Mag link:
Yep.
From wj’s NY Mag link:
Yep.
it happens, and I’m pretty sure has happened before. not sure that it’s sustainable.
Reminds me of the comment about the market staying irrational longer than the rational investor can stay solvent….
it happens, and I’m pretty sure has happened before. not sure that it’s sustainable.
Reminds me of the comment about the market staying irrational longer than the rational investor can stay solvent….
I’d guess that his views on Presidential immunity on absolutely everything were the overwhelming reason he got tapped.”
Why guess at facts?
Yes. Except of course when anyone but a Republican is President:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/07/starr-starr
Kavanaugh also played a supporting role as a hack in the theft of the Presidency in the 2000. He has just been cast as a leading man in the coming Constitutional Crisis that will sink the country into horrific, genocidal, savage Civil War (they have all of the guns and the political money via Citizens United) in all 50 states, as he casts the vote or votes to exonerate mp and all of the other republicans who, with the absolute aid of the Kremlin, stole the election of 2016, among dozens of other crimes.
Kavanaugh has principles and if we don’t like those, he has others. All self-serving and partisan.
A warning blast from the past about political principle from the early 1950s by Arthur Schlesinger at a time when the American Political Science Association convinced the two parties to transform themselves into truly national, ideological cohesive parties, a process that in the republican is now finished and complete, locked in with no possibility of being ameliorated, because those bugs are organized and ruthless. There is no time left for the democratic party to complete their transformation, and more’s the pity, considering the bloodshed that is imminent:
“Is not the fact that each party has a liberal and conservative wing a genuine source of national strength and cohesion? . . . The result is, of course, that no group can have the desperate feeling that all options are foreclosed, all access to power barred, by the victory of the opposition: there will always be somebody in a Democratic administration on whose shoulders business can weep, and even a Republican administration will have somewhere a refuge for labor. If the party division were strictly ideological, each presidential election would subject national unity to a fearful test. We must remember that the one election when our parties stood irrevocably on questions of principle was the election of 1860.”
The book review from whence the quote:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/02/the-rise-of-mcpolitics
The Federalist Society will criminalize abortion, gay marriage, and possibly homosexuality and lesbianism once again. Labor unions are done, as they are in the Soviet Union, which is fitting. Only republican money will flow into corrupt stolen elections from here on out. Environmental and workplace regs are finished.
The Federal Government is out of the business of protecting the American people, with the exception of the prejudices and discriminations of white, male Christians and the odd lot Ayn Rand filth, the latter those who like and wish to retain their right to blowjobs as long as there is no minimum wage or protections for those workers supplying them.
As it happens, I now have a much more expansive view of the Second Amendment and what the Founders viewed as its’ role in defending against the enemies of this country.
Casting our eyes abroad, the worldwide right wing nationalist conservative movement, including in Russia and China .. the latter in which Ivanka mp’s trinkets and scarves are produced and enter the U.S. without tariff … and Israel and Turkey, and Poland and England and spreading like the zombie virus to the rest of the world, must also be fucking liquidated.
If you want your children to live in a halfway normal world, albeit less populated.
They will also cause Social Security and Medicare to be declared unconstitutional by the courts and the Court. Because they say and have declared forever that’s what they fully intend to do.
I was reading that some 40,000 right-wing attorneys, law students, and judges are members of the Star Chamber called the Federalist Society. I’m told Rod Rosenstein … the republican, Marty … is one of them, temporarily I expect, as he will soon resign if not thrown out of that pigshit, murderous organization, probably while he is behind bars for being an American in the midst of the unAmerican vermin called the republican/conservative party.
The 39,999 are among the living.
Change that fact, within the context of a Civil War in every street in America and we can save our country.
Casting our eyes abroad, the worldwide right wing nationalist conservative movement, including in Russia and China .. the latter in which Ivanka mp’s trinkets and scarves are produced and enter the U.S. without tariff … and Israel and Turkey, and Poland and England and spreading like the zombie virus to the rest of the world, must also be fucking liquidated.
