by Ugh
Four score and seven years ago our [white] fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all [white] men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of [white] freedom — and that government of the [white] people, by the [white] people, for the [white] people, shall not perish from the earth.
[Donald J. Trump]
Feh
Do you really believe, He would get through that elitist polysyllabic grammar filled item without severe garbling and digression (not to forget random repetion of simpler parts)?
if i read that in Trump’s whining cadence, i feel an urge to jump off the 4th floor atrium balcony down the hall from my office.
We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.
And by the way, they were great people, really great, special people – in fact many people say they were heroes. Of course, they died, and as you know I like people who didn’t die. I’ve said before that the 70s were the time of my own fight and my own heroism, and of course I’m still alive. And I’m President. You can make your own judgement about who’s the greater hero.
On and on ad nauseam.
THE PARTY OF LINCOLN!!!!
Definitely needs, for plausibility, at least a couple of lines (and probably a couple of paragraphs) about how wonderful Trump thinks he is.
The revised version is historically correct. The founders and all the documents and symbols are Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. Not German, not Irish, not Catholic, not black, not Hispanic, not Muslim…
Trump is the best President since Washington.
Dark humor aside, here in America we live surrounded by:
1) Racists who revel in He, Trump’s racism; and
2) People who tell themselves that His “(Republican) policies” are not at all motivated by His racism.
The latter are too spineless to stand up to the former.
–TP
fwiw, I think Trump is telling the truth when he says he’s not racist. That’s in the sense that he doesn’t actually dislike people on the basis of the colour of their skin – Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, what’s not to like. What he dislikes people for is disagreeing with him, or not telling him enough how great he is. And if they’re guilty of that, he’ll attack them with anything that appeals to his base.
So I don’t think Trump’s policies are motivated by racism. They’re motivated by love of Trump.
(We see the same sort of thing with Nigel Farage. He’s not racist, in the same sense, but he’s deeply relaxed about appealing to voters by using scary posters of dark-skinned people.)
Yes, Trump’s viewpoint (and Farage’s) is grounded in an assumption that their sort of people are entitled to hereditary privilege. And their sort of people are predominately light-skinned. I’m just saying that in their own minds, that’s not racist.
Pro Bono: I think Trump is telling the truth when he says he’s not racist.
Aside from getting busted for racial discrimination in housing; demanding that only “short guys in yarmulkes” handle his money; refusing to apologize for his call to execute 5 black kids after they were proved innocent; championing birtherism; declaring that Mexico “sends us” rapists; calling poor black countries “shitholes”; and falling back on Norway every time he wants to mention “a country”; you’re right: He, Trump is not really a racist.
But I’m curious: who should we consider worse? The asshole who is a “real” racist, or the asshole who merely acts like one?
–TP
I think Trump is telling the truth when he says he’s not racist
I think Trump sincerely believes that he is not racist. Not quite the same thing.
I can’t imagine Trump speaking the words in the OP. The concepts of honor and self-sacrifice that they express are beyond the scope of his experience or understanding.
I think Trump sincerely believes
I don’t think the word “sincere” belongs anywhere near the word “Trump.”
What russell said.
Just like his followers, Trump prefers to believe that he is not a nasty, horrible excuse for a human being. As so often with Trump, what he believes has little relationship to objective reality.
Win-win
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/20/some-day-turtle-may-end-up-with-trump-branded-straw-its-nose-heres-why/
my take is that he is racist, knows he’s racist, and doesn’t think it’s wrong to be so.
why shouldn’t he be leery of Mexicans? all of his news sources are filled with horror stories about them raping and ganging and drugging. why shouldn’t he be leery of Muslims? he was in NYC for 9/11; he knows what they do. why shouldn’t he think women are sex objects? his whole life has been filled with women who have been happy to oblige him.
he’s told us exactly what and why he thinks about all of the various minorities and others and people-who-aren’t-hims.
he’s racist, and sexist, and if you asked him, i have no doubt he would tell you his reasons why. and it’s the same racist mythology that many many other people subscribe to.
it’s also cowardly and pigheaded and ignorant.
shorter me: racists usually think they’re just being ‘honest about things’.
But of course, neither they — nor the media — would ever admit to being or saying anything racist. “Racist” is, as we all know, just a terrible yet meaningless insult word that can’t possibly be applied accurately to any real person or utterance. To do so would just be being uncivil and divisive.
No, no. They’re just being “racial realists”, saying things that might be “controversial” and “racially charged”.
See also: sexist, fascist, etc.
racists usually think they’re just being ‘honest about things’
Yes. Which is why they don’t think they are racists.
It is perhaps an odd thing to say, but I don’t think we’ll ever make much progress regarding race until we stop thinking of racism as a horrible personal character deficiency. It sort of can be that, but it can also be a hundred other things.
Like, a habit. A function of when and where and how you were raised. An unconscious mental tic.
A big question to unpack, and unfortunately I don’t have time right now to do so. So I’ll just leave it there – “put a pin in it” as the middle managers say – and return to it later.
Well, it’s a great leap forward from the days of yore, when many people would proudly own their racism.
Now we just need to brand a big red R on the foreheads of the racists.
Like, a habit. A function of when and where and how you were raised. An unconscious mental tic.
And a feature of your current environment . . . as you perceive it to be. Thus, when there are very few actual immigrant refugees in your social circle, you are free to believe any and all slurs you hear about them. (And to consider the few you do happen to know, who definitely don’t fit your stereotype, as “exceptions”.)
Thus, when the vast majority of homosexuals were closeted, people didn’t realize that they knew any. (Let alone had, God forbid, any among their relatives.) But once they started coming out of the closet in large numbers, people’s stereotypes became unsustainable. There were just too many coworkers, friends and relatives who turned out to be homosexual. And the culture’s views changed with astounding speed.
There are still pockets of bigotry concerning sexual orientation. But they are inevitably tight little groups where homosexuals still consider it necessary to remain closeted. And the next generation is changing anyway.
Racism too will change, once there are enough members of the group with the requisite social and economic standing to make it untenable. Which is why the most dedicated racists are hysterical about immigration currently. They know (consciously or not) that their cherished beliefs are going to change — even if they don’t change personally, their children and grandchildren will.
Even reducing immigration (except from northern Europe, of course) to zero won’t keep it from happening. But it’s all they’ve got. And the more obvious it becomes that it won’t work, the more worked up they get. Hence cries of “Send them back” about prominent members of minorities. Nothing short of massive ethnic cleansing will work at this pount.
A house divided against itself, cannot stand….
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/send-her-back-trump-supporters-his-nc-rally/594268/
Talking with the rallygoers, I couldn’t find one who faulted Trump for demonizing the freshman representatives, all four of whom are American citizens, calling on them to leave the United States and return to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” A few conceded that Trump occasionally fires off an inappropriate tweet, but said his accomplishments in office overshadow any offense. If anything, they said, his language springs from an authenticity they find refreshing. None of the people I spoke with considered his comments about the congresswomen racist….
jack lecou: But of course, neither they — nor the media — would ever admit to being or saying anything racist.
Of which “they” is that true? I seem to recall footage of some pasty-faced “good people” chanting “Jews will not replace us” as if they meant it. (It would be ironic if those same scumbags are now among those condemning Omar’s “anti-Semitism” like il Duce instructed. If irony were not dead as mutton, I mean.) If it’s true that even knuckle-dragging white-supremacist christo-fascists are embarrassed to be called “racist” then that represents progress of a sort. But at least some of them are NOT.
russell: A function of when and where and how you were raised.
Yes. You might be simply an innocent victim of “white culture”:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28434608/trump-rally-ilhan-omar-send-her-back-fascist/
That young girl may, possibly, rise above her upbringing and overcome the burden of a dysfunctional family environment. Just like little black girls often do.
–TP
Of which “they” is that true? I seem to recall footage of some pasty-faced “good people” chanting “Jews will not replace us” as if they meant it.
Sure. And to you and me, that plainly makes them racist as hell.
But do you think they actually call *themselves* “racist”? Even in private? I suppose some of the fringiest might, but not most of them. Because, as everyone knows, racism is bad, so racists would be bad people.
And of course they’re not bad people [rolls eyes so hard they pop out of their sockets], so they can’t be racists. They’re just brave activists willing to face the uncomfortable truths that others aren’t, trying to protect the white race from the “great replacement”, etc. [Pauses to remove and burn gloves and keyboard that typed that]
To (most) racists, and apparently most Republicans* (same thing, maybe), “racist” isn’t ever an accurate description, just a bad faith insult word. I’d bet you a happy meal Trump doesn’t think he’s a “racist”. He’s got some other internal narrative.
This is partly why it’s such a big problem that many large media organizations not only refuse to apply the word when appropriate, but actually have internal rules prohibiting calling a spade a spade. They’re basically officially adopting the right wing contention that the word “racist” is itself taboo, even when it’s manifestly correct.
——
* “The vast majority of Republicans (70%) believe that people who call others “racist” usually do so in bad faith, whereas just 31% of Democrats believe the same.” (https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/trump-tweet-response-2019)
wj: Thus, when the vast majority of homosexuals were closeted, people didn’t realize that they knew any.
One big difference: “race” is more visible than “sexuality”.
I’m tempted to say that when the vast majority of racists were closeted, people didn’t realize that they knew any. Under He, Trump they are learning that some of their best friends, etc, etc. Let’s hope that your analogy doesn’t carry that far, wj.
–TP
One big difference: “race” is more visible than “sexuality”.
Indeed. But what I was attempting to say is that, the more people you know from the “other” group (be it race, orientation, whatever), the more your stereotypes tend to break down. IF they are recognizably people like you. People in the same job. People in the same social circle. Etc.
his language springs from an authenticity they find refreshing
I’ve been thinking on this. It seems to me that they find his words “authentic” because the words reflect how they see the world. And they can’t quite grasp that others honestly have different views on, for example, race.
Therefore, to them, a politician (of their race) who doesn’t make racist remanks MUST be inauthentic — because it is just inconceivable that he wouldn’t harbor the same views. He’s simply not speaking what is honestly in his mind.
What are we trying to get at here?
That “racist” has lost its stigma because racists don’t call themselves racist? That we need to reason politely with them until they recognize their own bigotry? That we need to invent a new name for that which walks like a duck and quacks like a duck? Or what?
–TP
wj 4:29. right on.
racists hate people for no reason. the deplorables have reasons.
Yeah, they don’t hate other people because of their race. It’s because of all the objectively bad qualities members of other races have. Duh…
It boggles my entire mind that a mean-spirited, foul-mouthed, narcissist turned out to be “electable” by resolutely insulting and offending people — and Democrats are constantly advised to speak moderately lest “swing voters” (the fickle) and “independents” (the apathetic) find them too strident.
Racists may be sick, or they may be evil, but either way they all think He, Trump is on their side. And He knows they’re on His side. And the Republicons who matter are so content with this that they are willing to stand before TV cameras and say incredibly stupid things in support of Him.
I want some Democrat to tell them all to go fuck themselves, just as an experiment in “electability”.
–TP
In my view, it’s unproductive to describe people as racist – I don’t know what motivates them. But it’s useful and necessary to describe words and deeds as racist when they are.
What Trump said about the congresswomen was racist.
Pro Bono: In my view, it’s unproductive to describe people as racist
Why?
–TP
Why ?
Emily Nussbaum, in a fine article about All in the Family, wrote:
“bigotry is resilient, because rejecting it often means rejecting your own family…”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/07/the-great-divide-emily-nussbaum
How much more difficult to reject yourself ?
Certainly easier to be persuaded to repudiate some of your attitudes.
For the ‘honest’ racists the problem is that ‘racism’ has become a dirty word and that the masses are too ignorant to see the truth. Even worse, they might impede those that know the truth in their unpleasant but necessary work.
The most notorious expression of that is still Himmler’s first Posen speech
Here he also pinpoints the ‘problem’ mentioned up-thread. It’s difficult to spread the hate among people that know too many decent members of the targeted group.
The same phenomenon can be observed in modern day Germany. The objection to foreigners (this may at times include even Western white people) is highest in regions where there are few (if any) of them. In those same regions even toddlers ‘know’ that ‘Jew’ ranks among the worst insults without knowing what a ‘Jew’ actually is.
Imo He The Donald is a racist personally but not per se a racist ideologue (like e.g. Miller). He uses racist policies and language because he (unfortunately correctly) believes that it helps him (again personally). Were his rabid base xenophile, he would avoid this particular tool to feed their rage and use another instead. There might occur glitches (He is, after all, a loose cannon of the worst kind) but he would not make the topic a centerpiece of his campaign.
In those same regions even toddlers ‘know’ that ‘Jew’ ranks among the worst insults without knowing what a ‘Jew’ actually is.
This was true of the word “queer” as recently as when my kids were little. “That’s so queer….” was a typical insult flung back and forth among 8-year-olds 25 years ago.
Why?
It would take several volumes to explore this question, and I have mixed feelings about it these days, but one possible reason is that it has the opposite effect from what a lot of people seem to think it should have when they say you have to call people out etc. That is, it cements people even more stubbornly into the condition you’re accusing them of. “You’re not the boss of me” is a potent motivator.
That’s why I do agree (provisionally! I suspect it’s all moot in the age of Clickbait) that calling out the behavior, action, or words might possibly maybe have a less backfiring effect than naming the person as racist, or a homophobe, or whatever.
Of course, the answer might be different depending on your goals in calling out racism and/or calling someone a racist. If your goal is to change that person’s mind, name-calling is not very likely to get the job done. If your goal is to make a point for someone else’s benefit, that’s a different story. I guess.
John Quiggin at Crooked Timber on this topic.
If your goal is to change that person’s mind, name-calling is not very likely to get the job done. If your goal is to make a point for someone else’s benefit, that’s a different story. I guess.
Definitely. Who your intended audience is is critical. Too often those who insist on “call a racist a racist” don’t acknowledge that they are talking to and for those who already agree with them. (As, interestingly, are those Trump fans who talk admiringly of his “authenticity”.) Otherwise them would phrase their comments differently.
If I hesitate to call Jeff Bezos “rich”, what do I accomplish?
I make myself look silly, to an audience composed of sane people, for a start.
That is all.
–TP
“…what do I accomplish?”
It depends on the context, and what you’re trying to accomplish. In the context of some subjects, dragging in the irrelevant fact that he’s rich would make you look silly.
From another angle, if you call me “rich,” that’s edgier, again depending on the context. I’m very “rich” compared to billions of people, in that I have a pretty comfortable daily life, even if it doesn’t run to expensive cars and multiple houses and staying at the Ritz and exploring the oceans for old rockets. So you wouldn’t call me “rich” unless you had a political agenda that you thought it served.
But this is not a topic for one-liner quibbles. So I’m out.
I think what it comes down to is this:
Are you willing to burn a bridge?
If you have no interest in maintaining a connection to the person who engages in racist actions or rhetoric, fire away. If you do have such an interest, it might be better to proceed in a way that is less of a statement about them as a person.
There is a difference between saying “you are a racist” and “the thing you just said is actually insulting to [enter insulted demographic here]”.
I don’t have a problem, at all, with saying that Trump provides ample evidence of being a racist, where “racism” plainly and simply means that he thinks people from some racial or ethnic backgrounds are superior to people from others, purely because they come from those racial or ethnic backgrounds.
“Good genes”, “shithole countries”, “why don’t we let people in from nice countries like Norway”.
Plus, offending Trump is not a concern of mine.
If you’re talking to your bigoted uncle, or your neighbor who wants to “live with his own kind”, etc., maybe a different path is recommended.
In the United States, in particular, racism, and bigotry against people of any kind of color other than white, is so deeply rooted in our history that you can’t swing a cat without banging into it. We think we’re beyond it, we’re not even close. We just are not.
So it’s very hard to call it out without having to do a bit of a self-awareness head check.
I’ve raised the question before of whether, for instance, going out of your way to *not* give offense to people of color is also a form of racism. Because I think it kind of is. It’s intentions are good, the concern for not giving offense is nothing but good.
But it calls out the fact that we – Americans – live with an awareness of race as a factor of somebody’s identity that is actually kind of bizarre, and not really a universal thing, either now or historically.
Everybody in the world, and everybody in history, doesn’t and didn’t walk around acutely aware of other people’s skin color. Some do, many don’t. They may walk around acutely aware of some other bullshit basis for drawing lines between people, but skin color is not always the marker.
For us, it is. For us, frankly, it’s been one of the markers for saying “I don’t have to treat you like an equal”. And if that’s not racism, I don’t know what is.
I say “one of” the markers because there are, and have been, others.
What is more than worth calling out, always, is the malice and disrespect expressed by Trump on a daily basis, and by his followers as a kind of perverse in-group not-so-secret handshake.
But I’m not sure that the current thing we do – “we” here meaning everybody, not specifically “we” here at ObWI – where we debate whether something is really racist, or just racially charged, or just “telling it like it is”, is useful. Nor the whole thing where we yell about “who the real racists” are.
Trump is a racist. Of course he is a racist. He expresses, plainly, the belief that some colors or ethnic identities are better than others. That’s what racism is.
But I’m not sure the focus on his racism, specifically, is that useful. He is obviously bigoted, the people who support him can see that, and they either share that or don’t care. Nobody is going to shame him, or them, into changing anything they say or do, by calling it out as racist.
As a nation, we still have miles to go as far as race not mattering. Maybe calling it out, in the specific form of tagging offending people with the label “racist”, will help us, long term , in advancing toward that goal.
But I have to say I don’t know if it will. I don’t know what else will, but I don’t know if that will.
This is a topic on which I don’t feel like I have any answers. I appreciate the opportunity to basically think out loud.
I suppose there exist contexts in which it’s an “irrelevant fact” that Jeff Bezos is rich. But I can’t think of a context in which it’s false.
And that was my only point: tip-toeing around a blatant fact like Jeff’s wealth or He’s racism is silly.
–TP
Nobody is going to shame him, or them, into changing anything they say or do, by calling it out as racist.
I’m not sure that’s obviously true.
One of the things that’s going on is that a lot of real progress was made over the last 50 years or so to educate society and advance a consensus that racism and discrimination are bad. Everything from after school specials to scholarly work.
Arguably, a lot of that was overly facile. There are, unfortunately, holes left in the popular understanding of what “racism” actually is that you can drive an inflatable Trump blimp through. But in many ways it was also an extremely successful effort. There’s a reason that you can probably get even a fair portion of the millennial Nazis at a tiki-torch rally to agree — in the abstract — that “racism is bad, mmkay”.
I don’t see what is gained by walking away from that success. In fact, I suspect trying to obtain that outcome — making ‘racist’ a taboo word that can’t be used — is at least partly a deliberate effort by the Goebbels-wannabes on that side of the room. In one stroke, it zeroes out all that hard won societal consensus that racism is bad. Suddenly we’re letting people get away with saying “sure, racism would be bad, but this is another thing.”
The correct thing to do, I think, is to continue to own the word and employ it correctly. And in so doing, work to close some of those definitional loopholes in the popular consensus back up. Not just stand by and allow exceptions to be carved out.
When someone says “I’m not a racist, but…”, the correct response isn’t to let them get away with it. To respond with some weak tea, “oh, yes, my friend, certainly that’s not racist, but it’s still problematic because [insert nuanced argument here]”. Nope. The correct response it to say, “no dude, that’s racist.”
As usual, wrs.
The correct response it to say, “no dude, that’s racist.”
However, jack lecou, I think it may follow from what russell said that one can take advantage of the fact that racism has generally become unacceptable not by saying “You are a racist” but by saying “That is racism. You may not be a racist, but that is some racist shit.” And if they say “So am I a racist?”, one can always say “I don’t know, man, but that is surely some racist shit.” [Clearly, adjust language for recipient.] Obviously, this only applies to people one wants to influence, or otherwise get along with, but the lack of actual, personal attack can in some circumstances make an opening.
A good bit of what passes for racism in the US is classism and culturalism.
i think the media is, in many ways, simply stuck in the past, when saying things like “racially charged” and “factually incorrect” (rather than “racist” and “lie”) were enough to shame a public official and to give him/her a lot of political trouble. that’s the tradition: politician crosses a line, media gently scolds, public tut-tuts, opponents pounce, politician retreats.
that doesn’t work with Trump, obviously, because he (pretends that he) doesn’t care about media criticism and his base loves that he doesn’t care. plus, calling him out gives him a chance to hit back, which makes the GOP swoon even more.
the media doesn’t know how to deal with someone who won’t play the traditional role. they don’t want to change their part in the process (even though Fox showed the sky won’t fall if they don’t) and so they keep gently scolding.
What GFTNC said.
And russell, apart from a quibble with this…
I’ve raised the question before of whether, for instance, going out of your way to *not* give offense to people of color is also a form of racism. Because I think it kind of is. It’s intentions are good, the concern for not giving offense is nothing but good….
I think this perhaps rather an awareness of racism, and a step on the road to being free from it ?
I experienced what might be an accelerated version of this when a close relative came out as transgender. For a brief time, the effort not to misgender was a very deliberate one; thereafter it doesn’t even occur as a thought.
Me: In my view, it’s unproductive to describe people as racist
TP: Why?
Because I don’t know why people say what they say. But I do know what they’ve said.
Because if a person has some visceral dislike of people with some particular racial characteristic, they can’t help it. But they can control what they say and do.
Because people who are not themselves racists may exploit racism in pursuit of what they see as a greater good. I want to call it out when they do.
When someone says “I’m not a racist, but…”, …The correct response it to say, “no dude, that’s racist.”
This. I want to say “That’s racist” not “you’re a racist”.
CharlesWT, I think there has been a good deal of effort to create as strong an overlap as possible between those things.
Creating a class difference between racial groups has also been a common tool of rule (e.g. in the colonies as part of divide and conquer). An emphasis on cultural difference served both as a means of justifying hierarchy (We have actual culture, They barely qualify for the term) and to heighten the gap to be perceived (They can never become our equals because the gap between Their ‘culture’ and Ours is too great). Cf. the claim that Islam and Western civilization are 100% incompatible, so Muslims are by definition unable to be part of Our society (and in effect Islam is by now treated as a racial trait in all but name, a nominal difference only used to allow claims of ‘we are not against them because of their race but their religion’).
I have heard claims from the Right that a Christian Arab is a contradiction in itself because Arabs are automatically Muslims by birth and that it cannot be washed off by baptism. This btw is the way racial antisemitism started (e.g. St.John Chrysostome declared that Jews could not be baptized because being born Jewish was a straight ticket to hell stamped by G#d personally at the beginning of time*).
*to my knowledge he did not explicitly subscribe to the theory that the Jews are impostors and have nothing to do with the Hebrews of the OT but it would be a natural conclusion from his claim that G#d had always hated the Jews.
However, jack lecou, I think it may follow from what russell said that one can take advantage of the fact that racism has generally become unacceptable not by saying “You are a racist” but by saying “That is racism. You may not be a racist, but that is some racist shit.”
Yes, there is an important difference between labeling the speaker and the speech. As I wrote, you say, “that [the statement] is racist”, not “you [the speaker] are racist”.
But it’s important to use the word, incorporating the full penumbra of implications it has. It’s not enough just to say something like “the thing you just said is insulting.” You need to say, “the thing you just said is racist.”
(The insulting thing strikes me as particularly weak – what’s wrong with being insulting? If I say “my boss is an idiot” you can say I’m being insulting, and I’ll probably even agree with you. But that won’t have convinced me I’ve said something inappropriate or wrong. The reason racism is wrong isn’t that it’s insulting or gives offense, or that noticing skin color is inherently wrong. It’s that acting on discrimination does abiding material harm to people.)
i think it’s interesting that Trump’s whole reason for his original attack on the 4 Dems was to try to make the progressive Dems toxic to the less-progressive Dems. he was trying to play-up their troubles with Pelosi et al and maybe peel off some more conservative Dems. but because he is a racist his attack backfired and turned into a discussion about his, and the greater GOP’s, racism.
if he had stuck with the “they’re commies” stuff, we probably wouldn’t be talking about racism today. but racism is so fundamental to how he sees the world that he couldn’t help but make it part of his attack.
But it’s important to use the word, incorporating the full penumbra of implications it has. It’s not enough just to say something like “the thing you just said is insulting.” You need to say, “the thing you just said is racist.”
Completely agree. And for clarity’s sake, I was not contradicting you earlier, I was trying to develop onward from your point about building on the successful delegitimation of racism. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.
This twitter thread (i know…) is very much on point:
https://mobile.twitter.com/timjacobwise/status/1152930670093787141
…..People who say the Dems should ignore Trump’s race baiting because its some genius political strategy calculated to distract us, are idiots. He is no genius. And if you downplay it you NORMALIZE him. If you make this about policy, you NORMALIZE him. He is a racist…
A good bit of what passes for racism in the US is classism and culturalism.
I think that perhaps this begs some questions.
Why do people of color belong to a different class? Why is there culture seen as inferior, or even alien?
I think this perhaps rather an awareness of racism, and a step on the road to being free from it ?
I think this is a better way to see it.
If I hesitate to call Jeff Bezos “rich”, what do I accomplish?
If that’s it, nothing. But then, “rich” is objectively true. And (for most people, albeit not all) not a moral failing.
But if you call him “filthy stinking rich on the backs of everyone who works for him”, that’s a different deal. That description is (IMHO anyway) very much of a moral failing.
“Racist” is very much in the second category, not the first.
I read something along the lines of “Criticizing someone doesn’t automatically become racist just because that person’s from another country” on social media in response to criticism of Rump’s comments.
That’s the mentality we’re dealing with – one that doesn’t seem to recognize that the assumption that people are from other countries based on their names or physical appearances is racist, while also failing to recognize that people who actually are from other countries and who become American citizens are now really Americans (even if they aren’t of European ancestry!).
There’s not even a thought about how that argument holds for the 3 MCs who were born here.
“Criticizing someone doesn’t automatically become racist just because that person’s from another country”
i’ve seen that too … from people who don’t hesitate to scream that any criticism of Israeli policies is anti-Semitic.
i’ve seen that too … from people who don’t hesitate to scream that any criticism of Israeli policies is anti-Semitic.
I hadn’t thought of that, but, yes, that is something. Consistency is not really a thing for some people, I guess.
Consistency is not really a thing for some people, I guess.
Oh, they’re entirely consistent. Anyone who disagrees with them, or who they otherwise dislike, gets epithets hurled at them. Without much, if any, reference to what those epithets actually mean. (Could reference race, religion, sexual orientation,etc.)
Meanwhile any action which does fit the epithet, but is taken by someone “on our side” will be held to not merit the it.
See, entirely consistent. You just need to realize the the epithets aren’t attached, in the users’ minds, with their real meaning. (See calling 4 members of Congress “commies”. Nobody has actually been a communist for decades, even in the “communist block”. And in the sense Marx and Engels meant the term, for more like a century.)
Here’s the trouble with shouting “fake news” about lots of stuff that is demonstrably true.
When you deny a claim that actually is false (assuming, for the sake of discussion, that this one is false) nobody outside your cult will believe you.
wj: … “rich” is objectively true. And (for most people, albeit not all) not a moral failing.
“Rich” is objectively true of Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos is rich because he has made tons of money.
“Racist” is objectively true of He, Trump. He, Trump is racist because he has said and done shitpiles of racist things.
To equivocate on either of the above is unequivocally silly. And looking silly is a poor political strategy.
And not for nothing, but you can say of “racist” exactly what you said of “rich”:
And (for most people, albeit not all) not a moral failing.
–TP
It’s never true before the government denies it!
“Racist” is objectively true of He, Trump. He, Trump is racist because he has said and done shitpiles of racist things.
Except that there is no meaningful definition of “rich” which doesn’t apply to Bezos. Whereas there are, apparently, rather widespread definitions of “racist” which wouldn’t apply to Trump. Even for some who would agree that some of his statements are racist. They are definitions that I personally find nonsensical. But changes in the language often seem that way.
the GOP’s definition of “racist” includes the following clauses:
1. Lincoln freed the slaves therefor the GOP can’t be racist
2. There is a small upper limit on the number of times the word “racist” can be used after which all further uses are void.
3. Robert Byrd, QED
I think the difference between saying that Rump is racist and saying that Bezos is rich is that your aren’t trying to change anyone’s behavior with the latter. What people are talking about is the practical matter of the political effect of calling Rump a racist versus calling his words and actions racist (or calling his supporters racists versus calling their words and actions racist).
We can debate what the best political strategy is as far as that goes, but Bezos’ wealth isn’t relevant to that.
And looking silly is a poor political strategy.
You do know who the president is, right? ;^)
hsh @11:55: yes!
hairshirt: I think the difference between saying that Rump is racist and saying that Bezos is rich is that your aren’t trying to change anyone’s behavior with the latter.
Oh, I don’t know about that. Imagine you’re at a bar and one of your drinking buddies denies that Bezos is rich. If you provoked him into saying something that silly, I suspect the rest of your mutual friends might get a good laugh out of it.
What people are talking about is the practical matter of the political effect of calling Rump a racist versus calling his words and actions racist (or calling his supporters racists versus calling their words and actions racist).
Absolutely. And the consensus here seems to be that the politically correct strategy (if you’ll pardon the expression) is to be very careful — practically lawyerly — about exact definitions and reasonable inferences. And that analogies are “irrelevant”.
Okay, I’ll go along with the consensus.
But at the risk of another irrelevancy, I can’t resist mentioning this old joke:
An old-school diplomat is riding a train through the European countryside. His aide, a less experienced man, points to a flock of sheep and says, “Look, your Excellency, those sheep have all been shorn.” Replies the ambassador: “Well, on this side, anyway.”
BTW: what cleek said.
–TP
Absolutely. And the consensus here seems to be that the politically correct strategy (if you’ll pardon the expression) is to be very careful — practically lawyerly — about exact definitions and reasonable inferences. And that analogies are “irrelevant”.
No, no, and no again. At least on my part. I am concerned with this phenomenon: Half the time, when people I agree with about policy open their mouths (or write their pixels), their sanctimony and self-righteousness make me want to vote for the other side. On these occasions I remind myself: “An idea is not responsible for the people who espouse it.” But imagine the effect on someone who doesn’t agree with them about policy! Marty, for instance, although Marty’s own sanctimony inevitably pushes me back where I belong.
IMO this is a practical matter of human psychology, and in terms of what I’m talking about, more about interpersonal relations than about retail politics on a grand scale.
“You have to make it safe for the other guy to make it safe for you to tell your truth.” Calling people racist does not conduce to creating a safe space.
But the world is a mess, humans are a mess, we bumble along as best we can. I have a friend that, based on what I know of his attitudes, TP thinks I should call a racist, or at the very least tell him that some of his attitudes are racist. Saying that to him would have just the effect I’m talking about. It would do no good, and it would probably cement his attitudes even more firmly. And if you want to say that I (see further above) or my friend are assholes and need to be better people, then all I can say is: Good luck changing the world if that is what you’re depending on.
I think some of us are talking/writing at cross-purposes, which is why I stepped back yesterday. But several people — russell, wj, hsh in particular — have said things I would have liked to say if I could have formulated them clearly. So thanks!
Absolutely. And the consensus here seems to be that the politically correct strategy (if you’ll pardon the expression) is to be very careful — practically lawyerly — about exact definitions and reasonable inferences. And that analogies are “irrelevant”.
I don’t think this is quite right. Speaking as the person who is often accused of wanting to stick to exact definitions etc, I don’t think that’s what the consensus here is about. I think the consensus is that although most/many of the people we are talking about are racists, in the interests of changing the behaviour (including voting behaviour) of those who can still be reached (and some of them voted for Obama! And Marty said that Trump should be impeached after his latest sally that the squad should go back to where they came from!), it will be more effective to talk to them about the fact that their various statements or behaviour are racist, as opposed to calling them racists themselves. Thus we satisfy Pro Bono’s point that we don’t always know for sure what’s in their minds, and most of the rest of us who think of it in practical terms: how do we get them to consider the racist stuff that’s being promulgated, without feeling themselves to be attacked for actually being racists. It’s not to do with lawyerly accuracy, it’s to do with the most likely way to achieve the desired goal.
p.s. Good sheep joke!
And that analogies are “irrelevant”.
At least the irrelevant ones. …BOOM!
My personal opinion is that saying things like “Trump is being racist when he says yada yada because yada yada” are perfectly fine. I don’t know if that counts as being overly lawyerly. (And that is in the context of nationally prominent Democrats publicly criticizing him. People here can call him a goddammed Klansman for all I care.)
Oho, Janie and I cross-post to the same effect – it’s like the good old days!
I observe that calling Trump a racist isn’t particularly problematic, in that nobody is under the illusion that they might change what passes for Trump’s mind on the subject.
On the other hand, specifically calling some of Trump’s comments might, might, get thru to some people who are still reachable that if they say the same things, that is bad. Not trying to change their beliefs; just their behavior. And that’s important in the long term, because their behavior is what the next generation will absorb as beliefs.
JanieM: I have a friend that, based on what I know of his attitudes, TP thinks I should call a racist, or at the very least tell him that some of his attitudes are racist.
Janie,
Knowing nothing of your friend or his attitudes, I can’t really say what you should call him. I don’t know how he would react if you called He, Trump a racist in his presence, so I have no clue about the best way to persuade him on that or any other subject — say, to vote against Susan Collins next year.
