by liberal japonicus
I had, I suppose a bit morbidly, had an idea of posting this before the fact, but I waited and then it was (perhaps fortunately) too late. More below
I start with this paragraph from his Wikipedia page
Writers often extolled McCain for his courage not just in war but in politics, and wrote sympathetically about him. McCain’s shift of political stances and attitudes during and especially after the 2008 presidential campaign, including his self-repudiation of the maverick label, left many writers expressing sadness and wondering what had happened to the McCain they thought they had known. By 2013, some aspects of the older McCain had returned, and his image became that of a kaleidoscope of contradictory tendencies, including, as one writer listed, “the maverick, the former maverick, the curmudgeon, the bridge builder, the war hero bent on transcending the call of self-interest to serve a cause greater than himself, the sore loser, old bull, last lion, loose cannon, happy warrior, elder statesman, lion in winter….”
The quote is from a Mark Leibovich piece about him, and that quote is a bit at odds with the intro of the piece. This Guardian piece is interesting as well, identifying “10 moments that will shape the senator’s legacy”. fivethirtyeight.com has a quant piece on McCain that also is a bit different that then usual.
I wanted to post before he passed because I think we will see laudatory pieces and pieces going against such pieces, especially those showing McCain and his ties to people across the aisle, such as Joe Biden as indicative of the problems in Washington. With a person as complex as John McCain, I feel like what people write will reveal more about themselves than it will about McCain…
Let’s not look backwards but forward. 😉
Will he get replaced before the midterms by someone ‘reliable’ in order to push through more abominable bills and confirm more monsters to lifetime positions on courts (SCOTUS in particular)? Until now almost everyone assumed that the old guy would be either absent or even turn up to vote against some of the more extreme stuff.
Let’s not look backwards but forward. 😉
Will he get replaced before the midterms by someone ‘reliable’ in order to push through more abominable bills and confirm more monsters to lifetime positions on courts (SCOTUS in particular)? Until now almost everyone assumed that the old guy would be either absent or even turn up to vote against some of the more extreme stuff.
Hartmut, the TPM piece, at the end, goes into a bit of detail about what may happen after.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/john-mccain-dead-at-81
Hartmut, the TPM piece, at the end, goes into a bit of detail about what may happen after.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/john-mccain-dead-at-81
We were fortunate to have had his service and leadership. Complex yes, honest too.
We were fortunate to have had his service and leadership. Complex yes, honest too.
“Sore loser”
Agree
“Sore loser”
Agree
for all his faults, McCain was one of the better ones.
as a liberal, i know i’m supposed to hate him. but i just can’t muster the bile.
whoever replaces him will be 100x worse.
for all his faults, McCain was one of the better ones.
as a liberal, i know i’m supposed to hate him. but i just can’t muster the bile.
whoever replaces him will be 100x worse.
hard to reconcile “sore loser” with mccain’s gracious acceptance of his loss to obama.
what i found most notable in mccain was his inability to abandon his own, innate, basic decency. can’t think of a better thing to say about anyone.
and however you see our involvement in vietnam, his behavior during six years as a prisoner was unambiguously heroic.
rare qualities.
rip john mccain, you will be missed, especially now.
hard to reconcile “sore loser” with mccain’s gracious acceptance of his loss to obama.
what i found most notable in mccain was his inability to abandon his own, innate, basic decency. can’t think of a better thing to say about anyone.
and however you see our involvement in vietnam, his behavior during six years as a prisoner was unambiguously heroic.
rare qualities.
rip john mccain, you will be missed, especially now.
Complex. Leaving it at that.
Complex. Leaving it at that.
Here in MA, we have a Republican governor named Charlie Baker running for re-election. It’s hard to tell from his TV ads that he IS a Republican, but I know better. I will be voting for the Democrat to be named later, because John McCain. And for that matter, Ted Kennedy.
John McCain was one of the Keating Five as well as the man who foisted Sarah Palin on our national politics. But he also had occasional flashes of decency, and I don’t just say that because he’s dead.
I choose to remember McCain as the mensch who told the dumb-ass woman at his rally that Obama was NOT an “Arab”, rather than as the panderer who demanded “Build the dang fence”.
Yes, his appointed successor will be 100x worse.
–TP
Here in MA, we have a Republican governor named Charlie Baker running for re-election. It’s hard to tell from his TV ads that he IS a Republican, but I know better. I will be voting for the Democrat to be named later, because John McCain. And for that matter, Ted Kennedy.
John McCain was one of the Keating Five as well as the man who foisted Sarah Palin on our national politics. But he also had occasional flashes of decency, and I don’t just say that because he’s dead.
I choose to remember McCain as the mensch who told the dumb-ass woman at his rally that Obama was NOT an “Arab”, rather than as the panderer who demanded “Build the dang fence”.
Yes, his appointed successor will be 100x worse.
–TP
McCain from a libertarian perspective:
“For both good and ill, McCain helped shape the purpose and application of Washington’s considerable power for nearly half a century. Partly because of that mixed track record, his passing leaves as an open question what kind of future that McCain-style politics—with its robust, moralistic interventionism both at home but especially abroad—has in a political party and country that elected his rhetorical tormentor, Donald Trump.”
John McCain, the Senate’s Most Influential Hawk, Is Dead: The late Arizona senator’s relentless energy and patriotic sense of honor led him to heroic acts of defiance, but also misguided support for disastrous foreign interventions.
McCain from a libertarian perspective:
“For both good and ill, McCain helped shape the purpose and application of Washington’s considerable power for nearly half a century. Partly because of that mixed track record, his passing leaves as an open question what kind of future that McCain-style politics—with its robust, moralistic interventionism both at home but especially abroad—has in a political party and country that elected his rhetorical tormentor, Donald Trump.”
John McCain, the Senate’s Most Influential Hawk, Is Dead: The late Arizona senator’s relentless energy and patriotic sense of honor led him to heroic acts of defiance, but also misguided support for disastrous foreign interventions.
When I said in another thread that nothing in his life became him like the leaving it, some might have thought I was referring to his decision to discontinue treatment, which had happened a few hours before. But I was not.
I know he had a very mixed history of actions and attitudes, many of which I might have disagreed with or even despised. And his impulsive and petulant nomination of Palin was a direct precursor to and enabler of the Trump phenomenon.
But his conduct during the Trump presidency has been a beacon for the kind of people (Republicans) who might have needed one, to remind them of how it was possible to regard this president even if you were a conservative and a hawk. His vote on the ACA motion was hugely important, and his statement after Helsinki likewise. As for his behaviour in refusing an early release by the VietCong, it is the kind of principled heroism about which Bonespur Donny can only have uneasy dreams.
When I said in another thread that nothing in his life became him like the leaving it, some might have thought I was referring to his decision to discontinue treatment, which had happened a few hours before. But I was not.
I know he had a very mixed history of actions and attitudes, many of which I might have disagreed with or even despised. And his impulsive and petulant nomination of Palin was a direct precursor to and enabler of the Trump phenomenon.
But his conduct during the Trump presidency has been a beacon for the kind of people (Republicans) who might have needed one, to remind them of how it was possible to regard this president even if you were a conservative and a hawk. His vote on the ACA motion was hugely important, and his statement after Helsinki likewise. As for his behaviour in refusing an early release by the VietCong, it is the kind of principled heroism about which Bonespur Donny can only have uneasy dreams.
Rest In Peace, John McCain:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/john-mccains-mother-still-alive-at-106-called-him-a-scamp-2018-08-26?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
I like to think McCain occasionally pulled Lindsay Graham aside to say: “Speaking as a bit of an asshole myself, that was one bit of assholery too far on your part, Lindsay. Does your mouth work on its own, or does it at least consult with your brain first?”
I suspect we are about to see Graham the asshole in full now that his only ass left to kiss is that of King Asshole himself.
Rest In Peace, John McCain:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/john-mccains-mother-still-alive-at-106-called-him-a-scamp-2018-08-26?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
I like to think McCain occasionally pulled Lindsay Graham aside to say: “Speaking as a bit of an asshole myself, that was one bit of assholery too far on your part, Lindsay. Does your mouth work on its own, or does it at least consult with your brain first?”
I suspect we are about to see Graham the asshole in full now that his only ass left to kiss is that of King Asshole himself.
Via our old pal Gary Farber, excerpted from:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/john-mccain-make-believe-maverick-202004/
“[…] But the subsequent tale of McCain’s mistreatment — and the transformation it is alleged to have produced — are both deeply flawed. The Code of Conduct that governed POWs was incredibly rigid; few soldiers lived up to its dictate that they ‘give no information . . . which might be harmful to my comrades.’ Under the code, POWs are bound to give only their name, rank, date of birth and service number — and to make no ‘statements disloyal to my country.’
Soon after McCain hit the ground in Hanoi, the code went out the window. ‘I’ll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital,’ he later admitted pleading with his captors. McCain now insists the offer was a bluff, designed to fool the enemy into giving him medical treatment. In fact, his wounds were attended to only after the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a Navy admiral. What has never been disclosed is the manner in which they found out: McCain told them. According to Dramesi, one of the few POWs who remained silent under years of torture, McCain tried to justify his behavior while they were still prisoners. ‘I had to tell them,’ he insisted to Dramesi, ‘or I would have died in bed.’
Dramesi says he has no desire to dishonor McCain’s service, but he believes that celebrating the downed pilot’s behavior as heroic — ‘he wasn’t exceptional one way or the other’ — has a corrosive effect on military discipline. ‘This business of my country before my life?’ Dramesi says. ‘Well, he had that opportunity and failed miserably. If it really were country first, John McCain would probably be walking around without one or two arms or legs — or he’d be dead.’
Once the Vietnamese realized they had captured the man they called the ‘crown prince,’ they had every motivation to keep McCain alive. His value as a propaganda tool and bargaining chip was far greater than any military intelligence he could provide, and McCain knew it. ‘It was hard not to see how pleased the Vietnamese were to have captured an admiral’s son,’ he writes, ‘and I knew that my father’s identity was directly related to my survival.’
But during the course of his medical treatment, McCain followed through on his offer of military information. Only two weeks after his capture, the North Vietnamese press issued a report — picked up by The New York Times — in which McCain was quoted as saying that the war was ‘moving to the advantage of North Vietnam and the United States appears to be isolated.’ He also provided the name of his ship, the number of raids he had flown, his squadron number and the target of his final raid.
THE CONFESSION
In the company of his fellow POWs, and later in isolation, McCain slowly and miserably recovered from his wounds. In June 1968, after three months in solitary, he was offered what he calls early release. In the official McCain narrative, this was the ultimate test of mettle. He could have come home, but keeping faith with his fellow POWs, he chose to remain imprisoned in Hanoi.
What McCain glosses over is that accepting early release would have required him to make disloyal statements that would have violated the military’s Code of Conduct. If he had done so, he could have risked court-martial and an ignominious end to his military career. ‘Many of us were given this offer,’ according to Butler, McCain’s classmate who was also taken prisoner. ‘It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to ‘admit’ that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was ‘lenient and humane.’ So I, like numerous others, refused the offer.’
‘He makes it sound like it was a great thing to have accomplished,’ says Dramesi. ‘A great act of discipline or strength. That simply was not the case.’
In fairness, it is difficult to judge McCain’s experience as a POW; throughout most of his incarceration he was the only witness to his mistreatment. Parts of his memoir recounting his days in Hanoi read like a bad Ian Fleming novel, with his Vietnamese captors cast as nefarious Bond villains. On the Fourth of July 1968, when he rejected the offer of early release, an officer nicknamed ‘Cat’ got so mad, according to McCain, that he snapped a pen he was holding, splattering ink across the room.
‘They taught you too well, Mac Kane,’ Cat snarled, kicking over a chair. ‘They taught you too well.’
The brutal interrogations that followed produced results. In August 1968, over the course of four days, McCain was tortured into signing a confession that he was a ‘black criminal’ and an ‘air pirate.’
‘John allows the media to make him out to be the hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals,’ says Butler. ‘John was just one of about 600 guys. He was nothing unusual. He was just another POW.’
McCain has also allowed the media to believe that his torture lasted for the entire time he was in Hanoi. At the Republican convention, Fred Thompson said of McCain’s torture, ‘For five and a half years this went on.’ In fact, McCain’s torture ended after two years, when the death of Ho Chi Minh in September 1969 caused the Vietnamese to change the way they treated POWs. ‘They decided it would be better to treat us better and keep us alive so they could trade us in for real estate,’ Butler recalls. […]”
Via our old pal Gary Farber, excerpted from:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/john-mccain-make-believe-maverick-202004/
“[…] But the subsequent tale of McCain’s mistreatment — and the transformation it is alleged to have produced — are both deeply flawed. The Code of Conduct that governed POWs was incredibly rigid; few soldiers lived up to its dictate that they ‘give no information . . . which might be harmful to my comrades.’ Under the code, POWs are bound to give only their name, rank, date of birth and service number — and to make no ‘statements disloyal to my country.’
Soon after McCain hit the ground in Hanoi, the code went out the window. ‘I’ll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital,’ he later admitted pleading with his captors. McCain now insists the offer was a bluff, designed to fool the enemy into giving him medical treatment. In fact, his wounds were attended to only after the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a Navy admiral. What has never been disclosed is the manner in which they found out: McCain told them. According to Dramesi, one of the few POWs who remained silent under years of torture, McCain tried to justify his behavior while they were still prisoners. ‘I had to tell them,’ he insisted to Dramesi, ‘or I would have died in bed.’
Dramesi says he has no desire to dishonor McCain’s service, but he believes that celebrating the downed pilot’s behavior as heroic — ‘he wasn’t exceptional one way or the other’ — has a corrosive effect on military discipline. ‘This business of my country before my life?’ Dramesi says. ‘Well, he had that opportunity and failed miserably. If it really were country first, John McCain would probably be walking around without one or two arms or legs — or he’d be dead.’
Once the Vietnamese realized they had captured the man they called the ‘crown prince,’ they had every motivation to keep McCain alive. His value as a propaganda tool and bargaining chip was far greater than any military intelligence he could provide, and McCain knew it. ‘It was hard not to see how pleased the Vietnamese were to have captured an admiral’s son,’ he writes, ‘and I knew that my father’s identity was directly related to my survival.’
But during the course of his medical treatment, McCain followed through on his offer of military information. Only two weeks after his capture, the North Vietnamese press issued a report — picked up by The New York Times — in which McCain was quoted as saying that the war was ‘moving to the advantage of North Vietnam and the United States appears to be isolated.’ He also provided the name of his ship, the number of raids he had flown, his squadron number and the target of his final raid.
THE CONFESSION
In the company of his fellow POWs, and later in isolation, McCain slowly and miserably recovered from his wounds. In June 1968, after three months in solitary, he was offered what he calls early release. In the official McCain narrative, this was the ultimate test of mettle. He could have come home, but keeping faith with his fellow POWs, he chose to remain imprisoned in Hanoi.
What McCain glosses over is that accepting early release would have required him to make disloyal statements that would have violated the military’s Code of Conduct. If he had done so, he could have risked court-martial and an ignominious end to his military career. ‘Many of us were given this offer,’ according to Butler, McCain’s classmate who was also taken prisoner. ‘It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to ‘admit’ that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was ‘lenient and humane.’ So I, like numerous others, refused the offer.’
‘He makes it sound like it was a great thing to have accomplished,’ says Dramesi. ‘A great act of discipline or strength. That simply was not the case.’
In fairness, it is difficult to judge McCain’s experience as a POW; throughout most of his incarceration he was the only witness to his mistreatment. Parts of his memoir recounting his days in Hanoi read like a bad Ian Fleming novel, with his Vietnamese captors cast as nefarious Bond villains. On the Fourth of July 1968, when he rejected the offer of early release, an officer nicknamed ‘Cat’ got so mad, according to McCain, that he snapped a pen he was holding, splattering ink across the room.
‘They taught you too well, Mac Kane,’ Cat snarled, kicking over a chair. ‘They taught you too well.’
The brutal interrogations that followed produced results. In August 1968, over the course of four days, McCain was tortured into signing a confession that he was a ‘black criminal’ and an ‘air pirate.’
‘John allows the media to make him out to be the hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals,’ says Butler. ‘John was just one of about 600 guys. He was nothing unusual. He was just another POW.’
McCain has also allowed the media to believe that his torture lasted for the entire time he was in Hanoi. At the Republican convention, Fred Thompson said of McCain’s torture, ‘For five and a half years this went on.’ In fact, McCain’s torture ended after two years, when the death of Ho Chi Minh in September 1969 caused the Vietnamese to change the way they treated POWs. ‘They decided it would be better to treat us better and keep us alive so they could trade us in for real estate,’ Butler recalls. […]”
hsh: if others refused early release because it was against the Military Code of Conduct, that’s principled heroism too. And if he was tortured for two years not five and a half, that’s bad enough. And although he ended up voting against repeal of the ACA, he originally voted against it. Etc etc etc. A complicated man, and no saint, for sure. But with admirable qualities which present a particularly graphic contrast with the president who disparages him.
hsh: if others refused early release because it was against the Military Code of Conduct, that’s principled heroism too. And if he was tortured for two years not five and a half, that’s bad enough. And although he ended up voting against repeal of the ACA, he originally voted against it. Etc etc etc. A complicated man, and no saint, for sure. But with admirable qualities which present a particularly graphic contrast with the president who disparages him.
I like Tony’s thoughts, I feel similarly. I feel like it is important to remember people’s best sides, but I know that’s not a general feeling, especially in these times. I don’t want to crap in the punchbowl, but since hsh put the rolling stone article up, there’s this by Erik Loomis
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/08/mccain
For those who don’t click on links, Loomis’ co-blogger, Paul Campos accurately describes the article when he says:
Now that Erik has thoroughly napalmed John McCain’s corpse
While Loomis post makes me a bit queasy, Campos’ post, which goes into the more general question of Vietnam POWs, I really recommend.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/08/john-mccain-pow-mia-myth
I like Tony’s thoughts, I feel similarly. I feel like it is important to remember people’s best sides, but I know that’s not a general feeling, especially in these times. I don’t want to crap in the punchbowl, but since hsh put the rolling stone article up, there’s this by Erik Loomis
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/08/mccain
For those who don’t click on links, Loomis’ co-blogger, Paul Campos accurately describes the article when he says:
Now that Erik has thoroughly napalmed John McCain’s corpse
While Loomis post makes me a bit queasy, Campos’ post, which goes into the more general question of Vietnam POWs, I really recommend.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/08/john-mccain-pow-mia-myth
Loomis’ post has me thinking i might want to take a break from LGM for a while.
Loomis’ post has me thinking i might want to take a break from LGM for a while.
“Still married, he began dating Cindy Hensley, the daughter of a very wealthy beer distributor. He pressured his first wife into a divorce, married Cindy, and then used her money to finance his burgeoning political career.”
I guess that made him the Manbeerian candidate.
“Still married, he began dating Cindy Hensley, the daughter of a very wealthy beer distributor. He pressured his first wife into a divorce, married Cindy, and then used her money to finance his burgeoning political career.”
I guess that made him the Manbeerian candidate.
That RS piece was news to me, as of this morning, despite it’s having been written in 2008. I have no interest in telling anyone what to think of it or what to think of McCain based on it. I haven’t even made up my mind about it yet, but I thought it was worth reading.
That RS piece was news to me, as of this morning, despite it’s having been written in 2008. I have no interest in telling anyone what to think of it or what to think of McCain based on it. I haven’t even made up my mind about it yet, but I thought it was worth reading.
Thanks hsh for mentioning that, I was thinking that it was pretty harsh to publish it after McCain’s passing.
Thanks hsh for mentioning that, I was thinking that it was pretty harsh to publish it after McCain’s passing.
hilzoy posts a link from digby of McCain roasting Obama at the 2008 Alfred E Smith dinner, in which digby very rightly also says:
Forget that clip of McCain telling the racist woman that Obama isn’t an arab. The moment where McCain acted like we used to expect our political leaders to behave was at the Al Smith dinner that year.
Go to the 5 minute mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZXX9Wfl5S0&feature=youtu.be
hsh, I wasn’t meaning to get at you, what’s clear is that one can make a convincing case for and against McCain, wherever you sit on the political spectrum. Which makes him a very human figure, and not unusual (at least in that respect) for a politician.
hilzoy posts a link from digby of McCain roasting Obama at the 2008 Alfred E Smith dinner, in which digby very rightly also says:
Forget that clip of McCain telling the racist woman that Obama isn’t an arab. The moment where McCain acted like we used to expect our political leaders to behave was at the Al Smith dinner that year.
Go to the 5 minute mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZXX9Wfl5S0&feature=youtu.be
hsh, I wasn’t meaning to get at you, what’s clear is that one can make a convincing case for and against McCain, wherever you sit on the political spectrum. Which makes him a very human figure, and not unusual (at least in that respect) for a politician.
his impulsive and petulant nomination of Palin
my general impression from the time was that palin had kind of been foisted on to him.
i could be wrong.
as far as whether his conduct while imprisoned in vietnam was “all that” or not, when offered the option of leaving in return for providing propaganda for north vietnam, he declined. and so was imprisoned for years more, if i understand correctly. and never regained full upper body mobility, and lived with pain.
all of which sounds like “paid his dues”, to me.
the fact that others did as much doesn’t really diminish that, in my eyes, it just means there were a number of guys equally heroic.
it’s no small thing to bear up under that kind of punishment.
his impulsive and petulant nomination of Palin
my general impression from the time was that palin had kind of been foisted on to him.
i could be wrong.
as far as whether his conduct while imprisoned in vietnam was “all that” or not, when offered the option of leaving in return for providing propaganda for north vietnam, he declined. and so was imprisoned for years more, if i understand correctly. and never regained full upper body mobility, and lived with pain.
all of which sounds like “paid his dues”, to me.
the fact that others did as much doesn’t really diminish that, in my eyes, it just means there were a number of guys equally heroic.
it’s no small thing to bear up under that kind of punishment.
Loomis’ article reads well. He must have spent some time beforehand polishing it.
Loomis’ article reads well. He must have spent some time beforehand polishing it.
russell, you may be right, but my memory is that it was said that when his advisers convinced him that it would be unwise to go with Lieberman, he was in such a fury that he went with Palin without giving it due consideration and in a kind of pettish tantrum. I can’t remember the source, and it may not be true, but the tantrum element is certainly rather persuasive. Other than that, I agree with everything else you say.
russell, you may be right, but my memory is that it was said that when his advisers convinced him that it would be unwise to go with Lieberman, he was in such a fury that he went with Palin without giving it due consideration and in a kind of pettish tantrum. I can’t remember the source, and it may not be true, but the tantrum element is certainly rather persuasive. Other than that, I agree with everything else you say.
McCain’s concession speech from 2008.
I could list lots of points of policy where I, personally, did not agree with McCain. I can also list a generous handful of moments where I thought he had fallen short of what should be expected of someone holding his office.
and of whom would I not say that? anyone? maybe no-one.
complicated, flawed, ambitious, opportunistic at times.
but also someone who would respond to what must have been a severe diappointment, with a statement like what i’ve cited.
sorry to see him go.
McCain’s concession speech from 2008.
I could list lots of points of policy where I, personally, did not agree with McCain. I can also list a generous handful of moments where I thought he had fallen short of what should be expected of someone holding his office.
and of whom would I not say that? anyone? maybe no-one.
complicated, flawed, ambitious, opportunistic at times.
but also someone who would respond to what must have been a severe diappointment, with a statement like what i’ve cited.
sorry to see him go.
when his advisers convinced him that it would be unwise to go with Lieberman, he was in such a fury that he went with Palin without giving it due consideration and in a kind of pettish tantrum
i find this completely believable.
when his advisers convinced him that it would be unwise to go with Lieberman, he was in such a fury that he went with Palin without giving it due consideration and in a kind of pettish tantrum
i find this completely believable.
Thanks hsh for mentioning that, I was thinking that it was pretty harsh to publish it after McCain’s passing.
I was on the fence about sharing it here, but I assumed no one who had anything like a close relationship with McCain would end up reading it.
I’ve seen some really awful and very disrespectful things being written about him on social media by Trumpers, while we on “The Left” seem to be mostly giving him respect and qualified/limited praise. These are the times we live in, I suppose.
A Trumper friend of mine wrote not-so-nice things about him prefaced with “I hate to sound harsh, but….” I made the suggestion that it’s not necessary to say anything at all. That wasn’t received very well.
Maybe I’m a hypocrite for sharing that RS piece after giving my Trumper friend that suggestion, but I’d say the difference is that I didn’t claim to “hate to” to do anything. Did someone have a gun to my Trumper friend’s head?
Thanks hsh for mentioning that, I was thinking that it was pretty harsh to publish it after McCain’s passing.
I was on the fence about sharing it here, but I assumed no one who had anything like a close relationship with McCain would end up reading it.
I’ve seen some really awful and very disrespectful things being written about him on social media by Trumpers, while we on “The Left” seem to be mostly giving him respect and qualified/limited praise. These are the times we live in, I suppose.
A Trumper friend of mine wrote not-so-nice things about him prefaced with “I hate to sound harsh, but….” I made the suggestion that it’s not necessary to say anything at all. That wasn’t received very well.
Maybe I’m a hypocrite for sharing that RS piece after giving my Trumper friend that suggestion, but I’d say the difference is that I didn’t claim to “hate to” to do anything. Did someone have a gun to my Trumper friend’s head?
“I hate to sound harsh, but….”
In politics, anything preceding but can be safely ignored.
“I hate to sound harsh, but….”
In politics, anything preceding but can be safely ignored.
another account from RS, also cited at LGM.
even if half of that is BS, john mccain still kicks my ass 25 ways to friday.
yes, he was a conservative politician. ambitious, opportunistic, flawed.
would i vote for him? not in a million years.
does he deserve to be remebered with respect? i more than think so.
another account from RS, also cited at LGM.
even if half of that is BS, john mccain still kicks my ass 25 ways to friday.
yes, he was a conservative politician. ambitious, opportunistic, flawed.
would i vote for him? not in a million years.
does he deserve to be remebered with respect? i more than think so.
Regarding Vietnam, I’ve given up state secrets and dear comrades on the basis of a severe hang nail or a case of plantar fasciitus, so I’m in no position to hold McCain accountable for the unimaginable.
So what, anyway, we have a President now who had given the nuclear codes to Putin as America goes full bat shit bullshit.
That said, I recommend tiger cages and water boarding for this infestation of anti-American filth:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ward-saturday-on-mccain-ending-treatment-they-wanted-to-have-a-particular-narrative
No one has savaged McCain like this current crop of vipers and domestic VC.
Regarding Vietnam, I’ve given up state secrets and dear comrades on the basis of a severe hang nail or a case of plantar fasciitus, so I’m in no position to hold McCain accountable for the unimaginable.
So what, anyway, we have a President now who had given the nuclear codes to Putin as America goes full bat shit bullshit.
That said, I recommend tiger cages and water boarding for this infestation of anti-American filth:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ward-saturday-on-mccain-ending-treatment-they-wanted-to-have-a-particular-narrative
No one has savaged McCain like this current crop of vipers and domestic VC.
In politics, anything preceding but can be safely ignored.
lol
and not just politics…
In politics, anything preceding but can be safely ignored.
lol
and not just politics…
hard to reconcile “sore loser” with mccain’s gracious acceptance of his loss to obama.
what i found most notable in mccain was his inability to abandon his own, innate, basic decency. can’t think of a better thing to say about anyone…
This (apart from the disturbing lack of caps…).
I didn’t share his politics, and to say that his judgment was flaky at times would be generous… but on the big stuff – torture; racism; destroying healthcare; Trump; respect for the constitution – he had a real conscience, which he acted upon.
Perhaps not unique, but certainly extremely unusual in today’s Republican party.
hard to reconcile “sore loser” with mccain’s gracious acceptance of his loss to obama.
what i found most notable in mccain was his inability to abandon his own, innate, basic decency. can’t think of a better thing to say about anyone…
This (apart from the disturbing lack of caps…).
I didn’t share his politics, and to say that his judgment was flaky at times would be generous… but on the big stuff – torture; racism; destroying healthcare; Trump; respect for the constitution – he had a real conscience, which he acted upon.
Perhaps not unique, but certainly extremely unusual in today’s Republican party.
Obviously President Bonespur is not fit to shine McCain’s shoes.
But if that makes McCain a great American, you guys are setting the bar low.
Obviously President Bonespur is not fit to shine McCain’s shoes.
But if that makes McCain a great American, you guys are setting the bar low.
Obviously President Bonespur is not fit to shine McCain’s shoes.
But if that makes McCain a great American, you guys are setting the bar low.
I’m not, and have never been, a fan of John McCain. But he refused to buy into lies about Obama. He saved the ACA. He opposed torture. He opposed Trump. He paid his dues in the military in a huge way. He wasn’t a chicken hawk.
He wanted to remembered, it seems, for having basic decency. It’s okay with me that people remember him for that, even though it’s not the full story. People are flawed, and his flaws exceeded those of most Democrats. What I would ask is that people paying their respects today please quit criticizing Democrats for their much lesser flaws.
Obviously President Bonespur is not fit to shine McCain’s shoes.
But if that makes McCain a great American, you guys are setting the bar low.
I’m not, and have never been, a fan of John McCain. But he refused to buy into lies about Obama. He saved the ACA. He opposed torture. He opposed Trump. He paid his dues in the military in a huge way. He wasn’t a chicken hawk.
He wanted to remembered, it seems, for having basic decency. It’s okay with me that people remember him for that, even though it’s not the full story. People are flawed, and his flaws exceeded those of most Democrats. What I would ask is that people paying their respects today please quit criticizing Democrats for their much lesser flaws.
This is also a good article on (conversation about) McCain:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/john-mccain-dead-his-predecessors-and-successors-in-republican-history.html
It is, I think, correct in saying he wasn’t a moderate; it is also correct that he was a man willing to publicly acknowledge his own flaws and change his mind from time to time. Again unusual in today’s Republican party.
This is also a good article on (conversation about) McCain:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/john-mccain-dead-his-predecessors-and-successors-in-republican-history.html
It is, I think, correct in saying he wasn’t a moderate; it is also correct that he was a man willing to publicly acknowledge his own flaws and change his mind from time to time. Again unusual in today’s Republican party.
What I would ask is that people paying their respects today please quit criticizing Democrats for their much lesser flaws.
sapient, does this apply to anybody here? I can’t offhand think of anyone here doing this (although obviously if they want to, why shouldn’t they?).
What I would ask is that people paying their respects today please quit criticizing Democrats for their much lesser flaws.
sapient, does this apply to anybody here? I can’t offhand think of anyone here doing this (although obviously if they want to, why shouldn’t they?).
McCain’s death has really hammered home for me something about the loss of decency in the political sphere. I’ve never seen a big political figure get so thoroughly shit on by seemingly vast numbers of wingnuts from both sides simultaneously. Right wing crazies rant about how he refused to destroy the affordable care act. Left wing crazies are mad that he wasn’t a Democrat.
Both seem way more empowered than can possibly be good for the country.
McCain’s death has really hammered home for me something about the loss of decency in the political sphere. I’ve never seen a big political figure get so thoroughly shit on by seemingly vast numbers of wingnuts from both sides simultaneously. Right wing crazies rant about how he refused to destroy the affordable care act. Left wing crazies are mad that he wasn’t a Democrat.
Both seem way more empowered than can possibly be good for the country.
“does this apply to anyone here?”
Won’t apply to me. McCain did some good things and some horrible things. The advantage of believing in an afterlife is that you can assume someone else will sort all that out.
The bad thing about this “ speak no ill of the dead” principle when applied to public figures is that all sorts of hacks, both politicians and pundits, will use his death as an excuse to spread all sorts of self serving propagandistic bull. And you’re not supposed to object to it. The people who do this over the top praising of McCain’s political virtues are cynically making use of the opportunity to score propaganda points. It isn’t about mourning the passing of a human being with virtues and flaws. Case in point —
https://mobile.twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg/status/1033721013706665985
“does this apply to anyone here?”
Won’t apply to me. McCain did some good things and some horrible things. The advantage of believing in an afterlife is that you can assume someone else will sort all that out.
The bad thing about this “ speak no ill of the dead” principle when applied to public figures is that all sorts of hacks, both politicians and pundits, will use his death as an excuse to spread all sorts of self serving propagandistic bull. And you’re not supposed to object to it. The people who do this over the top praising of McCain’s political virtues are cynically making use of the opportunity to score propaganda points. It isn’t about mourning the passing of a human being with virtues and flaws. Case in point —
https://mobile.twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg/status/1033721013706665985
While Loomis post makes me a bit queasy
Napalm or no, Loomis hit the mark. He rendered a pretty accurate summary of McCain’s career..both the good (not much) and the bad (a great deal). I’m sure when Jimmy Carter passes there won’t be a lot of laudatory remembrance of his political career (inept, rigid, inflation, Iran hostages, bunny rabbits, yadda’ yadda’), or much extolling of his naval service. Everybody will key in on his post presidency life. You just watch.
Campos’ post, which goes into the more general question of Vietnam POWs, I really recommend.
Absolutely seconded.
While Loomis post makes me a bit queasy
Napalm or no, Loomis hit the mark. He rendered a pretty accurate summary of McCain’s career..both the good (not much) and the bad (a great deal). I’m sure when Jimmy Carter passes there won’t be a lot of laudatory remembrance of his political career (inept, rigid, inflation, Iran hostages, bunny rabbits, yadda’ yadda’), or much extolling of his naval service. Everybody will key in on his post presidency life. You just watch.
Campos’ post, which goes into the more general question of Vietnam POWs, I really recommend.
Absolutely seconded.
Loomis wasn’t trying to see both sides of McCain at all. McCain did great work in pushing past the powerful at the time POW/MIA crowd while working to reestablish diplomatic and later fuller reconciliation with Vietnam. Loomis knows about this, but…
Loomis wasn’t trying to see both sides of McCain at all. McCain did great work in pushing past the powerful at the time POW/MIA crowd while working to reestablish diplomatic and later fuller reconciliation with Vietnam. Loomis knows about this, but…
Then there are those whose classyness pays no attention:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/08/26/arizona-senate-candidate-suggests-mccain-timed-his-pre-death-announcement-hurt-her-campaign/
All politicians are self-centered. But claiming that someone died just to inconvenience you is definitely on the low end.
Then there are those whose classyness pays no attention:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/08/26/arizona-senate-candidate-suggests-mccain-timed-his-pre-death-announcement-hurt-her-campaign/
All politicians are self-centered. But claiming that someone died just to inconvenience you is definitely on the low end.
sapient, does this apply to anybody here? I can’t offhand think of anyone here doing this (although obviously if they want to, why shouldn’t they?).
I thought my comment indicated a general request, not an accusation.
My point was more about what bobbyp just said: “I’m sure when Jimmy Carter passes there won’t be a lot of laudatory remembrance of his political career (inept, rigid, inflation, Iran hostages, bunny rabbits, yadda’ yadda’), or much extolling of his naval service. Everybody will key in on his post presidency life. You just watch.”
And, of course, people should be able to say whatever they want, by all means. And other people should be able to agree, or take issue. Why shouldn’t they? After all, this is a discussion.
sapient, does this apply to anybody here? I can’t offhand think of anyone here doing this (although obviously if they want to, why shouldn’t they?).
I thought my comment indicated a general request, not an accusation.
My point was more about what bobbyp just said: “I’m sure when Jimmy Carter passes there won’t be a lot of laudatory remembrance of his political career (inept, rigid, inflation, Iran hostages, bunny rabbits, yadda’ yadda’), or much extolling of his naval service. Everybody will key in on his post presidency life. You just watch.”
And, of course, people should be able to say whatever they want, by all means. And other people should be able to agree, or take issue. Why shouldn’t they? After all, this is a discussion.
Jimmy Carter passes there won’t be a lot of laudatory remembrance of his political career.
During his administration, airlines, trucking, and beer were deregulated. Accomplishments that have had a good impact.
Jimmy Carter passes there won’t be a lot of laudatory remembrance of his political career.
During his administration, airlines, trucking, and beer were deregulated. Accomplishments that have had a good impact.
I have spent the day pondering this.
I believe John McCain was one of the few, imo, politicians in my lifetime who spent his life in the service of his country. He had success and failures as a human being but truly tried to serve his country the best way he could.
Men of honor, who did their best in service, deserve our admiring remembrance.
I have spent the day pondering this.
I believe John McCain was one of the few, imo, politicians in my lifetime who spent his life in the service of his country. He had success and failures as a human being but truly tried to serve his country the best way he could.
Men of honor, who did their best in service, deserve our admiring remembrance.
“You should never say bad things about the dead, only good… Joan Crawford is dead. Good.” —Bette Davis
“You should never say bad things about the dead, only good… Joan Crawford is dead. Good.” —Bette Davis
russell said
what i found most notable in mccain was his inability to abandon his own, innate, basic decency. can’t think of a better thing to say about anyone…
and sapient
He wanted to remembered, it seems, for having basic decency.
This is one reason why I wanted to get this post up before his death, I think this discussion would have been a lot more illuminating without having to go through all the pieces, which is a bit of a strange turnaround for me who likes links.
Sebastian said Loomis knows about this, but…
These are probably not things you would have filled in there, but I might say…
but…as a historian, he knows that the thick layer of homage from people who would have been happy if McCain’s death had come at other junctures in his career [that might include people on the left and right] and provides a counter-balance
but…he’s at a point in his writing where he’s so angry at seeing how the consensus enabled the current state of affairs, he wants to balance the scales, with a vengence
but…he’s a person who nearly lost his job because of a cynical attack by the right on his writing
I’m not sure exactly what it is, and as I said, the ferocity makes me a bit queasy. I recall that Bob MacManus felt we were a branch office of LGM, which was pretty funny at the time, but it’s interesting to see the differences that appear at a group blog. Dan Nexon, who is not part of the original group, posts this there, perhaps as a counterweight to the Loomis piece
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/08/yes-mccain-hero-also-conservative-republican-politician
I really can’t know what drives people who are on the internet to write what they do. I can only weigh how I feel about it and try and be honest. I do think that there is a fundamental anger about the way things are in Loomis’ writing and I don’t think that anger is wrong, but it is inherently like an inflatable ball with an increaasing amount of gas being pumped into it. If the ball has some weak spot, you can imagine the ball suddenly pooching out. However, I tend to think the solution is not to try and convince the person that they are wrong in that particular instance, and pushing back against that spot, but to lower the overall pressure so the ball can return to its ideal form.
I’m rabbitting on here, so I will suggest that there is a fundamental difference between right and left on McCain that Sebastian gets at. He wrote:
Right wing crazies rant about how he refused to destroy the affordable care act. Left wing crazies are mad that he wasn’t a Democrat.
I think that observation is absolutely key. While it is common to co-opt figures from the past (witness Republican invocations of MLK) I can’t imagine the image I have of a person on the Right in the future wondering after they pass why Jimmy Carter or Joe Biden or Bill Clinton or Nanci Pelosi wasn’t closer to them. (even though all of the things that Reagan is lauded for by conservatives is, as CharlesWT points, out, essentially working off the initiatives of Carter) I can’t imagine them getting the treatment that George Wallace did (though to be fair, he expressed his remorse before he died). Kind of curious if there are other examples or counter examples.
And while the left, broadly construed, has people they did not want (and I expose my blindspots here when I can name only Nixon and Helms as people who one side wouldn’t want, though I really hope I’m totally unplugged when Kissinger passes away, cause that’s going to be a real shitstorm), it seems to me to be a measure of the growing distance that this category of people one side wouldn’t take is growing rapidly for the left. And I, being who I am, don’t think the blame is on the left for this…
russell said
what i found most notable in mccain was his inability to abandon his own, innate, basic decency. can’t think of a better thing to say about anyone…
and sapient
He wanted to remembered, it seems, for having basic decency.
This is one reason why I wanted to get this post up before his death, I think this discussion would have been a lot more illuminating without having to go through all the pieces, which is a bit of a strange turnaround for me who likes links.
Sebastian said Loomis knows about this, but…
These are probably not things you would have filled in there, but I might say…
but…as a historian, he knows that the thick layer of homage from people who would have been happy if McCain’s death had come at other junctures in his career [that might include people on the left and right] and provides a counter-balance
but…he’s at a point in his writing where he’s so angry at seeing how the consensus enabled the current state of affairs, he wants to balance the scales, with a vengence
but…he’s a person who nearly lost his job because of a cynical attack by the right on his writing
I’m not sure exactly what it is, and as I said, the ferocity makes me a bit queasy. I recall that Bob MacManus felt we were a branch office of LGM, which was pretty funny at the time, but it’s interesting to see the differences that appear at a group blog. Dan Nexon, who is not part of the original group, posts this there, perhaps as a counterweight to the Loomis piece
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/08/yes-mccain-hero-also-conservative-republican-politician
I really can’t know what drives people who are on the internet to write what they do. I can only weigh how I feel about it and try and be honest. I do think that there is a fundamental anger about the way things are in Loomis’ writing and I don’t think that anger is wrong, but it is inherently like an inflatable ball with an increaasing amount of gas being pumped into it. If the ball has some weak spot, you can imagine the ball suddenly pooching out. However, I tend to think the solution is not to try and convince the person that they are wrong in that particular instance, and pushing back against that spot, but to lower the overall pressure so the ball can return to its ideal form.
I’m rabbitting on here, so I will suggest that there is a fundamental difference between right and left on McCain that Sebastian gets at. He wrote:
Right wing crazies rant about how he refused to destroy the affordable care act. Left wing crazies are mad that he wasn’t a Democrat.
I think that observation is absolutely key. While it is common to co-opt figures from the past (witness Republican invocations of MLK) I can’t imagine the image I have of a person on the Right in the future wondering after they pass why Jimmy Carter or Joe Biden or Bill Clinton or Nanci Pelosi wasn’t closer to them. (even though all of the things that Reagan is lauded for by conservatives is, as CharlesWT points, out, essentially working off the initiatives of Carter) I can’t imagine them getting the treatment that George Wallace did (though to be fair, he expressed his remorse before he died). Kind of curious if there are other examples or counter examples.
And while the left, broadly construed, has people they did not want (and I expose my blindspots here when I can name only Nixon and Helms as people who one side wouldn’t want, though I really hope I’m totally unplugged when Kissinger passes away, cause that’s going to be a real shitstorm), it seems to me to be a measure of the growing distance that this category of people one side wouldn’t take is growing rapidly for the left. And I, being who I am, don’t think the blame is on the left for this…
I believe John McCain was one of the few, imo, politicians in my lifetime who spent his life in the service of his country
As far as I know, he never held a job in the private sector. So I guess this is, in some sense, true.
I believe John McCain was one of the few, imo, politicians in my lifetime who spent his life in the service of his country
As far as I know, he never held a job in the private sector. So I guess this is, in some sense, true.
McCain’s death has really hammered home for me something about the loss of decency in the political sphere.
“bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran…”
The thousands who needlessly died applaud John McCain’s decency.
McCain’s death has really hammered home for me something about the loss of decency in the political sphere.
“bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran…”
The thousands who needlessly died applaud John McCain’s decency.
The yardstick of measurement of John McCain’s decency can be measured exactly by how such decency advanced his presidential ambitions.
The yardstick of measurement of John McCain’s decency can be measured exactly by how such decency advanced his presidential ambitions.
Sebastian: Right wing crazies rant about how he refused to destroy the affordable care act. Left wing crazies are mad that he wasn’t a Democrat.
Really, Seb? You want to reach THAT far to be fair-and-balanced?
I offer this suggestion in all sincerity:
Buy yourself a lamp. Wander the streets looking for left-wingers who were ever “mad that [McCain] wasn’t a Democrat”. If, before you find one, you get tired of bumping into right-wingers who “rant about” him for killing the skinny repeal of ACA, I will understand.
–TP
Sebastian: Right wing crazies rant about how he refused to destroy the affordable care act. Left wing crazies are mad that he wasn’t a Democrat.
Really, Seb? You want to reach THAT far to be fair-and-balanced?
I offer this suggestion in all sincerity:
Buy yourself a lamp. Wander the streets looking for left-wingers who were ever “mad that [McCain] wasn’t a Democrat”. If, before you find one, you get tired of bumping into right-wingers who “rant about” him for killing the skinny repeal of ACA, I will understand.
–TP
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-rejected-statement-praising-mccains-life-report-2018-08-26?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
America is full of shit.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-rejected-statement-praising-mccains-life-report-2018-08-26?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
America is full of shit.
Tony P, Did you read Loomis? On second thought I’m not recommending it.
McCain represents something you can disagree with. I have no trouble with that. This is more than that. He isn’t Trump, or even Cruz.
There is a dynamic at play in this country that is disasterous. Working hard to obscure the basic humanity in your opponents is how a country dies. You can withhold that for the worst, but you can’t for most. McCain was worth opposing if you disagreed with him, but not worth demonizing.
Tony P, Did you read Loomis? On second thought I’m not recommending it.
McCain represents something you can disagree with. I have no trouble with that. This is more than that. He isn’t Trump, or even Cruz.
There is a dynamic at play in this country that is disasterous. Working hard to obscure the basic humanity in your opponents is how a country dies. You can withhold that for the worst, but you can’t for most. McCain was worth opposing if you disagreed with him, but not worth demonizing.
Thanks Seb. Drop in if you have time.
Thanks Seb. Drop in if you have time.
Just wanted that repeated.
Just wanted that repeated.
“as a historian, he knows that the thick layer of homage from people who would have been happy if McCain’s death had come at other junctures in his career [that might include people on the left and right] and provides a counter-balance”
I think you’ve hit on exactly what bugs me about Loomis in that piece. He seems to think that working as a propagandist in the other direction is a counter balance, while I see doing that as strengthening a discourse where propaganda is preeminent.
The rule I use is that if I would wince at hearing the same type of thing about Islam in the “War on Terrorism” it isn’t appropriate for my political opponents either. Radicalism is fed by cycles of divisiveness, and we are more in control of our side of the cycle than we admit.
“as a historian, he knows that the thick layer of homage from people who would have been happy if McCain’s death had come at other junctures in his career [that might include people on the left and right] and provides a counter-balance”
I think you’ve hit on exactly what bugs me about Loomis in that piece. He seems to think that working as a propagandist in the other direction is a counter balance, while I see doing that as strengthening a discourse where propaganda is preeminent.
The rule I use is that if I would wince at hearing the same type of thing about Islam in the “War on Terrorism” it isn’t appropriate for my political opponents either. Radicalism is fed by cycles of divisiveness, and we are more in control of our side of the cycle than we admit.
I don’t know if I’d classify Erik Loomis as a ‘left wing crazy’. CharlesWT suggests that Erik had already written that, pre-demise, like newspapers have obits on file ready to go. I don’t think so, but who knows?
I do think Loomis is indicative of a rising anger, but I don’t think it is totally out of place. The only problem is that if that anger takes you, it becomes very hard to back down. I agree with Seb that there is a problematic dynamic at play, but I don’t feel (but again, this could be my bias) that it is ‘the left’ that is doing that, they are just pushing back. Of course, I can’t recall a time where the right has ‘backed down’ (but am open to corrections) so the point about backing down is necessary usually means that the left side needs to back down rather than the right, which I think is a fundamental problem of asymmetry.
I did think that Sebastian was thinking of criticisms of McCain while he was alive, and the palpable air of disappointment with him by his ‘base’, the political journalists, is responsible for that perception. I do like Nigel’s link to the Slate article and I recommend that.
I don’t know if I’d classify Erik Loomis as a ‘left wing crazy’. CharlesWT suggests that Erik had already written that, pre-demise, like newspapers have obits on file ready to go. I don’t think so, but who knows?
I do think Loomis is indicative of a rising anger, but I don’t think it is totally out of place. The only problem is that if that anger takes you, it becomes very hard to back down. I agree with Seb that there is a problematic dynamic at play, but I don’t feel (but again, this could be my bias) that it is ‘the left’ that is doing that, they are just pushing back. Of course, I can’t recall a time where the right has ‘backed down’ (but am open to corrections) so the point about backing down is necessary usually means that the left side needs to back down rather than the right, which I think is a fundamental problem of asymmetry.
I did think that Sebastian was thinking of criticisms of McCain while he was alive, and the palpable air of disappointment with him by his ‘base’, the political journalists, is responsible for that perception. I do like Nigel’s link to the Slate article and I recommend that.
Seb.
Loomis is pretty vigorously down on McCain. So much so that I seriously doubt you were citing Loomis when you wrote: Left wing crazies are mad that he wasn’t a Democrat.
WTF were you actually trying to say with that little bon mot?
Loomis’s whole point seems to be that McCain was in most respects a bog-standard Republican of the win-at-any-cost variety, like Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and other leading lights of the modern GOP. Did you perhaps mean that “left wing crazies” are mad at Ryan and McConnell for not being Democrats too?
–TP
Seb.
Loomis is pretty vigorously down on McCain. So much so that I seriously doubt you were citing Loomis when you wrote: Left wing crazies are mad that he wasn’t a Democrat.
WTF were you actually trying to say with that little bon mot?
Loomis’s whole point seems to be that McCain was in most respects a bog-standard Republican of the win-at-any-cost variety, like Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and other leading lights of the modern GOP. Did you perhaps mean that “left wing crazies” are mad at Ryan and McConnell for not being Democrats too?
–TP
Yes I don’t mean opposing McCain as a politician when he was alive. That’s fine.
Liberal japonicus, “I agree with Seb that there is a problematic dynamic at play, but I don’t feel (but again, this could be my bias) that it is ‘the left’ that is doing that, they are just pushing back.”
I don’t see that as being how this type of dynamic works. Everyone is always “just pushing back”. There is always a sin to be paid back, a slight to be hurt by, a wound that didn’t heal. A dynamic of feeding off the poisons, nursing the old grudges, shooting because of old vendettas, doesn’t get fixed by feeding poisons, nursing old grudges, and getting better guns to shoot because of old vendettas.
I can’t get over how much transparently bad advice can be seen as bad when Republicans use it as rhetoric for the Middle East but gets embraced with respect to Republicans. “They are all basically the same”. “They are too religious to reason with”. “They are all racist extremists”. “They can’t get along in modern society”. “They only understand overwhelming force”. “Their culture is incompatible with ours.” “Their alleged moderates don’t control their extremists which really means that they are all extremists.” “Maybe we should just let them wallow in it all.”
And just like with the Middle East, you can disagree. You can fight back against their violent extremists. But if you dehumanize them, you are actively engaging in the process that led us here.
Yes I don’t mean opposing McCain as a politician when he was alive. That’s fine.
Liberal japonicus, “I agree with Seb that there is a problematic dynamic at play, but I don’t feel (but again, this could be my bias) that it is ‘the left’ that is doing that, they are just pushing back.”
I don’t see that as being how this type of dynamic works. Everyone is always “just pushing back”. There is always a sin to be paid back, a slight to be hurt by, a wound that didn’t heal. A dynamic of feeding off the poisons, nursing the old grudges, shooting because of old vendettas, doesn’t get fixed by feeding poisons, nursing old grudges, and getting better guns to shoot because of old vendettas.
I can’t get over how much transparently bad advice can be seen as bad when Republicans use it as rhetoric for the Middle East but gets embraced with respect to Republicans. “They are all basically the same”. “They are too religious to reason with”. “They are all racist extremists”. “They can’t get along in modern society”. “They only understand overwhelming force”. “Their culture is incompatible with ours.” “Their alleged moderates don’t control their extremists which really means that they are all extremists.” “Maybe we should just let them wallow in it all.”
And just like with the Middle East, you can disagree. You can fight back against their violent extremists. But if you dehumanize them, you are actively engaging in the process that led us here.
So Sebastian, on which right-leaning blogs do you also preach this gospel?
So Sebastian, on which right-leaning blogs do you also preach this gospel?
And while we’re doing both-sides-are-equivalent, who do you consider to be the left-leaning equivalent of, let’s say, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News, in terms of content and audience size? Or of the NRA, in terms of influence on lawmaking in this country?
And while we’re doing both-sides-are-equivalent, who do you consider to be the left-leaning equivalent of, let’s say, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News, in terms of content and audience size? Or of the NRA, in terms of influence on lawmaking in this country?
This is more than that.
How so? More than what? Loomis paints a picture of the history of John McCain that you apparently disagree with. McCain was a bog standard conservative Republican in just about all respects…esp. the important ones. In the Keating affair, he was on the take. He had a documented pattern in his personal life that showed him to be a self centered asshole. He shit on his first wife. He never met a war he did not like. He voted straight partisan GOP just about always. His “maverick” persona was a fabulist construct. Is there anything in the factual evidence that Loomis lays out that is manifestly untrue?
Sure. He did a few good things, and took a few good positions. Most humans, if they get a chance to lead a full life, do. Props to him. However, the weight of the evidence is against him.
This is not about his “basic humanity”…it’s about his public life, and his public life was, in the big picture, not something that I can admire.
This is more than that.
How so? More than what? Loomis paints a picture of the history of John McCain that you apparently disagree with. McCain was a bog standard conservative Republican in just about all respects…esp. the important ones. In the Keating affair, he was on the take. He had a documented pattern in his personal life that showed him to be a self centered asshole. He shit on his first wife. He never met a war he did not like. He voted straight partisan GOP just about always. His “maverick” persona was a fabulist construct. Is there anything in the factual evidence that Loomis lays out that is manifestly untrue?
Sure. He did a few good things, and took a few good positions. Most humans, if they get a chance to lead a full life, do. Props to him. However, the weight of the evidence is against him.
This is not about his “basic humanity”…it’s about his public life, and his public life was, in the big picture, not something that I can admire.
“Just pushing back is what Both Sides do” is a reasonable point of view for a rugby ball. But even a rugby ball might notice how far down field it finds itself and conclude that one Side may not have been playing for a compromise recently.