If you want your children to live in a halfway normal world, albeit less populated.
Dana Milbank wrote an editorial in the Washington Post entitles “An Explosion Is Coming”. He hopes it’s electoral and not the street-leel variety, but the first option is already being foreclosed by the liars and cheats in the republican party, and the Russians are already hard at work enabling it.
Republicans received an update on their progress in Moscow just last week.
Look:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-grants-clemency-to-oregon-cattle-ranchers-whose-imprisonment-led-to-armed-standoff-2018-07-10?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
You can do anything, break any law, to subvert rule of law, as long as you are a piece of republican dogshit.
They’ll kill the rest of us.
I’d guess that his views on Presidential immunity on absolutely everything were the overwhelming reason he got tapped.”
Why guess at facts?
Yes. Except of course when anyone but a Republican is President:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/07/starr-starr
Kavanaugh also played a supporting role as a hack in the theft of the Presidency in the 2000. He has just been cast as a leading man in the coming Constitutional Crisis that will sink the country into horrific, genocidal, savage Civil War (they have all of the guns and the political money via Citizens United) in all 50 states, as he casts the vote or votes to exonerate mp and all of the other republicans who, with the absolute aid of the Kremlin, stole the election of 2016, among dozens of other crimes.
Kavanaugh has principles and if we don’t like those, he has others. All self-serving and partisan.
A warning blast from the past about political principle from the early 1950s by Arthur Schlesinger at a time when the American Political Science Association convinced the two parties to transform themselves into truly national, ideological cohesive parties, a process that in the republican is now finished and complete, locked in with no possibility of being ameliorated, because those bugs are organized and ruthless. There is no time left for the democratic party to complete their transformation, and more’s the pity, considering the bloodshed that is imminent:
“Is not the fact that each party has a liberal and conservative wing a genuine source of national strength and cohesion? . . . The result is, of course, that no group can have the desperate feeling that all options are foreclosed, all access to power barred, by the victory of the opposition: there will always be somebody in a Democratic administration on whose shoulders business can weep, and even a Republican administration will have somewhere a refuge for labor. If the party division were strictly ideological, each presidential election would subject national unity to a fearful test. We must remember that the one election when our parties stood irrevocably on questions of principle was the election of 1860.”
The book review from whence the quote:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/02/the-rise-of-mcpolitics
The Federalist Society will criminalize abortion, gay marriage, and possibly homosexuality and lesbianism once again. Labor unions are done, as they are in the Soviet Union, which is fitting. Only republican money will flow into corrupt stolen elections from here on out. Environmental and workplace regs are finished.
The Federal Government is out of the business of protecting the American people, with the exception of the prejudices and discriminations of white, male Christians and the odd lot Ayn Rand filth, the latter those who like and wish to retain their right to blowjobs as long as there is no minimum wage or protections for those workers supplying them.
As it happens, I now have a much more expansive view of the Second Amendment and what the Founders viewed as its’ role in defending against the enemies of this country.
Casting our eyes abroad, the worldwide right wing nationalist conservative movement, including in Russia and China .. the latter in which Ivanka mp’s trinkets and scarves are produced and enter the U.S. without tariff … and Israel and Turkey, and Poland and England and spreading like the zombie virus to the rest of the world, must also be fucking liquidated.
If you want your children to live in a halfway normal world, albeit less populated.
They will also cause Social Security and Medicare to be declared unconstitutional by the courts and the Court. Because they say and have declared forever that’s what they fully intend to do.
I was reading that some 40,000 right-wing attorneys, law students, and judges are members of the Star Chamber called the Federalist Society. I’m told Rod Rosenstein … the republican, Marty … is one of them, temporarily I expect, as he will soon resign if not thrown out of that pigshit, murderous organization, probably while he is behind bars for being an American in the midst of the unAmerican vermin called the republican/conservative party.
The 39,999 are among the living.
Change that fact, within the context of a Civil War in every street in America and we can save our country.