Between you and me, the elderly Greek Americans I know are some of the most racist (and anti-Semitic!) people in the US. I’m talking about family and friends, here. I find it hard to sit quietly when they come out with ignorant or bigoted statements in casual conversation. Sometimes, I admit, I react with scorn; sometimes, with sincere attempts to correct their conspiracy theories. Perhaps the sensible thing, in the moment, would be to change the subject to the fine weather we’re having. I don’t see how that could help, but what the hell: it couldn’t hurt.
–TP
Sometimes, I admit, I react with scorn; sometimes, with sincere attempts to correct their conspiracy theories.
I confess I haven’t found an effective way to deal with conspiracy theory enthusiasts. Not that I haven’t tried. Just that nothing that I have tried has been effective. If anyone has found something that works, even 25% of the time, please share!
TP: …sometimes, with sincere attempts to correct their conspiracy theories….
wj: I confess I haven’t found an effective way to deal with conspiracy theory enthusiasts.
Do you also try to convince people to drop their sincerely held religious beliefs?
I mean, Jesus died and rose again……just an older conspiracy theory with a great PR operation, if you ask me.
Not the really elderly, Janie. I figure they’re too close to figuring it out for themselves.
–TP
For the record, my question about people with religious beliefs wasn’t intended to be snarky, but maybe bemused.
It starts to seem all of a piece to me, that people believe in weird things. I.e., why should I be surprised that so many people believe in conspiracy theories, when so many people believe in the various things that religions say are true, but that have equally nil amounts of actual evidence to support them?
The difference, as I see it, is that religions tend to be benign or even positive influences on people’s behavior towards others. (For all that some ignore what actual text of their religion enjoins, and instead use it to demonize and attack others.)
In contrast, conspiracy theories are routinely malign influences, and cause people to harm themselves and others. For example, the damage that conspiracy theories about vaccines have done to the health of the children of those who embrace them. Not to mention the damage to those who honestly cannot receive the vaccine, and depend on herd immunity to protect them.
I can see a difference between religious belief that is acknowledged to be based on faith and conspiracy theories that are considered to be based on evidence.
That distinction is one of the things that makes creationism (which, to me, is a special case of conspiracy theorizing) so annoying for me. Why are you trying to turn your faith-based beliefs into science? What does that say about your supposed “faith”? Why can’t you simply accept that science says one thing based on evidence and your religion says something else based on faith, and that you choose to believe your religion – without then monkeying around with science?
This Will Get Worse.
The difference, as I see it, is that religions tend to be benign or even positive influences on people’s behavior towards others.
Well, that’s debatable. 😉
I was raised Catholic, and I have strong opinions on the subject. We don’t have time to debate the entire history of the world, or even of the Western world, but religiously based or religiously justified wars have resulted in the slaughter of millions of people; religion is just as potent a breeding ground for “us and them” thinking as some of the other axes across which that way of thinking reaches. And lest we think this kind of shit happens only among Christians, check out the Buddhist hatred of the Rohingya in Myanmar.
I was raised in a Catholic stew of guilt-tripping so intense that I now consider it borderline child abuse, stirred together with the misogyny, the homophobia, the general hatred of sex, and the teaching that anyone who wasn’t Catholic (my mother, all her side of the family) was going to burn in hell.
My own experience — which was pretty damned benign considering — makes me skeptical that the overall effect of the institution has been positive. It perpetrated the Crusades and the Inquisition. It sheltered pedophiles all over the world, ignored or trashed their victims until $$$ was at stake; still refuses to let women take the same roles as men; massively funds anti-choice and homophobic political causes; etc etc etc etc etc.
Even the relatively narrow aspect you cite — “benign or even positive influences on people’s behavior towards others” — is just that, narrow. Some others. Some aspects of life.
I have a vivid personal memory of the power of priests and bishops over Catholic hearts and minds. That power is not benign.
Well, that’s debatable. 😉
I was taking the text of the holy books of the various religions. Not the theological glosses which have evolved over time. The problems that you cite in Catholicism are real. But are any of them actually a reflection of what Jesus said (as reported in Gospels; which were admittedly written long afterwards**)? I’m not a theologian, but I don’t think so.
* I exclude Paul, who wasn’t around to hear Jesus first hand.
cleek reading baffler? Way to go! And everybody should check out Gin and Tacos now and then. Ed B. is pretty good.
I was taking the text of the holy books of the various religions. Not the theological glosses which have evolved over time.
Well, put me down in the janieM camp on this one. The minute a new religion feels the need to hire a full time janitor, you know the bloom is off the rose.
I would wager that the difference to the listener as between hearing, “You are a racist” and, “The thoughts you have expressed to me are racist, and here’s why,” is for the most part virtually undetectable.
Similarly, the difference to me if somebody calls me a socialist vs. telling me my policy preferences are socialistic goes unremarked–but appreciated.
wj, you wrote religions tend to be benign or even positive influences on people’s behavior towards others.
I took “influence” to mean actual real-world effects. If the holy text is benign, but the actual preaching and practice are anything but, I don’t think that counts as religion being a benign influence.
hsh: I can see a difference between religious belief that is acknowledged to be based on faith and conspiracy theories that are considered to be based on evidence.
I agree that there’s a difference, but I’m skeptical about how many people who say they’re religious understand the distinction.
Creation science, which you cite, is precisely an effort to prove that certain religiously important ideas are based on evidence. It doesn’t seem to me that there’s a clear distinction between “conspiracy theory” type beliefs and religious beliefs.
Part of the point either way is that people don’t defer to your notion of what a “fact” is.
How much ink do we think was spilled in the middle ages over the (surely provable!) question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?
wj: … some ignore what [the] actual text of their religion enjoins …
Many don’t actually know what their sacred “texts” actually say, I think.
Most “believers”, in my experience, take the word of human Authorities about what Scripture says, like most us take the word of human Experts about what Science says.
Of course, the difference is that Science has peer review, not Scripture, as the foundation of its validity. But let that pass.
Anyway, it’s fairly certain that, aside from Mormons, most believers don’t even have access to the foundational “texts” of their religions. How many Christians are there who can read ancient Greek, for instance?
–TP
Like bobbyp, I’m with Janie on the religion issue, including the similarity between religion and conspiracy theories. Plus, as a side note, I’m always amazed when Christians in general fail to see that their religion is in a sense based on human sacrifice, even if it was (perhaps) voluntary.
“How much ink do we think was spilled in the middle ages over the (surely provable!) question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?”
is this one of the sects that is sure that dancing is sinful? In that case, the answer is exactly ZERO.
I blame it on the Bossa Nova.
How much ink do we think was spilled in the middle ages over the (surely provable!) question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?
My understanding, via Dorothy Sayers, is that this was an exam question, the correct answer being infinitely many. (The argument: angels have position, but not extension – i.e., two or more angels can be located at the same point.)
Christians in general fail to see that their religion is in a sense based on human sacrifice
and animal sacrifice!
and this page answers the question “why don’t we still do animal sacrifices as described in Leviticus? with this:
decline.
Many don’t actually know what their sacred “texts” actually say, I think
indeed
i.e., two or more angels can be located at the same point
So angels are bosons.
So angels are bosons.
Or maybe bos’ns…
why don’t we still do animal sacrifices as described in Leviticus?
If you look, Jesus said: “All the Law and all the Prophets are this: Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.”
What that comes down to (sorry fundamentalist Christians) is that anything in the Old Testament which doesn’t reduce to this can (and should!) be ignored. Including animal sacrifices. Including dietary restrictions. And on and on and on.
I think the difference between saying that Rump is racist and saying that Bezos is rich
The difference is that racism, being based on lies fear and ignorance, is, in and of itself, wrong, whereas being rich is, in and of itself, not.
Both are facts. Their moral valence is different.
Which is not to ignore the obscene degree of Bezos’ wealth, it’s simply to acknowledge that wealth is not inherently wrong, while racism is.
And what Janie said at 1:06. That quote has become a personal mantra.
This Will Get Worse.
Its been worse. Regarding race, up until half a century ago, or less, worse was the norm.
Folks can try that crap on again if they like, but that clock ain’t turning back.
Stand athwart history all you want. History doesn’t care.
Regarding religious doctrine, I’m in the middle of a really good history of the doctrine of the trinity. What I take away from it is that trying to pin down mysteries is a fools game.
Also, St. Paul is a curious figure. The only Apostle not to have known Jesus personally, his experience of Jesus is mostly via ecstatic state of some kind or other. He is claimed as a source, via Theudas, of Gnostic transmission by the Valentinians, who were considered heretical.
Its always been weird. Eat the meat, spit out the bones.
All the way back to this, from TP: Knowing nothing of your friend or his attitudes, I can’t really say what you should call him. I don’t know how he would react if you called He, Trump a racist in his presence, so I have no clue about the best way to persuade him on that or any other subject — say, to vote against Susan Collins next year.
First, I don’t feel the need to call him anything, other than a friend.
Secondly, if I called Clickbait a racist in his presence, he would just shrug. Although we don’t agree on policy (for the most part), and I’m pretty sure he didn’t vote for Hillary, he happens once to have had a boss who was a lot like Clickbait: a cheat in business, a cheat in his relationships, manipulative, dishonest, narcissistic…the list could go on.
So I don’t have to persuade him about Clickbait, he saw right through him from the beginning, and detests him. Too bad more people haven’t had personal experience to inform their opinions on this subject.
Thirdly, as to other subjects, I don’t feel that I’m required to try to persuade him of anything. Nor does he try to persuade me, though we both know that chasms divide us on quite a few political topics. To whatever extent I’m supposed to have some kind of global responsibility to go around persuading my friends to agree with me on stuff, it seems to me inescapable that they have the same right and responsibility to try to persuade me to agree with them about stuff. Butting heads against stone walls isn’t my idea of friendship. It’s far more likely that if either of us is going to change our opinions, it will be because of long exposure and the accumulation of experience in life, and not in response to direct pressure.
It’s far more likely that if either of us is going to change our opinions, it will be because of long exposure and the accumulation of experience in life, and not in response to direct pressure.
Wrong!
Its been worse. Regarding race, up until half a century ago, or less, worse was the norm.
Folks can try that crap on again if they like, but that clock ain’t turning back.
And I suspect that even those who are nostalgic for that time actually know that. At least on some level. Which rather explains their level of fury.
They desperately want to return to a time when their bigotry was the norm. And are distraught because they, too, know it ain’t happening. Worse, their children and grandchildren are, for the most part,
tranquilly moving on. A couple of steps backward, that they may temporarily manage. But nothing more. Thank God.
It’s far more likely that if either of us is going to change our opinions, it will be because of long exposure and the accumulation of experience in life, and not in response to direct pressure.
Right!
At least in the RCC it was until far into the 20th century anathema to have first-hand knowledge of the sacred texts without explicit (and revocable) privilege from high-up.
And I know of bishops (in Germany) that deplore this having changed. Those kind tend to think of Vaticanum II like the far Right in the US thinks of the New Deal (‘constitution in exile’). Some radicals (although more in France and Austria than Germany) even consider the papal throne vacant since then because all the popes since then have been heretics (and thus automatically excommunicated) for supporting Vat II.
English children are (or were, in my youth) taught about the heroic struggles of Wycliffe and Tyndale to publish the Bible in English.
FWIW, “getting in the way” can look like this.
Right!
Okay. I’ve changed my mind.
russell, that is a very inspiring link. Thanks.
FWIW, “getting in the way” can look like this.
That’s a great story, at least the part about the neighbors. It sucks that they had to do that in the first place. This particular kind of ICE crap is terrorism.
Russell, that’s a great example of “coastal elites” in action. Um, which coast is Nashville on again…?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/boris-johnson-expected-to-win-british-prime-minister-vote/2019/07/23/0e63fc8e-ac93-11e9-9411-a608f9d0c2d3_story.html
Commiserations to all you folks in the UK.
Commiserations to all you folks in the UK.
Maybe we can split the US and UK up respectively along pro-Trump/anti-Trump and pro-Johnson/anti-Johnson lines and combine the pros and antis to make two new countries.
That or Canada gets really crowded.
Things are bad here, but not as bad.
BoJo on Trump: “If you’re the leader of a great multiracial, multicultural society you simply cannot use that kind of language about sending people back to where they came from. That went out decades and decades ago and thank heavens for that. I simply can’t understand how a leader of that country could come to say it.”
Plus, as a side note, I’m always amazed when Christians in general fail to see that their religion is in a sense based on human sacrifice, even if it was (perhaps) voluntary.
Not picking on GNTNC because nearly every comment here about Christians reminds me of a bunch of white people in the 60’s reading black people’s minds and deciding for black people what they must be thinking.
So, let’s go with the notion that Christians are stupid (like C.S. Lewis) and don’t actually know what they believe in. This is facially ignorant and bigoted.
I’m an Episcopalian; however, my specific take on the Old and New Testament would have been heretical some centuries back, the point being that, collectively, the atheists here have no idea what Christians actually think–you can’t, because there are too many of us. We are far more intellectually diverse than, say, progressives (whose tolerance for political dissent/heresy is next to nil).
So, to address GFTNC’s specific observation: actually, we are aware of the role of sacrifice in our religion. It is central, as a matter of fact. It is the willing giving of oneself that others may live. Whether you buy into this or not, it isn’t exactly repressive or anti-intellectual. In point of fact, for many, it is inspirational if not life-changing. Not every neighbor is lovable but we are enjoined to love them anyway.
I’ve followed several lengthy chats here where the disdain for believers is just really amazing, exceeded only by the collective ignorance of the commentators. But that’s ok, because, you know, like black people, all Christians are the same. Talking about oblivious.
Another Christian virtue–honored often in the breach–is humility. Possibly worth considering.
Can religion be used as an instrument of oppression? Of course. So can progressivism (Twitter Mobs) and any other political movement. Socialism is the greatest offender. The PRC is currently incarcerating 1,000,000 Uighurs. Not a peep from the BSD movement, but that’s no surprise. Venezuela is another nice example of socialism doing what it almost always does, but we don’t talk about that either.
A couple of other fairly gross historical inaccuracies or, at a minimum, failure to add context.
The Crusades followed the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land. They were reactive, not proactive. Islam picked that fight.
The role of religion in war–sure, there have been religious wars, all over the world. However, if you take the time to do the research and add up the numbers, Genghis Khan alone killed more people in his lifetime than all of the religious wars in Europe from the birth of Christ to the present by a huge margin. So, while it is accurate to say that “lots of people have been killed in the name of religion or in religious wars”, it is contextually uninformative. China is the scene, the product and the result of the most destructive wars in history, particularly in comparison to relative population sizes over time.
Racism is a subset of bigotry. What we see on display here is straight up bigotry. Progressives wonder why they aren’t seen as the “good” alternative to Trump’s trash talk. In fact, they have their own trash talk and it’s just as unpleasant to hear.
Things are bad here, but not as bad.
Being less toxic than Trump is, if I may say so, a damn low bar. And if Johnson manages (blunders into) a no-deal Brexit, as seems from here entirely possible, the damage that Trump’s trade wars have done will seem the merest bagatelle.
That or Canada gets really crowded.
Go for Australia. Lots more room. And the climate is warmer — which matters to those of us who don’t favor snow.
The Crusades followed the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land. They were reactive, not proactive. Islam picked that fight.
It is my recollection (by all means correct me if I am in error) that
a) that land is Holy to Islam (and to Judiasm, come to that) as well. It’s not obvious that Christianity has a stronger claim — and without such a stronger claim, it isn’t clear that Islam was “picking a fight”.
b) Islam was far more tolerant of Christians, and Christian religious practice, than Christianity ever was in return. Indeed, respect for Christianity is explicitly mandated in Islam.
We are far more intellectually diverse than, say, progressives (whose tolerance for political dissent/heresy is next to nil).
This is where you’re lecturing becomes hypocritical, even if the rest if it is right (not that I’m saying it is).
your, dammit!
Another thing is that white people can’t have previously been black, but non-Christians can be former Christians. It appears that some here are former Christians, and probably have more insight than whites can possibly have regarding what it’s like to be black.
I’m sympathetic to much of what MKT writes about Christianity, but the bit about the Crusades is ahistorical. Jerusalem hadn’t been Christian since 638.
The Crusaders were the Taliban of the late middle ages. See the Sack of Constantinople.
(On second thoughts, that’s unfair to the Taliban.)
McKT, you appear to have forgotten Matthew 7:1.
thanks for telling me what i think, McTx. always good to learn what’s going on in my head.
Things are bad here, but not as bad.
“They call him Britain (sic) Trump. And people are saying that’s a good thing. They like me over there.”
Context, or “context,” tells us that religious wars didn’t kill as many people as Genghis Khan.
Well I guess that’s okay then!
It is to weep.
To be nasty, there are also Matthew 10:34 and Luke 12:51.
The official updated US version: https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/sites/65/2012/07/Jesus-AR15.jpeg
Note: there are two kinds that weaponize scripture – fundamentalists and atheists. Mainstream believers and agnostics* don’t.
*in the European sense of ‘don’t know and/or don’t care whether there is a deity’
Forget racism.
Trump finally found a way to unite Republicans in public disapproval of him…
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/454297-conservatives-erupt-in-outrage-against-budget-deal
Genghis Khan alone killed more people in his lifetime than all of the religious wars in Europe from the birth of Christ to the present by a huge margin.
McK might be great in the courtroom but as a historian, he is pretty comical. Claims like the above are just about always suspect, and revisions are, well, ongoing.
But I did a quick google just to see what’s out there…interesting stuff. The bit about the Tai Ping Rebellion deaths and the Christian mysticism of its leader is something I did not know.
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/33tofh/how_many_people_have_been_killed_in_the_name_of/
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-most-lethal-wars-human-history-13422
Pressing on….I would wager that many members of the commitariat here are at most agnostic wrt religion, so McK is simply engaging in trying to score points, not engage.
PS: Having been raised as Episcopalian myself, I can speak from PERSONAL (praise god) experience as to what Christians “believe”, plus there is this thing known as “the historical record”.
Just sayin’
Dammit, I just lost a long comment! In short: I don’t mind you picking on me McKinney because I have picked on you plenty in the past about your inability to understand white male privilege, the point of BLM, or why Sarah Huckabee Sanders deserved to be shamed in public for lying to the American public for the shameless liar in the White House.
I was entertained by the counter-example of C S Lewis: certainly his academic career was impressive, but giving examples from both sides of very clever people who either believed the Christian story, or are committed atheists, seems a bit ridiculous.
So, to address GFTNC’s specific observation: actually, we are aware of the role of sacrifice in our religion. It is central, as a matter of fact. It is the willing giving of oneself that others may live.
But in saying this you reveal that you have missed my point. I was not referring to self-sacrifice, I was talking about the willingness of Christians to accept that human sacrifice, whether voluntary or not, was necessary to wash away their sins. It’s actually a fairly unlikely story, given that the historical Jesus (to the extent there is proof of him) was apparently a religious Jew, but even more: if the story is true his grandiloquent claim that it was to save mankind (as opposed to people who may sometimes have sacrificed themselves to save others) seems to me to point more to mental illness than anything else. I’m sorry if this offends the Christians here, but since I don’t believe this is what happened, my diagnosis is equally unlikely.
I just can’t help myself.
The PRC is currently incarcerating 1,000,000 Uighurs. Not a peep from the BSD movement, but that’s no surprise.
No, it’s no surprise, because the BSD movement is focused on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. You could probably find a way to correspond with people active in the BSD movement and find out what they think of China’s treatment of the Uyghurs. Do you expect they approve?
Venezuela is another nice example of socialism doing what it almost always does, but we don’t talk about that either.
We could, but I don’t think there’s any controversy here about the illiberal direction Nicolás Maduro has taken. Any big fans? I also don’t think there are many full-blown socialists here these days. We’ve already gone over the differences between socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracy. (The last one is probably the most relevant as concerns the policy preferences I’ve seen expressed here lately. The Scandinavian countries seem to be doing way better than Venezuela.)
i don’t much care what individual Christians really think about their religion. i do care that i am expected to respect the idiosyncratic, and ever-flexible, interpretations of Christianity used to justify policy preferences which affect everybody.
you support a thrice-married adulterous lying lecher but claim Biblical support for your hate against homosexuals ? umm, no. consider yourself disrespected.
you say we need more Jesus in this country but jump for glee when you get to turn away the poor refugees who come knocking? umm, no.
if Christianity looks like nothing more than a way to be Republican, it can’t be respected.
It is to weep.
Agree. It really, really is. I can only feel sorry for his clients if this is the kind of argumentation he trots out in the courtroom.
Somehow I doubt it.
My firmly held religious belief requires me to plant an ax in the heads of a-hole xtians.
But I put a lid on that, in the interests of civility. Perhaps the a-hole contingent of xtains should do so as well.
But I put a lid on that, in the interests of civility.
I probably should, too. In any case, I want to make it clear (FWIW) that I am an equal opportunities bigot: I take an equally dim view of Judaism and Islam, just for different reasons. And given modern India, perhaps Hinduism as well.
The role of religion in war–sure, there have been religious wars, all over the world. However,…
how many millions have been killed in the name of atheism ? not by atheists, but in the name of atheism ?
Genghis Khan alone killed more people…
and he wasn’t an atheist.
All non-religious war is the fault of atheists.
The Scandinavian countries seem to be doing way better than Venezuela.
The Scandinavian countries are capitalist countries with large welfare states paid for by that capitalism.
Genghis Khan alone killed more people…
And he had a lot of kids. One estimate is that about 16 million people alive today are his direct descendants.
The Scandinavian countries are capitalist countries with large welfare states paid for by that capitalism.
Yes. Social democracies. That was my very point. Thank you for agreeing!
Raise your hand if you want to nationalize the means of production.
I don’t want U.S. Government iPhones!
If you do not condemn the PRC or Madero in a full-throated way and in every post you make then any argument you advance wrt some kind of socialism (or any other issue for that matter) that I get to define and pin on you because after all you are guilty and have the blood of Mao and Stalin on your hands has absolutely no validity and can therefore be dismissed with extreme prejudice….not that I am prejudiced in any way…nosirreee! because I told you I am not…and after all I don’t like Trump…and claim to not have voted for him…but his policies are just fine with me nonetheless especially tax cuts for the wealthy and don’t get me started on transgenders in fe bathrooms…just don’t.
perhaps Hinduism as well.
Yep. That is a definite yes. They are just as capable of frenzied mass murder as the rest of us.
A salute to McKinney.
Yep. That is a definite yes. They are just as capable of frenzied mass murder as the rest of us.
Yes. As far as Buddhism goes, I don’t know what to make of the Myanmar/Rohingya situation. The Buddhism I knew about in my youth (and actually I knew a fair bit) wouldn’t have even qualified as a religion, because no god/gods. But obviously there are loads of different kinds, (like, as McKinney hints, most religions), and we now know even Buddhists are capable of rape, murder etc. So my blanket disapproval of religion in general remains fairly consistent! As I think I have said before, if you believe in a god or gods, and you think he/she/they are on your side, there is no limit to what you are capable of, for good or ill.
don’t get me started on transgenders in fe bathrooms…just don’t.
Ever notice how nobody seems in the least concerned (at least that I ever see) about transgender folks in male bathrooms? Is it that they are fine with that direction of transition, just not the other? Inquiring minds want to know….
Hartmut: Note: there are two kinds that weaponize scripture – fundamentalists and atheists. Mainstream believers and agnostics* don’t.
Okay, so how should we classify C.S. Lewis?
This bon mot may have been inspired by a suggestion I have long considered entirely reasonable:
I dimly remember it being attributed to Voltaire, but the Holy Google tells me we owe it to: KINGLAKE, Alexander William (1809–91), British writer.
Of course, some believers take that “IF” as an insult. A commie pinko libel. An adequate reason to vote Republicon, in America.
Incidentally, I doubt McKinney would deny that he is an atheist (not just agnostic) with respect to Poseidon and about 1000 other gods. But he can correct me “IF” I am wrong.
–TP
FSM! FSM! FSM!
Priceless
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/23/tweedle-d-is-joined-by-tweedle-b/
What JanieM said:
I was raised Catholic, and I have strong opinions on the subject. We don’t have time to debate the entire history of the world, or even of the Western world, but religiously based or religiously justified wars have resulted in the slaughter of millions of people; religion is just as potent a breeding ground for “us and them” thinking as some of the other axes across which that way of thinking reaches. And lest we think this kind of shit happens only among Christians, check out the Buddhist hatred of the Rohingya in Myanmar.
What I said:
The role of religion in war–sure, there have been religious wars, all over the world. However, if you take the time to do the research and add up the numbers, Genghis Khan alone killed more people in his lifetime than all of the religious wars in Europe from the birth of Christ to the present by a huge margin. So, while it is accurate to say that “lots of people have been killed in the name of religion or in religious wars”, it is contextually uninformative. China is the scene, the product and the result of the most destructive wars in history, particularly in comparison to relative population sizes over time.
My source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
Since the main point seems to have been overlooked by both JanieM and BP, let me repeat it: So, while it is accurate to say that “lots of people have been killed in the name of religion or in religious wars”, it is contextually uninformative.
The general thrust of this and other anti-Christian diatribes here at ObWi is that Christianity is it’s own, stand-alone, one-off source of war and misery, and since no one ever offers any context, the subtext is “compared to other sources of war and misery, Christianity is, if not the worst, just plain awful.”
I point out—accurately—that Ghengis Khan killed more people in his lifetime than all European religious, i.e. intra-Christian, wars since the dawn of Christianity. So, in context, religion and Christianity specifically, are third or fourth level causes of war.
The leading cause of war, and most violence, is avarice/power.
but the bit about the Crusades is ahistorical. Jerusalem hadn’t been Christian since 638.
The Crusaders were the Taliban of the late middle ages. See the Sack of Constantinople.
Jerusalem was conquered in 638 after a two year siege by a Muslim army. Seriously. It’s what happened. Muslim wars of conquest swept up the Iberian peninsula and well into the Balkans. The last Muslim wars of conquest were in the 16th century. Constantinople was sacked at least twice, once by Crusaders and once by Ottomans. Based on these links, the Ottomans far outclassed the Crusaders in the casualty department.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople_(1204) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople
McKT, you appear to have forgotten Matthew 7:1.
I’m perfectly willing to be held to the standards I hold others, and yours is not exactly a response on substance. No offense.
but as a historian, he is pretty comical.
Feel free to support this sentence with actual evidence. Specifically, quote me on a factually incorrect statement and show the contrary evidence (note: this is how we do it in the courtroom).
I have picked on you plenty in the past about your inability to understand white male privilege, the point of BLM, or why Sarah Huckabee Sanders deserved to be shamed in public for lying to the American public for the shameless liar in the White House.
Huckabee? I’m not remembering that one.
I was talking about the willingness of Christians to accept that human sacrifice, whether voluntary or not, was necessary to wash away their sins.
I think the words “human sacrifice” and “necessary” must do a lot of heavy lifting here that I and no Christians I know are aware of. If I were going to put myself in the role of criticizing Christian doctrine, I’d focus in on something like communion (Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me, etc.”). To illustrate the diversity among Christians, I’m not sold on the idea that John got it exactly right, as an understatement.
No, it’s no surprise, because the BSD movement is focused on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
Yes, “bravely” focused I would say. BSD aligns with the Russians, the PRC and just about every other socialist or formerly socialist dictatorship in the world when it comes to Israel. I’m aware of no broad-based left’ish movement that opposes socialism anywhere in the world except possibly N Korea. Instead, we get socialism-lite.
The Scandinavian countries seem to be doing way better than Venezuela.
Yes, and they aren’t socialist.
if Christianity looks like nothing more than a way to be Republican, it can’t be respected.
If that is all you can see, then that tells us where the problem lies.
Context, or “context,” tells us that religious wars didn’t kill as many people as Genghis Khan.
Well I guess that’s okay then!
It is to weep.
It is to weep that the left, when cornered, can barely muster a perfunctory disavowal of socialism which has caused millions more in deaths in modern times than even Genghis Khan yet it routinely vilifies/denigrates Christianity. Interesting priorities. It is also to weep when someone truncates and rewrites a sentence to avoid having to respond substantively.
Agree. It really, really is. I can only feel sorry for his clients if this is the kind of argumentation he trots out in the courtroom.
Somehow I doubt it.
I do pretty well with objective evidence in front of impartial juries.
how many millions have been killed in the name of atheism ? not by atheists, but in the name of atheism ?
Zero millions and probably not even 1000. Normally I would turn over my king in the face of this awesome bon mot, but unfortunately a movement with atheism as a key component beats Christianity AND Genghis all to hell. So, go socialism!
Incidentally, I doubt McKinney would deny that he is an atheist (not just agnostic) with respect to Poseidon and about 1000 other gods. But he can correct me “IF” I am wrong.
As I said, I’m an Episcopalian. By definition, I’m not down with the Norse pantheon, or the Greek pantheon for that matter. But what I don’t do is crap all over people’s religions. I don’t sneer at people for not having the good sense and clear thinking that lets one be an atheist.
To close this out, no real push back on the “religious bigotry” point, which was the obvious main point. Just some quibbling on my history (which I got right) and my disdain for socialism (we’re not socialists, were democratic socialists!!!!!). So, my main point stands: religious bigotry, alive and well at ObWi.
And he had a lot of kids.
Well, let’s not leave out that besides his actual marriages, he raped a lot of women. As did his troops.
I think the words “human sacrifice” and “necessary” must do a lot of heavy lifting here that I and no Christians I know are aware of.
It’s hard to know what to say. If Jesus was not killed (“human sacrifice” if you accept he was human – which I believe is part of the doctrine), and if it wasn’t necessary in order to “give of oneself that others may live”, then what sense does any of it make? I think the quote at the beginning of this comment is pretty disingenuous, and that “he died so that we might live” is pretty explicit, although I note you’re not too keen to acknowledge John as a reliable source. How convenient. The belief that “Jesus died for our sins” is so central a part of Christianity that it is very strange that you are keen to downgrade it. And as for privileging Christianity in my bigotry at least, I have often made it clear that as far as I am concerned the monotheistic religions are as bad as each other, not just in this post.
So, my main point stands: religious bigotry, alive and well at ObWi.
Just some quibbling on my history (which I got right) …
The Crusades followed the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land. They were reactive, not proactive. Islam picked that fight.
Read up on the Byzantine period, and you’ll see that Palestine was a contested territory for most of that time.
And a center of Moslem worship well before the Arab conquest.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Byzantine_period
Your characterisation is just silly (as is the simplistic view of the Crusades).
Typical Republican troll.
Mueller testifies tomorrow before Congress. Children are in cages.
Trump has decreed that there will be a “fast-track” deportation process that will sidestep immigration judges.
Republican Troll McKinney responds by calling everyone here, people who have honestly discussed their views on religion (including its possible toxicity), a religious bigot.
Like Janie, I was raised Catholic. I haven’t lost my faith entirely, although it’s off and on and pretty weak. In fact, I joined a protestant UCC at one stage of my younger adulthood, because I liked the social justice vibe. In the end, church wasn’t for me, and I don’t really believe in the dogma. I’m not opposed to people going to church, but if I’ve said something negative about belief and religion here, it’s probably because the “religious right” is a cult of hypocrites, and have given religion a bad name. Also, I admit, it seems pretty unlikely sometimes that God is caring much about what’s happening here, although it’s comforting to think that I might drop dead and settle among whatever “angels” one finds convivial. I certainly hope my loved ones are “up there,” even considering my doubts that such a thing exists. Still, I love the world, and am often thanking “someone” that I have been given such a life.
I admire and follow the events of Reverend Barber and the Poor People’s Campaign. In fact, he’s having a meeting in El Paso soon. Maybe your congregation will check it out and join. I would love to go, and am looking at my options.
It would take forever to take apart your lengthy post, McKinney. And since it’s unlikely that you’ll change your views enough to help us get rid of the mobster in the White House, I will not take the time. I will note that your obsession with the word “socialist” (even including “former socialist” in your categorization, as if it were an immutable condition) instead of leaving it as “dictatorship” is hilarious. I agree with you that dictatorships are bad. I wanted to leave it on a conciliatory note!
Your characterisation is just silly
Not to mention “ahistorical.”
how many millions have been killed in the name of atheism ? not by atheists, but in the name of atheism ?
I think it’s usually difficult to cleanly divide murder of religious people for being religious from murdering them for being in political opposition to the anti-religious rulers (e.g.Lenin’s murderous campaign against the former orthodox Russian state church).
The only example I am aware of where religion by itself was targeted in the name of state atheism was Albania under Enver Hoxha. It is imo also the go-to example of atheism acting as a de facto religion, i.e. decreeing atheism true as a dogma that has to be believed or else…
(It’s religion once potential facts disproving the idea are by definition excluded from getting considered. Fact resistance* in atheists is anything but uncommon, unfortunately).
*i.e. in the hypothetical case that a deity could be proven to exist, this would not change their disbelief. Imo, if there is one, it should in any case prefer honest doubters over blind (dis)believers.
The leading cause of war, and most violence, is avarice/power.
Maybe just leave it at that.
Yes, and they aren’t socialist.
That’s my point. Neither are most of the commenters here. No one is arguing for Venezuelan socialism. Rather, people here, generally speaking, argue for policies more in line with social democracy. But you repeatedly throw failed socialist countries in our faces because you seem to be arguing against imaginary strawmen who just love themselves some nationalizing the mean of production (and I guess horrible oppression and violence).
You know what Maduro is? ILLIBERAL, in that he opposes freedom of the press and freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
I also don’t care if some prominent people in the Democratic party call themselves democratic socialists (not that Maduro is even a democratic socialist, since he lacks the democratic part). They’re social democrats, whose preferred policies are similar to those in Scandinavia. I can’t fathom why they misidentify themselves that way, but they do.