–TP
“Just pushing back is what Both Sides do” is a reasonable point of view for a rugby ball. But even a rugby ball might notice how far down field it finds itself and conclude that one Side may not have been playing for a compromise recently.
–TP
McCain and Collins — long-time companions in fabulistic maverickiness.
McCain and Collins — long-time companions in fabulistic maverickiness.
Volokh before they moved. I haven’t registered at their new place.
Volokh before they moved. I haven’t registered at their new place.
I don’t see that as being how this type of dynamic works.
Well, there is Murc’s law, where the Dems are the only ones with any agency, so they are the ones who have to move. Similar for gun control, where even the smallest steps at a compromise are knocked down. Dare I mention IP? The dynamic works because of the appeal to comity followed by why don’t you be the ones who cut corners. That’s how I see it working.
To pick an example that might be a bit more clear cut, gay marriage. The push was always for the side demanding the rights to be a little quieter and a little more peaceful. Of course, that ‘be more peaceful’ idea makes those who don’t want to grant any changes having the upper hand.
Volokh is now at Reason and I have my own problems with them and libertarianism in general that we’ve discussed here (though they are at pains to indicate their independence from Reason). Would they actually cop to being a ‘right-leaning’ site?
Another example of this dynamic that is non political might be the reception of Steve Jobs daughter’s book. This NYTimes link
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/books/steve-jobs-lisa-brennan-jobs-small-fry.html
In ‘Small Fry,’ Steve Jobs Comes Across as a Jerk. His Daughter Forgives Him. Should We?
Then check out the title of this link
https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-terrible-small-fry-daughter-book-2018-8
The memoir by Steve Jobs’ daughter makes clear he was a truly rotten person whose bad behavior was repeatedly enabled by those around him
The thing I take away from all this stuff is that it is never too early to start trying to be more decent and that most people, when given a chance, will aim for that, but things often get in the way…
I don’t see that as being how this type of dynamic works.
Well, there is Murc’s law, where the Dems are the only ones with any agency, so they are the ones who have to move. Similar for gun control, where even the smallest steps at a compromise are knocked down. Dare I mention IP? The dynamic works because of the appeal to comity followed by why don’t you be the ones who cut corners. That’s how I see it working.
To pick an example that might be a bit more clear cut, gay marriage. The push was always for the side demanding the rights to be a little quieter and a little more peaceful. Of course, that ‘be more peaceful’ idea makes those who don’t want to grant any changes having the upper hand.
Volokh is now at Reason and I have my own problems with them and libertarianism in general that we’ve discussed here (though they are at pains to indicate their independence from Reason). Would they actually cop to being a ‘right-leaning’ site?
Another example of this dynamic that is non political might be the reception of Steve Jobs daughter’s book. This NYTimes link
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/books/steve-jobs-lisa-brennan-jobs-small-fry.html
In ‘Small Fry,’ Steve Jobs Comes Across as a Jerk. His Daughter Forgives Him. Should We?
Then check out the title of this link
https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-terrible-small-fry-daughter-book-2018-8
The memoir by Steve Jobs’ daughter makes clear he was a truly rotten person whose bad behavior was repeatedly enabled by those around him
The thing I take away from all this stuff is that it is never too early to start trying to be more decent and that most people, when given a chance, will aim for that, but things often get in the way…
Bobby: He voted straight partisan GOP just about always. His “maverick” persona was a fabulist construct.
You might find this enlightening:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/john-mccain-was-a-maverick-and-a-politician/
As you can see, time was when McCain was about average party line. But as Congress became more rigidly partisan, he didn’t. Leaving him noticably less party line than most.
Not, perhaps, as maverick as his reputation. But rather more so than you suggest.
Bobby: He voted straight partisan GOP just about always. His “maverick” persona was a fabulist construct.
You might find this enlightening:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/john-mccain-was-a-maverick-and-a-politician/
As you can see, time was when McCain was about average party line. But as Congress became more rigidly partisan, he didn’t. Leaving him noticably less party line than most.
Not, perhaps, as maverick as his reputation. But rather more so than you suggest.
Sorry, I should have added this, but I was googling for the Steve Jobs links and forgot
Looking at Seb’s statements as a list
I can’t get over how much transparently bad advice can be seen as bad when Republicans use it as rhetoric for the Middle East but gets embraced with respect to Republicans.
“They are all basically the same”.
I guess you can take some to be saying that McCain was exactly the same as a bog standard republican, but there is a difference when saying that about a racial minority and people who are espousing particular viewpoints. I can see saying this in regards to the Kavanaugh nomination.
“They are too religious to reason with”.
I don’t think that has come up in regards to McCain. It does come up with Pence.
“They are all racist extremists”.
Some have brought up the bomb Iran comment, and there was the incident where McCain called Vietnamese ‘gooks’, but I think here, we can all agree that McCain was tortured and that influenced his thoughts and language. I’ve got my own idiosyncratic deal about racism, in that we are all racists, and the extremism part comes when we refuse to admit that, but that’s my thinking.
“They can’t get along in modern society”.
Again, this doesn’t come up with McCain.
“They only understand overwhelming force”.
Again, not something that has come up with regards to McCain
“Their culture is incompatible with ours.”
Another one that doesn’t really synch
“Their alleged moderates don’t control their extremists which really means that they are all extremists.”
This is something that someone _could_ say about McCain, but I’ve never seen that line of argument with McCain. The harsh stuff is not that he was an extremist but that he was diffident and dabbled in various areas and benefitted from his family name far too much.
“Maybe we should just let them wallow in it all.”
Again, not really applicable with McCain.
So this is arguable for looking at Republicans, but I don’t see how one makes the connection from talking about Loomis writing about McCain to Republicans as a group being treated like this.
Sorry, I should have added this, but I was googling for the Steve Jobs links and forgot
Looking at Seb’s statements as a list
I can’t get over how much transparently bad advice can be seen as bad when Republicans use it as rhetoric for the Middle East but gets embraced with respect to Republicans.
“They are all basically the same”.
I guess you can take some to be saying that McCain was exactly the same as a bog standard republican, but there is a difference when saying that about a racial minority and people who are espousing particular viewpoints. I can see saying this in regards to the Kavanaugh nomination.
“They are too religious to reason with”.
I don’t think that has come up in regards to McCain. It does come up with Pence.
“They are all racist extremists”.
Some have brought up the bomb Iran comment, and there was the incident where McCain called Vietnamese ‘gooks’, but I think here, we can all agree that McCain was tortured and that influenced his thoughts and language. I’ve got my own idiosyncratic deal about racism, in that we are all racists, and the extremism part comes when we refuse to admit that, but that’s my thinking.
“They can’t get along in modern society”.
Again, this doesn’t come up with McCain.
“They only understand overwhelming force”.
Again, not something that has come up with regards to McCain
“Their culture is incompatible with ours.”
Another one that doesn’t really synch
“Their alleged moderates don’t control their extremists which really means that they are all extremists.”
This is something that someone _could_ say about McCain, but I’ve never seen that line of argument with McCain. The harsh stuff is not that he was an extremist but that he was diffident and dabbled in various areas and benefitted from his family name far too much.
“Maybe we should just let them wallow in it all.”
Again, not really applicable with McCain.
So this is arguable for looking at Republicans, but I don’t see how one makes the connection from talking about Loomis writing about McCain to Republicans as a group being treated like this.
Because one typically only uses one or two of the tropes at a given time, but the group based rhetoric reinforces the rage in bulk. .
The reason why Loomis can “push back” so hard is because the tropes are assigned in bulk to ‘Republicans’ and McCain is a Republican therefore implicated in all of the tropes, not just the ones that are individually applicable to him.
Your response seems weird. There are a huge cluster of nasty stereotypes about black men. If you found that not all of them personally applied to Obama, that wouldn’t be a good argument that a) the list was incorrect in identifIng nasty stereotypes about black men; nor would it show that b) that the cluster of racial stereotypes about black men did not poison discussion about Obama, nor c) that such poisonous stereotypes (only some of which could be accurately ascribed to Obama) don’t do horrible things to our ability to survive as a nation, nor d) that ones that could not fairly be ascribed to him weren’t ascribed to him anyway.
If our opponents use anthrax we should punish them severely and try to incentivize them to stop. But that doesn’t mean we should use weaponized influenza and smallpox just because they started it. A failure to use Ebola against them doesn’t mean we lack resolve.
Because one typically only uses one or two of the tropes at a given time, but the group based rhetoric reinforces the rage in bulk. .
The reason why Loomis can “push back” so hard is because the tropes are assigned in bulk to ‘Republicans’ and McCain is a Republican therefore implicated in all of the tropes, not just the ones that are individually applicable to him.
Your response seems weird. There are a huge cluster of nasty stereotypes about black men. If you found that not all of them personally applied to Obama, that wouldn’t be a good argument that a) the list was incorrect in identifIng nasty stereotypes about black men; nor would it show that b) that the cluster of racial stereotypes about black men did not poison discussion about Obama, nor c) that such poisonous stereotypes (only some of which could be accurately ascribed to Obama) don’t do horrible things to our ability to survive as a nation, nor d) that ones that could not fairly be ascribed to him weren’t ascribed to him anyway.
If our opponents use anthrax we should punish them severely and try to incentivize them to stop. But that doesn’t mean we should use weaponized influenza and smallpox just because they started it. A failure to use Ebola against them doesn’t mean we lack resolve.
I’d like to briefly address Seb’s point.
The situation I find myself in, living in this country right now, is that I do not find that I share political or social values with other people who live here.
I’m more than happy to deal with this at a live-and-let-live level. I don’t really expect other people to think like I do, or value the things I value. Some do, some don’t. That’s life.
Unfortunately, when differences in values are expressed in public policy and law, it becomes harder for us to simply all go our own way.
When things you value are being undermined, dismantled, or destroyed, you are either going to push back, or your are going to give up.
People shouldn’t demonize each other. There are, however, serious and fundamental differences between how different groups of people in this country view the world. Differences that inherently involve questions of value and, frankly, morality.
Many points of disagreement I have with conservatives are basically pragmatic. I don’t think their policies will create a good outcome.
But there also many points of disagreement I have with conservatives that are questions of value. Not just a matter of the pragmatic outcome of what they propose, but the underlying beliefs and values that are expressed in their proposals.
I find some of the things they appear to believe to be wrong. Morally, ethically wrong. And, to the degree that those things are expressed in public policy, they are no longer something about which we can all simply agree to disagree and go on about our day.
They make me angry. I feel obliged – I feel it is required of me – to push back.
I’m sure that people may, in some cases, take offense at my sharing with them the fact that I find things they believe to be wrong. Not mistaken, but actually, morally, ethically wrong. Wrong as in bad.
I find that regrettable. Most times I try to focus on pragmatic differences, rather than get into more fundamental questions of value.
But that’s not always possible.
And, in fact, if what you are actually asking for is engagement, the questions of value cannot be avoided. Otherwise it’s just tip-toeing around each other, to find the boundaries of our differences.
I appreciate the desire to not demonize other people. But there has to be room to say that some things are actually wrong. Really and truly, morally, ethically, any way you want to slice it, wrong. As in bad.
There has to be room to say that, and there has to be room to hear it.
I’d like to briefly address Seb’s point.
The situation I find myself in, living in this country right now, is that I do not find that I share political or social values with other people who live here.
I’m more than happy to deal with this at a live-and-let-live level. I don’t really expect other people to think like I do, or value the things I value. Some do, some don’t. That’s life.
Unfortunately, when differences in values are expressed in public policy and law, it becomes harder for us to simply all go our own way.
When things you value are being undermined, dismantled, or destroyed, you are either going to push back, or your are going to give up.
People shouldn’t demonize each other. There are, however, serious and fundamental differences between how different groups of people in this country view the world. Differences that inherently involve questions of value and, frankly, morality.
Many points of disagreement I have with conservatives are basically pragmatic. I don’t think their policies will create a good outcome.
But there also many points of disagreement I have with conservatives that are questions of value. Not just a matter of the pragmatic outcome of what they propose, but the underlying beliefs and values that are expressed in their proposals.
I find some of the things they appear to believe to be wrong. Morally, ethically wrong. And, to the degree that those things are expressed in public policy, they are no longer something about which we can all simply agree to disagree and go on about our day.
They make me angry. I feel obliged – I feel it is required of me – to push back.
I’m sure that people may, in some cases, take offense at my sharing with them the fact that I find things they believe to be wrong. Not mistaken, but actually, morally, ethically wrong. Wrong as in bad.
I find that regrettable. Most times I try to focus on pragmatic differences, rather than get into more fundamental questions of value.
But that’s not always possible.
And, in fact, if what you are actually asking for is engagement, the questions of value cannot be avoided. Otherwise it’s just tip-toeing around each other, to find the boundaries of our differences.
I appreciate the desire to not demonize other people. But there has to be room to say that some things are actually wrong. Really and truly, morally, ethically, any way you want to slice it, wrong. As in bad.
There has to be room to say that, and there has to be room to hear it.
Been online and this is an interesting in relation to Paul Campos’s post with some mention of McCain that puts CharlesWT’s mention of the ‘Manbeerian candidate’ in context
http://www.miafacts.org/prankster.htm
Been online and this is an interesting in relation to Paul Campos’s post with some mention of McCain that puts CharlesWT’s mention of the ‘Manbeerian candidate’ in context
http://www.miafacts.org/prankster.htm
Sorry, just saw Seb and Russell’s comments after refreshing.
People are going to talk about what they want to talk about and what I want to talk about seems to be different from what Seb wants to. That’s fine, but there is a chance for miscommunication when the streams cross. I think Seb wants to talk about his feeling that Republicans are demonized. That’s fine, but but that’s not what I’m talking about, nor do I want to talk about that, cause I think it is overblown, but that’s just my opinion.
What I am interested in talking about the rhetoric of McCain’s obituaries etc and how that may reflect the state of our political discourse. There is some overlap, to be sure, but when Seb lists, as quotations, a bunch of statements that are ridiculous on their face, I have to wonder what they have to do with McCain’s obituaries.
Seb suggests that because these statements are out there, it licenses Erik Loomis’ post. I don’t think that is the case and this seems like a perfect example of how the political rhetoric is skewed. Loomis writes with a anger that his co-blogger acknowledges is ‘napalming’ and I mentioned that it made me a bit queasy. Yet now, I feel like I’m being pressed to disavow statements that Seb has listed, with no context and no author, about Republicans in order to talk about what I want to talk about. I don’t want to say ‘imaginary’ statements, cause that would imply Seb is just making them up and I’m sure he’s come across them, but for all intents and purposes, to me, Seb might have just as well created them from the whole cloth. Not knowing the context of the statements means that you may really not know what the statement means.
To me, this seems like an example of why it is liberals who are always being asked to be more polite, less angry, more respectful, that I have to disavow statements that are not linked to any particular person, but just ‘out there’. I’m sure you think there is a straight line from the list of statements you gave to what Loomis wrote, but I do not see it.
The argument about stereotypes of black men and Obama is similarly flawed, I think. First of all, if I have engaged with someone, I’ve tried to point out that their language might not mirror what they feel and when they draw on stereotypes, they are not conscious of the bias it illustrates. So at least for me, I’m not looking to call people racist (or sexist) because of the language they use, I’m trying to point out that the language is sexist or racist and they may not want to use it.
Lastly, I’m not really sure if the analogies you use really are helpful, in that they neither clarify nor lower the temperature. Equating statements to anthrax, weaponized influenza and smallpox and Ebola are vivid, but unlike speech, all those things are things that someone has to go to some effort to make and deliver. ‘I was just angry so I sent a vial on anthrax to him’ is not going to happen. So the idea of a war of weaponized diseases, with each side upping the ante at each round, is, on a fundamental level, not what is happening. People are getting more and more angry and are expressing their frustration. Had McCain passed away during Obama’s presidency, would we have seen something like Loomis’ post? And if we wouldn’t, is this because liberals have chosen to fight anthrax with smallpox and Ebola?
Anyway, I hope this isn’t too sharp, but I feel like I needed to speak to the list of statements and the analogy you put forth.
Sorry, just saw Seb and Russell’s comments after refreshing.
People are going to talk about what they want to talk about and what I want to talk about seems to be different from what Seb wants to. That’s fine, but there is a chance for miscommunication when the streams cross. I think Seb wants to talk about his feeling that Republicans are demonized. That’s fine, but but that’s not what I’m talking about, nor do I want to talk about that, cause I think it is overblown, but that’s just my opinion.
What I am interested in talking about the rhetoric of McCain’s obituaries etc and how that may reflect the state of our political discourse. There is some overlap, to be sure, but when Seb lists, as quotations, a bunch of statements that are ridiculous on their face, I have to wonder what they have to do with McCain’s obituaries.
Seb suggests that because these statements are out there, it licenses Erik Loomis’ post. I don’t think that is the case and this seems like a perfect example of how the political rhetoric is skewed. Loomis writes with a anger that his co-blogger acknowledges is ‘napalming’ and I mentioned that it made me a bit queasy. Yet now, I feel like I’m being pressed to disavow statements that Seb has listed, with no context and no author, about Republicans in order to talk about what I want to talk about. I don’t want to say ‘imaginary’ statements, cause that would imply Seb is just making them up and I’m sure he’s come across them, but for all intents and purposes, to me, Seb might have just as well created them from the whole cloth. Not knowing the context of the statements means that you may really not know what the statement means.
To me, this seems like an example of why it is liberals who are always being asked to be more polite, less angry, more respectful, that I have to disavow statements that are not linked to any particular person, but just ‘out there’. I’m sure you think there is a straight line from the list of statements you gave to what Loomis wrote, but I do not see it.
The argument about stereotypes of black men and Obama is similarly flawed, I think. First of all, if I have engaged with someone, I’ve tried to point out that their language might not mirror what they feel and when they draw on stereotypes, they are not conscious of the bias it illustrates. So at least for me, I’m not looking to call people racist (or sexist) because of the language they use, I’m trying to point out that the language is sexist or racist and they may not want to use it.
Lastly, I’m not really sure if the analogies you use really are helpful, in that they neither clarify nor lower the temperature. Equating statements to anthrax, weaponized influenza and smallpox and Ebola are vivid, but unlike speech, all those things are things that someone has to go to some effort to make and deliver. ‘I was just angry so I sent a vial on anthrax to him’ is not going to happen. So the idea of a war of weaponized diseases, with each side upping the ante at each round, is, on a fundamental level, not what is happening. People are getting more and more angry and are expressing their frustration. Had McCain passed away during Obama’s presidency, would we have seen something like Loomis’ post? And if we wouldn’t, is this because liberals have chosen to fight anthrax with smallpox and Ebola?
Anyway, I hope this isn’t too sharp, but I feel like I needed to speak to the list of statements and the analogy you put forth.
what Seb said.
among other things, Loomis is very very upset that McCain was a Republican. and, in typical Loomis fashion, he goes hyperbolic with bile.
a lot of his pieces turn out the same way. he takes a reasonable point and then cranks the bitterness to 11. i find myself skipping him about 1/2 the time. i’m going to skip more in the future.
what Seb said.
among other things, Loomis is very very upset that McCain was a Republican. and, in typical Loomis fashion, he goes hyperbolic with bile.
a lot of his pieces turn out the same way. he takes a reasonable point and then cranks the bitterness to 11. i find myself skipping him about 1/2 the time. i’m going to skip more in the future.
what Seb said @ 7:36 and 10:81, specifically.
what Seb said @ 7:36 and 10:81, specifically.
russell, sometimes I dont understand your boundaries. People fundametntwlly believe abortion is murder, me for example, but I am asked as reasonable person to see Roe vs Wade as an acceptable compromise while others lobby for abortion any time under any circumstance.
And I do accept that others dont hold my values and compromise is necessary. So we have always had to find the edges where we can agree. I’m not sure where you will find a different circumstance.
russell, sometimes I dont understand your boundaries. People fundametntwlly believe abortion is murder, me for example, but I am asked as reasonable person to see Roe vs Wade as an acceptable compromise while others lobby for abortion any time under any circumstance.
And I do accept that others dont hold my values and compromise is necessary. So we have always had to find the edges where we can agree. I’m not sure where you will find a different circumstance.
Wait, aren’t we supposed to be upset that literally anybody is or was a modern day Republican? In that respect Loomis’s post was entirely in the normal tradition of LGM or for that matter, the comment section here. They hate Republicans over there and they hate anyone they see as getting in the way of fighting Republicans and they mostly focus on those issues which make Republicans look bad as opposed to Democrats. If Stein or Nader or freaking Susan Sarandon had died, the articles on them would probably be as harsh or more so.
There are at least two separate issues here and I think more than that and they are all getting conflated. There is the issue of how to talk about Republicans and then there is the issue of speaking no ill about the newly dead, at least not for a week or so. That last principle commonly gets misused by pundits and politicians as an excuse for praising the dead person in ways that really glorify their own political views and you aren’t supposed to push back. Some people push back against that cynical style of doing politics under the guise of praising the dead. Perhaps they should suck it up for a week or so and then push back.
Since McCain was a bit of an enthusiast about bombing people, a trait which he shared with some politicians in both parties, there is also the related issue of American exceptionalism and whether we are consistent in how we remember the dead or talk about them. Of course we are not, which is why we can support countries which bomb school buses full of children. Some people matter and some don’t. Some crimes are mere flaws in somebody’s ( American) record while other crimes (committed by our foreign enemies) demand that we speak out and never forget their crimes for a second.
Personally I am fine albeit uneasy with the tradition of remembering our common humanity when someone dies, but the pro- McCain bullshit is really over the top and has been for decades. So I would favor some quiet dignified articles pointing out the victims of McCain’s preferred polices along with the things he did which were admirable. Btw, Loomis did acknowledge some of the admirable things, though grudgingly.
Wait, aren’t we supposed to be upset that literally anybody is or was a modern day Republican? In that respect Loomis’s post was entirely in the normal tradition of LGM or for that matter, the comment section here. They hate Republicans over there and they hate anyone they see as getting in the way of fighting Republicans and they mostly focus on those issues which make Republicans look bad as opposed to Democrats. If Stein or Nader or freaking Susan Sarandon had died, the articles on them would probably be as harsh or more so.
There are at least two separate issues here and I think more than that and they are all getting conflated. There is the issue of how to talk about Republicans and then there is the issue of speaking no ill about the newly dead, at least not for a week or so. That last principle commonly gets misused by pundits and politicians as an excuse for praising the dead person in ways that really glorify their own political views and you aren’t supposed to push back. Some people push back against that cynical style of doing politics under the guise of praising the dead. Perhaps they should suck it up for a week or so and then push back.
Since McCain was a bit of an enthusiast about bombing people, a trait which he shared with some politicians in both parties, there is also the related issue of American exceptionalism and whether we are consistent in how we remember the dead or talk about them. Of course we are not, which is why we can support countries which bomb school buses full of children. Some people matter and some don’t. Some crimes are mere flaws in somebody’s ( American) record while other crimes (committed by our foreign enemies) demand that we speak out and never forget their crimes for a second.
Personally I am fine albeit uneasy with the tradition of remembering our common humanity when someone dies, but the pro- McCain bullshit is really over the top and has been for decades. So I would favor some quiet dignified articles pointing out the victims of McCain’s preferred polices along with the things he did which were admirable. Btw, Loomis did acknowledge some of the admirable things, though grudgingly.
And no, I have no examples of quiet dignified articles about the pluses and minuses of McCain’s record. They might be out there, I haven’t looked.
And no, I have no examples of quiet dignified articles about the pluses and minuses of McCain’s record. They might be out there, I haven’t looked.
Period should go after “ They might be out there”, not a comma. I’m not sure why that typo irritates me.
Period should go after “ They might be out there”, not a comma. I’m not sure why that typo irritates me.
cleek: what Seb said @ 7:36 and 10:81, specifically.
No. The most charitable reading of Seb’s 7:36 is that “left wing crazies” are as deranged as the current so-called POTUS and his devotees. I positively seethe with goodwill toward my fellow human beings, but I can’t be that charitable.
Assuming “10:81” is a typo for “10:18”, I see the following: Working hard to obscure the basic humanity in your opponents is how a country dies.
I agree with that. But I think ANOTHER way “a country dies” is by “working hard” to humanize the despicable, or at least to find ways to despise Both Sides. Loomis is not POTUS. Even if he “demonized” McCain, even if he is a “left-wing crazy”, Seb’s sense of proportion seems out of whack.
–TP
cleek: what Seb said @ 7:36 and 10:81, specifically.
No. The most charitable reading of Seb’s 7:36 is that “left wing crazies” are as deranged as the current so-called POTUS and his devotees. I positively seethe with goodwill toward my fellow human beings, but I can’t be that charitable.
Assuming “10:81” is a typo for “10:18”, I see the following: Working hard to obscure the basic humanity in your opponents is how a country dies.
I agree with that. But I think ANOTHER way “a country dies” is by “working hard” to humanize the despicable, or at least to find ways to despise Both Sides. Loomis is not POTUS. Even if he “demonized” McCain, even if he is a “left-wing crazy”, Seb’s sense of proportion seems out of whack.
–TP
wrs @ 3:22 a.m. (?!?)
wTPs @ 9:51 a.m.
Also thanks to lj for his 4:28 a.m. I won’t say “wLJs” because the thought train is at a level of sophistication I can’t claim. But I’m glad to see lj working it out. 😉
TP quoted Seb saying this: Working hard to obscure the basic humanity in your opponents is how a country dies.
Oh. A country doesn’t die because it has been taken over by psychopaths and criminals? We’re not supposed to call them that because that makes it our fault that they’re psychopaths and criminals?
I call Clickbait by that name for a precise reason: because he lives for clicks. Any publicity is good publicity, etc. He leverages attention and has leveraged it and weaponized it to make a good run at destroying the country. Yes, him, not me. I call him Clickbait and not his name so as not to contribute, even in my small way, to the daily orgy of his click baiting.
wrs @ 3:22 a.m. (?!?)
wTPs @ 9:51 a.m.
Also thanks to lj for his 4:28 a.m. I won’t say “wLJs” because the thought train is at a level of sophistication I can’t claim. But I’m glad to see lj working it out. 😉
TP quoted Seb saying this: Working hard to obscure the basic humanity in your opponents is how a country dies.
Oh. A country doesn’t die because it has been taken over by psychopaths and criminals? We’re not supposed to call them that because that makes it our fault that they’re psychopaths and criminals?
I call Clickbait by that name for a precise reason: because he lives for clicks. Any publicity is good publicity, etc. He leverages attention and has leveraged it and weaponized it to make a good run at destroying the country. Yes, him, not me. I call him Clickbait and not his name so as not to contribute, even in my small way, to the daily orgy of his click baiting.
Re: not demonizing people.
It is not demonizing of people to disagree about policy–even when the disagreement is expressed as forceful condemnation of the POLICY.
However we as a nation have been subjected to over thirty years of political discourse centered on demonizing individuals and groups as a means of avoiding discussion of policy. The targets of the demonizing has included poor people Democrats in general, Specific Democratic politicians, gay people, trans people, immigrants, Muslims…and guess who has been doing the demonizing.
There are actually not that many areas of disagreement on policy between R voters and D voters. The biggest area of disagreement is that R voters don’t vote on policy and D’s often do.
The R party has made demonizing standard. They have made it the substance of their discourse. Of course the targets of their abuse will yell back. and inevitably the abusers will accuse the victims of being abusive and will claim to be the victims themselves–classic bully tactics.
I dont know the way out. But the r party is primarily responsible and they hae doubled down on their demonizing to use their abuse as an attack on the institutions and principles of representative government–as witness voter suppression laws base on the lies about voter fraud and the attempts to demonize the Mueller investigation.
The R party is an existential threat to representative government itself.
So I don’t buy “both sides do it” and I don’t buy poor old Republicans as victims of left wing meanness. NOt one little tiny bit.
Re: not demonizing people.
It is not demonizing of people to disagree about policy–even when the disagreement is expressed as forceful condemnation of the POLICY.
However we as a nation have been subjected to over thirty years of political discourse centered on demonizing individuals and groups as a means of avoiding discussion of policy. The targets of the demonizing has included poor people Democrats in general, Specific Democratic politicians, gay people, trans people, immigrants, Muslims…and guess who has been doing the demonizing.
There are actually not that many areas of disagreement on policy between R voters and D voters. The biggest area of disagreement is that R voters don’t vote on policy and D’s often do.
The R party has made demonizing standard. They have made it the substance of their discourse. Of course the targets of their abuse will yell back. and inevitably the abusers will accuse the victims of being abusive and will claim to be the victims themselves–classic bully tactics.
I dont know the way out. But the r party is primarily responsible and they hae doubled down on their demonizing to use their abuse as an attack on the institutions and principles of representative government–as witness voter suppression laws base on the lies about voter fraud and the attempts to demonize the Mueller investigation.
The R party is an existential threat to representative government itself.
So I don’t buy “both sides do it” and I don’t buy poor old Republicans as victims of left wing meanness. NOt one little tiny bit.
it is liberals who are always being asked to be more polite, less angry, more respectful
lj, have you considered the possibility that you are being asked this in simple recognition that the “conservatives” (they’re actually reactionaries, mostly, but that’s a different discussion) are simply incapable of doing so. It may not be anything like fair. But if there is going to be anything like a civil discussion, the burden falls that way.
it is liberals who are always being asked to be more polite, less angry, more respectful
lj, have you considered the possibility that you are being asked this in simple recognition that the “conservatives” (they’re actually reactionaries, mostly, but that’s a different discussion) are simply incapable of doing so. It may not be anything like fair. But if there is going to be anything like a civil discussion, the burden falls that way.
I’m extremely sympathetic to laura koerber’s points, and to her bitterness, but I agree with Sebastian that this is a dangerous road.
Nobody will be surprised to hear that my own views fall somewhere between Laura, Janie, lj, russell and Tony P on the one hand and Sebastian on the other concerning the issue of demonising opponents. Of course my own political and social attitudes are pretty much foursquare with the former group, and I take lj’s point about only the left having agency, and Janie’s question about which rightwing blogs Sebastian was preaching this gospel to (which made me smile with its neatness), but if “we” which is to say liberals, lefties, democrats etc, think we are morally superior to “them” (the current iteration at least of the GOP, the alt-right etc), or at least are pursuing more humane and moral goals, it follows that we should therefore see the danger a war of attrition continues to pose to the body politic, and think very carefully about tempting but dangerous behaviour. I’m not particularly proud of the condescension this implies, nor do I have an actual solution to put forward, but that it is a dangerous road and one previously trodden by hideous exemplars I have no doubt.
I’m extremely sympathetic to laura koerber’s points, and to her bitterness, but I agree with Sebastian that this is a dangerous road.
Nobody will be surprised to hear that my own views fall somewhere between Laura, Janie, lj, russell and Tony P on the one hand and Sebastian on the other concerning the issue of demonising opponents. Of course my own political and social attitudes are pretty much foursquare with the former group, and I take lj’s point about only the left having agency, and Janie’s question about which rightwing blogs Sebastian was preaching this gospel to (which made me smile with its neatness), but if “we” which is to say liberals, lefties, democrats etc, think we are morally superior to “them” (the current iteration at least of the GOP, the alt-right etc), or at least are pursuing more humane and moral goals, it follows that we should therefore see the danger a war of attrition continues to pose to the body politic, and think very carefully about tempting but dangerous behaviour. I’m not particularly proud of the condescension this implies, nor do I have an actual solution to put forward, but that it is a dangerous road and one previously trodden by hideous exemplars I have no doubt.
No.
Yes.
McCain invited Obama to speak at his funeral, and told Trump to stay away.
a person like that, for all his faults, is in the same bucket as Trump et al.
No.
Yes.
McCain invited Obama to speak at his funeral, and told Trump to stay away.
a person like that, for all his faults, is in the same bucket as Trump et al.
muthafukka…
…is not in the same bucket…
muthafukka…
…is not in the same bucket…
and if you think there are a lot of Republicans left who would come up with something like McCain-Feingold, ya dreamin.
and if you think there are a lot of Republicans left who would come up with something like McCain-Feingold, ya dreamin.
cleek,
You may remember that my comment on McCain was
My “no” was about Seb’s comment, not McCain’s character. I stand by my suggestion that
is a juxtaposition that strives too hard for “balance”.
–TP
cleek,
You may remember that my comment on McCain was
My “no” was about Seb’s comment, not McCain’s character. I stand by my suggestion that
is a juxtaposition that strives too hard for “balance”.
–TP
certainly i wasn’t clear, but i was never endorsing any claims of ‘balance’.
in the two comments i referred to, Seb was talking about loss of decency. yes he used a parallel construction, but i didn’t read it as saying both sides were balanced.
certainly i wasn’t clear, but i was never endorsing any claims of ‘balance’.
in the two comments i referred to, Seb was talking about loss of decency. yes he used a parallel construction, but i didn’t read it as saying both sides were balanced.
russell, sometimes I dont understand your boundaries.
I’m addressing Sebastian’s concern about liberal push-back. And about strong or judgmental language used in political discourse.
It would be very handy if we could confine discussion about stuff like this to simple matters of utility – what the practical, pragmatic outcome of policy A will be, versus policy B.
But I don’t really think that’s available. Because even coming up with a definition of what “useful” or “beneficial” means involves an understanding of what is good.
It is not going to be possible to resolve the differences we all have at a policy level, without addressing the differences we have in terms of basic, fundamental values. What we think is good, or bad. How we think people should relate to each other, and to the public institutions they share.
Without doing that, we are going to spend the rest of the lifetime of this republic in a kind of unending arm-wrestling match. Which has, actually, kind of been our history, and maybe that’s fine. But that’s what it is, and has been, and will be.
And, it’s basically impossible to talk about fundamental questions of value without making judgments, and without touching on things that elicit strong personal feelings in people.
You mention abortion. You are against it, because you believe it to be murder. That’s a credible point of view, you are entitled to it, and I respect that you hold that position.
It’s also position that names every doctor that performs abortions, and every person who has one, and quite a number of other people related to the circumstances that made the abortion seem to be necessary, as murderers or accessories to same.
You might not be inclined to walk up to an ob-gyn that performs the operation and call him or her a murderer to his or her face. That might seem impolite to you. But you have made a judgment about them.
People will, and will need to, articulate similar expressions of judgment – moral, ethical, religious, humanist, what have you judgment – about almost every point of policy you can think of.
At some point, it’s impossible or at least pointless to talk about how people of different races in this country interact without also talking about racism.
At some point, it’s impossible or at least pointless to talk about how the wealth created by our economy finds its way into private hands without talking about greed.
And so on and so on.
If we’re really going to talk about this stuff, we’re going to have to get into questions of value. The underlying beliefs and assumptions that people hold, that motivate their opinions about public matters.
Or, we can just keep arm-wrestling our way to some point of mutual sucks-the-least-of-all-possible-options compromise.
Either way. But candid engagement is going to require talking about things that are, frankly, more personal.
That’s what I’m saying.
russell, sometimes I dont understand your boundaries.
I’m addressing Sebastian’s concern about liberal push-back. And about strong or judgmental language used in political discourse.
It would be very handy if we could confine discussion about stuff like this to simple matters of utility – what the practical, pragmatic outcome of policy A will be, versus policy B.
But I don’t really think that’s available. Because even coming up with a definition of what “useful” or “beneficial” means involves an understanding of what is good.
It is not going to be possible to resolve the differences we all have at a policy level, without addressing the differences we have in terms of basic, fundamental values. What we think is good, or bad. How we think people should relate to each other, and to the public institutions they share.
Without doing that, we are going to spend the rest of the lifetime of this republic in a kind of unending arm-wrestling match. Which has, actually, kind of been our history, and maybe that’s fine. But that’s what it is, and has been, and will be.
And, it’s basically impossible to talk about fundamental questions of value without making judgments, and without touching on things that elicit strong personal feelings in people.
You mention abortion. You are against it, because you believe it to be murder. That’s a credible point of view, you are entitled to it, and I respect that you hold that position.
It’s also position that names every doctor that performs abortions, and every person who has one, and quite a number of other people related to the circumstances that made the abortion seem to be necessary, as murderers or accessories to same.
You might not be inclined to walk up to an ob-gyn that performs the operation and call him or her a murderer to his or her face. That might seem impolite to you. But you have made a judgment about them.
People will, and will need to, articulate similar expressions of judgment – moral, ethical, religious, humanist, what have you judgment – about almost every point of policy you can think of.
At some point, it’s impossible or at least pointless to talk about how people of different races in this country interact without also talking about racism.
At some point, it’s impossible or at least pointless to talk about how the wealth created by our economy finds its way into private hands without talking about greed.
And so on and so on.
If we’re really going to talk about this stuff, we’re going to have to get into questions of value. The underlying beliefs and assumptions that people hold, that motivate their opinions about public matters.
Or, we can just keep arm-wrestling our way to some point of mutual sucks-the-least-of-all-possible-options compromise.
Either way. But candid engagement is going to require talking about things that are, frankly, more personal.
That’s what I’m saying.
Is the loss of decency people saying harsh things about McCain before he is buried or is it the issue of how to talk about Republicans or are we making it about Republicans who are opposed to Trump and occasionally do or did the right thing though usually not?
Would it be okay to say bad things about McCain if he had invited Trump to his funeral?
Speaking for myself, I thought the Loomis piece was harsh but accurate. I am not sure whether one should wait until after the funeral to correct the over the top praise being said about McCain. It is the internet age. People are going to say things and others will argue about them. In a few weeks nobody will care except the family. I suspect Deep Thinkers like Tom Friedman will continue to invoke the example of McCain, the Titan who once walked the earth. Just guessing. Seems like the sort of thing Friedman would do, daydreaming of the good old centrist days when people struck grand Bargains and bombed who they liked without having to listen to a bunch of damn hippies.
I think protestors and critics should be kept away from the funeral and it wouldn’t be appropriate for Loomis to go on the PBS Newshour and cut loose. OTOH, I am mostly avoiding listening to the praise being showered on him.
Is the loss of decency people saying harsh things about McCain before he is buried or is it the issue of how to talk about Republicans or are we making it about Republicans who are opposed to Trump and occasionally do or did the right thing though usually not?
Would it be okay to say bad things about McCain if he had invited Trump to his funeral?
Speaking for myself, I thought the Loomis piece was harsh but accurate. I am not sure whether one should wait until after the funeral to correct the over the top praise being said about McCain. It is the internet age. People are going to say things and others will argue about them. In a few weeks nobody will care except the family. I suspect Deep Thinkers like Tom Friedman will continue to invoke the example of McCain, the Titan who once walked the earth. Just guessing. Seems like the sort of thing Friedman would do, daydreaming of the good old centrist days when people struck grand Bargains and bombed who they liked without having to listen to a bunch of damn hippies.
I think protestors and critics should be kept away from the funeral and it wouldn’t be appropriate for Loomis to go on the PBS Newshour and cut loose. OTOH, I am mostly avoiding listening to the praise being showered on him.
I’d put Loomis and the entire Lawyers Guns and Money blog in the crazy column.
They’re… predictable. You can write their blog posts for them in your head if you just ask what the standard talking points can be expected to be from people of their ilk.
The result is that you end up with a blog that seems very agreeable when they’re giving a good kicking to dishonest charlatans… but unfair they go after anyone else. With the charlatans its cathartic if LGM types give them a dose of their own medicine, but with anyone else it comes across as sliminess and bullying.
The quintessential LGM moment is being demonstrably wrong, but insisting that your opponents motivations for being right were bad, so really you were right all along if you think about it.
As for McCain’s political legacy, I don’t know that I’m qualified to criticize. At times I feel frustrated that we are praising a man for (among other things) not promoting wacky racist conspiracy theories, or not endorsing torture.
But that’s a test that about a hundred million of my countrymen failed. That’s a test his contemporaries failed. I’ve never been in a situation where everyone around me went down that road, and the best and most clear path for my professional success was to follow. I’ve never had to decide whether to turn myself into a near pariah within my own social circles by doing what was right.
I’ve never been tempted in those ways.
He was, and he made the right call.
Sometimes when I look at it, it seems obvious. Torture is bad and shames us. Duh. Easy question is easy. Other times it seems a tough choice- fight your own constituents and try to lead them in a better direction, or do what’s popular?
I don’t know how much I have a right to have expected from him. What I got was less than what I wanted, but vastly more than many others gave.
In a way the McCain question is the same question I have about a lot of the Never Trump Conservatives. A lot of them were complicit, to various degrees, some much more than others (Tom Nichols merely worked with publications like the National Review and the Federalist, David French used them to apologize for torture), in the degradation of the conservative electorate. But they all passed moral tests that their peers failed, and in many cases accepted suffering as a result.
I’d put Loomis and the entire Lawyers Guns and Money blog in the crazy column.
They’re… predictable. You can write their blog posts for them in your head if you just ask what the standard talking points can be expected to be from people of their ilk.
The result is that you end up with a blog that seems very agreeable when they’re giving a good kicking to dishonest charlatans… but unfair they go after anyone else. With the charlatans its cathartic if LGM types give them a dose of their own medicine, but with anyone else it comes across as sliminess and bullying.
The quintessential LGM moment is being demonstrably wrong, but insisting that your opponents motivations for being right were bad, so really you were right all along if you think about it.
As for McCain’s political legacy, I don’t know that I’m qualified to criticize. At times I feel frustrated that we are praising a man for (among other things) not promoting wacky racist conspiracy theories, or not endorsing torture.
But that’s a test that about a hundred million of my countrymen failed. That’s a test his contemporaries failed. I’ve never been in a situation where everyone around me went down that road, and the best and most clear path for my professional success was to follow. I’ve never had to decide whether to turn myself into a near pariah within my own social circles by doing what was right.
I’ve never been tempted in those ways.
He was, and he made the right call.
Sometimes when I look at it, it seems obvious. Torture is bad and shames us. Duh. Easy question is easy. Other times it seems a tough choice- fight your own constituents and try to lead them in a better direction, or do what’s popular?
I don’t know how much I have a right to have expected from him. What I got was less than what I wanted, but vastly more than many others gave.
In a way the McCain question is the same question I have about a lot of the Never Trump Conservatives. A lot of them were complicit, to various degrees, some much more than others (Tom Nichols merely worked with publications like the National Review and the Federalist, David French used them to apologize for torture), in the degradation of the conservative electorate. But they all passed moral tests that their peers failed, and in many cases accepted suffering as a result.
OTOH, I am mostly avoiding listening to the praise being showered on him.
This just gave me a flashback to when Reagan died, and the praise being showered on St. Ronnie made me sit up and wonder (to put it politely) which fantasy world these people were living in. My kids were teenagers at the time and were absorbing this stuff as reality to such an extent that we had to have a serious heart-to-heart talk. Luckily they were, even then, reasonably sophisticated readers and thinkers, and I don’t think the hagiographic
showerblizzard had any lasting ill effects.OTOH, I am mostly avoiding listening to the praise being showered on him.
This just gave me a flashback to when Reagan died, and the praise being showered on St. Ronnie made me sit up and wonder (to put it politely) which fantasy world these people were living in. My kids were teenagers at the time and were absorbing this stuff as reality to such an extent that we had to have a serious heart-to-heart talk. Luckily they were, even then, reasonably sophisticated readers and thinkers, and I don’t think the hagiographic
showerblizzard had any lasting ill effects.I’d put Loomis and the entire Lawyers Guns and Money blog in the crazy column.
The American grave stuff is interesting.
I feel frustrated that we are praising a man for (among other things) not promoting wacky racist conspiracy theories, or not endorsing torture.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
I’d put Loomis and the entire Lawyers Guns and Money blog in the crazy column.
The American grave stuff is interesting.
I feel frustrated that we are praising a man for (among other things) not promoting wacky racist conspiracy theories, or not endorsing torture.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Amen.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Amen.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Or an outcast.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Or an outcast.
FWIW, I have no problem with criticising and speaking ill of the dead, even while they are barely cold, except maybe to their loved ones. But, as most of us have said, McCain is a fairly complicated case (loosely speaking: lots of very bad stuff, some very good).
FWIW, I have no problem with criticising and speaking ill of the dead, even while they are barely cold, except maybe to their loved ones. But, as most of us have said, McCain is a fairly complicated case (loosely speaking: lots of very bad stuff, some very good).
Quite an interesting thread, so thanks to LJ for getting it started. I’m with Seb and Cleek. My addition: just as Loomis illustrates a level of lefty intolerance and bile that is hard for some to swallow, so too are there plenty on the right of the same ilk. This is not a symmetry or whataboutism point. Those groups, the bile spewers, are the exception, not the rule. For most of the rest of us, once you get past the initial labeling, it gets really complicated. Like McCain.
Quite an interesting thread, so thanks to LJ for getting it started. I’m with Seb and Cleek. My addition: just as Loomis illustrates a level of lefty intolerance and bile that is hard for some to swallow, so too are there plenty on the right of the same ilk. This is not a symmetry or whataboutism point. Those groups, the bile spewers, are the exception, not the rule. For most of the rest of us, once you get past the initial labeling, it gets really complicated. Like McCain.
GFTNC–do you consider Churchill a good or a bad person?
GFTNC–do you consider Churchill a good or a bad person?
Isn’t Churchill still dead?
Anyway, McKinney, which worries you more? The “bile” of a blogger or of a so-called president? I know one cut your taxes and the other didn’t, but I mean aside from that.
–TP
Isn’t Churchill still dead?
Anyway, McKinney, which worries you more? The “bile” of a blogger or of a so-called president? I know one cut your taxes and the other didn’t, but I mean aside from that.
–TP
Good question, McKinney. Also extremely complicated: many appalling aspects (some but not all typical of aristocrats of his time) and had he not coincided with that particular set of historical circumstances he would no doubt be considered a barely redeemed fuckup. But destiny decreed that his particular combination of qualities was what was needed for WW2, and it was a true case of cometh the hour, cometh the man. So on the whole history (and I) regard him fairly kindly.
Good question, McKinney. Also extremely complicated: many appalling aspects (some but not all typical of aristocrats of his time) and had he not coincided with that particular set of historical circumstances he would no doubt be considered a barely redeemed fuckup. But destiny decreed that his particular combination of qualities was what was needed for WW2, and it was a true case of cometh the hour, cometh the man. So on the whole history (and I) regard him fairly kindly.
Has history been unfair to Neville Chamberlain? One of my RW friends used to refer to Obama as Neville Chamberlain whenever he did something that he saw as being insufficiently assertive of American power. What do you think of Neville Chamberlain, McKinney? (I don’t really want to know. It’s irrelevant.)
Has history been unfair to Neville Chamberlain? One of my RW friends used to refer to Obama as Neville Chamberlain whenever he did something that he saw as being insufficiently assertive of American power. What do you think of Neville Chamberlain, McKinney? (I don’t really want to know. It’s irrelevant.)
A “narrative” now gaining traction in certain circles is that McCain was being petty in not wanting a certain person to be at his funeral. Whatever that person said about McCain isn’t a consideration, naturally.
A “narrative” now gaining traction in certain circles is that McCain was being petty in not wanting a certain person to be at his funeral. Whatever that person said about McCain isn’t a consideration, naturally.
“What I am interested in talking about the rhetoric of McCain’s obituaries etc and how that may reflect the state of our political discourse. There is some overlap, to be sure, but when Seb lists, as quotations, a bunch of statements that are ridiculous on their face, I have to wonder what they have to do with McCain’s obituaries.”
I guess I’m not making myself clear at all. The bile shot around McCain’s obituaries is intimately related to the fact that our current political discourse is increasingly about painting your opponent as a demon rather than someone who disagrees with you.
That state of discourse is bad for the polity for lots reasons. Off the top of my head I can think that it is bad because it
1) Encourages you to think of doing things to this demon that you wouldn’t allow to be done to people you see as human.
2) It encourages you to think of people who disagree with you on anything in apocalyptic terms.
3) It heightens the valence of even low level disagreements because allying with demons on anything is evil.
4) It makes vast pressures for groupthink because of 3).
5) It ends up causing a weird internal policing issue where you end up spending vast amounts of time punishing people in your group for not thinking exactly the right things AND when it comes to traditional concerns like corruption and other crimes you support them so long as they support your purity politics issues because you can’t let the demons take over.
All of this can be clearly seen in how the Republican Party has played out especially since the beginning of the Obama years.
I’m sorry that I don’t harp on it enough, but I sort of feel like everyone here knows about that. When I’m arguing with Brett Bellmore I say more about that kind of stuff.
I’m in kind of weird position historically, because I was raised in an evangelical mega-church, grew up deep in Republicanism, am temperamentally pretty conservative, and have seen that trajectory lay waste anything positive I might have once associated with those former views.
There are many things I’ve been wrong about, and many that I will be wrong about in the future, I’m sure. But one thing I’m certain about is that those nasty tendencies, as comforting as it might be to believe otherwise, are human tendencies and not conservative ones. (You can clearly see that through the history of essentially every communist party rule for example).
If we want to have any semblance of country left, embracing the demonizing tactics isn’t the way to do it.
That isn’t an exhortation not to fight. That is an exhortation to fight for the civilization we want to endure. We can’t do that by tearing down the fabric that holds it, however tenuously, together. Maybe I’m just an idiot, but a big part of how I have always tried to work is to say things to my compatriots like “even though this fight is VERY important we need to maintain the civilization we are fighting for lest we lose it during the fight.” See for example here.
“What I am interested in talking about the rhetoric of McCain’s obituaries etc and how that may reflect the state of our political discourse. There is some overlap, to be sure, but when Seb lists, as quotations, a bunch of statements that are ridiculous on their face, I have to wonder what they have to do with McCain’s obituaries.”
I guess I’m not making myself clear at all. The bile shot around McCain’s obituaries is intimately related to the fact that our current political discourse is increasingly about painting your opponent as a demon rather than someone who disagrees with you.
That state of discourse is bad for the polity for lots reasons. Off the top of my head I can think that it is bad because it
1) Encourages you to think of doing things to this demon that you wouldn’t allow to be done to people you see as human.
2) It encourages you to think of people who disagree with you on anything in apocalyptic terms.
3) It heightens the valence of even low level disagreements because allying with demons on anything is evil.
4) It makes vast pressures for groupthink because of 3).
5) It ends up causing a weird internal policing issue where you end up spending vast amounts of time punishing people in your group for not thinking exactly the right things AND when it comes to traditional concerns like corruption and other crimes you support them so long as they support your purity politics issues because you can’t let the demons take over.
All of this can be clearly seen in how the Republican Party has played out especially since the beginning of the Obama years.
I’m sorry that I don’t harp on it enough, but I sort of feel like everyone here knows about that. When I’m arguing with Brett Bellmore I say more about that kind of stuff.
I’m in kind of weird position historically, because I was raised in an evangelical mega-church, grew up deep in Republicanism, am temperamentally pretty conservative, and have seen that trajectory lay waste anything positive I might have once associated with those former views.
There are many things I’ve been wrong about, and many that I will be wrong about in the future, I’m sure. But one thing I’m certain about is that those nasty tendencies, as comforting as it might be to believe otherwise, are human tendencies and not conservative ones. (You can clearly see that through the history of essentially every communist party rule for example).
If we want to have any semblance of country left, embracing the demonizing tactics isn’t the way to do it.
That isn’t an exhortation not to fight. That is an exhortation to fight for the civilization we want to endure. We can’t do that by tearing down the fabric that holds it, however tenuously, together. Maybe I’m just an idiot, but a big part of how I have always tried to work is to say things to my compatriots like “even though this fight is VERY important we need to maintain the civilization we are fighting for lest we lose it during the fight.” See for example here.
Also extremely complicated
Yes, my point exactly.
Anyway, McKinney, which worries you more? The “bile” of a blogger or of a so-called president? I know one cut your taxes and the other didn’t, but I mean aside from that.
Either you’re missing my point or I didn’t make it very well. Let’s just say it was me and leave it at that.
Also extremely complicated
Yes, my point exactly.
Anyway, McKinney, which worries you more? The “bile” of a blogger or of a so-called president? I know one cut your taxes and the other didn’t, but I mean aside from that.
Either you’re missing my point or I didn’t make it very well. Let’s just say it was me and leave it at that.
A “narrative” now gaining traction in certain circles is that McCain was being petty in not wanting a certain person to be at his funeral.
probably the same guy who only bothered flying the WH flag at half mast for a single evening.
A “narrative” now gaining traction in certain circles is that McCain was being petty in not wanting a certain person to be at his funeral.
probably the same guy who only bothered flying the WH flag at half mast for a single evening.
Still with Seb.
Still with Seb.
Yes, my point exactly.
How odd that you addressed the question to me, then. I see that I have made approx 10 comments on this thread, most reasonably admiring of elements of McCain’s past, starting with this:
I know he had a very mixed history of actions and attitudes, many of which I might have disagreed with or even despised. And his impulsive and petulant nomination of Palin was a direct precursor to and enabler of the Trump phenomenon.
But his conduct during the Trump presidency has been a beacon for the kind of people (Republicans) who might have needed one, to remind them of how it was possible to regard this president even if you were a conservative and a hawk. His vote on the ACA motion was hugely important, and his statement after Helsinki likewise. As for his behaviour in refusing an early release by the VietCong, it is the kind of principled heroism about which Bonespur Donny can only have uneasy dreams.
Yes, my point exactly.
How odd that you addressed the question to me, then. I see that I have made approx 10 comments on this thread, most reasonably admiring of elements of McCain’s past, starting with this:
I know he had a very mixed history of actions and attitudes, many of which I might have disagreed with or even despised. And his impulsive and petulant nomination of Palin was a direct precursor to and enabler of the Trump phenomenon.
But his conduct during the Trump presidency has been a beacon for the kind of people (Republicans) who might have needed one, to remind them of how it was possible to regard this president even if you were a conservative and a hawk. His vote on the ACA motion was hugely important, and his statement after Helsinki likewise. As for his behaviour in refusing an early release by the VietCong, it is the kind of principled heroism about which Bonespur Donny can only have uneasy dreams.