Casting our eyes abroad, the worldwide right wing nationalist conservative movement, including in Russia and China .. the latter in which Ivanka mp’s trinkets and scarves are produced and enter the U.S. without tariff … and Israel and Turkey, and Poland and England and spreading like the zombie virus to the rest of the world, must also be fucking liquidated.
If you want your children to live in a halfway normal world, albeit less populated.
Dana Milbank wrote an editorial in the Washington Post entitles “An Explosion Is Coming”. He hopes it’s electoral and not the street-leel variety, but the first option is already being foreclosed by the liars and cheats in the republican party, and the Russians are already hard at work enabling it.
Republicans received an update on their progress in Moscow just last week.
Look:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-grants-clemency-to-oregon-cattle-ranchers-whose-imprisonment-led-to-armed-standoff-2018-07-10?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
You can do anything, break any law, to subvert rule of law, as long as you are a piece of republican dogshit.
They’ll kill the rest of us.
SAVE THE WHALES
We did.
You’re welcome.
SAVE THE WHALES
We did.
You’re welcome.
We did.
liar.
http://us.whales.org/wdc-in-action/climate-change
We did.
liar.
http://us.whales.org/wdc-in-action/climate-change
Just posting a link, since someone praised Obama’s support for the Syrian rebels some days back. There is a slight chance Trump will end that support, though if so it will probably be counterbalanced by more stupidity elsewhere. This is a fairly lengthy post.
http://m.regthink.org/en/articles/the-breaking-of-syrias-rebellion
To no sane person’s surprise, it turns out that both the government and the various rebel factions are all horrible.
Just posting a link, since someone praised Obama’s support for the Syrian rebels some days back. There is a slight chance Trump will end that support, though if so it will probably be counterbalanced by more stupidity elsewhere. This is a fairly lengthy post.
http://m.regthink.org/en/articles/the-breaking-of-syrias-rebellion
To no sane person’s surprise, it turns out that both the government and the various rebel factions are all horrible.
Great Schlesinger quote Count.
Great Schlesinger quote Count.
Donald, while the analysis is fine as far as it goes (and, as you say, it’s no great surprise for the groups covered), I notice that Ms Tsurkov is careful to never even mention the word Kurd. And says nothing about conditions in the areas that the Kurds control.
Note that the faction that the US has been mostly supporting is the Syrian Kurds. Which, I would say, rather undercuts your point. Not necessarily invalidates it completely, but definitely undercuts the theory that our support is all going to noxious groups.
Donald, while the analysis is fine as far as it goes (and, as you say, it’s no great surprise for the groups covered), I notice that Ms Tsurkov is careful to never even mention the word Kurd. And says nothing about conditions in the areas that the Kurds control.
Note that the faction that the US has been mostly supporting is the Syrian Kurds. Which, I would say, rather undercuts your point. Not necessarily invalidates it completely, but definitely undercuts the theory that our support is all going to noxious groups.
Fossil Fuel Industry
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/07/today-sixth-extinction-5
Fossil Fuel Industry
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/07/today-sixth-extinction-5
But, without fossil fuels, would there now be any whales left to worry about?
But, without fossil fuels, would there now be any whales left to worry about?
Open thread: The stock market is down today on trade-war fears. There was an Onion piece I saw not long ago about the stressed-out floor trader who always shows up in photos accompanying internet stock reporting, holding his head or covering his open mouth with his hands or grimacing with clenched fists, when the market is down.
True to form, he showed up today. The Onion is funny.
Open thread: The stock market is down today on trade-war fears. There was an Onion piece I saw not long ago about the stressed-out floor trader who always shows up in photos accompanying internet stock reporting, holding his head or covering his open mouth with his hands or grimacing with clenched fists, when the market is down.
True to form, he showed up today. The Onion is funny.
But, without fossil fuels, would there now be any whales left to worry about?
Fossil fuels in use or simply in existence? Also, too, are you a fan of Andy Kaufman?
But, without fossil fuels, would there now be any whales left to worry about?
Fossil fuels in use or simply in existence? Also, too, are you a fan of Andy Kaufman?