Since I’m probably the “someone” who “avoids” responding substantively, I will say right out, loud and proud, that indeed I do, by deliberate policy.
I consider McK’s comments to be a farrago of misdirection, mischaracterization, misunderstanding (charitably), overgeneralization, bigotry, and lawyerly tricks. I lived through three years of my ex in law school, and three more of my son in law school, and besides having them still prominently in my life, my best friend is a lawyer. To wit, for better and worse I have even more personal experience with lawyers than I do with the RCC. I have no more interest in getting into a sustained back and forth with a professional arguer than I have in stepping onto a basketball court with a professional athlete.
As for C.S. Lewis, imo he showed the zealotry of the fresh convert just not in a violent way.
Personally, I strongly dislike his theology in particular the third volume of the Ransom trilogy (That Hideous Strength) while I have some sympathy for the one expressed in the last Narnia book (G#d takes honest belief/worship in/of the wrong deity (even the devil) as directed to himself while repudiating those that worship him as one ‘properly’ would the devil). Unsurprisingly, the latter idea got viciously attacked by more ‘orthodox’ Christians.
The Screwtape letters are more or less neutral. They contain quite a bit of truth independent of the religious context.
Also re: professional arguers, McK repeatedly throws in our faces that we are not playing his game by his rules.
Well, again, out and proud. As I said a while back, McK telling me to jump is not going to result in me saying “how high.”
It will, though, eventually result in my rolling my eyes and going off to find something better to do.
McTX: As I said, I’m an Episcopalian. By definition, I’m not down with the Norse pantheon, or the Greek pantheon for that matter.
Funny thing: I’m not “down with the Norse pantheon, or the Greek pantheon for that matter” either. I just go one god further.
If it offends McKinney that I feel the same way about the Episcopalian god as he feels about Poseidon, that’s a misfortune. If I were to meekly adopt a never-offend-any-believer attitude, that would be a calamity.
But what I don’t do is crap all over people’s religions.
Right: not “religions”, just (your notion of) their ideologies.
I don’t sneer at people for not having the good sense and clear thinking that lets one be an
atheistcapitalist.FTFY. If you don’t get my point, don’t worry about it.
I’m sure you win lots of cases, McKinney, by presenting juries with solid evidence and sound reasoning. I wonder how you’d convince a jury that Jesus rose from the dead.
(Full disclosure: I don’t know enough about the diversity of opinion among Christians to be sure that Episcopalians believe Christ rose from the dead. If not, feel free to substitute “died for their sins” in the previous question.)
Incidentally: are North or South America mentioned in Scripture? I ask because they are majority-Christian nowadays, and I’d like to understand the difference between how that came to pass, and how the spread of Islam did.
–TP
Raised Episcopal, spent several years as a fundamentalist Baptist, now I go to a UU church. My wife’s a deacon, we contribute a lot, blah blah blah.
The UU church I attend is somewhat unusual in that it “identifies as Christian”. But, no creed, which is basically why I like it. I’m kind of all creeded out at this point. The basic words of Jesus are a sufficient challenge for any reasonable person, I don’t really need more than that.
Humans fight wars. They’ve been fighting wars since before Jesus, since before Mohammed, since before Buddha. They’ve been fighting wars since before Karl Marx, or Adam Smith. Since before Chairman Mao, before Pol Pot, before Augusto Pinochet, before Hitler, before Stalin.
They’ve been fighting wars since there were enough of them around to make up two opposing teams, apparently.
Socialism, religion, whatever, all just excuses. Humans, alone among almost all other species, draw weird lines and decide that all of the other humans on the other side of that line have to die. And then we invent the most horrifically efficient ways to get it done that we can.
Ants do this, termites I think. And us. Most sentient beings kill for food or, if sorely pressed, to defend themselves. We, in contrast, seem to find it essential to our nature.
You have stuff, we want it. So we’ll pretend you’re bad, so we can kill you and take your stuff.
It’s the most insane thing you could possibly imagine. And, we’ve always done it. Damned if I know why.
Hartmut, you’re amazing in how widely knowledgeable you are. I should just do a search of your comments for my rest-of-life curriculum.
Incidentally: are North or South America mentioned in Scripture?
You’d be surprised to read the theological discussions of the time when those landmasses got ‘discovered’* by explorers from Spain and Portugal and the implications became clear.
A literary treatment can also be found in the Nova Atlantis of Francis Bacon where the New Atlantis in the Pacific receives a separate visit by Christ in order not to exclude the Americas from (Christian) salvation.
*as usual ignoring the natives (pagan) and the Norse (mixed pagan and Christian)
Ants do this, termites I think. And us.
From “Gombe Chimpanzee War,” Wikipedia. It lasted four years.
You have
stufffemales, we wantitthem. So we’ll pretend you’re bad, so we can kill you and take your [sic]stufffemales.You have stuff, we want it. So we’ll pretend you’re bad, so we can kill you and take your stuff.
The US Civil War was about slavery. Yes, there was avarice involved (the avarice of slave owners wanting to keep their power) but the principle was about the South forcing others to accept a system that was repugnant. It wasn’t about “taking your stuff”. Likewise, WWII was not about greed.
The war against al Qaeda was an effort to stop Islamic terrorists from murdering civilians in their offices, marketplaces and homes. [Not endorsing the war in Iraq, just to be clear.]
Yes, there is always profiteering. Profiteering sometimes drives wars, as we’ve seen in Republican administrations. [Examples omitted – people who are skeptical can look it up.] But wars aren’t always about avarice, or taking people’s stuff. Maybe that’s what you would fight for, but not me.
i before e.
Incidentally: are North or South America mentioned in Scripture? I ask because they are majority-Christian nowadays, and I’d like to understand the difference between how that came to pass, and how the spread of Islam did.
The principle difference would seem to be that Islam became the majority religion in areas conquered by the sword. The newly conquered (unless Jewish or Christian) were given the choice to convert or die. Mostly, they chose to convert.
Whereas in the Americas (at least in South and Central America) Christianity became the majority religion by a combination of (unplanned, and not actually understood — i.e. accidental) biological warfare. The native populations had no immunity to European diseases. They died in enormous numbers and were, to a significant degree, simply replaced by immigrants who were already Christian. Not that there weren’t efforts to convert the heathen, but “convert or die” wasn’t a major factor,
McKinney’s obsession with a thought train that says that the rest of us can never validly criticize anything in the history of the world, because nothing in the history of the world (except Genghis Khan, I guess) was worse than Mao+Stalin, and in McK’s fevered imagination the rest of us here are all more or less the same as, and/or fans of, and and/or responsible for, Mao+Stalin, and we’re not criticizing them, is …
… mind-numbingly, ridiculously stupid.
And justifies sapient’s characterization of him at 5:55.
So I’m going to remind myself that next time McK shows up, it’s time for an ObWi vacation.
For the record, silence is not assent.
It wasn’t about “taking your stuff”
No, it was about “we’ll kill you before we will let you tell us what to do with our stuff”. Which happened to be people.
Janie, noted.
No, it was about “we’ll kill you before we will let you tell us what to do with our stuff”. Which happened to be people.
Have a feeling that this is a dispute without a difference, but wars are fought because [in some cases] some people won’t let other people get away with their avarice and greed. I’m hoping that the coming war will be fought that way.
So I’m going to remind myself that next time McK shows up, it’s time for an ObWi vacation.
For the record, silence is not assent.
I’ve tried to refrain from engaging, but just now failed. I’ll never have the self-restraint that you do, JanieM.
I’ll never have the self-restraint that you do, JanieM.
Hmmmm. I feel like I have a long way to go on the self-restraint front, among other fronts, but thanks for saying it.
Whatever self-restraint I do have tends to come from watching my buttons being pushed, and realizing that I’m being played. And/or from not liking my own contributions after a certain point. And/or from knowing that there’s something else it would be better to spend time on, on any given day.
As my Kiwi colleague always said at the end of an email,
Cheers.
Cheers.
We haven’t always seen eye to eye, Janie, but I’ve learned a lot from you.
Cheers.
This is the thing:
We’ve got a Russian tool in the White House. We’ve been occupied. We, at ObWi don’t talk about this much. Like, what are we going to do about it? Voting isn’t going to help because collaborator Red States are going to work with the Russians to swing their vote count.
We’re kind of f’d. No one cares. Mueller testifies tomorrow. I’m hoping that people care after that.
I will be an impeachment hawk starting on Thursday.
if Christianity looks like nothing more than a way to be Republican, it can’t be respected.
…
If that is all you can see, then that tells us where the problem lies.
learn to read.
Self-restraint, huh? You may have noticed my comment upthread prefaced with “I just can’t help myself.” I could have used “Bait taken!” just as easily. I’m weak.
wars are fought because [in some cases] some people won’t let other people get away with their avarice and greed
agreed
I’m weak.
The spirit is willing….. 😉
*****
No one cares.
Above I said that silence is not assent; in this case, I don’t think it’s accurate, or really fair, to interpret it as indifference. No one has any magic solutions. That doesn’t mean we aren’t doing whatever we can think of to do, politically, financially, or in other ways.
Jerusalem was conquered in 638 after a two year siege by a Muslim army. Seriously. It’s what happened.
What’s your point? There’s been a city at Jerusalem for thousands of years. For about 1200 years (until Hadrian) it was predominantly Jewish. For about 300 years (from Constantine) is was predominantly Christian. Then after 638 it become predominantly Muslim, but with much more freedom for Jews than under Roman or Byzantine rule.
What in that history makes the Crusader invasion on 1099, and the massacre of the city’s Jewish population “reactive”?
“Melinda Snodgrass got the idea for her science fiction novel The High Ground when she started thinking about how awful human beings can be.”
Are Humans the Meanest Species in the Universe?
No one has any magic solutions.
I know. My comment was a general statement of frustration at the apparent failure of so many people in the country to come to grips with the magnitude of the scam that Republicans have been running. It was actually not meant as a comment on anyone here, and it was unfair to the many people who are trying to find a way out.
Although the fight just seems very daunting, I’ll try to be more mindful in my venting.
My original comment:
Plus, as a side note, I’m always amazed when Christians in general fail to see that their religion is in a sense based on human sacrifice, even if it was (perhaps) voluntary.
McKinney:
I think the words “human sacrifice” and “necessary” must do a lot of heavy lifting here that I and no Christians I know are aware of
Now I come to think of it, QED!
I don’t think McKinney is a troll, but I guess it must be comforting to bait the libs when all around the consequences of an ignorant, craven and corrupt Republican leadership become more and more apparent. What’s a little confusion over “democratic socialists” and “social democrats” between friends, when words are losing their meaning all around, and “alternative facts” hold sway?
That’s an interesting point GftNC. Aside from the border issues, what would you say are the consequences of the craven Republucan leadership?
I concede the overcrowding at the border is an example of inadequate response, probably due to something between apathy and intent.
i like how it’s not simply very important to get the details of Christianity exactly right, it’s actually a moral (and mortal!) failing to get them wrong.
but “socialism” ? toss that fucker a-round. after all, it’s just Republican slang for “what dem wicked ferrners do”.
“Aside from the border issues”??
Why “aside from”? Do Republicons find “border issues” too embarrassing, or already settled, or what?
–TP
e.g. filling cabinet positions with one lobbyist after the other (while claiming to drain the swamp of them). That requires consent from the GOP dominated senate (although some ‘moderate’ Dems have no problem with that either).
Blocking any and all attempts at election protection against foreign meddling (while calling it partisan politics and at the same time accusing the opposition of being in league with those sinister foreign meddlers).
Openly declaring that it does not matter if/when THEIR president breaks the law and boasting about not looking at potential evidence (while demanding new investigations into the investigators and, of course, the Clintons and Obama)
…
I don’t even have to go into topics like taxes or the economy (since that is controversial even with good faith on both sides which I, for the record, do not consider to be there though).
Like GftNC, I want to go back to something from McKinney from yesterday (my bold):
The general thrust of this and other anti-Christian diatribes here at ObWi is that Christianity is it’s own, stand-alone, one-off source of war and misery, and since no one ever offers any context, the subtext is “compared to other sources of war and misery, Christianity is, if not the worst, just plain awful.”
I point out—accurately—that Ghengis Khan killed more people in his lifetime than all European religious, i.e. intra-Christian, wars since the dawn of Christianity. So, in context, religion and Christianity specifically, are third or fourth level causes of war.
“This” diatribe seems to mean my comments about the Catholic church, so I’m going to contradict McK’s assertion that there’s any “subtext” like the one he describes, and say that not one word of mine about the church had to do with this imaginary “subtext,” i.e. the comparative atrocities game that he seems to be obsessed with.
I originally made a half-joking comment about religion as compared to conspiracy theories. wj suggested that conspiracy theories harm people, while religion has on balance a more benign effect. I thought that was, at best, oversimplified, or shall we say ahistorical, and I went on a rant listing harms done by the RCC. I never said squat about whether the RCC was the worst of anything, although I did imply (I’m not sure I said this explicitly) that I thought its effect on the world was more malign than benign on balance.
I tried to say this earlier in a different, more oblique way, but I don’t give a rat’s ass whether Genghis Khan killed two or five or a hundred times more people than the Catholic Church in particular, or Christianity or religion in general. The fact that one evil butcher killed fifty million people does not let the ones who killed ten million off the hook.
To put it yet another way, in inventing a subtext and attributing it to me, McKinney lied.
I don’t know why he comes here to argue with the phantoms in his head, but I object to having my name slapped on them, and then to being berated for not arguing “substantively” on behalf of positions I never took and assertions I never made.
Forbearance having failed in favor of calling a lie a lie, I am going back to NFT.
North Franklin Township is a lovely place, Janie. I’d like to go back there, myself. ;^)
This is, perhaps, not entirely irrelevant to the discussion:
When modern conservatives associate activists of color with communism, they’re drawing on a racist history that goes back over 100 years.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/lindsey-graham-ocasio-cortez-black-activism-communism.html
easiest way to win an argument: invent it.
@hsh: I have a feeling North Franklin Township is going to become a meme, if only on this blog. 😉
@cleek: Yes. And you’ve said it before. I’m a little slow-witted, but I get there eventually.
they’re drawing on a racist history that goes back over 100 years.
intentionally. with malice aforethought.
my prediction: the 2020 election is going to be hideous.
the GOP is going to re-run every red-baiting, racist, revanchist slur it’s ever broadcast. it’s going to present a cavalcade of jingoist, [WHITE-]nationalist horrors that we haven’t seen here in a century. and i suspect many, umm, sticklers for historical accuracy will somehow find it in them to overlook its lies.
Ok, we’ve come full circle. Everyone here had their hair on fire about Trump/GOP racism–fair enough. Then, everyone goes off on one of this site’s occasional anti-Christian threads. It’s religious bigotry plain and simple, which I lay out and no really denies. Cleek and GFTNC basically say, “yeah, your point?”–kind of an Alt-left view of Christianity, although GFTNC doesn’t like any religion. I point out that the ObWi religious bigots single out Christianity, repeatedly as a stand alone bad thing in the world, yet flirt with socialism, which has a much higher body count than any Christian-related warfare. Folks here are sensitive about the socialism moniker because it does have a lot of stink on it yet, like flies to honey, the collectivist, mutual caring progressives impute to socialism (it isn’t there) is just irresistible. But, saying so really pisses Progressives off. Because they actually mean “Democratic Socialism”, you know, like in Scandinavia (What about Democratic Fascism, is that a thing?), and then a few say what they really mean is just a bigger welfare state. Sorry, sticking Progressives with the Socialist label can’t be helped–too many Progressives talk and act like socialists, essentially embracing a historically totalitarian, war-like and deadly system (“No, no, no, we’ll do it better this time!). Probably calling conservatives racists pisses them off too. Who knows? As an aside, we had a bit of quibbling over whether the Crusades were in response to the Islamic capture of Jerusalem (they were, even if it doesn’t fit the ObWi narrative), and several people question my facts but offer none on their own. Upthread JanieM wildly mis-states my position and after a day, determines that some subtext I impute to her and others is an outright lie (like neither she nor anyone else here ever infers a meaning from what others say). Oh, and several got pissy when I commented on the Progressive intolerance to differing views. That was particularly funny.
And now, back the ObWi safe harbor: all the people who disagree with us are racists!!!
Like I said, full circle.
And now, back the ObWi safe harbor: all the people who disagree with us are racists!!
I freely admit that my memory isn’t perfect. But I can’t recall a time that anyone here said that YOU were a racist. While disagreeing vigorously with you on numerous subjects. (Feel free to provide links to the contrary.)
I am sure nobody has said that about me. While disagreeing with me about a fair number of things as well.
Probably calling conservatives racists pisses them off too.
then they should stop being racist.
i mean WTF, for example. your party is chock-full of racism. top to bottom. and you think the problem is people noticing?
I point out that the ObWi religious bigots single out Christianity, repeatedly as a stand alone bad thing in the world
I don’t think this is true. You accurately acknowledge that I personally am against all religion, but otherwise your claim here pursues the idiotic rightwing talking point exemplified by “the war on Christmas”. What is the aim of this trope, if not to affirm the absurd concept of the victimhood of Christianity, and attacks on it by those awful progressives, liberals, socialists etc, with the implication that they favour all other cultures over the upright, white, American one.
Marty: increasing tension with Iran? Incompetent and corrupt ministers? And what Hartmut said.
Then, everyone goes off on one of this site’s occasional anti-Christian threads
“everyone” ?
With all due respect, McKinney, balls.
the ObWi religious bigots single out Christianity, repeatedly as a stand alone bad thing in the world
context.
i’m pretty sure that everyone who comments here lives in, or at least came from, a traditionally Christian-dominant country. you want us to talk about the creeping Zoroastrian influence in our national politics?
but, GftNC nails it.
Sorry, sticking Progressives with the Socialist label can’t be helped–too many Progressives talk and act like socialists, essentially embracing a historically totalitarian, war-like and deadly system
This would be funny if it wasn’t so nuts. I am reminded of the young Republican idiot of my acquaintance who told me in all seriousness that Obama was a socialist, no actually he was a communist. What do you do when words have no meaning anymore?
I point out that the ObWi religious bigots single out Christianity, repeatedly as a stand alone bad thing in the world
Christianity has been the dominant religion in the US since its founding. Its adherents still control vast segments of the power structure, oftentimes explicitly in its name. Moreover, many of us were brought up as one variety of Christian or another, and our families and friends are probably predominantly Christian, when they are anything religious at all.
So to a rational person rather than one haunted by bogeymen, it shouldn’t be surprising that Christianity comes in for a lot of commentary. The elephant in the middle of the playground tends to draw a bit more attention than the mouse cowering in the corner.
Even so, repeatedly singled out as a stand alone bad thing in the world?
Ummm, surely there must be a cite, never mind repeated instances. Going once…? Going twice…? Going, going … gone.
Or is this another … figment?
What do you do when words have no meaning anymore?
Weep?
Go off and eat some chocolate? (See Lupin, Remus.)
What do you do when words have no meaning anymore?
vote Trump!
nothing matters! party on!
Go off and eat some chocolate? (See Lupin, Remus.)
Immediately understood, but I’m happy to say I’m not actually beset by dementors at the moment!
I’m happy to say I’m not actually beset by dementors at the moment!
Well maybe Boris isn’t as bad as Clickbait, but speaking for myself, I feel like the dementors are running my country. In fact, I tossed the line off as a throwaway, but now that I think about it, Clickbait has a lot in common with them.
Alter Eco Burnt Caramel is the best, but very expensive. I make a bar last for ten days, one little treat every evening, with cheaper chocolate for ordinary snacking.
P.S. I was in Brussels for a month in 2008, for work. The colleague I went over there to work with lived in a neighborhood where there were six or seven amazing chocolate shops, each one looking for all the world like a fancy jewelry shop would look over here.
Wow.
Hmm, I’m not particularly into chocolate, but I admit that Alter Eco one looks pretty intriguing.
Boris isn’t as bad as Trump, but at the moment I am seeing him as the less amusing Boaty McBoatface of politics. However, maybe I will be proved wrong and he will rise to the occasion without doing too much harm. One can hope.
It is odd that, when people disagree with some things some Christians say or do particularly when (usually erroneously) using Christianity as the basis for those things, it’s anti-Christian bigotry. Of course, no one is calling for Christianity to be banned, for Christians to be punished, for Christians to be shunned simply for being Christian (or in general).
As Janie points out, the US (and the Western world) is predominantly Christian, with 75% of US adults self-identifying as Christian. If we were so intolerant of Christianity, how could we stand to live here in a state of peace?
I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t spend an appreciable amount of time fighting the forces of Christianity. I mean, I was married in a Catholic church and attended Pre-Cana. It wasn’t terribly important to me personally. It was mostly done for my wife’s family. But it didn’t particularly bother me. It was just an otherwise pointless and perfunctory thing for me.
This is from the person who somewhat defended religious belief in general, when it is acknowledged to be based on faith and not evidence, and is thereby different from a conspiracy theory. (I’d be curious to know McKinney’s thoughts on Creationism.)
And for the nth time, social democracy is not democratic socialism. Socialism of any kind involves the means of production being in the hands of the workers by way of the government. I don’t know how many people here want to nationalize industry, but I’m guessing it’s a very small minority. A robust safety net isn’t actually socialism.
I don’t want US Government iPhones!
in a neighborhood where there were six or seven amazing chocolate shops, each one looking for all the world like a fancy jewelry shop would look over here.
And that is precisely the problem in Brussels: there are just way too many choices. Especially for someone who isn’t into chocolate, but is trying to buy a present for someone who is. Agonizing!
who told me in all seriousness that Obama was a socialist, no actually he was a communist. What do you do when words have no meaning anymore?
Oh they still have meaning. They don’t mean anything but “bad”, but they do consistently carry that much. (It can be worthwhile to point out to casual users that that is all they are saying. 😉
on a different note, check out Mueller’s continued persecution of Trump:
Total Exoneration!
we had a bit of quibbling over whether the Crusades were in response to the Islamic capture of Jerusalem (they were…)
Well, if we’re going to use proof by assertion: they weren’t.
In terms of timescales it’s like saying that Brexit is in response to the Spanish Armada.
One could reasonably argue that the Crusades were in response to Seljuq Muslim expansion in Anatolia. (But it was quite a lot more complicated than that.)
I don’t think I’ve said a word against Christianity on here. But I note McKT’s apparent view that Christians are entitled to seize a Jewish city, whereas Muslims are not.
I do not speak badly of anyone’s profession of religious faith. Good works are good. But I do object to the view that one particular religion is entitled to inflict itself on the rest of us.
__
What about Democratic Fascism, is that a thing?
In so far as the Trumpists cleave to democracy, yes. So not really.
Key components of fascism are dictatorial power and disallowing dissent, so it should be obvious that democracy and fascism are necessarily mutually exclusive. You can nationalize the means of production and still allow people to vote on what gets done with the means of production. Socialism is not necessarily dictatorial, even though it mostly has been in practice (as far as I know – I’m no historian or political scientist).
In any case, I have no desire to advocate for socialism, despite my being a by-default Democrat, given the lack of a viable alternative currently on offer from the other major political party in my country.
North Franklin Township is still a good distance away for me it seems.
who told me in all seriousness that Obama was a socialist, no actually he was a communist. What do you do when words have no meaning anymore?
Classic quote from The Manchurian Candidate
What do you do when words have no meaning anymore?
Play music.
Come and get it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1EwCq4b9w
Say It:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wgN-A0Av3Q
Shred it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw3MwCWeOQQ
Sing it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfBEqiEhCgM
This thread is like a money game of jump rope. I keep trying to step in but I can’t decide with which foot first.
But I will. As soon as I get the rhythm down.
As it happens, Genghis Khan is making a comeback and someone on this thread is not going to like on whose nationalist krypto-Christian/pagan conservative side his pagan ponies are just now kicking up the blood-soaked dust on the steppes of eastern Europe.
Apparently, Genghy, as we murderous socialists like to call him, caught wind that the Avis’s and Pepsi’s of mass murder and genocide are attempting to catch up with his historical body count, and so his tribal horsemen are gathering for the next storm, like in some Cormac McCarthy/Timothy Snyder blood meridian nightmare.
Let me assemble my thoughts.
Boris isn’t as bad as Trump, but at the moment I am seeing him as the less amusing Boaty McBoatface of politics. However, maybe I will be proved wrong and he will rise to the occasion without doing too much harm. One can hope.
Have you seen his new cabinet ?
Just no.
Boris isn’t as bad as Trump
My sense is that he lacks Trump’s natural talent. But he is a LOT brighter, so he should be able to copy Trump’s behavior pretty well. Maybe not innovate new depths, but there’s plenty of material already ripe (pun intended) for imitation.
Allow me to preface my remarks by first renouncing and denouncing all the bad things done by….well, ‘eff it. Why bother?
What about Democratic Fascism, is that a thing?
Almost. The Doughy Pant Load is on the case.
Listening to our president it appears a witch hunt is still on.
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gbb_witches.htm?fbclid=IwAR1s0bY9fL3DDvO476hECpdflvgZAX9gJV2Jgs2MHuG4ieFTGyru8_SGxlQ
Just no
Alas, too right. Dominic Cummings! The horror, the horror…
Returning briefly, against my better judgement.
First, BDS, not BSD. Bad enough the the two parties show their bipartisanship by telling a Palestinian human rights movement it is antisemitic, but at least fracking spell it right. Both Democrats and Republicans who voted to do this ( virtually all of them) can shove their supposed ethical values up their butts. I will vote lesser evil in 2020 because it is clear which is lesser, but the people who voted this way suck. And I like Ro Khanna. Great on Yemen. Mealymouthed hypocrite on this.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/1154155147171368964
Of course with the Mueller circus scheduled this all got about two seconds of coverage.
On Uighurs, the obvious response is to ask why one so often sees Chinese repression of Tibet or now the Uighurs used as rhetorical human shields, so that people are never supposed to criticize Israel before solving all other problems. We give billions per year to Israel. They are treated as if they were the 51st state. Look at the fracking vote Congress just had. Highly controversial and emotional issue, one would think and yet nearly all those folk united to spit on BDS. Touching to see such a display of conscience. But yes, the Uighurs matter, so why do they come up in this context rather than in their own right? It used to be Tibet. I’ve seen Tibet mentioned more online as a shield for Israel than I ever saw it mentioned for its own sake. That’s not the fault of pro Palestinian activists. Why would it be?
While I am here—I am both Christian and leftist. Both groups or ideologies or whatever have blood on their hands. Full stop. Yes, there are different types of lefties, but many communists thought they were building a better world, just as many liberal humanitarian interventionists thought the same. I am a lefty rather than a righty because I think the right is wrong on most issues and if you did an honest body count I think theirs is higher, but practically all ideologies can be used to justify killing people. I am Christian because I think it is true, but certainly Christians have killed many in the name of Christ, and some have allied with the right and killed in the name of God and Country. A few have even been leftist Christians and supported guerilla movements with dubious human rights records.
Back to lurking. The BSD thing irked me.
We give billions per year to Israel. They are treated as if they were the 51st state.
I’m trying, without success, to think of a state which gets such a free pass from the Federal government. Or which is held by either party (let alone both) to be exempt from criticism about anything.
I’m thinking any state government would be delighted (and incredulous) to find themselves getting such a total across-the-board free pass combined with such massive support. Not that such a thing is likely to happen.
Dare I ask how American public support for the State of Israel is related to the pervasive use of “Judeo-Christian” by American politicians fishing for votes in the waters of American religiosity?
BTW, when GftNC wrote Now I come to think of it, QED! I thought “Gee, I wish I had said that!”
On a completely different subject: Robert S. Mueller 3rd is a textbook example of the well-known phenomenon that moral courage in public is harder to come by than physical courage in battle. Either that, or Mueller (like Comey before him) courageously believes that his “integrity” is too important to waste on calling a spade a spade.
–TP
Can we blame Genghis Khan for this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtFSCvLLluw
(Seek the German original at your own peril as well as the Yiddish borrowing of the tune).
Genghis Khan was somewhat famously tolerant of and curious about religions other than his own.
A murderous tyrant, yes, but no-one could call him a bigot.
He was a cruel man, but fair.
Several of his daughters-in-law were Christian.
And those ladies played a significant (and constructive) role (while sons-in-law were pure cannon fodder and had no political influence). It is said that Genghis Khan was a complete failure concerning the upbringing of his sons but was a genius in selecting their (and their male children’s) brides. I guess the huge (and justified) respect he had for his mother played a role there.
Although this is not an open thread, I just checked and saw that its subject is your (and by extension our) politics and democracy.
So, this is to tell you that I just watched The Great Hack, a Netflix documentary about the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook story, and I recommend it. They don’t only focus on those two companies, but on the issues, and to assuage sapient’s worries they do also discuss (in the last half hour) the fact of how much of the disinformation came from Russia.
This may be unfair, but so many of the screenshots of fake news stories about Hillary’s criminality, Black Lives Matter’s violence (not to mention how Russia organised many of their rallies which turned violent, and also counter rallies ditto – thus driving apart America even further) reminded me exactly of some of the things that Marty and McKinney assert as facts*. Now Marty has said he does not get his news from Facebook, but who knows who else may be sending him this stuff, or indeed other tech actors who are harvesting his data points and targeting him with fake things he might be in sympathy with. And I don’t recall ever discussing exactly this with McKinney, but who knows exactly where he gets his “facts” either, let alone his opinions. But we do know about confirmation bias, and I suspect many of us try pretty hard to fight against it. Maybe Marty and McKinney do too, but as I said *the correspondence between the two was downright spooky.
GftNC,
I’m not sure I have ever had an exchange about BLM,actually pretty certain I havent. There are boundless sources for Hillary’s criminal history, I certainly dont need FB.
I’m Al’s certain that really good propaganda starts with small facts and distorts and expands the narrative. If they weren’t targeting people ready inclined to believe with seemingly credible stories they would be doing it wrong.
“There are boundless sources for Hillary’s criminal history, I certainly dont need FB.”
True, criminal convictions, are usually bound and published in the public record.
So, yeah, boundless.
I’m not sure I have ever had an exchange about BLM,actually pretty certain I havent.
here is the first hit on a search of “site:obsidianwings.blogs.com marty BLM”
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2016/08/seeking-a-better-word-for-privilege.html
here’s another
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2017/09/slow-learners.html
A review:
“A HACK, as it is commonly understood, is when someone stealthily gains access to a computer system using vulnerabilities in the code or by tricking a gullible user into revealing their credentials. Asking a user of a computer or social network to click on an “I agree” button and then harvesting their data in order to influence them is not a hack. It is the business model of the internet.”
“The Great Hack” is a misinformed documentary about misinformation: A new film chronicles the fall of Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy that used data to form psychological profiles of voters, without much insight or novelty
I will repeat myself, because why not.
The problem with BLM is the name. Black lives matter, well so do white lives, yellow lives, red lives, green and purple lives. What makes you all so special?
They should have called themselves “Stop Shooting Us You Bastards”.
Some people need things spelled out.
A HACK, as it is commonly understood…
Call it whatever you like. Social media was exploited to push false information as propaganda for nefarious ends.
The fact that people clicked through, let alone believed that crap, doesn’t speak well of them, but also does not excuse the folks who were pushing the bullshit.
We’ll see if America is sufficiently intelligent to survive without shredding itself.
i haven’t seen the doc. but, the way CA got the FB user data certainly meets the definition of a ‘hack’.
they found a way to use FB’s API to make it give up much more data than FB wanted it to give up. then they gobbled up a bunch of data and then used it to target people.
The BSD thing irked me.
My apologies for perpetuating it in my responses to McKinney.
In neitqhqerq if those threads did u ever mention BLM, although I think the first one is one of my better threads.
Wow. In neither of those threads did I ever mention BLM.
And I don’t recall ever discussing exactly this with McKinney, but who knows exactly where he gets his “facts” either, let alone his opinions.
Ok, I’ll bite: to what “facts” are you referring? I’ve invited several people here to show evidence that my *facts* are wrong. So far, no takers. So, fire away.
For fun, A little history: It all began in the 1960s at MIT, origin of the term “hacker”, where extremely skilled individuals practiced hardcore programming in FORTRAN and other older languages.”
But the word predated that usage. See here. The oldest hack I ever heard stories about when I was around the place was that sometime in the early 19-teens, MIT students snuck out in the night and welded a subway car to the tracks. Thank the FSM that as the years went by, outright vandalism gave way to lighter-hearted pranks.
A couple of favorites:
The One Ring around the Great Dome.
A fire truck on the Great Dome on 9/11/2006, to honor first responders on the first anniversary of 9/11/2001.
A surprise at the Harvard-Yale game.
*****
As to CharlesWT’s comment, and more or less echoing russell, it seems fair to say that most of the internet is an ongoing hack of our minds and our social systems. And not in the lighthearted MIT prank sense.
wrs: We’ll see if America is sufficiently intelligent to survive…
And by the way, the acronym on the website at a couple of those links stood for “I hate this fucking place” long before they repurposed it as “Interesting Hacks to Fascinate People.”
😉
In neither of those threads did I ever mention BLM.
the threads are about what BLM is about. there are references to black people getting killed by cops all through them; people talked about the odd unacceptability of black protests (kneeling, marching, etc). you participated.
Asking a user of a computer or social network to click on an “I agree” button and then harvesting their data in order to influence them is not a hack. It is the business model of the internet.