I’d guess the vast majority of people would agree that demonization of others is wrong. Then we’re all left to sort out where the line is between valid criticism and demonization, on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with that!
I’d guess the vast majority of people would agree that demonization of others is wrong. Then we’re all left to sort out where the line is between valid criticism and demonization, on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with that!
How odd that you addressed the question to me, then.
I put the question to you because you are British. Your answer carries weight. I was not implying anything other than agreement with my complexity point. It was intended generally, as in “Churchill had many positive and many negative attributes; however, his strengths combined with history make him great by most standards, underscoring the complexity of human nature.” I read all of your comments and was not implying that you were viewing McCain in black and white terms. Sorry for giving that impression.
How odd that you addressed the question to me, then.
I put the question to you because you are British. Your answer carries weight. I was not implying anything other than agreement with my complexity point. It was intended generally, as in “Churchill had many positive and many negative attributes; however, his strengths combined with history make him great by most standards, underscoring the complexity of human nature.” I read all of your comments and was not implying that you were viewing McCain in black and white terms. Sorry for giving that impression.
It’s complicated with McCain and others because it is hard to separate the traditions surrounding funerals ( which I think are good) from the cynical and self congratulatory posturing done by people who use the death as a way to sanctify their views. They say glowing things about McCain. If you disagree, you are not being civil.
As for demonizing, it would be good if always and at all times we focused more on issues and less on the virtues or flaws of our favorite political heroes and villains.
It’s complicated with McCain and others because it is hard to separate the traditions surrounding funerals ( which I think are good) from the cynical and self congratulatory posturing done by people who use the death as a way to sanctify their views. They say glowing things about McCain. If you disagree, you are not being civil.
As for demonizing, it would be good if always and at all times we focused more on issues and less on the virtues or flaws of our favorite political heroes and villains.
Got it, no problem.
Got it, no problem.
I’d guess the vast majority of people would agree that demonization of others is wrong. Then we’re all left to sort out where the line is between valid criticism and demonization, on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with that!
Well, one starting point would be to speak to and about others in terms we would use if speaking to them face-to-face. Particularly when referring to ordinary citizens and not public actors like Trump and any other elected official.
I’d guess the vast majority of people would agree that demonization of others is wrong. Then we’re all left to sort out where the line is between valid criticism and demonization, on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with that!
Well, one starting point would be to speak to and about others in terms we would use if speaking to them face-to-face. Particularly when referring to ordinary citizens and not public actors like Trump and any other elected official.
Got it, no problem.
Meant, of course, for McKinney.
Got it, no problem.
Meant, of course, for McKinney.
It’s complicated with McCain and others because it is hard to separate the traditions surrounding funerals ( which I think are good) from the cynical and self congratulatory posturing done by people who use the death as a way to sanctify their views. They say glowing things about McCain. If you disagree, you are not being civil.
Sure. There are a lot of ways to describe co-opting someone’s funereal to advance an agenda and I can’t think of a single nice way to put it. I don’t watch or read most of that stuff for that reason.
As for demonizing, it would be good if always and at all times we focused more on issues and less on the virtues or flaws of our favorite political heroes and villains.
You’ve always adhered to this standard. We very seldom agree but that doesn’t mean I don’t pay a lot of attention to how you carry yourself and try to emulate when and where I can.
It’s complicated with McCain and others because it is hard to separate the traditions surrounding funerals ( which I think are good) from the cynical and self congratulatory posturing done by people who use the death as a way to sanctify their views. They say glowing things about McCain. If you disagree, you are not being civil.
Sure. There are a lot of ways to describe co-opting someone’s funereal to advance an agenda and I can’t think of a single nice way to put it. I don’t watch or read most of that stuff for that reason.
As for demonizing, it would be good if always and at all times we focused more on issues and less on the virtues or flaws of our favorite political heroes and villains.
You’ve always adhered to this standard. We very seldom agree but that doesn’t mean I don’t pay a lot of attention to how you carry yourself and try to emulate when and where I can.
Particularly when referring to ordinary citizens and not public actors like Trump and any other elected official.
I think the context was specifically the realm of politics, though I guess that could include not calling someone an a$$hole or an idiot when disagreeing over politics at a party. But, if we are talking about public figures, what is it okay to say?
If I were to say that our current POTUS was a vile human being, am I demonizing him or am I offering a defensible opinion? The answer would largely depend on whether or not you ask someone who agrees, I would think.
If we’re separating issues from virtues and flaws, how does that work in a case where the issue is something like criminality or espousing a policy that is patently inhumane or racist?
Particularly when referring to ordinary citizens and not public actors like Trump and any other elected official.
I think the context was specifically the realm of politics, though I guess that could include not calling someone an a$$hole or an idiot when disagreeing over politics at a party. But, if we are talking about public figures, what is it okay to say?
If I were to say that our current POTUS was a vile human being, am I demonizing him or am I offering a defensible opinion? The answer would largely depend on whether or not you ask someone who agrees, I would think.
If we’re separating issues from virtues and flaws, how does that work in a case where the issue is something like criminality or espousing a policy that is patently inhumane or racist?
If I were to say that our current POTUS was a vile human being, am I demonizing him or am I offering a defensible opinion?
It’s impossible to demonize a demon.
If I were to say that our current POTUS was a vile human being, am I demonizing him or am I offering a defensible opinion?
It’s impossible to demonize a demon.
“ that doesn’t mean I don’t pay a lot of attention to how you carry yourself and try to emulate when and where I can.”
I’ll be darned. Thanks.
In that spirit, I sort of agree with Sebastian and you and clerk too, but am torn, because I agree with the criticisms of McCain as well. But online at least, the country is getting too divided and too ferocious about it. I read a couple of conservative sites and of course many there sound like they are the ones fearing leftist violence— allegedly people attacking people wearing Maga hats, the Sanders and Maddow fan who shot the congresspeople last year, etc…
I don’t actually like the LGM site even though some of the posts are interesting. This is partly because my politics are different — I am Judean People’s Front, they are People’s Front of Judea.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bQsbgoJU_Vk
But also, they are just relentlessly sarcastic. Many of the people closer to my political sectarian impulses are the same. I act that way too sometimes. The internet has, weirdly, made me understand a little better why leftist revolutions turn out so badly. We are a bunch of assholes. Or we can be. No, this is not really a serious analysis of what happened in 1917 and later, but there is probably a bit of truth to it. Get a bunch of far lefties together and some of them start trying to outradicalize the rest. LGM is different. There, I think, the idea is that they know exactly how to mix leftism with pragmatism and anyone who disagrees is a horrible person deserving of contempt. I didn’t find the Loomis piece especially acerbic by their standards.
I don’t know the answer though. It is hard to think that other people’s views are about as wrong as it is possible to be on various issues and not demonize them. But the attempt should be made.
“ that doesn’t mean I don’t pay a lot of attention to how you carry yourself and try to emulate when and where I can.”
I’ll be darned. Thanks.
In that spirit, I sort of agree with Sebastian and you and clerk too, but am torn, because I agree with the criticisms of McCain as well. But online at least, the country is getting too divided and too ferocious about it. I read a couple of conservative sites and of course many there sound like they are the ones fearing leftist violence— allegedly people attacking people wearing Maga hats, the Sanders and Maddow fan who shot the congresspeople last year, etc…
I don’t actually like the LGM site even though some of the posts are interesting. This is partly because my politics are different — I am Judean People’s Front, they are People’s Front of Judea.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bQsbgoJU_Vk
But also, they are just relentlessly sarcastic. Many of the people closer to my political sectarian impulses are the same. I act that way too sometimes. The internet has, weirdly, made me understand a little better why leftist revolutions turn out so badly. We are a bunch of assholes. Or we can be. No, this is not really a serious analysis of what happened in 1917 and later, but there is probably a bit of truth to it. Get a bunch of far lefties together and some of them start trying to outradicalize the rest. LGM is different. There, I think, the idea is that they know exactly how to mix leftism with pragmatism and anyone who disagrees is a horrible person deserving of contempt. I didn’t find the Loomis piece especially acerbic by their standards.
I don’t know the answer though. It is hard to think that other people’s views are about as wrong as it is possible to be on various issues and not demonize them. But the attempt should be made.
If I were to say that our current POTUS was a vile human being, am I demonizing him or am I offering a defensible opinion? The answer would largely depend on whether or not you ask someone who agrees, I would think.
My distinction is between ordinary citizens who hold opinions and public actors/officials, i.e. people who subject themselves to other’s praise or criticism, depending on point of view.
Anyone is free to call DT a lying, corrupt, vile, verminous, hypocritical and dumb MF because DT volunteered to be judged by others. Or, to call HRC whatever.
It is almost certainly true that some number of true believers of whatever stripe are so single-mindedly self-righteous and self-certain that reasonably polite discourse isn’t going to happen. But, most people are complicated. Most people believe they act in good faith even if others can’t comprehend how that can be. For those who can’t comprehend, you will remain ignorant unless and until you engage. Presuming bad faith and formulating questions and comments in that fashion doesn’t lead to getting where someone is coming from. It just confirms their view of you (you in a general sense, not ‘you’ as in someone here in particular). We used to do a pretty good job of not personalizing our exchanges back in the day and the last few threads seem to have picked back up on that theme. I’m trying to be part of that program.
If I were to say that our current POTUS was a vile human being, am I demonizing him or am I offering a defensible opinion? The answer would largely depend on whether or not you ask someone who agrees, I would think.
My distinction is between ordinary citizens who hold opinions and public actors/officials, i.e. people who subject themselves to other’s praise or criticism, depending on point of view.
Anyone is free to call DT a lying, corrupt, vile, verminous, hypocritical and dumb MF because DT volunteered to be judged by others. Or, to call HRC whatever.
It is almost certainly true that some number of true believers of whatever stripe are so single-mindedly self-righteous and self-certain that reasonably polite discourse isn’t going to happen. But, most people are complicated. Most people believe they act in good faith even if others can’t comprehend how that can be. For those who can’t comprehend, you will remain ignorant unless and until you engage. Presuming bad faith and formulating questions and comments in that fashion doesn’t lead to getting where someone is coming from. It just confirms their view of you (you in a general sense, not ‘you’ as in someone here in particular). We used to do a pretty good job of not personalizing our exchanges back in the day and the last few threads seem to have picked back up on that theme. I’m trying to be part of that program.
It is hard to think that other people’s views are about as wrong as it is possible to be on various issues and not demonize them. But the attempt should be made.
Amen to that.
It is hard to think that other people’s views are about as wrong as it is possible to be on various issues and not demonize them. But the attempt should be made.
Amen to that.
Anyone is free to call DT a lying, corrupt, vile, verminous, hypocritical and dumb MF because DT volunteered to be judged by others. Or, to call HRC whatever.
I think ‘verminous’ crosses a line*. MF would over here but in the US it’s common enough to have lost any actual hints at incest and thus gets a pass.
*due to it’s history as the first step to calling for the exterminator (literally not metaphorically).
Anyone is free to call DT a lying, corrupt, vile, verminous, hypocritical and dumb MF because DT volunteered to be judged by others. Or, to call HRC whatever.
I think ‘verminous’ crosses a line*. MF would over here but in the US it’s common enough to have lost any actual hints at incest and thus gets a pass.
*due to it’s history as the first step to calling for the exterminator (literally not metaphorically).
But also, they are just relentlessly sarcastic.
Yeah, I get that. I suspect a lot people on the net have a different personality, more aggressive and impolite than in real life, but my sense is also that their in-person demeanor is superficial.
We are a bunch of assholes. Or we can be. No, this is not really a serious analysis of what happened in 1917 and later, but there is probably a bit of truth to it. Get a bunch of far lefties together and some of them start trying to outradicalize the rest.
This cracked me up. I think this may be true but not because of anything unique to the substance of lefty thinking. There is just a lot more *substance* on the left, more focus and passion and stuff to talk about. The left produces a more marked degree of ideological assholery than the right because there is much more going on on the left than the right.
Important note: *substance* is value neutral here. Marxism is part of the substantive debate on the left, more so the farther left you go. Also, the intellectual left has a larger population and a higher passion quotient than what I perceive on the right. All of these are value-neutral judgments.
A fair slice of conservative thinking comes down to “leave me and my money and my property alone”. Not exactly an intellectual call to arms. Traditional western liberalism is a slow, incremental move toward improving lives without breaking the basic model. Again, not something people wake up in the morning and think, By God, I’m going to strike a blow for tweaking the status quo just slightly! There is, of course, the religious quarter that somehow thinks the Creator of the Universe can’t make shit happen if we allow those homos to marry and have families, but that’s a minority viewpoint and shrinking by the day (I’m a Christian too, so I can say this stuff. :-}). The abortion debate is an outlier in terms of substance–it’s one of the few, specific, high energy topics that remains on the front burner year in and year out. You get way out on the right, with the Alt-Rightists and whatnot and I suppose they have their substance they can carry on about, but for the most part, substantive conservatism is way lest activist than substantive liberalism/progressivism/farther leftism.
But also, they are just relentlessly sarcastic.
Yeah, I get that. I suspect a lot people on the net have a different personality, more aggressive and impolite than in real life, but my sense is also that their in-person demeanor is superficial.
We are a bunch of assholes. Or we can be. No, this is not really a serious analysis of what happened in 1917 and later, but there is probably a bit of truth to it. Get a bunch of far lefties together and some of them start trying to outradicalize the rest.
This cracked me up. I think this may be true but not because of anything unique to the substance of lefty thinking. There is just a lot more *substance* on the left, more focus and passion and stuff to talk about. The left produces a more marked degree of ideological assholery than the right because there is much more going on on the left than the right.
Important note: *substance* is value neutral here. Marxism is part of the substantive debate on the left, more so the farther left you go. Also, the intellectual left has a larger population and a higher passion quotient than what I perceive on the right. All of these are value-neutral judgments.
A fair slice of conservative thinking comes down to “leave me and my money and my property alone”. Not exactly an intellectual call to arms. Traditional western liberalism is a slow, incremental move toward improving lives without breaking the basic model. Again, not something people wake up in the morning and think, By God, I’m going to strike a blow for tweaking the status quo just slightly! There is, of course, the religious quarter that somehow thinks the Creator of the Universe can’t make shit happen if we allow those homos to marry and have families, but that’s a minority viewpoint and shrinking by the day (I’m a Christian too, so I can say this stuff. :-}). The abortion debate is an outlier in terms of substance–it’s one of the few, specific, high energy topics that remains on the front burner year in and year out. You get way out on the right, with the Alt-Rightists and whatnot and I suppose they have their substance they can carry on about, but for the most part, substantive conservatism is way lest activist than substantive liberalism/progressivism/farther leftism.
There is just a lot more *substance* on the left, more focus and passion and stuff to talk about.
I wonder to what extent this derives from the fact that, if you are big on changing things, there are just so many more things to talk about changing. Whereas if you are focused more on making tweaks, and only where there is reason to believe that they will really be improvements, there is far less . . . scope. (In that same vein, radical reactionaries, of which we seem to have a substantial number at the moment, also have more scope because they want to make more sweeping changes.)
There is just a lot more *substance* on the left, more focus and passion and stuff to talk about.
I wonder to what extent this derives from the fact that, if you are big on changing things, there are just so many more things to talk about changing. Whereas if you are focused more on making tweaks, and only where there is reason to believe that they will really be improvements, there is far less . . . scope. (In that same vein, radical reactionaries, of which we seem to have a substantial number at the moment, also have more scope because they want to make more sweeping changes.)
A fair slice of conservative thinking comes down to “leave me and my money and my property alone”.
this seems about right, to me.
A fair slice of conservative thinking comes down to “leave me and my money and my property alone”.
this seems about right, to me.
Anyone is free to call DT a lying, corrupt, vile, verminous, hypocritical and dumb MF because DT volunteered to be judged by others. Or, to call HRC whatever.
Oh, sure. But it’s not really question of what people are or should be free to do. It’s a question of what’s good for our political culture. (Not that I don’t think you know that, but one might infer otherwise from the quote.)
I should add that I don’t mean to dismiss the idea that we should focus on issues. I absolutely agree that we should, to the best of our abilities. I’m just pointing out that the line between issues and personal virtue/flaws isn’t always a clear one. Keeping them separated is sometimes easier said than done.
Anyone is free to call DT a lying, corrupt, vile, verminous, hypocritical and dumb MF because DT volunteered to be judged by others. Or, to call HRC whatever.
Oh, sure. But it’s not really question of what people are or should be free to do. It’s a question of what’s good for our political culture. (Not that I don’t think you know that, but one might infer otherwise from the quote.)
I should add that I don’t mean to dismiss the idea that we should focus on issues. I absolutely agree that we should, to the best of our abilities. I’m just pointing out that the line between issues and personal virtue/flaws isn’t always a clear one. Keeping them separated is sometimes easier said than done.
McK, quoted by wj: There is just a lot more *substance* on the left, more focus and passion and stuff to talk about.
wj: I wonder to what extent this derives from the fact that, if you are big on changing things, there are just so many more things to talk about changing.
I think it’s more because of the basic agendas. McKinneyTexas wrote this:
A fair slice of conservative thinking comes down to “leave me and my money and my property alone”. Not exactly an intellectual call to arms.
That’s pretty simple, and as I read it, that was McKinneyTexas’s point.
Whereas the “left” is focused on the notion that we are all in this together, and we need to figure out *together* how to work this complex entity of our collective life.
Our own russell is my favorite, most eloquent explicator of this point of view, and though he can sum it up in a few brief paragraphs, in practice it’s a massive, eternal task, fraught with complications — intellectual, psychological, practical, political.
So yes, there’s more to talk about than there is if all you want is to say “Mine. Keep your hands off it, and if you’re hungry, go fishing.”
McK, quoted by wj: There is just a lot more *substance* on the left, more focus and passion and stuff to talk about.
wj: I wonder to what extent this derives from the fact that, if you are big on changing things, there are just so many more things to talk about changing.
I think it’s more because of the basic agendas. McKinneyTexas wrote this:
A fair slice of conservative thinking comes down to “leave me and my money and my property alone”. Not exactly an intellectual call to arms.
That’s pretty simple, and as I read it, that was McKinneyTexas’s point.
Whereas the “left” is focused on the notion that we are all in this together, and we need to figure out *together* how to work this complex entity of our collective life.
Our own russell is my favorite, most eloquent explicator of this point of view, and though he can sum it up in a few brief paragraphs, in practice it’s a massive, eternal task, fraught with complications — intellectual, psychological, practical, political.
So yes, there’s more to talk about than there is if all you want is to say “Mine. Keep your hands off it, and if you’re hungry, go fishing.”
McKinneyTexas: There is, of course, the religious quarter that somehow thinks the Creator of the Universe can’t make shit happen if we allow those homos to marry and have families
This made me chuckle. Back in 1992 I “came out” in the Augusta, Maine, newspaper, during one of the earliest phases of wide, open public debate about homosexuality in my lifetime. I wrote an op-ed which really folds on itself so tightly that to take any of it out of context is to fail to do it justice (I was a better writer back then), but it included this line:
Winston [a prolific local letter-to-the-editor writer] was actually trying to help out by arguing back against the self-defined righteous who think that the Creator of the Universe wrote a solo instead of a symphony….
I never thought I’d be saying, about me and McTx, that great minds think alike. But I guess stranger things have happened than both of us thinking that the Creator of the Universe might have a bigger heart and a wider perspective than some of the people who insist that they speak in the deity’s name.
McKinneyTexas: There is, of course, the religious quarter that somehow thinks the Creator of the Universe can’t make shit happen if we allow those homos to marry and have families
This made me chuckle. Back in 1992 I “came out” in the Augusta, Maine, newspaper, during one of the earliest phases of wide, open public debate about homosexuality in my lifetime. I wrote an op-ed which really folds on itself so tightly that to take any of it out of context is to fail to do it justice (I was a better writer back then), but it included this line:
Winston [a prolific local letter-to-the-editor writer] was actually trying to help out by arguing back against the self-defined righteous who think that the Creator of the Universe wrote a solo instead of a symphony….
I never thought I’d be saying, about me and McTx, that great minds think alike. But I guess stranger things have happened than both of us thinking that the Creator of the Universe might have a bigger heart and a wider perspective than some of the people who insist that they speak in the deity’s name.
Our own russell is my favorite, most eloquent explicator of this point of view, and though he can sum it up in a few brief paragraphs, in practice it’s a massive, eternal task, fraught with complications — intellectual, psychological, practical, political.
Cosign, in all respects.
Our own russell is my favorite, most eloquent explicator of this point of view, and though he can sum it up in a few brief paragraphs, in practice it’s a massive, eternal task, fraught with complications — intellectual, psychological, practical, political.
Cosign, in all respects.
Oh, sure. But it’s not really question of what people are or should be free to do. It’s a question of what’s good for our political culture. (Not that I don’t think you know that, but one might infer otherwise from the quote.)
I meant free “and consistent with general civility”. Trump volunteered for the hot seat.
the notion that we are all in this together, and we need to figure out *together* how to work this complex entity of our collective life.
That’s one way of looking at it. Let’s break it down:
1. We are all in this together.
Are we? In, how much “in”? What if I don’t want ‘in’ as much as you want me ‘in’? Can I get out if I don’t like the way you’ve included me in?
2. We need to figure out *together* how to work this complex entity of our collective life.
What are the compelling needs and what price–money, imposition, limits on individual freedom– must be paid to meet those needs? Voluntary collective effort or compelled by the state? What is meant by collective? Roads? Ok. Universal free health care for 350,000,000 people, regardless of cost, regardless of what we’d be giving up in exchange? Maybe not. Free food, housing and clothing for all? No. Not do-able. Cure is worse than the disease.
There is a reason why many of us want to be left alone. Those that want to help us often are much less helpful than they think they are.
So yes, there’s more to talk about than there is if all you want is to say “Mine. Keep your hands off it, and if you’re hungry, go fishing.”
Which is a distortion of conservatism.
Oh, sure. But it’s not really question of what people are or should be free to do. It’s a question of what’s good for our political culture. (Not that I don’t think you know that, but one might infer otherwise from the quote.)
I meant free “and consistent with general civility”. Trump volunteered for the hot seat.
the notion that we are all in this together, and we need to figure out *together* how to work this complex entity of our collective life.
That’s one way of looking at it. Let’s break it down:
1. We are all in this together.
Are we? In, how much “in”? What if I don’t want ‘in’ as much as you want me ‘in’? Can I get out if I don’t like the way you’ve included me in?
2. We need to figure out *together* how to work this complex entity of our collective life.
What are the compelling needs and what price–money, imposition, limits on individual freedom– must be paid to meet those needs? Voluntary collective effort or compelled by the state? What is meant by collective? Roads? Ok. Universal free health care for 350,000,000 people, regardless of cost, regardless of what we’d be giving up in exchange? Maybe not. Free food, housing and clothing for all? No. Not do-able. Cure is worse than the disease.
There is a reason why many of us want to be left alone. Those that want to help us often are much less helpful than they think they are.
So yes, there’s more to talk about than there is if all you want is to say “Mine. Keep your hands off it, and if you’re hungry, go fishing.”
Which is a distortion of conservatism.
I wrote an op-ed which really folds on itself so tightly that to take any of it out of context is to fail to do it justice (I was a better writer back then)
Goddamit Janie, this is a helluva tease! I don’t suppose you’d consider posting it here?
I wrote an op-ed which really folds on itself so tightly that to take any of it out of context is to fail to do it justice (I was a better writer back then)
Goddamit Janie, this is a helluva tease! I don’t suppose you’d consider posting it here?
Creator of the Universe
If someone can create an infinite universe from a small, marble sized ball, our individual assistance in executing the cosmic plan is almost certainly surplus to needs.
Creator of the Universe
If someone can create an infinite universe from a small, marble sized ball, our individual assistance in executing the cosmic plan is almost certainly surplus to needs.
I didn’t find the Loomis piece especially acerbic by their standards.
He called a Puerto Rican a fascist. Although I guess there’s nothing stopping a Puerto Rican from being a fascist
I didn’t find the Loomis piece especially acerbic by their standards.
He called a Puerto Rican a fascist. Although I guess there’s nothing stopping a Puerto Rican from being a fascist
McK: “leave me and my money and my property alone”
Me: “Mine. Keep your hands off it, and if you’re hungry, go fishing.”
McK: Which is a distortion of conservatism.
Also: Let’s break it down…
Ooooookaaaaayyyy.
Not biting. Shouldn’t have bothered in the first place.
McK: “leave me and my money and my property alone”
Me: “Mine. Keep your hands off it, and if you’re hungry, go fishing.”
McK: Which is a distortion of conservatism.
Also: Let’s break it down…
Ooooookaaaaayyyy.
Not biting. Shouldn’t have bothered in the first place.
For GftNC: the column isn’t in digital form. I’d have to type the whole thing or take a snapshot of it and post that. Maybe one of these days.
For GftNC: the column isn’t in digital form. I’d have to type the whole thing or take a snapshot of it and post that. Maybe one of these days.
LGM is different. There, I think, the idea is that they know exactly how to mix leftism with pragmatism and anyone who disagrees is a horrible person deserving of contempt. I didn’t find the Loomis piece especially acerbic by their standards.
The front-pagers there have different interests and styles. Lemieux is my favorite. I consistently agree with him. He probably fits the description of liberal pragmatist better than the others. I have many quarrels with Erik’s general viewpoint, but his persona is to be cranky, and to a certain extent, it’s just a shtick. I enjoy his grave visits. Whether I’m interested in the others depends on what issue they’re discussing.
I enjoy reading the comments because, not only do I agree with most of them (usually), but some of the people there are very funny. Sometimes insightful, but often they just make me laugh. These days, that’s worth a lot.
LGM is different. There, I think, the idea is that they know exactly how to mix leftism with pragmatism and anyone who disagrees is a horrible person deserving of contempt. I didn’t find the Loomis piece especially acerbic by their standards.
The front-pagers there have different interests and styles. Lemieux is my favorite. I consistently agree with him. He probably fits the description of liberal pragmatist better than the others. I have many quarrels with Erik’s general viewpoint, but his persona is to be cranky, and to a certain extent, it’s just a shtick. I enjoy his grave visits. Whether I’m interested in the others depends on what issue they’re discussing.
I enjoy reading the comments because, not only do I agree with most of them (usually), but some of the people there are very funny. Sometimes insightful, but often they just make me laugh. These days, that’s worth a lot.
A fair slice of conservative thinking comes down to “leave me and my money and my property alone”.
Actually, that’s a pretty fair summary of libertarian thinking.
I would say conservative thinking comes down to more: “Overall, things are working pretty well. Some things do need to be changed, but we should try for the smallest change that will fix the specific problem, so as to minimize the chances that we mess up the things that are currently working well.”
A fair slice of conservative thinking comes down to “leave me and my money and my property alone”.
Actually, that’s a pretty fair summary of libertarian thinking.
I would say conservative thinking comes down to more: “Overall, things are working pretty well. Some things do need to be changed, but we should try for the smallest change that will fix the specific problem, so as to minimize the chances that we mess up the things that are currently working well.”
1. We are all in this together.
Are we?
yes. we all live here, nobody’s going anywhere.
the myth of “leave me alone” is that that is even an option. pretty much anything anyone does, has some effect on somebody else.
“leave me alone” generally ends up with the downside of whatever it is you want to be left alone to do, falling in somebody else’s lap.
In, how much “in”?
All the way. See above.
What if I don’t want ‘in’ as much as you want me ‘in’? Can I get out if I don’t like the way you’ve included me in?
You’re in, full stop. It’s not a pick and choose thing.
I guess if you are willing to go live off the grid – really off the grid – in some remote location, and you find a way to do that sufficiently responsibly that you don’t create problems for other folks, you can “get out”.
Most folks don’t want to go to that much trouble.
2. We need to figure out *together* how to work this complex entity of our collective life.
What are the compelling needs and what price–money, imposition, limits on individual freedom– must be paid to meet those needs?
It depends.
Voluntary collective effort or compelled by the state?
It depends.
What is meant by collective? Roads? Ok.
Yes, most folks agree on roads.
Universal free health care for 350,000,000 people, regardless of cost, regardless of what we’d be giving up in exchange? Maybe not.
There is no such thing as “free health care”. It’s a service, there are significant material goods involved, many of which are quite capital intensive.
“Free” is not on the table.
If you are asking me what a sensible health care regime should look like, I’d say “anything other than what we do”. We pay more than anyone similar, and do not have outcomes to match.
To me, the “health care” thing is a no-brainer. It’s a problem that has been solved, and solved, and solved, in 20 different ways.
Look at what works, pick the bits that seem like a good fit for us, and execute. And move the hell on.
The health care question is my #1 reason that I often think we are the stupidest country in the world. Rich, sure, but dumb as a box of rocks.
Free food, housing and clothing for all?
See the above concerning “free”.
There are no “free” things. Things cost time, effort, and money.
We – the United States – have great big buckets of money. We just can’t seem to find a way to make it available to enough people, in enough amounts, to make it possible for them to have a decent life. For “decent life” read:
these are, seriously, not big asks.
Most folks would be quite happy to provide the bulk or the entirety of this stuff for themselves. The problem is that a lot of people *don’t make a lot of money*, whether they work or not.
So, my list is out of reach for them. Millions of them.
My one-size-fits-all remedy for this stuff, as always, is to pay people who work for a living enough to live on.
That would require a reconsideration of the role and status of working people, which is a whole other topic.
I’m open to discussion about any and all of this, however I find the basic “we can’t afford it” argument lacking. We are as rich as many other societies that do these things as a matter of course, and richer than quite a few.
It’s all about choices.
1. We are all in this together.
Are we?
yes. we all live here, nobody’s going anywhere.
the myth of “leave me alone” is that that is even an option. pretty much anything anyone does, has some effect on somebody else.
“leave me alone” generally ends up with the downside of whatever it is you want to be left alone to do, falling in somebody else’s lap.
In, how much “in”?
All the way. See above.
What if I don’t want ‘in’ as much as you want me ‘in’? Can I get out if I don’t like the way you’ve included me in?
You’re in, full stop. It’s not a pick and choose thing.
I guess if you are willing to go live off the grid – really off the grid – in some remote location, and you find a way to do that sufficiently responsibly that you don’t create problems for other folks, you can “get out”.
Most folks don’t want to go to that much trouble.
2. We need to figure out *together* how to work this complex entity of our collective life.
What are the compelling needs and what price–money, imposition, limits on individual freedom– must be paid to meet those needs?
It depends.
Voluntary collective effort or compelled by the state?
It depends.
What is meant by collective? Roads? Ok.
Yes, most folks agree on roads.
Universal free health care for 350,000,000 people, regardless of cost, regardless of what we’d be giving up in exchange? Maybe not.
There is no such thing as “free health care”. It’s a service, there are significant material goods involved, many of which are quite capital intensive.
“Free” is not on the table.
If you are asking me what a sensible health care regime should look like, I’d say “anything other than what we do”. We pay more than anyone similar, and do not have outcomes to match.
To me, the “health care” thing is a no-brainer. It’s a problem that has been solved, and solved, and solved, in 20 different ways.
Look at what works, pick the bits that seem like a good fit for us, and execute. And move the hell on.
The health care question is my #1 reason that I often think we are the stupidest country in the world. Rich, sure, but dumb as a box of rocks.
Free food, housing and clothing for all?
See the above concerning “free”.
There are no “free” things. Things cost time, effort, and money.
We – the United States – have great big buckets of money. We just can’t seem to find a way to make it available to enough people, in enough amounts, to make it possible for them to have a decent life. For “decent life” read:
these are, seriously, not big asks.
Most folks would be quite happy to provide the bulk or the entirety of this stuff for themselves. The problem is that a lot of people *don’t make a lot of money*, whether they work or not.
So, my list is out of reach for them. Millions of them.
My one-size-fits-all remedy for this stuff, as always, is to pay people who work for a living enough to live on.
That would require a reconsideration of the role and status of working people, which is a whole other topic.
I’m open to discussion about any and all of this, however I find the basic “we can’t afford it” argument lacking. We are as rich as many other societies that do these things as a matter of course, and richer than quite a few.
It’s all about choices.
What I would add to my laundry list above is:
Respect for and care for the natural world that we all share. Private property is great, making use of the material world around us to provide for our needs is great.
But we’ve gotten into the habit of basically sh**ing all over everything. It’s not sustainable. This isn’t happy hippy hug-a-tree stuff, this is about making life so difficult that we’ll be at each other’s throats.
Let’s not do that.
What I would add to my laundry list above is:
Respect for and care for the natural world that we all share. Private property is great, making use of the material world around us to provide for our needs is great.
But we’ve gotten into the habit of basically sh**ing all over everything. It’s not sustainable. This isn’t happy hippy hug-a-tree stuff, this is about making life so difficult that we’ll be at each other’s throats.
Let’s not do that.
Actually, that’s a pretty fair summary of libertarian thinking.
Aha!!
Hence my frequent comment that American conservatives are not really conservative.
Actually, that’s a pretty fair summary of libertarian thinking.
Aha!!
Hence my frequent comment that American conservatives are not really conservative.
russell @ 06.21 and 06.31:
And there we have it: a manifesto of fairness and decency, for a decent, respectable, non-panicked life for people, their children and the planet. It would obviously cost, but I expect there would still be very rich people, and I further expect that neither russell nor anybody here (now that bob mcm is gone) would begrudge them.
russell @ 06.21 and 06.31:
And there we have it: a manifesto of fairness and decency, for a decent, respectable, non-panicked life for people, their children and the planet. It would obviously cost, but I expect there would still be very rich people, and I further expect that neither russell nor anybody here (now that bob mcm is gone) would begrudge them.
Hence my frequent comment that American conservatives are not really conservative.
Quite. I would argue the American “conservatives” are, in substantial part, either libertarians (in varying degrees) or reactionaries (usually longing for a past that never actually existed). There are a few of us who really are conservatives. But the evidence suggests that we have been quite successfully marginalized.
It’s amusing, if you like irony, the way things have worked out. The (mostly very wealthy) libertarians have spent heavily to elect reactionaries — because they saw that as a way to get what they wanted. In many ways, it has been a marvelous success.
Except now the nut cases are insisting on getting what they were promised. And those rich libertarians are horrified. They never had any philosophical agreement with the crazies; just saw them as an exploitable means to an end. Now they’re in bed with them and can’t get out. Worse, the crazies turn out to be a bigger threat to their wealth than the left ever was. Oops.
Hence my frequent comment that American conservatives are not really conservative.
Quite. I would argue the American “conservatives” are, in substantial part, either libertarians (in varying degrees) or reactionaries (usually longing for a past that never actually existed). There are a few of us who really are conservatives. But the evidence suggests that we have been quite successfully marginalized.
It’s amusing, if you like irony, the way things have worked out. The (mostly very wealthy) libertarians have spent heavily to elect reactionaries — because they saw that as a way to get what they wanted. In many ways, it has been a marvelous success.
Except now the nut cases are insisting on getting what they were promised. And those rich libertarians are horrified. They never had any philosophical agreement with the crazies; just saw them as an exploitable means to an end. Now they’re in bed with them and can’t get out. Worse, the crazies turn out to be a bigger threat to their wealth than the left ever was. Oops.
I’m just pointing out that the line between issues and personal virtue/flaws isn’t always a clear one. Keeping them separated is sometimes easier said than done.
Sometimes there simply is no line, and trying to draw one is foolish.
How is it possible to politely disagree with someone about the family separation policy, for example, without considering your antagonist vile?
How is it possible to politely disagree with someone who wants homosexuality criminalized?
I have a hard time with much of this.It’s not just disagreement. I disagree with McKinney on taxes. OK. Fine. We can discuss it. But somethings I can’t. IMO the real-life Republican Party is destroying the country, and is a threat to many elsewhere on the globe.
This is not debating society stuff.
I’m just pointing out that the line between issues and personal virtue/flaws isn’t always a clear one. Keeping them separated is sometimes easier said than done.
Sometimes there simply is no line, and trying to draw one is foolish.
How is it possible to politely disagree with someone about the family separation policy, for example, without considering your antagonist vile?
How is it possible to politely disagree with someone who wants homosexuality criminalized?
I have a hard time with much of this.It’s not just disagreement. I disagree with McKinney on taxes. OK. Fine. We can discuss it. But somethings I can’t. IMO the real-life Republican Party is destroying the country, and is a threat to many elsewhere on the globe.
This is not debating society stuff.
whoa boy, busy evening. There wasn’t a lot that was addressed to me, but wj wrote:
lj, have you considered the possibility that you are being asked this in simple recognition that the “conservatives” (they’re actually reactionaries, mostly, but that’s a different discussion) are simply incapable of doing so.
Well, here’s the thing. My impression is that Seb doesn’t recognize what you point out, that ‘conservatives’ (and here, we get into the question of who is a real conservative etc) are incapable of doing so. If, in a group of like-minded individuals who have to deal with someone intransigent, there are a lot of ways to blow off steam. But when someone comes in and constantly repeats that it’s not him being intransigent, it is y’all, the person shouldn’t be be surprised with what s/he gets.
To answer Seb’s comment, I appreciate where he is coming from, and I appreciate his understanding that this is going to influence what he says and I do keep that in mind when I read him. But, as Janie suggests, I think he is talking to the wrong crowd. This is not to say that I want him to take his message to the crowd that needs to hear it, precisely because of what wj observes, that ‘conservatives’ are too intransigent to listen and Seb would get ripped apart.
If anyone missed the last little bit on the previous post, you may want to check it out. I initially thought that Zito was simply misguided, rewriting her narrative in her mind to fit her preconceptions. However, if you look at the twitter thread in that last comment, she’s engaged in another level of deception that is active and malign. It’s really astonishing.
So, when wj says they are incapable of changing their minds (an interesting turn of phrase because it suggests a wholesale replacement of ideas), I understand that. Here, we should have people who are willing to change their minds, but there is an important caveat, in the give and take of discussion, both sides have to. It can’t be a one-sided game.
I’ve mentioned that I do aikido, and it is a martial art that deals with the slow ratcheting up of response. The whole thing is proportional response. Because of this, aikido gets a lot of flak from guys in MMA that it isn’t ‘realistic’. And it isn’t realistic because the people who are arguing against aikido assume an attacker who wants to cripple or kill you. I sense the same thing here, in that Seb is saying ‘why don’t you use your liberal discussion techniques and grant the other side the same measure of respect’. But if we have people like Zito, who are going on to media outlets as ‘experts’ fabricating their information, what is proportional? Aikido, like liberal discussion techniques, assumes that when the other side has their intent ‘matched’, it’s either time to back down or to ratchet things up to the point where the defender can match. It falls apart if someone is not going to respect that dance.
We’ve also gone off that general topic and talking about LGM. While I don’t have any problem with others talking about it, talking about a blog (and a group one at that) brings on the same problems we have talking about McCain imo. Looking over the totality of a person’s life and making a judgement requires knowing a lot more than reacting to a particular post. That’s why I suggested the Guardian’s article (though they have several about McCain) that identifies 10 moments that will shape his legacy
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/25/john-mccain-death-moments-life-shape-legacy
but those 10 moments are relatively modern and says nothing of McCain, the son and grandson of Navy bluebloods or of his captivity experience. So returning to Loomis’ article (which I posted and noted how it made me feel, so it’s not like I’m trying to keep anything from anyone here), sapient’s point about Loomis’ “shtick” is important to remember and he didn’t (and doesn’t) fabricate anything like Zito did. My take on ‘right wing crazies’ are people who are willing to fabricate because they are convinced that their outcome is correct. I’m sure if you presented Loomis with evidence that his _facts_ are wrong, he would acknowledge that. Looking at the people who are confronted with evidence that immigration is not taking away jobs, that voter fraud is not a problem, that tariffs are not an appropriate response, immunizations don’t cause autism, if they refuse to accept that evidence, that is what makes them ‘crazies’
There are a lot more interesting things, far too many to pick up, both things that I agree and things I disagree with. But to throw another thing in the mix, while I feel, like Donald, the internet has smoothed some edges off of me, the whole online world seems to ramp up the tendency of never acknowledging you are wrong. I just read a long facebook thread that, as these things do, started out talking about one thing and ended up with two people arguing over the extend of geographical knowledge of Japanese people. (this is another good reason why it is better to talk about a piece of writing by a single person, when you talk about the tendencies of a large group, the ‘evidence’ that can be brought in expands infinitely) Both had some good points, but they had said the other person was wrong and god damn it, they were right.
Anyway, I’ll leave it there and pick it up when the next famous political figure passes away, though I hope no one lifts that line and claims I’m rooting for anyone to be the next.
whoa boy, busy evening. There wasn’t a lot that was addressed to me, but wj wrote:
lj, have you considered the possibility that you are being asked this in simple recognition that the “conservatives” (they’re actually reactionaries, mostly, but that’s a different discussion) are simply incapable of doing so.
Well, here’s the thing. My impression is that Seb doesn’t recognize what you point out, that ‘conservatives’ (and here, we get into the question of who is a real conservative etc) are incapable of doing so. If, in a group of like-minded individuals who have to deal with someone intransigent, there are a lot of ways to blow off steam. But when someone comes in and constantly repeats that it’s not him being intransigent, it is y’all, the person shouldn’t be be surprised with what s/he gets.
To answer Seb’s comment, I appreciate where he is coming from, and I appreciate his understanding that this is going to influence what he says and I do keep that in mind when I read him. But, as Janie suggests, I think he is talking to the wrong crowd. This is not to say that I want him to take his message to the crowd that needs to hear it, precisely because of what wj observes, that ‘conservatives’ are too intransigent to listen and Seb would get ripped apart.
If anyone missed the last little bit on the previous post, you may want to check it out. I initially thought that Zito was simply misguided, rewriting her narrative in her mind to fit her preconceptions. However, if you look at the twitter thread in that last comment, she’s engaged in another level of deception that is active and malign. It’s really astonishing.
So, when wj says they are incapable of changing their minds (an interesting turn of phrase because it suggests a wholesale replacement of ideas), I understand that. Here, we should have people who are willing to change their minds, but there is an important caveat, in the give and take of discussion, both sides have to. It can’t be a one-sided game.
I’ve mentioned that I do aikido, and it is a martial art that deals with the slow ratcheting up of response. The whole thing is proportional response. Because of this, aikido gets a lot of flak from guys in MMA that it isn’t ‘realistic’. And it isn’t realistic because the people who are arguing against aikido assume an attacker who wants to cripple or kill you. I sense the same thing here, in that Seb is saying ‘why don’t you use your liberal discussion techniques and grant the other side the same measure of respect’. But if we have people like Zito, who are going on to media outlets as ‘experts’ fabricating their information, what is proportional? Aikido, like liberal discussion techniques, assumes that when the other side has their intent ‘matched’, it’s either time to back down or to ratchet things up to the point where the defender can match. It falls apart if someone is not going to respect that dance.
We’ve also gone off that general topic and talking about LGM. While I don’t have any problem with others talking about it, talking about a blog (and a group one at that) brings on the same problems we have talking about McCain imo. Looking over the totality of a person’s life and making a judgement requires knowing a lot more than reacting to a particular post. That’s why I suggested the Guardian’s article (though they have several about McCain) that identifies 10 moments that will shape his legacy
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/25/john-mccain-death-moments-life-shape-legacy
but those 10 moments are relatively modern and says nothing of McCain, the son and grandson of Navy bluebloods or of his captivity experience. So returning to Loomis’ article (which I posted and noted how it made me feel, so it’s not like I’m trying to keep anything from anyone here), sapient’s point about Loomis’ “shtick” is important to remember and he didn’t (and doesn’t) fabricate anything like Zito did. My take on ‘right wing crazies’ are people who are willing to fabricate because they are convinced that their outcome is correct. I’m sure if you presented Loomis with evidence that his _facts_ are wrong, he would acknowledge that. Looking at the people who are confronted with evidence that immigration is not taking away jobs, that voter fraud is not a problem, that tariffs are not an appropriate response, immunizations don’t cause autism, if they refuse to accept that evidence, that is what makes them ‘crazies’
There are a lot more interesting things, far too many to pick up, both things that I agree and things I disagree with. But to throw another thing in the mix, while I feel, like Donald, the internet has smoothed some edges off of me, the whole online world seems to ramp up the tendency of never acknowledging you are wrong. I just read a long facebook thread that, as these things do, started out talking about one thing and ended up with two people arguing over the extend of geographical knowledge of Japanese people. (this is another good reason why it is better to talk about a piece of writing by a single person, when you talk about the tendencies of a large group, the ‘evidence’ that can be brought in expands infinitely) Both had some good points, but they had said the other person was wrong and god damn it, they were right.
Anyway, I’ll leave it there and pick it up when the next famous political figure passes away, though I hope no one lifts that line and claims I’m rooting for anyone to be the next.
Ok, I may have skipped a step or two. When I said, “A fair slice of conservative thinking comes down to ‘leave me and my money and my property alone’,” I should have been more specific. There is much more overt discussion and analysis on the left about “doing stuff” whereas, for most of us conservatives, we just want to go about our business. WJ said it much better than me at 6:11.
That said, there is a deep divide on what conservatives think gov’t should do and what lefties think gov’t should do. I’m using lefty instead of liberal because I think the liberal wing of the left side of the house has moved past liberal. So, lefty is a catch-all. Conservative stops well short of alt-right, banning gay marriage, banning gov’t or libertarian whatever.
And, while not all of it comes down to money, money plays a big role. Russell says:
I’m open to discussion about any and all of this, however I find the basic “we can’t afford it” argument lacking. We are as rich as many other societies that do these things as a matter of course, and richer than quite a few.
We are running a substantial deficit. So, money is already a thing. Every dollar taken in taxes is a dollar less to fund the private sector. The private sector is the jobs engine. It’s not perfect, and not even close to being fair in the lefty sense of fairness. It never will be. But, it’s way better for everyone than a ‘managed economy’.
Lefties, as I see it, posit that a fair society provides/assures a minimum level of subsistence across the board, regardless of whether the recipient has earned that subsistence or not.
I’m not sure what conservatives generally thing gov’t should do, but I’m comfortable if the bottom quintile has access to (1) housing that includes potable water, indoor plumbing, electricity and refrigeration, (2) transportation of some kind, (3) clothing and (4) food.
The fifth and critical item is free public education and options for continuing education for those willing to make the effort.
Our bottom quintile–for a country our size and with our diversity–has all of that plus Medicaid.
Comparing the US to Switzerland or Germany or Denmark isn’t even apples to oranges. No other Western country comes close to the US in population and demographic diversity, from ethnicity to religion to education level.
What is barely manageable in countries less than a third our size is completely unmanageable in a country like ours.
I don’t know what the bottom quintile in France or Sweden lives like. I’ve seen homeless people in Paris, Rome and Lisbon, just like I see them in Houston. I’ve gotten glimpses of project-level housing in France and Italy. It isn’t that much different that what I see in Houston in economically depressed neighborhoods. It isn’t a great life, but it’s way ahead of its counterpart in Mexico, Costa Rica or Argentina, where I have spent some time and looked pretty closely at how people at the lower end live.
We supplement life for the bottom quintiles in the US because that’s as far as we can reach without retarding the economy to the point where it produces less and less each year and everyone winds up worse off.
We just can’t seem to find a way to make it available to enough people, in enough amounts, to make it possible for them to have a decent life.
Which is defined as:
> access to a healthy, balanced diet
> a safe place to live
> access to education that will develop their minds to the limit of their personal abilities and interests, and provide them with the tools for a productive livelihood
> access to health care sufficient to keep them from getting sick unnecessarily, and to remedial care when they get sick
No country of any appreciable size in the world guarantees this to every citizen as a matter of right. With just the right demographics and shared culture, small countries can pull it off to an extent. But, long term sustainability? What do you do if everyone decides they don’t want to work anymore? More practically, what do you do when enough people quit working so that those who continue to work get tired of underwriting the free-riders?
Sometimes, ‘good enough’ means a roof, heating/AC, clean water, electricity, enough food, clothes, school and some means of transportation. It also means getting up every morning and doing what one can to get these things for themselves. What the US offers, in addition to the foregoing, is opportunity. Yes, the farther down the ladder one starts out, the higher the climb. However, look at the Vietnamese migration from 1975 and how they’ve done. Look anywhere in TX and see how second and third generation Hispanic families have improved their lot. It happens. Not perfectly, not uniformly, but it is consistent for those who apply themselves and make the effort.
We are a large, rich and vibrant country not because we’ve regulated ourselves into prosperity and not because our economy has been planned by wise and learned academics. We are also quite free. Maybe too free for some. It is hardly perfect, but it’s pretty good. Good enough that millions make quite an effort to get here just to be in the bottom quintile. Relative to the rest of the world, it’s not all that bad.
Ok, I may have skipped a step or two. When I said, “A fair slice of conservative thinking comes down to ‘leave me and my money and my property alone’,” I should have been more specific. There is much more overt discussion and analysis on the left about “doing stuff” whereas, for most of us conservatives, we just want to go about our business. WJ said it much better than me at 6:11.
That said, there is a deep divide on what conservatives think gov’t should do and what lefties think gov’t should do. I’m using lefty instead of liberal because I think the liberal wing of the left side of the house has moved past liberal. So, lefty is a catch-all. Conservative stops well short of alt-right, banning gay marriage, banning gov’t or libertarian whatever.
And, while not all of it comes down to money, money plays a big role. Russell says:
I’m open to discussion about any and all of this, however I find the basic “we can’t afford it” argument lacking. We are as rich as many other societies that do these things as a matter of course, and richer than quite a few.
We are running a substantial deficit. So, money is already a thing. Every dollar taken in taxes is a dollar less to fund the private sector. The private sector is the jobs engine. It’s not perfect, and not even close to being fair in the lefty sense of fairness. It never will be. But, it’s way better for everyone than a ‘managed economy’.
Lefties, as I see it, posit that a fair society provides/assures a minimum level of subsistence across the board, regardless of whether the recipient has earned that subsistence or not.
I’m not sure what conservatives generally thing gov’t should do, but I’m comfortable if the bottom quintile has access to (1) housing that includes potable water, indoor plumbing, electricity and refrigeration, (2) transportation of some kind, (3) clothing and (4) food.
The fifth and critical item is free public education and options for continuing education for those willing to make the effort.
Our bottom quintile–for a country our size and with our diversity–has all of that plus Medicaid.
Comparing the US to Switzerland or Germany or Denmark isn’t even apples to oranges. No other Western country comes close to the US in population and demographic diversity, from ethnicity to religion to education level.
What is barely manageable in countries less than a third our size is completely unmanageable in a country like ours.
I don’t know what the bottom quintile in France or Sweden lives like. I’ve seen homeless people in Paris, Rome and Lisbon, just like I see them in Houston. I’ve gotten glimpses of project-level housing in France and Italy. It isn’t that much different that what I see in Houston in economically depressed neighborhoods. It isn’t a great life, but it’s way ahead of its counterpart in Mexico, Costa Rica or Argentina, where I have spent some time and looked pretty closely at how people at the lower end live.
We supplement life for the bottom quintiles in the US because that’s as far as we can reach without retarding the economy to the point where it produces less and less each year and everyone winds up worse off.
We just can’t seem to find a way to make it available to enough people, in enough amounts, to make it possible for them to have a decent life.
Which is defined as:
> access to a healthy, balanced diet
> a safe place to live
> access to education that will develop their minds to the limit of their personal abilities and interests, and provide them with the tools for a productive livelihood
> access to health care sufficient to keep them from getting sick unnecessarily, and to remedial care when they get sick
No country of any appreciable size in the world guarantees this to every citizen as a matter of right. With just the right demographics and shared culture, small countries can pull it off to an extent. But, long term sustainability? What do you do if everyone decides they don’t want to work anymore? More practically, what do you do when enough people quit working so that those who continue to work get tired of underwriting the free-riders?
Sometimes, ‘good enough’ means a roof, heating/AC, clean water, electricity, enough food, clothes, school and some means of transportation. It also means getting up every morning and doing what one can to get these things for themselves. What the US offers, in addition to the foregoing, is opportunity. Yes, the farther down the ladder one starts out, the higher the climb. However, look at the Vietnamese migration from 1975 and how they’ve done. Look anywhere in TX and see how second and third generation Hispanic families have improved their lot. It happens. Not perfectly, not uniformly, but it is consistent for those who apply themselves and make the effort.
We are a large, rich and vibrant country not because we’ve regulated ourselves into prosperity and not because our economy has been planned by wise and learned academics. We are also quite free. Maybe too free for some. It is hardly perfect, but it’s pretty good. Good enough that millions make quite an effort to get here just to be in the bottom quintile. Relative to the rest of the world, it’s not all that bad.
How is it possible to politely disagree with someone who wants homosexuality criminalized?
There are maybe still some outliers in the US who would do this. I’ve no evidence of it in mainstream conservative thinking. The odds of it ever actually happening are minuscule. However, in some parts of the world, this is a very real thing. Not in the US though. This strikes me as hyperbole. Like me saying it’s not possible for me to talk to people who want to take everything I’ve ever made and give to their constituents.
How is it possible to politely disagree with someone who wants homosexuality criminalized?
There are maybe still some outliers in the US who would do this. I’ve no evidence of it in mainstream conservative thinking. The odds of it ever actually happening are minuscule. However, in some parts of the world, this is a very real thing. Not in the US though. This strikes me as hyperbole. Like me saying it’s not possible for me to talk to people who want to take everything I’ve ever made and give to their constituents.
Damn, this from TPM is probably relevant here when we talk about McCain (and why I wanted to post this _before_ his death)
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/can-he-keep-himself-in-check
The most difficult part for the President will almost certainly be the fact that he sees the whole pageantry – rightly – as in significant measure a rebuke aimed at him. Through his life and especially in the last quarter century of his life McCain presented himself as a public icon for service, selflessness, sacrifice, honesty, courage. Whether he always lived up to those ideal isn’t the point. Frequently, he didn’t. But that’s what the coming days, inevitably, will be about. And every invocation of them will be at least an implicit and often an explicit rebuke of Trump who, for all McCain’s failings, is like an anti-McCain – most known for selfishness, indiscipline, lack of self-control, lying and being clinically bereft of shame.
