by russell
Don't usually read CNBC but this popped up on my news feed. The headline is "Here's why Trump's poll numbers are defying the impeachment mess". AKA, "WTF is going on with Trump supporters?".
A topic of perennial interest.
It doesn't discuss racism, homophobia, misogyny, toxic nationalism, economic insecurity, gun mania, concerns about the SCOTUS, flyover man's identity crisis, or any of the usual. It talks about a couple of things, but the fundamental point was this:
A very large number of Americans don’t have high levels of trust and respect for the government, and they’re generally OK with Trump being the junkyard dog who digs it all out.
Sooner or later Trump is gonna go away. This year, next year, five years from now, whenever. He is a time-limited phenomenon, not least because he's old and apparently lives on fast food and diet Cokes.
When Trump goes away, we are still going to have the reality of a government that does not inspire trust. Yes, a lot of that is due to decades of right-wing anti-government knotheads yammering away at high volume 24/7. And yes, there is a huge and very well funded industry devoted to convincing you that everything in your life will be a million times better if we can just get those unelected bureaucrats out of our hair.
But even if we factor that out, we still have the reality of a government that is characterized by systematic self-dealing and corruption, petty and otherwise. The multi-multi-billion dollar lobbying industry. The revolving door of people responsible for oversight and regulation stepping into six- seven- and eight-figure positions in the industries and institutions they were responsible for regulating. A general culture of self-dealing, where a position of public responsibility is a springboard to enormous wealth.
In the most obvious case du jour – what the hell was Hunter Biden doing on the board of Burisma? No laws were broken, there is no evidence of self-dealing or interference on the part of Joe Biden – the contrary, if anything – Burisma is certainly free to hire whoever they want, and Hunter Biden is certainly free to work for whoever he wants. But what the hell did Hunter Biden know about directing a natural gas company? What were his qualifications, other than being named "Biden"?
I pick on that example simply because it's in everybody's face today. It's one of thousands and thousands and thousands of such examples. As these things go, it is if anything among the most anodyne. Nonetheless, WTF?
Novak (author of the CNBC piece) says people aren't bothered by Trump pissing on the shoes of our national institutions every day, because they see those institutions as already corrupted.
When Trump goes away, all of that will still be so.
How do we fix that?
Clearly, this is the overwhelming question. And, as a necessary corollary, how do you/we fix that when the population is divided into (at least) two distinct groups, neither of which recognises the factual world (not just the concept of the government) understood by the other? I have been looking for example at Trump’s own Twitter feed. Leaving aside his own self-exculpatory reasons for spreading disinformation, the fact remains that a huge part of the population believes (or at least is receptive to) the version of reality he spews. As you say, those people remain when he goes or dies, and their version of reality and facts is almost diametrically opposite to that of what I will have to call the empirically verifiable world.
Clearly, this is the overwhelming question. And, as a necessary corollary, how do you/we fix that when the population is divided into (at least) two distinct groups, neither of which recognises the factual world (not just the concept of the government) understood by the other? I have been looking for example at Trump’s own Twitter feed. Leaving aside his own self-exculpatory reasons for spreading disinformation, the fact remains that a huge part of the population believes (or at least is receptive to) the version of reality he spews. As you say, those people remain when he goes or dies, and their version of reality and facts is almost diametrically opposite to that of what I will have to call the empirically verifiable world.
“…what the hell was Hunter Biden doing on the board of Burisma?”
I think you’d be very surprised how many people sit on boards who have no knowledge, much less expertise, of the industries on whose boards they sit. That is not why they are offered the position on a board of directors. They are offered the positions because of the gold gilt edge they bring to the company letterhead, they only get the offer because of their names and prestige. Most boards of directors have a few of these gilded lilies in their arrangements, the real work is done by the greenery.
“…what the hell was Hunter Biden doing on the board of Burisma?”
I think you’d be very surprised how many people sit on boards who have no knowledge, much less expertise, of the industries on whose boards they sit. That is not why they are offered the position on a board of directors. They are offered the positions because of the gold gilt edge they bring to the company letterhead, they only get the offer because of their names and prestige. Most boards of directors have a few of these gilded lilies in their arrangements, the real work is done by the greenery.
I think you’d be very surprised how many people sit on boards who have no knowledge, much less expertise, of the industries on whose boards they sit.
No, I would be completely unsurprised. And, from point of view of the board and the organization it represents, I’m sure there is value in having a number of “gold gilt-edged” personas on hand.