CharlesWT, that review is itself a bit ridiculous: it’s called The Great Hack because that’s what it’s about – several million people filled out a “personality questionnaire” and clicked I agree which allowed their data to be harvested. Whether they knew this or not is irrelevant, they had agreed to it. What they had not agreed to, and their friends and contacts had certainly not agreed to, is that all of their friends’ and contacts’ data was then collected too. This was the hack, by anybody’s definition except the author of the article. And he largely ignores this aspect, conveniently for his argument, saying only “Cambridge Analytica gained access to the Facebook data of tens of millions of Americans through sneaky means.” And, given that we see in the documentary extracts of footage showing the Cambridge Analytica CEO and one of his senior executives boasting to undercover Channel 4 reporters how, when working on election campaigns, they put false information on the net, and watch it spread, and use bribes and blackmail on politicians they are targeting, I think we can guess the author’s point of view and moral compass when he says “So credulous is “The Great Hack” that if Cambridge Analytica had not shut down, its bosses would be using the movie as a testimonial.”
McKinney, Pro Bono has already exposed your error on the crusades by the analogy that it’s like saying Brexit was in response to the Spanish Armada (similar timescales). But further back, although interestingly (and perhaps not coincidentally) on the same sort of subject, I remember the brilliant-and-still-missed Nombrilisme Vide thoroughly schooling you when you said something about the historical superiority of the Judeo-Christian west (actually, you may have omitted the Judeo bit, I don’t remember, but since that hyphenation is currently much in vogue on the right I am giving you the benefit of the doubt) in terms of science, medecine and other metrics of judging the advancement of civilisations. (You may, hilariously, also have referred to tolerance of other religions). I’ve never mastered the art of searching for old ObWi comments, but using cleek’s method above I’ve found some stuff between you and NV on race, but not the stuff I am talking about. If I find it, I’ll post it. If you don’t remember it, it’s not entirely surprising: our conversation/argument about Sarah Huckabee Sanders which you don’t remember was not that long ago (it was when she was asked to leave that restaurant, and you were so furious that you were unusually heated and personal about it).
No I participated in specific parts of the threads, as is usually the case, on the pieces I felt I had some interesting or valid input to. None of those pieces were on BLM.
It’s not that big a thing with me, but my original sentence as best I recall is accurate. If it shortens this let me just retract it entirely.
McKinney, Pro Bono has already exposed your error on the crusades by the analogy that it’s like saying Brexit was in response to the Spanish Armada (similar timescales).
If it’s an error, it’s an error in interpretation. I don’t agree with PB’s take on it. Jerusalem fell in 638. It was retaken in 1093 by the French, or proto-French if you like. It wasn’t as if the interim was a time of peace. War between Islam and its non-Islamic neighbors was continual almost from the inception of Islam. The Franks stopped the northernmost spread of Islam at the Battle of Tours in 732. Much of the Iberian Peninsula was under Islamic control by then. The Reconquista took another 600 years. Constaninople didn’t fall to Islam until the mid-1400’s (and the sack of Constantinople was just as barbarous as the sack of Jerusalem in 1093). So, the better interpretation of events is that Islam began a series of campaigns against non-believers that continued until the 16th century (roughly 1000 years–quite a long war). In the early part of those campaigns, the city most holy to the then-hyper devout Catholics was captured by an Islamic army. In the context of a war that lasted 1000 years, a 400 year interval, during part of which time the Franks were defending their own homeland, isn’t all that much of a much. But, whatever. A part of the narrative on the Progressive side is that the Crusades were bad and unfair to Muslims. Disagreeing with that narrative is deemed counterfactual. Whatever.
I remember the brilliant-and-still-missed Nombrilisme Vide thoroughly schooling you when you said something about the historical superiority of the Judeo-Christian west (actually, you may have omitted the Judeo bit, I don’t remember, but since that hyphenation is currently much in vogue on the right I am giving you the benefit of the doubt) in terms of science, medecine and other metrics of judging the advancement of civilisations.
I vaguely recall this, and, at best, this is your subjective take-away from the exchange. There is not hard and fast consensus that the Islamic world was or is more advanced that the West. If there is a consensus, it goes the other way. The Renaissance, the Age of Reason, the Reformation, the liberalization of society and eventual democratization of the West have no corollary in Islam in general, even in recent time. Western liberal culture and society is markedly superior in almost every metric than pretty much the rest of the world including the Islamic world. The proof is easy to see: no one is immigrating from the West to Egypt or Syria or Turkey except people returning home.
our conversation/argument about Sarah Huckabee Sanders which you don’t remember was not that long ago (it was when she was asked to leave that restaurant, and you were so furious that you were unusually heated and personal about it).
Ok, so that’s what you were referring to. IIRC, we were talking about more than just her. There were a series of incidents in which conservatives were accosted while dining or otherwise having private time away from the house as well as at least one incident in which a lefty mob attacked someone’s home while his wife and children were there. Yes, I have a problem with that and I was pretty pointed about it, but you are confusing me with LJ in the personal attack context.
As general observation, my *facts* are pretty specific and easily checked if one takes the time. However, if you are in the choir, and the preacher says what you want to hear, that becomes your fact. When you like the side of the argument that jibes with your outlook, that doesn’t mean the other side is wrong. It just means they don’t agree with you. Big difference.
Below is the sum total of the “facts” trotted out by McKinney in his initial tirade that we are supposed to “refute”:
The PRC is currently incarcerating 1,000,000 Uighurs.
Most likely true, but not meaningful in the context of any of the discussion on this thread, other than the “contexts” that council crassly tries to insert in the discussion. There is also the broad stroke charge that “progressives” dont’ talk about this topic, ergo they are hypocrites. The logic of such reasoning escapes me, but here is an article on the topic from Amnesty International, an organization that is otherwise on the fascist right’s hit list for not kowtowing to Isreal deeply and sincerely enough to suite them.
The Crusades followed the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land.
Yes. This is a fact. As others have pointed out, it was employed in a crude and really stupid way. Refuting this fact is an irrelevancy. He could as well claimed that the sun shines during daylight and thus socialism is bad.
Genghis Khan alone killed more people in his lifetime than all of the religious wars in Europe from the birth of Christ to the present by a huge margin.
This may or may not be true. It would be nice to know how many millions were killed by the Mongols after the great Khan died in 1227 as the empire lasted a little over another 100 years and was engaged in more or less constant war. Again, there are historical disagreements among those who engage in historical study for a living, unlike our esteemed attorney from Texas.
China is the scene, the product and the result of the most destructive wars in history, particularly in comparison to relative population sizes over time.
citation omitted.
The thrust of the diatribe is simple: Wars and deaths due to the actions of socialist states (self described or otherwise) are proof of the deficiencies of socialism. Millions of deaths due to the actions of Christian states are just simply unfortunate, and anyway, they didn’t kill as many people so take that libs.
It might just be me, but I find this reasoning to be comically unpersuasive.
but i think the real issue is that Christians are persecuted and silenced and despised in their own Christian countries.
the sun shines during daylight and thus socialism is bad.
Made me laugh out loud.
It might just be me
Nope, you have company.
There is also the broad stroke charge that “progressives” dont’ talk about this topic, ergo they are hypocrites.
The hypocrisy is part of it. Another part is the failure of Progressives to see how awful state control is and how *relatively* affluent even the bottom quintile is in the free market US. Another part is the Progressive fetish with the uber rich, as if the majority of suffering on this planet is in the US and not in either 4th and 5th world dictatorships or the more modern workers’ paradises. I could go on. But you are correct, the hypocrisy is a large part of it.
It would be nice to know how many millions were killed by the Mongols after the great Khan died in 1227 as the empire lasted a little over another 100 years and was engaged in more or less constant war.
Funny. This was comical yesterday. Regardless, I was using this as a point of reference: 40,000,000 million lives in his lifetime vs less than 10,000,000 lives over 2000 years. So yes, Christianity is really, really bad.
China is the scene, the product and the result of the most destructive wars in history, particularly in comparison to relative population sizes over time.
citation omitted.
The thrust of the diatribe is simple: Wars and deaths due to the actions of socialist states (self described or otherwise) are proof of the deficiencies of socialism. Millions of deaths due to the actions of Christian states are just simply unfortunate, and anyway, they didn’t kill as many people so take that libs.
It might just be me, but I find this reasoning to be comically unpersuasive.
You are getting this wrong in several respects. China is the source of the longest and worst wars going back centuries before communism. The body count prior to communism was, in the aggregate, much higher. I was simply making a factual observation for comparative purposes. You are misunderstanding it. An ongoing trope on the left is that the West is the source of most or all evil. This is often accompanied by observing the perfidious role played by Christianity. In point of fact, for all around viciousness based on body count, Asia beats the West all to hell even up to today. The quote above was also an allusion to this additional historical misapprehension among Progressives.
But this part: Wars and deaths due to the actions of socialist states (self described or otherwise) are proof of the deficiencies of socialism. Millions of deaths due to the actions of Christian states are just simply unfortunate, and anyway, they didn’t kill as many people so take that libs. is where you make your worst point.
First of all, socialism kills its own people by the millions and in relatively short periods of time. Famine and repression do most of the heavy lifting (so let’s really crack down on the monetization of the means of production and get it in the hands of right-thinking regulators and worker’s counsels!), all of it in the last 100 years. Yet, one almost never hears a Progressive criticize socialism. They will go on quite a bit about religion in general and Christianity in particular, but not the leading killer of the 20 and 21st centuries. Deaths attributable to Christianity–the 30 Years War, the Inquisition and what have you–are spread out over centuries and are a fraction of socialism’s recent accomplishments. So, Progressives complain about the lesser evil and ignore the greater evil. And they get really pissy when called out on it.
First of all, socialism kills its own people by the millions and in relatively short periods of time.
I rest my case.
Yet, one almost never hears a Progressive criticize socialism.
There is an actual definitive meaning of the word “socialism” as espoused by Karl Marx and those who have taken up marxism as a political, philosophical, and/or ideological belief.
You might even look it up.
“Progressives” as a term used in political discourse in this country have little, if anything philosophically in common with hard core socialists.
Therefore your clumsy attempts to conflate “Progressives” and/or US “leftists” with socialism is simply absurd.
As for not criticizing oppressive regimes, socialist or otherwise, I give you the entire current GOP whose criticism of Putin’s Russia is muted at best, or their criticism of Israel, which is utterly nonexistent.
In point of fact, a much better case can be made that today’s current right wing in this country is consciously embarking on the road to fascism.
These folks are your political allies, McKinney.
I’ve heard that North Franklin Township is lovely in the summer.
but i think the real issue is that Christians are persecuted and silenced and despised in their own Christian countries.
Brilliant. Just brilliant. Really, what else can one say?
I rest my case.
And I thought nothing could top Cleek’s biting, Churchill-like wit, but there you are: so far beyond brilliant, there really aren’t words to describe. Color me gob-smacked.
There is not hard and fast consensus that the Islamic world was or is more advanced that the West. If there is a consensus, it goes the other way.
Well, this is rather fascinating and suggests that you may have internalised some of NV’s argument. As stated here, the first sentence is true, and the second is arguable. I seem to remember that at the time you started with one of your blanket statements about the obvious superiority (past and present) of the Christian West over the Islamic East, and were comprehensively argued to more or less a standstill by NV. I may be misremembering, but I don’t think so. As I say, if I can find it I will post it.
But these blanket statements of yours (more recently about the invention of useful scientific/technological/medical advances being almost exclusively made by capitalism) all seem to fit the same category – can you see what it is? Do you think it might be possible to examine the evidence more open-mindedly, and not start from an assumption that one’s own culture, civilisation, political leanings etc are automatically superior, and not just indulge (as I mentioned before with confirmation bias) in a search for only evidence and interpretations which support that assumption? I know you continue to characterise us as knee-jerk lefties, and I suspect that in response to what I say above you will either reply or certainly think that we on the contrary are anxious to assume that our own culture and civilisation (but never political leanings – that’s part of your stereotype of us) are inferior, but if you examine the evidence you will see that we often directly contradict, with reasons, your characterisation. And actually, writing this, I realise I don’t have that much of a right to speak for “us” and “we”. We’re all pretty different, and to the extent that most of us have certain attitudes in common, that might bear thinking about too. I know you’re a never-Trumper, but you’ve had plenty of time to see the craven collapse of any pretence at integrity or accountability or fiscal responsibility or even competence of the rest of the rightwing party. How come it’s still so obvious that the attitudes of most of the people here deserve ridicule and contempt?
1. An ongoing trope on the left is that the West is the source of most or all evil. This is often accompanied by observing the perfidious role played by Christianity. 2. In point of fact, for all around viciousness based on body count, Asia beats the West all to hell even up to today.
1. I don’t know if it is an ongoing trope on the left (actually I do know – it isn’t, only in the fevered minds of Fox News and the right), but it sure as hell is not one here. As for the perfidious role played by Christianity, they are one of many religions that have done terrible things (as well as some good ones), and do not deserve to be placed morally above any of the other extant religions. But your point 2 is only relevant if your point 1 is true, and it isn’t. Why do you insist on setting up these straw men and giving them “our” faces?
1. An ongoing trope on the left is that the West is the source of most or all evil. This is often accompanied by observing the perfidious role played by Christianity. 2. In point of fact, for all around viciousness based on body count, Asia beats the West all to hell even up to today.
1. I don’t know if it is an ongoing trope on the left (actually I do know – it isn’t, only in the fevered minds of Fox News and the right), but it sure as hell is not one here. As for the perfidious role played by Christianity, they are one of many religions that have done terrible things (as well as some good ones), and do not deserve to be placed morally above any of the other extant religions. But your point 2 is only relevant if your point 1 is true, and it isn’t. Why do you insist on setting up these straw men and giving them “our” faces?
As for not criticizing oppressive regimes, socialist or otherwise, I give you the entire current GOP whose criticism of Putin’s Russia is muted at best, or their criticism of Israel, which is utterly nonexistent.
In point of fact, a much better case can be made that today’s current right wing in this country is consciously embarking on the road to fascism.
These folks are your political allies, McKinney.
Aside from this being what-aboutism and changing the subject, you are making assumptions and wrong ones at that. One of the many, many things I find disgusting about Trump and the current Republican party which kisses his ass is his continual sucking-up to the worst of the worst and how easily and transparently manipulable he is. Kissing left wing dictator ass used to be the left’s job, throughout the Cold War. However, just because Trump is a sui generis asshole with virtually no intellect, integrity, filter, self-control, etc, etc, etc, does not turn Progressive hypocrisy on unrelated topics into principled reasoning.
Shorter answer: you are both wrong, but for different reasons.
These days, I don’t have any political allies. You aren’t the first in this thread to meet my arguments with guilt by association. It’s a weak form of rebuttal under any circumstances. Basically, it’s ad hominem name-calling. I usually don’t respond because, mainly, I think it’s a stupid form of argument and responding is pointless and, secondarily, responding can sound defensive. I’m not in the least defensive, in case that isn’t coming through.
I take too long to write my posts.
I wrote:
I know you continue to characterise us as knee-jerk lefties, and I suspect that in response to what I say above you will either reply or certainly think that we on the contrary are anxious to assume that our own culture and civilisation (but never political leanings – that’s part of your stereotype of us) are inferior
but while I was writing it McKinney posted:
An ongoing trope on the left is that the West is the source of most or all evil. This is often accompanied by observing the perfidious role played by Christianity.
Again, QED.
What is accusing us (conveniently for your purposes the “left”) of staying silent about Communist massacres, kissing left-wing dictator ass etc, if not guilt by association? Nobody here has ever done it.
I’m posting too much, I invoke the Janie amendment:
I’m off to North Franklin Township.
p.s. Since I never knew what NFT stood for in the first place, the above joke is still incomprehensible to me!
No Further Text.
Aside from this being what-aboutism and changing the subject
You’re whole line of reasoning from start to finish is a classic case of whataboutism (What about those evil socialists…”). That we don’t spend sufficient time and energy denouncing the crimes of Stalin and Mao to your satisfaction is simply poor argumentation that would be laughed out of a formal debate.
As for allies, you typically argue for conservative political positions. You are, by any reasonable standard, a fairly typical U.S. conservative. You going to deny that also?
This is not guilt by association by any means.
And I thought nothing could top Cleek’s biting, Churchill-like wit, but there you are: so far beyond brilliant, there really aren’t words to describe. Color me gob-smacked.
I detect a hint of sarcasm here.
No Further Text.
I like it!
In practice it amounts to the same thing as the original, which was something along the lines of “Not Feeding Trolls.”
hairshirthedonist turned “NFT” into North Franklin Township. Of which there is actually one, in western PA. I wonder if hairshirt has ever been there? … It’s further south than anything I’ve driven through in PA myself, but I bet it’s pretty country.
I seem to remember that at the time you started with one of your blanket statements about the obvious superiority (past and present) of the Christian West over the Islamic East, and were comprehensively argued to more or less a standstill by NV. I may be misremembering, but I don’t think so. As I say, if I can find it I will post it.
Yes, you are mis-remembering. I have often said, with plenty of pushback here, that Western Liberal Democracy is far superior to any other civilization past and present. I can defend that thesis all day long. If you have a counter-argument, I would be happy to address it.
(more recently about the invention of useful scientific/technological/medical advances being almost exclusively made by capitalism)
This I remember, although not as you rephrase my position. I was right then and I remain correct: virtually every medical device, medicine, etc one encounters in a modern Western hospital (all of the best hospitals are “Western”–an undefined term which I will fix in just a bit) are the product of free market economies. This is also true for the rest of our many material comforts as well as food, entertainment, etc. Many scientific and medical advances have their beginning’s in government funded research, but getting the theoretical into the world at large always (ok, 99.99% of the time) requires free market development and distribution.
By “Western”, I mean any free-market, liberal democratic country, regardless of geography, prevailing religion or ethnicity.
It’s not that big a thing with me, but my original sentence as best I recall is accurate.
I agree with Marty here. His comments in that thread were about what “privilege” means and how it manifests itself. Not really about BLM.
What strikes me in McK’s comments about Jerusalem is what appears to be the assumption that Muslims seizing Jerusalem is a justification for French and other Northern European people to respond by doing likewise. In whatever timescale.
FWIW, that makes no sense to me.
Why couldn’t everybody just leave Jerusalem the hell alone?
Many scientific and medical advances have their beginnings in government funded research
You have internalised ObWi pushback again, this was something you only accepted once your original assertion had been refuted by many examples!
I can defend that thesis all day long.
And you have done, on several occasions. And folks have raised questions about it, and the discussion was not that productive.
Look, this appears to be a point of dogma for you. We all have them, this appears to be one of yours, along with “all medical devices are the product of a free market economy”, and “European diseases did not decimate native American populations”.
I punched all of my arguing-with-dogmatists tickets, on a very wide variety of topics, long long long long long ago, as most likely several other folks here have. So instead of taking folks’ comments as dismissive, maybe assume the discussion is kind of played out and folks just don’t want to engage at this point. On those particular topics.
You have a point of view, you’re entitled to it. All the best.
The (white and Christian) countries of Europe, and their cultural offspring, the USofA, dominated, in pretty much all practical respects, the entire planet from the 15th to the mid 20th century. The Great (civil) War of 1914 initiated the retreat from this pinnacle of Western power.
The Roman, Mongol, and Ottoman empires pale in comparison. Piling up the bodies does nothing to rebut this judgement.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out the unsavory parts of this history.
Maybe we can learn something from this. Time shall tell.
Many scientific and medical advances have their beginning’s in government funded research, but getting the theoretical into the world at large always (ok, 99.99% of the time) requires free market development and distribution.
Producing goods and services at scale generally requires an input of capital. That can come from different sources, but in our economy and in most developed economies, that generally – not always but generally – comes from private investment.
If that’s your point, I don’t think many people here will disagree with you.
If your point is that medical innovation doesn’t happen without the profit motive, you are incorrect. It often happens both without the profit motive and without government sponsorship. That has been demonstrated here in the form of concrete historical examples – many of them – in response to your comments. Multiple times. Those demonstrations should be sufficient to conclude the discussion, I would think.
Sometimes people do things because they think they are good and useful things to do, and they don’t concern themselves with who is going to make money off it, or whether anyone does. Sometimes they go about it in ways deliberately intended to prevent the profit motive from interfering.
Different strokes for different folks. It makes the world go around.
Many scientific and medical advances have their beginning’s in government funded research, but getting the theoretical into the world at large always (ok, 99.99% of the time) requires free market development and distribution.
I observe (because I happen to be heavily involved) that the Internet was originally a US government project. By the time it was passed on, from the US Department of Commerce to several separate organizations (gradually between the late 1990s and about 2014), it was already in widespread use around the world.
You aren’t the first in this thread to meet my arguments with guilt by association.
/spit take
dude. your whole shtick is g.b.a..
Basically, it’s ad hominem name-calling.
crap. and me out of spit.
got lots of italics, tho
A part of the narrative on the Progressive side is that the Crusades were bad and unfair to Muslims.
Western liberal culture and society is markedly superior in almost every metric than … the Islamic world.
I hesitate to adjudicate on fairness in war. But I can tell you that in 1099 Islamic culture and society was markedly superior in almost every metric to the Western world. And that the Crusades were thoroughly bad.
I note that you (McKT) still think Crusader massacres of Jews too insignificant to mention.
…virtually every medical device, medicine, etc … are the product of free market economies.
Patent monopolies do not a free market make.
I don’t understand what the argument is anymore. Is someone suggesting we abolish capitalism or something?
I don’t recall being in North Franklin Township, Janie, but I have spent time in western PA. I was going to make up a town, but googled NFT and found a real one.
I don’t understand what the argument is anymore.
because American liberals don’t regularly decry 1950s China, they hypocrites.
* this argument is not valid for anything McTx has never mentioned.
I don’t understand what the argument is anymore. Is someone suggesting we abolish capitalism or something?
Sheepishly raises hand for “or something”. Capitalism will most likely be replaced by something else, either because it will not be suitable in a world of nearly unlimited abundance (why be greedy if everything is available to nearly all?) or unlimited catastrophe (climate change). But I hesitate to regularly make the strong case because I’d have to spend all my time defending the crimes of Stalin or Mao, while the McKinneys of the world get off scot-free because they, for example, did not personally own slaves.
In short, a very tiresome and unproductive exchange.
My parting shot for the day: Property is theft.
🙂
Best Regards to all…and I mean all.
A part of the narrative on the Progressive side is that the Crusades were bad and unfair to Muslims.
Western liberal culture and society is markedly superior in almost every metric than … the Islamic world.
The Crusades were between 700 and 900 years ago.
The northern European countries that engaged in the Crusades were not examples of western liberal culture and society.
Depending on where you are drawing your lines, “Western liberal society” covers a hell of a lot of ground. Some of it is better than others.
“The Islamic world” covers even more ground, geographically and historically. For almost anything you can find in “the Islamic world”, you can find its opposite in “the Islamic world”.
Among other things, “the Islamic world” helped create, through its intercourse with the late medieval Italian city states, capitalism.
“Liberal western society” is indebted to “the Islamic world” for significant – and I do by god mean significant – contributions in medicine, science, philosophy, mathematics, business and accounting, and god only knows what else.
The legacy of classic literature that we claim as “ours” is known to “us” because it was curated across “our” millenium of stark ignorance and chaos by… “the Islamic world”.
In any case, as mentioned above, the Crusades, the Battle of Tours, the Reconquista, etc etc etc, happened hundreds of freaking years ago, and the people who participated in them are dead, have damned little to do with any of us walking around today, would probably not understand anything we’re talking about because the entire context of their lives was profoundly different than ours, and for damned sure were not motivated by anything remotely resembling “western liberal society”.
Humans like us have been around for maybe 100,000 years. We’ve been living in settled societies since the Neolithic revolution, something like 10,000 years ago.
No doubt that history includes experience that is not as good as modern liberal western societies. No doubt that history includes experience that is better than modern liberal western society.
Modern liberal western society is not universally all that great, either for people in it our, especially, outside it. Our wealth and comfort often come at costs to others.
Different people measure “good” in different ways. I’m damned sure that no few humans over the last 10 or 100 thousand years would observe the daily life of j-random inhabitant of a “liberal western society” and wonder if we were out of our fucking minds. They would think were were madmen. I say the jury is out on whether they would be right about that, or not.
Before you can say “better”, you have to say what “good” is. You have to be clear about what your metrics are. Not everyone, over the long and varied history of human life, would be all that impressed by central heat and big TVs. Or living in a “western liberal society” that locks up 2 million of its fellow-citizens.
Perspective and humility are good things to cultivate.
And that is enough from me for tonight. Night all.
“Liberal western society” is indebted to “the Islamic world” for significant – and I do by god mean significant – contributions in medicine, science, philosophy, mathematics, business and accounting, and god only knows what else.
I’m glad you included accounting. Can’t really run a business without it. Anyone who has tried it will tell you that trying to do arithmetic (never mind higher math) with Roman numerals is torture. Without Arabic numerals we would be in sad case today.
Yeah, but those Ay-rabs stole the concept from the (Eastern) Injuns. And the Mughal conquest (Muslim Mongols, two birds with one scimitar) was mentioned above among the bloodiest ever. Was it really worth it. We should be ashamed to use those blood dripping numerals. Are there no Western liberal* Judeo-Christian alternatvies? How would Jesus count?
*liberal of course in the sense of libertarian not the dirty effing hippie socialist misappropriation. And none of that sexual libertinage either that comes with it.
Not everyone, over the long and varied history of human life, would be all that impressed by central heat and big TVs. Or living in a “western liberal society” that locks up 2 million of its fellow-citizens.
to verify this, i tried to ask an indigenous resident of my area. couldn’t find any! turns out, those who weren’t killed or sickened either left for the west or were enslaved, hundreds of years ago.
i’ll just assume they would agree.
These days, I don’t have any political allies.
This is rather tragic. McKinney, do you visit the sites frequented by, as you colourfully phrase it, the likes of Trump and the current Republican party which kisses his ass and excoriate them for their actions and sympathies? Don’t misinterpret me: I am on record as saying I like your visits here and think you add to our rich tapestry and often stimulate excellent stuff, but I’m just curious about where we fit in to your other conversations.
Forget arabic numbers. This is important.
====
9th century AD: The medieval Arabs used the distillation process extensively, and applied it to the distillation of alcohol. The Arab chemist Al-Kindi unambiguously described the distillation of wine in the 9th century.
12th century: The process of distillation spread from the Middle East to Italy, where distilled alcoholic drinks were recorded in the mid-12th century. …
14th century: In India, the true distillation of alcohol was introduced from the Middle East, and was in wide use in the Delhi Sultanate by the 14th century. By the early 14th century, distilled alcoholic drinks had spread throughout the European continent.
So when you settle down for your nightcap this evening, raise your glass to Al-Kindi. I know I will…
even the word ‘alcohol’ is Arabic.
I think the Egyptians get the nod for beer.
Sumerians, I think.
Anyone who has tried it will tell you that trying to do arithmetic (never mind higher math) with Roman numerals is torture…
Reintroduced to the UK primary school national curriculum by Michael Gove.
Merely one of his lesser idiocies.
check out the horror of mixed bases and fractions that is the Roman abacus
Actually Nigel, I think you’re right.
A brief primer on historical Islamic economics. Europe, including the Italian city-states that birthed the Renaissance, learned a lot from their Islamic geo-political rivals and economic trading partners.
This isn’t to paint “the Islamic world” as some kind of ideal society. Everybody’s got issues.
It is to say that trying to coerce the historical record to pump up some kind of chauvinistic concept of the superiority of your own culture and history is folly. More than folly, it’s intellectually dishonest and can actually be damaging. It can be a kind of blindness.
Human history includes all kinds of societies and forms of social organization. In general they evolve in response to the conditions that exist, at the time and place in which they exist. It’s interesting to find out about that stuff, and sometimes there can be lessons for us there.
But making value judgements about situations here and now, based on things that happened 10 or 20 or 50 generations ago, seems… not well founded. To me.
Iirc an early pioneer of distillation was Mary the Jewess (aka Maria Prophetiss(im)a). She lived somewhere between the 1st and 3rd century and the invention of the tribikos (a precursor of the alembic which developed into the modern still) has been attributed to her.
Well, we know that Jewish traders used alcohol to get better deals from the Arabs when Mohammed was around (the same way Christians used to shaft natives all around the world later) and that’s why the prophet (pbuh) was not fond of either these people nor their booze.
In classical antiquity only barbarians (that’s our ancestors) would drink wine* undiluted. One can imagine what they would have thought of firewater as a beverage.
*the opinion on beer was divided. Caesar is said to have liked it but he had gone too far native to count as neutral arbiter.
today in no-it’s-not-socialism:
the GOP is a fraud
Not to re-open an old familiar can of worms, but what the bloody hell. Who does stuff like this?
We’re not yet in the promised land, y’all.
@russell: I saw that last night. I would say they need some re-education, but that would imply that they had ever been educated a first time. What kind of sick viciousness would bring weapons and gleeful, self-satisfied smiles to a site like that? The same kind that killed Emmett Till in the first place, I guess. No, we’re not in the promised land.
And: Guns!!! Guns!!! Guns!!! Yay 2A! Guns!!
This isn’t to paint “the Islamic world” as some kind of ideal society. Everybody’s got issues.
It is to say that trying to coerce the historical record to pump up some kind of chauvinistic concept of the superiority of your own culture and history is folly. More than folly, it’s intellectually dishonest and can actually be damaging. It can be a kind of blindness.
This is what I was inadequately trying to say, way upthread, about openminded consideration. But this says it better.
The Emmett Till picture is unbelievable. These people are not only deplorable, they are unspeakable i.e. I could not think of words adequate to describe them. Janie’s “sick viciousness” is as good as it gets.
Not to re-open an old familiar can of worms, but what the bloody hell. Who does stuff like this?
We’re not yet in the promised land, y’all.
No, we are not.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/shock-video-dc-tourist-savagely-beaten-stomped-spit-on-by-gang-of-youths-at-hilton-hotel-where-reagan-was-shot/
This is going to wrap this up for me. I started this discussion by taking issue with what was and remains outright anti-Christian bigotry here at ObWi which, as I intended to pointed out, is all the more ironic given the larger discussion here of decrying racism. In this context, my general beef with Progressives is that they overemphasize Christianity’s negative historical role; Progressives judge Christianity and the West–including the modern, liberal west–harshly while either ignoring or minimizing objective deficiencies in other cultures throughout history. Basically, it’s kind of an Alt-left view that it’s fine to be anti-Christian because they deserve it.
I also take issue with Progressive’s general antipathy if not hostility to the West in general and the free market. As Progressive’s pull the Democrat party farther left, we will see if they can persuade the country that it needs to be radically or significantly transformed.
Back in the day, we debated these issues on the merits. Not so much anymore. Rather, the idea that other views might have merit are simply dismissed or rejected as effectively Trump-ism lite.
A lot of people I know grudgingly support Trump because they see and understand that what Progressives want is fundamental, irrevocable change, change in how we speak, how we think, how we work, how we interact, even down to how we make love. You think Trump makes you right. Fine. There are a lot of ways to screw things up. Just because you’re not Trump doesn’t make your way better.
Finally, to clarify my points about the Crusades and Islam. From the left, the only thing that ever happened was the Crusades and they were awful. There is never any discussion that Islam tried to conquer basically the entire world and it took nearly a 1000 years to stop that.
Further, whether Islam in 1100 was comparatively better than post-conquest England or early France is irrelevant. They were in a constant state of war with one another, a war that Islam started. Neither the West nor Islam had much to offer anyone with 21st century sensibilities. What separates the West from Islam–and the rest of the world for that matter–was the gradual shift from feudalism to true liberal democracy fueled by a very successful private sector. More freedom and more of everything for everyone. Not in equal measures of course. That will never happen unless we all fall into equal amounts of misery.
Progressives treat America as a closed system, comparing top to bottom and focusing on numerical disparity. I think that is error for several reasons. First, you have to look at what those in the bottom quintiles would have elsewhere. Second, you have to look what the bottom quintiles actually have. Third, you have to look at what the hard near and long term costs of elevating the bottom quintiles would be, whether they can be noticeably elevated and, if so, can they be noticeably elevated sustainably.
As Russell and others have noted, we’ve covered this ground before and no needles were moved. I take his and everyone else’s point in that regard. Adieu.
because they see and understand that what Progressives want is fundamental, irrevocable change, change in how we speak, how we think, how we work, how we interact, even down to how we make love.
to the extent any of that is even true, what they don’t see is that they want the exact same things.
No, we are not.
it’s disgusting. and CNN is saying it sounds like the teens were after somebody specific, and that they got the wrong person.
but…
here’s the top comment on that Gateway Pundit story:
it has 1068 likes right now. and the comments underneath it are even worse.
don’t ever deny that the GOP has a racism problem.
“Gateway Pundit”, aka Jim Hoft, was a recent guest at the White House. met with the President. talked with him about social media strategy.
What kind of sick viciousness would bring weapons and gleeful, self-satisfied smiles to a site like that?
Stories like this remind me that I have my own prejudices, Because my instant reaction was “Oh, frat boys. Well what would you expect?”
Yes, I know that not all college fraternity members are like this. But enough are, in my experience, that it doesn’t shock as much as it should. Sort of like discovering (yet another) thing that Trump has lied about.
my general beef with Progressives is that they overemphasize Christianity’s negative historical role
IMO, and as stated and within the limits of what is stated here, a fair point.