If you have any concern that this amounts to Trump and his awfulness somehow stepping on McCain’s moment, don’t be. It is almost certain that this would be and was precisely how McCain wanted it. It is almost unimaginable that Trump will be able to go a full week without some crass statement or public outburst aimed at McCain since McCain’s final public moments will all come at his expense. He will find that excruciating and it is hard to imagine he will get through it without further demeaning himself.
Likewise, I would add that if you are worried that falsely representing McCain’s legacy will encourage more false representations, you are missing what I was trying to get at in the post. The question (for me at least) is not defining McCain’s legacy, it is seeing how it plays out.
Damn, this from TPM is probably relevant here when we talk about McCain (and why I wanted to post this _before_ his death)
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/can-he-keep-himself-in-check
The most difficult part for the President will almost certainly be the fact that he sees the whole pageantry – rightly – as in significant measure a rebuke aimed at him. Through his life and especially in the last quarter century of his life McCain presented himself as a public icon for service, selflessness, sacrifice, honesty, courage. Whether he always lived up to those ideal isn’t the point. Frequently, he didn’t. But that’s what the coming days, inevitably, will be about. And every invocation of them will be at least an implicit and often an explicit rebuke of Trump who, for all McCain’s failings, is like an anti-McCain – most known for selfishness, indiscipline, lack of self-control, lying and being clinically bereft of shame.
If you have any concern that this amounts to Trump and his awfulness somehow stepping on McCain’s moment, don’t be. It is almost certain that this would be and was precisely how McCain wanted it. It is almost unimaginable that Trump will be able to go a full week without some crass statement or public outburst aimed at McCain since McCain’s final public moments will all come at his expense. He will find that excruciating and it is hard to imagine he will get through it without further demeaning himself.
Likewise, I would add that if you are worried that falsely representing McCain’s legacy will encourage more false representations, you are missing what I was trying to get at in the post. The question (for me at least) is not defining McCain’s legacy, it is seeing how it plays out.
The bile shot around McCain’s obituaries is intimately related to the fact that our current political discourse is increasingly about painting your opponent as a demon rather than someone who disagrees with you.
The central issue I have with this observation is the plain fact that throughout our history our political discourse has been heated. Are you not aware of the election of 1800? The run up to the Civil War? The labor unrest and populist anger of the late 18th and early 19th centuries? The Great Depression? McCarthyism? “Love it or leave it, you dirty fucking hippy”?
The great political comity you imagine (the 50’s? Really?) was an outlier, and rested on a humanitarian crime: The joint acceptance of a racial state). But that consensus broke down.
Here we are.
The heat is not the issue. Legitimacy is. In my opinion there is one side and only one side that has, increasingly, taken to the opinion that the other side is illegitimate, and therefore finds justification in the overturning of many commonly accepted political norms such as extreme gerrymander unbending political opposition to the point of pure pettiness and vote suppression.
The bile shot around McCain’s obituaries is intimately related to the fact that our current political discourse is increasingly about painting your opponent as a demon rather than someone who disagrees with you.
The central issue I have with this observation is the plain fact that throughout our history our political discourse has been heated. Are you not aware of the election of 1800? The run up to the Civil War? The labor unrest and populist anger of the late 18th and early 19th centuries? The Great Depression? McCarthyism? “Love it or leave it, you dirty fucking hippy”?
The great political comity you imagine (the 50’s? Really?) was an outlier, and rested on a humanitarian crime: The joint acceptance of a racial state). But that consensus broke down.
Here we are.
The heat is not the issue. Legitimacy is. In my opinion there is one side and only one side that has, increasingly, taken to the opinion that the other side is illegitimate, and therefore finds justification in the overturning of many commonly accepted political norms such as extreme gerrymander unbending political opposition to the point of pure pettiness and vote suppression.
A “narrative” now gaining traction in certain circles is that McCain was being petty in not wanting a certain person to be at his funeral…
In what way could it be ‘petty’ to refuse to have someone you publicly hold in utter contempt at your own funeral, particularly if that individual holds a position of some public significance ?
A “narrative” now gaining traction in certain circles is that McCain was being petty in not wanting a certain person to be at his funeral…
In what way could it be ‘petty’ to refuse to have someone you publicly hold in utter contempt at your own funeral, particularly if that individual holds a position of some public significance ?
When I said, “A fair slice of conservative thinking comes down to ‘leave me and my money and my property alone’,” I should have been more specific.
Perhaps so, but it does identify a strain of conservatism and/or libertarianism which is basically just solipsism.
When I said, “A fair slice of conservative thinking comes down to ‘leave me and my money and my property alone’,” I should have been more specific.
Perhaps so, but it does identify a strain of conservatism and/or libertarianism which is basically just solipsism.
Aikido, like liberal discussion techniques, assumes that when the other side has their intent ‘matched’, it’s either time to back down or to ratchet things up to the point where the defender can match. It falls apart if someone is not going to respect that dance.
That may be so – but there is nothing to stop one learning another more uncompromising martial art alongside aikido….
Aikido, like liberal discussion techniques, assumes that when the other side has their intent ‘matched’, it’s either time to back down or to ratchet things up to the point where the defender can match. It falls apart if someone is not going to respect that dance.
That may be so – but there is nothing to stop one learning another more uncompromising martial art alongside aikido….
This is interesting from McT. I hope this isn’t taken as being too provocative
Lefties, as I see it, posit that a fair society provides/assures a minimum level of subsistence across the board, regardless of whether the recipient has earned that subsistence or not.
Here, the anecdote (from whom, I can’t remember) of the Irish man who loved America but planned on returning to Ireland because he knew that the US wasn’t going to take care of his disabled son. And this
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/12/georgia_s_war_against_the_poor_the_southern_state_is_emptying_its_welfare.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/30/texas-welfare-spending-poor-families
I’m not sure what conservatives generally thing gov’t should do, but I’m comfortable if the bottom quintile has access to (1) housing that includes potable water, indoor plumbing, electricity and refrigeration,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanitation-open-sewers-black-belt_us_5a33baf5e4b040881be99da5
(2) transportation of some kind
https://www.demos.org/publication/move-thrive-public-transit-and-economic-opportunity-people-color
Again, I don’t mean to pick a fight, but your claim that everything is fine in the bottom quintile doesn’t really square up with what I’ve seen and read.
This is interesting from McT. I hope this isn’t taken as being too provocative
Lefties, as I see it, posit that a fair society provides/assures a minimum level of subsistence across the board, regardless of whether the recipient has earned that subsistence or not.
Here, the anecdote (from whom, I can’t remember) of the Irish man who loved America but planned on returning to Ireland because he knew that the US wasn’t going to take care of his disabled son. And this
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/12/georgia_s_war_against_the_poor_the_southern_state_is_emptying_its_welfare.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/30/texas-welfare-spending-poor-families
I’m not sure what conservatives generally thing gov’t should do, but I’m comfortable if the bottom quintile has access to (1) housing that includes potable water, indoor plumbing, electricity and refrigeration,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanitation-open-sewers-black-belt_us_5a33baf5e4b040881be99da5
(2) transportation of some kind
https://www.demos.org/publication/move-thrive-public-transit-and-economic-opportunity-people-color
Again, I don’t mean to pick a fight, but your claim that everything is fine in the bottom quintile doesn’t really square up with what I’ve seen and read.
The question (for me at least) is not defining McCain’s legacy, it is seeing how it plays out.
I had some time with a couple of my favorite millennials over the weekend. When we discussed McCain’s life, one of them (whom I’ve just gotten to know) was obviously taken by McCain’s reputation as “one of the good ones”, a maverick, etc.). The other one, someone I know very well, and who knows me, said, quietly, for only me to hear, something to the effect of: “McCain’s mythology is worthwhile.” I nodded and stayed quiet about the good and bad of John McCain.
The values of “country over party”, “decency”, “hands across the aisle”, etc., even if they take the form of the person of John McCain, are constructive.
Fresh Air is worth a listen today. John McCain could be a thoughtful person. I wish that more Republican politicians were trying that. (His friend, Lindsay Graham, doesn’t seem to be carrying on that legacy. Maybe he’s wearing a wire.)
The question (for me at least) is not defining McCain’s legacy, it is seeing how it plays out.
I had some time with a couple of my favorite millennials over the weekend. When we discussed McCain’s life, one of them (whom I’ve just gotten to know) was obviously taken by McCain’s reputation as “one of the good ones”, a maverick, etc.). The other one, someone I know very well, and who knows me, said, quietly, for only me to hear, something to the effect of: “McCain’s mythology is worthwhile.” I nodded and stayed quiet about the good and bad of John McCain.
The values of “country over party”, “decency”, “hands across the aisle”, etc., even if they take the form of the person of John McCain, are constructive.
Fresh Air is worth a listen today. John McCain could be a thoughtful person. I wish that more Republican politicians were trying that. (His friend, Lindsay Graham, doesn’t seem to be carrying on that legacy. Maybe he’s wearing a wire.)
lj, The first line in your huffpost link is “Thousands across America are said to be…” so I closed it. Thousands doesn’t really refute McK’s point. I’m pretty sure no one I know thinks the Flint situation is ok or shouldn’t be fixed as soon as possible.
Neither is a policy failure to provide for the bottom quintile, 50m people.
lj, The first line in your huffpost link is “Thousands across America are said to be…” so I closed it. Thousands doesn’t really refute McK’s point. I’m pretty sure no one I know thinks the Flint situation is ok or shouldn’t be fixed as soon as possible.
Neither is a policy failure to provide for the bottom quintile, 50m people.
Nigel, thanks for picking up on the martial arts, I’d much rather talk about that and how one disables, incapacitates and severely maims people over talking about something really nasty like politics…
You can take another martial art, but each martial art has its own mindset, so it can be difficult to switch from one to another. In fact, I do iaido, and I, like a lot of westerners, have had this urge to ‘collect’ techniques, as there are different schools and techniques with the same name and ancestry can be subtly different from school to school. However, my teacher would frown on that, quoting the Japanese proverb ni to wo oumono ha, ni to wo moezu (chasing two rabbits means you catch neither)
I just got something on pinterest that might apply here, I had chosen ‘camping’ cause I was thinking of going camping and pages from a survival book came up that had ‘how to get rid of a body’ (I’m not going to google it) and following it on pinterest, there were ‘how to avoid being followed’, ‘how to hid contraband in your car’. I think the ultimate was how to make something that one could conceal up their backside that could conceal contraband AND could then be turned into a weapon. (and no, I am not going to google that)
At any rate, I don’t do martial arts to gain the knowledge that I can kill or maim someone, and I have particular assumptions about the people I’m going to meet that include they aren’t going to be trying to kill or maim me. In fact, I find a problem in aikido here in Japan that the uke (the person who receives the technique and therefore has to start things with a grab or a punch) often fails to give a strong attack, which means that the technique kind of falls flat because there is no energy to deal with, so the challenge can be to get students to actually put some oomph into the attack. But I don’t want to get my students to the point that they are attacking people with intent.
Though when I go to Korea, I am hoping to take up hapkido, which will be… interesting.
Nigel, thanks for picking up on the martial arts, I’d much rather talk about that and how one disables, incapacitates and severely maims people over talking about something really nasty like politics…
You can take another martial art, but each martial art has its own mindset, so it can be difficult to switch from one to another. In fact, I do iaido, and I, like a lot of westerners, have had this urge to ‘collect’ techniques, as there are different schools and techniques with the same name and ancestry can be subtly different from school to school. However, my teacher would frown on that, quoting the Japanese proverb ni to wo oumono ha, ni to wo moezu (chasing two rabbits means you catch neither)
I just got something on pinterest that might apply here, I had chosen ‘camping’ cause I was thinking of going camping and pages from a survival book came up that had ‘how to get rid of a body’ (I’m not going to google it) and following it on pinterest, there were ‘how to avoid being followed’, ‘how to hid contraband in your car’. I think the ultimate was how to make something that one could conceal up their backside that could conceal contraband AND could then be turned into a weapon. (and no, I am not going to google that)
At any rate, I don’t do martial arts to gain the knowledge that I can kill or maim someone, and I have particular assumptions about the people I’m going to meet that include they aren’t going to be trying to kill or maim me. In fact, I find a problem in aikido here in Japan that the uke (the person who receives the technique and therefore has to start things with a grab or a punch) often fails to give a strong attack, which means that the technique kind of falls flat because there is no energy to deal with, so the challenge can be to get students to actually put some oomph into the attack. But I don’t want to get my students to the point that they are attacking people with intent.
Though when I go to Korea, I am hoping to take up hapkido, which will be… interesting.
McK,
Me:How is it possible to politely disagree with someone who wants homosexuality criminalized?
You: There are maybe still some outliers in the US who would do this. I’ve no evidence of it in mainstream conservative thinking.
Checked out the Alliance Defending Freedom lately?
And if that’s not mainstream enough for you, how about my other example – family separation – which you can hardly deny is supported by lots of Republicans.
And those were just examples. Climate change denialism, voter suppression, odious tactics by ICE, etc. are supported by conservatives, many of whom, not incidentally, are enthusiastic Trumpists.
McK,
Me:How is it possible to politely disagree with someone who wants homosexuality criminalized?
You: There are maybe still some outliers in the US who would do this. I’ve no evidence of it in mainstream conservative thinking.
Checked out the Alliance Defending Freedom lately?
And if that’s not mainstream enough for you, how about my other example – family separation – which you can hardly deny is supported by lots of Republicans.
And those were just examples. Climate change denialism, voter suppression, odious tactics by ICE, etc. are supported by conservatives, many of whom, not incidentally, are enthusiastic Trumpists.
And if that’s not mainstream enough for you, how about my other example – family separation – which you can hardly deny is supported by lots of Republicans.
To me, this is the bottom line. McKinney doesn’t provide data for his examples of American government largess towards the poor, and lj quickly debunked it.
McKinney said this: ” However, look at the Vietnamese migration from 1975 and how they’ve done. Look anywhere in TX and see how second and third generation Hispanic families have improved their lot. It happens. Not perfectly, not uniformly, but it is consistent for those who apply themselves and make the effort.”
It’s convenient for McKinney to point to these examples of virtue, but as to how we are treating people who are coming in to build that story for the future, McKinney is not weighing in.
I have a bad reputation here, and I’m trying to be nice. But talking about values of Republicans always leads me to the conclusion that they adhere to the slogan of “I’ve got mine, f’ you.” That concept is, sorry, an LGM staple. And pretty much true.
And if that’s not mainstream enough for you, how about my other example – family separation – which you can hardly deny is supported by lots of Republicans.
To me, this is the bottom line. McKinney doesn’t provide data for his examples of American government largess towards the poor, and lj quickly debunked it.
McKinney said this: ” However, look at the Vietnamese migration from 1975 and how they’ve done. Look anywhere in TX and see how second and third generation Hispanic families have improved their lot. It happens. Not perfectly, not uniformly, but it is consistent for those who apply themselves and make the effort.”
It’s convenient for McKinney to point to these examples of virtue, but as to how we are treating people who are coming in to build that story for the future, McKinney is not weighing in.
I have a bad reputation here, and I’m trying to be nice. But talking about values of Republicans always leads me to the conclusion that they adhere to the slogan of “I’ve got mine, f’ you.” That concept is, sorry, an LGM staple. And pretty much true.
Thanks for the reply Marty and I appreciate that you start out telling me that you didn’t look at the link, though I would point out that not considering what is in the link could be indicative of being in a bubble. I only posted what I could remember off the top of my head that I have seen in the past. If the argument is that
Neither is a policy failure to provide for the bottom quintile, 50m people.
note that seems to be different from what McT says, that
I’m not sure what conservatives generally thing gov’t should do, but I’m comfortable if the bottom quintile has access to (1) housing that includes potable water, indoor plumbing, electricity and refrigeration,
If I point out that members of the bottom quintile, in even some occasions, don’t have access to these things, it seems to contradict that, though ‘I’m comfortable if…’ is not really clear.
There’s also a line of argument where I start interrogating you about what numbers would the statement be false and then I try and argue about your inhumanity because you accept numbers that are unacceptable to me, so I really don’t want to go down that road, even though I think that thousands is still unacceptable, but that’s not really a fruitful way of discussing this, just a way to one up you.
I would ask you to consider why it is that the two examples of lack of access to potable water are African American communities and juxtapose it with the background of this news
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/24/641556969/georgia-county-votes-to-keep-polling-places-open-after-intense-scruitney
Again, I post from NPR (middle of the road, right?) and after the plan has been rejected, but what seems like a constant background is the minority involved. So when earlier, wj and others said they just don’t bring up race cause it shuts down the conversation, I have to wonder why it does.
To add a final perhaps unneeded paragraph, this is not to accuse you or McT of being ‘racist’ except, as I have said, that all Americans are because of the divisions in society. So this is not personal, this is just my take on it. I also don’t think I’ve ‘debunked’ McT. I feel like I’ve given him some data and asked him to consider it and I would appreciate it if he does. If he doesn’t, and is straightforward about closing the link after the first line as Marty was, I’m not going to hound him about it. But not considering that evidence means that the discussion is skewed, and if I keep trying to find sources of evidence that would pass muster without any acknowledgement of the evidence I have brought would, if I let it, have me getting more and more sarcastic and cutting. So if he’s not going to address it, I’ll just leave it there. thx
Thanks for the reply Marty and I appreciate that you start out telling me that you didn’t look at the link, though I would point out that not considering what is in the link could be indicative of being in a bubble. I only posted what I could remember off the top of my head that I have seen in the past. If the argument is that
Neither is a policy failure to provide for the bottom quintile, 50m people.
note that seems to be different from what McT says, that
I’m not sure what conservatives generally thing gov’t should do, but I’m comfortable if the bottom quintile has access to (1) housing that includes potable water, indoor plumbing, electricity and refrigeration,
If I point out that members of the bottom quintile, in even some occasions, don’t have access to these things, it seems to contradict that, though ‘I’m comfortable if…’ is not really clear.
There’s also a line of argument where I start interrogating you about what numbers would the statement be false and then I try and argue about your inhumanity because you accept numbers that are unacceptable to me, so I really don’t want to go down that road, even though I think that thousands is still unacceptable, but that’s not really a fruitful way of discussing this, just a way to one up you.
I would ask you to consider why it is that the two examples of lack of access to potable water are African American communities and juxtapose it with the background of this news
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/24/641556969/georgia-county-votes-to-keep-polling-places-open-after-intense-scruitney
Again, I post from NPR (middle of the road, right?) and after the plan has been rejected, but what seems like a constant background is the minority involved. So when earlier, wj and others said they just don’t bring up race cause it shuts down the conversation, I have to wonder why it does.
To add a final perhaps unneeded paragraph, this is not to accuse you or McT of being ‘racist’ except, as I have said, that all Americans are because of the divisions in society. So this is not personal, this is just my take on it. I also don’t think I’ve ‘debunked’ McT. I feel like I’ve given him some data and asked him to consider it and I would appreciate it if he does. If he doesn’t, and is straightforward about closing the link after the first line as Marty was, I’m not going to hound him about it. But not considering that evidence means that the discussion is skewed, and if I keep trying to find sources of evidence that would pass muster without any acknowledgement of the evidence I have brought would, if I let it, have me getting more and more sarcastic and cutting. So if he’s not going to address it, I’ll just leave it there. thx
Sorry to use the word “debunked”, lj. I too look forward to the considered response.
Sorry to use the word “debunked”, lj. I too look forward to the considered response.
It was Flint, not Grosse Pointe, for a reason. And if by virtue of some unforeseen natural disaster it had been Grosse Pointe, 1) the victims, on average, would have had a much softer cushion (wealth) to help them through the mess; and 2) the mess would have been fixed right quick.
The notion that Flint is somehow irrelevant because it’s only thousands of people and not 50,000,000 ignores the fact that every single disaster, including something so mild-sounding as “economic downturn,” hits the bottom quintile harder than it does the rest of us.
It was Flint, not Grosse Pointe, for a reason. And if by virtue of some unforeseen natural disaster it had been Grosse Pointe, 1) the victims, on average, would have had a much softer cushion (wealth) to help them through the mess; and 2) the mess would have been fixed right quick.
The notion that Flint is somehow irrelevant because it’s only thousands of people and not 50,000,000 ignores the fact that every single disaster, including something so mild-sounding as “economic downturn,” hits the bottom quintile harder than it does the rest of us.
“I have a hard time with much of this.It’s not just disagreement. I disagree with McKinney on taxes. OK. Fine. We can discuss it. But somethings I can’t. IMO the real-life Republican Party is destroying the country, and is a threat to many elsewhere on the globe.
This is not debating society stuff.”
Paradoxically, I find it helpful to realize I am tempted to hate everybody. People have seen me rant about certain subjects often enough, so I will leave it out here. But in real life I have stopped talking about politics with a Rachel Maddow fan. We vote the same way. We don’t have to scream at each other.
Also, I have always known and been friends with people whose political views I find loathsome. How could you avoid it?
“I have a hard time with much of this.It’s not just disagreement. I disagree with McKinney on taxes. OK. Fine. We can discuss it. But somethings I can’t. IMO the real-life Republican Party is destroying the country, and is a threat to many elsewhere on the globe.
This is not debating society stuff.”
Paradoxically, I find it helpful to realize I am tempted to hate everybody. People have seen me rant about certain subjects often enough, so I will leave it out here. But in real life I have stopped talking about politics with a Rachel Maddow fan. We vote the same way. We don’t have to scream at each other.
Also, I have always known and been friends with people whose political views I find loathsome. How could you avoid it?
McKinney, what do you think of Beto O’Rourke? I understand that you don’t like Ted Cruz, so here we have an alternative.
McKinney, what do you think of Beto O’Rourke? I understand that you don’t like Ted Cruz, so here we have an alternative.
I’m going to respond to LJ and others but not tonight . I’m at the point in the evening I call Wine Time. I plan to look into Beto. A few years back, I supported Bill White against Rick Perry. I gave White 2,000. That’s the second most I’ve ever given to a politician. I gave 5K to a friend who ran in the Republican primary for the house. He used the C word. Compromise. He came in 5th in a field of five. Name: Jay Old. I think this is all public record if you dig deep enough.
Donald wrote: “Also, I have always known and been friends with people whose political views I find loathsome. How could you avoid it?”
That’s the thing. I don’t think the division between conservatives and liberals is about “political views” in the classical sense. Not anymore. I can handle being friends with someone who’s pro life, or who believes gay sex is a sin, or who self fellates imagining shooting a home invader and begs me to explain to them what they’d have to say to a cop to have the cop let them go if they did it. I would think they were a morally lesser person than they ought to be, but there’s a lot of that going around.
I can’t be friends with someone who’s consumed by conspiracy and hate.
And at this point the conservative movement is like 95% people like that, and 5% people with esoteric objections to the Democratic Party who mostly spend their time whining about how unfair it is that liberals group them in with the rest.
Remember when Fox News did a lengthy news cycle on how ISIS was going to smuggle ebola across our southern border?
People who professed belief in that are either 1) stupid, or 2) malevolent liars who treated it as the equivalent of screaming that a girl they hate has cooties- not a factual claim, per se, but something that one professes belief in when one wants to express one’s hate.
Its not a matter of differing opinions. I can handle differing opinions.
I don’t want to be friends with stupid and malevolent people. So as I cut the stupid and malevolent people out of my life, there are fewer and fewer conservatives in it. And when I meet someone new, if there’s a moment where all I know is that they’re a conservative, well, that’s a big red flag warning me that learning more may be a waste of my time.
I’m going to respond to LJ and others but not tonight . I’m at the point in the evening I call Wine Time. I plan to look into Beto. A few years back, I supported Bill White against Rick Perry. I gave White 2,000. That’s the second most I’ve ever given to a politician. I gave 5K to a friend who ran in the Republican primary for the house. He used the C word. Compromise. He came in 5th in a field of five. Name: Jay Old. I think this is all public record if you dig deep enough.
Donald wrote: “Also, I have always known and been friends with people whose political views I find loathsome. How could you avoid it?”
That’s the thing. I don’t think the division between conservatives and liberals is about “political views” in the classical sense. Not anymore. I can handle being friends with someone who’s pro life, or who believes gay sex is a sin, or who self fellates imagining shooting a home invader and begs me to explain to them what they’d have to say to a cop to have the cop let them go if they did it. I would think they were a morally lesser person than they ought to be, but there’s a lot of that going around.
I can’t be friends with someone who’s consumed by conspiracy and hate.
And at this point the conservative movement is like 95% people like that, and 5% people with esoteric objections to the Democratic Party who mostly spend their time whining about how unfair it is that liberals group them in with the rest.
Remember when Fox News did a lengthy news cycle on how ISIS was going to smuggle ebola across our southern border?
People who professed belief in that are either 1) stupid, or 2) malevolent liars who treated it as the equivalent of screaming that a girl they hate has cooties- not a factual claim, per se, but something that one professes belief in when one wants to express one’s hate.
Its not a matter of differing opinions. I can handle differing opinions.
I don’t want to be friends with stupid and malevolent people. So as I cut the stupid and malevolent people out of my life, there are fewer and fewer conservatives in it. And when I meet someone new, if there’s a moment where all I know is that they’re a conservative, well, that’s a big red flag warning me that learning more may be a waste of my time.
I would have preferred you talk about how many are acceptable. Because governments job is optimizing for the greatest possible good.Note I didn’t say ensuring every single human being is never without any of that list of russells. How many are acceptable to you?
And if its numbers you want there are 17m white people living under the poverty level in this country, 9m black, 11m Hispanic, 2m Asian is it ok with you that there are 16m poor white people so we should focus on the 9m or 20m non white? Or could we just not spend a lot of time on race and just focus on helping poor people?
Hound me about closing the link, whatever problem was in there I’m sure sucked and I would like it not to happen. You can find literally anything on the internet, try to prove I dont care as much as you using random links from the internet.
My answer is that I believe, like russell, the best way to provide for all people is for almost all of them to make enough money that they can provide for themselves.
We violently agree on that as a primary goal. We violently disagree on some of the ways to do it.
russell says just make a law raising the minimum wage. Of course that doesn’t solve the problem, economically it creates an inflationary cycle that is likely to create more poor people. So growing and broadening the economy is the sustainable answer.
Then there is immigration, which increases in general the number of poor people, so how many is ok? Give me that number, the one before our wealthy nation simply can’t provide these things for the poor. How many? We will set immigration policy based on that, and for that what growth rate should we use for the economy.
It is simple to say, we are rich, give everybody more money problem solved. I wish I could remember exactly the words from the other day that russell used about tax cuts helping the poor. I return them hopefully more kindly. That wont work. Maybe some tax cuts(not more), raise in the minimum wage, targeted infrastructure for the inner city and rural poor, youth mentoring programs and the other things we do, plus others will help turn the tide. But more sustainable jobs is the goal.
These are complicated issues for over 40m of our country men and women. Spending time deciding whether I am a racist or not is really a waste of my time.
I would have preferred you talk about how many are acceptable. Because governments job is optimizing for the greatest possible good.Note I didn’t say ensuring every single human being is never without any of that list of russells. How many are acceptable to you?
And if its numbers you want there are 17m white people living under the poverty level in this country, 9m black, 11m Hispanic, 2m Asian is it ok with you that there are 16m poor white people so we should focus on the 9m or 20m non white? Or could we just not spend a lot of time on race and just focus on helping poor people?
Hound me about closing the link, whatever problem was in there I’m sure sucked and I would like it not to happen. You can find literally anything on the internet, try to prove I dont care as much as you using random links from the internet.
My answer is that I believe, like russell, the best way to provide for all people is for almost all of them to make enough money that they can provide for themselves.
We violently agree on that as a primary goal. We violently disagree on some of the ways to do it.
russell says just make a law raising the minimum wage. Of course that doesn’t solve the problem, economically it creates an inflationary cycle that is likely to create more poor people. So growing and broadening the economy is the sustainable answer.
Then there is immigration, which increases in general the number of poor people, so how many is ok? Give me that number, the one before our wealthy nation simply can’t provide these things for the poor. How many? We will set immigration policy based on that, and for that what growth rate should we use for the economy.
It is simple to say, we are rich, give everybody more money problem solved. I wish I could remember exactly the words from the other day that russell used about tax cuts helping the poor. I return them hopefully more kindly. That wont work. Maybe some tax cuts(not more), raise in the minimum wage, targeted infrastructure for the inner city and rural poor, youth mentoring programs and the other things we do, plus others will help turn the tide. But more sustainable jobs is the goal.
These are complicated issues for over 40m of our country men and women. Spending time deciding whether I am a racist or not is really a waste of my time.
It also means getting up every morning and doing what one can to get these things for themselves
from here :
SNAP being the federal food assistance program.
two of the largest private employers – Walmart and McDonald’s – offer instruction to their employees on how to apply for public assistance. as opposed to, for example, paying them more.
I don’t share your belief that all poor people need do is get off their lazy asses. the root cause here is not a widespread lack of spunk. millions and millions of people get up and go to work every day, but do not earn enough to acquire the basics through their own efforts.
we share neither a common set of facts, nor a common set of values.
like I’ve been saying.
QED
It also means getting up every morning and doing what one can to get these things for themselves
from here :
SNAP being the federal food assistance program.
two of the largest private employers – Walmart and McDonald’s – offer instruction to their employees on how to apply for public assistance. as opposed to, for example, paying them more.
I don’t share your belief that all poor people need do is get off their lazy asses. the root cause here is not a widespread lack of spunk. millions and millions of people get up and go to work every day, but do not earn enough to acquire the basics through their own efforts.
we share neither a common set of facts, nor a common set of values.
like I’ve been saying.
QED
Paradoxically, I find it helpful to realize I am tempted to hate everybody.
Nothing paradoxical about it. We (humans) are, as a group, often loathsome to degrees that comfortable folks have absolutely not conception of. This cruelty exhibits itself across all cultures, nationalities, and ideologies.
Misanthropy, however, is not a practical way forward. Take care my friend! Rant on.
Paradoxically, I find it helpful to realize I am tempted to hate everybody.
Nothing paradoxical about it. We (humans) are, as a group, often loathsome to degrees that comfortable folks have absolutely not conception of. This cruelty exhibits itself across all cultures, nationalities, and ideologies.
Misanthropy, however, is not a practical way forward. Take care my friend! Rant on.
“And at this point the conservative movement is like 95% people like that, and 5% people with esoteric objections to the Democratic Party who mostly spend their time whining about how unfair it is that liberals group them in with the rest.”
I can assure you any actual conservatives you might know try not to tell you. They feel like you would immediately stick them in this definition. I cant remember the last time a group of people had to spend their lives avoiding talking about who they are for fear of being shunned, losing their job, their kids being bullied, being harassed in public places, threatened physically, accused of advocating heinous acts and being called vicious slanderous names. Not in blogs, not on cable news, not by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hznnity, but by the guy or woman they just met at a dinner party. Or someone who recognized them in a restaurant. Or their new boss. Or their daughters teacher in a classroom.
95,%? There isn’t a thing in this country except God that 95% of people agree on.
“And at this point the conservative movement is like 95% people like that, and 5% people with esoteric objections to the Democratic Party who mostly spend their time whining about how unfair it is that liberals group them in with the rest.”
I can assure you any actual conservatives you might know try not to tell you. They feel like you would immediately stick them in this definition. I cant remember the last time a group of people had to spend their lives avoiding talking about who they are for fear of being shunned, losing their job, their kids being bullied, being harassed in public places, threatened physically, accused of advocating heinous acts and being called vicious slanderous names. Not in blogs, not on cable news, not by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hznnity, but by the guy or woman they just met at a dinner party. Or someone who recognized them in a restaurant. Or their new boss. Or their daughters teacher in a classroom.
95,%? There isn’t a thing in this country except God that 95% of people agree on.
McTX: What do you do if everyone decides they don’t want to work anymore?
You let everybody live off their inheritance from grandpa. Or off the largess of right-wing billionaires who fund “think tanks”. Or off their profits from selling stocks back and forth to each other.
Oh, I see: McKinney worries about “everyone” not working. Yes, I agree: that would probably leave the idle rich, the paid shills, and the day traders in the lurch all right.
In all seriousness, I consider the probability that “everyone decides they don’t want to work any more” to be down there with the probability that robots will someday do all the “work” in the world. Not a zero chance, but not a serious worry over our lifetimes.
–TP
McTX: What do you do if everyone decides they don’t want to work anymore?
You let everybody live off their inheritance from grandpa. Or off the largess of right-wing billionaires who fund “think tanks”. Or off their profits from selling stocks back and forth to each other.
Oh, I see: McKinney worries about “everyone” not working. Yes, I agree: that would probably leave the idle rich, the paid shills, and the day traders in the lurch all right.
In all seriousness, I consider the probability that “everyone decides they don’t want to work any more” to be down there with the probability that robots will someday do all the “work” in the world. Not a zero chance, but not a serious worry over our lifetimes.
–TP
I cant remember the last time a group of people had to spend their lives avoiding talking about who they are for fear of being shunned, losing their job, their kids being bullied, being harassed in public places, threatened physically, accused of advocating heinous acts and being called vicious slanderous names.
You aren’t gay, I guess.
I cant remember the last time a group of people had to spend their lives avoiding talking about who they are for fear of being shunned, losing their job, their kids being bullied, being harassed in public places, threatened physically, accused of advocating heinous acts and being called vicious slanderous names.
You aren’t gay, I guess.
Marty, come off it. The whole “there’s a silent majority that isn’t fairly understood by observing conservative politicians, conservative political rhetoric, or conservative media, and doesn’t make a glimmer of an effect on the real world but nevertheless is out there and the reason you never meet them or even observe evidence of their existence is because they’re afraid of you” shtick is more comical than credible.
Marty, come off it. The whole “there’s a silent majority that isn’t fairly understood by observing conservative politicians, conservative political rhetoric, or conservative media, and doesn’t make a glimmer of an effect on the real world but nevertheless is out there and the reason you never meet them or even observe evidence of their existence is because they’re afraid of you” shtick is more comical than credible.
Or I really could remember
Or I really could remember
Patrick— I think we have always had a lot of people with horrible political views. And sometimes in both parties.
As somebody, probably Russell, said upthread, people are more than their political views. I am friends with someone who has been almost completely sucked into the far right universe. But I try to reach him on particular subjects, usually without much success, but it isn’t total failure either.
Also, it has occurred to me that we liberals and lefties can be wrong too. I doubt we are wrong on very much right now, speaking broadly, but I think we have our blind spots. I presumably do too, but by definition don’t know what they are.
Bobbyp— Thanks. I will undoubtedly do more ranting in the future.
Patrick— I think we have always had a lot of people with horrible political views. And sometimes in both parties.
As somebody, probably Russell, said upthread, people are more than their political views. I am friends with someone who has been almost completely sucked into the far right universe. But I try to reach him on particular subjects, usually without much success, but it isn’t total failure either.
Also, it has occurred to me that we liberals and lefties can be wrong too. I doubt we are wrong on very much right now, speaking broadly, but I think we have our blind spots. I presumably do too, but by definition don’t know what they are.
Bobbyp— Thanks. I will undoubtedly do more ranting in the future.
What do you do if everyone decides they don’t want to work anymore? More practically, what do you do when enough people quit working so that those who continue to work get tired of underwriting the free-riders?
this makes me shake my head. do you think this would actually happen?
in general, people like to work. people like to be productive, to be of use, to accomplish things.
they’re gonna sit around all day, and do what, exactly?
why is it that people like me are told they’re being “unrealistic”?
What do you do if everyone decides they don’t want to work anymore? More practically, what do you do when enough people quit working so that those who continue to work get tired of underwriting the free-riders?
this makes me shake my head. do you think this would actually happen?
in general, people like to work. people like to be productive, to be of use, to accomplish things.
they’re gonna sit around all day, and do what, exactly?
why is it that people like me are told they’re being “unrealistic”?
Or I really could remember
What’s that supposed to mean? You wrote that you couldn’t remember a time when people had to live in fear of revealing themselves. For gay people that era lasted for a lot of your and my lifetime. Did you not notice? And even if you didn’t notice at the time, you surely now must remember how it was back in the days of the closet, pre-Lawrence, etc., for people like me. *Literally* living in fear of being revealed, not in some fantasy of victimhood.
These poor closeted conservatives…who only have their choice of leaders running the damned country.
Jesus H.
Or I really could remember
What’s that supposed to mean? You wrote that you couldn’t remember a time when people had to live in fear of revealing themselves. For gay people that era lasted for a lot of your and my lifetime. Did you not notice? And even if you didn’t notice at the time, you surely now must remember how it was back in the days of the closet, pre-Lawrence, etc., for people like me. *Literally* living in fear of being revealed, not in some fantasy of victimhood.
These poor closeted conservatives…who only have their choice of leaders running the damned country.
Jesus H.
There isn’t a thing in this country except God that 95% of people agree on.
95% of people agree on god?
There isn’t a thing in this country except God that 95% of people agree on.
95% of people agree on god?
95% of people agree on god?
I was going to ask the same question, but it seemed so far-fetched as not to be worth the bother.
First Google result:
However, 68% of all the unaffiliated expressed belief in God and out of the whole US population, only 2.4% self identified as “atheist”. A 2013 poll by UPI/Harris showed that three-quarters of U.S. adults say they believe in God, down from 82 percent in 2005, 2007 and 2009.
What the gap is between “three-quarters” and 97.6% I’m too tired to wonder about. Maybe agnostics…or people who think “god” is far too simple a concept. 😉
95% of people agree on god?
I was going to ask the same question, but it seemed so far-fetched as not to be worth the bother.
First Google result:
However, 68% of all the unaffiliated expressed belief in God and out of the whole US population, only 2.4% self identified as “atheist”. A 2013 poll by UPI/Harris showed that three-quarters of U.S. adults say they believe in God, down from 82 percent in 2005, 2007 and 2009.
What the gap is between “three-quarters” and 97.6% I’m too tired to wonder about. Maybe agnostics…or people who think “god” is far too simple a concept. 😉
And if its numbers you want there are 17m white people living under the poverty level in this country, 9m black, 11m Hispanic, 2m Asian is it ok with you that there are 16m poor white people so we should focus on the 9m or 20m non white? Or could we just not spend a lot of time on race and just focus on helping poor people?
Marty, again, I don’t want to get into numbers. If your cut off is thousands and you feel that the bottom quintile is doing just fine, that’s your opinion, but I think you are wrong. The number talk is just whataboutery. I point out that African Americans seem to be disproportionately affected and you say ‘what about poor white people?’ Which is not McT’s point, he seems to suggest that things are fine, though again, the grammar is a little unclear and he may be acknowledging that we have problems and is willing to accept that the government should help. But if that’s the case, why does he support Republicans who, as a group, seem to reject that?
As Russell notes, I don’t think we share a common set of facts. I wouldn’t go as far as saying we don’t share a common set of values, I’m sure if you were confronted with suffering in person, you would help within your limits. But what we don’t share, I think, is a similar approach to facts. You claim that you could find anything you want on the internet and that’s why I try and post things that I think are true. If you think I’m just dropping a term into google and pulling out the first links, we don’t have anything to talk about because you don’t respect the information that I’m providing and I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do to _make_ you respect that it is being provided in good faith.
You may say ‘well, you think I’m racist, how can that be treating me with respect?’ Again, I can only repeat what I have said before, that I think that living in American society leaves you (and everyone else, including me) like that. And living in any society is going to make you some sort of -ist, be it racist, sexist or classist. Terry Prachett has this exchange
“Slave is an Ephebian word. In Om we have no word for slave,’ said Vorbis.
‘So I understand,’ said the Tyrant. ‘I imagine that fish have no word for water.”
We do have a word for racism, but when we systematically refuse to mention it, it becomes like water for the fish. The affordances it provides make us think in particular ways and have us not consider the consequences of actions. That, coupled with the fact that modern society allows us to act on people at a much greater distance, so a decision in Lansing can cause people in Flint to not have potable water.
So I am asking you to consider it, but if you don’t, well that’s just one conversation we won’t be having. But Donald is right, we all have our blind spots and if you don’t converse with me, I don’t have the chance for you to point out my blind spots. But if the pointing out is all one way, it just plugs into the problem I pointed out when replying to Seb: if the admissions are all expected to go one way, you are going to get in the situation we have now.
And if its numbers you want there are 17m white people living under the poverty level in this country, 9m black, 11m Hispanic, 2m Asian is it ok with you that there are 16m poor white people so we should focus on the 9m or 20m non white? Or could we just not spend a lot of time on race and just focus on helping poor people?
Marty, again, I don’t want to get into numbers. If your cut off is thousands and you feel that the bottom quintile is doing just fine, that’s your opinion, but I think you are wrong. The number talk is just whataboutery. I point out that African Americans seem to be disproportionately affected and you say ‘what about poor white people?’ Which is not McT’s point, he seems to suggest that things are fine, though again, the grammar is a little unclear and he may be acknowledging that we have problems and is willing to accept that the government should help. But if that’s the case, why does he support Republicans who, as a group, seem to reject that?
As Russell notes, I don’t think we share a common set of facts. I wouldn’t go as far as saying we don’t share a common set of values, I’m sure if you were confronted with suffering in person, you would help within your limits. But what we don’t share, I think, is a similar approach to facts. You claim that you could find anything you want on the internet and that’s why I try and post things that I think are true. If you think I’m just dropping a term into google and pulling out the first links, we don’t have anything to talk about because you don’t respect the information that I’m providing and I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do to _make_ you respect that it is being provided in good faith.
You may say ‘well, you think I’m racist, how can that be treating me with respect?’ Again, I can only repeat what I have said before, that I think that living in American society leaves you (and everyone else, including me) like that. And living in any society is going to make you some sort of -ist, be it racist, sexist or classist. Terry Prachett has this exchange
“Slave is an Ephebian word. In Om we have no word for slave,’ said Vorbis.
‘So I understand,’ said the Tyrant. ‘I imagine that fish have no word for water.”
We do have a word for racism, but when we systematically refuse to mention it, it becomes like water for the fish. The affordances it provides make us think in particular ways and have us not consider the consequences of actions. That, coupled with the fact that modern society allows us to act on people at a much greater distance, so a decision in Lansing can cause people in Flint to not have potable water.
So I am asking you to consider it, but if you don’t, well that’s just one conversation we won’t be having. But Donald is right, we all have our blind spots and if you don’t converse with me, I don’t have the chance for you to point out my blind spots. But if the pointing out is all one way, it just plugs into the problem I pointed out when replying to Seb: if the admissions are all expected to go one way, you are going to get in the situation we have now.
I do remember clearly, I described the lives of the gay people I knew all those years pretty clearly I thought, I was sure you would understand immediately. I meant no insult nor real sense of ewuivalence..
And no, those poor closeted conservatives trials arent the same, but the sense that your neighbor feels free to treat you all those ways is real. It’s no fantasy, it is more and more a perfectly accepted way to treat people.
I do remember clearly, I described the lives of the gay people I knew all those years pretty clearly I thought, I was sure you would understand immediately. I meant no insult nor real sense of ewuivalence..
And no, those poor closeted conservatives trials arent the same, but the sense that your neighbor feels free to treat you all those ways is real. It’s no fantasy, it is more and more a perfectly accepted way to treat people.
What the gap is between “three-quarters” and 97.6%
unitarians!!
🙂
What the gap is between “three-quarters” and 97.6%
unitarians!!
🙂
unitarians!!
Touché. 🙂
unitarians!!
Touché. 🙂
See lj, you wrote 4 or 5 paragraphs that come down to “I’m asking you to consider it” . Consider what? Specifically.
See lj, you wrote 4 or 5 paragraphs that come down to “I’m asking you to consider it” . Consider what? Specifically.
Yea I realized 95% was even high for God.
Yea I realized 95% was even high for God.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying we don’t share a common set of values, I’m sure if you were confronted with suffering in person, you would help within your limits.
I believe that sharing a political community with someone else incurs a mutual obligation between us.
because, community.
that is a *value* I hold. not everyone does.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying we don’t share a common set of values, I’m sure if you were confronted with suffering in person, you would help within your limits.
I believe that sharing a political community with someone else incurs a mutual obligation between us.
because, community.
that is a *value* I hold. not everyone does.
“What do you do if everyone decides they don’t want to work anymore?”
I use to read Money Magazine, Forbes, and any number of financial publications, now replaced by internet stock market sites, and millions of column inches were devoted, and are still, to the subject of not working anymore.
At younger and younger ages.
No one retired and stopped working from 1932 thru 1960 when marginal tax rates up and down the income scale were vastly higher than they are today. Let’s take that all the way to 1980.
Unemployment after World War II hit record lows and stayed there …. oddly enough … until tax rates began their steady decline.
I have graphs and charts. Fuck the graphs and charts.
Please stop.
Everyone never does nothing, no how, no matter how many economists we place end to end to speak in unison about theories regarding what they ARE doing.
Economists never quit their jobs, regardless of economic conditions.
Even Milton Friedman sought government employment in 1933.
That a guy slinging cheeseburgers might quit his job because his Obamacare and Food Stamps add up to his working wage and he might decide to lay down his burden is the poor man’s Galt’s Gulch.
He’s not paid enough to work. He’s rational enough to tell the world to fuck off.
I’ll pay for that. Raise my taxes.
Amazon was up today. I can afford it.
By the way, no one here is vermin.
That doesn’t disprove the existence of vermin.
“What do you do if everyone decides they don’t want to work anymore?”
I use to read Money Magazine, Forbes, and any number of financial publications, now replaced by internet stock market sites, and millions of column inches were devoted, and are still, to the subject of not working anymore.
At younger and younger ages.
No one retired and stopped working from 1932 thru 1960 when marginal tax rates up and down the income scale were vastly higher than they are today. Let’s take that all the way to 1980.
Unemployment after World War II hit record lows and stayed there …. oddly enough … until tax rates began their steady decline.
I have graphs and charts. Fuck the graphs and charts.
Please stop.
Everyone never does nothing, no how, no matter how many economists we place end to end to speak in unison about theories regarding what they ARE doing.
Economists never quit their jobs, regardless of economic conditions.
Even Milton Friedman sought government employment in 1933.
That a guy slinging cheeseburgers might quit his job because his Obamacare and Food Stamps add up to his working wage and he might decide to lay down his burden is the poor man’s Galt’s Gulch.
He’s not paid enough to work. He’s rational enough to tell the world to fuck off.
I’ll pay for that. Raise my taxes.
Amazon was up today. I can afford it.
By the way, no one here is vermin.
That doesn’t disprove the existence of vermin.
Clicking on the link, looking at how those situations arise and then seeing if it fits with your notion that it is simply an issue that is complicated with no solution possible.
I could have said ‘Didn’t click on the link, not surprised’, but that would be dismissive. And even at the length I went, you still think that I was “Spending time deciding whether I am a racist or not”. I don’t know if you can’t understand that or don’t want to understand, but it’s not really worth my time either way.
Clicking on the link, looking at how those situations arise and then seeing if it fits with your notion that it is simply an issue that is complicated with no solution possible.
I could have said ‘Didn’t click on the link, not surprised’, but that would be dismissive. And even at the length I went, you still think that I was “Spending time deciding whether I am a racist or not”. I don’t know if you can’t understand that or don’t want to understand, but it’s not really worth my time either way.
“95,%? There isn’t a thing in this country except God that 95% of people agree on.”
What kind of hat does he wear?
Discuss.
“95,%? There isn’t a thing in this country except God that 95% of people agree on.”
What kind of hat does he wear?
Discuss.
The lower capital gains taxes go, the less the threat of work (Wirk??!?) distresses me.
The lower capital gains taxes go, the less the threat of work (Wirk??!?) distresses me.
I never said no solution possible. I did click on the link, I quoted the first line of it.
You were attempting to prove there were still poor people who weren’t ok, as you interpreted McK. I simply pointed out your links didnt disprove his actual point.
I will leave the detailed explanation of that to McK if he wants to.
I never said no solution possible. I did click on the link, I quoted the first line of it.
You were attempting to prove there were still poor people who weren’t ok, as you interpreted McK. I simply pointed out your links didnt disprove his actual point.
I will leave the detailed explanation of that to McK if he wants to.
It’s no fantasy, it is more and more a perfectly accepted way to treat people.
You say it’s no fantasy, I say it’s a fantasy, he said she said ad infinitum.
I’m not buying it as presented, regardless of how many times you assert it, not least because in my own life I see plenty of evidence that what you’re complaining about is alive and well in the opposite direction. I know someone with a disability who barely goes out anymore because of the drumbeat from people who don’t know his situation and who get half their kicks from sneering about fake disabilities. I know other people one of whose favorite topics is ranting on about lazy poor people.
Etc.
I am sick to death of hearing about the poor put-upon conservatives. Once again, people conservatives chose are running the country. Clickbait, Pence, McConnell, Ryan, Sessions, Ross, DeVos……the list goes on. This is what you want, own it.
It’s no fantasy, it is more and more a perfectly accepted way to treat people.
You say it’s no fantasy, I say it’s a fantasy, he said she said ad infinitum.
I’m not buying it as presented, regardless of how many times you assert it, not least because in my own life I see plenty of evidence that what you’re complaining about is alive and well in the opposite direction. I know someone with a disability who barely goes out anymore because of the drumbeat from people who don’t know his situation and who get half their kicks from sneering about fake disabilities. I know other people one of whose favorite topics is ranting on about lazy poor people.
Etc.
I am sick to death of hearing about the poor put-upon conservatives. Once again, people conservatives chose are running the country. Clickbait, Pence, McConnell, Ryan, Sessions, Ross, DeVos……the list goes on. This is what you want, own it.
Just now, viola:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-ceos-are-more-likely-to-layoff-their-employees-2018-08-22?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
I’m not paid enough. Better force others not to work to boost my pay scale.
America is full of shit.
Just now, viola:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-ceos-are-more-likely-to-layoff-their-employees-2018-08-22?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
I’m not paid enough. Better force others not to work to boost my pay scale.
America is full of shit.
byomtov, quoted by McKinney: How is it possible to politely disagree with someone who wants homosexuality criminalized?
McK: There are maybe still some outliers in the US who would do this. I’ve no evidence of it in mainstream conservative thinking. The odds of it ever actually happening are minuscule.
“I’ve no evidence” doesn’t mean there’s no evidence. Or maybe a governor who’s finishing up eight years in office isn’t “mainstream.”
We report, you decide.
Headline just now: LePage joins court brief calling for firing people based on sexual orientation to be legal
Baby steps backwards.
byomtov, quoted by McKinney: How is it possible to politely disagree with someone who wants homosexuality criminalized?
McK: There are maybe still some outliers in the US who would do this. I’ve no evidence of it in mainstream conservative thinking. The odds of it ever actually happening are minuscule.
“I’ve no evidence” doesn’t mean there’s no evidence. Or maybe a governor who’s finishing up eight years in office isn’t “mainstream.”
We report, you decide.
Headline just now: LePage joins court brief calling for firing people based on sexual orientation to be legal
Baby steps backwards.
I am hoping to take up hapkido, which will be… interesting.
That sounds like a whole warren of rabbits.
I am hoping to take up hapkido, which will be… interesting.
That sounds like a whole warren of rabbits.
You were attempting to prove there were still poor people who weren’t ok, as you interpreted McK.
Marty, as I mentioned in regards to sapient’s comment, I don’t think I ‘debunked’ (i.e. disproved) McT’s point, as I said, I gave him some other information that I don’t think he considered before he wrote his comment. Nor did you, because you wrote:
The first line in your huffpost link is “Thousands across America are said to be…” so I closed it.
So it’s a bit galling to have you telling me what I was attempting when I say in whatever font you read this blog in that this wasn’t the case.
So, while waiting for McT to reply, I’d just point out that it’s your decision not to go further than the first line, but it’s also my choice to think of you as fundamentally unserious when it comes to discussing these issues because you claim that
You can find literally anything on the internet, try to prove I dont care as much as you using random links from the internet.
I wrote at length to point out that wasn’t the case. That length was to try and allay any fears that I was trying to pick on you. Again, I don’t know if my English is too difficult for you to understand or if you really think I spent all those paragraphs trying to out you as a racist.
If you don’t believe me, that might explain why you don’t really read anything else I wrote and consider it not as something that was offered to McT to continue the debate, but as a ‘gotcha, ha ha!’ I specifically said I wasn’t trying to be nasty.
I don’t know if you thought it through, but your response was pretty much the conservative in the throes of epistemic closure, though I realise that those are considered by some to be really perjorative, but in my defense, it is the label that some conservatives attach to others.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28conserv.html
Again, you don’t have to read this link past the first line. But please don’t pretend that you know what is in it after reading the first line… And please don’t tell me what I was attempting when I say in the next goddamn comment that I wasn’t.
You were attempting to prove there were still poor people who weren’t ok, as you interpreted McK.
Marty, as I mentioned in regards to sapient’s comment, I don’t think I ‘debunked’ (i.e. disproved) McT’s point, as I said, I gave him some other information that I don’t think he considered before he wrote his comment. Nor did you, because you wrote:
The first line in your huffpost link is “Thousands across America are said to be…” so I closed it.
So it’s a bit galling to have you telling me what I was attempting when I say in whatever font you read this blog in that this wasn’t the case.
So, while waiting for McT to reply, I’d just point out that it’s your decision not to go further than the first line, but it’s also my choice to think of you as fundamentally unserious when it comes to discussing these issues because you claim that
You can find literally anything on the internet, try to prove I dont care as much as you using random links from the internet.
I wrote at length to point out that wasn’t the case. That length was to try and allay any fears that I was trying to pick on you. Again, I don’t know if my English is too difficult for you to understand or if you really think I spent all those paragraphs trying to out you as a racist.