Which may or may not be less than ideal, from point of view both of corporate governance and of ethics, but in and of itself that doesn’t bother me all that much. Not my circus, not my monkeys, as they say.
What does bother me is when the “gold gilt edge” consists of familial proximity to someone in a position of public responsibility. Or, not familial proximity, but when those are one and the same person. Because it undermines confidence in public institutions.
I think you’d be very surprised how many people sit on boards who have no knowledge, much less expertise, of the industries on whose boards they sit.
No, I would be completely unsurprised. And, from point of view of the board and the organization it represents, I’m sure there is value in having a number of “gold gilt-edged” personas on hand.
Which may or may not be less than ideal, from point of view both of corporate governance and of ethics, but in and of itself that doesn’t bother me all that much. Not my circus, not my monkeys, as they say.
What does bother me is when the “gold gilt edge” consists of familial proximity to someone in a position of public responsibility. Or, not familial proximity, but when those are one and the same person. Because it undermines confidence in public institutions.
This is another case of Rump almost identifying a real problem about which he’ll either do nothing or make worse. It’s like the border crisis, which is a humanitarian problem his policies only exacerbate, that he misidentifies as a national-security and crime problem.
This is another case of Rump almost identifying a real problem about which he’ll either do nothing or make worse. It’s like the border crisis, which is a humanitarian problem his policies only exacerbate, that he misidentifies as a national-security and crime problem.
A very large number of Americans don’t have high levels of trust and respect for the government, and they’re generally OK with Trump being the junkyard dog who digs it all out.
It seems that Trump has accomplished one thing. Now, in addition to his fans having a low level of trust and respect for the government, Trump has drastically reduced the trust and respect that the rest of us have. At least for the political parts of his administration. .
A very large number of Americans don’t have high levels of trust and respect for the government, and they’re generally OK with Trump being the junkyard dog who digs it all out.
It seems that Trump has accomplished one thing. Now, in addition to his fans having a low level of trust and respect for the government, Trump has drastically reduced the trust and respect that the rest of us have. At least for the political parts of his administration. .
Agreed about all this, but it is difficult to see the US government as having become more corrupt–relative to some, it always has been. Francis Fukuyama argues that the US was a place that, unfortunately, developed demoncracy before bureaucracy (with a professional class of civil servants). Looking at past exaamples of adult children of sitting presidents, there is no shortage of people who did better just because of their father’s name.
Agreed about all this, but it is difficult to see the US government as having become more corrupt–relative to some, it always has been. Francis Fukuyama argues that the US was a place that, unfortunately, developed demoncracy before bureaucracy (with a professional class of civil servants). Looking at past exaamples of adult children of sitting presidents, there is no shortage of people who did better just because of their father’s name.
The UK developed bureaucracy first, right? So are Oxbridge admissions more merit based than Ivy League “legacy” admissions? (Note that something like 40% of those Ivy Leaguers wouldn’t get in on merit.)
So not sure our lack of preexisting bureaucracy is a convincing cause for corruption.
The UK developed bureaucracy first, right? So are Oxbridge admissions more merit based than Ivy League “legacy” admissions? (Note that something like 40% of those Ivy Leaguers wouldn’t get in on merit.)
So not sure our lack of preexisting bureaucracy is a convincing cause for corruption.
So are Oxbridge admissions more merit based than Ivy League “legacy” admissions
On the whole, while the system is heavily gamed by those with the benefit of an expensive private education, I’d say they are.
So are Oxbridge admissions more merit based than Ivy League “legacy” admissions
On the whole, while the system is heavily gamed by those with the benefit of an expensive private education, I’d say they are.
DCA: “demoncracy” is an unintentionally brilliant description of what got you Trump
DCA: “demoncracy” is an unintentionally brilliant description of what got you Trump
it is difficult to see the US government as having become more corrupt
Really? When is the last time a president’s children got security clearances over the objection of the people who assess people’s fitness for clearances? When is the last time a president profited in his private businesses by using his influence to lure people to spend money there? Obviously, the Ukraine and China quid pro quo for dirt on political opponents is new.
there is no shortage of people who did better just because of their father’s name.
This isn’t government corruption. It’s sleazy private behavior (and, yes, we all know plenty of people who do the functional equivalent of using their contacts and happenstance to make money). It may be annoying, but it doesn’t add up to government corruption until our government is actually involved, either by helping someone profit by a relationship (Ivanka is an example), or the US government does someone a favor as a result of it (lifting sanctions, etc.) The corruption part has happened countless times (constantly) under Trump, and you have to dig to find it elsewhere.