There is never any discussion that Islam tried to conquer basically the entire world
Generally true, and also true of a pretty much unbroken series of ascendant societies and cultures throughout human history.
For me, personally, wearing the “progressive” label basically means that I’d like a return to policies that were the norm, and were quite successful, here in the US for the fifty years leading up to the Reagan revolution. I.e., the United States I grew up in.
All that crazy Marxist stuff Elizabeth Warren is on about? That’s just stuff that was normal once upon a time. In my lifetime. I want it back, because it made this country a fairer place for a lot of people.
I want all of that, without the discriminatory baggage that made those times somewhere between difficult and horrible for women, people who aren’t ethnically northern European whites, and people who aren’t, to use the current term of art, cis-gendered.
That’s my agenda. All of it. You can try to lay some other whole scary sociality boogie man on me, but that dog don’t hunt. What I just said I’m about, is what I’m about.
To simplify even further:
People who work for a living should be able to, not just survive on that income, but live with a simple, basic level of financial security, and should be able to build a modest amount of wealth over a lifetime of working.
Skin color and regional or ethnic heritage should not matter in any public context. If you want to nurse your bigotry in private, have it your way. But leave it at home.
How people experience and express their personal identity, whether in matters of gender or sexual attraction or otherwise, is really nobody’s business but their own.
That’s it.
And there is no progressive or liberal or lefty or whatever who is trying to make any person make love any way other than how they want. I have no idea what the hell that comment was about.
Re McKinney’s adieu:
You know, it’s a fascinating thing. I don’t at all take back what I said about liking it when he drops in, and stimulates some good conversations, but the following things are noticeable. He picks and chooses very carefully what he answers if any answers might be disadvantageous to his general argument (e.g. he didn’t tell us which Trumpish sites he visits, or even if there are any, to harangue them and accuse them of guilt by association, presumably because there aren’t any and he doesn’t – I can presume this in the absence of an answer).
He accuses us again and again of continuing anti-Christian bias despite the fact that there are at least two practising Christians on here (russell and Donald) and I think almost everyone apart from byomtov, the Doc and I are at least nominally Christian (and therefore especially allowed to criticise), without any evidence at all that there exists what was and remains outright anti-Christian bigotry here at ObWi . And I am pretty sure there is no such evidence, because I don’t think this is true.
But I am afraid the evidence that does seem to mount is that some formerly vaguely reasonable or at least conversable rightwingers are, unlike wj, not prepared to engage openmindedly, and are so crazed by the Trump phenomenon and the collapse of even the appearance of integrity and competence in a Republican administration that they are flailing around making unsubstantiated claims, repeating them when challenged, and then disappearing. I think we are providing the equivalent of the pillows that certain idiotic shrinks make their clients shout into to release their rage, resentment and upset.
To McK’s point, I would like to see some actual examples of this so-called anti-Christian bias that is asserted to be so common here. Should be pretty easy if that is the case.
As for his repeated attempts to get “progressives” to undertake some kind of self flagellation prior to engaging on just about any political topic, my reply is simple: You first.
“not prepared to engage openmindedly, and are so crazed by the Trump phenomenon ”
This, and what follows, is absurd. Those actual Republicans, not wj, left because the rest of you became so crazed over Trump that every discussion comes down to being defined on one side or the other of Trump.
I, specifically, am not for Trump, however pretending Senator Warren reflects a return to the 60’s is ludicrous. So openmindedness doesnt exist, anywhere,but certainly not here.
While GftNC is listing exceptions: I’m not a Christian. I describe myself as an atheist if I must, but I don’t make much of it. I’m not hostile to religion: I was brought up as a Quaker, whereas three of my grandparents were Jewish, as you might be able to guess from my reaction to McKT’s airbrushing the Jews out of his history of Jerusalem.
I’m also not a socialist, in the sense that I don’t advocate the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. However, I observe that a dollar of consumption by a poor person does more for human wellbeing than a dollar of consumption by a rich person, and therefore strongly favour government action to redistribute income.
ludicrous
So, lay it out. If it’s so detached from reality, that should be a slam/dunk.
Over to you.
Back in the day, we debated these issues on the merits.
Well, sometimes.
But lest that parting shot go unfisked, here’s the first thing I came upon when looking for McK, ObWi, 2008:
Ah, the good old days, when debate at ObWi was respectful.
I don’t think they’ve heard of mirrors in Texas.
the “i’ll just pop in a lecture the stupid libs” thing has been a staple for a while.
it doesn’t help set the mood for a respectful debate.
a, and. all those ‘a’ words look alike to me.
What do Republicans want? It’s not pretty.
ludicrous
The positions espoused by Senator Warren would be pretty hum-drum stuff in the heady ascendant liberal political atmosphere of the 1940’s and well into the 1960’s
cf. Henry A. Wallace.
here’s an exhaustive list of Warren’s positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Elizabeth_Warren
aside from things that weren’t issues in the 1960s or things where society has changed (do we really want the LGBTQ policies of the 1960s back?), there isn’t a ton of stuff that would be radically different.
what’s changed a lot is the GOP has moved far to the right and become ideologically rigid on a lot of the issues. support for unions? gone. your the 10,000,000th dollar could be taxed higher than 40%? communism. abortion? hah. what used to be the center is now creeping socialism.
Let’s start with forgiving 1.2 trillion in student debt. First, in those heady days you couldnt borrow 100k to go to school or the equivalent. But no one would have decided to forgive it. Period.
That’s just a start. But back to you. Tell me what program in the 60s loaned anyone who asked 110k to go to school.
@Marty
Apples to oranges.
We’ve been over these numbers before, probably more than once.
In 1968-1969, my freshman year, the annual budget (tuition, room and board, books, a tad budgeted for travel) for an MIT undergrad was estimated at $3,000. The Federal minimum wage was 1.60. Divide one by the other and you get 1875 — you could earn a year’s costs at MIT for a bit less than what you earned in a full-time job at minimum wage.
Cut to this coming school year: MIT budget $73,160, Federal minimum wage $7.25. Divide one by the other and you get 10,091 hours — 5.38 years.
The discrepancy for state schools may be even worse. State universities were well-funded (to the point where some of them were among the glories of US higher education — the UCal system, UWisconsin, UMichigan come to mind), and the tuition was barely more than nominal for in-state students in a lot of states. But I’m not going to go chasing those numbers. wj probably has some of them in his head.
Or IOW, no program was necessary in the 60s to loan anyone who asked 110k to go to school, because school didn’t cost 110k, or the 60s equivalent either.
And yes, my numbers leave out a lot of complexities, like taxes, that aren’t relevant to the fundamental point, which is the inflation of college costs. Lenders make $, colleges make $ (administrations grow), students end up in debt slavery, and yes, the taxpayer pays a lot for this shitty system. I would much rather my taxes go to fund the universities in the first place, than to fund a system where any number of profit centers rake of percentages along the way.
in those heady days you couldnt borrow 100k to go to school
In those heady days, you didn’t need to.
In the 70’s, the state of NY and the feds combined allowed me to attend a really good state university for zero dollars. Zero. No dollars whatsoever.
I lived off campus for part of that, during that time I had to cover my own rent, transportation, and food. And I had to pay for books and similar school-related goods. Some of that I borrowed. It sure as hell didn’t amount to $110k.
me: the fundamental point, which is the inflation of college costs
Or rather, the inflation of college costs in comparison to wages.
And the other fundamental point, the skimming of profits off the system we have now.
Marty, you should have gone for the worker representation on corporate boards thing. That, in that form, is a novelty relative to the period in question.
We had unions back then, though. So maybe there was little need.
The labor representation on corporate boards is not uncommon in other developed countries, and it seems to work OK for them.
I, specifically, am not for Trump, however pretending Senator Warren reflects a return to the 60’s is ludicrous.
I’m inclinef to agree with Marty here. I can’t think of a Presidential candidate of the major parties from the middle of the last century who reflects anything like Senator Warren’s policy preferences. (Henry Wallace may have. But that would be like saying that Gary Johnson’s policy preferences reflect the 2010s. Sure, some people like them. But reflect the current era? Not seeing it.)
wj, if you don’t mind, please be specific. what policies of Warren’s would be out of step with mid-20th C America.
Let’s start with forgiving 1.2 trillion in student debt.
Nope. Let’s start earlier…say with the GI Bill in the 50’s and the comparison of those “free”
reimbursementsgovernment handouts to historical costs as opposed to loan forgiveness today.If giving away over a trillion to already rich people is no big deal then why object about college loan forgiveness? Fiscally speaking, they are the same.
Next.
a, and. all those ‘a’ words look alike to me.
Racist!
wj,
You need to read up on the New Deal and the post war period regarding the liberal wing of the Democratic Party during that era. Truman tried to pass national health care. How could you have forgotten? 🙂
Here’s a reminder.
This is just one small sample of the historical amnesia that has swept our country with the ascendance of the (now) fascist conservative movement.
[let me preface the following incendiary remarks with a resounding denouncement of the heinous crimes of uncle Joe Stalin and the Great Helmsman, Mao-Tse-Tung. Apparently this will put some here more at ease]
And let’s not forget that actual Republicans played footsie with actual nazis back in the late 30’s and up until Pearl Harbor. Just thought I’d throw that in since we have already been subjected to a good deal of red-baiting already on this thread.
Some things never change.
wj, if you don’t mind, please be specific. what policies of Warren’s would be out of step with mid-20th C America.
Two caveats:
1) This will only be a partial list.
2) In a number of cases, her non-mid-century positions are ones I agree with. Which doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t reflective of that era.
That said (and, for the record, drawing on cleek’s Wikipedia link):
As I say, not a comprehensive list. But typical of the mid-20th century she is not.
To be fair, Nazism had a quite large fan base in the US prior to Pearl Harbor, probably including both (R)’s and (D)’s.
After the calamities of WWI and the Great Depression, it was an open question as to whether liberal democracy was tenable, and whether fascism wasn’t kind of a reasonable idea.
Preferable to the reds, at least.
That was not a fringe position.
wj, thanks for your reply. that’s a good list. some replies:
The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which established the time-and-a-half for over 40 hours rule, was actually amended in 1966 to extend protections to at least some farm labor. Not disputing your personal experience, just saying that it was not an alien concept. There is precedent, from that period.
Glass-Steagal was actually originally passed in 1933, which is more or less the beginning of the period I refer to. Agreed that it was weakened beginning around the early 60’s, and agreed that that was an error.
Child care was not on the horizon because many if not most families could pay the bills on one adult income. No longer the case, so now it’s an issue.
Agreed on college debt, but as noted above, education costs were almost comically less than they are now. In many cases because of public support for public education. And, as bobbyp notes, there are counter-examples like the GI Bill.
Agreed on wealth tax, that is an innovation for this country. We have had luxury taxes – taxes specifically targeting expensive consumer goods – but not wealth taxes per se. Oddly, the last person to introduce a wealth tax into the public discourse was Donald Trump, in 1999.
Buy American is a bit of an odd case. For a lot of the period in question, the US was the dominant industrial power – buying American as a way of warding off competition from other nations was not really an issue, because it wasn’t really needed. My memory of buy American begins in the 70’s, when imported manufactured goods – Japanese automobiles and electronics for instance – began to make more serious inroads in the US market.
Agreed on LGBT rights.
Preferable to the reds, at least.
To be fair, to some.
Marty, I cannot and will not deny being crazed by the Trump phenomenon, and I bet the same applies to many of us. But not one of us is flailing around making unsubstantiated claims, repeating them when challenged, and then disappearing. And although many or most of us are in despair over the collapse of even the appearance of integrity and competence in a Republican administration, we are not all that surprised, given Trump’s character and motivations, whereas you seem to find that his personal appallingness does not extend much further into the administration and therefore its ripple effects on the country. However, to your credit you do believe that he should be impeached following his racist remarks about the four congresswomen (I cannot bring myself to say “the squad”), so that at least differentiates you from his appalling enablers.
Agreed on college debt, but as noted above, education costs were almost comically less than they are now. In many cases because of public support for public education. And, as bobbyp notes, there are counter-examples like the GI Bill.
The GI Bill was seen as a reward for service. Not as a right for all. Which is what Federal government funded college debt forgiveness amounts to. (Side note, what of those who decided to forego a college education because they were unwilling to go into debt? Or just couldn’t get a college loan? Seems a bit unfair to them. Just sayin’.)
Agreed that college costs have increased to a ridiculous extent. But that has been the result of (stupid and short-sighted) decisions at the state level. With tuition skyrocketing at public universities, lack of competition let private schools ratchet up their charges as well. Bad for students. Bad for state economies. Just plain dumb.** But why does it demand a Federal solution?
** And isn’t it odd how the state universities still manage to find enormous funds for their (not particularly educational) sports programs?
Russell, wj:
1. My understanding is if you worked on a ranch, a dairy or maybe a dryland wheat farm you would be paid “salary” in the agricultural sector. However, for those operations, labor was not a big input. Labor to harvest crops like fruits and vegetables was (and perhaps still is) usually paid piecework rates.
2. I am not aware of any major weakenings of Glass-Steagal during the 60’s, but I am open to being educated on this matter.
3. Yes, the context Russell alludes to matters. People weren’t discussing climate change then much either.
4. College debt…as noted above.
5. Wealth tax. With high marginal rates that took effect at relatively lower income levels, there was no big need for a wealth tax. In addition, the deliberate decimation of unions and the utter policy surrender to the FIRE sector starting in the 70’s has created the need for such a tax, or the reversal of those policies that have created this need (another way to get to the same thing–my preference, actually). See Krugman on the “Great Compression” for more details.
Thanks.
with respect to buy American (it’s still a thing at the federal level) and LGBT rights, wrs.
Thanks.
But why does it demand a Federal solution?
I would say that starts with the fact that the federal government guarantees the the vast bulk of these loans.
But why does it demand a Federal solution?
Short answer: because (a) it’s a problem that is national in scope and (b) nobody else is addressing it.
There is a longer answer, that accounts for the many fields for which a college education is now a requirement, and for how bad policy over the last 20 or 30 years has turned the student loan industry into a predatory trap, and for the sheer dead weight burden that $1.2T represents on the productive capacity of a generation of young adults.
And probably 10 other things.
No doubt it seems unfair to just give lots of people free stuff, but sometimes a straight-up reset is not a bad thing.
If you want to trade forgiveness for public service, or change “forgiveness” to a less burdensome repayment schedule, or any of a number of other approaches, fine with me.
In any case, if student loan forgiveness is the extent of Senator Warren’s departure from the values of the half century between FDR and Reagan, then I rest my original case.
I am not aware of any major weakenings of Glass-Steagal during the 60’s, but I am open to being educated on this matter.
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_legislation
Which is to say, a mix of banking directly contrary to Glass-Steagall.
** And isn’t it odd how the state universities still manage to find enormous funds for their (not particularly educational) sports programs?
With all the TV revenue generated by football and basketball less almost zero cost outlay for the “field” labor employed, no, that is not odd at all if you ask me.
In any case, if student loan forgiveness is the extent of Senator Warren’s departure from the values of the half century between FDR and Reagan, then I rest my original case.
If I somehow gave the impression that I consider this “extent of Senator Warren’s departure,” rather than one example among many, I stand in serious need of improving my communication skills!
Not as a right for all.
The “all” part is a bit misleading here. The forgiveness is only for those who took out the loans, and I do not believe this is extended to those who would need to take out loans in the future.
So no, not “everybody”.
Which is to say, a mix of banking directly contrary to Glass-Steagall.
The courts seem to have put the kibosh on that effort.
If I somehow gave the impression that I consider this “extent of Senator Warren’s departure,” rather than one example among many, I stand in serious need of improving my communication skills!
Sorry, wj, did not mean to put words in your mouth.
My point overall here is that Warren, who is so often portrayed as some kind of outre leftist, is basically somebody who would have been well within the bounds of the normal political spectrum in the period from FDR to Reagan.
But even then russell she would have been just inside the left bound. Also too many of those positions were not part of the 60’s actuality. So if the desire is to return to the 60’s, her positions dont get us there.
Keeping in mind that Reagans success was due in large part to the failure of the economic policies of the 60’s and 70’s.
Harruph. What failure was that?
Warren, who is so often portrayed as some kind of outre leftist, is basically somebody who would have been well within the bounds of the normal political spectrum in the period
My sense is that Warren, as a person, would tend to be towards the left side of the normal politican spectrum of whichever era she happened to be in.
But that is rather a different thing from her positions in the current era being within the normal range of the previous era. The culture and the political climate have changed too much.
For comparison, Marty and I are on the conservative end side today — no real question there. Likely we would have been then as well. (I am aware that I was.) But our positions today would put both of us solidly left of center in the middle of the last century. On some issues, even far left. It was that different a time.
In 1979 the inflation rate was 11%, mortgage rates were 17% we were rid of the Nixon wage and price freezes. Each of those numbers went up almost every year from 1965 through 1980 and took years of sound economic policy to get under control.
The minimum wage was 2.90, about 6.50 in 2015 dollars, there was nothing good about the economy that year or the 10 before.
But even then russell she would have been just inside the left bound
She would have been approximately aligned with Eisenhower.
Your reading of Reagan is very different than mine. I see Reagan as a response to the decline of American influence and confidence that came after the end of the Vietnam War, with our transition from being a net exporter of oil prior to OPEC to our transition to being a net importer of oil post OPEC with all of the disruption that came with that, and with the natural end of our pre-eminence as basically an economic hegemon after the rest of the world scaled up their economic and manufacturing capacity, a generation after the calamity of WWII.
We used to be the greatest! Now we’re not. But Ronnie helped us remember that we really and truly were.
What Garrison Keillor once described as “misty-eyed flag waving”.
That stuff. That’s my reading of Reagan.
The domestic adjustment to the global economic changes of the 70’s had to happen. The combination of economic stagnation and inflation that came long with it was more than painful. I have no particular problem with Reagan dropping the top marginal rate down from 70%, but I give Volcker credit for driving a stake through the heart of the inflation side.
18% prime rate, y’all. What doesn’t kill me, makes me stronger. Happily, we survived.
Long story short, the “failures of the economic policies” of the 60’s and 70’s were driven by factors well outside the scope of domestic policy. Reagan’s success was mixed, and was not always that successful.
My sense is that Warren, as a person, would tend to be towards the left side of the normal politican spectrum
Warren, as a person, is an Okie economics academic and champion of capitalism and a former (R) free-marketeer whose point of view was transformed when she researched American credit industry practices and realized that people were getting screwed eight ways to Sunday.
She left the (R) party when she realized that their policies were destroying free market dynamics.
Don’t believe me, go look it up.
our positions today would put both of us solidly left of center in the middle of the last century.
If by “last century” you mean the 20th C., I will ask you to provide some chapter and verse. Because I think you are wrong.
If you’re talking about gay rights, or civil rights for minorities, or women’s rights, I can believe it.
If you’re talking about economic policy, or about the role of government in society, I have to say that I simply don’t see it.
when she realized that their policies were destroying free market dynamics.
She decided, it wasnt a realization of a fact, it was an opinion formed based on available facts.
In 1979 the inflation rate was 11%, mortgage rates were 17% we were rid of the Nixon wage and price freezes.
Nixon admitted to Milton Friedman that wage and price controls were bad economics. But good politics. For example, price controls on fuels, not OPEC, caused the gas lines.
If you’re talking about gay rights, or civil rights for minorities, or women’s rights, I can believe it.
If you’re talking about economic policy, or about the role of government in society, I have to say that I simply don’t see it.
Actually, I was talking overall. So a combination of the two.
I won’t presume to speak for Marty. But personally I have a substantially more expansive view of the role of government in moderating economic activity than I did then. (On the other hand, my views on women’s rights were pretty far left then. And haven’t shifted perceptively since — although the rest of the country has moved a long ways in my direction. 😉
She decided, it wasnt a realization of a fact, it was an opinion formed based on available facts.
Economics aint physics. “Opinion based on available facts” us as good as it gets, and is several steps ahead of “opinion based on stuff I learned in grad school”.
Warren was an economically conservative free marketeer, predisposed in favor of minimal government intervention. The turning point, for her, apparently came as part of her research into personal bankruptcies. She thought she’d find screwups, instead she found people getting screwed.
None of this is my opinion or interpretation, it’s her CV, not mine.
She came to believe, as a student of economucs and a strong advocate of free markets, that (R) policies were destructive if free markets.
She still is, and presents herself to be, an enthusiastic advocate of free market capitalism. She aint Bernie. She doesnt believe (R) policies promote healthy market dynamics.
Neither do i, hence my support for her.
She doesnt believe (R) policies promote healthy market dynamics.
But then, nobody with the least grasp of reality does. Even those who push those policies know, if they are honest with themselves, that those policies are designed to further advantage the already-have-lots over everybody else. Health of the markets doesn’t appear to be even a minor concern.
See now we’ve gotten to “no one with the least grasp of reality” and the discussion is over. I talk about ideas as ludicrous, that is just telling me I have no grasp on reality. Nor does it define which of these policies are designed to empower the have lots.
GDP in Q2 stayed above 2% almost solely on a 4% increase in consumer spending. Consumer confidence is high. Thats your tax cuts at work for the average consumer.
GDP in Q2 stayed above 2% almost solely on a 4% increase in consumer spending. Consumer confidence is high. Thats your tax cuts at work for the average consumer.
Yes, if you give people what is essentially free money after they’ve spent the last 10 years digging themselves out of financial hardship caused by gross and often criminal irresponsibility in the financial sector, they will spend it.
I say “free money” because it was federal revenue intended to pay for stuff that we all, as a nation, agreed to spend money on. So the federal government has exploded national public debt, so that consumers can go buy stuff.
Which is not to say that private debt has not kept up. US household debt is currently around 80% GDP.
Corporations have to an extraordinary extent used the tax reduction windfall to buy back their own debt, increasing the wealth of their capital investors, including “capital investors” who contributed exactly zero capital to the company itself, but simply participate in the general market in equities.
Spending on durable goods ex federal spending and transportation (i.e., Boeing) – i.e., business investment back into itself – is basically flat. Quality of public infrastructure in the US is mediocre – as is public spending on infrastructure.
The model of building a business now is:
* Spin it up
* Go public
* Cash in and walk away
The private equity version of this wants the “cash in and walk away” timeline to be 3 to 7 years.
Where is the investment? Where is the mindset of building, of laying the groundwork for the future?
“Your tax cuts at work” consists of taking public funds intended to pay for goods and services that we have already committed to, and which will now be paid for with national debt, and handing most of it to corps which then use it to enrich their investors rather than invest in their own future growth, along with a much smaller amount returned to private individuals who immediately spend it to make up for ten years of digging themselves out of the last popped-bubble (R) disaster.
Is that an inaccurate characterization? If so, show me where.
We no longer invest, we no longer build. Folks at the top of the heap extract wealth from the economy, folks below the top load up on private debt, hope they can get out from under it before they’re too old to work anymore, and pray to god they don’t get sick or another 2008 happens.
I’m not seeing economic health.
And if you lead with “ludicrous”, you don’t get to complain about “least grasp of reality”.
If you want respect, you have to give respect. And not just on ObWi.
OK, tax cuts have boosted consumer spending. Here are some questions:
1) Is increasing growth through deficit-funded consumer spending a good idea at a time when growth is already healthy and the deficit is already very high?
2) What was the point of the tax cuts for the rich (most of them). No one thinks they do much to increase domestic spending.
3) If tax cuts are good, why reduce the deductibility of state taxes?
And here are some answers:
1) No it isn’t, no respectable economist thinks so.
2) Making the rich richer is the Republican Party’s priority.
3) To increase net federal transfers from D states to R states.
(Some glitch just double-posted for me. Please get rid of the duplicate.)
Re. Student loans. What’s happened in the UK, and I suppose in the US too, is that the proportion of students going on to college/university has greatly increased, in response to employer demand – a lot of unskilled work has been automated. So it’s no longer reasonable to pay for tertiary education largely through taxation – that would mean substantial subsidies paid by the poor to the well off. Instead, students have to pay themselves out of future income.
In the UK, the government imposes a maximum tuition fee for domestic students at public universities (almost all of them), currently £9250/year. That’s not popular with students, but at least it results in a somewhat manageable debt burden. Also, the loan scheme requires repayments only once one’s income can support them (and the debt will eventually be forgiven if you never get there).
The US, so far as I know, doesn’t have these safeguards. Hence the escalating problem.
Contemporary proposals address a problem which simply didn’t exist 50 years ago. One can’t evaluate how radical they are by comparison.
An idea can be ludicrous without a person having lost touch with reality,simply different in kind.
I’m still having coffee here but your assessment of the economics is partially right. The build it and walk away model is not new or that important.
In fact, one of our current issues is that companies are waiting longer to IPO so more of the value is extracted in that round leaving less upside for investors, often while the founders retain complete control.
Consumer debt is a twofold issue thet seems to not worry the right people. Another data point is that JP Morgan reported downturns in most of its business last quarter yet beat estimates because credit card debt went up 8%. Two concerns, First is the impact in a downturn to the individual and second is the default rate creates a lack of liquidity similar, likely much less, to 2008. The only reason for the Fed to cut at this point is in anticipation of the second. I dont think it is necessary or a good idea but whatever.
Stock buybacks are a fine use of money in an economy flush with capital. The biggest impact of the tax cuts on business arent visible in the ~5500 publicly traded companies. Although it will be if there is a spike in interest rates. Currently all these big companies have loaded up on debt at current interest rates so they have less need to repatriate cash. So when interest rates start to rise it will be good that they can go get that money.
Most smaller businesses, meaning most private businesses, are still growing and use the tax cut money to invest in the business. That’s anecdotal, so I’m happy to read the rebuttal, but it’s the world I work in and we’ve hired 4 people, doubling the size of the company in the last 12 months.
We do invest and we do build, the larger companies buy small companies that have built something new constantly. Almost any idea can find an angel or a VC to invest in it and the VCs literally bid to get into rounds. The model just looks different.
Last.sorry if I’m rambling, I agree that public investment in infrastructure, in particular, is wanting. But state by state the challenges are very different and some of the wealthiest states have the biggest issues there. It is an issue that so much of our infrastructure spending has come to rely on fed matching, sometimes states only matching small amounts to get Fed money. But I do support Federal investment to fix and enhance the interstate highways and the electrical grid. Probably a number of other things too.
The never ending discussion of an infrastructure bill is frustrating to say the least.
As for balancing the budget, we should spend less on defense and then discuss what else really should be done at the state level. But neither side wants to draw that line. Oddly 4% inflation would go a long way toward doing that.
We crossed but one of the questions , reducing salt deductions I havemy answer for. Every time we discuss Federal money for education I want block Grant’s, money controlled locally is almost always better spent. The other side always strenuously objects.
However, the states with high salt almost across the board use those taxes to fund education and the richest communities invest the most creating better schools by essentially funding a block grant by taking the deduction and bypassing the federal government.
As a fiscal conservative I think all that is backwards. We should reduce federal taxes and let the states raise the education money, but the practical result of the salt reduction is rich people get better schools. If that money goes to the Fed maybe we get block Grant’s for everyone.
*net effect of the salt (d)eduction
We should reduce federal taxes and let the states raise the education money
off the top of my head, i can name several states that probably wouldn’t, and a few that might do it in ways that would look more like the 1910s than the 2010s.
at least doing it at the federal level bypasses the petty and degenerate local legislatures.
The build it and walk away model is not new or that important.
In fact, one of our current issues is that companies are waiting longer to IPO so more of the value is extracted in that round leaving less upside for investors, often while the founders retain complete control.
The common theme here being the extraction of value from the enterprise, to the investors pocket.
A common response to that is, “well, of course”, because the overriding purpose of commercial enterprise, as a matter of dogma, is to maximize return on capital investment. That understanding has not always been pre-eminent, and in fact its dominance dates from the end of the fifty years i refer to upthread.
People didnt always start businesses or invest in businesses for the primary purpose of cashing out in short-ish time frames. Now they commonly do.
Thats my point, or part of it.
JPMorgan making their numbers on increased credit card usage likewise does not spell “healthy markets” to me. At a time when average credit rates run somewhere betwee 14 and 20 percent, and fed rates asymptotically approach nil, that smells like rent seeking, and predatory rent seeking at that, rather than the savvy direction of capital to productive, beneficial uses.
Lastly, you will never see me point a finger about rambling. 🙂
People have invested in businesses looking for long and short term gains since the traders stood under a tree on Wall Street.
People today start businesses every day that are not funded by VC money and are not build it and sell it businesses. There are half as many publicly traded companies today as there were at the peak.
I dont know what the actual concentration of wealth in America is compared to the Carnegie decades, but some set of people have always been in business to get rich, by taking a large portion of the profits or selling the company. There is more visibility to those companies today but the only change I see is there is more money chasing fewer public companies so more investment goes to startups.
I guess I just disagree that there was some sea change in why people start companies. More people do know how to get seed money is the only real difference I perceive. Oh, and there is a whole industry of people purporting to be experts in getting money, etc.
“least doing it at the federal level bypasses the petty and degenerate local legislatures.”
Well it just leaves it up to petty and degenerate federal bureaucrats. I dont buy the logic that someone in Washington DC dictating policy can create better schools.
“Your tax cuts at work” consists of taking public funds intended to pay for goods and services that we have already committed to, …
Just as I suspected. All money belongs to the federal government. Except what it lets us keep. And, apparently, there’s some question even about that.
No charleswt, money is just an exchange mechanism representing all goods and services in the economy. Those, of course, are wholly owned by the government along with the means of production.
I dont buy the logic that someone in Washington DC dictating policy can create better schools.
well, i was talking specifically about raising and distributing the money. but, i have no problem with DC setting minimum standards to go along with that money. face it, if we left it to local communities, we’d have a lot of students learning creationism.
at least with having the decisions being made by someone who is accountable to everyone, rather than just being a pawn of the loudest local demagogue, we’re more likely to get standards based on reality.
buttery mails
lock. him. up.
People have invested in businesses looking for long and short term gains since the traders stood under a tree on Wall Street.
Long before that.
People today start businesses every day that are not funded by VC money and are not build it and sell it businesses.
Yes, I’m well aware of that.
What I’m saying is that the general business model of starting, buying, or investing in enterprises in order to extract capital from them, as opposed to invest capital in them to foster long term growth, became dominant as of ca. the “Reagan Revolution”, and continues to be dominant today.
It was not, to my knowledge, the dominant business model prior to then.
I dont know what the actual concentration of wealth in America is compared to the Carnegie decades
It was hard to find a discussion of this that wasn’t written by some rabble-rousing lefty or other, but there’s this from Fortune magazine.
Just as I suspected. All money belongs to the federal government.
Those, of course, are wholly owned by the government along with the means of production.
A witty exchange!
Actually, the funds in question were revenue sent to the feds, per a budget formulated and passed by our duly elected representatives, to pay for things that those same duly elected representatives agreed to fund.
Those things are still going to happen, they are just going to have to be paid for by borrowing money. Which we will have to pay back, from further federal revenues.
The question of whether the feds should be doing those things, or not, in the first place is an interested one to have going forward. You don’t get to make those decisions retro-actively.
If your argument is “yeah, well those guys in Washington DC don’t speak for me”, I’m sorry to inform you that yes, they do.
Don’t know how to dig this information out of the great Gizoogle and related sources, but it would interesting to know average length of time private investors held positions in businesses, historically.
Most of what is now called “private equity” was wealthy people directly investing in companies, on their own behalf, way back when. So the information might be hard to find.
What was the average duration of an investment position in 1890, or 1930, or 1960, compared to now?
Just putting that out there as a question, if anyone knows how to find out.
All money belongs to the federal government.
well, i don’t see your name on the $10 bill.
Actually the funds in question were mostly NOT sent to the feds as revenue, they were never collected for the most part. I’m as disappointed as anyone that the same duly elected representatives that passed the tax cut also passed a spending increase.
I dont know what the actual concentration of wealth in America is compared to the Carnegie decades
Then
Now
In sum, today the top 1% have slightly less than in the Gilded Age. But the next 19% have more. Leaving the bottom 80% with significantly less.
Just for comparison, in the 1950s and early 1960s (during which time it was flat) the top 1% had roughly 30%. The top 20% had roughly 70%. Fun fact, the 3 wealthiest individuals (Bezos, Gates and Buffett) have more ($335 billion) than the bottom 50% put together ($250 billion).
Another fun fact, 69% of U.S. adults have less than $1,000 in savings. Of those 34% have no savings at all. And 14% have a negative net worth.
Actually the funds in question were mostly NOT sent to the feds as revenue, they were never collected for the most part.
Fine.
Congress passed a budget. They agreed to spend money on certain things, and agreed to raise a certain amount of revenue to pay for them.
Then, they decided to not raise the revenue. But, they are still doing the things.
So now, to pay for the things, we will borrow the money.
I’m not a deficit hawk, I just prefer to see more value from borrowing than juicing short-term consumer spending and investor ROI .
Hopefully that helps clarify my point.
I just prefer to see more value from borrowing than juicing short-term consumer spending and investor ROI .
it’s just another of TrumpCo’s scams – use America’s credit to buy votes. see also: spend billions bailing-out farmers that he hurt with his pointless dick-swinging tariffs.
“And, apparently, there’s some question even about that.”
“Those, of course, are wholly owned by the government along with the means of production.”
Let’s keep in mind in both of your cases, however, that Genghis Khan will be along in a moment to reveal that whatever parlous benchmarks you set for others as you read minds will seem trivial and bigoted by comparison.