If you don’t believe me, that might explain why you don’t really read anything else I wrote and consider it not as something that was offered to McT to continue the debate, but as a ‘gotcha, ha ha!’ I specifically said I wasn’t trying to be nasty.
I don’t know if you thought it through, but your response was pretty much the conservative in the throes of epistemic closure, though I realise that those are considered by some to be really perjorative, but in my defense, it is the label that some conservatives attach to others.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28conserv.html
Again, you don’t have to read this link past the first line. But please don’t pretend that you know what is in it after reading the first line… And please don’t tell me what I was attempting when I say in the next goddamn comment that I wasn’t.
This story perhaps suggests that things are not entirely right with US democracy:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/27/crime-of-voting-texas-woman-crystal-mason-five-years-prison
This story perhaps suggests that things are not entirely right with US democracy:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/27/crime-of-voting-texas-woman-crystal-mason-five-years-prison
I’m glad you’re considering Beto, McKinney. Thanks for responding.
I’m glad you’re considering Beto, McKinney. Thanks for responding.
Sometimes, ‘good enough’ means a roof, heating/AC, clean water, electricity, enough food, clothes, school and some means of transportation
what I want to point out is the difference between mck’s list and mine is not that much.
basically it’s health care, and (in my case) an emphasis on quality, rather than mere existence, of education and maybe food.
you throw in transportation, which I agree should be in there. and AC, which illustrates the difference between Boston and houston. 🙂
health care is big, ditto education and food, but there are models to work from for all of those. models which fit our circumstances well enough, if we can get over our obsession with Not Being Like Those Socialist Europeans.
I don’t need a lecture on what made America great, I live here and probably know as much of our history as you do.
a lot of people in this country – millions – work and nonetheless are poor. the country is rich. that seems messed up to me.
you appear to believe that that is simply the unavoidable cost of us being the vibrant place we are. I don’t accept that. I do not, and will not, accept that it’s impossible to have both a dynamic economy, and a better distribution of the wealth that economy generates.
notice I say distribution, not redistribution.
the distance between where we are, and where should be, is not a question of resources. it is a question of choices.
choices are driven by what we think is good vs. not good.
that is a matter of values.
Sometimes, ‘good enough’ means a roof, heating/AC, clean water, electricity, enough food, clothes, school and some means of transportation
what I want to point out is the difference between mck’s list and mine is not that much.
basically it’s health care, and (in my case) an emphasis on quality, rather than mere existence, of education and maybe food.
you throw in transportation, which I agree should be in there. and AC, which illustrates the difference between Boston and houston. 🙂
health care is big, ditto education and food, but there are models to work from for all of those. models which fit our circumstances well enough, if we can get over our obsession with Not Being Like Those Socialist Europeans.
I don’t need a lecture on what made America great, I live here and probably know as much of our history as you do.
a lot of people in this country – millions – work and nonetheless are poor. the country is rich. that seems messed up to me.
you appear to believe that that is simply the unavoidable cost of us being the vibrant place we are. I don’t accept that. I do not, and will not, accept that it’s impossible to have both a dynamic economy, and a better distribution of the wealth that economy generates.
notice I say distribution, not redistribution.
the distance between where we are, and where should be, is not a question of resources. it is a question of choices.
choices are driven by what we think is good vs. not good.
that is a matter of values.
lj, I read the whole link. It’s an interesting discussion. I’m not sure how you would apply it to me.
I am not a classical conservative in many senses, but I am pretty consistent in some basic tenets. And, once again, this is not a discussion about policy or problem solving, it is an insult, with intent. In your completely normal fashion. You’re not trying to pick on me but do I realize I what I wrote is “the conservative in the throes of epistemic closure.” Nope not meant to insult there.
I’m open to new ideas, the left hasn’t had one in my lifetime. In fact their biggest idea is we should be like all those other countries, with no suggestion of how to realistically do that. I think I saw the cost of Medicare for everyone was 70 trillion dollars.
But I do support means tested Medicare for everyone. That’s a nonstarter because means testing is somehow bad,
I literally have never understood the argument against it. So try to enlighten me. If there is a new idea there somewhere and you are willing to make an argument not based on race.
But to give you your due this time I may have misinterpreted the insult. So I’m sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion and I appreciate you clarifying exactly how you were talking down to me.
I suspect the style is from being a teacher, Where you are trying to prod or lead me into some epiphany of my shortcomings.
lj, I read the whole link. It’s an interesting discussion. I’m not sure how you would apply it to me.
I am not a classical conservative in many senses, but I am pretty consistent in some basic tenets. And, once again, this is not a discussion about policy or problem solving, it is an insult, with intent. In your completely normal fashion. You’re not trying to pick on me but do I realize I what I wrote is “the conservative in the throes of epistemic closure.” Nope not meant to insult there.
I’m open to new ideas, the left hasn’t had one in my lifetime. In fact their biggest idea is we should be like all those other countries, with no suggestion of how to realistically do that. I think I saw the cost of Medicare for everyone was 70 trillion dollars.
But I do support means tested Medicare for everyone. That’s a nonstarter because means testing is somehow bad,
I literally have never understood the argument against it. So try to enlighten me. If there is a new idea there somewhere and you are willing to make an argument not based on race.
But to give you your due this time I may have misinterpreted the insult. So I’m sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion and I appreciate you clarifying exactly how you were talking down to me.
I suspect the style is from being a teacher, Where you are trying to prod or lead me into some epiphany of my shortcomings.
i believe the standard argument against “means tested” anything is that means testing tempts conservatives to think of the program as welfare, which means they will start lowering the cutoff in the name of cost savings until the benefit no longer helps people who need it.
i believe the standard argument against “means tested” anything is that means testing tempts conservatives to think of the program as welfare, which means they will start lowering the cutoff in the name of cost savings until the benefit no longer helps people who need it.
Comparing the US to Switzerland or Germany or Denmark isn’t even apples to oranges. No other Western country comes close to the US in population and demographic diversity, from ethnicity to religion to education level.
It is not clear to me why this diversity interferes with our ability to have better social welfare programs. Well, in the abstract, anyway.
We supplement life for the bottom quintiles in the US because that’s as far as we can reach without retarding the economy to the point where it produces less and less each year and everyone winds up worse off.
This sounds a lot like an opinion, rather than a statement based on some kind of economic analysis.
Comparing the US to Switzerland or Germany or Denmark isn’t even apples to oranges. No other Western country comes close to the US in population and demographic diversity, from ethnicity to religion to education level.
It is not clear to me why this diversity interferes with our ability to have better social welfare programs. Well, in the abstract, anyway.
We supplement life for the bottom quintiles in the US because that’s as far as we can reach without retarding the economy to the point where it produces less and less each year and everyone winds up worse off.
This sounds a lot like an opinion, rather than a statement based on some kind of economic analysis.
I don’t understand the argument for means testing.
Arguments against:
– means tests are expensive and cumbersome to administer, and vulnerable to fraud.
– means tests create a high effective marginal tax rate, sometimes more than 100%, at the income cut-off point.
– means tests are inequitable. If it’s right for the government to help parents, for example, it’s right to help all parents, not just those below some arbitrary income cut-off.
It’s better to deliver benefits regardless of income, and treat them as taxable income. The income-tax system is well equipped to administer this sort of thing.
On re-reading, I see that Marty’s question may have been about means-tested Medicare in particular. In reply to that: does he really prefer a system whereby, if he gets sick enough the bills will come until he’s reduced to penury by them? Every other developed country delivers healthcare without doing that.
I don’t understand the argument for means testing.
Arguments against:
– means tests are expensive and cumbersome to administer, and vulnerable to fraud.
– means tests create a high effective marginal tax rate, sometimes more than 100%, at the income cut-off point.
– means tests are inequitable. If it’s right for the government to help parents, for example, it’s right to help all parents, not just those below some arbitrary income cut-off.
It’s better to deliver benefits regardless of income, and treat them as taxable income. The income-tax system is well equipped to administer this sort of thing.
On re-reading, I see that Marty’s question may have been about means-tested Medicare in particular. In reply to that: does he really prefer a system whereby, if he gets sick enough the bills will come until he’s reduced to penury by them? Every other developed country delivers healthcare without doing that.
I think I saw the cost of Medicare for everyone was 70 trillion dollars.
The budget for the NHS in England this year is £126bn, which is $163bn. The population of the USA is about six times the population of England, so scale that up to $1tn. Assume US healthcare does twice as much, so make it $2tn.
So, if Marty’s numbers are right, Medicare costs 35 times more than it should.
But of course, Marty is completely wrong. He’s quoted a wildly inflated 10-year guesstimate.
I think I saw the cost of Medicare for everyone was 70 trillion dollars.
The budget for the NHS in England this year is £126bn, which is $163bn. The population of the USA is about six times the population of England, so scale that up to $1tn. Assume US healthcare does twice as much, so make it $2tn.
So, if Marty’s numbers are right, Medicare costs 35 times more than it should.
But of course, Marty is completely wrong. He’s quoted a wildly inflated 10-year guesstimate.
Marty,
I’m not going to claim that I have never spoken down to you, but if you review the exchange here, you will see
-me addressing a comment of McT’s
–you pointing out that you opened ONE of the four links I gave and closing it after one line (kinda rude, that)
-I reply to you and try to explain why I chose those links and why I think they call into question McT’s assertion
-You then saying you want to get into numbers and you give some, unreferenced (and Pro Bono has just pointed out how your numbers can be problematic, to say the least) and then say that anyone can find anything on the internet, which sounds to me like you are not going to accept any evidence I provide in the form of a webpage and also suggests that I’m just dropping terms in google and throwing them up (rude as well, but let’s try to explain it again) And close with
Spending time deciding whether I am a racist or not is really a waste of my time.
which sure sounds like you are accusing me of something I am at pains to reject or at least assure you that it’s not directed at you.
-I reply again, saying that I didn’t want to get into numbers, that I didn’t just grab those on a google search and try again to explain what I said, Ans also why I understand why you might think you are being called racist, my intent is not to call you out.
-you complain my comment was too long and you wanted to know what “specifically” I had in mind.
-I write a short comment to try and summarize
-you seize on a single line in the summary and say you never said “no solution” AND say I was trying to do something I specifically disavowed previously AND claimed that my ‘links’ (plural) don’t prove what I think they do.
-I basically tell you to fuck off. Oh, and talk down to you by suggesting that you really don’t understand what I’m saying. Which at this point seems imo three turns too late. Unless ‘talking down to you’ means trying to explain my opinions to you and taking the time to write at length, to which I would reply, if that’s talking down to you, then I do that to everyone and if you don’t like it, don’t poke your head in conversations that weren’t addressed to you.
-you then say
lj, I read the whole link [sic]. It’s an interesting discussion. I’m not sure how you would apply it to me.
Looking at this, I feel like I’ve bent over backwards not trying to not kick you. But to be clear about how the discussion applies to you
OF COURSE IT DOESN’T, I WAS ADDRESSING MCT BEFORE YOU EVEN WROTE ANYTHING!
Now, if you want to go into your poor old ridiculed conservative act, go for it, I really don’t give a shit. I am done here with you.
Marty,
I’m not going to claim that I have never spoken down to you, but if you review the exchange here, you will see
-me addressing a comment of McT’s
–you pointing out that you opened ONE of the four links I gave and closing it after one line (kinda rude, that)
-I reply to you and try to explain why I chose those links and why I think they call into question McT’s assertion
-You then saying you want to get into numbers and you give some, unreferenced (and Pro Bono has just pointed out how your numbers can be problematic, to say the least) and then say that anyone can find anything on the internet, which sounds to me like you are not going to accept any evidence I provide in the form of a webpage and also suggests that I’m just dropping terms in google and throwing them up (rude as well, but let’s try to explain it again) And close with
Spending time deciding whether I am a racist or not is really a waste of my time.
which sure sounds like you are accusing me of something I am at pains to reject or at least assure you that it’s not directed at you.
-I reply again, saying that I didn’t want to get into numbers, that I didn’t just grab those on a google search and try again to explain what I said, Ans also why I understand why you might think you are being called racist, my intent is not to call you out.
-you complain my comment was too long and you wanted to know what “specifically” I had in mind.
-I write a short comment to try and summarize
-you seize on a single line in the summary and say you never said “no solution” AND say I was trying to do something I specifically disavowed previously AND claimed that my ‘links’ (plural) don’t prove what I think they do.
-I basically tell you to fuck off. Oh, and talk down to you by suggesting that you really don’t understand what I’m saying. Which at this point seems imo three turns too late. Unless ‘talking down to you’ means trying to explain my opinions to you and taking the time to write at length, to which I would reply, if that’s talking down to you, then I do that to everyone and if you don’t like it, don’t poke your head in conversations that weren’t addressed to you.
-you then say
lj, I read the whole link [sic]. It’s an interesting discussion. I’m not sure how you would apply it to me.
Looking at this, I feel like I’ve bent over backwards not trying to not kick you. But to be clear about how the discussion applies to you
OF COURSE IT DOESN’T, I WAS ADDRESSING MCT BEFORE YOU EVEN WROTE ANYTHING!
Now, if you want to go into your poor old ridiculed conservative act, go for it, I really don’t give a shit. I am done here with you.
you guys know that it’s possible to look at what other places do and adapt and adopt what fits, right?
we dont have to be “just like them”, whoever “them” is. we couldnt be if we wanted to. and “they” do stuff all kinds of ways. health care, education, industrial policy. all of it.
there are things that other folks have done a good job of working out. over decades, in some cases. it’s foolish to refuse to consider options because they are something that “they” do. seems to me, anyway.
you might consider that looking at solutions which have been shown over time to work is actually a CONSERVATIVE approach.
you guys know that it’s possible to look at what other places do and adapt and adopt what fits, right?
we dont have to be “just like them”, whoever “them” is. we couldnt be if we wanted to. and “they” do stuff all kinds of ways. health care, education, industrial policy. all of it.
there are things that other folks have done a good job of working out. over decades, in some cases. it’s foolish to refuse to consider options because they are something that “they” do. seems to me, anyway.
you might consider that looking at solutions which have been shown over time to work is actually a CONSERVATIVE approach.
Without reading in detail the many comments that have been written since I last checked in, I’m going to add (assuming what I’m going to write isn’t redundant) that, when discussing what the government should or should not spend money on, particularly when it comes to safety-net programs, there is great consideration of how much implementing whatever program will cost, but not much consideration of what not implementing the program will cost.
Analogy time! You have a leak in your roof. It will cost some amount of money to fix it. If you don’t fix it, you won’t spend anything on your roof (now, anyway), but you’ll end up spending a whole lot more fixing water damage (or end up living in really nasty house until you can’t stand it any longer).
The question is less one of how much something will cost (especially when you have a fiat currency), but rather a question of whether or not it’s a good investment in the long run.
Without reading in detail the many comments that have been written since I last checked in, I’m going to add (assuming what I’m going to write isn’t redundant) that, when discussing what the government should or should not spend money on, particularly when it comes to safety-net programs, there is great consideration of how much implementing whatever program will cost, but not much consideration of what not implementing the program will cost.
Analogy time! You have a leak in your roof. It will cost some amount of money to fix it. If you don’t fix it, you won’t spend anything on your roof (now, anyway), but you’ll end up spending a whole lot more fixing water damage (or end up living in really nasty house until you can’t stand it any longer).
The question is less one of how much something will cost (especially when you have a fiat currency), but rather a question of whether or not it’s a good investment in the long run.
I got to the office early and tried to reply to as many of you as I could. It’s a jumbled mess, for which I apologize.
We supplement life for the bottom quintiles in the US because that’s as far as we can reach without retarding the economy to the point where it produces less and less each year and everyone winds up worse off.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/12/georgia_s_war_against_the_poor_the_southern_state_is_emptying_its_welfare.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/30/texas-welfare-spending-poor-families
I can find anecdotal evidence for just about anything, particularly in a country our size. If anecdotal evidence proved macro-level facts, I could prove that welfare is a total failure and a lot of other things, if I am selective about which anecdotal evidence I use. The only way to subsidize services for those who cannot afford them is to skim off the top, but you can only do that up to a point. Once you cut into what is required to motivate and energize the private sector, you are, in effect, eating the seed corn and there will be a smaller crop next year. Eventually, there will be no crop. This is allegory.
Russell says, SNAP being the federal food assistance program.
I refer you back to the first sentence in bold above.
two of the largest private employers – Walmart and McDonald’s – offer instruction to their employees on how to apply for public assistance. as opposed to, for example, paying them more.
Sure, they could pay more. Then the cost of goods sold would go up to cover that added labor burden and these folks would wind up paying more of their increased salary for the same goods and services. We can and do supplement at the lower end. We do a lot of that. We cannot fund your wish list and remain viable. Not sustainable, not at all. And no one anywhere even tries on a scale like we have in the US.
I don’t share your belief that all poor people need do is get off their lazy asses. the root cause here is not a widespread lack of spunk. millions and millions of people get up and go to work every day, but do not earn enough to acquire the basics through their own efforts.
If you can show me where I said this, I will be willing to try to clear up your misunderstanding of my views of poor people.
I consider the probability that “everyone decides they don’t want to work any more” to be down there with the probability that robots will someday do all the “work” in the world. Not a zero chance, but not a serious worry over our lifetimes.
Correct. Not everyone will quit working. I was illustrating a point. However, some number will choose not to work even though they are capable of working. It is not proven that, over time, that number will not grow. Most people—today—prefer working. But, we are seeing the phenomena of younger people living at home and working minimally. Not a trend I like and not one I wish to underwrite.
this makes me shake my head. do you think this would actually happen?
in general, people like to work. people like to be productive, to be of use, to accomplish things.
they’re gonna sit around all day, and do what, exactly?
why is it that people like me are told they’re being “unrealistic”?
See my comment above about younger people living at home and doing minimal work. It is a trend and not a good one. If the gov’t were to underwrite a ‘comfortable living’ for everyone who wanted it, do you really think there wouldn’t be a significant number of takers?
If I point out that members of the bottom quintile, in even some occasions, don’t have access to these things, it seems to contradict that, though ‘I’m comfortable if…’ is not really clear.
The reason I disagree with this is that, first, I never claimed everyone in the bottom 5th quintile “actually has” each of the items I enumerated. “Having access to” implies that these services are generally available. Proximity is necessary as is a reasonable level of local functionality.
I also don’t think I’ve ‘debunked’ McT. I feel like I’ve given him some data and asked him to consider it and I would appreciate it if he does. If he doesn’t, and is straightforward about closing the link after the first line as Marty was, I’m not going to hound him about it.
This is fair. I think your data prove that, in a country as large as the US, and as diverse, that you will find all manner of outcomes at all levels of society. I have two friends, one a top 1% and the other a top 5. Both committed suicide. What conclusions can we draw from those data points about the relationship between suicide and economic level? None, in my view.
I recently spent a lot of time in East Texas on a large case. You can live reasonably well in that area for a fraction of what it costs to live in Houston and Houston is much less expensive that NYC or LA. Sewers fail in every city. Bridges collapse. Each of these cause discrete, local hardship of many kinds. We are still digging out from Harvey. If you look, you can find individual circumstances that, combined with other recurring but not widespread phenomena, produce significant individual or very localized hardship. None of this disproves my basic thesis of what the bottom 5th has access to. One reason that I know what the bottom 5 has is because my wife and I started out there. Another reason is that I finished high school in rural southwest Missouri. The bottom quintile was the rule, not the exception. My dad, being retired navy and a school teacher, put us in the middle quintile. A third reason is that, because we’ve done well, we hire weekly services of various types from 4th and 5 quintile folks. Because my wife is fluent in Spanish and I have some Spanish, and because we remember where we once were, we make it a point of knowing who we are hiring and what their story is. Most are recent arrivals and most are busting their asses to move it up. What they have is the snap to assess their current situation and make a plan for improving. As you get to know people, you learn that they have a place to live, school for their kids, food, clothing and basic amenities. Most have cell phones and a fair number have email addresses. So, I’m not making this stuff up.
No country of any appreciable size in the world guarantees this to every citizen as a matter of right.
No one addressed this. It is a true statement.
Sometimes, ‘good enough’ means a roof, heating/AC, clean water, electricity, enough food, clothes, school and some means of transportation. It also means getting up every morning and doing what one can to get these things for themselves.
Having reread this several times, I’m comfortable this is correct. “Good enough” is not that bad relative to the rest of the world. With time, if it gets better, good.
Me: It is hardly perfect, but it’s pretty good. Good enough that millions make quite an effort to get here just to be in the bottom quintile. Relative to the rest of the world, it’s not all that bad.
LJ: Again, I don’t mean to pick a fight, but your claim that everything is fine in the bottom quintile doesn’t really square up with what I’ve seen and read.
“Good enough” and “Everything is fine” don’t match up, in my view. I’ve addressed the role and probative value of anecdotal evidence.
The bottom quintile lives at a better standard of living that most of the rest of the world. Relative to the top quintile, relative to my wife and my personal circumstances, there is a world of difference.
Perhaps so, but it does identify a strain of conservatism and/or libertarianism which is basically just solipsism.
Yes, if you are talking about one’s relationship to one another, not so much if you are talking about the relationship between citizen and government, particularly a central government thousands of miles away.
Checked out the Alliance Defending Freedom lately?
And if that’s not mainstream enough for you, how about my other example – family separation – which you can hardly deny is supported by lots of Republicans.
I went to the Alliance’s website. Pretty much standard “marriage is between a man and a woman”. Didn’t see a word about criminalizing homosexuality. The Southern Poverty Law Center has come under reasonable cricitism for labeling disagreement as “hate”. I don’t know enough about this specific situation to hold an opinion, but your statement criminalization is not supported by evidence. As for supporting/opposing family separation at the border, which is a long way away from advocating for the criminalization of homosexuality, it is a bit more complicated.
Here’s a link: https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/21/uttt-poll-most-texas-voters-oppose-family-separation-border-greater-su/
. I point out that African Americans seem to be disproportionately affected and you say ‘what about poor white people?’ Which is not McT’s point, he seems to suggest that things are fine, though again, the grammar is a little unclear and he may be acknowledging that we have problems and is willing to accept that the government should help. But if that’s the case, why does he support Republicans who, as a group, seem to reject that?
I think African Americans are, relative to every other identifiable group, have disproportionately high negative outcomes. Cause and effect are a topic for another day. I picked this part from LJ to address two other points. We, as a country, supplement incomes, housing, food and medicine at the lower end. That is the best we can do and remain robust. We cannot do the Russell package or anything like it. Finally, in which instance have I indicated support for Republicans? I’m no fan of Trump and I’m disgusted—and said so in the last few days here at ObWi—with the Republicans’ collective face plant in DT’s lap. I am conservative, for the most part. I am very much not ok with the level of gov’t intervention many here approve of in daily life. I am very much not ok with gov’t playing a role in what people can say. I am not a fan of gov’t compelled individual activity. None of which has anything to do with Republicans as far as I can tell.
This has been fun. I have to run. I’m confident there are any number of unfinished and poorly communicated thoughts above. That’s all on me.
Work calls, then some downtime. Adios.
I got to the office early and tried to reply to as many of you as I could. It’s a jumbled mess, for which I apologize.
We supplement life for the bottom quintiles in the US because that’s as far as we can reach without retarding the economy to the point where it produces less and less each year and everyone winds up worse off.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/12/georgia_s_war_against_the_poor_the_southern_state_is_emptying_its_welfare.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/30/texas-welfare-spending-poor-families
I can find anecdotal evidence for just about anything, particularly in a country our size. If anecdotal evidence proved macro-level facts, I could prove that welfare is a total failure and a lot of other things, if I am selective about which anecdotal evidence I use. The only way to subsidize services for those who cannot afford them is to skim off the top, but you can only do that up to a point. Once you cut into what is required to motivate and energize the private sector, you are, in effect, eating the seed corn and there will be a smaller crop next year. Eventually, there will be no crop. This is allegory.
Russell says, SNAP being the federal food assistance program.
I refer you back to the first sentence in bold above.
two of the largest private employers – Walmart and McDonald’s – offer instruction to their employees on how to apply for public assistance. as opposed to, for example, paying them more.
Sure, they could pay more. Then the cost of goods sold would go up to cover that added labor burden and these folks would wind up paying more of their increased salary for the same goods and services. We can and do supplement at the lower end. We do a lot of that. We cannot fund your wish list and remain viable. Not sustainable, not at all. And no one anywhere even tries on a scale like we have in the US.
I don’t share your belief that all poor people need do is get off their lazy asses. the root cause here is not a widespread lack of spunk. millions and millions of people get up and go to work every day, but do not earn enough to acquire the basics through their own efforts.
If you can show me where I said this, I will be willing to try to clear up your misunderstanding of my views of poor people.
I consider the probability that “everyone decides they don’t want to work any more” to be down there with the probability that robots will someday do all the “work” in the world. Not a zero chance, but not a serious worry over our lifetimes.
Correct. Not everyone will quit working. I was illustrating a point. However, some number will choose not to work even though they are capable of working. It is not proven that, over time, that number will not grow. Most people—today—prefer working. But, we are seeing the phenomena of younger people living at home and working minimally. Not a trend I like and not one I wish to underwrite.
this makes me shake my head. do you think this would actually happen?
in general, people like to work. people like to be productive, to be of use, to accomplish things.
they’re gonna sit around all day, and do what, exactly?
why is it that people like me are told they’re being “unrealistic”?
See my comment above about younger people living at home and doing minimal work. It is a trend and not a good one. If the gov’t were to underwrite a ‘comfortable living’ for everyone who wanted it, do you really think there wouldn’t be a significant number of takers?
If I point out that members of the bottom quintile, in even some occasions, don’t have access to these things, it seems to contradict that, though ‘I’m comfortable if…’ is not really clear.
The reason I disagree with this is that, first, I never claimed everyone in the bottom 5th quintile “actually has” each of the items I enumerated. “Having access to” implies that these services are generally available. Proximity is necessary as is a reasonable level of local functionality.
I also don’t think I’ve ‘debunked’ McT. I feel like I’ve given him some data and asked him to consider it and I would appreciate it if he does. If he doesn’t, and is straightforward about closing the link after the first line as Marty was, I’m not going to hound him about it.
This is fair. I think your data prove that, in a country as large as the US, and as diverse, that you will find all manner of outcomes at all levels of society. I have two friends, one a top 1% and the other a top 5. Both committed suicide. What conclusions can we draw from those data points about the relationship between suicide and economic level? None, in my view.
I recently spent a lot of time in East Texas on a large case. You can live reasonably well in that area for a fraction of what it costs to live in Houston and Houston is much less expensive that NYC or LA. Sewers fail in every city. Bridges collapse. Each of these cause discrete, local hardship of many kinds. We are still digging out from Harvey. If you look, you can find individual circumstances that, combined with other recurring but not widespread phenomena, produce significant individual or very localized hardship. None of this disproves my basic thesis of what the bottom 5th has access to. One reason that I know what the bottom 5 has is because my wife and I started out there. Another reason is that I finished high school in rural southwest Missouri. The bottom quintile was the rule, not the exception. My dad, being retired navy and a school teacher, put us in the middle quintile. A third reason is that, because we’ve done well, we hire weekly services of various types from 4th and 5 quintile folks. Because my wife is fluent in Spanish and I have some Spanish, and because we remember where we once were, we make it a point of knowing who we are hiring and what their story is. Most are recent arrivals and most are busting their asses to move it up. What they have is the snap to assess their current situation and make a plan for improving. As you get to know people, you learn that they have a place to live, school for their kids, food, clothing and basic amenities. Most have cell phones and a fair number have email addresses. So, I’m not making this stuff up.
No country of any appreciable size in the world guarantees this to every citizen as a matter of right.
No one addressed this. It is a true statement.
Sometimes, ‘good enough’ means a roof, heating/AC, clean water, electricity, enough food, clothes, school and some means of transportation. It also means getting up every morning and doing what one can to get these things for themselves.
Having reread this several times, I’m comfortable this is correct. “Good enough” is not that bad relative to the rest of the world. With time, if it gets better, good.
Me: It is hardly perfect, but it’s pretty good. Good enough that millions make quite an effort to get here just to be in the bottom quintile. Relative to the rest of the world, it’s not all that bad.
LJ: Again, I don’t mean to pick a fight, but your claim that everything is fine in the bottom quintile doesn’t really square up with what I’ve seen and read.
“Good enough” and “Everything is fine” don’t match up, in my view. I’ve addressed the role and probative value of anecdotal evidence.
The bottom quintile lives at a better standard of living that most of the rest of the world. Relative to the top quintile, relative to my wife and my personal circumstances, there is a world of difference.
Perhaps so, but it does identify a strain of conservatism and/or libertarianism which is basically just solipsism.
Yes, if you are talking about one’s relationship to one another, not so much if you are talking about the relationship between citizen and government, particularly a central government thousands of miles away.
Checked out the Alliance Defending Freedom lately?
And if that’s not mainstream enough for you, how about my other example – family separation – which you can hardly deny is supported by lots of Republicans.
I went to the Alliance’s website. Pretty much standard “marriage is between a man and a woman”. Didn’t see a word about criminalizing homosexuality. The Southern Poverty Law Center has come under reasonable cricitism for labeling disagreement as “hate”. I don’t know enough about this specific situation to hold an opinion, but your statement criminalization is not supported by evidence. As for supporting/opposing family separation at the border, which is a long way away from advocating for the criminalization of homosexuality, it is a bit more complicated.
Here’s a link: https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/21/uttt-poll-most-texas-voters-oppose-family-separation-border-greater-su/
. I point out that African Americans seem to be disproportionately affected and you say ‘what about poor white people?’ Which is not McT’s point, he seems to suggest that things are fine, though again, the grammar is a little unclear and he may be acknowledging that we have problems and is willing to accept that the government should help. But if that’s the case, why does he support Republicans who, as a group, seem to reject that?
I think African Americans are, relative to every other identifiable group, have disproportionately high negative outcomes. Cause and effect are a topic for another day. I picked this part from LJ to address two other points. We, as a country, supplement incomes, housing, food and medicine at the lower end. That is the best we can do and remain robust. We cannot do the Russell package or anything like it. Finally, in which instance have I indicated support for Republicans? I’m no fan of Trump and I’m disgusted—and said so in the last few days here at ObWi—with the Republicans’ collective face plant in DT’s lap. I am conservative, for the most part. I am very much not ok with the level of gov’t intervention many here approve of in daily life. I am very much not ok with gov’t playing a role in what people can say. I am not a fan of gov’t compelled individual activity. None of which has anything to do with Republicans as far as I can tell.
This has been fun. I have to run. I’m confident there are any number of unfinished and poorly communicated thoughts above. That’s all on me.
Work calls, then some downtime. Adios.
In rereading the above, I see a lot of what I’d intended to say to LJ landed all over the place. So, LJ, please don’t focus on any single comment of mine. There may be a further comment or two that is also responsive or supplemental to some of my shorter statements.
Now, back to it.
In rereading the above, I see a lot of what I’d intended to say to LJ landed all over the place. So, LJ, please don’t focus on any single comment of mine. There may be a further comment or two that is also responsive or supplemental to some of my shorter statements.
Now, back to it.
Sure, they could pay more.
Thank you.
Then the cost of goods sold would go up to cover that added labor burden
“Papa John” Schnatter ran the numbers and figured out that providing health insurance to all of his currently uninsured full-time workers would cost 14 cents per large pie.
The great gizoogle tells me that a large cheese pie – no toppings – at Papa John’s is $15.
14 cents more on a $15 pie. To provide health insurance for every one of his full-time workers.
This was his argument for *not* doing it.
We cannot fund your wish list and remain viable.
What would my wish list cost?
If you can show me where I said this
If the gov’t were to underwrite a ‘comfortable living’ for everyone who wanted it, do you really think there wouldn’t be a significant number of takers?
If the government were to underwrite a “comfortable living” for everyone who wanted it, mom and dad would still kick junior out at some point.
been there, done that. trust me.
No country of any appreciable size in the world guarantees this to every citizen as a matter of right.
with respect, this is why I find it frustrating to have non-legal conversations with attorneys. you guys have spent your life honing the art of framing questions to produce the answer you want. I don’t know if you even are aware that you are doing it.
Nobody said anything about “guarantee”, nor about “a matter of right”. Certainly I did not.
“Appreciable size” needs some fine-tuning as well. Germany, France, the UK – not big enough to count?
In any case, I’m not talking about “guarantees” and “rights”. I’m arguing for policies that will create improvements.
Do we “guarantee” roads, electricity, public safety services, potable water, etc etc etc, as a “matter of right”?
No, we do not. We simply recognize that they are fundamental to living in a society that we want to live in.
And so, we have roads, electricity, public safety services, potable water, etc etc etc.
Sure, they could pay more.
Thank you.
Then the cost of goods sold would go up to cover that added labor burden
“Papa John” Schnatter ran the numbers and figured out that providing health insurance to all of his currently uninsured full-time workers would cost 14 cents per large pie.
The great gizoogle tells me that a large cheese pie – no toppings – at Papa John’s is $15.
14 cents more on a $15 pie. To provide health insurance for every one of his full-time workers.
This was his argument for *not* doing it.
We cannot fund your wish list and remain viable.
What would my wish list cost?
If you can show me where I said this
If the gov’t were to underwrite a ‘comfortable living’ for everyone who wanted it, do you really think there wouldn’t be a significant number of takers?
If the government were to underwrite a “comfortable living” for everyone who wanted it, mom and dad would still kick junior out at some point.
been there, done that. trust me.
No country of any appreciable size in the world guarantees this to every citizen as a matter of right.
with respect, this is why I find it frustrating to have non-legal conversations with attorneys. you guys have spent your life honing the art of framing questions to produce the answer you want. I don’t know if you even are aware that you are doing it.
Nobody said anything about “guarantee”, nor about “a matter of right”. Certainly I did not.
“Appreciable size” needs some fine-tuning as well. Germany, France, the UK – not big enough to count?
In any case, I’m not talking about “guarantees” and “rights”. I’m arguing for policies that will create improvements.
Do we “guarantee” roads, electricity, public safety services, potable water, etc etc etc, as a “matter of right”?
No, we do not. We simply recognize that they are fundamental to living in a society that we want to live in.
And so, we have roads, electricity, public safety services, potable water, etc etc etc.
Back to McCain, his ex-jailer speaks, and speaks better than POTUS:
Col. Tran Trong Duyet told Vietnam News that he felt “very sad” upon learning of the death of the decorated war hero.
McCain was held in captivity by the North Vietnamese in Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the “Hanoi Hilton” by American POWs, after his plane was shot down in October 1967 during a bombing mission over Hanoi.
McCain was subjected to repeated beatings and interrogations while being held captive and sustained lifelong injuries that prevented him from raising his arms above his head.
“I had a lot of time meeting him when he was kept in the prison,” Duyet said. “At that time I liked him personally for his toughness and strong stance. Later on, when he became a U.S. Senator, he and Senator John Kerry greatly contributed to promote Vietnam-U.S. relations so I was very fond of him.”
Duyet added that he’d like to send condolences to the McCain family.
Back to McCain, his ex-jailer speaks, and speaks better than POTUS:
Col. Tran Trong Duyet told Vietnam News that he felt “very sad” upon learning of the death of the decorated war hero.
McCain was held in captivity by the North Vietnamese in Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the “Hanoi Hilton” by American POWs, after his plane was shot down in October 1967 during a bombing mission over Hanoi.
McCain was subjected to repeated beatings and interrogations while being held captive and sustained lifelong injuries that prevented him from raising his arms above his head.
“I had a lot of time meeting him when he was kept in the prison,” Duyet said. “At that time I liked him personally for his toughness and strong stance. Later on, when he became a U.S. Senator, he and Senator John Kerry greatly contributed to promote Vietnam-U.S. relations so I was very fond of him.”
Duyet added that he’d like to send condolences to the McCain family.
Yes, if you are talking about one’s relationship to one another, not so much if you are talking about the relationship between citizen and government
this gets close to the heart of some things. maybe.
I don’t really think of government as something distinct from other people. The government is one expression of my relationship to other people. To that community of people with whom I participate in a polity.
If I were living under occupation, or under a dictator (a real one, not Barack Obama), or in a police state, I might feel differently.
I am not. So I don’t.
When the government tells me I have to do something I’d rather not do, I generally find that it’s because it’s beneficial to somebody else if I do it.
Yes, if you are talking about one’s relationship to one another, not so much if you are talking about the relationship between citizen and government
this gets close to the heart of some things. maybe.
I don’t really think of government as something distinct from other people. The government is one expression of my relationship to other people. To that community of people with whom I participate in a polity.
If I were living under occupation, or under a dictator (a real one, not Barack Obama), or in a police state, I might feel differently.
I am not. So I don’t.
When the government tells me I have to do something I’d rather not do, I generally find that it’s because it’s beneficial to somebody else if I do it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/23/by-a-3-to-1-margin-trump-supporters-embrace-his-personality-over-his-policies/?utm_term=.7d3354cc21a2
In terms of philosophy there are distinct differences between what self-identified conservatives say and what self-identified liberals and progressives say.
In terms of opinions about actual policies it turns out that there is a great deal of overlap–so much overlap tha twe would have an actual functining civil society is peop
le voted on issues and policies.
But rightwingers don’t: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/23/by-a-3-to-1-margin-trump-supporters-embrace-his-personality-over-his-policies/?utm_term=.7d3354cc21a2
They don’t vote on philosophy either. They vote for the politician they see as being the biggest bully running for office if that politician promises to be mean to other people on their behalf.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/23/by-a-3-to-1-margin-trump-supporters-embrace-his-personality-over-his-policies/?utm_term=.7d3354cc21a2
In terms of philosophy there are distinct differences between what self-identified conservatives say and what self-identified liberals and progressives say.
In terms of opinions about actual policies it turns out that there is a great deal of overlap–so much overlap tha twe would have an actual functining civil society is peop
le voted on issues and policies.
But rightwingers don’t: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/23/by-a-3-to-1-margin-trump-supporters-embrace-his-personality-over-his-policies/?utm_term=.7d3354cc21a2
They don’t vote on philosophy either. They vote for the politician they see as being the biggest bully running for office if that politician promises to be mean to other people on their behalf.
There’s tons of polling data on this point. Trump supporters are the Republican base and what they have in common is a tendency to be authoritarian or responsive in a positive way to authoritarianism. And the really scary development is that they are choosing authoritarians to run for office and they are winning. The Republican party is not conservative; it’s authoritarian.
There’s tons of polling data on this point. Trump supporters are the Republican base and what they have in common is a tendency to be authoritarian or responsive in a positive way to authoritarianism. And the really scary development is that they are choosing authoritarians to run for office and they are winning. The Republican party is not conservative; it’s authoritarian.
We are also quite free. Maybe too free for some. It is hardly perfect, but it’s pretty good.
I think African Americans are, relative to every other identifiable group, have disproportionately high negative outcomes. Cause and effect are a topic for another day.
Apologies for any offence caused, but this irresistibly brought to mind these lines from the great Randy Newman, quoted to me recently by a friend making the case that RN is a genius:
We are also quite free. Maybe too free for some. It is hardly perfect, but it’s pretty good.
I think African Americans are, relative to every other identifiable group, have disproportionately high negative outcomes. Cause and effect are a topic for another day.
Apologies for any offence caused, but this irresistibly brought to mind these lines from the great Randy Newman, quoted to me recently by a friend making the case that RN is a genius:
Thanks McT, as I said, I wasn’t trying to catch you up. It’s good to hear you acknowledge that the bottom quintile is in some/many cases facing difficulties and my impression is that if they are facing systemic difficulties, you would be upset, so I’m not sure if consigning Flint or the problems of the Black Belt as anecdotal is fair, and I’m not sure how it is possible to bridge our differences of opinion on what support the government should/can provide if we view any evidence that can be brought to bear as anecdotal. This is not to say you are pulling a fast one by making the claim, but I hope you recognize that there is an impasse here.
Though I don’t accept, as I have said before, your easy conflation of liberals and left, as I think there is a lot of distance and variety within the proposals that are made and it is not simply ‘let government do it’, rather than talk about all the various ways that might play out (cause Russell’s list covers a lot of ground), it might be useful to apply your allegory to a particular deficit and explain how I feel it goes against what you are saying.
As Russell and others have noted, the provision of low-cost health care has been accomplished to greater degrees in other countries with less wealth than the US. They are able to do this and my argument would be that we would be more robust if people had a better safety net and rather than limiting what the private sector could do, you would be enhancing it because more people from different backgrounds would be able to provide their perspectives. People can’t take chances, are afraid to take risks, if they or their family is one medical crisis away from bankruptcy. So there are two things that go against your allegory, the first is that some sort of medicare for all would not rob us of resources and the provision of more stable conditions would encourage more people to go out and be productive.
I refer you to a current scandal here in Japan. A university, Tokyo Medical University, has, for a number of years, penalized female test takers to inflate the number of men who enter the medical school
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2018/08/26/issues/tokyo-medical-university-scandal-throwback-discrimination-women-norm/
The Ministry of Education has said that the problem is not the penalty, but that it was not said before hand. However, as the article notes, many people believe that this is not an outlier, but something systemic and that fact that is supported by the fact that Japan has fewer female doctors than any other OECD country. I told my wife that we needed to find a female doctor, because a female doctor had to overcome that discrimination and was probably 20% better qualified than a male doctor. That discrimination hurts because it is taking away women who are actually better than men, but who are just not better enough. And, as the article points out, it encourages lazy stereotypes in order to justify the differences. It harms the US in ways that may not be amenable to quantitative analysis, but I feel it does.
My point is that to the extent that America has done better than other nations, it has been because it has used diversity, which has brought more viewpoints, experiences and ideas. If you say that the problems of the bottom quintile are anecdotal, the result of hot spots here and there, but, as they say in the State of the Union addresses, “the state of the union is strong”, we just have to disagree. I hope that’s not zeroing in on one comment, it is hard to disentangle what you are saying. I’d be more sympathetic if you could acknowledge that there were differentials in the various things in the ‘russell package’ and that we had to turn our attentions to this one or that one rather than saying that everything is as good as it could be because we can’t afford to harm our private sector.
Anyway, that’s my take on this. I appreciate you writing at length.
Thanks McT, as I said, I wasn’t trying to catch you up. It’s good to hear you acknowledge that the bottom quintile is in some/many cases facing difficulties and my impression is that if they are facing systemic difficulties, you would be upset, so I’m not sure if consigning Flint or the problems of the Black Belt as anecdotal is fair, and I’m not sure how it is possible to bridge our differences of opinion on what support the government should/can provide if we view any evidence that can be brought to bear as anecdotal. This is not to say you are pulling a fast one by making the claim, but I hope you recognize that there is an impasse here.
Though I don’t accept, as I have said before, your easy conflation of liberals and left, as I think there is a lot of distance and variety within the proposals that are made and it is not simply ‘let government do it’, rather than talk about all the various ways that might play out (cause Russell’s list covers a lot of ground), it might be useful to apply your allegory to a particular deficit and explain how I feel it goes against what you are saying.
As Russell and others have noted, the provision of low-cost health care has been accomplished to greater degrees in other countries with less wealth than the US. They are able to do this and my argument would be that we would be more robust if people had a better safety net and rather than limiting what the private sector could do, you would be enhancing it because more people from different backgrounds would be able to provide their perspectives. People can’t take chances, are afraid to take risks, if they or their family is one medical crisis away from bankruptcy. So there are two things that go against your allegory, the first is that some sort of medicare for all would not rob us of resources and the provision of more stable conditions would encourage more people to go out and be productive.
I refer you to a current scandal here in Japan. A university, Tokyo Medical University, has, for a number of years, penalized female test takers to inflate the number of men who enter the medical school
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2018/08/26/issues/tokyo-medical-university-scandal-throwback-discrimination-women-norm/
The Ministry of Education has said that the problem is not the penalty, but that it was not said before hand. However, as the article notes, many people believe that this is not an outlier, but something systemic and that fact that is supported by the fact that Japan has fewer female doctors than any other OECD country. I told my wife that we needed to find a female doctor, because a female doctor had to overcome that discrimination and was probably 20% better qualified than a male doctor. That discrimination hurts because it is taking away women who are actually better than men, but who are just not better enough. And, as the article points out, it encourages lazy stereotypes in order to justify the differences. It harms the US in ways that may not be amenable to quantitative analysis, but I feel it does.
My point is that to the extent that America has done better than other nations, it has been because it has used diversity, which has brought more viewpoints, experiences and ideas. If you say that the problems of the bottom quintile are anecdotal, the result of hot spots here and there, but, as they say in the State of the Union addresses, “the state of the union is strong”, we just have to disagree. I hope that’s not zeroing in on one comment, it is hard to disentangle what you are saying. I’d be more sympathetic if you could acknowledge that there were differentials in the various things in the ‘russell package’ and that we had to turn our attentions to this one or that one rather than saying that everything is as good as it could be because we can’t afford to harm our private sector.
Anyway, that’s my take on this. I appreciate you writing at length.
lj, I will assume all of your comment was in good faith and my interpretation was reflexive based on history. Except the last, the article you linked to was to explain what you meant by the “the conservative in the throes of epistemic closure.”
Which I cant place in your timeline except possibly at the point where you told me to fuck off.
That’s ok, since I suppose I didn’t follow the second and third comments. So I guess I prompted the Fuck off. Good enough.
And for Pro Bono, I think I said I heard somewhere, worded that way to ensure no on thought I had vetted that number. On the other hand a ten year estimate is how those numbers are almost always created. So 7 trillion seems high, but then so does 2 trillion. Those are both big numbers.
lj, I will assume all of your comment was in good faith and my interpretation was reflexive based on history. Except the last, the article you linked to was to explain what you meant by the “the conservative in the throes of epistemic closure.”
Which I cant place in your timeline except possibly at the point where you told me to fuck off.
That’s ok, since I suppose I didn’t follow the second and third comments. So I guess I prompted the Fuck off. Good enough.
And for Pro Bono, I think I said I heard somewhere, worded that way to ensure no on thought I had vetted that number. On the other hand a ten year estimate is how those numbers are almost always created. So 7 trillion seems high, but then so does 2 trillion. Those are both big numbers.
Before I hit the sack, to go back to the original post, there is this
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-secret-service-tibute_us_5b84d21ae4b0162f471bd7ae
Is this something to get up Clickbait’s nose?
Before I hit the sack, to go back to the original post, there is this
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-secret-service-tibute_us_5b84d21ae4b0162f471bd7ae
Is this something to get up Clickbait’s nose?
We currently spend over $3T per year on health care. About 18% of GDP.
So yeah, big numbers.
If folks don’t like the whole “russell package”, sure, pick and choose.
Just participate in making things better. Anything. Or please get out of the way, so the rest of us can do so.
We currently spend over $3T per year on health care. About 18% of GDP.
So yeah, big numbers.
If folks don’t like the whole “russell package”, sure, pick and choose.
Just participate in making things better. Anything. Or please get out of the way, so the rest of us can do so.
The only way to subsidize services for those who cannot afford them is to skim off the top, but you can only do that up to a point. Once you cut into what is required to motivate and energize the private sector, you are, in effect, eating the seed corn and there will be a smaller crop next year.
I’d have to call that absolutely true. And totally misleading.
Yes, there has to be some profit to motivate and energize (not to mention fund) the private sector. But we are a very long way short of the level that would threaten that.
Anyone who is making more than, to pull a number out of the air, $1 million a year, is not being motivated by money per se. (More so, if that is even possible, with multiples of that.) They may like having a bigger number than the next guy, but the money itself doesn’t really matter to them.
The only way to subsidize services for those who cannot afford them is to skim off the top, but you can only do that up to a point. Once you cut into what is required to motivate and energize the private sector, you are, in effect, eating the seed corn and there will be a smaller crop next year.
I’d have to call that absolutely true. And totally misleading.
Yes, there has to be some profit to motivate and energize (not to mention fund) the private sector. But we are a very long way short of the level that would threaten that.
Anyone who is making more than, to pull a number out of the air, $1 million a year, is not being motivated by money per se. (More so, if that is even possible, with multiples of that.) They may like having a bigger number than the next guy, but the money itself doesn’t really matter to them.
The consistent argument from folks who find my point of view unrealistic / impractical / whatever, is that we have to let wealthy people grow increasingly wealthier. Otherwise the whole thing will fall down, and nobody wins.
Conversely, if we do lay out the playing field so that the folks most interested in getting really wealthy have the clearest possible path to doing just that, then that wealth is going to flow to everyone, in some measure.
That point of view has informed the last 40 years of public policy, more or less. That’s a long enough period of time to see if the hypothesis plays out as claimed.
It does not.
Time for some changes.
The consistent argument from folks who find my point of view unrealistic / impractical / whatever, is that we have to let wealthy people grow increasingly wealthier. Otherwise the whole thing will fall down, and nobody wins.
Conversely, if we do lay out the playing field so that the folks most interested in getting really wealthy have the clearest possible path to doing just that, then that wealth is going to flow to everyone, in some measure.
That point of view has informed the last 40 years of public policy, more or less. That’s a long enough period of time to see if the hypothesis plays out as claimed.
It does not.
Time for some changes.
“That’s a long enough period of time to see if the hypothesis plays out as claimed.
It does not.
Time for some changes.”
Without addressing the generally pejorative language, I think it has created stable incomes that have kept up with inflation thus, in general, real wages have not decreased.
Your statement can’t be supported. It assumes that some other policy would have created a better outcome given all of the other impacts on the economy. Which might be true but is not nearly necessarily so.
“That’s a long enough period of time to see if the hypothesis plays out as claimed.
It does not.
Time for some changes.”
Without addressing the generally pejorative language, I think it has created stable incomes that have kept up with inflation thus, in general, real wages have not decreased.
Your statement can’t be supported. It assumes that some other policy would have created a better outcome given all of the other impacts on the economy. Which might be true but is not nearly necessarily so.
Laura: In terms of philosophy there are distinct differences between what self-identified conservatives say and what self-identified liberals and progressives say.
In terms of opinions about actual policies it turns out that there is a great deal of overlap–so much overlap tha twe would have an actual functining civil society is people voted on issues and policies.
But rightwingers don’t: [link]
They don’t vote on philosophy either. They vote for the politician they see as being the biggest bully running for office if that politician promises to be mean to other people on their behalf.
I think it would help the discussion to be a little more precise here. What you say is true of Trump’s base. Arguably, of the Republican Party’s base. (Alas!)
However, I don’t think it’s actually true of conservatives overall. Certainly some conservatives, especially in Congress, find those people convenient, as a means to the ends that they desire. And so pander to them occasionally . . . and conceal the impacts of many of the policies that they do want, so as to not alienate them.
Because that Trump base is nothing like conservative (or libertarian) in it’s overall outlook. You can make a case for populist; not really for conservative. And populists tend to be far more like liberals than like conservatives in their views on political issues — except social issues. Especially economic issues, which is where the libertarian strain in our Republican politics is coming from.
Laura: In terms of philosophy there are distinct differences between what self-identified conservatives say and what self-identified liberals and progressives say.
In terms of opinions about actual policies it turns out that there is a great deal of overlap–so much overlap tha twe would have an actual functining civil society is people voted on issues and policies.
But rightwingers don’t: [link]
They don’t vote on philosophy either. They vote for the politician they see as being the biggest bully running for office if that politician promises to be mean to other people on their behalf.
I think it would help the discussion to be a little more precise here. What you say is true of Trump’s base. Arguably, of the Republican Party’s base. (Alas!)
However, I don’t think it’s actually true of conservatives overall. Certainly some conservatives, especially in Congress, find those people convenient, as a means to the ends that they desire. And so pander to them occasionally . . . and conceal the impacts of many of the policies that they do want, so as to not alienate them.
Because that Trump base is nothing like conservative (or libertarian) in it’s overall outlook. You can make a case for populist; not really for conservative. And populists tend to be far more like liberals than like conservatives in their views on political issues — except social issues. Especially economic issues, which is where the libertarian strain in our Republican politics is coming from.
Your statement can’t be supported.
Leaving aside the “perjorative language” – here is my statement:
Growth in wage income has not kept pace with growth in GDP or productivity.
Is that in question, as a point of fact?
Is that something that we should find acceptable? If so, why?
I’m not really interested in arguing contrafactuals. I’m stating that I, personally, find the plain facts on the ground to be not what is desired.
You and apparently McK think things are just as good as they could be. If I may characterize your point of view in that way.
I don’t. We disagree. And the basis of the disagreement is that I place a higher priority on a particular kind of fairness than you guys do.
Fairness in this case being McK’s word, not mine.
Your statement can’t be supported.
Leaving aside the “perjorative language” – here is my statement:
Growth in wage income has not kept pace with growth in GDP or productivity.
Is that in question, as a point of fact?
Is that something that we should find acceptable? If so, why?
I’m not really interested in arguing contrafactuals. I’m stating that I, personally, find the plain facts on the ground to be not what is desired.
You and apparently McK think things are just as good as they could be. If I may characterize your point of view in that way.
I don’t. We disagree. And the basis of the disagreement is that I place a higher priority on a particular kind of fairness than you guys do.
Fairness in this case being McK’s word, not mine.
I think it has created stable incomes that have kept up with inflation thus, in general, real wages have not decreased.
Your statement can’t be supported. It assumes that some other policy would have created a better outcome given all of the other impacts on the economy.
OK, accept stable (for the sake of discussion). What general real wages have not been doing is increasing. Wages for individuals? Sure. But for groups of similarly placed people at the same point in their lives? No.
And we do have some indications that another policy might do better. Look back at the middle of the last century. Top marginal taxes were far higher than they are today. We can argue about whether they were actually at the headline level, but no question they were a lot higher even than top taxes were a year ago. And at the same time, real wages for the bulk of the population were rising.