Novak (author of the CNBC piece) says people aren’t bothered by Trump pissing on the shoes of our national institutions every day, because they see those institutions as already corrupted.
Trump supporters are not anti-government because of Biden’s behavior.
They’re anti-government because they hate paying taxes or being told to take any responsibility for the society they live in. It’s really not helpful to conflate the everyday practice of glomming off your family’s prestige with government corruption. Those are two separate things (even though I agree that the former practice is unsightly).
it is difficult to see the US government as having become more corrupt
Really? When is the last time a president’s children got security clearances over the objection of the people who assess people’s fitness for clearances? When is the last time a president profited in his private businesses by using his influence to lure people to spend money there? Obviously, the Ukraine and China quid pro quo for dirt on political opponents is new.
there is no shortage of people who did better just because of their father’s name.
This isn’t government corruption. It’s sleazy private behavior (and, yes, we all know plenty of people who do the functional equivalent of using their contacts and happenstance to make money). It may be annoying, but it doesn’t add up to government corruption until our government is actually involved, either by helping someone profit by a relationship (Ivanka is an example), or the US government does someone a favor as a result of it (lifting sanctions, etc.) The corruption part has happened countless times (constantly) under Trump, and you have to dig to find it elsewhere.
Novak (author of the CNBC piece) says people aren’t bothered by Trump pissing on the shoes of our national institutions every day, because they see those institutions as already corrupted.
Trump supporters are not anti-government because of Biden’s behavior.
They’re anti-government because they hate paying taxes or being told to take any responsibility for the society they live in. It’s really not helpful to conflate the everyday practice of glomming off your family’s prestige with government corruption. Those are two separate things (even though I agree that the former practice is unsightly).
Also, although I realize that russell wasn’t purposely creating an equivalence between the Biden thing and Trump, could we please focus?
Please read this tweet, and the responses: https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1180822695556071424
When we get rid of these monsters, then we can nitpick.
Thanks.
Also, although I realize that russell wasn’t purposely creating an equivalence between the Biden thing and Trump, could we please focus?
Please read this tweet, and the responses: https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1180822695556071424
When we get rid of these monsters, then we can nitpick.
Thanks.
Can we discuss music, food, sports, ancient history, programming languages, poetry, or movies without derailing the impeachment?
Can we discuss music, food, sports, ancient history, programming languages, poetry, or movies without derailing the impeachment?
Pretty sure we can talk about whatever we want…
Pretty sure we can talk about whatever we want…
Used to be that it was safest to stick to “everybody’s health, and the weather” in making polite conversation.
I forget whether that was Henry Higgins advising Eliza Doolittle or Jane Austen advising some charming young hopeful.
Never mind. The point is that with Health Care and Climate Change being major political issues, that advice may be out of date.
–TP
Used to be that it was safest to stick to “everybody’s health, and the weather” in making polite conversation.
I forget whether that was Henry Higgins advising Eliza Doolittle or Jane Austen advising some charming young hopeful.
Never mind. The point is that with Health Care and Climate Change being major political issues, that advice may be out of date.
–TP
Novak (author of the CNBC piece) says people aren’t bothered by Trump pissing on the shoes of our national institutions every day, because they see those institutions as already corrupted.
This is a corruption of convenience. In the days of yore, if you wanted a federal job, you simply participated in the winning political party or bought it.
What is different this time is certain folks are determined, contrary to all available evidence, that they are somehow being left off the gravy train, and there is a political movement and a certain television network that issues forth nonstop propaganda to reinforce this view.
They are not so much against corruption as a moral principle, as they are determined to get their rightful piece “back”.
Novak (author of the CNBC piece) says people aren’t bothered by Trump pissing on the shoes of our national institutions every day, because they see those institutions as already corrupted.
This is a corruption of convenience. In the days of yore, if you wanted a federal job, you simply participated in the winning political party or bought it.
What is different this time is certain folks are determined, contrary to all available evidence, that they are somehow being left off the gravy train, and there is a political movement and a certain television network that issues forth nonstop propaganda to reinforce this view.
They are not so much against corruption as a moral principle, as they are determined to get their rightful piece “back”.
We may discuss all of those subjects except programming languages, a subject which derails any remaining attention span left to me.
I notice Rubio, for one, countering impeachment questions with piercing questions of his own, such as “How ’bout them Yankees, hunh?”, and for another, Joni Ernst, babbling into the earnest faces of her constituents petitioning immediate attention to the incipient destruction of all governance in bullshit America about her recipe for down-home potato salad dressed with a sizable dollop side of “Who me?”