To be fair, we should make allowance for the fact that we can’t judge Genghis Khan by today’s standards as he was a product of his time and his milieu, and you’ll want to pronounce “milieu” as Inspector Clouseau does to get its full conversation-stopping effect.
Though Kahn did invent the tourniquet in his research labs, out of necessity, but rightly handed off the commercialization and marketing of the product, once patented, to the private sector likes of Ivan The Terrible Enterprises LLC, Torquemada’s Mediterranean Cruise Lines Inc, and Galileo’s Screaming Bloody Murder Casino, with offices located in the center of Western Civilization.
Ample parking in the rear for overflow crowds.
If we additionally note that China invented gunpowder to go along with the development of oenology and fermentation/brewing by the Moghul hordes and China’s privatization of healthcare in the 1990’s (now being reformed in the opposite direction to avoid topping the state of Texas in the percentages of population who are medically uninsured and without full access to that states’ world class hospitals, and un-vaccinated for good measure), we can detect the origins and foundations of America’s conservative movement and the Republican Party.
Throw in “A Thousand and One Nights” from Islam’s Golden Age and you round out p’s, Kavanaugh’s, and Justice Thomas’ conservative solution to what to do with women who just wanna talk, talk, talk the night away rather than getting down to brass tacks.
True, Bill Clinton and Genghis Khan ruined it for everyone.
Next up for consideration: the comparative body counts of the UnaBomber and the the Las Vegas Country Music Festival Mass Assassin. No fair invoking their respective ideologies. The efficiency of their respective methodologies may be considered.
Winner: Genghis Khan, who like Babe Ruth, was operating in a dead ball era.
There’s an old Yiddish joke*. Two young Jewish women tending a fire with sticks in a shtetl somewhere in eastern Europe or the Ukraine are commiserating their anguish over the murderous meat grinder closing in on them from all sides, Hitler to the west, Stalin to the East, both having somehow read Timothy Snyder’s “Bloodlands” before its publishing date, which has been discussed at OBWI on at least several equations without ANY liberals and moderates here giving Stalin the edge in humanitarian endeavors and bedside manner, and as they murmur over the cracking fire, an elderly man, probably Mel Brooks’ Two Thousand Year Old Man, removes his pipe from his mouth, and cautions the women: “Goils, goils, just be happy that Genghis Khan and his horsemen aren’t on their way here. THEN you would have worries. These other two schmucks just need the eggs and then they’ll be on their way.
*no, it isn’t.
To clarify my point, I added the part about JPM and consumer debt because I think it is a problem, although it reflects really high consumer confidence.
As far as my view of the economy, I think it will slow. Probably to zero. I think the easy Fed money cant stoke an economy already as liquid as ours. But it, with the tax cuts, is likely to reduce the length and depth of the downturn.
This wont be seen favorably by the markets where I have reduced my exposure by 70%. This should not be construed as investment advice, it is just a way to reflect the strength of my conviction on the economy. I have regularly been wrong on the market.
Just for comparison, in the 1950s and early 1960s (during which time it was flat) the top 1% had roughly 30%. The top 20% had roughly 70%.
This may be one of those instances where it’s the liberals who would like to return to the 1950s, and the conservatives who like today better. Well wealth distribution and marginal tax rates…. 😉
Most of the wealth Bezos, Gates and Buffett have is more speculative than real. Most of it could vanish overnight.
And 14% have a negative net worth.
How much of that are people making a six-figure income and paying off an education loan?
While income inequality isn’t the same as wealth inequality…
“Americans often move between different income brackets over the course of their lives. As covered in an earlier blog post, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives, and over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners for at least one year. “
Income Mobility, Regulations and Personal Choices: Fortunately, a great deal of what explains income mobility are choices that are largely within an individual’s control.
“equations”?
You know what to do.
That was the weird auto-correct in my brain and that came pre-loaded with the rest of me.
To clarify my point, I added the part about JPM and consumer debt because I think it is a problem
Apologies, i misunderstood.
Thanks for the thoughtful give and take, much appreciated.
As far as my view of the economy, I think it will slow. Probably to zero.
Completely agree. The only question, to my mind, is whether it will happen in the next 6 months or the next 18 months. And, like you, I am reducing my exposure — I’m not quite to the “municipal bonds only” stage, but I’m definitely heading in that direction.
In the past four months, my cryptocurrencies have more than doubled in value. 🙂
That’s nice charleswt, does that mean it tripled and then went down 33%?
like you, I am reducing my exposure
given enough people in agreement, the prophecy of a falling economy self-fulfills.
it’s amazing how the entire world revolves around a proxy for our collective emotions.
That’s nice charleswt, does that mean it tripled and then went down 33%?
Bitcoin was recently just over $13,000 but is trading at about $9,500 now.
My recent foray into cryptocurrencies was due to wanting to get into a new cryptocurrency that seemed to have fewer of the shortcomings of Bitcoin. But Bitcoin was required for the buy-in. But after I had bought into the ICO(initial coin offering) the regulatory climate in the US gave the creators cold feet and they refunded the bitcoin back the US investors. But, by the time that was finalized, Bitcoin had tanked. It’s back to about two-thirds what I paid for it. I have two other cryptocurrencies that I bought after prices dropped. So, I’m not quite back to even yet.
Yeah I check the prices daily so I knew what it had done over the last few weeks. 🙂
If I had bought a hundred dollars of Bitcoin and held onto it when I first encountered it, it would be worth about fifteen million now.
If I bought the Beyond Meat IPO for $1,000 I could retire now. That was a few months ago. I wish I was smart.
Did you purchase (or did your algorithms produce them out of thin mathematical air?) those crypto currencies four months ago, or at the top of the parabolic rise to @20,000 at the end of 2017.
If you’ve been dollar cost averaging, what is your average cost basis, compared to today’s price?
(Note: I see Charles already answered.)
I’m still about 80% invested in the stock market with the funds allocated for that purpose, but will probably be down to around 50%, thus out of recent losers and winners among my shorter term trades while maintaining the longer term positions, within the next six weeks or so.
For lots of reasons, some mentioned above, but what they are is not yet clear, except that things usually come to a head … financial perils, war, political turmoil …. in the Fall and there are fundamental and technical indications in the market that this Fall could be precarious.
A whole lot of fans going full tilt and wagon loads of shit being hauled into their vicinity.
Whether we see a mere correction (I hate that word, make up by congenital sell-side optimists to make even losses seem correct, and now of course the market doesn’t decline, it experiences “volatility” on the downside, while likewise big moves on the upside aren’t volatility, but rather somehow God’s work, as he “forces” the shorts to cover, so the market rises because those think it may decline are “forced” to cover their short positions and buy shares against their own opinions and thus participate in their own whipsawing, regardless of fundamentals.
As p sez as he lowers trou and sits down on his solid gold crapper with the Twatting machine in one hand, we’ll see what happens. I’ll let you know in a few weeks, right after p lets you know that his hands are clean and whatever happens is AOC’s fault and she should be deported back to where p himself came from, Queens.
I’m told the market discounts fundamentals up to six months ahead of when those fundamentals become apparent in the financial data.
If it knows so much, then first of all speak up and tell me, Mrs. Market, and furthermore why do individual stocks soar or plunge in overnight trading on five-minute-old news we are told the market was supposedly discounting up to six months ago?
I’d like to compare my socialist stock market portfolio with the capitalist portfolios mentioned here, especially at the moment, when the capitalists evidently are selling heavily despite tax cuts and plunging interest rates Larry Kudlow and company have touted as great for the markets.
Given the comparative portfolio allocations, maybe I should fire my bullish imaginary Marxist advisors and hire Marty and Charles to advise me on shorting and hedging against America.
That’s a ha ha joke.
As for stock buybacks, while traditionally they were one tool in a corporation’s financial balancing act, IMHO they are now mostly a grossly obvious attempt to manipulate share prices by improving reported earnings per share by reducing share count.
And flush liquidity in the economy seems to have little influence on buybacks as you you can see from the number of reported buybacks initiated by public companies after 9/11 and especially during and following the 2007-2008 financial debacle when liquidity in the economy otherwise dried up.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/stock-buybacks-explained/
I was looking at the common share base of individual companies going back 12 to 15 years just the other day and while share prices for the most part have gone parabolic during that span, share counts have plunged by as much as 60 percent in some cases, and these are major corporations.
I wish I could calculate my on-base percentage in baseball by walking every time I go up to bat.
1000%.
It’s manipulation by any other name, not in all cases, but it’s on the scale of OPEC keeping oil in the ground and DeBeers keeping a tight lid on the supply of diamonds in the market to support and boost prices, or among we commoners, dairy farmers pouring milk product down the storm drains to liquidate inventory.
I mean, look, I’ve profited by the practice, but it’s a colossal grift while it lasts which I’m happy to profit from because I think like a CEO … having a good run at blackjack beats working for a living.
I’m a greater fool, but as we say in the back country hiking business, all I have to do when the bear attacks is run faster than the other hiker.
Note that Marty ran past already and is up a tree.
Sentences starting with the word “If” are my favorite sort of investment advice.
As in “If I had held my original 100 shares of Amazon, Cisco, and Amgen bought in their early days, instead of copping relative quick 100-plus percent gains, I could stop this nerve-racking stock market investing thing and invest the money in T-Bills and relax into my emeritus years.
Then there were those baseball cards.
Beyond Meat just hooked up with Dunkin’ Donuts.
Next up, Beyond Donuts.
Followed by orthodox originalists spinning off into a sort of Benedict Option enterprise called Dunkin’ Meats and calling the apostates “heretics”.
Unfortunately, I will typically see JDT or wj run by, decide it’s all clear and, just as I get to the bottom of the tree, hear a low growl in my ear. Fnck.
“If I bought the Beyond Meat IPO for $1,000 I could retire now.”
You’d have roughly $9000.
You must have low overhead to consider that “fuck you” money.
Stamps, My first retirement plan. Philatelic genius.
Beyond Meat just hooked up with Dunkin’ Donuts.
Sorry, but this seems profoundly creepy to me.
“Honey glazed deep-fried fake beef”
I am reducing my exposure
The whole craps game aspect of investing makes my head hurt. Life’s complicated enough as it is without trying to second guess every damned thing that might effect the market. Which is, basically, everything. My wife and I have a guy who does that stuff for us, he does OK. I guess maybe we should give him a call.
Perhaps as a consequence of hanging out with, and being, a gigging musician, my favorite kind of money is the green kind. I’m probably missing some opportunities for fabulous wealth, or at least slightly more modest wealth, but when I put fifty bucks in my dresser drawer at night, when I wake up in the morning there is still fifty bucks there.
That appeals to me.
I thought it was $5600, but the hype convinced me. Two more weeks it’s going to really breakout. It’s worth more than 50% of the S&P, it does 93 million and doesnt make a profit. WeWork is next. Dont miss it. They lose 2 billion a quarter, just borrowed 4 billion and announce their IPO at a 50billion valuation.
God I need some of that.
Unfortunately, I will typically see JDT or wj run by, decide it’s all clear and, just as I get to the bottom of the tree, hear a low growl in my ear.
Not to worry. Nobody, but nobody, runs slower flat out than I do. Been true since childhood. So even with the bear practically in your hip pocket you’ve got a good chance of passing me before he grabs you.
I rarely buy or sell shares. I have a guy, he thinks I’m crazy. He occasionally threatens to quit, so I know he really disagrees with me. But last month I stopped and said what about all cash, he didnt blink. Slowly said that there might be a case for that, we settled on 70%. I had been 100% in equities for 2012.
“I had been 100% in equities for 2012.”
No wonder you didn’t get the Obamacare subsidies.
Well since 2012, in a pretty small IRA. But even with what I paid in penalties for withdrawals, I stayed even. Thank goodness for the Fed put.
When I really want to cut loose and cast my fate to the wind, I drop some after-tax $$$ in BRK-B.
What can I say, I’m a wild man.
BRK-B is a core position for me.
BRK-B WAAAY OUT ON A LIMB. A true conservative.
LOL.
I had been 100% in equities for 2012.
I have been 100% in clothes since this morning, myself.
Sorry, sorry. It’s weird how certain perfectly routine and serviceable usages in the Financial Dialect of modern American English make me giggle.
This one also could make me gasp, if I was not familiar with the Dialect:
As far as my view of the economy, I think it will slow. Probably to zero.
An old prof of mine used to explain the perilous nature of colloquialisms by pointing out that if some Old Kingdom Egyptian were to decipher modern hieroglyphs forecasting that it will be raining cats and dogs tomorrow, said Egyptian might feel as befuddled as modern Westerners do when confronting Pharaos with jackals’ heads for the first time.
At least, I think whoever originally wrote of The Economy that “it will slow. Probably to zero” was using colloquial shorthand.
BTW, let me for once commend Marty, on linguistic grounds anyway. Marty wrote “we hired 4 people” instead of indulging in the execrable but ever-popular trope that “we created 4 new jobs”. Good on you for that, Marty.
–TP
You lot with your investment-speak remind me of nothing so much as the Monty Python banter sketch, which is set in a wartime RAF station. For those who haven’t seen it, you have to imagine them all talking in exaggeratedly upper-class RP. FYI, the first couple of lines of Idle’s first are in fact comprehensible banter. Since I can’t post links I am going to have to copy and paste it – please forgive.
LOL glad we dont sound like that! Although pranged his kite right in the how’s-your-father” has now become my standard answer for any number of enquiries
Translation:
I am finding your investment-speak incomprehensible, which is making me laugh and say to myself: sorry chaps, I don’t understand your banter.
More military-speak: as you were.
Other investment-speak examples that clang on my ears:
“I’m long December cattle, but I’d fade cotton.”
Notice there is no selling to be admitted here, which makes one wonder who is taking the other side of the trade with the buyers of cotton.
This one more common recently, which makes me cautious:
“We’ve got a “Strong Buy” rating on Roku. We’re raising our earnings estimates and ratcheting our new upside price target to $101 per share.”
This uttered on the day after Roku hit $110 per share and change. Something is being ratcheted, for sure. My finger.
“We would use 3M as a source of funds.”
Why, did you run out of your mother’s good china and her jewelry?
“We are resuming coverage of Beyond Cake with a strong hold rating.”
They faked stopping coverage when Beyond Cake management warned the firm that they would take their underwriting business elsewhere if they dared utter the “S” word. Then, when the share price dropped as their clients wondered why the silence, they faked resuming coverage with, like p, that they are holding the stock very, very strongly with great bigly strengths of holdiness.
“Never fight the Fed.”
This once held water, but as with everything in America now, it’s now modified to “Threaten the Fed’s existence personally and publicly if it’s actions reveal disloyalty to p and republican orthodoxy.”
Per GFTNC and Janie’s GBS: “Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity”, and the conspiracy requires code words whose meaning escapes the rest of us.
Which we know when attorneys refer to us as the parties of the second part.
Garrison Keillor (glad to see he is being rehabilitated), who is good at mimicking the language of the technically initiated, wrote this in a recent article in Harper’s, regarding his neurologist’s addressing the fact of a stroke the former suffered:
“I shuffled around in a faded cotton gown like Granma in The Grapes of Wrath, and the neurologist brought in a train of disciples who observed me as he said, “This is the guy with the funicula of the esplanade, complicated by deviated nobiscus linguini in the odessa.” Or words to that effect.
When our resident software programmers here speak their lingo, I feel like the patient in the operating theater just before going under, when Dr Moe Howard proffers a hand to Dr. Doctor Curly Howard and requests the latter hand him the anna-canna-penna.
One welcomes when Dr Fine knocks one on the head with a mallet as anesthetic so the ensuing conversation can be slept through.
Later, I’ll explain the infield fly rule in baseball.
The Infield Fly Rule.
Yogi Berra: Yeah, what about it?
If you’ve ever taken the “sausage squad up the blue end”, I expect sitting down would be out of the question for at least a week.
At least, I think whoever originally wrote of The Economy that “it will slow. Probably to zero” was using colloquial shorthand.
Some might even say that “slowing, probably to zero” more or less means “is coming to a halt”.
But then, I’m a simple man.
It’s also of interest to me that our conservative commenters, including one who is nominally most bullish on Trump economic policies, are exiting the equities markets as fast as their brokers will allow them to.
I’m not making judgements, just observations.
If folks aren’t familiar with “BRK-B”, it refers to Berkshire Hathaway B-stock, which is an incremental share in plain old Berkshire Hathaway, which is Warren Buffet’s investment fund. It is one of the most conservative, and most reliable, investment vehicles available. It’s basically just an index fund, what makes it special is that Buffet is a really good analyst and has a life-long track record of finding good, solid, dependable places to direct capital.
He is a buy-and-hold guy, not a flip-it-for-quick-cash guy. Apologies if you all knew all of this already.
The rest of whatever Marty and wj and JDT are on about is beyond me. Keep your long December cotton and faded cotton, I’ll stick with V7alt and lambda closures.
We all have our secret lingos.
The biggest advocate of Trump economic policies on this board is getting out of equities and jumping into cash as fast as he can. Because his forecast for economic growth is that it’s coming to a dead stop. Tax cuts or no.
So, tell me again about the virtues of conservative economic policy.
Nuff said, methinks.
Now this right here is an interesting development.
Russians, especially Muscovites, are sick and tired of Putin’s corrupt bullshit. They’re putting their asses in the streets.
Will they get support from the “liberal Western democracies”? Or will we decide we’d rather have Putin’s lovely green money, and leave the Russian people to have the shit beaten out of them?
When I say that change sometimes means people getting in the damned way, this is what I’m talking about. These folks are getting in the damned way.
What have you done for freedom today?
No judgement, because at least one of the fingers I point will be pointing back at myself. But, for whatever reason, it always seems like nothing changes until somebody’s willing to put their ass on the line and take a beating if that’s what is required.
Putin is the very model of a modern corrupt kleptocratic autocrat. Trump is barely a patch on him, but he’s taking notes.
Putin’s money is corrupting “liberal Western democracy”, this thing we all say we cherish. This thing which is the apotheosis of human history and progress. Deutsche Bank, Trump Co., god knows how many other organizations out there, just can’t say no to Russian blood money. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, can’t cash enough of those beautiful Russian checks.
Because it is, after all, money. Who doesn’t like money?
Russian kids are getting the crap beat out of them. Qui bono? You and me.
I hope we have the backbone to do likewise if that’s what is needed to get this corrupt kleptocratic bastard the hell out of the White House.
From russell’s link:
My bet is we are at least as likely to see a tweet from Trump praising Putin’s efforts to “restore order”. Anybody want to put money on my being wrong?
There are lots of impacts on the market, including Fed policy, normal economic cycles and exogenous events. Good fiscal policy, including tax cuts, doesnt change that, it just creates the optimal environment to minimize sny negative impacts.
There is the virtue.
The claim – from you, among others – was that the tax cut was sure to lead to 3% growth.
Now, you’re predicting zero. Not just predicting, but that’s where you’re placing your own personal chips. Your money talks louder than your words.
I get that “thing happen” but that was, what… last year? That’s a mighty big change, in a mighty short time.
So, I take what you say with many grains of salt.
No offense intended, it just is what it is. 3% growth and zero growth are not the same. Pick one.
The way it looks to me is that (R) economic policies are about making rich folks richer. Full stop. That’s not my goal, so I don’t support them.
We had 3% growth, but it is a little more nuanced than a single input. Your opinion is as valid as the next person, but your assumptions of intent are incorrect as applied to me. And the middle class is clearly feeling the positive impacts as discussed above.
I also cant afford a 20 or 30% downturn if I ever hope to retire, a long shot at best.
Once upon a time, doctors used to bleed patients. Their intent was unimpeachable. It took a few centuries of actual results, but even the most stubborn (dare I say, “conservative”) doctors were finally persuaded that bleeding patients is bad: it doesn’t cure disease, it just inflicts suffering.
Today, if a doctor insisted that bleeding patients is worth trying again, nobody would give a crap about his intent.
Bleeding patients is for private-sector insurance companies, for one thing.
–TP
The cognitive dissonance of a Republican who doesn’t deny climate change – still funded by, and engaging in sophistry on behalf of, the oil industry….
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/a-louisiana-republican-reckons-with-climate-change
And that is the best the Republicans have to offer on the issue.
If Trump is re-elected next year, forget any significant action.
Good fiscal policy, including tax cuts…
Unfunded tax cuts, at a time when the deficit is already uncomfortably large, and there is no need for Keynesian stimulus, are unambiguously bad fiscal policy.
You will get a short-term boost in spending. After that, things will deteriorate as the future effects of the increased deficit weigh on the economy.
If you direct most of the tax cuts at the rich, the short-term boost will be small.
My bet is we are at least as likely to see a tweet from Trump praising Putin’s efforts to “restore order”. Anybody want to put money on my being wrong?
Perhaps he’ll decline to interfere in Russian politics, noting that Russian interference in US politics is unwelcome.
Your opinion is as valid as the next person, but your assumptions of intent are incorrect as applied to me.
Fair enough, and apologies for any assumptions I appeared to make about your intentions. I completely understand the need to shift investments to a more defensive position as you approach retirement. I’m in the same boat.
My point here is that the tax cut was not presented as the path to 3% growth for one year, but as a policy that would stimulate growth for many years. Sufficient to overcome to giant hole it blew in the federal balance sheet, for instance.
And that is not happening, and the fact that it is not happening is recognized by you, and wj, and JDT, and many many other people. That recognition is reflected in your actions. For which I *am not* making judgements about you or anyone else, it’s a reasonable response to a plain set of facts.
The point I am making is that the (R) party claims its policies are good for the economy because they foster growth and investment. And they don’t, QED. The tax cut, more than anything else, represents a cash gift to corps, many if not most of whom will employ that gift to line their pockets. Very large corps are already sitting on buckets of cash, they don’t need the gift. If we want to encourage investment by small start-up corps, target the incentive to them.
It’s a nice little bump to the household budget for some middle class folks (but not for lots of others), which will turn into paying down a bit of debt (if they’re smart), or a new TV, or maybe a vacation trip. That’s all nice, but it’s not the basis of sustained economic growth.
Pro Bono covers the high points in his 7:06.
(R)’s tell us, and have been telling us, that if we just help wealthy people make more money – lighten their tax burden, remove regulatory impediments – some of that money will somehow find its way into everybody’s pockets. Enough so that anyone willing to get their behinds out of bed and do a day’s work will be able to not just survive, but thrive.
It is, and has been, an article of faith for (R)’s for as long as I’ve been an adult. And there may in fact be certain conditions under which it would play out that way.
But for the last 40 years, it has not played out that way.
(R) policies have the effect of making wealthy people increasingly wealthy, and of not doing little if anything for the conditions of people who make their living from their labor. Period. They encourage and enable the extraction of wealth from productive enterprise, and the transfer of that wealth into the hands of investors.
If we want to foster sustained growth through public policy, we need to invest in education, infrastructure, research and development. (R) policies do not do those things.
So I do not consider them to be policies that foster growth or long-term economic health, and do not support them.
So, not to belabor, but those policies have been successful for 40 years plus. In that 40 years real compensation is up 100%, unemployment ha s been pretty well controlled, interest rates and inflation have been muted and the economy has grown almost every year.
The major criticism is that income inequality has grown by 10 percent, which is a valid concern to be addressed, but that hasnt been at the expense of lots of other good things.
Generally the minimum wage could be higher, but in 1979 it was about $8,50 in todays dollars, so I’m not buying the criticism of supply side economics around that.
Mostly, it’s a fairly complex discussion that has been abandoned for political purposes.
From what I read, it’s possible that some took my banter intervention the wrong way. I wasn’t complaining at all, it was just making me laugh as it reminded me of the Monty Python sketch (admittedly not one of their best) which I thought you might be somewhat entertained by. God knows I would never want conversation here to come down to the lowest common denominator to be understood (that’s me when people talk about economics, investment, IT), and I actually learn a lot even when most of it is completely above my head – e.g. I had already looked up BRK-B as soon as it arose. These are not the only subjects discussed here, by a long shot, so I’m very happy to hang out and contribute when possible, and pick useful stuff up along the way.
As you were.
(I don’t know if this is used in the US armed forces, and if not, annoyingly you mainly get the Liam Gallagher album if you look it up.)
And the middle class is clearly feeling the positive impacts as discussed above.
where on the graphs can we find the effects of the Trump giveaway?
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4193310-june-2018-median-household-income
GftNC, I was entertained, it was great. As you were is a common colloquialism in the US military.
BRK-B…
i kept reading that as BRB-K
as in Be Right Back-[O]K ?
and i’m thinking the intersection of people who do text-speak and financial lingo has got to be a small one, but here it is right in front of me!
then i went and ruined the magic by re-reading.
Mostly, it’s a fairly complex discussion that has been abandoned for political purposes.
The whole point of “supply side” economics is political. The point is to provide intellectual cover for lowering taxes to enable the transfer of wealth to the rich. Beyond that, in any “complex” discussion of economics, it simply has no place as it is essentially incoherent, and brings nothing to any theoretical discussion of growth, trade, labor markets, etc., etc.
One can easily find many complex discussions on economics in the academic literature, but you will not find supply side economics mentioned.
Marty also conveniently picks a year (1979) in which the real value of the minimum wage was at a maximum. See here.
As to stock market investing, it is wise to remember the old adage that people buy stocks for one reason, but sell for many.
baseball cards
bit coin
Remember, for a while tulip bulbs were at the center of a speculative bubble. We just had one of those not too long ago, remember?
The ONLY testable hypothesis arising from so-called supply side economic “theory” is that lowering taxes will generate more tax revenue.
This has never happened.
One might reasonably assert the sample size is too small to tell. I would respectfully demur.
Pointing out the good points of our recent economic history demonstrates nothing in this regard. There is no casual link from this so-called theory and historical economic performance. It is a classic confusion of correlation with causation.
As Pro Bono notes, the timing of the tax cuts in the economic cycle was bullshit.
This corrupt, rightwing nuthouse called the Republican Party was under intense (do it or else we will primary you with Godzilla) pressure from its big money donors to give them tax cuts, all other considerations be damned.
They admitted it in soundbites in which the perspiration from the stress of the pressure from their thoroughly corrupt Citizens United donors streamed down their faces.
But to further the malignity of it, the tax cuts were DESIGNED to increase the deficit, which the liars (yes, Kudlow and the true believers who have claimed for 50 years that tax receipts would increase with tax cuts lie to themselves as well, which is why they are triply dangerous) now say makes no difference, but as soon as Democrats are in power again (and if p is re-elected) they will revert to blowing up the government again to drastically cut spending, including on Medicare, SS, and the safety net.
We’ve been through this un-virtuous, malignant political cycle with these ilk how many times and each time, as with the subject of race, we scratch our heads and wonder what they are up to?
How many times does Genghis Khan have to plunder the village before we get it?
The Federalist Society has Medicare in its lame-assed constitutional judicial sights and a budget crisis will be just the time to jerry-rig a bunch of staged right wing lawsuits against Medicare in the lower courts to eat Medicare just as they are trying to kill Obamacare.
Baby face down in the bathtub, never forget THAT is their goal.
But we still invite them to babysit and each time around we can’t believe what we can see with our own eyes while viewing the footage on the baby cam. Yeah, it looks like they are holding the baby under, but maybe it’s just a radical bubble bath.
Maybe they are giving the baby swimming lessons? We can’t quite be sure, can we?
Bullfuckingshit.
Let me clear up any lingering misunderstandings about me and the stock market and taxes.
I pay no attention to tax rates, corporate or individual, when I invest, and neither does anyone else.
I have made plenty and in some cases more money in the markets when tax rates are raised, as they were under Clinton and Obama, as I have under the tax cutters, and that includes the past three years.
And I have lost money under both regimes.
91% high marginal tax rates under Truman and Eisenhower were the golden age of investing and economic growth in America.
Every goddamned market crash in the last 100 years has happened under conservative watches, and after they slashed taxes and slashed spending.
Go ahead, try and slash government spending during an economic downturn … again.
Go ahead, tell us that cutting the government’s income will result in more income for the government … again.
Go ahead, tell US how great tax cuts and spending austerity are through one phone while you are yelling “Sell Everything!” to your broker through the phone in your other hand.
Cripes, it’s like a passion play repeated every political cycle.
When it comes down to it, all the markets want (I’ve never seen the “market” interviewed by the way; I always see maybe one guy being interviewed who tells the “reporter” that the market has told HIM what he wants to hear) is stability with as little uncertainty as possible.
What the details are of the certainty (deficits, tax rates, bla bla bla within the confines of the parameters we discuss them) don’t mean much.
Marty: I got that from your response, many thanks. And thanks on the “as you were”, it’s now filed in my “useable in both languages” file. My sister just put me on her Netflix, and they have the Rolling Thunder Review documentary on – I’ll be watching it soon!
As you were.
What JDT (OTCQX) said.
More on the Trump tax cuts here.
As a chronicle of a historical time and place, the Rolling Thunder documentary is quite something.
FUBAR is another military colloquialism that is suitably applicable to everything in life.
In that 40 years real compensation is up 100%,
Context: “Americans’ paychecks are bigger than 40 years ago, but their purchasing power has hardly budged.”
In that 40 years real compensation is up 100%, unemployment ha s been pretty well controlled, interest rates and inflation have been muted and the economy has grown almost every year.
Really, I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but from 1980 to now real compensation is up 50%, not 100%.
What’s up 100% over that period is real labor output.
Compensation doesn’t necessarily have to move lockstep with productivity. But 100% vs 50% is a very big gap.
The US population in 1980 was 226M. Now it’s 329M. That’s an increase of almost 60%. So, yes, the economy has grown, because everybody has to eat. I’m not sure (R) policies can take credit.
Other things that have grown during that period are personal bankruptcy. The St Louis Fed, from which this graph comes, notes:
Also household debt – grew a lot post-WWII, then stable from early 60’s until very early 80’s. Then steep under Reagan and Bush I, less so under Clinton, then insane under Bush II until it reached almost 100% of GDP before the recession. It’s settled back since then (thank you Obama, or more accurately Janet Yellen) but is still around 80% of GDP.
For folks who wonder why Warren wants to forgive (some of) college debt, look at the the third graph in the Slate piece.
US households owe 80% of the GDP. 4 out of 5 dollars generated by the entire productive capacity of the United States. A lot of that is mortgage, so potentially a form of wealth-building. A hell of a lot of it is not. It’s no freaking good if you get a little raise if you immediately have to hand it over to JP Morgan.
So no, I don’t believe that the policies of the last 40 years have been good for people who get their income from their labor. They’re being soaked, it seems to me. And my opinion is based on numbers from the St Louis Fed, not Bernie Sanders or whatever the “lefty” equivalent of Fox News is, assuming that some such thing exists.
The (R)’s are telling us all nice things, at least economically, but they aren’t showing us the money. So I don’t believe them.
And for folks who wonder how Warren turned from a (R) economically conservative free-market advocate, into the freaking warrior for financial regulation that she is now, it was her research into the causes of personal bankruptcy.
It was digging into the story of guys like this guy:
This guy thinks Trump is his friend. Trump wants sell him a MAGA hat and some plastic straws – that’ll own the libs! – but Trump doesn’t give a flying fnck if that guys lives or ends up dying of an Oxy overdose after he loses his house trying to pay for his big-ass truck.
Know anyone like that?
The person trying to get that guy’s back is Elizabeth Warren. I don’t care if folks like her, hate her, want to vote for her or want to blow up the TV every time her face shows up. Think what you want. But Warren is trying to save that guy’s ass.
The (R)’s are by god not.
“The US population in 1980 was 226M. Now it’s 329M. That’s an increase of almost 60%. So, yes, the economy has grown, because everybody has to eat. I’m not sure (R) policies can take credit.”
Except the economy had to grow enough to employ and feed all those extra people. In fact the work force grew by 50% during that period. So real wages being even while assimilating that growth without significant inflation is a success.
The Federalist Society has Medicare in its lame-assed constitutional judicial sights and a budget crisis will be just the time to jerry-rig a bunch of staged right wing lawsuits against Medicare in the lower courts to eat Medicare just as they are trying to kill Obamacare.
That would destroy the GOP (if it hasn’t imploded already)! The party’s base has a huge component of retired folks. Who will be more than a little upset if they suddenly have to start paying their own medical bills — no employers, after all, to package it for them.
It’s possible to kill off a benefit if
a) it only goes to a small group with limited political clout, or
b) it’s only just started, and people are still getting used to it.
Obamacare might still be in category b, although I strongly doubt it. Especially in states (I’m looking at you Kentucky!) where the Medicaid expansion happened. But Medicare sure as hell isn’t.
If you say so.
Output grew 100%. Compensation grew 50%. US households owe 80% of GDP. Personal bankruptcies grew from negligible to 1 per thousand in the years from 1900 to 1980, then from 1 per thousand to 6 per thousand from 1980 to now.
How many more decades of this is it going to take before there is no middle class? What then? Do we all go “into service”, polishing Jeff Bezos’ silver?
The numbers I cited do not paint the picture of a healthy economy. They paint the picture of a vigorous economy, an economy that generates a lot of wealth. But “vigor” and “health” are not exactly synonymous. Ask any cancer cell.
The distribution of the wealth is not favorable to people who earn their living through their labor.
If you want to persuade me otherwise, you have to show me the money. I don’t see the money. I see interesting talk about “exogenous factors”, but I don’t see the money.
So I’m unconvinced.
What Janie said (10:05)
Except the economy had to grow enough to employ and feed all those extra people.
Under most conditions this is a rather obvious outcome, and is simply stating the obvious. It does nothing to bolster your claim wrt supply side political economics.