Now there were doubtless other factors involved as well. So that isn’t “proof” that higher taxes were a positive factor. But it certainly suggests that it’s a step up from an assumption.
I think it has created stable incomes that have kept up with inflation thus, in general, real wages have not decreased.
Your statement can’t be supported. It assumes that some other policy would have created a better outcome given all of the other impacts on the economy.
OK, accept stable (for the sake of discussion). What general real wages have not been doing is increasing. Wages for individuals? Sure. But for groups of similarly placed people at the same point in their lives? No.
And we do have some indications that another policy might do better. Look back at the middle of the last century. Top marginal taxes were far higher than they are today. We can argue about whether they were actually at the headline level, but no question they were a lot higher even than top taxes were a year ago. And at the same time, real wages for the bulk of the population were rising.
Now there were doubtless other factors involved as well. So that isn’t “proof” that higher taxes were a positive factor. But it certainly suggests that it’s a step up from an assumption.
Don’t want to raise taxes? Fine with me.
People working people more. Public revenues will increase, with no increase in tax rates. You might be able to lower rates and remain revenue neutral.
Just like magic!
Median wage income is something like $50K. What would public revenues be – federal, state, and local – if median wage income was $75K?
I do not, will not, never will, understand why the idea of working people making more money is such a f**king boogieman.
Pay people more. Public revenue increases, demand grows which makes business thrive, much less need for public assistance.
What is the f’ing problem?
Don’t want to raise taxes? Fine with me.
People working people more. Public revenues will increase, with no increase in tax rates. You might be able to lower rates and remain revenue neutral.
Just like magic!
Median wage income is something like $50K. What would public revenues be – federal, state, and local – if median wage income was $75K?
I do not, will not, never will, understand why the idea of working people making more money is such a f**king boogieman.
Pay people more. Public revenue increases, demand grows which makes business thrive, much less need for public assistance.
What is the f’ing problem?
Fairness in this case being McK’s word, not mine.
It’s just possible it was mine. Sorry!
Fairness in this case being McK’s word, not mine.
It’s just possible it was mine. Sorry!
I do not, will not, never will, understand why the idea of working people making more money is such a f**king boogieman.
This was addressed a few threads ago (no time to look for a link) in an analysis of how apex predators like Bezos get wealth to flow to themselves (and stockholders). Apparently “the market” doesn’t like to see workers being paid well, and stocks in such companies would be worth less when it came time to see them to some patsy who doesn’t understand all this, yadda yadda yadda. That’s only one part of the answer, I’m sure.
Why it’s such a boogieman for so many people is perhaps a mystery, but I would would guess it’s partly because the real mechanisms of wealth generation are opaque to most people.
I do not, will not, never will, understand why the idea of working people making more money is such a f**king boogieman.
This was addressed a few threads ago (no time to look for a link) in an analysis of how apex predators like Bezos get wealth to flow to themselves (and stockholders). Apparently “the market” doesn’t like to see workers being paid well, and stocks in such companies would be worth less when it came time to see them to some patsy who doesn’t understand all this, yadda yadda yadda. That’s only one part of the answer, I’m sure.
Why it’s such a boogieman for so many people is perhaps a mystery, but I would would guess it’s partly because the real mechanisms of wealth generation are opaque to most people.
People working people more
Pay working people more.
D’oh.
It’s just possible it was mine.
No. McK.
Followed by an invocation of “managed economies”.
Who the hell is talking about a “managed economy”?
People working people more
Pay working people more.
D’oh.
It’s just possible it was mine.
No. McK.
Followed by an invocation of “managed economies”.
Who the hell is talking about a “managed economy”?
russell, if you look about 6 comments up from that of McK’s you find my:
And there we have it: a manifesto of fairness and decency, for a decent, respectable, non-panicked life for people, their children and the planet
You know how we lefties all look the same (actually I’m flattering myself here)!
russell, if you look about 6 comments up from that of McK’s you find my:
And there we have it: a manifesto of fairness and decency, for a decent, respectable, non-panicked life for people, their children and the planet
You know how we lefties all look the same (actually I’m flattering myself here)!
You know how we lefties all look the same (actually I’m flattering myself here)!
Unclear. What I meant was: you made your statement, I said “a manifesto of fairness and decency”, and McK (to whom all lefties look the same – that’s when I was defaming McK and flattering myself) conflated my comment with yours!
You know how we lefties all look the same (actually I’m flattering myself here)!
Unclear. What I meant was: you made your statement, I said “a manifesto of fairness and decency”, and McK (to whom all lefties look the same – that’s when I was defaming McK and flattering myself) conflated my comment with yours!
I’m going to quote myself, since I ended up on the other side of the page-jump, and because no one, at least that I’ve noticed, has been talking about this aspect of government’s role in society:
I’d add that the assumption some people make seems to be that the private sector and the government are in something like a zero-sum competition, competing over some number of dollars and that the government is necessarily worse at using those dollars productively. As I see it, providing basic necessities to those who can’t afford them pays off in allowing those people to be healthier and better educated and gives them better choices, allowing them to become more productive members of society.
Another analogy! If you own a business, you might provide your employees some basic things that allow them to do their work effectively while they’re at work. These things may vary from business to business. Maybe an office chair, a desk, a computer, etc. Maybe a set of tools. Almost always a work place with electricity, plumbing, etc. You probably don’t offer a free champagne breakfest and a sushi buffet for lunch every day.
The question then is, are the things we think it would be good for the government to make sure everyone has in life more like a chair or a bathroom at work, or are they more like a champagne breakfast or a sushi buffet?
I’m going to quote myself, since I ended up on the other side of the page-jump, and because no one, at least that I’ve noticed, has been talking about this aspect of government’s role in society:
I’d add that the assumption some people make seems to be that the private sector and the government are in something like a zero-sum competition, competing over some number of dollars and that the government is necessarily worse at using those dollars productively. As I see it, providing basic necessities to those who can’t afford them pays off in allowing those people to be healthier and better educated and gives them better choices, allowing them to become more productive members of society.
Another analogy! If you own a business, you might provide your employees some basic things that allow them to do their work effectively while they’re at work. These things may vary from business to business. Maybe an office chair, a desk, a computer, etc. Maybe a set of tools. Almost always a work place with electricity, plumbing, etc. You probably don’t offer a free champagne breakfest and a sushi buffet for lunch every day.
The question then is, are the things we think it would be good for the government to make sure everyone has in life more like a chair or a bathroom at work, or are they more like a champagne breakfast or a sushi buffet?
You know how we lefties all look the same
Somehow I suspect that, between the two of us, you are the more attractive.
Got it, I had forgotten your reference to fairness upthread of McK’s.
You know how we lefties all look the same
Somehow I suspect that, between the two of us, you are the more attractive.
Got it, I had forgotten your reference to fairness upthread of McK’s.
hsh. that workplace analogy is pretty sweet.
hsh. that workplace analogy is pretty sweet.
hsh. seconded.
hsh. seconded.
What cleek said.
I would expand on hsh’s analogy in this way: from the point of view of (as I think russell suggested earlier) “the government” being all of us, what do we want to ensure that everyone has (a chair, a bathroom, some food, lists have been made), before we let anyone have the sushi buffet?
Everything that you can grab is yours, no matter how much it costs other people and the earth itself, is not the way to run a community.
What cleek said.
I would expand on hsh’s analogy in this way: from the point of view of (as I think russell suggested earlier) “the government” being all of us, what do we want to ensure that everyone has (a chair, a bathroom, some food, lists have been made), before we let anyone have the sushi buffet?
Everything that you can grab is yours, no matter how much it costs other people and the earth itself, is not the way to run a community.
Growth in wage income has not kept pace with growth in GDP or productivity.
Is that in question, as a point of fact?
Depends on how you look at the facts.
“Greedy capitalists have been helping themselves to an ever growing share of our economic output. The decline of labor unions and factory jobs, our dependence on cheap foreign labor, and businesses’ growing “monopsony” power are shafting American workers.
The latest versions of these claims rely on data purporting to show that labor has been receiving a declining share of total economic output. This has become a widely accepted story, repeated in such outlets as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg Opinion. Even a few market-friendly economists have repeated the tale.”
Are American Workers Getting Shafted?: Think labor’s share of America’s economic output has been plunging? Think again.
Growth in wage income has not kept pace with growth in GDP or productivity.
Is that in question, as a point of fact?
Depends on how you look at the facts.
“Greedy capitalists have been helping themselves to an ever growing share of our economic output. The decline of labor unions and factory jobs, our dependence on cheap foreign labor, and businesses’ growing “monopsony” power are shafting American workers.
The latest versions of these claims rely on data purporting to show that labor has been receiving a declining share of total economic output. This has become a widely accepted story, repeated in such outlets as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg Opinion. Even a few market-friendly economists have repeated the tale.”
Are American Workers Getting Shafted?: Think labor’s share of America’s economic output has been plunging? Think again.
“I do not, will not, never will, understand why the idea of working people making more money is such a f**king boogieman.”
First, because on a large majority of P&L’s it is the largest cost line, in others just a large one. So, like every expense, it is subject to scrutiny for necessity.
So if they make too much the company goes out of business and no one gets any paycheck. Or the company raises prices which costs them business.
For all of the CEO pay complaints they almost never come close to the cost of workers. If they make 0 then the cost of labor is still the largest line item.
“I do not, will not, never will, understand why the idea of working people making more money is such a f**king boogieman.”
First, because on a large majority of P&L’s it is the largest cost line, in others just a large one. So, like every expense, it is subject to scrutiny for necessity.
So if they make too much the company goes out of business and no one gets any paycheck. Or the company raises prices which costs them business.
For all of the CEO pay complaints they almost never come close to the cost of workers. If they make 0 then the cost of labor is still the largest line item.
Reason magazine’s analysis of the data is pretty much unique. As far as I can tell.
Not just the NYT, but also the Fed and OECD disagree.
Perhaps they are uniquely brilliant, or perhaps not.
Reason magazine’s analysis of the data is pretty much unique. As far as I can tell.
Not just the NYT, but also the Fed and OECD disagree.
Perhaps they are uniquely brilliant, or perhaps not.
on a large majority of P&L’s it is the largest cost line, in others just a large one. So, like every expense, it is subject to scrutiny for necessity.
So if they make too much the company goes out of business and no one gets any paycheck. Or the company raises prices which costs them business.
I’m not sure anyone is disputing this. The question seems to be, how close are most businesses to the line where they will go out of business if they pay their employees a living wage (with benefits)? How inelastic are their prices, to where they lose significant business if they (and, if it is some kind of government requirement, their competitors) raise their prices sufficiently to cover that?
Are there some businesses in that situation? Sure. There are also some businesses which will go out of business anyway. The question is, how many?
That’s actually a serious question. Anyone know of research on the answer? Preferably across a variety of industries and geographic locations.
on a large majority of P&L’s it is the largest cost line, in others just a large one. So, like every expense, it is subject to scrutiny for necessity.
So if they make too much the company goes out of business and no one gets any paycheck. Or the company raises prices which costs them business.
I’m not sure anyone is disputing this. The question seems to be, how close are most businesses to the line where they will go out of business if they pay their employees a living wage (with benefits)? How inelastic are their prices, to where they lose significant business if they (and, if it is some kind of government requirement, their competitors) raise their prices sufficiently to cover that?
Are there some businesses in that situation? Sure. There are also some businesses which will go out of business anyway. The question is, how many?
That’s actually a serious question. Anyone know of research on the answer? Preferably across a variety of industries and geographic locations.
So if they make too much the company goes out of business
yes, obviously there is a point where too much compensation will make a business unprofitable.
too much seems to need a little better definition. are businesses, by and large, that close to the margin of unprofitability?
to refer to the Papa John’s example again, Schnatter could have provided health insurance for all of his full time workers for 14 cents per full size pie. It was actually 11 to 14 cents, per full size pie.
Is Papa John’s margin so tight that that would put them out of business? Not return marginally less to shareholders, but out of business?
Or are we just talking about choices? Preferences?
Values.
So if they make too much the company goes out of business
yes, obviously there is a point where too much compensation will make a business unprofitable.
too much seems to need a little better definition. are businesses, by and large, that close to the margin of unprofitability?
to refer to the Papa John’s example again, Schnatter could have provided health insurance for all of his full time workers for 14 cents per full size pie. It was actually 11 to 14 cents, per full size pie.
Is Papa John’s margin so tight that that would put them out of business? Not return marginally less to shareholders, but out of business?
Or are we just talking about choices? Preferences?
Values.
Reason magazine’s analysis of the data is pretty much unique. As far as I can tell.
Not just the NYT, but also the Fed and OECD disagree.
Perhaps they are uniquely brilliant, or perhaps not.
I asked an economist at the horribly left-wing Tax Foundation about this once and he agreed that the recent trend is decoupling labor productivity from labor compensation.*
He didn’t have a tax (or other) policy prescription at hand if it were proved that this was the case – that is, much of “growth” produced by changes in tax policy is based on the assumption that increased capital stock (by increasing the marginal return on investment via cutting taxes) results in increased labor productivity that results in increased labor income. The last link in that chain is now subject to question.
*And query what proxy we’re using for “labor” for these purposes. Is Jamie Dimon “labor” as an employee of JP Morgan? Warren Buffet? etc.
Reason magazine’s analysis of the data is pretty much unique. As far as I can tell.
Not just the NYT, but also the Fed and OECD disagree.
Perhaps they are uniquely brilliant, or perhaps not.
I asked an economist at the horribly left-wing Tax Foundation about this once and he agreed that the recent trend is decoupling labor productivity from labor compensation.*
He didn’t have a tax (or other) policy prescription at hand if it were proved that this was the case – that is, much of “growth” produced by changes in tax policy is based on the assumption that increased capital stock (by increasing the marginal return on investment via cutting taxes) results in increased labor productivity that results in increased labor income. The last link in that chain is now subject to question.
*And query what proxy we’re using for “labor” for these purposes. Is Jamie Dimon “labor” as an employee of JP Morgan? Warren Buffet? etc.
The Most Profitable Industries in 2016
The 15 Least Profitable Industries In The U.S.
The Most Profitable Industries in 2016
The 15 Least Profitable Industries In The U.S.
“*And query what proxy we’re using for “labor” for these purposes. Is Jamie Dimon “labor” as an employee of JP Morgan? Warren Buffet? etc.”
At risk of a sidetrack, happy to be ignored. I was reading the other day about how the compensation difference is calculated (CEO/Median employee) and I found it interesting that the median employee included no management or professional workers.
Begging the question for me, as more of the jobs have become professional jobs how has that impacted that ratio?
I am drawing no conclusion, I have not had the chance to go beyond this link.
https://www.epi.org/publication/wp293-ceo-to-worker-pay-methodology/
“*And query what proxy we’re using for “labor” for these purposes. Is Jamie Dimon “labor” as an employee of JP Morgan? Warren Buffet? etc.”
At risk of a sidetrack, happy to be ignored. I was reading the other day about how the compensation difference is calculated (CEO/Median employee) and I found it interesting that the median employee included no management or professional workers.
Begging the question for me, as more of the jobs have become professional jobs how has that impacted that ratio?
I am drawing no conclusion, I have not had the chance to go beyond this link.
https://www.epi.org/publication/wp293-ceo-to-worker-pay-methodology/
A different analogy: who would want their child in a daycare setting where the biggest toddler bully was allowed to gather all the toys into one corner and let the other children play with them only at the bully’s sufferance?
Why do we bother pretending to children that values like fairness matter? Far too late in life, I realized that I was a chump for buying into it, and even worse, for buying into the fantasy that everyone else bought into it.
A different analogy: who would want their child in a daycare setting where the biggest toddler bully was allowed to gather all the toys into one corner and let the other children play with them only at the bully’s sufferance?
Why do we bother pretending to children that values like fairness matter? Far too late in life, I realized that I was a chump for buying into it, and even worse, for buying into the fantasy that everyone else bought into it.
Somehow I suspect that, between the two of us, you are the more attractive
Ha, that’s all you know! All cats are grey online..
Somehow I suspect that, between the two of us, you are the more attractive
Ha, that’s all you know! All cats are grey online..
It may come as a shock to Marty and McKinney, but businesses “go out of business” by the truckload each and every day. Amazing, but true.
hsh made a good point above, but you know great minds think alike.
Essentially, we have an output capacity of “X”. This level of output is (assuming full employment) “what we can afford”.
People who claim that “we can’t afford that” are either grinding a political ax or using some other (i.e., wrong) definition of “what can be afforded”.
What we argue about is the desired mix of this output (guns v butter is the classic example) and who is going to run things.
The invocation of “freedom” or “liberty” in these debates is a bit of a red herring, and is generally raised to promote the liberties (power) of certain segments of economic players. Similarly, argument regarding “managed” vs. “free market” are competing claims of how best “X” can be achieved, and are extraneous to discussions about “how much can we afford”.
So give me pure communism or give me death….looks like I’ll only get one of those.
I guess I won’t be able to afford both. Damn the bad luck.
It may come as a shock to Marty and McKinney, but businesses “go out of business” by the truckload each and every day. Amazing, but true.
hsh made a good point above, but you know great minds think alike.
Essentially, we have an output capacity of “X”. This level of output is (assuming full employment) “what we can afford”.
People who claim that “we can’t afford that” are either grinding a political ax or using some other (i.e., wrong) definition of “what can be afforded”.
What we argue about is the desired mix of this output (guns v butter is the classic example) and who is going to run things.
The invocation of “freedom” or “liberty” in these debates is a bit of a red herring, and is generally raised to promote the liberties (power) of certain segments of economic players. Similarly, argument regarding “managed” vs. “free market” are competing claims of how best “X” can be achieved, and are extraneous to discussions about “how much can we afford”.
So give me pure communism or give me death….looks like I’ll only get one of those.
I guess I won’t be able to afford both. Damn the bad luck.
Marty,
Some more info on ‘professionals’ and their place in the workforce that you may find of interest:
https://dpeaflcio.org/programs-publications/issue-fact-sheets/the-professional-and-technical-workforce/
True, ‘professionals’ are a growing part of the workforce. I’d wager that measuring their “productivity” is a bit complicated. That is most likely why they are excluded from the measurement you cited.
Marty,
Some more info on ‘professionals’ and their place in the workforce that you may find of interest:
https://dpeaflcio.org/programs-publications/issue-fact-sheets/the-professional-and-technical-workforce/
True, ‘professionals’ are a growing part of the workforce. I’d wager that measuring their “productivity” is a bit complicated. That is most likely why they are excluded from the measurement you cited.
Dear Republicans,
FIX YOUR PARTY
Dear Republicans,
FIX YOUR PARTY
@cleek: b-b-b-b-b-but tax cuts!
I was channel surfing on the radio in the car not long ago and landed for a moment on one of those foaming-mouthed right-wing people going on about “leftist violence.”
Like Clickbait at that link: they are going to incite violence pre-blamed. (Is that like pre-born?)
@cleek: b-b-b-b-b-but tax cuts!
I was channel surfing on the radio in the car not long ago and landed for a moment on one of those foaming-mouthed right-wing people going on about “leftist violence.”
Like Clickbait at that link: they are going to incite violence pre-blamed. (Is that like pre-born?)
I was channel surfing on the radio in the car not long ago and landed for a moment on one of those foaming-mouthed right-wing people going on about “leftist violence.”
somebody told them about the count!! 🙂
somebody actually should tell them that if you don’t parade around with swastikas, the antifa kiddos will probably leave you alone.
I was channel surfing on the radio in the car not long ago and landed for a moment on one of those foaming-mouthed right-wing people going on about “leftist violence.”
somebody told them about the count!! 🙂
somebody actually should tell them that if you don’t parade around with swastikas, the antifa kiddos will probably leave you alone.
our President sounds like (and probably is) the dumbest commenter on any Breitbart thread.
thanks, GOP
our President sounds like (and probably is) the dumbest commenter on any Breitbart thread.
thanks, GOP
Yes indeed, I’ve just been reading the following. I had to check it wasn’t April Fool’s Day:
“I remember Pearl Harbor,” Trump told Abe at a meeting in June, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
“I’m on to the Japanese,” the president reportedly added, after evoking the attack on the U.S. naval base back in 1941.
Yes indeed, I’ve just been reading the following. I had to check it wasn’t April Fool’s Day:
“I remember Pearl Harbor,” Trump told Abe at a meeting in June, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
“I’m on to the Japanese,” the president reportedly added, after evoking the attack on the U.S. naval base back in 1941.
I’ve never liked parades.
I find Antifa highly unprofessional.
Better to stop with the petty property damage against innocent store fronts in the streets and the kerchief-covered faces and present tightly controlled, absolutely silent, but savage fury against the enemy mp and the GOP.
No masks. Here are our faces. Please, please fuck with us.
The put-on, put-upon innocence professed by mp and the conservative movement will be stomped out of existence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-wUdetAAlY
I’ve never liked parades.
I find Antifa highly unprofessional.
Better to stop with the petty property damage against innocent store fronts in the streets and the kerchief-covered faces and present tightly controlled, absolutely silent, but savage fury against the enemy mp and the GOP.
No masks. Here are our faces. Please, please fuck with us.
The put-on, put-upon innocence professed by mp and the conservative movement will be stomped out of existence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-wUdetAAlY
bobbyp: I’d wager that measuring their “productivity” is a bit complicated.
Special relativity is “a bit complicated”. Measuring “productivity” is really complicated. It is up there with quantum mechanics.
I just paid my mechanic $20 to fix a flat on my car. It took him 15 minutes because the leak was at the rim. He used capital equipment (hydraulic lift, air compressor, tire machine) to do it. What was his “productivity”? How much was his, how much belongs to his “capital”?
Suppose he had charged me $25. Would that make his “productivity” higher or lower? Obviously higher: $5 more GDP created in the same 15 minutes. Also, obviously lower: $5 more to fix the same flat. The wave-particle duality made flesh.
An old econ professor of mine used to define the “productivity” of rubidium as $X/kg, where X is annual GDP divided by kilograms of rubidium used per year. His point was that you can define the “productivity” of, say, janitors the same way — if you prefer playing games with arithmetic over trying to understand what the arithmetic says about The Economy.
–TP
bobbyp: I’d wager that measuring their “productivity” is a bit complicated.
Special relativity is “a bit complicated”. Measuring “productivity” is really complicated. It is up there with quantum mechanics.
I just paid my mechanic $20 to fix a flat on my car. It took him 15 minutes because the leak was at the rim. He used capital equipment (hydraulic lift, air compressor, tire machine) to do it. What was his “productivity”? How much was his, how much belongs to his “capital”?
Suppose he had charged me $25. Would that make his “productivity” higher or lower? Obviously higher: $5 more GDP created in the same 15 minutes. Also, obviously lower: $5 more to fix the same flat. The wave-particle duality made flesh.
An old econ professor of mine used to define the “productivity” of rubidium as $X/kg, where X is annual GDP divided by kilograms of rubidium used per year. His point was that you can define the “productivity” of, say, janitors the same way — if you prefer playing games with arithmetic over trying to understand what the arithmetic says about The Economy.
–TP
LOL, TP. Understatement is something I generally do not suffer from, at least here.
LOL, TP. Understatement is something I generally do not suffer from, at least here.
I was channel surfing on the radio in the car not long ago and landed for a moment on one of those foaming-mouthed right-wing people going on about “leftist violence.”
Just think of this as an indictment of the general unreality/incompetence of the left. After all, if they are looking to go with violence, shouldn’t they be supporting the NRA? Duh oh!
/sarcasm
I was channel surfing on the radio in the car not long ago and landed for a moment on one of those foaming-mouthed right-wing people going on about “leftist violence.”
Just think of this as an indictment of the general unreality/incompetence of the left. After all, if they are looking to go with violence, shouldn’t they be supporting the NRA? Duh oh!
/sarcasm
“I remember Pearl Harbor”
A story related to me by a buddy about his father, in fact a World War II veteran, but in a non-combat role on a transport ship in the Pacific theater, and he spent most of his service hanging over the taffrail on the poop deck wretchedly seasick.
Decades later, my buddy gets a late night phone call from Dad, deep in his cups, but he’s watching a late 1940s vintage Hollywood World War II Navy war film, ya know, a movie, on the late show.
The conversation went something like this:
Dad: Hurry up and turn your TV to Channel 11. My ship and I are on the tube right now.
The scene is of an aircraft carrier in monsoon-swept seas and sideways rain and wind. A fighter plane is circling trying to get a bead on the carrier’s heaving deck.
Dad: There she is. My God, that was a storm. OK, that’s me and my co-pilot landing that sucker. I let the co-pilot take over the controls for his future experience. Here we coming around again. Get a load of this.
Indeed, on the screen yawing fighter prop plane is waggling just off the stern of the carrier, which is yawing in the opposite direction of the plane.
Dad: We nailed this landing … now watch this and maybe you’ll learn something about real life and war, kid.
My Buddy: Yeah but, Dad ….
Dad: SHHH! Watch this!
The plane seems to momentarily set down in the heaving deck in the raging storm, but his tailhook misses the arresting cable and the craft veers to the side at great speed, hits the conning tower, and explodes into spectacular flames. The final camera shot as the plane explodes is looking from the nose directly into the cockpit and we see the pilot and co-pilot now depicted by the primitive Hollywood special effects of two completely burned crispy critters, mouths agape in shock at their fate, flames and explosion surrounding them.
There is dead silence on the other end of the telephone for a few moments.
My Buddy: Dad …. are you there?
Dad, after another moment of silence: I TOLD that bastard co-pilot to pull up and go around again!
“I remember Pearl Harbor”
A story related to me by a buddy about his father, in fact a World War II veteran, but in a non-combat role on a transport ship in the Pacific theater, and he spent most of his service hanging over the taffrail on the poop deck wretchedly seasick.
Decades later, my buddy gets a late night phone call from Dad, deep in his cups, but he’s watching a late 1940s vintage Hollywood World War II Navy war film, ya know, a movie, on the late show.
The conversation went something like this:
Dad: Hurry up and turn your TV to Channel 11. My ship and I are on the tube right now.
The scene is of an aircraft carrier in monsoon-swept seas and sideways rain and wind. A fighter plane is circling trying to get a bead on the carrier’s heaving deck.
Dad: There she is. My God, that was a storm. OK, that’s me and my co-pilot landing that sucker. I let the co-pilot take over the controls for his future experience. Here we coming around again. Get a load of this.
Indeed, on the screen yawing fighter prop plane is waggling just off the stern of the carrier, which is yawing in the opposite direction of the plane.
Dad: We nailed this landing … now watch this and maybe you’ll learn something about real life and war, kid.
My Buddy: Yeah but, Dad ….
Dad: SHHH! Watch this!
The plane seems to momentarily set down in the heaving deck in the raging storm, but his tailhook misses the arresting cable and the craft veers to the side at great speed, hits the conning tower, and explodes into spectacular flames. The final camera shot as the plane explodes is looking from the nose directly into the cockpit and we see the pilot and co-pilot now depicted by the primitive Hollywood special effects of two completely burned crispy critters, mouths agape in shock at their fate, flames and explosion surrounding them.
There is dead silence on the other end of the telephone for a few moments.
My Buddy: Dad …. are you there?
Dad, after another moment of silence: I TOLD that bastard co-pilot to pull up and go around again!
Leftists are prepared to die for their beliefs. Right wingers to kill for theirs.
–TP
Leftists are prepared to die for their beliefs. Right wingers to kill for theirs.
–TP
Marty,
Thanks for replying and my apologies for me reaching escape velocity. I am wordy and more than a little pedantic, please don’t think that I am talking down. The only reason I wrote to McT was that, rather than questions of economic fairness (I usually don’t participate in those kinds of discussions) I saw it as questions of basic needs, something that he usually doesn’t get into. Since the conversation has moved away from those basic needs and into questions of redistribution, it’s not really my cup of tea.
I also expressed my anger at you entering a conversation that was between me and McT. I want to make it clear, I don’t mind you or other people entering, but I think it is important that if anyone does that, they should state exactly what they are agreeing/disagreeing with and why.
You’ve probably noticed that I’m pretty intent on taking responsibility for the words one writes and I don’t like making other people take responsibility for words someone else has written. I realize not everyone likes to deal with html tags, but I really appreciate when someone uses them to quote the other person (or me!) to show why they may be thinking what they are thinking.
One reason I have gravitated here rather than other places on the net is that the folks here seem to be more tolerant of that approach, but I know that it can be offputting at times.
This is all to say, if you think I am saying something that makes you feel bad, please ask if that’s what I meant and I will be happy to explain and if necessary retract. I am also conscious that my language may be influenced by what is happening in my real life, so I’m under no illusion that I’m the easiest person to correspond with. I’m not here to talk down to you or anyone else and am happy to pull things back if I’m told that something upset you or made you feel bad. I have said that I understand the difficulties in being in the minority and I don’t want to run anyone off if they participating in a way that doesn’t make other people run off. Thanks for your understanding.
Marty,
Thanks for replying and my apologies for me reaching escape velocity. I am wordy and more than a little pedantic, please don’t think that I am talking down. The only reason I wrote to McT was that, rather than questions of economic fairness (I usually don’t participate in those kinds of discussions) I saw it as questions of basic needs, something that he usually doesn’t get into. Since the conversation has moved away from those basic needs and into questions of redistribution, it’s not really my cup of tea.
I also expressed my anger at you entering a conversation that was between me and McT. I want to make it clear, I don’t mind you or other people entering, but I think it is important that if anyone does that, they should state exactly what they are agreeing/disagreeing with and why.
You’ve probably noticed that I’m pretty intent on taking responsibility for the words one writes and I don’t like making other people take responsibility for words someone else has written. I realize not everyone likes to deal with html tags, but I really appreciate when someone uses them to quote the other person (or me!) to show why they may be thinking what they are thinking.
One reason I have gravitated here rather than other places on the net is that the folks here seem to be more tolerant of that approach, but I know that it can be offputting at times.
This is all to say, if you think I am saying something that makes you feel bad, please ask if that’s what I meant and I will be happy to explain and if necessary retract. I am also conscious that my language may be influenced by what is happening in my real life, so I’m under no illusion that I’m the easiest person to correspond with. I’m not here to talk down to you or anyone else and am happy to pull things back if I’m told that something upset you or made you feel bad. I have said that I understand the difficulties in being in the minority and I don’t want to run anyone off if they participating in a way that doesn’t make other people run off. Thanks for your understanding.
For some reason this reminds me of one of my absolutely favourite stories about my father, when he in his 30s in South Africa. He had a distant cousin of exactly the same name, but they had never met when my father heard his cousin had died, so he paid little attention. The day after, he had occasion to call someone he didn’t know, but who unbeknown to him was an acquaintance of his dead cousin. When the guy answered the phone, my father said hello, and gave his name, after which there was a very long pause. The pause was broken by the guy saying, in a quiet, hesitant voice, “Where are you calling from?”
For some reason this reminds me of one of my absolutely favourite stories about my father, when he in his 30s in South Africa. He had a distant cousin of exactly the same name, but they had never met when my father heard his cousin had died, so he paid little attention. The day after, he had occasion to call someone he didn’t know, but who unbeknown to him was an acquaintance of his dead cousin. When the guy answered the phone, my father said hello, and gave his name, after which there was a very long pause. The pause was broken by the guy saying, in a quiet, hesitant voice, “Where are you calling from?”
My story was in response to the Count, of course!
My story was in response to the Count, of course!
lj, all good. I tend to use quotes rather than italics because it’s easier on my phone. Will keep in mind.
lj, all good. I tend to use quotes rather than italics because it’s easier on my phone. Will keep in mind.
I think I said I heard somewhere, worded that way to ensure no on thought I had vetted that number. On the other hand a ten year estimate is how those numbers are almost always created. So 7 trillion seems high, but then so does 2 trillion. Those are both big numbers.
It’s poor style to quote a number you don’t believe in. You’re right that people do quote 10-year costs: the honest ones say that’s what they’re doing.
$2tn is a lot, certainly. But most of this is healthcare which is already being paid for (and the rest is healthcare for currently uninsured people who need it). What we’d be doing is shifting costs from employers and individuals to a single payer with much smaller overheads.
If tax cuts pay for themselves (they don’t) then this proposal should come out well ahead.
I think I said I heard somewhere, worded that way to ensure no on thought I had vetted that number. On the other hand a ten year estimate is how those numbers are almost always created. So 7 trillion seems high, but then so does 2 trillion. Those are both big numbers.
It’s poor style to quote a number you don’t believe in. You’re right that people do quote 10-year costs: the honest ones say that’s what they’re doing.
$2tn is a lot, certainly. But most of this is healthcare which is already being paid for (and the rest is healthcare for currently uninsured people who need it). What we’d be doing is shifting costs from employers and individuals to a single payer with much smaller overheads.
If tax cuts pay for themselves (they don’t) then this proposal should come out well ahead.
Having had a bunch of (thankfully) relatively minor but nagging health problems this year, requiring a lot of doctor visits (very unusual for me) and a lot of antibiotics (ditto), I’m extra mindful of the staggering gobbling of productivity represented by the amount of time I’ve had to spend chasing paperwork, making sure referrals get to the right place, etc. And of course, there are armies of people in insurance companies, doctor’s offices, and hospitals doing more of the same. I could have been doing something useful with that time, or fun. Or both.
Having had a bunch of (thankfully) relatively minor but nagging health problems this year, requiring a lot of doctor visits (very unusual for me) and a lot of antibiotics (ditto), I’m extra mindful of the staggering gobbling of productivity represented by the amount of time I’ve had to spend chasing paperwork, making sure referrals get to the right place, etc. And of course, there are armies of people in insurance companies, doctor’s offices, and hospitals doing more of the same. I could have been doing something useful with that time, or fun. Or both.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/08/trump-urges-evangelicals-to-prep-for-violence-after-they-lose-election/
As usual, mp has it republicanassbackwards.
I want violence against the republican party and mp …. win, lose, or draw.
If they lose, they are still alive.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/08/trump-urges-evangelicals-to-prep-for-violence-after-they-lose-election/
As usual, mp has it republicanassbackwards.
I want violence against the republican party and mp …. win, lose, or draw.
If they lose, they are still alive.
More from Loomis here: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/08/iraqi-still-two-hands-no-doubt-cheering-mccain-takes
You know, folks….just how much are you going to stand about this guy and prevaricating about his “humanity” and “decency”? Personally he may have been very brave, but as a politician, he was, frankly, just another GOP POS.
He was on the take from Keating and skated. But I guess being on the take is a sign of great moral character. Jayzus ‘effing christ. Would that all criminals could so easily be forgiven. I tell you, the world would be a better place.
I really believe his vote on skinny repeal of the ACA was just a “fuck you” to Trump, and had nothing to do with the policy in question.
So it was all about him. It always was.
I can hardly wait for the fair and balanced obits from National Review or Reason or Seb when it comes to either of the Clintons. I am sure they will laud Hillary’s “decency” and “humanity”. Well, maybe not.
More from Loomis here: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/08/iraqi-still-two-hands-no-doubt-cheering-mccain-takes
You know, folks….just how much are you going to stand about this guy and prevaricating about his “humanity” and “decency”? Personally he may have been very brave, but as a politician, he was, frankly, just another GOP POS.
He was on the take from Keating and skated. But I guess being on the take is a sign of great moral character. Jayzus ‘effing christ. Would that all criminals could so easily be forgiven. I tell you, the world would be a better place.
I really believe his vote on skinny repeal of the ACA was just a “fuck you” to Trump, and had nothing to do with the policy in question.
So it was all about him. It always was.
I can hardly wait for the fair and balanced obits from National Review or Reason or Seb when it comes to either of the Clintons. I am sure they will laud Hillary’s “decency” and “humanity”. Well, maybe not.
Hey! I just heard that John McCain was ‘against torture’. As a powerful GOP Senator with seniority and chairmanships, perhaps somebody here could tell me how he used his power and influence to stand athwart of this GOP policy?
Appearing on Sunday talk shows and occassional op-eds does not count.
Similarly: When Kissinger passes, we should all go and spit on his grave.
Just sayin’.
Hey! I just heard that John McCain was ‘against torture’. As a powerful GOP Senator with seniority and chairmanships, perhaps somebody here could tell me how he used his power and influence to stand athwart of this GOP policy?
Appearing on Sunday talk shows and occassional op-eds does not count.
Similarly: When Kissinger passes, we should all go and spit on his grave.
Just sayin’.
i might want to take a break from LGM
Maybe just take a break from Loomis ?
Seems a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Though I hear you: a while back, I bugged out of LGM for a couple years, after Joe from Lowell went into attack-schnauzer mode about something I wrote, and then kept chewing on everything I wrote until I threw up my hands.
i might want to take a break from LGM
Maybe just take a break from Loomis ?
Seems a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Though I hear you: a while back, I bugged out of LGM for a couple years, after Joe from Lowell went into attack-schnauzer mode about something I wrote, and then kept chewing on everything I wrote until I threw up my hands.
I’ve probably spent less than an hour cumulatively in my life at LGM, but I swear Joe from Lowell stands out for some reason. He must be prolific.
I’ve probably spent less than an hour cumulatively in my life at LGM, but I swear Joe from Lowell stands out for some reason. He must be prolific.
he effectively chased me out of BJ for a while once, too.
he effectively chased me out of BJ for a while once, too.
folks,
JFL has not been seen at LGM for some time. A big Sanders supporter, I think he burned out arguing with the other commenters who were largely Clinton supporters.
It is safe to return, but tread carefully.
folks,
JFL has not been seen at LGM for some time. A big Sanders supporter, I think he burned out arguing with the other commenters who were largely Clinton supporters.
It is safe to return, but tread carefully.
Loomis’s pieces were usually the most interesting to me. Farley does military history which is interesting in a way orthogonal to my own biases. I like reading about battleships, the same as I did when I was nine years old.
It is Scott who I find most obnoxious, because of my own biases. But the whole blog tends to be relentlessly sarcastic, a mode which is only enjoyable for long periods of time if you are in near total agreement and even then it wears on you. I am now speaking in general, since there are places and people closer to my biases where the atmosphere is the same. It feels good, then it doesn’t, you see some news which infuriates you, ( a daily occurrence) you go back for the takes of like minded folk, the cycle repeats.
Loomis’s pieces were usually the most interesting to me. Farley does military history which is interesting in a way orthogonal to my own biases. I like reading about battleships, the same as I did when I was nine years old.
It is Scott who I find most obnoxious, because of my own biases. But the whole blog tends to be relentlessly sarcastic, a mode which is only enjoyable for long periods of time if you are in near total agreement and even then it wears on you. I am now speaking in general, since there are places and people closer to my biases where the atmosphere is the same. It feels good, then it doesn’t, you see some news which infuriates you, ( a daily occurrence) you go back for the takes of like minded folk, the cycle repeats.
I’m sure McCain enjoyed giving the metaphorical middle finger to Trump and the Republican Party with his vote on ACA repeal. But his public rhetoric on the bill was reasonably consistent with both his past stated principles and his vote. I don’t see the need to psychoanalyze further.
I read LGM regularly like ten years ago, then bailed. Now I read it when it gets linked to from elsewhere, and when that happens I usually click around to see what else has been posted recently. That’s all.
For me the big disconnect came with the Duke case. Anyone who was certain from the start that case was a false accusation was definitely being foolish, but so too was anyone certain that the accusations were true.
I had recently interned at a prosecutors office. I’ll spare everyone boring details, but, “accuser was drunk and angry at accused, neutral witnesses were skeptical, no physical evidence, accuser refused to cooperate with investigation once sober” is a commonplace human foible, and is a red flag indicating that you should investigate further before overcommitting.
LGM treated the case like it was ammunition in a culture war. But when you do that and your ammunition is flawed, the people pointing out the flaws will include both your culture war opponents… and totally regular people who don’t deserve your animosity. And when the flaws in your ammunition become too apparent to hide, you end up blaming the ammunition instead of the task to which you set it.
I’m sure McCain enjoyed giving the metaphorical middle finger to Trump and the Republican Party with his vote on ACA repeal. But his public rhetoric on the bill was reasonably consistent with both his past stated principles and his vote. I don’t see the need to psychoanalyze further.
I read LGM regularly like ten years ago, then bailed. Now I read it when it gets linked to from elsewhere, and when that happens I usually click around to see what else has been posted recently. That’s all.
For me the big disconnect came with the Duke case. Anyone who was certain from the start that case was a false accusation was definitely being foolish, but so too was anyone certain that the accusations were true.
I had recently interned at a prosecutors office. I’ll spare everyone boring details, but, “accuser was drunk and angry at accused, neutral witnesses were skeptical, no physical evidence, accuser refused to cooperate with investigation once sober” is a commonplace human foible, and is a red flag indicating that you should investigate further before overcommitting.
LGM treated the case like it was ammunition in a culture war. But when you do that and your ammunition is flawed, the people pointing out the flaws will include both your culture war opponents… and totally regular people who don’t deserve your animosity. And when the flaws in your ammunition become too apparent to hide, you end up blaming the ammunition instead of the task to which you set it.
Here is the kind of McCain criticism I am somewhat comfortable with, because the focus is really on our foreign policy and the causes he supported and the unpleasant facts that don’t fit neatly into mainstream narratives, so they get shoved out of the room so they don’t make rude noises during dinner conversations. I don’t know that much about the Ukraine, so you don’t see me ranting about it, but I have heard that there are Nazis on the side that we support. I don’t mean Clickbait’s side, who so far as I can tell supports and opposes Putin simultaneously. I mean Nazis opposed to Putin.
https://fair.org/home/john-mccain-human-rights-ukrainian-nazi-photo-washington-post/
Patrick — I missed that, but it is common behavior at deeply ideological sites of all descriptions. If you don’t support the party line on a given issue, you immediately become the enemy and nothing you say, no nuance you try to supply, will make the slightest difference.
Here is the kind of McCain criticism I am somewhat comfortable with, because the focus is really on our foreign policy and the causes he supported and the unpleasant facts that don’t fit neatly into mainstream narratives, so they get shoved out of the room so they don’t make rude noises during dinner conversations. I don’t know that much about the Ukraine, so you don’t see me ranting about it, but I have heard that there are Nazis on the side that we support. I don’t mean Clickbait’s side, who so far as I can tell supports and opposes Putin simultaneously. I mean Nazis opposed to Putin.
https://fair.org/home/john-mccain-human-rights-ukrainian-nazi-photo-washington-post/
Patrick — I missed that, but it is common behavior at deeply ideological sites of all descriptions. If you don’t support the party line on a given issue, you immediately become the enemy and nothing you say, no nuance you try to supply, will make the slightest difference.
Hmm, rereading it it is a bit too much about McCain personally. But that is the problem with the death of public figures. There is so much horse hockey put out about them which is really about the policies they supported that the pushback will go the same way.
I don’t have a clear position on this.
Hmm, rereading it it is a bit too much about McCain personally. But that is the problem with the death of public figures. There is so much horse hockey put out about them which is really about the policies they supported that the pushback will go the same way.
I don’t have a clear position on this.
While Florida republican g(oober)natorial vermin warns white voters not to “monkey up” the election against his black opponent, get a load of these corrupt republican sub-hominids:
http://juanitajean.com/not-only-is-he-still-alive-hes-become-a-star-wars-villain/
http://juanitajean.com/maybe-the-best-story-of-the-year/
I guess she didn’t need opposable thumbs for what she was up to in the stinking, fucking republican Maserati her republican hubby bought with his ethical tax breaks.
While Florida republican g(oober)natorial vermin warns white voters not to “monkey up” the election against his black opponent, get a load of these corrupt republican sub-hominids:
http://juanitajean.com/not-only-is-he-still-alive-hes-become-a-star-wars-villain/
http://juanitajean.com/maybe-the-best-story-of-the-year/
I guess she didn’t need opposable thumbs for what she was up to in the stinking, fucking republican Maserati her republican hubby bought with his ethical tax breaks.
He’s dead, so the killers hope to get on with murdering Americans:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/29/1791854/-Senate-Republicans-celebrate-death-of-John-McCain-because-now-they-can-get-Obamacare-repeal
He’s dead, so the killers hope to get on with murdering Americans:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/29/1791854/-Senate-Republicans-celebrate-death-of-John-McCain-because-now-they-can-get-Obamacare-repeal
I’ve never read LGM regularly. Every now and then I follow a link, and find what everyone has already mentioned: lots of stuff I agree with, but relentless sarcasm, which starts to feel like arrogance pretty quickly. I don’t need additional things to rile me up in this era especially.
I do look at BJ every day. IMHO the front-pagers there are wonderful. The commentariat is pretty intolerant of nuance, and I comment rarely, and always blandly. Anyhow, I could never keep up with the place if I tried — I don’t know how all those people have time to do anything else, the posts and comments come so thick and fast. But — I keep going there because unlike at LGM, they regularly make me laugh. Plus, I get a lot of news links from there. Plus, the front-pagers are wicked smaht.
I’ve never read LGM regularly. Every now and then I follow a link, and find what everyone has already mentioned: lots of stuff I agree with, but relentless sarcasm, which starts to feel like arrogance pretty quickly. I don’t need additional things to rile me up in this era especially.
I do look at BJ every day. IMHO the front-pagers there are wonderful. The commentariat is pretty intolerant of nuance, and I comment rarely, and always blandly. Anyhow, I could never keep up with the place if I tried — I don’t know how all those people have time to do anything else, the posts and comments come so thick and fast. But — I keep going there because unlike at LGM, they regularly make me laugh. Plus, I get a lot of news links from there. Plus, the front-pagers are wicked smaht.
Joe from Lowell stands out for some reason.
Lowell is a special place. 🙂
I do look at BJ every day.
Ditto. A good mix of funny and informative. Some of the folks on the front page there know their stuff.
Plus, pet and garden pictures. And recipes.
Joe from Lowell stands out for some reason.
Lowell is a special place. 🙂
I do look at BJ every day.
Ditto. A good mix of funny and informative. Some of the folks on the front page there know their stuff.
Plus, pet and garden pictures. And recipes.
The Republican Standard Bearer has fired the WH counsel.
everything is fine.
nothing to see here.
The Republican Standard Bearer has fired the WH counsel.
everything is fine.
nothing to see here.
“nothing to see here”
Except the witches.
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=28303
The Republican mp base is stoked to kill Americans when the shit fits the fan.
“nothing to see here”
Except the witches.
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=28303
The Republican mp base is stoked to kill Americans when the shit fits the fan.
Is this relevant?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/technology/inside-facebook-employees-political-bias.html
Is this relevant?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/technology/inside-facebook-employees-political-bias.html
Lowell is a special place. 🙂
That’s where The Fighter was set and filmed. It reminded me a lot of Gloucester City, NJ.
Lowell is a special place. 🙂
That’s where The Fighter was set and filmed. It reminded me a lot of Gloucester City, NJ.
It’s my understanding that Ukrainian nationalists are united in opposition to the Russian annexation of Crimea, and the prior meddling in their democracy (the installation of Yanukovych with the help of our own Paul Manafort). Ukrainian nationalists include people on the right and left, including far-right people you mention.
I would never cite fair.org, which is staffed by Putin apologists, and people who believe that concerns about Russian intervention (both in Brexit and the 2016 election) is a conspiracy theory. You seem to have bought into that, Donald.
It’s my understanding that Ukrainian nationalists are united in opposition to the Russian annexation of Crimea, and the prior meddling in their democracy (the installation of Yanukovych with the help of our own Paul Manafort). Ukrainian nationalists include people on the right and left, including far-right people you mention.
I would never cite fair.org, which is staffed by Putin apologists, and people who believe that concerns about Russian intervention (both in Brexit and the 2016 election) is a conspiracy theory. You seem to have bought into that, Donald.
i’d tell anyone trying to start a politically-based group to keep their politics out of the workplace because it’s just going to cause friction.
i have no idea if FB is biased because i only see what it chooses to show me based on what it knows about me.
i’d tell anyone trying to start a politically-based group to keep their politics out of the workplace because it’s just going to cause friction.
i have no idea if FB is biased because i only see what it chooses to show me based on what it knows about me.
My RW friends spend 90% of their time being political blowhards and cranks on fb, and that’s what I see after blocking the really ridiculous sites they get their stupid posts from. I can’t begin to imagine the BS they’re posting that I’ve already filtered out.
If fb is that biased against conservatives and Republicans and anyone else who loves them some DT, they’re not very good at acting on it.
But you don’t have to trust me any more than I have to trust 100 cranks at fb (out of their 25k employees).
My RW friends spend 90% of their time being political blowhards and cranks on fb, and that’s what I see after blocking the really ridiculous sites they get their stupid posts from. I can’t begin to imagine the BS they’re posting that I’ve already filtered out.
If fb is that biased against conservatives and Republicans and anyone else who loves them some DT, they’re not very good at acting on it.
But you don’t have to trust me any more than I have to trust 100 cranks at fb (out of their 25k employees).
From McTX’s NYT link: Mr. Amerige proposed that Facebook employees debate their political ideas in the new group.
Debate theirs, or agree with his?
If his group gets 10 “liberals” calling He, Trump a racist, misogynist, petulant dirty old man in cahoots with Putin for every “conservative” who claims He is Making America Great Again, will Mr. Amerige whine about being “mobbed”?
–TP
From McTX’s NYT link: Mr. Amerige proposed that Facebook employees debate their political ideas in the new group.
Debate theirs, or agree with his?
If his group gets 10 “liberals” calling He, Trump a racist, misogynist, petulant dirty old man in cahoots with Putin for every “conservative” who claims He is Making America Great Again, will Mr. Amerige whine about being “mobbed”?
–TP
Is this relevant?
I don’t know how to answer this. Relevant to what?
Not being snarky, I just don’t understand what it is you want to know.
Is this relevant?
I don’t know how to answer this. Relevant to what?
Not being snarky, I just don’t understand what it is you want to know.
The Count’s link from cleek’s place is literally incredible. I’m not extrapolating numbers out, but that is a church somewhere in Alabama (cleek thinks), and that is what’s happening there. Oh my god.
The Count’s link from cleek’s place is literally incredible. I’m not extrapolating numbers out, but that is a church somewhere in Alabama (cleek thinks), and that is what’s happening there. Oh my god.
I’ve only looked at BJ once or twice, and not for long. After Janie’s and russell’s testimonials, I’ll give it more of a whirl.
I’ve only looked at BJ once or twice, and not for long. After Janie’s and russell’s testimonials, I’ll give it more of a whirl.
I think this rather less irrelevant, and more interesting:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/trump-has-changed-how-teens-view-the-news/568783/
Though I have to say that their news sources look a little short on detail…
I think this rather less irrelevant, and more interesting:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/trump-has-changed-how-teens-view-the-news/568783/
Though I have to say that their news sources look a little short on detail…
I don’t do Facebook. I can’t tell whether Zuckerberg is liberal or conservative, but that is irrelevant either way, because I know he is a smarmy, two-faced, self dealing, ruthless mofo, so screw him.
But the New York Times article is light on details about where this “ideological diversity” Mr Amerige desires is supposed to exist or express itself, let alone be relevant.
On Facebook, the social media site?
In the hallways and break rooms at Facebook headquarters?
In Board meetings?
Where?
Among their Washington lobbyists?
Does the bathroom graffiti lean socialist? What?
For what? To reinstate Alex Jones’ privileges? What about Stalin’s privileges in the interest of fairness and free inquiry. Maybe I liked the starvation of the Ukraine and dang it, my office mates had better sit quietly and listen to me spout off about it with non-judgemental, ideologically neutral expressions on their faces.
Next week, Josie in accounting will present the upside of life for the prisoners at Treblinka. You may change your mind about the Third Reich when you hear her presentation.
Where in any corporate culture is ideological diversity a relevant thing?
The Wall Street Journal or Investor’s Business Daily editorial pages?
Is a middle level manager at one of the Koch Brothers enterprises permitted to address employees ad hoc in the lunchroom regarding the desirability of keeping the Obama-era EPA standards for coal-burning utilities or oilfield fracking?
Is the controller at the Sierra Club to be provided equal time on the non-profit’s time for airing his personal opinion that the Bundy family be given private title to all of the federal lands west of the Mississippi River?
Is Chuck at the Subaru dealership to be given the space for the airing of his freely expressed ideological opinions that the Japs should all have been nuked, not just Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and by the way, he adds loudly in the showroom, when there is heavy foot traffic, why aren’t you patriotic Americans down the street buying Cadillacs?
Is this relevant?
https://www.google.com/search?q=43%25+percent+of+republicans+want+to+give+trump+the+power+to+censor+the+new+york+times+and+the+washington&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS774US774&oq=43%25+percent+of+republicans+want+to+give+trump+the+power+to+censor+the+new+york+times+and+the+washington&aqs=chrome..69i57.210882j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
mp will given this power, mind you, the poll respondents agreed. NOT the government … no, mp alone, so where does it say in the Constitution that mp cannot censor or shut down the New York Times, which printed this article, the Washington Post, and CNN?
Mr Amerige sounds as nuts as any campus social justice warrior.
If America is indeed an experiment, if we can keep it, notice that there is acrid, poisonous smoke billowing from the laboratory’s central power plant and the fire extinguishers, fume hoods, and water baths are inoperable, either by neglect or sabotage and no one locked down the cholera lab within.
I’ve had a few letters to the editors to newspapers printed, but many more not.
As an aside, two of them were followed up by threatening hate mail from anonymous conservative religious assholes, one of which was investigated by the FBI.
But, I’m calling my attorney.
Every word I put to print deserves publishing, doesn’t it?
That’s my right, RIGHT?
No. It’s not.
And if I’m banned from commenting here at OBWI for my fulminations, that’s the OBWI hivemind’s right, RIGHT?
Yes, it is.
I’ll just go on my merry way.
That said, I want the Fairness Doctrine for journalistic enterprises reinstated.
Then, when Alex Jones and mp threaten me, I can threaten them back in kind.