By the way, Ernst, who has spent her entire waking career draining the taxpayer titty in one role or another, is the mealy-mouthed conservative pig c*nt (I mean this with all sincerity in the precise way any number of conservative vermin, male and female, in this country have referred to Hillary in the same loving, politically correct terms) who in her campaign for federal office threatened federal employees who might impose healthcare “solutions” in her soon-to-be-liquidated state of shithead-filled Iowa with the use of her weapon, which she always carries.
I don’t petition filth like that to remove corrupt filthy monsters from office with moving emotional words, I petition with equally deadly firepower.
She shouldn’t be asked politely and respectfully, she should be given a 24-hour deadline to meet those demands, or be included in the executions that are coming one or another.
I had an amazing beet salad in LA the other week.
And, how ’bout them Yankees?
We may discuss all of those subjects except programming languages, a subject which derails any remaining attention span left to me.
I notice Rubio, for one, countering impeachment questions with piercing questions of his own, such as “How ’bout them Yankees, hunh?”, and for another, Joni Ernst, babbling into the earnest faces of her constituents petitioning immediate attention to the incipient destruction of all governance in bullshit America about her recipe for down-home potato salad dressed with a sizable dollop side of “Who me?”
By the way, Ernst, who has spent her entire waking career draining the taxpayer titty in one role or another, is the mealy-mouthed conservative pig c*nt (I mean this with all sincerity in the precise way any number of conservative vermin, male and female, in this country have referred to Hillary in the same loving, politically correct terms) who in her campaign for federal office threatened federal employees who might impose healthcare “solutions” in her soon-to-be-liquidated state of shithead-filled Iowa with the use of her weapon, which she always carries.
I don’t petition filth like that to remove corrupt filthy monsters from office with moving emotional words, I petition with equally deadly firepower.
She shouldn’t be asked politely and respectfully, she should be given a 24-hour deadline to meet those demands, or be included in the executions that are coming one or another.
I had an amazing beet salad in LA the other week.
And, how ’bout them Yankees?
Here’s a take on corruption we should all seriously consider.
Uh, oh. Thullen is back!
Here’s a take on corruption we should all seriously consider.
Uh, oh. Thullen is back!
And, how ’bout them Yankees?
How ’bout them indeed? Do you make predictions, JDT? I confess to not really following baseball at this point except to keep track of the standings, but a good friend of mine (like me, a lifelong Yankee fan, but constitutionally incapable of being optimistic about anything, ever) says they’re not going to get out of the AL East because of Houston being so loaded. What do you think?
*****
As to the OP: I thought about it all day yesterday, but it’s hard to even know where to start in answering the question at the end.
One observation: greed (for money/resources, for power over others, for status) is an eternal human trait, so this problem will never be finally solved. The best we can do is try to design systems that work reasonably well, and then keep on top of them….
Another thing — and once again Michael Cain might chime in because he has direct experience in a legislative context — is that this era adds a dimension in that so much of our culture is based on such huge, complex systems. I think someone told me oh, about 30 years ago, that Maine’s work comp law was 1000 pages long. And even if that’s an exaggeration, multiply it by 50, plus the feds, plus all the other areas of our shared world (telecom, medicine, energy, etc. etc.), and — well, you sure can’t deal with it just with amateurs.
And, how ’bout them Yankees?
How ’bout them indeed? Do you make predictions, JDT? I confess to not really following baseball at this point except to keep track of the standings, but a good friend of mine (like me, a lifelong Yankee fan, but constitutionally incapable of being optimistic about anything, ever) says they’re not going to get out of the AL East because of Houston being so loaded. What do you think?
*****
As to the OP: I thought about it all day yesterday, but it’s hard to even know where to start in answering the question at the end.
One observation: greed (for money/resources, for power over others, for status) is an eternal human trait, so this problem will never be finally solved. The best we can do is try to design systems that work reasonably well, and then keep on top of them….
Another thing — and once again Michael Cain might chime in because he has direct experience in a legislative context — is that this era adds a dimension in that so much of our culture is based on such huge, complex systems. I think someone told me oh, about 30 years ago, that Maine’s work comp law was 1000 pages long. And even if that’s an exaggeration, multiply it by 50, plus the feds, plus all the other areas of our shared world (telecom, medicine, energy, etc. etc.), and — well, you sure can’t deal with it just with amateurs.
well, you sure can’t deal with it just with amateurs.
The normalization of complexity may well be our undoing.
well, you sure can’t deal with it just with amateurs.