In fact the work force grew by 50% during that period.
Again…stating the obvious. If population grows by 50% then it would seem to follow that the working age population grew similarly. Given our aging demographics, it was probably the influx of those brown hordes from the south that got that figure over the line. Using your line of logic, I could argue that tax cuts “caused” a flood of illegal immigration.
So real wages being even while assimilating that growth without significant inflation is a success.
Simply put, this is a non sequitur. Tax cuts are not the primary reason for this “success”.
From russell’s link quote: The typical person who files for bankruptcy is a blue collar, high school graduate who heads a lower middle-income class household and who makes heavy use of credit. [emphasis added]
And then Trump wonders why the upper class never accepts him….
Marty,
As it stands, your 10:39 sounds like gobbledygook. (Not funny enough to be banter.) If you care to revise and extend your remarks, I for one will not object.
People eat. More people eat more. More goodsandservices being eaten means more have to be produced. Who can produce them? The extra people, of course. So this:
the economy had to grow enough to employ and feed all those extra people
is a weird construction that seems founded on the Republicon view that The Economy “provides jobs” as if “jobs” are in the same basket of goodsandservices as food or iPhones.
–TP
And don’t forget, Genghis Khan killed 20-40 million people, therefore I am correct.
“without significant inflation”
Wage inflation, which you just touted as adequate, at best, is held by the conservative establishment to be the component of inflation that must be vanquished at all costs, and has been, so yes.
In fact, the wages of those whose job is to tell us that wage inflation is evil and must be defeated have gone up the most. Demand for high wage wage-inflation haters is at an all-time high as they organize the economy around low wages.
Else, why is p’s hollowed out industrial heartland, which only activates his self-interested political spleen, not his heart, where wages and benefits have stagnated, if not been gutted, testimony.
Rent, medical costs, etc thru the roof.
But yeah we have very little wage inflation and if we did, you as a businessman would demand it be nipped in the bud, while of course inflating your own compensation by juking the price of your company’s stock with buybacks and calling it whatever.
Not you, YOU.
It’s a great swirling constellation of rationalized manure spread evenly over all of us.
Cut wages and cut taxes.
Then claim wages and tax receipts are growing.
If I wore a hat, I’d throw it on the ground and jump up and down on it.
But have you seen what it costs to replace a good hat?
Also, Genghis Khan’s emails.
Just to inject a little economic expertise into our discussion, this from the Congressional Research Service.
Oh.
OUT, foul expertise, OUT!!
Later today, I’m going to talk about the literal rehabilitation of Genghis Khan by the crypto-Christian anti-semitic conservative fascists now leading one East European country, as they make up a largely recycled “Volk” mythology with which to persecute and prosecute the Other.
P is watching them closely as he watches Putin and other right-wing oligarchs and kleptocrats for inspiration in his ultimate to kill and murder his opposition in the streets of the good ole USA when things get out of hand.
In a separate post, I want to address the dust up between Janie and MCKT way upthread, which is now old news, but both combatants will come off looking pretty good in my estimation, within the context of my view that the wrong people are arguing with each other, but the OBWI commentariat has to go into argument with the commenters we have.
So, McKT, if you are hovering nearby, stay tuned later tonight.
Meanwhile, I’m working on a line of Genghis Khan t-shirts but it’s all in fun.
That would destroy the GOP (if it hasn’t imploded already)!
The most significant thing the GOP has going for it is that the only meaningful alternative to it is the Democratic Party.
Wow, Charles, I hadn’t expected you to say that the Libertarian Party isn’t a meaningful alternative. Wonders never cease.
Although growth rates cannot indicate the tax cut’s effects on GDP, they tend to rule out very large effects particularly in the short run. Although investment grew significantly, the growth patterns for different types of assets do not appear to be consistent with the direction and size of the supply-side incentive effects one would expect from the tax changes. This potential outcome may raise questions about how much longer-run growth will result from the tax revision.
From was expert. Although investment grew significantly, we decided not to count it. As if that money wasnt fungible.
So Tony’s right, I’m rushing through these because its a busier day. So I’m not going to do that.
CBO numbers for after tax household income 1979-2005. (Years ago I stopped trying to find #’s for post-2005. I think they stopped publishing them this way and I haven’t checked back more recently.)
Series 1-4 = bottom four quintiles. Flat. (But real wages doubled. Yay!)
Top quintile is divided into seven slices. Series 5-9 are the lower ones. Series 10-11 is the top tenth of a %. Series 11 is the top % of a %, about 11000 households in 2005. To belabor what the visual makes obvious: The top slices are where all the wealth went.
No time to link back to longer explanations from earlier iterations. Anyhow, this is just a visual representation of what several people have said above. And over and over, for years.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-0728-trump-baltimore-20190727-k6ac4yvnpvcczlaexdfglifada-story.html?outputType=amp
“Data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that after adjusting for inflation, households with an annual income of $100,000 or more rose from a mere 8% of households in 1967 to a quarter of households in 2014.”
Middle Class Shrinks as High Income Households Multiply: The next time you hear someone bemoan the “shrinking middle class,” take a closer look at the data.
“It is not easy to put an exact figure on the value of those non-wage benefits, but they could amount to as much as 30 or even 40 percent of the workers’ earnings. The lion’s share of the non-wage benefits, …, is consumed by “the dramatic increase in health insurance costs.” “The fixed costs of health insurance,” …, “are a much larger percentage of the total compensation of lower-earnings workers.””
U.S. Cost of Living and Wage Stagnation, 1979-2015: Looking at average hourly earnings alone ignores at least three very important factors.
Wow, Charles, I hadn’t expected you to say that the Libertarian Party isn’t a meaningful alternative. Wonders never cease.
Meaningful in the sense of who will get the votes. But the two parties are working hard to change that.
Ah, “viable” rather than “meaningful”
Stock buybacks: a little history
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-stock-buyback-swindle/ar-AAEH2IZ
Which is worse, the Laffer curve or shareholder value? (By which I mean, which has killed more people, of course.)
The Laffer Curve is a theory about a scam.
Shareholder value as the end-all and be-all of human endeavor is a surefire direct marketing scam, fully implemented.
On the sincerity scale, Genghis Khan takes the cake, though probably not to a gay wedding.
One thing about Genghis Khan, he was NOT a bullshitter.
He followed through on achieving his quotas. If called to account, he’s not going to hide behind the “I couldn’t help it, there were perverse incentives” mealy-mouthedness.
Oh sure, all other genocidal mass murdering comers throughout history put their marketing departments to work inflating their body count numbers, but Khan was the Amazon of his era … profits, schmofits, bring me the heads and let the doubters count them.
Should the Republicans in Congress read the Special Prosecutors’ report on the relative demerits of Hillary Clinton and Genghis Khan, the latter’s report will be totally redacted except for the words “Japanese grilled mutton dish”, while Clinton’s will conclude that a sitting melon murderer can not only be indicted, but ridiculed for faking a recovery from terminal cancer, AIDS, and whooping cough just in time for an election.
Some info on employee benefits in U.S. of A:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf
If you have not much else to do today, take a look.
Which is worse, the Laffer curve or shareholder value?
Both should be drowned in a bathtub.
Both sides!
High income households = two earner families.
Perspective. It helps.
“Americans often move between different income brackets over the course of their lives. As covered in an earlier blog post, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives, and over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners for at least one year. “
Income Mobility, Regulations and Personal Choices: Fortunately, a great deal of what explains income mobility are choices that are largely within an individual’s control.
These links are rather amazing.
I mean, I was aware the right-wing sophistry/wealth apologetics think-tank industry has been in high gear for some time, but still.
I’m curious, CharlesWT, as to how closely/critically you’ve actually looked at those posts and thought about, for example, what those “1+ year” income “mobility” figures really mean.
(We can also discuss individual choice and why it’s a poor excuse for a society’s failure to thrive, but be prepared for a tediously long-winded essay or two.)
A snapshot history of the doctrine of maximizing shareholder value as the pre-eminent purpose of business.
The link goes to The American Prospect, so the discussion comes with a point of view. Factor it in, and take away the whatever information is of value.
As a friend says, eat the meat and spit out the bones.
Net/net, it’s only been relatively recently that maximizing shareholder value was seen as the primary purpose of business enterprise.
It’s also worth noting that capitalism and free markets are not one and the same thing. You can have capitalism without free markets (see also: monopoly) and free markets without capitalism (see also: all of human history before, let’s say as a rough estimate, somewhere around 1500). There are very successful commercial enterprises operating in the world, today, that are explicitly NOT capitalist (see also: Mondragon in Spain, artisanal co-operatives in northern Italy and elsewhere).
At a minimum, there are enterprises that operate basically on the capitalist model, but which endow their workers with agency in governance and with ownership as a normal part of employment (see also: most of western Europe, and all of the employee-owned businesses in the US and around the world).
We need to re-educate ourselves about stuff like this. The information we are generally working with these days is inadequate. IMVHO.
Imagine a different world.
Middle Class Shrinks as High Income Households Multiply: The next time you hear someone bemoan the “shrinking middle class,” take a closer look at the data.
It should be noted that a shrinking middle class is a bad thing all on its own.
All things equal, it’s definitely nicer if the shrinking mechanism is people getting richer rather than people getting poorer, but either way that still represents an increasing distance between the relatively poor and the relatively wealthy.
The problem is that’s not just an income gap – it’s all too easily also an empathy and life experience gap.
The problem is that’s not just an income gap – it’s all too easily also an empathy and life experience gap.
The other part of the problem is that a shrinking middle class represents a serious decrease in the ability of people to move up. (Or down. Which actually is a problem, albeit not quite the same one.)
Social mobility is, IMHO, something that is necessary for an economy and a society to thrive.
Social mobility is, IMHO, something that is necessary for an economy and a society to thrive.
Good point. The social gears don’t mesh too well if all you have are lords and serfs. I realize it worked for a long time during the “Middle Ages”, but we don’t want to go back that far to revive the good old days, do we?
Conservatives, since they have turned economics into a morality play (cf “makers and takers”), don’t seem to lose much, if any, sleep over this. The poor are simply the defectives, the discards, the lazy, and the inept. They deserve their lot.
Good point. The social gears don’t mesh too well if all you have are lords and serfs.
That’s a good way of putting it.
I should have added that the ‘life experience’ gap implies lots of things, like differences in political interests and preferences.
The idea of a large middle class is that there’s a substantial plurality whose interests are more or less aligned. They’ll get their way on most policy decisions, so most people will benefit from them.
And for everyone else, while what’s good for the middle might not be perfect for the very poor or very rich, it won’t be as bad as the furthest end of the spectrum.
In short, it moderates things.
Hollow that out, and what you’re left with is a seesawing between the extremes. Either the rich get soaked or the poor get soaked. (And let’s face it: more often the poor, since wealth is a bit of a thumb on the scales. At least until a mob kicks the scales over and starts building guillotines.)
Most of what they tell you about share buybacks is wrong.
To first order, the effect on the share price of a buyback is zero if investors are rational. (The theoretical proof of this is trivial.)
Second-order effects include:
– signalling: management believes that the company’s cash position is healthy
– market fears that the company might otherwise invest the money unprofitably.
– taxation, which may disfavour companies holding cash
Of course, it’s absurd to reward CEOs for increasing EPS by means of a buyback. And senior management generally should not be allowed to trade shares around the time of a major corporate announcement.
But otherwise, there’s no reason to object to buybacks any more than secondary share issuance.
To first order, the effect on the share price of a buyback is zero if investors are rational. (The theoretical proof of this is trivial.)
Isn’t this a rather big ‘if’?
in happy news (even if it’s meaningless as a predictor of election results), the only group that currently says it will definitely vote for Trump in 2020 is white men with no college degree. and they can only muster a plurality.
and it’s only going to get worse, now that he’s decided that shitting on specific communities is how to be Presidential.
The social gears don’t mesh too well if all you have are lords and serfs.
Perhaps more critically, if it isn’t possible to move up within the existing social and economic structure, it then becomes a matter of WHEN, not if, those who cannot move up decide to smash the structure.
In some respects, that is what we have seen recently here. There is the problem that they have been persuaded to fault everybody except the folks who are actually holding them back. But the intention is clear. And, if nothing changes for them, I expect they will eventually get to those who are really (as opposed to supposedly) holding them back.
To first order, the effect on the share price of a buyback is zero if investors are rational. (The theoretical proof of this is trivial.)
Assuming the company is buying up dilution, could be the case. Market cap should be unchanged assuming projected earnings remain constant (you’re paying the same for the earnings, regardless). Would be interesting to see the trivial math on it, pro b.
But it also reminded me of the old adage that Wall Street can create as much stock as the public is willing to buy.
The social gears don’t mesh too well if all you have are lords and serfs.
Not to nerd out too much on social history, but when we actually did have lords and serfs, there were strong expectations and requirements of mutual obligation between the two.
Serfs provided basic labor, and were limited in their ability to pick up sticks and move. Lords were obliged to provide land, and shelter, and physical protection. Serfs in general kept much or most of what they raised – basically it was something like a sharecropping arrangement, with the additional obligation that the lord had to protect the serfs’ lives.
It wasn’t an arrangement we would like, but then we don’t live in the utter freaking chaos of Europe during the post-Roman period.
It was a system that persisted because it worked. Until it didn’t, or became less necessary, and then was replaced.
What obligations do today’s “lords” – the people who claim ownership and control of today’s essential asset, which is money – recognize toward the folks who provide them with the labor that creates their wealth?
For bobbyp:
Make the Modigliani-Miller assumptions.
Consider a company operating some productive business, and with a pile of spare cash which the business has no use for. Let the market value of the productive business be X, and the pile of cash Y. The market is indifferent to internal diversification, so the market value of the business is X+Y (cash Y held by a company has a market value of Y under the assumptions). If there are N shares, the market share price is (X+Y)/N.
Now let the company spend its cash pile buying shares. It pays Y to buy NY/(X+Y) shares. The market value of the company is now X, and there are N(1 – Y/(X+Y)) shares remaining, which simplifies to NX/(X+Y) shares. So, dividing the value by the number of shares, after the buyback the share price should be (X+Y)/N again.
That is, the buyback should make no difference to the share price.
Pro Bono writes:
“But otherwise, there’s no reason to object to buybacks any more than secondary share issuance.”
Of course, like it once was, but the absurd conditions you rightly caution about to get to that conclusion are the ones that prevail and have so since PBS made the mistake of making fetishist Milton Friedman its poster girl.
Beyond Meat makes the mistake today of looking Beyond Today by raising money, the entire point of the stock market, to presumably invest in the future of their products and the market, that irrational rationalist, fully bibbed in its high chair, throws its sippy cup and vegeburger across the room.
I say its spinach and to hell with it.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=BYND&insttype=Stock
The company’s market value (# of shares times share price, and a completely bogus measuring device for estimating the value of an enterprise, akin to the swimsuit contest in a beauty pageant) reached around $15 Billion late last week.
The company has projected annual sales of $230 Million this year and there are still two quarters to go to get there.
Six months ago …. meaning last Friday afternoon … the far-seeing prescient market predicted today’s secondary and price plunge by rising to new highs.
Beyond Insane. A Meatless Bubble.
We’ve seen this before, of course.
Rationalists with short memories.
Lords were obliged to provide land, and shelter, and physical protection.
Plus 100% employment security, alms for the sick and disabled, etc.
If you avoided giving away too much with the wrong vocabulary, I suspect you could get even the most mildly idealized description of feudalism tarred as ‘socialism’ by a fair portion of today’s electorate. Such is the power of the Overton window.
And while you’re probably right that most of us wouldn’t enjoy the middle ages, it wasn’t *all* bad. IIRC, it’s thought that your typical peasant or serf probably enjoyed a lot more free time than we do today. (Though less in turn than did prehistoric hunter-gatherers…)
Much of what has been said about serfdom could be said about chattel slavery.
Consider a company operating some productive business, and with a pile of spare cash which the business has no use for.
That being the case, why doesn’t the business just declare a special dividend and return the money to the existing shareholders. Not just those who seize the moment to sell their shares? (Perhaps because they were watching closely enough to know it was happening. As opposed to someone who had just invested in the stock.)
Seems like a fairer solution.
the buyback should make no difference to the share price.
In the longer term, perhaps. But in the short term — i.e. the time frame in which the executives are selling shares?
Prices are set by supply and demand. With a share buy-back, demand is temporarily increased. So the price goes up, and the insiders sell at the increased price. (Which means that the company gets less value for money, of course.) And then the price of the shares that everybody else owns drop back.
Much of what has been said about serfdom could be said about chattel slavery.
This is false, for most definitions of “much”.
It’s rarely useful to make analogies across such different circumstances and periods of time.
Much of what has been said about serfdom could be said about chattel slavery.
Although there was rather a dearth of lords sending peasants elsewhere, while requiring their spouses to stay. Let alone separating children from parents. Some might consider that significant.
It’s rarely useful to make analogies across such different circumstances and periods of time.
I think that the condition of “serfs” varied quite a bit depending on what serfs, whose serfs. Russian serfs weren’t in a particularly good place before they were “freed” shortly before slaves were freed.
We should probably provide some links to support people’s views on this.
American Slavery was made exponentially worse because of racism, and racism persists. Serfdom was horrific as well (again, the extent depending on where and when), but I’m not sure to what extent it persists.
And it’s true that comparisons over geography and time is not necessarily accurate. It can be helpful in certain circumstances though, especially studying how the industrial revolution affected the United States versus Russia.
During the nineteenth century, a great many white Americans perceived black slaves’ lives as being glamorous. They saw their own lives as being limited by the social constraints and repressions of the times. They perceived the slaves’ lives as being free of those limitations.
I think that the condition of “serfs” varied quite a bit depending on what serfs, whose serfs.
Yes.
I’m really just talking about the institution of medieval feudalism. Which itself varied quite a lot, from place to place and time to time.
Mostly I think we have a very elevated sense of the wonderfulness of our own place and time. We have great technology, and that’s a good thing in general. Lots of things are much easier for us, or even possible for us, that were simply unavailable to almost every other human that ever lived.
That said, I’m not sure that people who actually lived in other times and places would swap with us, given the opportunity.
It all comes down to what you think “good” is.
Basically I think we would benefit from seeing our own circumstances with some humility and a simple sense of perspective.
That’s about it.
As far as serfhood vs slavery, chattel slaves by definition are the property of somebody else. They are more or less cattle, movable livestock. Not bound to the land, not obliged by custom or law, not dependent on somebody else to make land and basic physical security available to them. Not people, in any meaningful way.
Just property. No rights, no agency, no choices, no options, no freedom about even the most elementary and basic things.
Not even the right to their own physical person.
It could be that, as an example, Russian serfs prior to their liberation were not far from that. Medieval serfdom, in general not so much.
The two situations are not really comparable.
During the nineteenth century, a great many white Americans perceived black slaves’ lives as being glamorous.
A fantasy though, right?
I mean (especially without a link) we might just as well say that a great many white Americans were really ridiculous, just as they are now.
My own 19th century white ancestors were extremely poor, and making ends meet in very difficult ways. But, yeah, they could keep their kids (who survived), and have marital difficulties (therefore one partner or the other “moving west” and remarrying – without getting a divorce, which was a difficult back in the day). In other words, dire poverty, but freedom to make some decisions that would make them happier. Not so with slaves.
therefore one partner or the other “moving west” and remarrying – without getting a divorce, which was a difficult back in the day
LOL. I wonder if we are related.
Not laughing at the reality of the poverty etc, just laughing at the similarity to stories from my own family.
After the Civil War, I think a lot of folks took the opportunity to just press the reset button. “They just never came back….”.
My AZ family occasionally sends me stuff about how blacks were lucky to be enslaved, so they could hear about Jesus and come live in America. My niece, who IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT a racist, somehow always posts crap on FB where the good guys smite the malefactors, and somehow the malefactors always seem to be black.
Sometimes I think this stuff is just baked into the American DNA. Hopefully not, but it’s a toss-up, based on the evidence.
Onward and upward.
CharlesWT, really glamorous must have been experimenting, without anesthesia, on African-American women by “the father of gynecology”.
Oops. Meant to review that link.
Some quotes from a book. I wish the author had a more condensed argument to quote.
By the 1840s, when the curious could ride a train from New York to Pittsburgh, then take steamboats to the cotton fields of Mississippi, whites all over America were acting black. The ethnomusicologist Dale Cockrell has estimated that by 1843, characters in blackface had appeared in more than twenty thousand American stage performances.
…
Blackface minstrelsy is now often considered to be antiblack parody, and some of it certainly was, but scholars have recently begun to see the songs of Dan Emmett and many other performers in the genre as expressions of desire for the freedoms they saw in the culture of the slaves. “Just as the minstrel stage held out the possibility that whites could be ‘black’ for a while but nonetheless white,” David Roediger, the leading historian of “whiteness,” has written, “it offered the possibilities that, via blackface, preindustrial joys could survive amidst industrial discipline.”
…
If we dismiss the men who painted their faces black as deluded racists, we miss what they were telling us, even if subconsciously, about what free Americans were missing from their lives.
…
Blackface minstrelsy was widely popular but not “respectable.” It was criticized on moral grounds not because it was seen as racist but because it was seen as wild, erotic, and free.
Renegade History of the United States
therefore one partner or the other “moving west” and remarrying – without getting a divorce, which was a difficult back in the day
Reportedly, one of my great grandmothers, unbeknownst to her husband, picked up and moved with her family from Tennessee to Texas. He followed and had public fisticuffs with her new husband.
You can’t be truly free without being enslaved. I say that all the time.
many other performers in the genre as expressions of desire for the freedoms they saw in the culture of the slaves.
Is it not amazing, then, that the number of whites who volunteered to become slaves wss . . . zero? Yet somehow they don’t seem to have seized the obvious solution to their (supposed) lack of freedoms. Wonder why not….
Whites saw freedom in slave culture, not their status as slaves.
Yeah, them was the days.
It was a business transaction, some tell themselves, even today.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/07/actually-the-civil-war-was-about-rational-business-decisions
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/owning-slaves-doesnt-make-a-person-racist-says-new-hampshire-lawmaker/
If it had been blacks, or Mexicans, or the Chinese, or women, or Jews on the authority end of the whip, think of the workplace shootings carried out by the enslaved white men.
We’d have killed everyone.
What do you mean we so free? Bang!
Africa and the Caribbean were just employment agencies for America. Africans made themselves available for labor.
They didn’t have to sign up.
What’s the job?
We’re gonna beat the shit out of you, put you in chains, rape your women, sell your children, and dress you funny.
Yeah, but what’s your vacation policy?
Give me ten minutes with that fucking New Hampshire piece of shit and I mean that sarcastically.
Whites saw freedom in slave culture, not their status as slaves.
This is like some (generally well off somes) who sigh admiringly at the freedom of beggars.
Okay…so what?
That said, I’m not sure that people who actually lived in other times and places would swap with us, given the opportunity.
That, as they say, depends. 🙂
That kind of idealization is nothing new. Think of the pastoral plays* of the Baroque (and to a degree Bucolic verse from imperial Rome).
Herders were near the bottom socially and the job anything but idyllic but even kings and queens donned what they imagined to be genuine costumes (and occasionally even had some genuine sheep provided) and went out into ‘nature’. One could call that classist minstrelsy.
In late 19th and early 20th century the Lumpenball ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenball ) was quite popular with the bourgeoisie (beggar costumes as a party theme).
*both on stage for and as outdoor amusement by nonility
American Slavery was made exponentially worse because of racism, and racism persists…
US slavery became particularly brutal not because of racism, but as it was an essentially industrialised system which treated slaves as components in the machine.
The racist myths (like Charles’s ‘freedom they saw in slave culture’) were essential to living with the brutality which such a system necessitated.
Treating the enslaved as responsible for their own predicament, and whitewashing the reality of their existence wasn’t idealisation, rather propaganda.
Black slavery and racism were mutually enhancing each other. They are racially inferior and therefore natural slaves and since they are slaves they must be racially inferior.
From what I remember “The Curse of Ham” got its racial interpretation in the context of slavery in the US in order to serve as a justification for the enslavement of blacks ‘sanctified by Holy Scripture’.
And (I think someone brought it up here a few months ago) English slave owners initially had no interest at all to christianize the slaves and then only allowed it under close supervision and with an approved heavily censured version of the Bible, so the slaves would not get any ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_bible
Marie Antoinette had a farm built for herself at Versailles, where she pretended to be a peasant milking cows. After the cows had been carefully cleaned by the servants of course. And using milking buckets of Sèvres porcelain.
The common people were not impressed.
From what I remember, the Curse of Ham was also very helpful to the Dutch Reformed Church in justifying apartheid.
But Genghis Khan etc etc etc
Modern nationalist Hinduism blah blah blah
Wahabist Islam yadda yadda yadda
With a share buy-back, demand is temporarily increased. So the price goes up, and the insiders sell at the increased price. (Which means that the company gets less value for money, of course.) And then the price of the shares that everybody else owns drop back.
That’s possible if the shares are sufficiently illiquid: otherwise the market will not allow a price rise which it knows to be temporary. But buybacks have to be announced, so selling into them is not restricted to insiders. And the effect on the share price will be negative once the buyback finishes.
…why doesn’t the business just declare a special dividend and return the money to the existing shareholders
As an equity investor, I prefer not to be paid (taxable) dividends.
Executives holding deferred shares, or call options, have an incentive not to pay large dividends (unless their holdings are structured to compensate them for such dividends).
people romanticize what they will never have to experience. they look at a life they will never live and use it as a template to tell a story about themselves – leaving out the unpleasant parts.
in the 1700s it was cool to have your own resident hermit. build him a little nook in the woods and let him life his romantic life of moral purity and good honest suffering.
from which we get hobbits and Tom Bombadil. so, an even trade.
As a former ceo of a publicly traded company, two things:
The increased focus on shareholder value was a reaction to insiders taking advantage at the expense of shareholders. This also caused a higher percentage of executive compensation to become stock. This increased even more as a result of Sarbanes-Oxley etc. After Enron.
All this insider trading stuff is not so easy these days. Blackout periods in most publicly traded companies are longer than the times you can trade. If there is any discussion of a purchase, sale, special dividend, split, repurchase, the list is pretty long of material events that lockup insider shares until at least three days after public announcement. Often one of these prevents trading in the aftermath of another. Not to mention that without a preannounced and filed plan to sell shares it is pretty frowned upon for insiders to sell shares on the news.
There was a homeless guy for a while who slept under some shrubbery near my apartment building.
He looked comfortable. His nest looked like a fort that we would cobble together as kids in the woods and the foliage served as great cover.
I rousted him out of there the other week, threatening to call the cops, because I wanted HIS spot too on alternate nights when I don’t sleep in my own bed in my apartment.
I don’t have enough. I have aspirations for more, sure, but less strikes a romantic chord in me, so I want that too.
I want it all. I’m envious of downward mobility.
Just so:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-republicans-plan-yearly-retreat-in-baltimore-despite-trumps-attacks/2019/07/29/38f882c0-b216-11e9-8f6c-7828e68cb15f_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5d4a5b0592c7
The Republicans are bringing their own upmarket garbage, heroin, and vermin from home to litter the streets of Baltimore for their soiree.
And their personal out of town hookers, the local talent not being up to snuff and so … well … disrespectful. I mean, I would expect Kelly Ann Conway and Tucker Carlson to be there as well plying their trade, wouldn’t you?
Maybe staying in a p/kushner subsidized townhouse recently emptied for the occasion via evictions. Spot of paint there, some new drapes, caulk the bathroom tiles, and quadruple the rent. Dress the rats in butler and maid costumes. Bob’s your uncle.
Course, leave it to the Democrats to lose the “optics” game on this as well. Their retreat
Walker Percy speaks in his essays and occasionally in his novels, as an example of existential displacement and rotation, of the contemporary habit of renovating old southern plantation slave quarters and time-sharing them out to vacationers, the latter probably from the north, instead of letting the structures moulder and rot in the southern humidity.
It’s a little like the current phenomenon of jails and prisons renting out cells to weekend vacationers for the experience.
“Honey, whaddaya say we head down to the shore this weekend? We can rent that cute bungalow like we did on our honeymoon.”
“Oh, that’s so been there, done that. Tell you what, I was reading the other day they’ll let you stay on the old death row at the state prison. You get a last meal and you can leave notice at the desk to have a screw come by early in the morning and rake his billy club across the bars for an up and at ’em wake up call and an early expresso in the yard. They’ll even let you carve your name on the shower wall.”
Next up, a night in the Bastille. The very cell the Marquis de Sade stayed in. You can have yourself shackled and hung from a dank stone wall by your wrists with your feet dangling. They say it does wonders for the spine.
The dormitories and other structures at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belson have been left to rot. Seems a waste to me. I mean, you get a Marriott or P Enterprises in there to spiff it up, maybe build a golf course on the periphery, think of the coin. You would be met at the gate after disembarking from the luxury train, organic straw thrown down in the boxcars for your delectation, by bell captains, bellhops, valet car parkers dressed as Nazis and they send the wife and kids off in one direction and you in the other .. just like the movies … your luggage disappears and right off the bat, they’ll take your clothes for laundering and jewelry for safekeeping and you are proffered a complimentary apertif as you are ushered into the hot tub jacuzzi building.
Showers first, then the hot tubs.
The re-living of it would be even better than the actual living of it you’ve read about in the history books.
I’m told, by Rush Limbaugh, I think, that many of the original Nazis who worked the camps envied their prisoners and their ordeals. Himmler himself would visit, upchuck a little in his mouth, and while holding a silk handkerchief over his olfactory noseholes, commiserate with his adjutant that THOSE PEOPLE, no matter what we do, always manage to get treated better than we treat even ourselves.
Why, in a way, it’s something to aspire to, he thought.
“Their retreat …”
To finish the thought:
Their (the House democrats) retreat will take place at an exclusive, isolated resort, with a private airport for the private planes maybe in Barbados.
FOX News will report it. Tucker Carlson will show footage of himself crawling out of a dumpster in Baltimore, some of his teeth blacked out with a magic marker, a couple of hairs in disarray, a half-eaten dead rat in one hand, and say, “Eat your heart, Elijah Cummings,” and then look into the camera like a slightly constipated and befuddled poodle.
p’s poll numbers will inch up even more.
“The increased focus on shareholder value was a reaction to insiders taking advantage at the expense of shareholders. This also caused a higher percentage of executive compensation to become stock. This increased even more as a result of Sarbanes-Oxley etc. After Enron.”
The secret is to game whatever the fix is.
If the government would just stay out of it, we could return to whatever the natural law originalist corruption happened to be.
“If the government would just stay out of it, we could return to whatever the natural law originalist corruption happened to be.”
Hostile takeovers with torches and pitchforks.
JDT@08.25: a masterpiece, even by your standards.
I would dearly love to post a link to a most beautifully written Harpers article about Byzantium by Rafil Kroll-Zaidi, but since I can’t I excerpt the paragraph above and commend it to you. The link would end archive/2012/05/byzantium/?single=1
Designer pitchforks and certifiably hand-made luxury torches for the well-to-do connaisseur.
Do the peasant-equivalents in the cities even know how to handle* or craft either.
*as in wield. The other ‘handling’ is part of the crafting. In case of pitchforks it would rather be shafting what those who will get the shaft like can’t do either properly. You’ll need angry-rural-folks-for-hire, I fear.
Who could have predicted Schindler’s List would become a bucket list?
The Kroll-Zaidi article:
https://harpers.org/archive/2012/05/byzantium/
It’s behind a paywall, but if you rid yourself of cookies on your browser, you should get access to it.
Thanks for that, JDT.
Brilliant.
I can’t help but wonder if the whole ‘dressing down as peasants’ trick is obsolete, though.
If it’s rooted in a fantasy about escaping the social duties and obligations of privilege, there’s been, erm, technological innovation on that front.
Nowadays, we’ve got libertarianism.
I can’t help but wonder if the whole ‘dressing down as peasants’ trick is obsolete, though.
not a chance.
here’s a T-shirt that proclaims “Corporate Magazines Still Suck A Lot” – it’s a copy of a shirt that Kurt Cobain made for himself to wear on the cover of Rolling Stone. €430.
https://vetementswebsite.com/shop/oversized-printed-cotton-jersey-t-shirt/
US slavery became particularly brutal not because of racism, but as it was an essentially industrialised system which treated slaves as components in the machine.
Actually I think racism did make it worse. In lots of cultures with slavery, anybody could end up a slave. Your odds varied with your wealth and social standing, of course. But you could lose those. That vulnerability constrains just how awful the institution is allowed to be.
Whereas in the US, if you were white nobody was going to try to make you a slave. And the kinds of indenture, etc. that could happen were all things that you could successfully run away from if they got too horrible. (“Go West, young man!”) When in can’t happen to you and yours, it takes more to really care about it.
Do the peasant-equivalents in the cities even know how to handle* or craft either.
Pitchfrorks and torches? No.
But
– tire irons
– road flares
We can contrive.
people romanticize what they will never have to experience.
In various times and places in Europe, this was done with Native Americans. For example:
“Native Americans in German popular culture are largely portrayed in a romanticised, idealized, and fantasy-based manner, that relies more on historicised stereotypical depictions of Plains Indians, rather than the contemporary realities facing real Indigenous peoples of the Americas.”
Native Americans in German popular culture
not a chance.
Hmm.