I don’t do Facebook. I can’t tell whether Zuckerberg is liberal or conservative, but that is irrelevant either way, because I know he is a smarmy, two-faced, self dealing, ruthless mofo, so screw him.
But the New York Times article is light on details about where this “ideological diversity” Mr Amerige desires is supposed to exist or express itself, let alone be relevant.
On Facebook, the social media site?
In the hallways and break rooms at Facebook headquarters?
In Board meetings?
Where?
Among their Washington lobbyists?
Does the bathroom graffiti lean socialist? What?
For what? To reinstate Alex Jones’ privileges? What about Stalin’s privileges in the interest of fairness and free inquiry. Maybe I liked the starvation of the Ukraine and dang it, my office mates had better sit quietly and listen to me spout off about it with non-judgemental, ideologically neutral expressions on their faces.
Next week, Josie in accounting will present the upside of life for the prisoners at Treblinka. You may change your mind about the Third Reich when you hear her presentation.
Where in any corporate culture is ideological diversity a relevant thing?
The Wall Street Journal or Investor’s Business Daily editorial pages?
Is a middle level manager at one of the Koch Brothers enterprises permitted to address employees ad hoc in the lunchroom regarding the desirability of keeping the Obama-era EPA standards for coal-burning utilities or oilfield fracking?
Is the controller at the Sierra Club to be provided equal time on the non-profit’s time for airing his personal opinion that the Bundy family be given private title to all of the federal lands west of the Mississippi River?
Is Chuck at the Subaru dealership to be given the space for the airing of his freely expressed ideological opinions that the Japs should all have been nuked, not just Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and by the way, he adds loudly in the showroom, when there is heavy foot traffic, why aren’t you patriotic Americans down the street buying Cadillacs?
Is this relevant?
https://www.google.com/search?q=43%25+percent+of+republicans+want+to+give+trump+the+power+to+censor+the+new+york+times+and+the+washington&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS774US774&oq=43%25+percent+of+republicans+want+to+give+trump+the+power+to+censor+the+new+york+times+and+the+washington&aqs=chrome..69i57.210882j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
mp will given this power, mind you, the poll respondents agreed. NOT the government … no, mp alone, so where does it say in the Constitution that mp cannot censor or shut down the New York Times, which printed this article, the Washington Post, and CNN?
Mr Amerige sounds as nuts as any campus social justice warrior.
If America is indeed an experiment, if we can keep it, notice that there is acrid, poisonous smoke billowing from the laboratory’s central power plant and the fire extinguishers, fume hoods, and water baths are inoperable, either by neglect or sabotage and no one locked down the cholera lab within.
I’ve had a few letters to the editors to newspapers printed, but many more not.
As an aside, two of them were followed up by threatening hate mail from anonymous conservative religious assholes, one of which was investigated by the FBI.
But, I’m calling my attorney.
Every word I put to print deserves publishing, doesn’t it?
That’s my right, RIGHT?
No. It’s not.
And if I’m banned from commenting here at OBWI for my fulminations, that’s the OBWI hivemind’s right, RIGHT?
Yes, it is.
I’ll just go on my merry way.
That said, I want the Fairness Doctrine for journalistic enterprises reinstated.
Then, when Alex Jones and mp threaten me, I can threaten them back in kind.
Should reporters be able to sue their editors for editing and proofreading their copy.
How dare those eye-shaded know-it-alls at the COPYDESK, which is elevated a little too much like an ivory-towered elitist platform for my bohunk tastes, censor crack(ed) reporting?
I ask you.
Should reporters be able to sue their editors for editing and proofreading their copy.
How dare those eye-shaded know-it-alls at the COPYDESK, which is elevated a little too much like an ivory-towered elitist platform for my bohunk tastes, censor crack(ed) reporting?
I ask you.
Does Mr. Amerige wish to flagrantly use Snapchat as an expression of his ideological positioning while in a strategy meeting with Zuckerberg and company?
Are you telling me that if Mr Amerige stood on his desk at Facebook (do they have desks there, or just pods, like aliens?) and decried the awful burden of taxation by government, that his fellow employees would rise as one and tell him to shut his gob, that they LOVE taxes and the higher the better, especially on stock options?
Does Mr. Amerige wish to flagrantly use Snapchat as an expression of his ideological positioning while in a strategy meeting with Zuckerberg and company?
Are you telling me that if Mr Amerige stood on his desk at Facebook (do they have desks there, or just pods, like aliens?) and decried the awful burden of taxation by government, that his fellow employees would rise as one and tell him to shut his gob, that they LOVE taxes and the higher the better, especially on stock options?
Spelling and grammar (not to mention logical thought) are just elitist tools to oppress the masses! Even the slightly more elite journalist masses.
Spelling and grammar (not to mention logical thought) are just elitist tools to oppress the masses! Even the slightly more elite journalist masses.
Maybe Mr. Amerige merely wished to express his opinion at Facebook that women and/or gays, and/or blacks couldn’t do HIS job if they had three hands and a hand-stitched affirmative action certificate from Harvard.
Well then, the ideological position of the groups listed above should be in the fighting stance Ken Norton adopted just prior to knocking Muhammad Ali’s mouth guard into the third row of spectators.
Let freedom ring.
Count to ten.
Maybe Mr. Amerige merely wished to express his opinion at Facebook that women and/or gays, and/or blacks couldn’t do HIS job if they had three hands and a hand-stitched affirmative action certificate from Harvard.
Well then, the ideological position of the groups listed above should be in the fighting stance Ken Norton adopted just prior to knocking Muhammad Ali’s mouth guard into the third row of spectators.
Let freedom ring.
Count to ten.
Great piece at 06.11 Count. I’m particularly fond of Chuck at the Subaru dealership.
Great piece at 06.11 Count. I’m particularly fond of Chuck at the Subaru dealership.
What about Stalin’s privileges in the interest of fairness and free inquiry. Maybe I liked the starvation of the Ukraine and dang it, my office mates had better sit quietly and listen to me spout off about it with non-judgemental, ideologically neutral expressions on their faces.
Thanks for the reminder, Count. I’ll append mention of that to my 4:04 pm.
What about Stalin’s privileges in the interest of fairness and free inquiry. Maybe I liked the starvation of the Ukraine and dang it, my office mates had better sit quietly and listen to me spout off about it with non-judgemental, ideologically neutral expressions on their faces.
Thanks for the reminder, Count. I’ll append mention of that to my 4:04 pm.
“I would never cite fair.org, which is staffed by Putin apologists, and people who believe that concerns about Russian intervention (both in Brexit and the 2016 election) is a conspiracy theory. You seem to have bought into that, Donald.”
Not exactly. I do a far amount of eyerolling over the obsession with Russia, which seems no different from the obsessions in the Cold War. You could think the old Soviet Union was bad and still not be a fan of the often murderous anticommunism of that era. There’s usually multiple ways to be on the wrong side of human rights issues. Humans are good at that.
I think a fair number of people in the military industrial complex ( which nowadays often seems to get called the Deep State) probably have an interest in having a dastardly foreign enemy and they also come in handy as scapegoats for all our own failings. I am pretty sure Russia was behind Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the Peterson foundations’s obsession with entitlements (aka keeping old people out of poverty), racist dogwhistling tactics in American political campaigns, the civil rights movement, riots in the 60’s and probably the slave trade, using their Markovich I Time travel machine. We were a perfect undivided society until a handful of Facebook accounts and some tinkering with the space time continuum ruined everything.
Actually, I think Russia did some stuff. Most of it we did to ourselves. I will wait to see what Mueller ends up with to see how much Trump collusion there was. And all of it together is about one thousandth of a percent as morally significant as our complicity in mass murder in Yemen, under two administrations.
“I would never cite fair.org, which is staffed by Putin apologists, and people who believe that concerns about Russian intervention (both in Brexit and the 2016 election) is a conspiracy theory. You seem to have bought into that, Donald.”
Not exactly. I do a far amount of eyerolling over the obsession with Russia, which seems no different from the obsessions in the Cold War. You could think the old Soviet Union was bad and still not be a fan of the often murderous anticommunism of that era. There’s usually multiple ways to be on the wrong side of human rights issues. Humans are good at that.
I think a fair number of people in the military industrial complex ( which nowadays often seems to get called the Deep State) probably have an interest in having a dastardly foreign enemy and they also come in handy as scapegoats for all our own failings. I am pretty sure Russia was behind Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the Peterson foundations’s obsession with entitlements (aka keeping old people out of poverty), racist dogwhistling tactics in American political campaigns, the civil rights movement, riots in the 60’s and probably the slave trade, using their Markovich I Time travel machine. We were a perfect undivided society until a handful of Facebook accounts and some tinkering with the space time continuum ruined everything.
Actually, I think Russia did some stuff. Most of it we did to ourselves. I will wait to see what Mueller ends up with to see how much Trump collusion there was. And all of it together is about one thousandth of a percent as morally significant as our complicity in mass murder in Yemen, under two administrations.
Most of it we did to ourselves.
True. By buying into Russia’s narrative. But I’ll leave it to other people to battle about this. I’ll go read LGM, and I have a very strong feeling that this issue, and Greenwald (not “sarcasm” ), is why you don’t like Scott Lemieux.
I’m off to watch TV before I am unwelcome.
Most of it we did to ourselves.
True. By buying into Russia’s narrative. But I’ll leave it to other people to battle about this. I’ll go read LGM, and I have a very strong feeling that this issue, and Greenwald (not “sarcasm” ), is why you don’t like Scott Lemieux.
I’m off to watch TV before I am unwelcome.
I don’t do Facebook.
I like seeing pictures of my nieces’ kids and keeping up with old friends.
Actually, I think Russia did some stuff.
Ya think?
Most of it we did to ourselves.
The issue with Russia is not what Russia did. Russia’s just doing what everybody does, to greater or lesser degree – try to influence events and points of view to be favorable to their interests.
The issue with Russia is principals of Trump’s campaign and members of his immediate family sitting around the table trading favors with people connected to a foreign government.
I will wait to see what Mueller ends up with to see how much Trump collusion there was.
Works for me.
I don’t do Facebook.
I like seeing pictures of my nieces’ kids and keeping up with old friends.
Actually, I think Russia did some stuff.
Ya think?
Most of it we did to ourselves.
The issue with Russia is not what Russia did. Russia’s just doing what everybody does, to greater or lesser degree – try to influence events and points of view to be favorable to their interests.
The issue with Russia is principals of Trump’s campaign and members of his immediate family sitting around the table trading favors with people connected to a foreign government.
I will wait to see what Mueller ends up with to see how much Trump collusion there was.
Works for me.
I’m off to watch TV before I am unwelcome.
My wife and I dig Madame Secretary these days.
I’m off to watch TV before I am unwelcome.
My wife and I dig Madame Secretary these days.
Thanks, russell!
Thanks, russell!
As for Nazi influence in the Ukraine, that has finally been getting mainstream coverage.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/congress-members-call-out-ukraine-government-for-glorifying-nazis/
My feelings on sarcasm at blogs goes way back. I already said I dislike it more with Scott because of his politics, but I also find it wearisome after awhile with everyone, including myself. As for Glenn and some other people on the far left that I read, their sarcasm almost certainly weakens their outreach. GG in particular picks unnecessary fights over topics that aren’t that important.
My actual writer hero these days is Larison, who sticks to a handful of issues and always treats them with the seriousness they deserve. He is sometimes dull, I suppose, because he keeps pounding out the same handful of messages, but someone should be doing this. I know the counterattack people made on him a year or two ago and I won’t raise it here, because in the years I have seen him write his column at TAC he has never ever raised it.
We would all be better off as a society if people treated various issues with the seriousness Larison does. As far as I am concerned, if that were the norm Glenn could retire from picking fights and focus on his dog rescue project.
As for Nazi influence in the Ukraine, that has finally been getting mainstream coverage.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/congress-members-call-out-ukraine-government-for-glorifying-nazis/
My feelings on sarcasm at blogs goes way back. I already said I dislike it more with Scott because of his politics, but I also find it wearisome after awhile with everyone, including myself. As for Glenn and some other people on the far left that I read, their sarcasm almost certainly weakens their outreach. GG in particular picks unnecessary fights over topics that aren’t that important.
My actual writer hero these days is Larison, who sticks to a handful of issues and always treats them with the seriousness they deserve. He is sometimes dull, I suppose, because he keeps pounding out the same handful of messages, but someone should be doing this. I know the counterattack people made on him a year or two ago and I won’t raise it here, because in the years I have seen him write his column at TAC he has never ever raised it.
We would all be better off as a society if people treated various issues with the seriousness Larison does. As far as I am concerned, if that were the norm Glenn could retire from picking fights and focus on his dog rescue project.
Larisons great. very little overlap with my point of view but that’s fine.
I won’t read TAC as long as they give Buchanan a soapbox. folks here are worked up about Loomis – Buchanan is a belligerent fascist, and I don’t use that word lightly or in ignorance.
gnats and camels, y’all.
Larisons great. very little overlap with my point of view but that’s fine.
I won’t read TAC as long as they give Buchanan a soapbox. folks here are worked up about Loomis – Buchanan is a belligerent fascist, and I don’t use that word lightly or in ignorance.
gnats and camels, y’all.
“I won’t read TAC as long as they give Buchanan a soapbox.”
Your choice. I think it is a mistake. TAC has about the widest variety of people on the front page and in comments that you will find anywhere and I find that educational in itself. Some of the conservatives in the comments ( just a fraction of them) I would probably ban on sight if I had a blog, but it is, well, a safe way to see the kind of lunacy out there. Of course it is just people online saying stuff and maybe conservatives here would see the Count and think the same, but I don’t think it is the same. White nationalist types, sometimes imo with not so thinly veiled wishes for death squads.
But the good stuff is really good. Not on everything. But on foreign policy I am closer to them than to anyone, including the far left. The problem with the far left is that the anti interventionist sentiments are sometimes coupled with romanticizing of some foreign group. In Vietnam days you couldn’t just oppose our role, you supported the NLF. At TAC there isn’t that extra ideological ingredient— it is just “why are we helping the Saudis murder people for no good reason?” Why do we think we can help the world by bombing it? It is realism, but not the mad bomber Kissingerian strain.
“I won’t read TAC as long as they give Buchanan a soapbox.”
Your choice. I think it is a mistake. TAC has about the widest variety of people on the front page and in comments that you will find anywhere and I find that educational in itself. Some of the conservatives in the comments ( just a fraction of them) I would probably ban on sight if I had a blog, but it is, well, a safe way to see the kind of lunacy out there. Of course it is just people online saying stuff and maybe conservatives here would see the Count and think the same, but I don’t think it is the same. White nationalist types, sometimes imo with not so thinly veiled wishes for death squads.
But the good stuff is really good. Not on everything. But on foreign policy I am closer to them than to anyone, including the far left. The problem with the far left is that the anti interventionist sentiments are sometimes coupled with romanticizing of some foreign group. In Vietnam days you couldn’t just oppose our role, you supported the NLF. At TAC there isn’t that extra ideological ingredient— it is just “why are we helping the Saudis murder people for no good reason?” Why do we think we can help the world by bombing it? It is realism, but not the mad bomber Kissingerian strain.
Incidentally, I read the NYT even though they regularly publish two people who I think are blatant racists who justify the cold blooded murder of protestors. This gets into that other topic.
Incidentally, I read the NYT even though they regularly publish two people who I think are blatant racists who justify the cold blooded murder of protestors. This gets into that other topic.
In Vietnam days you couldn’t just oppose our role, you supported the NLF. At TAC there isn’t that extra ideological ingredient— it is just “why are we helping the Saudis murder people for no good reason?”
Isn’t that precisely because of that strain of far right isolationist thought?
I do think you need to take individual writers as they come and not lump them in their group, so I appreciate everyone trying to separate out the LGM crew rather than lump them all together.
As for ‘reading’ the NYTimes, I think there are two ways to read, the subscription model where you go through it each day or the hit the links model. But even if you open up the site everyday, there is a different in engagement, which is why I think it’s important to take on individual writers rather than the site, though at some point, the fact that the site sanctions particular posters can be problematic. Given that the NYTimes is still based on the old model of publishing, saying that there are blatant racists in those pages is a bit different that saying there are blatant racists on a website, imo.
In Vietnam days you couldn’t just oppose our role, you supported the NLF. At TAC there isn’t that extra ideological ingredient— it is just “why are we helping the Saudis murder people for no good reason?”
Isn’t that precisely because of that strain of far right isolationist thought?
I do think you need to take individual writers as they come and not lump them in their group, so I appreciate everyone trying to separate out the LGM crew rather than lump them all together.
As for ‘reading’ the NYTimes, I think there are two ways to read, the subscription model where you go through it each day or the hit the links model. But even if you open up the site everyday, there is a different in engagement, which is why I think it’s important to take on individual writers rather than the site, though at some point, the fact that the site sanctions particular posters can be problematic. Given that the NYTimes is still based on the old model of publishing, saying that there are blatant racists in those pages is a bit different that saying there are blatant racists on a website, imo.
Donald,
I can understand your disgust with American “intervention” in the world because I share much of it. I can even understand focusing on American “intervention” in Yemen and Palestine rather than, say, Putin’s “intervention” in Syria and Ukraine: as Americans, we can hope to affect our own government’s policies but not so much Russia’s or China’s.
But I am at a loss when you start suggesting that we make too much of Putin’s collaborators in the current so-called government of the US. How exactly would the issues you care about be addressed better if He, Trump and his toadies got away with their collaboration and managed to consolidate their power?
–TP
Donald,
I can understand your disgust with American “intervention” in the world because I share much of it. I can even understand focusing on American “intervention” in Yemen and Palestine rather than, say, Putin’s “intervention” in Syria and Ukraine: as Americans, we can hope to affect our own government’s policies but not so much Russia’s or China’s.
But I am at a loss when you start suggesting that we make too much of Putin’s collaborators in the current so-called government of the US. How exactly would the issues you care about be addressed better if He, Trump and his toadies got away with their collaboration and managed to consolidate their power?
–TP
Buchanan is a belligerent fascist
Also an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier. A disreputable man who should be shunned by all decent people.
Buchanan is a belligerent fascist
Also an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier. A disreputable man who should be shunned by all decent people.
Having absented myself from commenting on (or even reading closely) this blog for a while, let me offer a partial explanation: I’ve very recently been diagnosed with cancer. Operation in just over two weeks, 50% chance of survival (i.e., non-recurrence within 5 year) with a considerably constrained lifestyle (e.g., they mentioned in passing I’d never have an erection again. So every time I jerk off I wonder “Is this the last time?”)
However, I’ve now breezed through this thread and want to throw in a couple of incoherent comments.
First, McK’s shorthand version of what much conservatism consists of strikes me as spot-on, and since this may be the first time I’ve agreed with him outright in all these years, I think it should be noted.
Second (however, again), WRT McK’s talk about “we can’t afford” this or that – AND the responses thereto: How come no one whatsoever (unless I missed it) has pointed out that the USA spends a metric fuckton (to use scientifically precise vocabulary) more on “defense” [sic – it was more honest when it was the War Department] than any other nation, or in fact than all the other “top” countries combined? We could easily chop 30% off there and afford healthcare for all, a chicken in every pot, and a pony! C’mon guys, lets strategize.
As you may have noticed, one of my responses to cancer is self-medication. Through alcohol.
Having absented myself from commenting on (or even reading closely) this blog for a while, let me offer a partial explanation: I’ve very recently been diagnosed with cancer. Operation in just over two weeks, 50% chance of survival (i.e., non-recurrence within 5 year) with a considerably constrained lifestyle (e.g., they mentioned in passing I’d never have an erection again. So every time I jerk off I wonder “Is this the last time?”)
However, I’ve now breezed through this thread and want to throw in a couple of incoherent comments.
First, McK’s shorthand version of what much conservatism consists of strikes me as spot-on, and since this may be the first time I’ve agreed with him outright in all these years, I think it should be noted.
Second (however, again), WRT McK’s talk about “we can’t afford” this or that – AND the responses thereto: How come no one whatsoever (unless I missed it) has pointed out that the USA spends a metric fuckton (to use scientifically precise vocabulary) more on “defense” [sic – it was more honest when it was the War Department] than any other nation, or in fact than all the other “top” countries combined? We could easily chop 30% off there and afford healthcare for all, a chicken in every pot, and a pony! C’mon guys, lets strategize.
As you may have noticed, one of my responses to cancer is self-medication. Through alcohol.
Hang in there, dr. 50-50 is still in glass half full territory.
All the best.
Hang in there, dr. 50-50 is still in glass half full territory.
All the best.
I’ve tried Balloon Juice, and it didn’t do much for me, especially during the Dem primary.
I find it hilarious that most here, who share Lemieux’s politics, find his style so, um….not enjoyable. Lemieux does go in for the sarcasm for sure. I might be an odd duck, but I enjoy it. Beyond that the legal analysis is very educational, and they provide a lot of great links. Loomis is good, too. Some of you should read his book, Out of Sight.
And he hates ketchsup. We all should.
I’ve tried Balloon Juice, and it didn’t do much for me, especially during the Dem primary.
I find it hilarious that most here, who share Lemieux’s politics, find his style so, um….not enjoyable. Lemieux does go in for the sarcasm for sure. I might be an odd duck, but I enjoy it. Beyond that the legal analysis is very educational, and they provide a lot of great links. Loomis is good, too. Some of you should read his book, Out of Sight.
And he hates ketchsup. We all should.
dr ngo: I’ll join what I’m sure is our collective hope that you beat this thing. Don’t be a stranger. We’re with you.
dr ngo: I’ll join what I’m sure is our collective hope that you beat this thing. Don’t be a stranger. We’re with you.
Donald,
I get the impression that Larison is viewing foreign policy through the lens of ‘traditional’ isolationism of American conservatives. Robert Taft was its paragon.
One could say he is for the right things for all the wrong reasons.
Donald,
I get the impression that Larison is viewing foreign policy through the lens of ‘traditional’ isolationism of American conservatives. Robert Taft was its paragon.
One could say he is for the right things for all the wrong reasons.
Loomis’s trolling exaggerated intolerances for ketchup, vodka, turkey, and most rock music that’s older than the punk wave are amusing when first encountered, are old hat on third sight, and wear less and less well as they are repeated.
I really appreciate his series on the graves and bios of certain Americans, and the “This Day In Labor History” series, which I think is some of the best left material on the net.
OTOH, I often dislike the tone of his comments when he disagrees with someone.
So I take what I need and I leave the rest.
Loomis’s trolling exaggerated intolerances for ketchup, vodka, turkey, and most rock music that’s older than the punk wave are amusing when first encountered, are old hat on third sight, and wear less and less well as they are repeated.
I really appreciate his series on the graves and bios of certain Americans, and the “This Day In Labor History” series, which I think is some of the best left material on the net.
OTOH, I often dislike the tone of his comments when he disagrees with someone.
So I take what I need and I leave the rest.
dr ngo, best of luck. I hope your medication is top tier.
dr ngo, best of luck. I hope your medication is top tier.
dr ngo, it’s hard for me to write something to express how much it sucks to read about your diagnosis. Anything I can come up with sounds like a platitude. The best expression of my current sentiment is “f**k me.”
dr ngo, it’s hard for me to write something to express how much it sucks to read about your diagnosis. Anything I can come up with sounds like a platitude. The best expression of my current sentiment is “f**k me.”
Dr Ngo:
Your coherency had never been more on display, and I like this new edge to your voice, though not the reason for it, by which I don’t mean the drinking.
I agree, what is all the getting for, if we end up never being able to afford it.
Not speaking for anyone else, but I have a feeling you aren’t the only one who wonders when he jerks off … “Is this the last time?”
Aren’t we always supposed to feel guilty since puberty via the usual prim conservative suspects and concern tolls, who can’t seem to keep their hands off the alter boys and the Senate pages their own selves, and promise each time is the last time.
Many happy returns. After all, as Woody Allen quipped, don’t knock it. It’s sex with someone you love.
Best to you and to your family.
Also, f*ck me, too.
Joel Hanes:
“So I take what I need and I leave the rest.”
Thus a way, a necessary one, to conduct one’s life, in order to avoid wasting finite time.
Dr Ngo:
Your coherency had never been more on display, and I like this new edge to your voice, though not the reason for it, by which I don’t mean the drinking.
I agree, what is all the getting for, if we end up never being able to afford it.
Not speaking for anyone else, but I have a feeling you aren’t the only one who wonders when he jerks off … “Is this the last time?”
Aren’t we always supposed to feel guilty since puberty via the usual prim conservative suspects and concern tolls, who can’t seem to keep their hands off the alter boys and the Senate pages their own selves, and promise each time is the last time.
Many happy returns. After all, as Woody Allen quipped, don’t knock it. It’s sex with someone you love.
Best to you and to your family.
Also, f*ck me, too.
Joel Hanes:
“So I take what I need and I leave the rest.”
Thus a way, a necessary one, to conduct one’s life, in order to avoid wasting finite time.
Regarding Buchanan, I rarely miss a chance to exhort “Lock and Load” on his threads.
Sometimes it doesn’t make it thru moderation, which is funny sort of word for a Buchanan post.
Dreher makes lame excuses for him.
I like Larison as well.
It’s a literate site, so I read it.
Same with LGM.
Regarding Buchanan, I rarely miss a chance to exhort “Lock and Load” on his threads.
Sometimes it doesn’t make it thru moderation, which is funny sort of word for a Buchanan post.
Dreher makes lame excuses for him.
I like Larison as well.
It’s a literate site, so I read it.
Same with LGM.
I hate the Republican Party and it’s deep, corrupt, murderous state:
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/08/republican-super-pac-tries-to-tie-dem-candidate-to-terror-high/
I hate the Republican Party and it’s deep, corrupt, murderous state:
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/08/republican-super-pac-tries-to-tie-dem-candidate-to-terror-high/
dr ngo, more power to your surgeon’s knife, and to your elbow. The very best of luck and good wishes to you!
dr ngo, more power to your surgeon’s knife, and to your elbow. The very best of luck and good wishes to you!
Your choice.
Yup.
If you dig it, have at it. I like Larison, and I’ve never read anything by Larison where I couldn’t predict pretty much exactly what he would say.
Nothing wrong with that, it just means the urgency of reading him is less than compelling.
It is true, he seems like a good guy and doesn’t seem to want to kill anybody. That is in his favor.
Dr Ngo, I’m sure I speak for all when I say that all of our best thoughts are with you. The downside of online friendships is that the opportunities to express our intentions in more tangible ways are limited, but if any such opportunities exist please don’t hesitate.
So good to hear from you, please don’t be a stranger.
Your choice.
Yup.
If you dig it, have at it. I like Larison, and I’ve never read anything by Larison where I couldn’t predict pretty much exactly what he would say.
Nothing wrong with that, it just means the urgency of reading him is less than compelling.
It is true, he seems like a good guy and doesn’t seem to want to kill anybody. That is in his favor.
Dr Ngo, I’m sure I speak for all when I say that all of our best thoughts are with you. The downside of online friendships is that the opportunities to express our intentions in more tangible ways are limited, but if any such opportunities exist please don’t hesitate.
So good to hear from you, please don’t be a stranger.
Best wishes for you, Dr. Ngo. I can’t imagine what I would be feeling in your shoes.
Best wishes for you, Dr. Ngo. I can’t imagine what I would be feeling in your shoes.
“But I am at a loss when you start suggesting that we make too much of Putin’s collaborators in the current so-called government of the US. How exactly would the issues you care about be addressed better if He, Trump and his toadies got away with their collaboration and managed to consolidate their power?”
I would suggest investigating Trump and his cronies to see what laws they may have broken and then prosecuting or impeaching them if appropriate. Which is what is being done. The impeaching part might or might not be possible.
My complaint is that the relative attention given to Russiagate vs complicity in crimes against humanity is out of whack. The extreme example of this is MSNBC, but the press in general is bad. We should have had constant coverage of Yemen from the beginning and not just on what is happening over there, but who supports it over here and why and also why a significant number of Democrats shifted once Obama left. (Most Republicans, with few exceptions, have been consistently pro war.) A measure of just how bad the coverage has been is in NYT comment sections, where after they condemned our role in subtlety partisan terms many readers seemed misled into thinking this was all Trump’s fault. So a systemic problem in our foreign policy gets shoehorned into the pleasing partisan narrative. People should have been talking about this from the start.
Bobbyp— Larison’s opposition is in very large part driven by moral concerns. We shouldn’t be murdering children. I have never read much about Taft, so I can’t say what drove him, but the term isolationist is overused. Larison was a strong supporter of the Iran deal, but opposes our military interventionism. He doesn’t want us to withdraw from the world and constantly bashes Trump’s idiotic and arrogant approaches to diplomacy. The term isolationism has been used inaccurately to smear anti interventionists because of the stances people took in the 1930’s, but Iran is not Nazi Germany and yet we are constantly told that every intervention is justified because people who oppose it are like the 30’s isolationists. You know all this.
“But I am at a loss when you start suggesting that we make too much of Putin’s collaborators in the current so-called government of the US. How exactly would the issues you care about be addressed better if He, Trump and his toadies got away with their collaboration and managed to consolidate their power?”
I would suggest investigating Trump and his cronies to see what laws they may have broken and then prosecuting or impeaching them if appropriate. Which is what is being done. The impeaching part might or might not be possible.
My complaint is that the relative attention given to Russiagate vs complicity in crimes against humanity is out of whack. The extreme example of this is MSNBC, but the press in general is bad. We should have had constant coverage of Yemen from the beginning and not just on what is happening over there, but who supports it over here and why and also why a significant number of Democrats shifted once Obama left. (Most Republicans, with few exceptions, have been consistently pro war.) A measure of just how bad the coverage has been is in NYT comment sections, where after they condemned our role in subtlety partisan terms many readers seemed misled into thinking this was all Trump’s fault. So a systemic problem in our foreign policy gets shoehorned into the pleasing partisan narrative. People should have been talking about this from the start.
Bobbyp— Larison’s opposition is in very large part driven by moral concerns. We shouldn’t be murdering children. I have never read much about Taft, so I can’t say what drove him, but the term isolationist is overused. Larison was a strong supporter of the Iran deal, but opposes our military interventionism. He doesn’t want us to withdraw from the world and constantly bashes Trump’s idiotic and arrogant approaches to diplomacy. The term isolationism has been used inaccurately to smear anti interventionists because of the stances people took in the 1930’s, but Iran is not Nazi Germany and yet we are constantly told that every intervention is justified because people who oppose it are like the 30’s isolationists. You know all this.
“Subtlety” should be, well, something else. My iPad and I are confused.
“Subtlety” should be, well, something else. My iPad and I are confused.
Iran is not Nazi Germany and yet we are constantly told that every intervention is justified because people who oppose it are like the 30’s isolationists…
Consistently ?
The last administration signed a deal with Iran, which is still supported by Europe despite the efforts of the current administration to sabotage it.
Even McCain, enthusiast for the Iraq war (and many others) that he was, admitted later that he was wrong.
I agree with your feelings about Yemen wholeheartedly, but I also believe the Trump administration to be a threat to both Constituition and rule of law in the US. Absent those, the chance of doing much to change the Yemen policy is limited indeed.
Iran is not Nazi Germany and yet we are constantly told that every intervention is justified because people who oppose it are like the 30’s isolationists…
Consistently ?
The last administration signed a deal with Iran, which is still supported by Europe despite the efforts of the current administration to sabotage it.
Even McCain, enthusiast for the Iraq war (and many others) that he was, admitted later that he was wrong.
I agree with your feelings about Yemen wholeheartedly, but I also believe the Trump administration to be a threat to both Constituition and rule of law in the US. Absent those, the chance of doing much to change the Yemen policy is limited indeed.
count: Regarding Buchanan, I rarely miss a chance to exhort “Lock and Load” on his threads.
“Lock and Load”?
Aren’t you supposed to “load” the shell before you “lock” the bolt? Or is that one of those bits of gunnish terminology that RWNJs delight in teasing us about?
count: Regarding Buchanan, I rarely miss a chance to exhort “Lock and Load” on his threads.
“Lock and Load”?
Aren’t you supposed to “load” the shell before you “lock” the bolt? Or is that one of those bits of gunnish terminology that RWNJs delight in teasing us about?
Obama believed the Iran deal was a big f’ing deal, and he felt that he needed to provide assistance to the Saudis in order to cement that deal. A couple of links from the OBAMA era:
12/23/2015:
“Part of the difficulty in dealing with Saudi Arabia is its role as the Sunni Arab powerhouse of the Middle East. The United States must address Saudi interests in the region as it seeks to develop ties with Iran, and Saudi Arabia’s cooperation is vital to ending the war in Syria.”
3/14/2016:
“Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s urbane, well-connected ambassador to Washington, arrived at the White House last March with the urgent hope of getting President Obama’s support for a new war in the Middle East. …
“Two days of discussions in the West Wing followed, but there was little real debate. Among other reasons, the White House needed to placate the Saudis as the administration completed a nuclear deal with Iran, Saudi Arabia’s archenemy. That fact alone eclipsed concerns among many of the president’s advisers that the Saudi-led offensive would be long, bloody and indecisive.”
9/23/2016
“A U.S. official who briefs the White House on regional national security matters summed up the Obama administration’s prevailing attitude. Yemen was already a “complete shit show” before the war, he argued, echoing Obama’s use of a phrase he is said to use privately to describe Libya. The Houthis are a nasty militia who deserve no favors and Yemen would be a “shit show” whatever the United States does. So why further degrade a sometimes-unpleasant, but necessary relationship with the Saudis to produce the same end result?”
*****************************************************
Now see a TRUMP ERA link (in conjunction with Trump’s attempt to scrap the Iran deal, which was arguably the purpose of Obama’s assistance):
6/11/2018
“Soon after Trump took office in early 2017, his administration reversed a decision by former president Barack Obama to suspend the sale of over $500m in laser-guided bombs and other munitions to the Saudi military, over concerns about civilian deaths in Yemen. The US Senate narrowly approved that sale, in a vote of 53 to 47, almost handing Trump an embarrassing defeat.
“In late 2017, after the Houthis fired ballistic missiles at several Saudi cities, the Pentagon secretly sent US special forces to the Saudi-Yemen border, to help the Saudi military locate and destroy Houthi missile sites. While US troops did not cross into Yemen to directly fight Yemen’s rebels, the clandestine mission escalated US participation in a war that has dragged on since Saudi Arabia and its allies began bombing the Houthis in March 2015.”
Obama believed the Iran deal was a big f’ing deal, and he felt that he needed to provide assistance to the Saudis in order to cement that deal. A couple of links from the OBAMA era:
12/23/2015:
“Part of the difficulty in dealing with Saudi Arabia is its role as the Sunni Arab powerhouse of the Middle East. The United States must address Saudi interests in the region as it seeks to develop ties with Iran, and Saudi Arabia’s cooperation is vital to ending the war in Syria.”
3/14/2016:
“Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s urbane, well-connected ambassador to Washington, arrived at the White House last March with the urgent hope of getting President Obama’s support for a new war in the Middle East. …
“Two days of discussions in the West Wing followed, but there was little real debate. Among other reasons, the White House needed to placate the Saudis as the administration completed a nuclear deal with Iran, Saudi Arabia’s archenemy. That fact alone eclipsed concerns among many of the president’s advisers that the Saudi-led offensive would be long, bloody and indecisive.”
9/23/2016
“A U.S. official who briefs the White House on regional national security matters summed up the Obama administration’s prevailing attitude. Yemen was already a “complete shit show” before the war, he argued, echoing Obama’s use of a phrase he is said to use privately to describe Libya. The Houthis are a nasty militia who deserve no favors and Yemen would be a “shit show” whatever the United States does. So why further degrade a sometimes-unpleasant, but necessary relationship with the Saudis to produce the same end result?”
*****************************************************
Now see a TRUMP ERA link (in conjunction with Trump’s attempt to scrap the Iran deal, which was arguably the purpose of Obama’s assistance):
6/11/2018
“Soon after Trump took office in early 2017, his administration reversed a decision by former president Barack Obama to suspend the sale of over $500m in laser-guided bombs and other munitions to the Saudi military, over concerns about civilian deaths in Yemen. The US Senate narrowly approved that sale, in a vote of 53 to 47, almost handing Trump an embarrassing defeat.
“In late 2017, after the Houthis fired ballistic missiles at several Saudi cities, the Pentagon secretly sent US special forces to the Saudi-Yemen border, to help the Saudi military locate and destroy Houthi missile sites. While US troops did not cross into Yemen to directly fight Yemen’s rebels, the clandestine mission escalated US participation in a war that has dragged on since Saudi Arabia and its allies began bombing the Houthis in March 2015.”
Donald,
You might find this exchange interesting. I still did not get a good feel from where Larison is coming from, but there is no doubt regarding his wide ranging knowledge.
Best regards.
Donald,
You might find this exchange interesting. I still did not get a good feel from where Larison is coming from, but there is no doubt regarding his wide ranging knowledge.
Best regards.
review. edit. post.
review. edit. post.
rinse and repeat.
Maybe one of these days I’ll get it.
review. edit. post.
review. edit. post.
rinse and repeat.
Maybe one of these days I’ll get it.
People should have been talking about this from the start.
A couple of things.
First, I agree that Yemen is being ground into dust, and that we, through our support of the Saudis, are complicit or more than complicit in it.
Further, I think our general posture of being joined at the hip with the Saudis is not in our interest. Maybe never was, unless you’re in the oil business.
All of that said….
It seems like Yemen is, in your view, the gold standard for moral accountability. If something isn’t “as bad as what we’re doing in Yemen”, it doesn’t merit attention. And, of all of the horrible things that go in the world, and have gone on in the world since whenever, with or without our participation or support, Yemen is the one that needs to go right to the top of the list.
Why not the Rohingya, or Syrian refugees, or people who are fleeing Central America so their kids don’t get recruited into gangs at gunpoint?
Why not the people of Flint MI, who are basically being poisoned by their own government?
Why not the people fleeing Central America, to get away from gangs trying to recruit their kids, or internal wars, or personal persecution for political or other reasons?
I haven’t been following the news as closely as I have at other times, but I’m sure a really, really long list of horrifying atrocities is available, ready for citation.
The world is, really, full of horrible stuff. Beautiful stuff, too. But also horrible stuff.
It’s weird to have every interchange with you eventually devolve into a discussion of Yemen. And, weird to have every concern immediately measured against the Yemen yardstick, to see if it’s worthy of attention.
It’s probably good that somebody, somewhere, is keeping some level of focus on Yemen, because frankly most Americans probably couldn’t find it on a map, and probably don’t care one way or the other what happens to Yemen and Yemenis. And they deserve our attention and our concern. And, I’m glad that “someone” is, in this case, you, because you’re a thoughtful guy and not a jerk.
But can we also talk about other things as well? Without a lecture about whether those other things are more or less worthy of attention on the Yemen scale?
People should have been talking about this from the start.
A couple of things.
First, I agree that Yemen is being ground into dust, and that we, through our support of the Saudis, are complicit or more than complicit in it.
Further, I think our general posture of being joined at the hip with the Saudis is not in our interest. Maybe never was, unless you’re in the oil business.
All of that said….
It seems like Yemen is, in your view, the gold standard for moral accountability. If something isn’t “as bad as what we’re doing in Yemen”, it doesn’t merit attention. And, of all of the horrible things that go in the world, and have gone on in the world since whenever, with or without our participation or support, Yemen is the one that needs to go right to the top of the list.
Why not the Rohingya, or Syrian refugees, or people who are fleeing Central America so their kids don’t get recruited into gangs at gunpoint?
Why not the people of Flint MI, who are basically being poisoned by their own government?
Why not the people fleeing Central America, to get away from gangs trying to recruit their kids, or internal wars, or personal persecution for political or other reasons?
I haven’t been following the news as closely as I have at other times, but I’m sure a really, really long list of horrifying atrocities is available, ready for citation.
The world is, really, full of horrible stuff. Beautiful stuff, too. But also horrible stuff.
It’s weird to have every interchange with you eventually devolve into a discussion of Yemen. And, weird to have every concern immediately measured against the Yemen yardstick, to see if it’s worthy of attention.
It’s probably good that somebody, somewhere, is keeping some level of focus on Yemen, because frankly most Americans probably couldn’t find it on a map, and probably don’t care one way or the other what happens to Yemen and Yemenis. And they deserve our attention and our concern. And, I’m glad that “someone” is, in this case, you, because you’re a thoughtful guy and not a jerk.
But can we also talk about other things as well? Without a lecture about whether those other things are more or less worthy of attention on the Yemen scale?
Larison, from bobbyp’s link:
My bold.
Who are the conservatives that have mobilized to oppose, specifically, concentrated wealth, over the last few centuries?
I may simply be ignorant – unaware of important movements within Anglo and American conservatism. I will be more than happy to be educated on this point.
I’m looking for the “substantial numbers” and the “mobilization” he speaks of.
Actually, I’d settle for “an example”.
Larison, from bobbyp’s link:
My bold.
Who are the conservatives that have mobilized to oppose, specifically, concentrated wealth, over the last few centuries?
I may simply be ignorant – unaware of important movements within Anglo and American conservatism. I will be more than happy to be educated on this point.
I’m looking for the “substantial numbers” and the “mobilization” he speaks of.
Actually, I’d settle for “an example”.
Snarki:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-exactly-does-locked-and-loaded-mean
In Buchanan’s case, I think what HE means is his mind is locked shut to keep the load of horse pucky therein from falling out.
“an example”.
Teddy Roosevelt.
Those these days, conservatives are reluctant to use the “c” word in reference to him.
No, the other one.
An “American” conservative might make a (fairly tortured) case that Karl Marx posited a conservative interpretation of market capitalism’s dire consequences for a moral culture:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/marx-was-right-warning/
Snarki:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-exactly-does-locked-and-loaded-mean
In Buchanan’s case, I think what HE means is his mind is locked shut to keep the load of horse pucky therein from falling out.
“an example”.
Teddy Roosevelt.
Those these days, conservatives are reluctant to use the “c” word in reference to him.
No, the other one.
An “American” conservative might make a (fairly tortured) case that Karl Marx posited a conservative interpretation of market capitalism’s dire consequences for a moral culture:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/marx-was-right-warning/
Actually, I’d settle for “an example”.
heh.
reading that exchange, the best i could come up with is that Larison is trumpeting the fact that conservatives have occasionally mobilized (along with the left) to take down wealthy fascist/totalitarian dictators. IMO, this is ascribing motivations that none of those conservatives were actually acting upon. and neither of them seem to believe that opposition to concentrated wealth is any kind of conservative principle.
Actually, I’d settle for “an example”.
heh.
reading that exchange, the best i could come up with is that Larison is trumpeting the fact that conservatives have occasionally mobilized (along with the left) to take down wealthy fascist/totalitarian dictators. IMO, this is ascribing motivations that none of those conservatives were actually acting upon. and neither of them seem to believe that opposition to concentrated wealth is any kind of conservative principle.
It’s getting late in the day for peaceful solutions:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a22872706/trump-american-citizens-denied-passports/
It’s getting late in the day for peaceful solutions:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a22872706/trump-american-citizens-denied-passports/
The term isolationism has been used inaccurately to smear anti interventionists because of the stances people took in the 1930’s
I’m not sure if this is directed at me, but I draw a straight line from the _current_ isolationists to the Brexit/build a wall crowd.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/trump-administration-questioning-citizenship-of-hispanics.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-passports-20180829-story.html
As the child of two immigrants and an immigrant in another country, I obviously might not be the most neutral observer, but while I’m happy to read any links you post here, I’m not going to go wade thru Dreher and Buchanan to find them.
The term isolationism has been used inaccurately to smear anti interventionists because of the stances people took in the 1930’s
I’m not sure if this is directed at me, but I draw a straight line from the _current_ isolationists to the Brexit/build a wall crowd.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/trump-administration-questioning-citizenship-of-hispanics.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-passports-20180829-story.html
As the child of two immigrants and an immigrant in another country, I obviously might not be the most neutral observer, but while I’m happy to read any links you post here, I’m not going to go wade thru Dreher and Buchanan to find them.
“It seems like Yemen is, in your view, the gold standard for moral accountability. If something isn’t “as bad as what we’re doing in Yemen”, it doesn’t merit attention. And, of all of the horrible things that go in the world, and have gone on in the world since whenever, with or without our participation or support, Yemen is the one that needs to go right to the top of the list.”
Russell, that was largely a personal attack. And as such, go fuck yourself.
I generally appreciate almost everything you write and don’t jump in on discussions like, for instance, the one you have been having with MkT about health care and the kind of society we should have because I think you say it better than I do and so I silently cheer you on. Nonetheless, I do sometimes participate in other conversations. I have said that and similar things before and yet you still say this. I expect better of you. Not sure why, as you have had this petulant contemptible outburst before
I really hate this shit. I talk about Yemen because we are directly responsible for this, have been for three years, and there was never any reason for it except the asinine one that sapient gives. It was largely ignored because of partisan concerns. Blah, blah blah. Don’t want to bore you.
“Why not the Rohingya, or Syrian refugees, or people who are fleeing Central America so their kids don’t get recruited into gangs at gunpoint?”
So why aren’t you talking about the Rohingya? I think we should discuss how we might be able to help the victims of people who aren’t our allies. Ways that don’t involve military intervention. I personally focus on Yemen because, we are doing that one. As for Syria, that’s rich. I have talked about Syria,, most recently in the IP thread. I could rant all day about Syria and have given short rants about our wildly irresponsible policy of arming rebels when much of that went straight to ISIS or Al Nusra. In his recent book Ben Rhodes said he wanted to take Al Nusra off the terrorist group list. That is Al Qaeda in Syria.
Central America? Good god. What do you think I think about our Central American policies? Anti- interventionism ring a bell? I haven’t ranted about the Honduran coup in 2009 because I don’t know enough, but I think we played a discreditable role there. I don’t have time to learn enough about every stupid horrible thing we do. But yes, if this blog had been around I would have been ranting nonstop about Central America in the 80’s. And yes, that set the stage from what I have read for the violence down there now.
Flint is horrible. But notice, I haven’t compared any other horrible thing to Yemen. I said Russiagate is overcovered compared to Yemen. You in your wisdom decided that it therefore follows that I think al these other things are trivial. So again, fuck off.
“It seems like Yemen is, in your view, the gold standard for moral accountability. If something isn’t “as bad as what we’re doing in Yemen”, it doesn’t merit attention. And, of all of the horrible things that go in the world, and have gone on in the world since whenever, with or without our participation or support, Yemen is the one that needs to go right to the top of the list.”
Russell, that was largely a personal attack. And as such, go fuck yourself.
I generally appreciate almost everything you write and don’t jump in on discussions like, for instance, the one you have been having with MkT about health care and the kind of society we should have because I think you say it better than I do and so I silently cheer you on. Nonetheless, I do sometimes participate in other conversations. I have said that and similar things before and yet you still say this. I expect better of you. Not sure why, as you have had this petulant contemptible outburst before
I really hate this shit. I talk about Yemen because we are directly responsible for this, have been for three years, and there was never any reason for it except the asinine one that sapient gives. It was largely ignored because of partisan concerns. Blah, blah blah. Don’t want to bore you.
“Why not the Rohingya, or Syrian refugees, or people who are fleeing Central America so their kids don’t get recruited into gangs at gunpoint?”
So why aren’t you talking about the Rohingya? I think we should discuss how we might be able to help the victims of people who aren’t our allies. Ways that don’t involve military intervention. I personally focus on Yemen because, we are doing that one. As for Syria, that’s rich. I have talked about Syria,, most recently in the IP thread. I could rant all day about Syria and have given short rants about our wildly irresponsible policy of arming rebels when much of that went straight to ISIS or Al Nusra. In his recent book Ben Rhodes said he wanted to take Al Nusra off the terrorist group list. That is Al Qaeda in Syria.
Central America? Good god. What do you think I think about our Central American policies? Anti- interventionism ring a bell? I haven’t ranted about the Honduran coup in 2009 because I don’t know enough, but I think we played a discreditable role there. I don’t have time to learn enough about every stupid horrible thing we do. But yes, if this blog had been around I would have been ranting nonstop about Central America in the 80’s. And yes, that set the stage from what I have read for the violence down there now.
Flint is horrible. But notice, I haven’t compared any other horrible thing to Yemen. I said Russiagate is overcovered compared to Yemen. You in your wisdom decided that it therefore follows that I think al these other things are trivial. So again, fuck off.
Anything not explicitly permitted is illegal…
Anything not explicitly permitted is illegal…
Overused movie quote: “Well, that escalated quickly.”
Overused movie quote: “Well, that escalated quickly.”
Well I’m done here. Said that before, gradually came back. But I don’t see it does much good spending time arguing/ discussing things with a handful of people and getting angry. This is not useful in any way.
Well I’m done here. Said that before, gradually came back. But I don’t see it does much good spending time arguing/ discussing things with a handful of people and getting angry. This is not useful in any way.
i find a brisk walk sometimes helps
i find a brisk walk sometimes helps
Russell, that was largely a personal attack. And as such, go fuck yourself.
I need to improve my writing skills, because it was everything but a personal attack.
I know it’s an important issue to you, I’m not looking to attack you.
No offense taken on the invitation, I have no problem with you. Among folks who have told me to go fuck myself, you are among the most worthy.
Really, it was just a question.
Peace out.
Russell, that was largely a personal attack. And as such, go fuck yourself.
I need to improve my writing skills, because it was everything but a personal attack.
I know it’s an important issue to you, I’m not looking to attack you.
No offense taken on the invitation, I have no problem with you. Among folks who have told me to go fuck myself, you are among the most worthy.
Really, it was just a question.
Peace out.
Teddy Roosevelt.
In what way was TR a conservative? Other than public-land-wise, I mean.
I’m not claiming him for liberalism either, I’m just not sure he fits under the “conservative” banner either.
Teddy Roosevelt.
In what way was TR a conservative? Other than public-land-wise, I mean.
I’m not claiming him for liberalism either, I’m just not sure he fits under the “conservative” banner either.
Obama believed the Iran deal was a big f’ing deal, and he felt that he needed to provide assistance to the Saudis in order to cement that deal.
He may well have been right. But once the deal was in place and working, was it necessary to continue active support for the Saudis’ activities in Yemen? Winding down should have been possible, even if a sharp cut-off wasn’t considered to be. (Still should be. Even if the chances of it happening in the next couple of years are nil.)
Obama believed the Iran deal was a big f’ing deal, and he felt that he needed to provide assistance to the Saudis in order to cement that deal.
He may well have been right. But once the deal was in place and working, was it necessary to continue active support for the Saudis’ activities in Yemen? Winding down should have been possible, even if a sharp cut-off wasn’t considered to be. (Still should be. Even if the chances of it happening in the next couple of years are nil.)
To dr. ngo — Will be thinking of you over these next days and weeks, and hoping you’ll check in when you can.
To dr. ngo — Will be thinking of you over these next days and weeks, and hoping you’ll check in when you can.
yes, dr. ngo, best of luck and medicine!
yes, dr. ngo, best of luck and medicine!
Donald, McKinney is not the only person here (by a long chalk) who values your contributions and the way you make them, including, as has always been apparent, russell. I really hope you reconsider. These are hard times, and tempers are fraying as the world staggers and your republic sickens. Surely people of good faith can still talk to each other, and get over momentary misunderstandings?
Donald, McKinney is not the only person here (by a long chalk) who values your contributions and the way you make them, including, as has always been apparent, russell. I really hope you reconsider. These are hard times, and tempers are fraying as the world staggers and your republic sickens. Surely people of good faith can still talk to each other, and get over momentary misunderstandings?
I thought Teddy Roosevelt was considered a progressive. At least as it was defined at the turn of the last century.
I thought Teddy Roosevelt was considered a progressive. At least as it was defined at the turn of the last century.
dr ngo,
Of all the rotten news in the world …
Here’s hoping that every 5 years from now the medical bookies will be giving you even odds on another 5 years.
–TP
dr ngo,
Of all the rotten news in the world …
Here’s hoping that every 5 years from now the medical bookies will be giving you even odds on another 5 years.
–TP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Theodore_Roosevelt
Words and definitions are mere putty in the hands of time.
There are four heads on Mount Rushmore, though mp’s chiselers are headed there as we speak to hone and sandblast them down to a four-headed image of his fat, worthless ass.
By today’s miserable, filthy standards of the stinking wreck that is the conservative movement and the republican party, all four are progressives, some may say classical liberals.
Who was the conservative?
George Washington or King George?
Who was the liberal progressive?
Lincoln or John C. Calhoun?
Who was more musical?
Jefferson or Hamilton?
Hamilton, of course. He passed the audition and made it to Broadway, but Jefferson could dance around an issue like Cyd Charisse on roller skates, sometimes even sans culottes if it suited his tempestuous moods.
To free the slaves or make love to them.
Louisiana Purchase? Absolutely NOT!! Wait, how much again?
Decisions, decisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Theodore_Roosevelt
Words and definitions are mere putty in the hands of time.
There are four heads on Mount Rushmore, though mp’s chiselers are headed there as we speak to hone and sandblast them down to a four-headed image of his fat, worthless ass.
By today’s miserable, filthy standards of the stinking wreck that is the conservative movement and the republican party, all four are progressives, some may say classical liberals.
Who was the conservative?
George Washington or King George?
Who was the liberal progressive?
Lincoln or John C. Calhoun?
Who was more musical?
Jefferson or Hamilton?
Hamilton, of course. He passed the audition and made it to Broadway, but Jefferson could dance around an issue like Cyd Charisse on roller skates, sometimes even sans culottes if it suited his tempestuous moods.
To free the slaves or make love to them.
Louisiana Purchase? Absolutely NOT!! Wait, how much again?
Decisions, decisions.
Who is the sociopath?
Elon Musk, Steve Bannon, or Mark Zuckerberg?
It’s a dead heat.
Who is the sociopath?
Elon Musk, Steve Bannon, or Mark Zuckerberg?