The normalization of complexity may well be our undoing.
The normalization of complexity may well be our undoing.
In that case, we’ve been undone since the beginning of human civilization. For that matter, we humans aren’t alone in that.
The normalization of complexity may well be our undoing.
In that case, we’ve been undone since the beginning of human civilization. For that matter, we humans aren’t alone in that.
We all (I say in self-justification) have our hobby-horses, the bees in our personal bonnets. At the risk of boring you all rigid, yet again, I repeat: the problem is far wider than, to quote russell’s opening post above, the reality of a government that does not inspire trust. And later he says Novak (author of the CNBC piece) says people aren’t bothered by Trump pissing on the shoes of our national institutions every day, because they see those institutions as already corrupted.
So, I repeat myself not because I believe I can go on hammering the same message out until you all agree, but only because I fear I have not explained myself adequately. The problem is not just a widespread perception, justified or not, that national institutions (including “government”) are corrupt, or inefficient, or unnecessary. The problem is the foundation beneath such perceptions in the culture: a lack of common understanding of the world and the reality of facts associated with it.
In a current article in the NYT about the anti-vaccination movement, the following paragraph appears:
“Science has become just another voice in the room,” said Dr. Paul A. Offit, an infectious disease expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “It has lost its platform. Now, you simply declare your own truth.”
This is also the mechanism behind climate change denial, of course. But the fact that now, you simply declare your own truth, means that no version of “reality” has weight over any other. So any statement, whether about the purpose or trustworthiness of government or anything else, seems equally valid depending not on its empirical basis but on the prejudices of its hearer.
It may be that to solve this underlying problem misperceptions about government are worse than others, because perhaps you need “government” to begin to change the discourse, in education or otherwise. But the underlying problem, I do firmly believe (you can’t have guessed!) is the lack of agreed upon bases of confirming reality.
We all (I say in self-justification) have our hobby-horses, the bees in our personal bonnets. At the risk of boring you all rigid, yet again, I repeat: the problem is far wider than, to quote russell’s opening post above, the reality of a government that does not inspire trust. And later he says Novak (author of the CNBC piece) says people aren’t bothered by Trump pissing on the shoes of our national institutions every day, because they see those institutions as already corrupted.
So, I repeat myself not because I believe I can go on hammering the same message out until you all agree, but only because I fear I have not explained myself adequately. The problem is not just a widespread perception, justified or not, that national institutions (including “government”) are corrupt, or inefficient, or unnecessary. The problem is the foundation beneath such perceptions in the culture: a lack of common understanding of the world and the reality of facts associated with it.
In a current article in the NYT about the anti-vaccination movement, the following paragraph appears:
“Science has become just another voice in the room,” said Dr. Paul A. Offit, an infectious disease expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “It has lost its platform. Now, you simply declare your own truth.”
This is also the mechanism behind climate change denial, of course. But the fact that now, you simply declare your own truth, means that no version of “reality” has weight over any other. So any statement, whether about the purpose or trustworthiness of government or anything else, seems equally valid depending not on its empirical basis but on the prejudices of its hearer.
It may be that to solve this underlying problem misperceptions about government are worse than others, because perhaps you need “government” to begin to change the discourse, in education or otherwise. But the underlying problem, I do firmly believe (you can’t have guessed!) is the lack of agreed upon bases of confirming reality.
The NRA this morning called for the confiscation by armed federal jackbooted conservatives of all whistles how held in the hands of the American citizenry and their public servants.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/whistleblower-lawyer-representing-second-whistleblower
Their fascist corrupt spokesperson, and all of their bribed, blackmailed, and willing confederates in organized criminal politics, cribbing from Lauren Bacall, told decent Americans to just put your lips together and blow all conservatives and Republicans.
I’m back, but only momentarily.
These two comments are mere warm-up exercises for what will be my final post, when I cobble it together, at the esteemed Obsidian Wings, as I just can’t do this anymore, and neither will you want me to, with maybe provision for the occasional visit to ruminate on books, music, food, and movies.
Houston’s Verlander and Cole will be the Yankees’ undoing, but who knows? I don’t make baseball or stock market predictions. It’s a mug’s game.
I love the Cardinals, but I wish Houston was still in the National League so that we could could have a Houston/Yankees World Series in these the latter day’s of the Republic for which traitors can’t and won’t stand.