Fossil fuel use certainly supplanted whale oil use.
Fossil fuel use certainly supplanted whale oil use.
Moby Dick had a happy ending after all.
Moby Dick had a happy ending after all.
Fossil fuel use certainly supplanted whale oil use.
and now it’s killing them.
[and that’s before we start adding up the damage that petroleum’s other demon spawn, plastic, creates]
Fossil fuel use certainly supplanted whale oil use.
and now it’s killing them.
[and that’s before we start adding up the damage that petroleum’s other demon spawn, plastic, creates]
you can always count on ObWi for some high-quality esoterica.
Oddly, it looks like the greatest number of whales were hunted and killed in the 20th C..
Like, three million of them. In no small part because fossil fuels made hunting them more efficient.
Counter-intuitive, perhaps, but nevertheless it appears to be so.
Over to you, Fossil Fuel Industry.
you can always count on ObWi for some high-quality esoterica.
Oddly, it looks like the greatest number of whales were hunted and killed in the 20th C..
Like, three million of them. In no small part because fossil fuels made hunting them more efficient.
Counter-intuitive, perhaps, but nevertheless it appears to be so.
Over to you, Fossil Fuel Industry.
By comparision, looks like 236K killed in the 19th C.
This is all just google-ology, I’m happy to be corrected by folks who have some actual knowledge of the history of whaling.
But it looks like our fossil-fueled 20th was an order of magnitude more deadly for whales than the 19th, when whale oil use was at its peak.
By comparision, looks like 236K killed in the 19th C.
This is all just google-ology, I’m happy to be corrected by folks who have some actual knowledge of the history of whaling.
But it looks like our fossil-fueled 20th was an order of magnitude more deadly for whales than the 19th, when whale oil use was at its peak.
Apparently, whale oil is a hobby horse of sorts.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/this-post-is-hopelessly-long-w
Apparently, whale oil is a hobby horse of sorts.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/this-post-is-hopelessly-long-w
But now, it’s not whale oil they are hunted for. It’s sashimi. (OK, the Japanese claim they are hunting them for scientific research. Anyone who believes that, I’ve got this iconic bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you for a great price.)
But now, it’s not whale oil they are hunted for. It’s sashimi. (OK, the Japanese claim they are hunting them for scientific research. Anyone who believes that, I’ve got this iconic bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you for a great price.)
For whales that subsist on krill, what might wipe them out is factory ships (often, but not exclusively Japanese I believe) hoovering up vast tonnages of krill to turn into fish oil and other products. And it won’t just affect whales, apparently many other species are depending on the food chain of which krill form the bottom layer.
For whales that subsist on krill, what might wipe them out is factory ships (often, but not exclusively Japanese I believe) hoovering up vast tonnages of krill to turn into fish oil and other products. And it won’t just affect whales, apparently many other species are depending on the food chain of which krill form the bottom layer.
Meanwhile, we still have significant vulnerabilities in our vote counting systems. Partially because reporting flaws that you find means that you are admitting to violating the 1985 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. And you are likely to find yourself being investigated by the FBI for doing so.
There is (was) a bill to update the act so as to (among other things) provide for reporting bugs to the appropriate authority. This was introduced . . . in 2013. Stalled in committee (thanks to objections from Oracle). Reintroduced in 2015, and stalled in committee again. Sigh
Meanwhile, we still have significant vulnerabilities in our vote counting systems. Partially because reporting flaws that you find means that you are admitting to violating the 1985 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. And you are likely to find yourself being investigated by the FBI for doing so.
There is (was) a bill to update the act so as to (among other things) provide for reporting bugs to the appropriate authority. This was introduced . . . in 2013. Stalled in committee (thanks to objections from Oracle). Reintroduced in 2015, and stalled in committee again. Sigh
Posted by: Sebastian H:
” I actually found the Army discharge story to be strangely more shocking than the rest of the recent stories. I’m not totally sure why, but I did.”
You assumed, as I once did, that the right held military service as sacred, or at least in deep respect. I dropped that belief many years ago, as the evidence piled up.