The question is, is the putative buyer interested in that shirt *because* that’s what they think the ordinary poors wear? Are they fantasizing about putting on their new purchase and subsequently disappearing into anonymity, where they can live a simple life, free from the burden of guilt about all the poor people who will die from untreated kidney disease because they’re avoiding a couple billion dollars in taxes by funneling profits through a Caribbean tax shelter?
I’m thinking, no. For one thing, there’s no reason to feel guilty about perfectly legitimate tax shelters. Why? Because f*** you and your “human society”, it’s my money, that’s why!
Instead, I think the buyer of that shirt is planning to immediately wear it to their TED talk, or to show off their laid back style at the hippest new underground endangered-species-meat restaurant or whatever.
IOW, stuff like that isn’t really dressing down, it’s dressing up *by* dressing down. Demonstrating you’ve got so much money and status, you can wear whatever you want, whenever you want, including a t-shirt that costs more than an ordinary person spends on an off-the-rack suit. See also: black turtlenecks.
The 14th century equivalent is maybe more like courtiers abandoning the elaborate kirtle in order show off their figures in more streamlined, less modest outfits. Not like fantasizing about wearing sack cloth and being forgotten.
Demonstrating you’ve got so much money and status, you can wear whatever you want, whenever you want
You mean like the First Lady visiting a disaster scene wearing a jacket reading “I really don’t care, do U?“?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-dont-support-reparations-for-descendants-of-slaves-despite-it-being-a-hot-topic-among-2020-candidates-2019-07-29?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Roughly the same numbers as when Andrew Johnson and the southern Democrats torpedoed the 40 acres and mule reparations arrangement in 1867 or whatever year it was.
Stolen labor being the only profitable business-as-usual labor there is and, in fact, something even republicans aspire to for themselves as a sentimental attachment to our hallowed past.
If you read the small print, however, as an alternative, you’ll learn that republican/p supporters offered to dress up in blackface minstrelsy, hit the cotton fields, and subject themselves to fake whoopins and receive reparations on the black race’s behalf.
Ya can’t beat em, join em, and besides the slaves looked like they were having so much fun under the whip.
We want to be strange fruit too, say p conservatives.
Make that two mules and 100 acres, if you would, please.
I’m reading a book of Flannery O’Connor’s essays, which are mostly about writing as a devout southern Catholic, along the lines of Walker Percy’s experience, and I love both writers, as writers, though O’Conner was not an existentialist.
But, as a product of her time and place, she was privately, in letters, which were, and may still be, not included in her collected writings, down on the niggers, despite making initial favorable noises elsewhere about integration and the Civil Rights movement.
I just finished a really lovely book by Paul Elie, “The Life You Save May Be Your Own — An American Pilgrimage” which interweaves the intersecting life stories and writing careers pf O’Connor, Walker Percy, Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic worker, and Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk, and Elie points out that in her letters O’Connor lamented integration as interrupting the customary “manners” that whites and blacks had developed over time.
Percy had this “manners” subject on his mind too, but coyly.
I can’t help but think what they think of as southern manners between the races is simple relief that the black race had the mannered forbearance to not butcher and slaughter them in their fucking beds for what was done.
She also had this to say in her letters, a “cool observation” as Elie puts it, after a black worker who was maimed in an accident received worker’s compensation … “this a very demoralizing situation. A wealthy sitting Negro.”
O’Connor with own disability, Lupus, which tragically killed her in her prime, sounds envious, like maybe SHE would like in addition to have a hand lopped off in a farm accident so she can get wealthy like a nigger too.
Regarding her decision not to meet with James Baldwin in his travels in Georgia, she wrote that the meetings “would cause the greatest trouble and disturbance and disunion” among the whites of Milledgeville. She wrote, “about the Negros, the kind I don’t like is the philosophizing, prophesying pontificating kind, the James Baldwin kind. Very ignorant but never silent.”
You hear the conservative, white reaction to Barack Obama of present days in there. How dare that man speak to us like that, and in better English complete sentences than we speak. You can hear Ronald Reagan, that rouged racist, at the Neshoba County Fair.
You can hear James Earle Ray’s thoughts as he checked into the motel across the way within shooting distance.
And, again in the unpublished letters, suggestions that she doesn’t like Negroes and they should all be sent back to Africa, or Baltimore, where they come from.
But alright, the statute of limitations is up, like it is for my racist grandfather, on O’Conner.
There’s a lot of this going around among conservatives, this victim envy.
More later on that.
Talk among yourselves. As you were.
there’s always “glamping”
Whereas in the US, if you were white nobody was going to try to make you a slave. And the kinds of indenture, etc. that could happen were all things that you could successfully run away from if they got too horrible.
No idea if this is actually true, but I read it somewhere once:
In the *earliest* days of the US colonies, at least some Africans were brought over not as “slaves” per se, but onstensibly under the auspices of limited-term indentured servitude contracts, on more or less the same terms as many poor English/Irish/German/whathaveyou colonists.
The thing was, while *some* of those indentures ended up being discharged more or less on schedule, others were extended, under one pretense or another, eventually indefinitely.
One guess about the distinguishing characteristics of those released vs. those retained…
John Punch was the first man in the English colonies to end up an actual slave. he’d been brought to America, from Africa, as an indentured servant, but when he tried to escape, the Colonial VA legislature sentenced him to slavery for the rest of his life.
Christians can’t enslave Christians. but he wasn’t a Christian. therefore… slave.
You mean like the First Lady visiting a disaster scene wearing a jacket reading “I really don’t care, do U?”?
Yes, although that reportedly only cost $39. I’d almost be willing to believe that was actually a genuine, if deranged, attempt to blend in and disappear.
Of course, I’m not sure escapism is actually the only theme. IIRC, a lot of the fairy tales and other stories I think we’re talking about (Norse myths are full of gods wandering around in human drag) have more a sort of “undercover boss” vibe to them. The prince needs to hide out among the common people for a time, but thereby later learns to be a better king. The returning lord (I see you over there, Odysseus) infiltrates his own castle as a wanderer and ferrets out corruption, etc.
Haven’t seen enough (any) minstrel acts to know if that’s a thing with them as well.
John Punch is thought to be Barack Obama’s 12th-great grandfather, though on his white mother’s side rather than his African father’s side. Despite the superficial irony (if that’s the right word), it makes sense that John Punch would be on the American side of Obama’s family.
From Jefferson’s Pillow, by Roger Wilkins (the setting is Virginia in 1675):
As for those hungry, dangerous, aggressive white men, they were just like (per Wilkins’s earlier portrayal) the hungry, aggressive men who now constituted the ruling class. The only difference was that one group had gotten there first.
Janie, your 12:49 reminds me of this (one of the best exchanges during the not-so-good final episodes of GoT):
The increased focus on shareholder value was a reaction to insiders taking advantage at the expense of shareholders.
Correct. And it was likely a good idea to do something about insiders skimming value out of the corps.
It has, however, become a perverse incentive, in practice.
What is assumed, whether you think it’s a good idea or not, is that shareholders ought to have pride of place among stakeholders in the enterprise.
That’s the part that needs to be reconsidered. IMO.
Rats:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDTRyjMnDOk
hsh — yes, that’s apt. I’ve seen other fictional treatments, including one where the Superior General of the Jesuits is challenged to admit that the foundation of his family’s fortune was drug-running. I’ve also seen non-fictional treatments, e.g. GBS, who has one particularly pithy quote about it that I haven’t been able to find.
The prevalence of the belief that “Might is right,” and whatever you can grab and hold is yours, explains a lot, and not just the Gilroy festival murders. Racism has been given permission to be out and proud, what with Clickbait and all, but other closeted motivations remain…in the closet. The Gilroy killer seems not to have gotten the memo:
He also posted a photo of a Smokey Bear sign warning about fire danger, with a caption instructing people to read an obscure novel glorified by white supremacists: “Might Is Right” published under the pseudonym Ragnar Redbeard. In his profile, which has since been deleted, Legan identified himself as being of Italian and Iranian descent.
He also didn’t get the memo that Italians and Iranians aren’t really white, or soon won’t be at the rate we’re going.
Forbes weighs in on maximizing shareholder value….from a capitalist perspective.
Rand Paul continues to demonstrate that he is a vile and despicable POS. It never ceases to amaze me that wingers can disparage our government and our culture in the crudest and ugliest terms, up to and including advocating violence, but they are somehow the “real amerkkkuns”.
F*ck them.
yeah, but Ghengis Kahn was a Democrat. so…
that’s Madeline Kahn’s brother, Ghengis. he was a dick.
Hence the large number of children…..
(Sorry)
Hence the large number of children…..
1 in 200 men direct descendants of Genghis Khan.
But then,
Ten Other Men Left Genetic Legacies So Huge They Rival Genghis Khan’s.
Explains a lot, when you think about it……
I was going to add a smiley, but the slaughter of millions and the rape of thousands upon thousands isn’t exactly a laughing matter. “Don’t judge people by the standards of our time” doesn’t quite cut it in this case.
Of course it does rather make a difference how long ago you look. At some (distant!) point, we’re all descended from a little band of a few thousand hunter-gatherers. Doesn’t take much, in a life fraught with peril, for a bunch of those to die off.
If you’re only a few hundred years back, it’s a different story.
Well, old Genghis died ~800 years ago. Is that “a few hundred years back”? It’s certainly not a time frame when humans were a little band of a few thousand, since the Mongols may have killed as many as 40 million people, or ~10% of the world’s population at the time.
But not as recently as Giocangga, who was only about 500 years back. But doesn’t have Genghis’ spectacular reputation. Comes, I suppose, of conquering China rather than Europe. Even though his descendants are not among the Han population.
To continue along the lines of where I left off with: “there’s a lot of this going around among conservatives, this victim envy.”
Mitch McConnell is now calling criticism directed at him for blocking all attempts in the Senate to get to the bottom of Russian interference in elections and attempts to steal elections at all levels on behalf of his political Party by the Russian government … McCarthyism, and he doesn’t mean the Charlie or Eugene varieties.
This is so fucking rich I want to spit.
After 65 years of every fucking conservative in this land hyping and bragging about Republican racist southern Senator McCarthy and his ruination of innocent lives and careers in that dark time and accusing every liberal endeavor since, tax hikes, public schools, increased subsidized healthcare coverage, Medicare, Social Security, every fucking public expenditure of money, as socialism, creeping socialism, creeping communism, Martin Luther King was a Soviet plant, it never fucking stops, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are pinkos, no, now McConnell, the conservative, who would have been an attack dog on the McCarthy committee had he been available wants to be the victim of liberal “McCarthyism”, when the evidence of open, blatant collusion, which if done by any political figure left of center would have been portrayed as the biggest traitorous episode since Dreyfus in conservative fucking minds, with Russia, you know, the goddamned enemy of all things American according to conservatives and many liberals who we point thousands of nuclear weapons at …. McConnell is like the old Chevy Chase/John Belushi bit on SNL 45 years ago in which Chase is the Customs Officer searching luggage at the airport and the suitcases are filled to the brim with cocaine, he’s pulling underwear and other clothing out covered in the powder and great clouds of the stuff are billowing around and his face is white with it, nothing to see here, sir, you may go on your way.
McConnell will be executed. I fucking mean that.
I see racist lout Rush Limbaugh (all of those guns out there and he’s still shooting his mouth off) and was on FOX and Fiends the other day going after Kamala Harris’ brown-skinned bonafides, she’s not black, she’s not African American, why she owes us for her success, we gave it to her, cough, affirmative action, cough he’s more black than she is, by God, who is the victim here?
Like Flannery O’Connor’s “wealthy sitting Negro” is Harris in Limbaugh’s mind.
Why, no, it’s Rush Limbaugh who deserves reparations.
He will be executed as well. Enough of his racist vermin mouth.
By the way not one day after one of the lying fucks on FOX and Friends protested that minimum wage jobs should have LOWER wages because those jobs aren’t supposed to be careers, I was driving down the boulevard and right there on the Arby’s sign was a “We’re Hiring” notice.
It said: “CAREERS available with us. Join our team.
You know what is not a career? Sitting next to an airhead right wing blonde showing massive leg on a couch and projectile vomiting one lie after another into a TV camera and being paid in excess of six figures for it.
No, it should be a death sentence.
Then, we have this piece of work:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/meet-the-right-wing-consultant-who-goes-from-state-to-state-slashing-budgets
Never believe lying vermin conservatives when they tell you they want to devolve government to the state and local levels. No, they don’t. Those budget babies are being drowned in the bathtub too, just in case someone gets the idea that maybe the states might take over some of the federal government’s priorities.
Money quote:
“Another Alaskan who had scheduled a dentures appointment four weeks after having his teeth extracted was left with gums flapping in the wind, after the governor eliminated Medicaid dental coverage for adults. That saved the state $27 million.”
Bullshit!
I’m calling for massive violent resistance in the State of Alaska to these filth.
Something on the scale of Genghis Khan’s half-hearted conservative efforts.
The Alaskan with no teeth should steal money and skip the next trip to the dentist and spend the money on guns and ammo and take that right wing piece of female crap (she’s the victim, not the toothless one) out for some target practice.
Am I gettin thru to ya , Mr Beale?
None of those guys are a patch on Sooty the hamster.
Hey, russell, it’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it. Right?
OK.
Genghis Khan, all joking aside.
Will Attila the Hun do? Or isn’t he up to snuff on the body count scale?
As part of a made up bullshit ahistorical mythology about the Hungarian racial and nationalist past now being imposed by nationalist, conservative, racist, anti-Semitic crypto-Christian filth on that country.
https://harpers.org/archive/2019/08/the-call-of-the-drums-hungarian-far-right/
These aren’t liberals. These aren’t socialists. They are right wing killers who will murder hundreds of thousands and millions of the OTHER.
P, our own nationalist racist right wing lout, and Putin, p’s model for nationalist, racist right wing louts, love the Hungarian motherfuckers asses.
The Hungarians must rise up and burn that country to the ground to rid the world of these filth.
And then replicate that resistance in Russia, India, and the United States against their sister conservative movements.
I’ve cited this article before, by a thoughtful conservative, Annie Applebaum, regarding similar murderous right wing rumblings in Poland:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/poland-polarization/568324/
Applebaum’s no Stalin lover either, like Barbara Streisand and bobbyp who covered a lot of Joe’s greatest hits in duets and want to apply his methods to Medicare Advantage for all.
She wrote this, which I read recently:
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Famine-Stalins-War-Ukraine/dp/0385538855/ref=sr_1_1?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIy6LXh-3d4wIV2B-tBh2ZswtjEAAYASAAEgL0LPD_BwE&hvadid=241589383813&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9028865&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=b&hvrand=8987662183534109377&hvtargid=kwd-354514961999&hydadcr=15305_10335439&keywords=red+famine+anne+applebaum&qid=1564531247&s=gateway&sr=8-1
I mean, Stalin wasn’t Genghis Khan, but ….. not for a lack of trying. Hitler was a mere Enterprise car rental joint to those previous two Hertz’s and Avis’s.
Basically the same ideological distance between AOC’s Squad and Venezuela’s Maduro, as in light years and galaxies apart, right?
By the way, let me repeat.
If ANY harm comes to anyone of the Squad from conservative republican murderers, the killing in this country will never stop.
Yes, my post praising both Janie and McKinney Texas awaits.
“When the Venetian merchant Marco Polo got to China, in the latter part of the thirteenth century, he saw many wonders—gunpowder and coal and eyeglasses and porcelain. One of the things that astonished him most, however, was a new invention, implemented by Kublai Khan, a grandson of the great conqueror Genghis. It was paper money, introduced by Kublai in 1260. Polo could hardly believe his eyes when he saw what the Khan was doing.”
The Invention of Money: In three centuries, the heresies of two bankers became the basis of our modern economy.
This:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-shocking-number-of-food-delivery-drivers-admit-to-munching-on-customers-orders-2019-07-30?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
I bet that wasn’t figured into the business model.
The food delivery stocks trade at multiples way above, say, life saving drug manufacturers.
They deliver french fries, and they call it cutting edge, innovative capitalism.
America is really just the wet dream of a carnival barker.
I bet that wasn’t figured into the business model.
Any time a new business comes along, it takes a while for everybody (inside the business as well as outside) to suss out all the bugs. Maybe the business figures out how to fix the really bad ones. Maybe the customers start going elsewhere as they discover unaddressed issues.
Not being a business hotshot, I have no idea how it could be addressed successfully. But happily, I’m not in that business. So I’ll settle for continuing to not order delivery when it comes to food. (At least ready-to-eat food — groceries might be another discussion, especially packaged ones.)
Finally, the secret of the underwear gnomes is revealed:
1. Collect underwear
2. Write an app about the underwear
3. Profit!
russell, I thought I heard about a ‘service’ that send you regular shipments of ‘wear a week or two, then toss’ underwear.
Sounds like a stinky business model, but what do I know? Underwear Gnomes, they’re here.
Food delivery, huh? I’ve been seeing strangers walking up to my neighbors’ houses with pizza boxes for decades now.
Remember when the milk man and the egg man used to come to the house? I hear there’s a new niche model for delivery of goods in reusable containers that get sent back when they’re empty. Isn’t that what happened with the milk bottles when the milk man used to bring milk to people’s houses?
I have this new idea for planting trees for shade, and even some evaporative cooling. Did you know it’s cooler if you sit under a tree on a hot summer day? Sounds crazy, but it might just work!
‘wear a week or two, then toss’ underwear.
Have these people never heard of recycling?!?!?!?
Food delivery, huh?
Actually we have tried out a couple of times something called Butcher Box. Bulk meat delivery to the door. But it all comes packaged, with a list, so pilferage would be a challenge.
Trending in my paper today: editorial cartoons from around the country featuring “Moscow Mitch”. An appellation which, unusually, seems to have gotten under McConnell’s skin.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/racially-charged-remark-highlights-recorded-conversation-between-ronald-reagan-and-richard-nixon-2019-07-31?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Reagan=racist conservative.
Former Democrat who moved into the Republican Party because the latter vermin party needed all of the vermin Democratic Party’s racist, lynching bonafides to gain a majority and slash taxes.
True, he slapped a knee when Sammy Davis Junior was on the dias cracking wise at the Dean Martin roasts.
But I think he might have been under the impression that Davis was a white guy doing a minstrel act.
To this day, the Republican Party recruits racists up and down the line, and those who vote republican do so to confirm and institutionalize their political leaders’ and their own racism and they are paid for their loyalty by not paying taxes.
Of their time and place?
Yes, on this day, July 31, 2019.
The Republican Party will be wiped off the face of the Earth, just as the Southern Democrats should have been wiped off the face of the Earth.
Joe Biden should have not been humoring the Southern lynching filth, he should have been shooting them in their heads.
Clean it up, now.
“Moscow Mitch”.
If Alger Hiss was working at the State Department today, he’d be Pompeo’s second in command, not in spite of, but because of his Moscow connections.
Buchanan and his filthy, fascist lieutenants at The American Conservative would place Hiss in the their pantheon of untouchable vermin assholes along with Stephen Miller and p.
The entire Republican Party has been recruited and turned by Putin’s KGB.
McConnell knows he won his last election in Kentucky with Putin’s help.
He will be executed.
We’ll try to observe to rule of law proprieties with trials and such, but the new post rule of law standards implemented by conservatives far and wide over the past number of years will likely influence how they themselves are destroyed.
We’ve now officially moved beyond the point where reality and the Onion are indistinguishable, and have achieved some kind of bizarre singularity with The National Enquirer.
The LGM synopsis if you get caught by the paywall.
There is a grad school thesis somewhere in the correlation between being stupid-wealthy and being barking mad. Maybe it’s inbreeding?
I saw that piece on Epstein but it’s not within my exhausted means to make fun of it.
It’s like Meat and Beyond Meat merged to form Beyond Explanation.
It’s Kurtz up the river, it’s the spawn born of the human and the Alien, it’s like Walker Percy’s sequel to Love In The Ruins and The Thanatos Syndrome, had he lived long enough to envision it.
There is a grad school thesis somewhere in the correlation between being stupid-wealthy and being barking mad. Maybe it’s inbreeding?
I think the research for the thesis will reveal that some percentage of the population, at all levels, is barking mad. All that wealth does is give scope to their implementation. (And, of course, the nut cases make far better headlines than the sane and sensible ones. So we hear far more about them.)
So no correlation, let alone causation. At most, the stories about those (relative) handful of nut cases makes those of us with lesser means feel better about our fate.
Stupidity comes in many varieties and is sprinkled pretty liberally throughout the population. We hear about the stupid-wealthy more than the others, I would guess, simply because we tend to hear about the wealthy, or the celebrated, more than the less wealthy and less celebrated.
I’m more fascinated by the stupid-smart, or even stupid-brilliant, who tend to be people who are in fact brilliant at one thing, or even more than one, and who therefore think they’re brilliant at everything. (I’ve known several of this variety in my life….)
In fact, some of those really really smart and famous people Epstein was cultivating were stupid-smart, weren’t they? Or else, what were they doing at his gatherings?
There’s also the post hoc reasoning that says if you’re wealthy, especially if you didn’t start out that way, that just proves you’re brilliant.
I think most of us are smart about some things and relatively stupid about others. That’s only human. It’s the unjustified extrapolation outward from the things we’re good at that can cause a lot of problems. I would put Elon Musk high on this list. I would be hard put to it to give a conventional example of him being stupid, but that outsized ego is a form of stupidity in its own right, IMVHO. That’s probably why they invented the concept of hubris.
Here’s an example of stupid-probably-not-so-wealthy. It’s hard to believe it isn’t staged. (HT rikyrah at BJ.)
Epstein is terminally creepy more than anything else. Could people not see that? Maybe not. Sociopaths are often charming, I hear.
All that wealth does is give scope to their implementation.
er…I believe that is precisely the point. Such wealth is not merely the result of “the market”, it is the deliberate outcome of deliberately chosen public policies.
At most, the stories about those (relative) handful of nut cases makes those of us with lesser means feel better about our fate.
(Way too) Small consolation if you ask me. I fail to understand why we should be asked to simply put up with it.
I fail to understand why we should be asked to simply put up with it.
I wasn’t (at least I didn’t think I was) suggesting that we just put up with it.
Just that, until something gets done about it, that sense that the rich are crazy may help ease the pain. As long as it doesn’t ease the motivation to deal appropriately with the lunatics, that’s fine. We invented anesthetics for a reason, after all.
“Or else, what were they doing at his gatherings?”
Well, I suspect they were sniffing out money/funding.
I doubt Stephen Hawking and Oliver Sacks were in attendance for the poontang, excuse me, breeding with all of the females in the human race to pass their genes on.
I also think now that some constellation of fame, wealth, intelligence, and social media conspires to cause people like Elon Musk to assume the persona of an asshole is somehow entertaining or enlightening.
Unfortunately he’s read the Zeitgeist correctly.
Just as Milton Berle did when he would drop trou down to some ridiculous boxer shorts and walk around the stage, cigar in hand, with a “What… What’ so funny?” expression directed at the audience.
It beats writing new material.
I mean, what were the actresses doing at Harvey Weinstein’s auditions.
They thought they were legitimately auditioning/applying for jobs.
Even half way through the assault, many were thinking, is this a rehearsal for a scene in the movie, of what?
Rodney Dangerfield took in a hockey game once in a while. That fighting broke our every few minutes during the hockey didn’t make him a boxing fan.
He probably would have been stupified if the hockey players on both teams had turned to the fans and announced half time would be given over to a sexual orgy out on the ice, for scientific purposes only, of course.
But he’d stick around because he paid for the damned tickets.
Epstein thought himself some sort of impresario, gathering people from all walks of life together.
And now for the orgy, folks.
What did he just say?
Is an orgy some kind of black hole?
I’m more fascinated by the stupid-smart, or even stupid-brilliant, who tend to be people who are in fact brilliant at one thing, or even more than one, and who therefore think they’re brilliant at everything.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley
See “Political Views.”
Not that I think Janie is unaware. He’s just the poster boy for the stupid-brilliant phenomenon IMO.
what were the actresses doing at Harvey Weinstein’s auditions.
They thought they were legitimately auditioning/applying for jobs.
Even half way through the assault, many were thinking, is this a rehearsal for a scene in the movie, of what?
Nah. They were thinking, I want to work in this business. And apparently this is the price of admission. Which, on the evidence, it was.
Call it an (un)cover charge.
hsh — yes, he’s a great example. He made the news a lot when I was young.
Fascinating footnote to that article:
Story of my life. 😉
Interestingly, echoingly, I’m about halfway through science blogger Carl Zimmer’s “She Has Her Mother’s Eyes,” on heredity.
I haven’t followed Zimmer at all faithfully over the years, but the book is readable and fascinating. I’ve just finished some chapters on eugenics. Smart people being stupid all over the place.
It’s “She Has Her Mother’s Laugh” — not eyes.
Sheesh.
“It seems clear that these data powerfully confirm the suspicion that intelligence is not a sufficient trait for truly creative achievement of the highest grade.”
Too right. Intelligence is a tool. Having that tool makes it easier to do things, no question. But for “achievement of the highest grade” (creative or otherwise), you have to be driven. That’s a psychological characteristic, not part of, or even particularly related to, intelligence.
Does make life easier, though, for those of us who are bright but basically lazy. 😁
cheers to all of you fellow childhood geniuses: long may your achievements be reasonable!
wj: But for “achievement of the highest grade” (creative or otherwise), you have to be driven.
It’s more complicated than either intelligence or drive will account for. I’d say there’s no one formula, much less one trait, that determines “achievement of the highest grade.”
One of my grad school friends was awarded a MacArthur grant in later years, and she was the last person on earth you would describe as driven. She was intelligent, yes, and hardworking enough, although she was more or less a laid-back California hippie in general. But there was a quality of whimsy about her that I think made all the difference. A certain variety of creativity, I suppose, plus a stubborn fearlessness in not toeing a conventional line.
*****
@cleek: My mother once simpered to someone we were meeting with that I was a “math genius.”
That was bad enough when I was five and eight and thirteen; I hated being her pet performing dog, even though I also got an oversized head out of it.
But on this particular occasion I was sixty years old, and the person we were meeting with was the director of the funeral home where we were ordering a stone for the family plot.
I have had the notion that I’m oh so smart beaten out of me by real life (it would have been better if I had never been led down that garden path, but wishes aren’t horses and the world is messy). But my mother never got the memo, or more accurately refuses to absorb the message. I was tempted to just get up and walk out of the room, but one is supposed to grow up sooner or later, no?
A friend of mine since high school got into the habit of telling people I was “Good Will Hunting” smart after seeing that film. I still keep trying to tell him I’m not even nearly as smart as the professor who discovered Will Hunting and was in awe of his genius (within the universe of the film, of course, since it’s fiction).
But there was a quality of whimsy about her that I think made all the difference. A certain variety of creativity, I suppose, plus a stubborn fearlessness in not toeing a conventional line.
I think we’ve established in the past that one of the things we all have in common is uncommon potential, resolutely not lived up to.
The above quotation reminds me of something, I think it was in the documentary about Andrew Wiles and his solving of Fermat’s last theorem, where he talks about the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture, and then Goro Shimura, talking about Taniyama, says the following wonderful thing:
Or, on a similar note, the following story (one of my absolute favourites) about the great mathematician Paul Erdos:
With the right regulatory environment, the market could do rather a lot towards replacing fossil fuels.
The scale of these sort of plans could be transformative – and is an indication what determined governments might do, given the very low costs of borrowing:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/14/just-a-matter-of-when-the-20bn-plan-to-power-singapore-with-australian-solar
I can attest to the fact that writing poetry does not require a creative mind.
Admittedly, it’s debatable whether writing lots of verses alone qualifies for the name of poet. My (imo) best verses were/are a pure excercise in style.
It’s more complicated than either intelligence or drive will account for.
To me, it seems like it has to do with whether you enjoy doing whatever the work is that will lead to excellence. If you don’t enjoy it, at least in some way, you probably won’t do it.
For “enjoy” I don’t mean fun, I mean something more like do you embrace it. Will you take it on. Will you engage with it. Will you get it between your teeth and not let it go until you’ve shaken whatever it is you need to shake out of it, in order to get to excellence. Does *that part* of it make you want to get out of bed in the morning and dig in.
If that part of it is as compelling to you as the end result, maybe you’ll be great. If not, probably not. You might be enormously talented, and perhaps show brilliance at times. But that isn’t really the same thing.
I have a good friend who is a composer. Like, a real composer, his work is published performed and recorded, by significant ensembles.
He always sang in church choirs, but did not read music until he was 17.
He heard Brahms’ German Requiem and decided he needed to write something like that. He’s been at it for 45 years now. He’s starting, now, in the last couple of years, to get noticed.
He is a talented guy, but if you ask him he will tell you that his greatest talent is the ability to sit in the damned room and worry the material until it begins to hang together. Dig dig dig, play with the material, try it one way and then the other way. Put it away for a while and do something else, then come back to it.
Every day. Over and over and over and over and over.
And basically, that’s the part he likes. It’s the part that drives him. He loves finally getting some recognition, he loves hearing his work performed by really good ensembles. But the thing he really loves to do is to sit in his office and dig away until stuff begins to make sense.
You have to love the hard part. Not “be willing to put up with it”, it has to grab you and make you want to do it. The hard part has to make you want to suit up and get in the game.
If you have that, maybe you’ll be great. Maybe not, but maybe.
I know a handful of people who actually are great at their thing. Like, really and truly. They all have the same story.
I’m truly great at my thing. The problem is that my thing is frittering.
writing poetry does not require a creative mind.
Writing doggerel does not require a creative mind. (As I know first hand.) Writing poetry, however, is a whole different story.
Writing poetry, however, is a whole different story.
This is true. What you are talking about, I believe Hartmut, is writing doggerel or versifying. Writing poetry is an entirely different thing, and probably equates much more to what Michelangelo is supposed to have said about sculpture, i.e. “Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it.” And I think one of the Russian poets (Akmatova? Mandelshtam? Perhaps someone else knows the quotation I mean, I cannot find it) said something very similar about writing a poem, that you had to chip away all the words there were, until only the right words were left – obviously an even more monumental task than the sculptor’s.
Will you get it between your teeth and not let it go until you’ve shaken whatever it is you need to shake out of it
This of russell’s. So I should have made clear (to Hartmut at least), that all the foregoing of mine is why that Erdos quote is so extraordinary and counter-intuitive, and probably only really understandable by pure mathematicians (or people who hear the music of the spheres).
wrs. With the side note that there is no guarantee of greatness either way. But I suspect that anyone who is used as an instrument that way (as GBS would put it) is after something other than greatness in the first place. In fact, russell already said that, about his friend appreciating getting noticed, but not having done the work for the purpose of getting noticed.
Edison: “Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.”
This isn’t exactly a propos, but I love this quote from John von Neumann: “Young man, in mathematics you don’t understand things. You just get used to them.”
I’d say doggerel is a bit too harsh a term, since (at least to me) it implies verse that is also technically deficient.
And there is good poetry that deliberately violates rules (I apply the Kishon rule though: first show that you can do it in accordance with the rules then I will take your violations as a deliberate expresssion not as ineptitude).
I see my own verses not as art but as a self-imposed challenge. And I am terrible at free form (that’s for other arts too).
Versifying comes close to German Verseschmieden (lit. verse forging, i.e. hammering verses into shape) and that fits my approach. A poet I am not but I can do some solid imitation.
Understood, Hartmut. No insult was intended, I meant doggerel to imply verse which was all about the form (usually rhyming), and making sense but with no other pretensions, and it seems that your verse more or less meets this definition. I agree with you about (what I had no idea was called) the Kishon rule, however.
Janie, I love that John von Neumann quote!
Something between doggerel and poetry.
“Straight from the news, his subjects he’d choose: Martha Teichner with an ode to CBS News’ resident wit and poet laureate, Charles Osgood.”
Charles Osgood: Poet-in-residence
“There once was a pretty good student
Who sat in a pretty good class
And was taught by a pretty good teacher
Who always let pretty good pass…”
Pretty Good —by Charles Osgood
“To me, it seems like it has to do with whether you enjoy doing whatever the work is that will lead to excellence. ”
cf Venus Williams v. every other professional tennis player. She’s the only one who I’ve ever seen look like she’s enjoying playing tennis.
@john no mccain — great point. I always felt that way about Diana Taurasi when I watched her play college basketball. Not so much that there weren’t other players who enjoyed it, but that with her it was just so obvious and central.
I feel that way about Steph Curry. He just loves to play, which in my opinion is the only way he got to the NBA.
GftNC, Kishon (who was originally a learned sculptor before he became a writer) came up with that rule in the context of modern art. He wrote two interesting books (and a play) on the topic. But imo it can be easily applied to writing too. He uses Picasso as his prime example of a talented and skilled artist who showed what he was capable of and then decided to go a different way. Most importantly (as his artistic last wills show) Picasso loved to bait professional art critics by producing pieces of garbage and then rotfl in private about the highfaluting ‘deep’ stuff they wrote about it. Kishon liked that but he hated other ‘artists’ whose only talent was selling the products of their own lack of skill to the gullible and critics that considered technical skill at best as reactionary and at worst as inimical to ‘true’ art (i.e. craftsman(ship) can by definition be no true art(ist)).
he [Picasso] hated other ‘artists’ whose only talent was selling the products of their own lack of skill to the gullible
Somehow Jackson Pollock leaps to mind. Although I suppose there may be a case that he was, himself, too ignorant to know how unskilled he was….
Don’t know about Picasso’s feeling about scam ‘artists’. That sentiment was definitely Kishon’s.