The NRA this morning called for the confiscation by armed federal jackbooted conservatives of all whistles how held in the hands of the American citizenry and their public servants.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/whistleblower-lawyer-representing-second-whistleblower
Their fascist corrupt spokesperson, and all of their bribed, blackmailed, and willing confederates in organized criminal politics, cribbing from Lauren Bacall, told decent Americans to just put your lips together and blow all conservatives and Republicans.
I’m back, but only momentarily.
These two comments are mere warm-up exercises for what will be my final post, when I cobble it together, at the esteemed Obsidian Wings, as I just can’t do this anymore, and neither will you want me to, with maybe provision for the occasional visit to ruminate on books, music, food, and movies.
Houston’s Verlander and Cole will be the Yankees’ undoing, but who knows? I don’t make baseball or stock market predictions. It’s a mug’s game.
I love the Cardinals, but I wish Houston was still in the National League so that we could could have a Houston/Yankees World Series in these the latter day’s of the Republic for which traitors can’t and won’t stand.
My feral apostrophes will leave with me.
My feral apostrophes will leave with me.
At day’s end (and at every other time) it is clear, ObWi wouldn’t be the same without you. Please never stay away too long.
At day’s end (and at every other time) it is clear, ObWi wouldn’t be the same without you. Please never stay away too long.
Please never stay away too long.
Seconding this.
Please never stay away too long.
Seconding this.
Per GftNC’s 11:36: people having separate realities isn’t unique to this era, although the megaphones of mass communication might make it more obvious, and louder, and maybe we are in fact in one of the more acute phases of the illness.
There has always been some level of resistance to compulsory vaccionation, as for that matter to compulsory schooling. As a home/unschooling parent, I was part of the latter. I do agree that education would help with this problem, if only we could agree on the curriculum, which only shoves the problem back a step.
I’m not happy with the current cacophony of truths, but I doubt I’d be happy back in the days of the One True Church either.
Per GftNC’s 11:36: people having separate realities isn’t unique to this era, although the megaphones of mass communication might make it more obvious, and louder, and maybe we are in fact in one of the more acute phases of the illness.
There has always been some level of resistance to compulsory vaccionation, as for that matter to compulsory schooling. As a home/unschooling parent, I was part of the latter. I do agree that education would help with this problem, if only we could agree on the curriculum, which only shoves the problem back a step.
I’m not happy with the current cacophony of truths, but I doubt I’d be happy back in the days of the One True Church either.
The problem is the foundation beneath such perceptions in the culture: a lack of common understanding of the world and the reality of facts associated with it.
Could be. But there is also this.
The problem is the foundation beneath such perceptions in the culture: a lack of common understanding of the world and the reality of facts associated with it.
Could be. But there is also this.
By the way, off topic, but a key witness in the Amber Guyger trial was shot dead in Dallas last night.
By the way, off topic, but a key witness in the Amber Guyger trial was shot dead in Dallas last night.
“The problem is the foundation beneath such perceptions in the culture: a lack of common understanding of the world and the reality of facts associated with it.”
This is true, but I would make a distinction between people attacking the scientific consensus on various issues because it offends their political prejudices ( lefties can do this too, but it’s more common on the right) and people who, for example, think the mainstream press is wrong or biased or both. In the latter case there are cases where the press is clearly biased and wrong, cases where the critics are biased and wrong and gray areas where it is difficult to tell or where possibly both sides are partly right and partly wrong. I have examples in mind of all of the above, but in my current conflict averse frame of mind I don’t want to spend a few days arguing about them.
But there are examples from the past where we didn’t know the truth for years or longer. Gulf of Tonkin, for instance, or the CIA role in the mid 60’s Indonesian massacres. The NYT helped cover up the latter. Someone just wrote a book about the CIA’s LSD experiments. Forgot the name. I haven’t read the book. We still might not know everything there. Anytime you have to depend on intelligence agencies or the government to tell you the truth about some nefarious deed you should be a bit skeptical and no, this isn’t a defense of Trump. I am thinking more about accusations about what some foreign enemy or ally might or might not have done. The nice thing about Trump is he is so openly corrupt it isn’t necessary to trust intelligence agencies.
“The problem is the foundation beneath such perceptions in the culture: a lack of common understanding of the world and the reality of facts associated with it.”
This is true, but I would make a distinction between people attacking the scientific consensus on various issues because it offends their political prejudices ( lefties can do this too, but it’s more common on the right) and people who, for example, think the mainstream press is wrong or biased or both. In the latter case there are cases where the press is clearly biased and wrong, cases where the critics are biased and wrong and gray areas where it is difficult to tell or where possibly both sides are partly right and partly wrong. I have examples in mind of all of the above, but in my current conflict averse frame of mind I don’t want to spend a few days arguing about them.