It’s a dead heat.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/steve-bannon-elon-musk-is-a-man-child-and-top-tech-leaders-are-sociopaths-2018-08-30?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/steve-bannon-elon-musk-is-a-man-child-and-top-tech-leaders-are-sociopaths-2018-08-30?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
The war in Yemen is horrible. Perhaps Obama was wrong in thinking that with or without our assistance to the Saudis, the situation would be a “shitshow.” I certainly don’t know the answer to that.
According to Wikipedia, the Iran-Iraq War, which was fought during the 1980’s, “has been compared to World War I in terms of the tactics used, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wire stretched across fortified defensive lines, manned machine guns, bayonet charges, Iranian human wave attacks, extensive use of chemical weapons by Iraq, and, later, deliberate attacks on civilian targets.” There were a million dead, about half of which were civilians.
In other words, the United States and its arms deals aren’t necessary parties to horrible atrocities in the Middle East. Should we stay away from these conflicts so that our hands are clean? Maybe. Unlike Trump, however, Obama had a reason for his reluctant support of the Saudis (maybe it was “asinine”). He was trying to accomplish a peaceful solution to the Iran nuclear situation, when others (back to McCain as an example) were threatening bombs.
Obviously, what’s happening in Yemen is horrible. Would there be peace in Yemen if the US had not become involved? Maybe, but probably not. Now that Trump is trying to blow up the Iran deal as well as escalate the war in Yemen, there is no upside. But all we will hear from “non-interventionists” is “both sides do it.”
Donald is right about one thing. Something we can always do is welcome refugees. But the Trump administration has drastically cut refugee admissions. There’s no argument or speculation about what would be better policy, or what is more harmful, doing something about refugees or doing nothing. Electing Donald Trump has hurt/killed a lot of people. That is something that only we can change, and we’re not going to do it by ignoring the fact that Russia helped get him elected.
The war in Yemen is horrible. Perhaps Obama was wrong in thinking that with or without our assistance to the Saudis, the situation would be a “shitshow.” I certainly don’t know the answer to that.
According to Wikipedia, the Iran-Iraq War, which was fought during the 1980’s, “has been compared to World War I in terms of the tactics used, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wire stretched across fortified defensive lines, manned machine guns, bayonet charges, Iranian human wave attacks, extensive use of chemical weapons by Iraq, and, later, deliberate attacks on civilian targets.” There were a million dead, about half of which were civilians.
In other words, the United States and its arms deals aren’t necessary parties to horrible atrocities in the Middle East. Should we stay away from these conflicts so that our hands are clean? Maybe. Unlike Trump, however, Obama had a reason for his reluctant support of the Saudis (maybe it was “asinine”). He was trying to accomplish a peaceful solution to the Iran nuclear situation, when others (back to McCain as an example) were threatening bombs.
Obviously, what’s happening in Yemen is horrible. Would there be peace in Yemen if the US had not become involved? Maybe, but probably not. Now that Trump is trying to blow up the Iran deal as well as escalate the war in Yemen, there is no upside. But all we will hear from “non-interventionists” is “both sides do it.”
Donald is right about one thing. Something we can always do is welcome refugees. But the Trump administration has drastically cut refugee admissions. There’s no argument or speculation about what would be better policy, or what is more harmful, doing something about refugees or doing nothing. Electing Donald Trump has hurt/killed a lot of people. That is something that only we can change, and we’re not going to do it by ignoring the fact that Russia helped get him elected.
FWIW, hilzoy’s twitter feed has an interesting thread “relevant” to McKinney’s question about Facebook’s supposed liberal bias, and what the current iteration of the conservative “concern” about it might be a precursor to:
https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1034913916646817792
FWIW, hilzoy’s twitter feed has an interesting thread “relevant” to McKinney’s question about Facebook’s supposed liberal bias, and what the current iteration of the conservative “concern” about it might be a precursor to:
https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1034913916646817792
what the current iteration of the conservative “concern” about it might be a precursor to
see also: The Republican Standard Bearer complaining that Google’s search results aren’t sufficiently fulsome in its praise.
Workin The Refs
what the current iteration of the conservative “concern” about it might be a precursor to
see also: The Republican Standard Bearer complaining that Google’s search results aren’t sufficiently fulsome in its praise.
Workin The Refs
Who is the sociopath?
Elon Musk, Steve Bannon, or Mark Zuckerberg?
It’s a dead heat.
While all three have issues, Musk is at least devoting some of his energy and money to doing things that are worthwhile for society. Bannon? Absolutely nothing. So not really a dead heat at all.
Who is the sociopath?
Elon Musk, Steve Bannon, or Mark Zuckerberg?
It’s a dead heat.
While all three have issues, Musk is at least devoting some of his energy and money to doing things that are worthwhile for society. Bannon? Absolutely nothing. So not really a dead heat at all.
I think Musk is actually in a slightly different category – he believes he is saving humanity, having actively set out to do so, and that gives him a pass on parochial human concerns.
Pathological, sure… but I do think it likely that mass adoption of electrical vehicles will happen maybe a decade earlier because of him (irrespective of the long term success of Tesla).
I think Musk is actually in a slightly different category – he believes he is saving humanity, having actively set out to do so, and that gives him a pass on parochial human concerns.
Pathological, sure… but I do think it likely that mass adoption of electrical vehicles will happen maybe a decade earlier because of him (irrespective of the long term success of Tesla).
According to Wikipedia, the Iran-Iraq War, which was fought during the 1980’s, “has been compared to World War I in terms of the tactics used, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wire stretched across fortified defensive lines, manned machine guns, bayonet charges, Iranian human wave attacks, extensive use of chemical weapons by Iraq, and, later, deliberate attacks on civilian targets.” There were a million dead, about half of which were civilians.
In other words, the United States and its arms deals aren’t necessary parties to horrible atrocities in the Middle East…
From what I can recall, the war would have ended much sooner (in an Iranian victory) without US support for Iraq. Though yes, the general point is true.
According to Wikipedia, the Iran-Iraq War, which was fought during the 1980’s, “has been compared to World War I in terms of the tactics used, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wire stretched across fortified defensive lines, manned machine guns, bayonet charges, Iranian human wave attacks, extensive use of chemical weapons by Iraq, and, later, deliberate attacks on civilian targets.” There were a million dead, about half of which were civilians.
In other words, the United States and its arms deals aren’t necessary parties to horrible atrocities in the Middle East…
From what I can recall, the war would have ended much sooner (in an Iranian victory) without US support for Iraq. Though yes, the general point is true.
From what I can recall, the war would have ended much sooner (in an Iranian victory) without US support for Iraq. Though yes, the general point is true.
I don’t recall that (although I remember the Rumsfeld-Saddam handshake picture), but the Reagan administration (Republican) certainly doesn’t get points from me for smart foreign policy. Apparently, it was another situation where “both sides do it” did not apply.
Obviously, the Wikipedia article (which I have only skimmed) isn’t the last word on the matter, but what I have read (and will read more thoroughly later) is pretty interesting.
From what I can recall, the war would have ended much sooner (in an Iranian victory) without US support for Iraq. Though yes, the general point is true.
I don’t recall that (although I remember the Rumsfeld-Saddam handshake picture), but the Reagan administration (Republican) certainly doesn’t get points from me for smart foreign policy. Apparently, it was another situation where “both sides do it” did not apply.
Obviously, the Wikipedia article (which I have only skimmed) isn’t the last word on the matter, but what I have read (and will read more thoroughly later) is pretty interesting.
speaking of The American Conservative
speaking of The American Conservative
Paul Campos at LGM on the piece that cleek links to. Of course, sarcastic.
It’s an example of why I like LGM. Obviously, people can disagree, but I find their take useful and amusing.
Paul Campos at LGM on the piece that cleek links to. Of course, sarcastic.
It’s an example of why I like LGM. Obviously, people can disagree, but I find their take useful and amusing.
The actual account of support is quite a bit lower down a very lengthy, and commendably detailed entry, starting here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_War#Support
Which rather supports what I recall (including satellite data assistance for targeting battlefield chemical weapon attacks).
The actual account of support is quite a bit lower down a very lengthy, and commendably detailed entry, starting here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_War#Support
Which rather supports what I recall (including satellite data assistance for targeting battlefield chemical weapon attacks).
Is this one of those trick questions?
I’d shake my head, but my head is all shaked out.
Is this one of those trick questions?
I’d shake my head, but my head is all shaked out.
Apropo of nothing but the McCain link:
My first and only Redstate post was to support McCain in 2006 during the primaries, right before I deployed. I think my argument was that McCain had skin in the game as a veteran and with kids serving, vs Romney and the other republicans running. I was banned from Redstate because they would not accept ‘chickenhawk’ arguments, which was a term I did not use (I don’t think…).
Apparently accepting the personal risk of war was not an acceptable differentiation to Redstate, but it matters greatly to me. He may have been a hawk, but he and his family lived it.
Later, McCain’s choice of Palin drove me from the party, and I am glad that I was gone before the 2010 elections and all the nonsense since then.
I am the democrat who wishes McCain was a democrat, or at least chose to strip the Senate majority from the party by becoming an independent once Trump won(with help of course but he could have led it). 18 months in, and there are no Republican Senators who simply chose to take the majority away as a check.
It is hard for me to imagine ever voting for a republican again, because when there was a simple check against a clear mistake, none of the leaders took it.
Apropo of nothing but the McCain link:
My first and only Redstate post was to support McCain in 2006 during the primaries, right before I deployed. I think my argument was that McCain had skin in the game as a veteran and with kids serving, vs Romney and the other republicans running. I was banned from Redstate because they would not accept ‘chickenhawk’ arguments, which was a term I did not use (I don’t think…).
Apparently accepting the personal risk of war was not an acceptable differentiation to Redstate, but it matters greatly to me. He may have been a hawk, but he and his family lived it.
Later, McCain’s choice of Palin drove me from the party, and I am glad that I was gone before the 2010 elections and all the nonsense since then.
I am the democrat who wishes McCain was a democrat, or at least chose to strip the Senate majority from the party by becoming an independent once Trump won(with help of course but he could have led it). 18 months in, and there are no Republican Senators who simply chose to take the majority away as a check.
It is hard for me to imagine ever voting for a republican again, because when there was a simple check against a clear mistake, none of the leaders took it.
…or at least chose to strip the Senate majority from the party by becoming an independent once Trump won(with help of course but he could have led it). 18 months in, and there are no Republican Senators who simply chose to take the majority away as a check.
It is hard for me to imagine ever voting for a republican again, because when there was a simple check against a clear mistake, none of the leaders took it
jrudkis, I have never seen this stated in quite this way before, and it gets to the heart of something important. Susan Collins is one of my senators, and though I stopped believing in the myth of her centrism (or maverickiness, with whom her partner in deception was often McCain) a long time ago, her lack of a spine since Trump was elected has made me furious every time I’ve had to face it.
I was glad to see recent polling that showed that:
A Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday shows a plurality of Maine voters want Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to reject Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court and many will be less likely to support her for reelection if she votes to confirm him.
and
The poll also found that Collins also has a 35 percent approval rating in her state, along with a 48 percent disapproval rate and 17 percent of respondents said they are “not sure” if they approve of her job performance or not.
I don’t have time to check right now, but I think those latter numbers are a staggering reversal of her level of popularity in the past.
…or at least chose to strip the Senate majority from the party by becoming an independent once Trump won(with help of course but he could have led it). 18 months in, and there are no Republican Senators who simply chose to take the majority away as a check.
It is hard for me to imagine ever voting for a republican again, because when there was a simple check against a clear mistake, none of the leaders took it
jrudkis, I have never seen this stated in quite this way before, and it gets to the heart of something important. Susan Collins is one of my senators, and though I stopped believing in the myth of her centrism (or maverickiness, with whom her partner in deception was often McCain) a long time ago, her lack of a spine since Trump was elected has made me furious every time I’ve had to face it.
I was glad to see recent polling that showed that:
A Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday shows a plurality of Maine voters want Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to reject Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court and many will be less likely to support her for reelection if she votes to confirm him.
and
The poll also found that Collins also has a 35 percent approval rating in her state, along with a 48 percent disapproval rate and 17 percent of respondents said they are “not sure” if they approve of her job performance or not.
I don’t have time to check right now, but I think those latter numbers are a staggering reversal of her level of popularity in the past.
My reason for bringing up Collins is that your (jrudkis’s) comment put my disappointment in her into clearer focus than I have been able to give it.
My reason for bringing up Collins is that your (jrudkis’s) comment put my disappointment in her into clearer focus than I have been able to give it.
JanieM,
Collins was in my initial draft of this as a potential co-conspirator, and I took her out.
She could do more if she chose, and has not. She is better than most, but not sufficient.
JanieM,
Collins was in my initial draft of this as a potential co-conspirator, and I took her out.
She could do more if she chose, and has not. She is better than most, but not sufficient.
my head is all shaked out.
Hope you’re not worried about that earlier thing, russell. You did nothing to cause it.
my head is all shaked out.
Hope you’re not worried about that earlier thing, russell. You did nothing to cause it.
I feel like I need to say a few things here, even though I’m getting ready for a one week trip and am totally underprepared for it.
dr ngo (and here, I have to follow hsh’s example and say ‘f**k me’ to his news) asked
How come no one whatsoever (unless I missed it) has pointed out that the USA spends a metric fuckton (to use scientifically precise vocabulary) more on “defense” [sic – it was more honest when it was the War Department] than any other nation, or in fact than all the other “top” countries combined?
While I hadn’t thought about this particular argument, seeing it in dr ngo’s comment made me realize that for this place to work, everyone has to pull their punches. Not just people on one side, everyone. And the reason we pull those punches is that we don’t want to knock people out. Certainly, at times, and in different places, you can end up cheering to get someone knocked out and that dynamic is what makes some places turn into cliques where people compete with each other to embarrass the person in the minority.
This punch pulling happens so often that we can fool ourselves to think that we (and everyone else) are being completely upfront and honest when we are actually shading our conversation in myriad ways because we want to keep the conversation going. However, we are all constantly adjusting the force we make our arguments with others. And added to that is the fact that we don’t know where the other people are writing from, both physically or psychically. As well as not knowing the impact something may have. If this were sparring, you’d have immediate feedback if you failed to pull your punch enough.
I say this both in regards to my blowing up at Marty and the recent Donald/Russell exchange. I don’t know if it will make any difference, but if we realize that _everyone_ is pulling their punches in some way, I’d like to think that it might make a difference. And I leave that there.
I feel like I need to say a few things here, even though I’m getting ready for a one week trip and am totally underprepared for it.
dr ngo (and here, I have to follow hsh’s example and say ‘f**k me’ to his news) asked
How come no one whatsoever (unless I missed it) has pointed out that the USA spends a metric fuckton (to use scientifically precise vocabulary) more on “defense” [sic – it was more honest when it was the War Department] than any other nation, or in fact than all the other “top” countries combined?
While I hadn’t thought about this particular argument, seeing it in dr ngo’s comment made me realize that for this place to work, everyone has to pull their punches. Not just people on one side, everyone. And the reason we pull those punches is that we don’t want to knock people out. Certainly, at times, and in different places, you can end up cheering to get someone knocked out and that dynamic is what makes some places turn into cliques where people compete with each other to embarrass the person in the minority.
This punch pulling happens so often that we can fool ourselves to think that we (and everyone else) are being completely upfront and honest when we are actually shading our conversation in myriad ways because we want to keep the conversation going. However, we are all constantly adjusting the force we make our arguments with others. And added to that is the fact that we don’t know where the other people are writing from, both physically or psychically. As well as not knowing the impact something may have. If this were sparring, you’d have immediate feedback if you failed to pull your punch enough.
I say this both in regards to my blowing up at Marty and the recent Donald/Russell exchange. I don’t know if it will make any difference, but if we realize that _everyone_ is pulling their punches in some way, I’d like to think that it might make a difference. And I leave that there.
Well said, lj.
Well said, lj.
Hope you’re not worried about that earlier thing, russell.
No, I’m fine with that. Or, not fine, because I’m very sorry that I offended Donald. But that’s not what has my head all shaked out.
Seriously Donald, if you’re reading, I intended no personal attack. Or any attack at all. I can, I think, be overly blunt and/or confrontational in conversation, perhaps even more so online, please accept my apologies if that was so in this case.
LJ thanks for your comment.
It can suck to participate in a community where you hold a minority point of view. You can find yourself in the position of punching bag for everyone who has a grievance to vent. You may have to explain yourself over, and over, and over again. You will probably have to wade through a hell of a lot of noise for every ounce of signal sent or received.
I appreciate the folks here who sign up for that. From whatever point of view.
Hope you’re not worried about that earlier thing, russell.
No, I’m fine with that. Or, not fine, because I’m very sorry that I offended Donald. But that’s not what has my head all shaked out.
Seriously Donald, if you’re reading, I intended no personal attack. Or any attack at all. I can, I think, be overly blunt and/or confrontational in conversation, perhaps even more so online, please accept my apologies if that was so in this case.
LJ thanks for your comment.
It can suck to participate in a community where you hold a minority point of view. You can find yourself in the position of punching bag for everyone who has a grievance to vent. You may have to explain yourself over, and over, and over again. You will probably have to wade through a hell of a lot of noise for every ounce of signal sent or received.
I appreciate the folks here who sign up for that. From whatever point of view.
Donald — on the off chance that you are still reading: You are right at the top of my list of people here whose demeanor I could wish to emulate. Not that I have much of a chance; my skin is too thin and my temper too quick. With you, even when you’re angry it’s clean rather than snarky or manipulative, and you don’t get there very readily, especially given the provocations that come your way.
I wish you wouldn’t go, at least not permanently. But I can see why you might. It gets old.
Donald — on the off chance that you are still reading: You are right at the top of my list of people here whose demeanor I could wish to emulate. Not that I have much of a chance; my skin is too thin and my temper too quick. With you, even when you’re angry it’s clean rather than snarky or manipulative, and you don’t get there very readily, especially given the provocations that come your way.
I wish you wouldn’t go, at least not permanently. But I can see why you might. It gets old.
Donald,
I feel your pain. I used to ask ‘liberal interventionists’ who always invoked the principle that “we have to dosomething the following, “Well, then don’t you agree we should do something about the Congo?”
Silence. Or this: “We are not discussing the Congo, we are discussing Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Chili, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Ukraine, Laos, Dominican Republic, Iran…..indeed a long list!
Then there’s the “You will have blood on your hands if you condone doing nothing”.
Reminds me of right to life folks calling me a murderer.
The critique of American hegemonic foreign policy is a vital part of the political discussion going forward.
I, for one, appreciate your contributions.
Regards,
Donald,
I feel your pain. I used to ask ‘liberal interventionists’ who always invoked the principle that “we have to dosomething the following, “Well, then don’t you agree we should do something about the Congo?”
Silence. Or this: “We are not discussing the Congo, we are discussing Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Chili, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Ukraine, Laos, Dominican Republic, Iran…..indeed a long list!
Then there’s the “You will have blood on your hands if you condone doing nothing”.
Reminds me of right to life folks calling me a murderer.
The critique of American hegemonic foreign policy is a vital part of the political discussion going forward.
I, for one, appreciate your contributions.
Regards,
Donald is OK by me, as all are at OBWI.
The decent Donald at OBWI, not this lout:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whos-going-to-tell-him
A ginormous kicked up cloud of horseshit visible to the dummy driving Musk’s Tesla convertible careening thru the solar system.
If I were running any other country besides this one in the world, I’d devote 50 percent of the GNP to building a nuclear arsenal and pointing it directly at America, the home of the full of shit.
That we fight among ourselves is a waste of perfectly good venom that will be needed to kill the vast enemy within the American corpse politic.
Donald is OK by me, as all are at OBWI.
The decent Donald at OBWI, not this lout:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whos-going-to-tell-him
A ginormous kicked up cloud of horseshit visible to the dummy driving Musk’s Tesla convertible careening thru the solar system.
If I were running any other country besides this one in the world, I’d devote 50 percent of the GNP to building a nuclear arsenal and pointing it directly at America, the home of the full of shit.
That we fight among ourselves is a waste of perfectly good venom that will be needed to kill the vast enemy within the American corpse politic.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/15/america-is-committing-awful-war-crimes-and-it-doesnt-even-know-why/
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/15/america-is-committing-awful-war-crimes-and-it-doesnt-even-know-why/
Obama officials would try to make a policy rationale for participation in the Yemen war, connecting U.S. aid to Gulf militaries with their leaders’ support for the Iran nuclear deal. Since President Trump declared withdrawal from that deal three months ago, this already-tenuous justification no longer holds.
I agree with this point from bobbyp’s linked article. What I don’t agree with is dismissing that rationale out of hand as “asinine.” Also, today, we learn that Iran is still complying with the nuclear deal. Hard fought diplomacy is no biggie, apparently, because when it works, peace can be ignored.
Obama officials would try to make a policy rationale for participation in the Yemen war, connecting U.S. aid to Gulf militaries with their leaders’ support for the Iran nuclear deal. Since President Trump declared withdrawal from that deal three months ago, this already-tenuous justification no longer holds.
I agree with this point from bobbyp’s linked article. What I don’t agree with is dismissing that rationale out of hand as “asinine.” Also, today, we learn that Iran is still complying with the nuclear deal. Hard fought diplomacy is no biggie, apparently, because when it works, peace can be ignored.
Also, today, we learn that Iran is still complying with the nuclear deal. Hard fought diplomacy is no biggie, apparently, because when it works, peace can be ignored.
It’s petty much just like North Korea.
Also, today, we learn that Iran is still complying with the nuclear deal. Hard fought diplomacy is no biggie, apparently, because when it works, peace can be ignored.
It’s petty much just like North Korea.
It’s petty much just like North Korea.
Not quite the same.
It’s petty much just like North Korea.
Not quite the same.
That was a joke.
That was a joke.
Just the idea of “hard-fought diplomacy” applying to the Trump administration is a hoot.
Just the idea of “hard-fought diplomacy” applying to the Trump administration is a hoot.
“it doesn’t even know why”, from bobbyp’s link.
WTF!?! has replaced why, what, when, who, where, how and “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a monarchy?” as the fundamental American question.
White House Press Secretary: “Any further questions?
Random reporter: WTF!?!
_________
Police Investigator’s first question to Jeffrey Dahmer: Why?
Dahmer: Search me. I was horny AND hungry.
https://twitter.com/realgollumtrump/status/1032346823728525312
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAQsFB7pr5Q
“it doesn’t even know why”, from bobbyp’s link.
WTF!?! has replaced why, what, when, who, where, how and “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a monarchy?” as the fundamental American question.
White House Press Secretary: “Any further questions?
Random reporter: WTF!?!
_________
Police Investigator’s first question to Jeffrey Dahmer: Why?
Dahmer: Search me. I was horny AND hungry.
https://twitter.com/realgollumtrump/status/1032346823728525312
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAQsFB7pr5Q
What have hangry (when you’re hungry and angry, likely angry because you’re hungy). Why not horngry?
What have hangry (when you’re hungry and angry, likely angry because you’re hungy). Why not horngry?
I’m really bad with my r’s today.
I’m really bad with my r’s today.
Sorry, hsh. So many things I read these days should be a joke, but aren’t.
Sorry, hsh. So many things I read these days should be a joke, but aren’t.
Just the idea of “hard-fought diplomacy” applying to the Trump administration is a hoot.
Haven’t you noticed the Trump administration fighting hard against the very idea of diplomacy? Let alone actually using any.
Sure, the folks at State are still trying. But that’s just the deep state resisting, like everywhere.
Just the idea of “hard-fought diplomacy” applying to the Trump administration is a hoot.
Haven’t you noticed the Trump administration fighting hard against the very idea of diplomacy? Let alone actually using any.
Sure, the folks at State are still trying. But that’s just the deep state resisting, like everywhere.
Sorry, hsh. So many things I read these days should be a joke, but aren’t.
No apology necessary. I’ve misinterpreted parody more often over the last couple of years than previously, myself. It’s harder and harder to tell the difference these days.
Sorry, hsh. So many things I read these days should be a joke, but aren’t.
No apology necessary. I’ve misinterpreted parody more often over the last couple of years than previously, myself. It’s harder and harder to tell the difference these days.
Parody or not:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-crazy-inside-story-of-al-gores-trump-tower-moment?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
I take it as a shame and a tragedy for America that Gore and company were not lying, cheating, filthy, ruthless subhuman political vermin like the Republican Party is, are, and will always be.
Parody or not:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-crazy-inside-story-of-al-gores-trump-tower-moment?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
I take it as a shame and a tragedy for America that Gore and company were not lying, cheating, filthy, ruthless subhuman political vermin like the Republican Party is, are, and will always be.
The self-imposed ethical standard described in the Count’s link is, relative to what we’re currently witnessing, like a silicon-based life form from the other side of the universe whose vision works in what is for us the radio spectrum. It’s alien.
The self-imposed ethical standard described in the Count’s link is, relative to what we’re currently witnessing, like a silicon-based life form from the other side of the universe whose vision works in what is for us the radio spectrum. It’s alien.
“relative to what we’re currently witnessing, like a silicon-based life form from the other side of the universe”
I, for one, would *really like* to welcome those Alien Overlords. Dammit.
“relative to what we’re currently witnessing, like a silicon-based life form from the other side of the universe”
I, for one, would *really like* to welcome those Alien Overlords. Dammit.
Perhaps you should take the current administration as an opportunity to revise your visualization of just how bad the Alien Overlords might actually be.
Perhaps you should take the current administration as an opportunity to revise your visualization of just how bad the Alien Overlords might actually be.
“how bad the Alien Overlords might actually be.”
Stephen Hawking advised that we REALLY don’t want to meet them, but unfortunately, as with the body snatchers, they are in amongst us at the highest levels.
Unfortunately, these latest ones, unlike earlier cloth-eared interations, have mastered the opposable thumbs twitter communication devices:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTc3PsW5ghQ
When mp was younger than that now, he speculated … man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeUVKAQsXyc
Now the same putz is President and maybe the aliens will turn on him and terminate him, so we don’t have to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPMmC0UAnj0
“how bad the Alien Overlords might actually be.”
Stephen Hawking advised that we REALLY don’t want to meet them, but unfortunately, as with the body snatchers, they are in amongst us at the highest levels.
Unfortunately, these latest ones, unlike earlier cloth-eared interations, have mastered the opposable thumbs twitter communication devices:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTc3PsW5ghQ
When mp was younger than that now, he speculated … man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeUVKAQsXyc
Now the same putz is President and maybe the aliens will turn on him and terminate him, so we don’t have to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPMmC0UAnj0
Happy weekend, folks.
Republican and conservative friends, clean up your republican party remnant, or we will fucking kill it:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/08/31/why-do-all-these-nazis-keep-helping-my-president/
Happy weekend, folks.
Republican and conservative friends, clean up your republican party remnant, or we will fucking kill it:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/08/31/why-do-all-these-nazis-keep-helping-my-president/
The Count’s link to balloon juice has a link to the WaPo that references this article in the Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/emails-link-former-dhs-policy-analyst-to-white-nationalists/568843/
unbelievable.
The Count’s link to balloon juice has a link to the WaPo that references this article in the Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/emails-link-former-dhs-policy-analyst-to-white-nationalists/568843/
unbelievable.
“unbelievable”
Sadly, not at all.
“unbelievable”
Sadly, not at all.
typical
so typical that it’s barely even news
i bet Fox won’t even mention it
typical
so typical that it’s barely even news
i bet Fox won’t even mention it
I thought this was rather inspiring.
Headline: Democrats Need Strong Candidates For Local Office. Cheri Bustos Is Finding Them.
Who is it here who has always made the point that what the Dems need to do is drill down to elected posts at local level, and really go for it in depth as well as width? It looks like it may be starting to happen.
I thought this was rather inspiring.
Headline: Democrats Need Strong Candidates For Local Office. Cheri Bustos Is Finding Them.
Who is it here who has always made the point that what the Dems need to do is drill down to elected posts at local level, and really go for it in depth as well as width? It looks like it may be starting to happen.
If you’re looking for one-stop shopping to help turn the House, I might suggest these guys.
Time or money, whatever ya got. Target specific districts, or spread it around all of the swing districts.
If you’re looking for one-stop shopping to help turn the House, I might suggest these guys.
Time or money, whatever ya got. Target specific districts, or spread it around all of the swing districts.
unbelievable”
Sadly, not at all.
Indeed, not even surprising. Sigh.
unbelievable”
Sadly, not at all.
Indeed, not even surprising. Sigh.
Some hope for the blue wave (this year and in coming years). Thanks, GftNC and russell.
My Congressional election is among those cited by swingleft.org, so working hard for the D here.
Some hope for the blue wave (this year and in coming years). Thanks, GftNC and russell.
My Congressional election is among those cited by swingleft.org, so working hard for the D here.
Well I started out watching John McCain’s funeral to hear the Bush and Obama speeches, and ended up watching almost all of it. It would be wonderful to think that the politicians some of it was aimed at (McConnell, Graham, Ryan et al) would take some of its pointed message to heart (“Today is only one day in all the days that will ever be. But what will happen in all the other days that ever come can depend on what you do today.”), but I am not so naive. If they haven’t realised it yet, today will not make them realise it. But despite the undoubted truth of all we have said here about McCain’s complexity and mixed record, it was a moving reminder of the aspirations of Americans who have not bought in to the Trump example.
Well I started out watching John McCain’s funeral to hear the Bush and Obama speeches, and ended up watching almost all of it. It would be wonderful to think that the politicians some of it was aimed at (McConnell, Graham, Ryan et al) would take some of its pointed message to heart (“Today is only one day in all the days that will ever be. But what will happen in all the other days that ever come can depend on what you do today.”), but I am not so naive. If they haven’t realised it yet, today will not make them realise it. But despite the undoubted truth of all we have said here about McCain’s complexity and mixed record, it was a moving reminder of the aspirations of Americans who have not bought in to the Trump example.
It was a moving reminder of the aspirations of Americans.
It was a moving reminder of the aspirations of Americans.
Well Marty, not of the kind of Americans who have bought into the Trump example: they don’t think (or are happy to pin their colours to the mast of someone who doesn’t think) he was a hero, and I would say that if they have a concept of honour at all, it is unrecogniseable from the concept as understood by people like McCain and those who admire him.
Well Marty, not of the kind of Americans who have bought into the Trump example: they don’t think (or are happy to pin their colours to the mast of someone who doesn’t think) he was a hero, and I would say that if they have a concept of honour at all, it is unrecogniseable from the concept as understood by people like McCain and those who admire him.
My Congressional election is among those cited by swingleft.org, so working hard for the D here
my congressional election might not even happen because the GOP’s latest round of gerrymandering was so blatant that the courts have said they have to redraw the maps before the election.
but if they redraw the maps, they’ll have to hold new primaries too. and there’s not enough time between now and November to do primary and general election campaigns.
and this was the NC GOP’s second round of gerrymandering. the first one was thrown out for being too racist. this one was thrown out for being too partisan. (10/13 seats while winning barely 50% of the vote!)
heckofa job, GOP cult.
My Congressional election is among those cited by swingleft.org, so working hard for the D here
my congressional election might not even happen because the GOP’s latest round of gerrymandering was so blatant that the courts have said they have to redraw the maps before the election.
but if they redraw the maps, they’ll have to hold new primaries too. and there’s not enough time between now and November to do primary and general election campaigns.
and this was the NC GOP’s second round of gerrymandering. the first one was thrown out for being too racist. this one was thrown out for being too partisan. (10/13 seats while winning barely 50% of the vote!)
heckofa job, GOP cult.
and this was the NC GOP’s second round of gerrymandering.
Someone close to me just moved to the Research Triangle. I visited Durham – gosh, it’s lovely. Maybe dr ngo lives there? I know you live farther afield, cleek, but NC is a beautiful state.
Anyway, in recalcitrant states (like maybe VA, and definitely NC), I’m thinking that people who can work anywhere, and people who are wealthy and blue, should make a plan to move to gerrymandered red districts and take them over, a few at a time. It’s better than war, right?
and this was the NC GOP’s second round of gerrymandering.
Someone close to me just moved to the Research Triangle. I visited Durham – gosh, it’s lovely. Maybe dr ngo lives there? I know you live farther afield, cleek, but NC is a beautiful state.
Anyway, in recalcitrant states (like maybe VA, and definitely NC), I’m thinking that people who can work anywhere, and people who are wealthy and blue, should make a plan to move to gerrymandered red districts and take them over, a few at a time. It’s better than war, right?
This is a wonderful letter from Mollie Tibbetts’ father, published in the Des Moines Register. In it, he implores people to stop using her death to stir up racial hatred.
He talks about her values, and also McCain’s values, and he says:
My stepdaughter, whom Mollie loved so dearly, is Latina. Her sons — Mollie’s cherished nephews and my grandchildren — are Latino. That means I am Hispanic. I am African. I am Asian. I am European. My blood runs from every corner of the Earth because I am American. As an American, I have one tenet: to respect every citizen of the world and actively engage in the ongoing pursuit to form a more perfect union.
Given that, to knowingly foment discord among races is a disgrace to our flag. It incites fear in innocent communities and lends legitimacy to the darkest, most hate-filled corners of the American soul. It is the opposite of leadership. It is the opposite of humanity. It is heartless. It is despicable. It is shameful.
Even if he had not mentioned McCain, I would have thought this deserved to be in this thread, and this discussion. Talk about a moving reminder of the aspirations of honourable Americans….
This is a wonderful letter from Mollie Tibbetts’ father, published in the Des Moines Register. In it, he implores people to stop using her death to stir up racial hatred.
He talks about her values, and also McCain’s values, and he says:
My stepdaughter, whom Mollie loved so dearly, is Latina. Her sons — Mollie’s cherished nephews and my grandchildren — are Latino. That means I am Hispanic. I am African. I am Asian. I am European. My blood runs from every corner of the Earth because I am American. As an American, I have one tenet: to respect every citizen of the world and actively engage in the ongoing pursuit to form a more perfect union.
Given that, to knowingly foment discord among races is a disgrace to our flag. It incites fear in innocent communities and lends legitimacy to the darkest, most hate-filled corners of the American soul. It is the opposite of leadership. It is the opposite of humanity. It is heartless. It is despicable. It is shameful.
Even if he had not mentioned McCain, I would have thought this deserved to be in this thread, and this discussion. Talk about a moving reminder of the aspirations of honourable Americans….
That was inspiring, GftNC. Thanks.
Unfortunately, then I saw this. Combined with news that lj posted, that citizens are being denied passports and reentry into the country, I’m thinking that we need to plan for post “blue-wave” action (and that’s assuming a blue wave).
Obviously, taking back the House (and, please, the Senate), would be a wonderful first step. But it won’t solve things. We can’t let what’s happening continue to happen, and we have to plan for the next step. The courts are helping, but the longer it takes, the more the courts will be co-opted.
That was inspiring, GftNC. Thanks.
Unfortunately, then I saw this. Combined with news that lj posted, that citizens are being denied passports and reentry into the country, I’m thinking that we need to plan for post “blue-wave” action (and that’s assuming a blue wave).
Obviously, taking back the House (and, please, the Senate), would be a wonderful first step. But it won’t solve things. We can’t let what’s happening continue to happen, and we have to plan for the next step. The courts are helping, but the longer it takes, the more the courts will be co-opted.
I usually find the Count’s tirades over the top. But in the specific case of Steven Miller, whose policy this is, I’m quite willing to make an exception. “Unconscionable” is the kindest way to describe it.
I usually find the Count’s tirades over the top. But in the specific case of Steven Miller, whose policy this is, I’m quite willing to make an exception. “Unconscionable” is the kindest way to describe it.
wj, yep.
wj, yep.
I just moved from a safely blue to a contested red district/state. I can’t claim that is why I moved, but it was definitely part of the draw.
It is actually interesting to have my kids meet ‘out’ republicans for the first time. They are used to the closeted kind.
I just moved from a safely blue to a contested red district/state. I can’t claim that is why I moved, but it was definitely part of the draw.
It is actually interesting to have my kids meet ‘out’ republicans for the first time. They are used to the closeted kind.
Hilzoy links to this: https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-john-sipher-human-sources-moscow
Sorry Donald didn’t think Russia was a problem. Russia is a problem.
Hilzoy links to this: https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-john-sipher-human-sources-moscow
Sorry Donald didn’t think Russia was a problem. Russia is a problem.
jrudkis, good for you! What you need to do now is tell everyone else you know to move there, they will tell their friends, and it will soon be blue!
Yes!
jrudkis, good for you! What you need to do now is tell everyone else you know to move there, they will tell their friends, and it will soon be blue!
Yes!
I’ve thought about relocating to a purplish or reddish district. The trick is finding one that isn’t so racist, sexist, or Dominionist that I’d be in fear of my physical safety/life.
I’ve thought about relocating to a purplish or reddish district. The trick is finding one that isn’t so racist, sexist, or Dominionist that I’d be in fear of my physical safety/life.
Sapient,
I invite people to visit often, hoping they will see the awesomeness. HSH should be here by next election…
I am a relatively safe transplant since I am white and a veteran, and a previous GOP voter. I definitely understand CaseyL that it is not easy to just move to a place you may be in danger.
I am not in danger, except when my kids openly disparage Trump voters at Costco…I put the lid on that.
Sapient,
I invite people to visit often, hoping they will see the awesomeness. HSH should be here by next election…
I am a relatively safe transplant since I am white and a veteran, and a previous GOP voter. I definitely understand CaseyL that it is not easy to just move to a place you may be in danger.
I am not in danger, except when my kids openly disparage Trump voters at Costco…I put the lid on that.
I just moved from a safely blue to a contested red district/state.
With some exceptions, a lot of people are doing so.
Net Domestic Migration
I just moved from a safely blue to a contested red district/state.
With some exceptions, a lot of people are doing so.
Net Domestic Migration
come on down to the NC suburbs!
made purple by the tens of thousands of northerners. our GOP that’s perennially on the edge of obliteration! it’s like a fungal rash that comes roaring back, time and time again.
come on down to the NC suburbs!
made purple by the tens of thousands of northerners. our GOP that’s perennially on the edge of obliteration! it’s like a fungal rash that comes roaring back, time and time again.
I visited Durham – gosh, it’s lovely. Maybe dr ngo lives there? I know you live farther afield, cleek, but NC is a beautiful state.
my wife works in Durham. we’re about 10 miles due south.
I visited Durham – gosh, it’s lovely. Maybe dr ngo lives there? I know you live farther afield, cleek, but NC is a beautiful state.
my wife works in Durham. we’re about 10 miles due south.
Seems perfect, cleek.
Seems perfect, cleek.
An acerbic British columnist, tweeting about the Aretha funeral, said “Here is righteous, flawed Bill Clinton, impeached for a blowjob.” She followed it by saying “Like looking back at Narnia.”
The McCain funeral was even more like looking back at Narnia. Everybody watching here was conscious of the graphic contrast illuminating the change in public America – I’d be very interested to know what if any were the reactions of the general public (if there is still such an animal) in the US. I’m told (although can hardly believe it, and cannot find confirmation) that Fox News showed the whole funeral. Does anybody know if this is true? And if so, it would be fascinating to know what the tone was of the discussions afterwards.
An acerbic British columnist, tweeting about the Aretha funeral, said “Here is righteous, flawed Bill Clinton, impeached for a blowjob.” She followed it by saying “Like looking back at Narnia.”
The McCain funeral was even more like looking back at Narnia. Everybody watching here was conscious of the graphic contrast illuminating the change in public America – I’d be very interested to know what if any were the reactions of the general public (if there is still such an animal) in the US. I’m told (although can hardly believe it, and cannot find confirmation) that Fox News showed the whole funeral. Does anybody know if this is true? And if so, it would be fascinating to know what the tone was of the discussions afterwards.
We need to consider who we want to be. Individually, as communities, and as a nation.
And then act on that.
Is what we have now what we actually wanted? If not, what needs to happen to change that?
And, proceed from there.
Where we end up is up to us. Individually, as communities, and as a nation.
We need to consider who we want to be. Individually, as communities, and as a nation.
And then act on that.
Is what we have now what we actually wanted? If not, what needs to happen to change that?
And, proceed from there.
Where we end up is up to us. Individually, as communities, and as a nation.
From a thread retweeted by hilzoy (I post what I think is particularly important stuff from there on the theory that not all our lurkers, for example, follow her, but anybody’s MMV and I would stop doing so if asked by any front-pager):
https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1036241825500200961
The money quotes, in my opinion, about people of differing political views but who nevertheless have been prepared to oppose the current regime:
I would hope that we would all retain in future disagreements a deep awareness that the people we are disagreeing with are people with whom we shared a foxhole when democratic government itself faced a threat.
***
I very much hope I will never be able to disagree—however intensely—with such people again without a keen understanding that on the most important values, we share a core. And I hope that will cause me to engage with them more respectfully than I might otherwise have done.
***
I hope it makes me more open to arguments I would otherwise dismiss. I hope it makes me more respectful in disagreement. I hope it creates the possibility of dialogue between people—and between movements—that have regarded one another as hopeless.
From a thread retweeted by hilzoy (I post what I think is particularly important stuff from there on the theory that not all our lurkers, for example, follow her, but anybody’s MMV and I would stop doing so if asked by any front-pager):
https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1036241825500200961
The money quotes, in my opinion, about people of differing political views but who nevertheless have been prepared to oppose the current regime:
I would hope that we would all retain in future disagreements a deep awareness that the people we are disagreeing with are people with whom we shared a foxhole when democratic government itself faced a threat.
***
I very much hope I will never be able to disagree—however intensely—with such people again without a keen understanding that on the most important values, we share a core. And I hope that will cause me to engage with them more respectfully than I might otherwise have done.
***
I hope it makes me more open to arguments I would otherwise dismiss. I hope it makes me more respectful in disagreement. I hope it creates the possibility of dialogue between people—and between movements—that have regarded one another as hopeless.
GOP that’s perennially on the edge of obliteration! it’s like a fungal rash that comes roaring back, time and time again.
Yup.
NC has been “on the verge” of turning blue for 40-50 years. It’s a perpetual tease.
GOP that’s perennially on the edge of obliteration! it’s like a fungal rash that comes roaring back, time and time again.
Yup.
NC has been “on the verge” of turning blue for 40-50 years. It’s a perpetual tease.
NC has been “on the verge” of turning blue for 40-50 years. It’s a perpetual tease.
Virginia, where I live, has also been on the cusp, although much more reliable in statewide elections (not always). I am reluctant to leave as maybe, just maybe, we can un-gerrymander ourselves. So, I’ll try to see it through, then march to a red state with my fellow invaders!
We are the popular vote, and we can do this.
NC has been “on the verge” of turning blue for 40-50 years. It’s a perpetual tease.
Virginia, where I live, has also been on the cusp, although much more reliable in statewide elections (not always). I am reluctant to leave as maybe, just maybe, we can un-gerrymander ourselves. So, I’ll try to see it through, then march to a red state with my fellow invaders!
We are the popular vote, and we can do this.
I suspect that it’s in the nature of such things that a state is “on the verge” of flipping for a while. The actual change can be held back for a while via innovative gerrymandering, vote suppression, etc. But that just means that the transition, when it finally happens, appears both abrupt and massive.**
Virginia looks to be past the point where change can be thwarted. North Carolina, and even Texas, appear to be to where the supersaturated solution just needs a seed crystal to change phase.
** Alternatively, of course, a party can retain power by adjusting its policies to fit a changing electorate. But that doesn’t seem to be the preferred approach. Indeed, observation suggests that policy change will be resisted even long after it is obvious that the old ways will no longer play in Peoria.
I suspect that it’s in the nature of such things that a state is “on the verge” of flipping for a while. The actual change can be held back for a while via innovative gerrymandering, vote suppression, etc. But that just means that the transition, when it finally happens, appears both abrupt and massive.**
Virginia looks to be past the point where change can be thwarted. North Carolina, and even Texas, appear to be to where the supersaturated solution just needs a seed crystal to change phase.
** Alternatively, of course, a party can retain power by adjusting its policies to fit a changing electorate. But that doesn’t seem to be the preferred approach. Indeed, observation suggests that policy change will be resisted even long after it is obvious that the old ways will no longer play in Peoria.
A reasonable assessment:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/27/14078646/north-carolina-political-science-democracy
North Carolina’s score is 58 out of 100, slightly above Cuba (56) and Indonesia (57) and below Rwanda (64) and Georgia (59).
“If it were a nation state, North Carolina would rank right in the middle of the global league table — a deeply flawed, partly free democracy that is only slightly ahead of the failed democracies that constitute much of the developing world,” Reynolds concludes…
But I’m sure wj is right – when it goes Democratic, the change will be abrupt indeed.
A reasonable assessment:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/27/14078646/north-carolina-political-science-democracy
North Carolina’s score is 58 out of 100, slightly above Cuba (56) and Indonesia (57) and below Rwanda (64) and Georgia (59).
“If it were a nation state, North Carolina would rank right in the middle of the global league table — a deeply flawed, partly free democracy that is only slightly ahead of the failed democracies that constitute much of the developing world,” Reynolds concludes…
But I’m sure wj is right – when it goes Democratic, the change will be abrupt indeed.
A reasonable assessment
I guess it depends on how you look at it. North Carolina has a net inflow of people moving there from the other states. Cato’s freedom index of the 50 states ranks it #18.
Freedom in the 50 States
A reasonable assessment
I guess it depends on how you look at it. North Carolina has a net inflow of people moving there from the other states. Cato’s freedom index of the 50 states ranks it #18.
Freedom in the 50 States
do look at the last paragraph of that Vox piece.
it links here: https://andrewgelman.com/2017/01/02/about-that-bogus-claim-that-north-carolina-is-no-longer-a-democracy/
do look at the last paragraph of that Vox piece.
it links here: https://andrewgelman.com/2017/01/02/about-that-bogus-claim-that-north-carolina-is-no-longer-a-democracy/
I give you mp lawyer, Rudy Ghouliani, or if you wish, napkin scrawler Arthur Laugher:
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/unfrozen-caveman-lawyer/2862211
Both are throwbacks to an earlier age, don’t ya think?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/giuliani-says-team-trump-will-likely-try-to-block-mueller-report-release
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/art-laffer-says-trumps-tax-cuts-dont-go-far-enough-134629116.html
Never fear. Simple answers to all of life’s problems. All anxieties tranquilized. All boredom … amused.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/09/its-time-to-break-free-from-tyranny-and.html
Who is who? No one knows.
http://fortune.com/2018/06/29/trump-wto-withdrawal/
… and …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOrLasoStes
They tell me you a madman.
Only desultorily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35DSdw7dHjs
I give you mp lawyer, Rudy Ghouliani, or if you wish, napkin scrawler Arthur Laugher:
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/unfrozen-caveman-lawyer/2862211
Both are throwbacks to an earlier age, don’t ya think?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/giuliani-says-team-trump-will-likely-try-to-block-mueller-report-release
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/art-laffer-says-trumps-tax-cuts-dont-go-far-enough-134629116.html
Never fear. Simple answers to all of life’s problems. All anxieties tranquilized. All boredom … amused.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/09/its-time-to-break-free-from-tyranny-and.html
Who is who? No one knows.
http://fortune.com/2018/06/29/trump-wto-withdrawal/
… and …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOrLasoStes
They tell me you a madman.
Only desultorily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35DSdw7dHjs
With all due respect, Charles, that has eff all to do with democratice process:
https://www.freedominthe50states.org/how-its-calculated
Or lack of it.
In theory, a dictatorship could score pretty well on most of those metrics.
With all due respect, Charles, that has eff all to do with democratice process:
https://www.freedominthe50states.org/how-its-calculated
Or lack of it.
In theory, a dictatorship could score pretty well on most of those metrics.
With all due respect, Charles, that has eff all to do with democratice process:
True enough, but the Vox article and the underlying data juxtapositioning NC near Cuba, Indonesia, Rwanda, and Georgia would have you think it’s a rather undesirable place to live.
In theory, a dictatorship could score pretty well on most of those metrics.
I suppose Singapore is a pretty close example of that. It ranks high in economic freedom. Political freedom, not so much.
With all due respect, Charles, that has eff all to do with democratice process:
True enough, but the Vox article and the underlying data juxtapositioning NC near Cuba, Indonesia, Rwanda, and Georgia would have you think it’s a rather undesirable place to live.
In theory, a dictatorship could score pretty well on most of those metrics.
I suppose Singapore is a pretty close example of that. It ranks high in economic freedom. Political freedom, not so much.
North Carolina has a net inflow of people moving there from the other states.
1. good tech sector
2. better weather than either the northeast or florida
North Carolina has a net inflow of people moving there from the other states.
1. good tech sector
2. better weather than either the northeast or florida
The South is in your future, russell! (I know it’s in your past.)
Truly, though, I’m going to remain in Virginia for another 4 years to see if things actually gel into making us blue. Then, we’ll seriously consider a move down to NC. Delicious food!
I was in Durham for less than 48 hours. My hosts greeted me with fabulous Mexican take-out, and an outdoor story event. It was so fun! And the farmers market the next morning was great, after the pimiento cheese and fried green tomato biscuit. Lots of other fun, but then Sunday, we walked around Duke, but lingered in the botanical garden, which could be an all-day or every-day event. All very walkable, and bike friendly. A little warm, but that means people are good to go until November!
In terms of gerrymandering, I havent looked it up, but if we all move to the research triangle, it might not help. But NC is huge! I’m going to be checking it out, and will report back.
The South is in your future, russell! (I know it’s in your past.)
Truly, though, I’m going to remain in Virginia for another 4 years to see if things actually gel into making us blue. Then, we’ll seriously consider a move down to NC. Delicious food!
I was in Durham for less than 48 hours. My hosts greeted me with fabulous Mexican take-out, and an outdoor story event. It was so fun! And the farmers market the next morning was great, after the pimiento cheese and fried green tomato biscuit. Lots of other fun, but then Sunday, we walked around Duke, but lingered in the botanical garden, which could be an all-day or every-day event. All very walkable, and bike friendly. A little warm, but that means people are good to go until November!
In terms of gerrymandering, I havent looked it up, but if we all move to the research triangle, it might not help. But NC is huge! I’m going to be checking it out, and will report back.
Also, CaseyL, I realize now that I’ve ignored this dilemma. If we move in large enough numbers to protect each other, it could work for all of us. We’d be adopting a lifestyle, staying true to a movement, and taking care of each other, all at once.
Also, CaseyL, I realize now that I’ve ignored this dilemma. If we move in large enough numbers to protect each other, it could work for all of us. We’d be adopting a lifestyle, staying true to a movement, and taking care of each other, all at once.
Durham is great. it’s trying very hard to be a revilatlised progressive college town. and the counties around the triangle are purple. the cities are red. my county has 13K people. it could be blue in a couple of years – once my boss’s latest real estate development (it’s his side biz) turns it into a county of 60K.
and Charlotte is a great city. it’s like Raleigh, but 3x.
i like NC – even the rural parts (and the coast is almost 100% rural).
it just needs a bit more time.
Durham is great. it’s trying very hard to be a revilatlised progressive college town. and the counties around the triangle are purple. the cities are red. my county has 13K people. it could be blue in a couple of years – once my boss’s latest real estate development (it’s his side biz) turns it into a county of 60K.
and Charlotte is a great city. it’s like Raleigh, but 3x.
i like NC – even the rural parts (and the coast is almost 100% rural).
it just needs a bit more time.
Infants are capable of distinguishing between leaders and bullies:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-09-infants-distinguish-leaders-bullies.html
What happened with the US electorate ?
Infants are capable of distinguishing between leaders and bullies:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-09-infants-distinguish-leaders-bullies.html
What happened with the US electorate ?
What happened with the US electorate ?
First of all, it was not “the US electorate,” it was a subset, in fact less than half.
Secondly, on a quick skim, it seems that the the study described in the article was about how infants reacted to bullies or leaders, not about which they’d rather be (if either).
Some people like bullying other people. At the last election, some of the US electorate apparently thought they were going to get to be the bully and lord it over all us “others.” They apparently thought that would be pretty great, even if it was only vicarious.
What happened with the US electorate ?
First of all, it was not “the US electorate,” it was a subset, in fact less than half.
Secondly, on a quick skim, it seems that the the study described in the article was about how infants reacted to bullies or leaders, not about which they’d rather be (if either).
Some people like bullying other people. At the last election, some of the US electorate apparently thought they were going to get to be the bully and lord it over all us “others.” They apparently thought that would be pretty great, even if it was only vicarious.
Sorry, Janie, my question was (perhaps gratuitously) rhetorical. It was an interesting article in its own right – there seems to be a lot of new stuff being done with eye tracking technology.
Some people like bullying other people… is almost certainly true, and a little depressing.
Sorry, Janie, my question was (perhaps gratuitously) rhetorical. It was an interesting article in its own right – there seems to be a lot of new stuff being done with eye tracking technology.
Some people like bullying other people… is almost certainly true, and a little depressing.
Back when I was dabbling in linguistics, I audited a class on language acquisition. There’s been some amazing research on very young infants and how they perceive language sounds — using eye-tracking. That was ten or so years ago, so I’d bet they’ve done some even cooler stuff since then.
lj might know more…..
Back when I was dabbling in linguistics, I audited a class on language acquisition. There’s been some amazing research on very young infants and how they perceive language sounds — using eye-tracking. That was ten or so years ago, so I’d bet they’ve done some even cooler stuff since then.
lj might know more…..
John McCain does more dead than you know who.
This sounds about right:
http://juanitajean.com/fickle-fickle-fickle/
Until Art Pope is a dead fuck, North Carolina is nothing but a territory fought over by the Confederacy and decent Americans.
John McCain does more dead than you know who.
This sounds about right:
http://juanitajean.com/fickle-fickle-fickle/
Until Art Pope is a dead fuck, North Carolina is nothing but a territory fought over by the Confederacy and decent Americans.