In the end, the only thing that the right respects is power and money.
Posted by: Sebastian H:
” I actually found the Army discharge story to be strangely more shocking than the rest of the recent stories. I’m not totally sure why, but I did.”
You assumed, as I once did, that the right held military service as sacred, or at least in deep respect. I dropped that belief many years ago, as the evidence piled up.
In the end, the only thing that the right respects is power and money.
Taking a moment away from the salt mine to make a point or two about our revered president. Not everyone on the right likes the MF, even if we are not in a state of perpetual outrage, as some few seem to be. That said, what happened in Europe this week is really, really beyond the pale for someone who claims to be a Republican. Seriously, while it is correct to call out–in an appropriate fashion–the NATO members who are not making fair contributions, the meeting with Putin cannot be rationalized, period full stop. If you have time, read the link below from National Review (you’ll be ok with it), and ponder the disconnect between Trump and his Director of National Intelligence. Here’s the link: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-warning-lights-are-blinking-red-again/
He needs to go.
Taking a moment away from the salt mine to make a point or two about our revered president. Not everyone on the right likes the MF, even if we are not in a state of perpetual outrage, as some few seem to be. That said, what happened in Europe this week is really, really beyond the pale for someone who claims to be a Republican. Seriously, while it is correct to call out–in an appropriate fashion–the NATO members who are not making fair contributions, the meeting with Putin cannot be rationalized, period full stop. If you have time, read the link below from National Review (you’ll be ok with it), and ponder the disconnect between Trump and his Director of National Intelligence. Here’s the link: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-warning-lights-are-blinking-red-again/
He needs to go.
I hope you are the harbinger, McKinney.
I hope you are the harbinger, McKinney.
Its a decent piece, McKinney, but with respect nobody here except maybe you and Marty needs to ponder it: we’ve all been talking about the disconnect between Trump and various members of the intelligence community, whether specialists in cyber-warfare or otherwise, for weeks and months. As for the rest of Trump’s Excellent European Adventure, with particular emphasis on calling the EU America’s foe and saying what a great Prime Minister Boris Johnson would be, words are rapidly becoming inadequate to express what you have leading your country.
Its a decent piece, McKinney, but with respect nobody here except maybe you and Marty needs to ponder it: we’ve all been talking about the disconnect between Trump and various members of the intelligence community, whether specialists in cyber-warfare or otherwise, for weeks and months. As for the rest of Trump’s Excellent European Adventure, with particular emphasis on calling the EU America’s foe and saying what a great Prime Minister Boris Johnson would be, words are rapidly becoming inadequate to express what you have leading your country.
He needs to go
yep
He needs to go
yep
he definitely needs to go.
but he ain’t going anywhere.
we’re stuck with him till 2020 at least. and come 2020, we’re going to hear a long list of reasons why Trump is still better than a Democrat. the GOP loves him.
he definitely needs to go.
but he ain’t going anywhere.
we’re stuck with him till 2020 at least. and come 2020, we’re going to hear a long list of reasons why Trump is still better than a Democrat. the GOP loves him.
Glad to see you say that, McKinney. I’m just wondering what any Republican Senator or Congressperson is going to do about it.
Glad to see you say that, McKinney. I’m just wondering what any Republican Senator or Congressperson is going to do about it.
Full panic mode over at LGM.
Full panic mode over at LGM.
BJ, too.
BJ, too.
I’m just wondering what any Republican Senator or Congressperson is going to do about it.
That is the question.
the GOP loves him.
I am afraid this is correct. I can’t say that Trump is pushing Republicans farther to the right, because he really doesn’t have a ‘true north’ of any kind. Rather, he is pushing them farther into a cult bubble that will be difficult for a lot of elected folks to explain if reality ever manages to intrude. I think the Dems are moving farther left, in part and maybe in large part, in reaction to Trump. Ironically, Sapient (IMO) adheres as much as anyone to the traditional, center/left of WJC/HRC.