But there are examples from the past where we didn’t know the truth for years or longer. Gulf of Tonkin, for instance, or the CIA role in the mid 60’s Indonesian massacres. The NYT helped cover up the latter. Someone just wrote a book about the CIA’s LSD experiments. Forgot the name. I haven’t read the book. We still might not know everything there. Anytime you have to depend on intelligence agencies or the government to tell you the truth about some nefarious deed you should be a bit skeptical and no, this isn’t a defense of Trump. I am thinking more about accusations about what some foreign enemy or ally might or might not have done. The nice thing about Trump is he is so openly corrupt it isn’t necessary to trust intelligence agencies.
“I am thinking more about accusations about what some foreign enemy or ally might or might not have done.”
To be perfectly clear, I am referring to real or alleged war crimes committed by friends, ourselves, or enemies. I am not referring to Russiagate. If you have to rely on our government’s word on war crimes, you might as well flip a coin in some cases.
“I am thinking more about accusations about what some foreign enemy or ally might or might not have done.”
To be perfectly clear, I am referring to real or alleged war crimes committed by friends, ourselves, or enemies. I am not referring to Russiagate. If you have to rely on our government’s word on war crimes, you might as well flip a coin in some cases.
Yeah, to paraphrase Casey Stengel regarding a certain Yankees third basemen during the 1950s, p is so bad that he’s ruined corruption for everyone.
Stengel also said, of a pitcher, “I don’t know if he throws a spitball but he sure spits on the ball”, which could apply as well.
Yeah, to paraphrase Casey Stengel regarding a certain Yankees third basemen during the 1950s, p is so bad that he’s ruined corruption for everyone.
Stengel also said, of a pitcher, “I don’t know if he throws a spitball but he sure spits on the ball”, which could apply as well.
I doubt I’d be happy back in the days of the One True Church either.
Me too. But this is what I meant about not expressing myself adequately. I don’t mean that the opposite of a cocophany of “truths” (the quote marks are necessary) is One True anything. I mean that to gingerly establish whether a hypothesis is true, one needs to prove it, by verifiable evidence which is available to impartial testers or witnesses. And if the evidence is found to be faulty, or the proof breaks down, you need to be able to alter the hypothesis. You can prove the earth is round, not flat, by various methods, so it should not be possible, or acceptable, to say that the “truth” that it is flat is of equal validity. You cannot prove the existence or otherwise of God, so subjecting it to the same kind of scrutiny is inappropriate (although personally I like Christopher Hitchens’s formulation That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence). My point is that the concept of empirical evidence needs to come back into common mainstream understanding and acceptance, not that “the great God Science” should become the arbiter of what is true or not.
I doubt I’d be happy back in the days of the One True Church either.
Me too. But this is what I meant about not expressing myself adequately. I don’t mean that the opposite of a cocophany of “truths” (the quote marks are necessary) is One True anything. I mean that to gingerly establish whether a hypothesis is true, one needs to prove it, by verifiable evidence which is available to impartial testers or witnesses. And if the evidence is found to be faulty, or the proof breaks down, you need to be able to alter the hypothesis. You can prove the earth is round, not flat, by various methods, so it should not be possible, or acceptable, to say that the “truth” that it is flat is of equal validity. You cannot prove the existence or otherwise of God, so subjecting it to the same kind of scrutiny is inappropriate (although personally I like Christopher Hitchens’s formulation That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence). My point is that the concept of empirical evidence needs to come back into common mainstream understanding and acceptance, not that “the great God Science” should become the arbiter of what is true or not.
I pulled some of my map-making software out the other day and ran the county-level 2016 presidential election numbers through it.
http://mcain6925.com/obsidian/counties_2016.png
The upper map shows counties in the contiguous 48 states colored by Clinton/Trump results: light blue for Clinton >50%, dark blue for Clinton >55%, light and dark red for the same values for Trump. State outlines in yellow.
The lower map shows counties resized to reflect total votes cast. While I was expecting the blue bubble effect, I was surprised by how few pink/red bubbles are left.
My pessimistic answer to russell’s last question is we can’t. The two parts have decided that they want different things from the institutions. My wife and I are visiting rural-ish Kansas in a couple of weeks for her high school class reunion. I suspect I may have to bite my tongue off at some point.