I’m just wondering what any Republican Senator or Congressperson is going to do about it.
That is the question.
the GOP loves him.
I am afraid this is correct. I can’t say that Trump is pushing Republicans farther to the right, because he really doesn’t have a ‘true north’ of any kind. Rather, he is pushing them farther into a cult bubble that will be difficult for a lot of elected folks to explain if reality ever manages to intrude. I think the Dems are moving farther left, in part and maybe in large part, in reaction to Trump. Ironically, Sapient (IMO) adheres as much as anyone to the traditional, center/left of WJC/HRC.
an actual Russian agent wrote that in an email.
no collusion. you’re the puppet.
my gut says Ryan is resigning because he doesn’t want to face voters after it comes out that he was one of those “key Republican leaders”.
an actual Russian agent wrote that in an email.
no collusion. you’re the puppet.
my gut says Ryan is resigning because he doesn’t want to face voters after it comes out that he was one of those “key Republican leaders”.
Coats and FBI Director Wray both worked at the same firm for a # of years (me too). If they took to heart the ethos of the group they worked in at the firm, it would be a good thing – and I think they have (or had it before they joined).
Also why it doesn’t bother me that they serve in the Trump Admin, in that they have a sense of honor.
Coats and FBI Director Wray both worked at the same firm for a # of years (me too). If they took to heart the ethos of the group they worked in at the firm, it would be a good thing – and I think they have (or had it before they joined).
Also why it doesn’t bother me that they serve in the Trump Admin, in that they have a sense of honor.
I think the Dems are moving farther left, in part and maybe in large part, in reaction to Trump.
yep.
and also the success the farther-right have had in dragging the GOP away from the center. not that there is much of anything in the center; there was compromise, but that’s gone now. the hard right has been running the GOP for almost a decade now, and it hasn’t hurt them at all. Dems have noticed that and are starting to come around to the idea that running on centrism in an age when GOP cooperation is impossible to get is a fool’s game. might as well stand for something bold and opposed to the GOP’s offer of tax cuts, racism and plutocracy.
I think the Dems are moving farther left, in part and maybe in large part, in reaction to Trump.
yep.
and also the success the farther-right have had in dragging the GOP away from the center. not that there is much of anything in the center; there was compromise, but that’s gone now. the hard right has been running the GOP for almost a decade now, and it hasn’t hurt them at all. Dems have noticed that and are starting to come around to the idea that running on centrism in an age when GOP cooperation is impossible to get is a fool’s game. might as well stand for something bold and opposed to the GOP’s offer of tax cuts, racism and plutocracy.
And here is Coats
https://twitter.com/ODNIgov/status/1018928520037363712
And here is Coats
https://twitter.com/ODNIgov/status/1018928520037363712
Actually, great news from Trump’s meeting with Putin. He doesn’t seem to have given away the store. Which, after Kim, wasn’t a given.
Depending, of course, what he said to Putin in that private meeting. The good news is that he’s too dumb to remember very much really sensitive intelligence info to pass on. But perhaps the information/orders were going the other way….
Actually, great news from Trump’s meeting with Putin. He doesn’t seem to have given away the store. Which, after Kim, wasn’t a given.
Depending, of course, what he said to Putin in that private meeting. The good news is that he’s too dumb to remember very much really sensitive intelligence info to pass on. But perhaps the information/orders were going the other way….
The nuclear code is 12345.
The nuclear code is 12345.
the cult is thriving.
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1018876214554058755
the cult is thriving.
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1018876214554058755
I think we’re actually in LG territory here. I mean, everyone has to pee, amirite?
I think we’re actually in LG territory here. I mean, everyone has to pee, amirite?
He needs to go.
Tell your senators and congressperson.
He needs to go.
Tell your senators and congressperson.
It’s like he has a compulsion to keep going further and further until he crashes. Must be frustrating for him on some level that it keeps not working with his fanboys. 😉
It’s like he has a compulsion to keep going further and further until he crashes. Must be frustrating for him on some level that it keeps not working with his fanboys. 😉