I pulled some of my map-making software out the other day and ran the county-level 2016 presidential election numbers through it.
http://mcain6925.com/obsidian/counties_2016.png
The upper map shows counties in the contiguous 48 states colored by Clinton/Trump results: light blue for Clinton >50%, dark blue for Clinton >55%, light and dark red for the same values for Trump. State outlines in yellow.
The lower map shows counties resized to reflect total votes cast. While I was expecting the blue bubble effect, I was surprised by how few pink/red bubbles are left.
My pessimistic answer to russell’s last question is we can’t. The two parts have decided that they want different things from the institutions. My wife and I are visiting rural-ish Kansas in a couple of weeks for her high school class reunion. I suspect I may have to bite my tongue off at some point.
It’s really not helpful to conflate the everyday practice of glomming off your family’s prestige with government corruption.
This is a really fair point, and I would put the Great Hunter Biden episode under the former rather than the latter.
That said, there is also the general issue of corruption, in the sense of self-dealing at levels major and minor, being epidemic in national government. It does undermine confidence in, and respect for, government, and that is harmful. IMO.
It’s really not helpful to conflate the everyday practice of glomming off your family’s prestige with government corruption.
This is a really fair point, and I would put the Great Hunter Biden episode under the former rather than the latter.
That said, there is also the general issue of corruption, in the sense of self-dealing at levels major and minor, being epidemic in national government. It does undermine confidence in, and respect for, government, and that is harmful. IMO.
By the way, off topic, but a key witness in the Amber Guyger trial was shot dead in Dallas last night.
The Washington Post has a video of his testimony. Brave guy. No words.
By the way, off topic, but a key witness in the Amber Guyger trial was shot dead in Dallas last night.
The Washington Post has a video of his testimony. Brave guy. No words.
Michael Cain: my eyes may be deceiving me, but is the ratio of the area of dark red to light red noticeably higher than ratio of the area of dark blue to light blue?
I guess if so this would just be a reflection of the way the R’s have moved in lockstep to the hard right in the post Newt tea party era. During the Reagan era one of my favorite folk groups had a joke they’d tell between songs: “We don’t belong to an organized political party.” Pause. “We’re Democrats.”
For better and worse.
Michael Cain: my eyes may be deceiving me, but is the ratio of the area of dark red to light red noticeably higher than ratio of the area of dark blue to light blue?
I guess if so this would just be a reflection of the way the R’s have moved in lockstep to the hard right in the post Newt tea party era. During the Reagan era one of my favorite folk groups had a joke they’d tell between songs: “We don’t belong to an organized political party.” Pause. “We’re Democrats.”
For better and worse.
PS to Michael — the maps are great. I’m bookmarking them for future reference and study.
PS to Michael — the maps are great. I’m bookmarking them for future reference and study.
No words.
That was my feeling when I posted the comment, and it still holds as to any attempt to express how I feel about this. And I’m a white person, from far away.
But on a practical level, a comment and a question:
1. If I had been one of the other witnesses, I’d now be asking for protection.
2. For the lawyers: is it possible to call in the FBI (let’s say) to be the entity that investigates this crime, instead of the Dallas PD?
No words.
That was my feeling when I posted the comment, and it still holds as to any attempt to express how I feel about this. And I’m a white person, from far away.
But on a practical level, a comment and a question:
1. If I had been one of the other witnesses, I’d now be asking for protection.
2. For the lawyers: is it possible to call in the FBI (let’s say) to be the entity that investigates this crime, instead of the Dallas PD?
The two parts have decided that they want different things from the institutions.
Hard to argue with this. So i won’t.
The two parts have decided that they want different things from the institutions.
Hard to argue with this. So i won’t.
Also – Michael, as always, thank you for the maps. They are really well done, and very helpful in understanding what’s going on.
As has been noted, many times, here and elsewhere, if we look at people, rather than acres, this is not a ‘center right’ country. Let alone a particularly conservative or right-wing country.
The unique nature of some of our institutions – the electoral college, the Senate – give rural states and communities greater weight in national representation than their numbers alone would merit. That has some value, in mitigating the possible downsides of a purely democratic polity. And is tolerable, up to a point, to folks whose representation is thereby diluted.
Up to a point.
And beyond that point, won’t be and really can’t be.
It’s out of balance. Nature abhors the out-of-balance state. All systems seek equilibrium.
Also – Michael, as always, thank you for the maps. They are really well done, and very helpful in understanding what’s going on.
As has been noted, many times, here and elsewhere, if we look at people, rather than acres, this is not a ‘center right’ country. Let alone a particularly conservative or right-wing country.
The unique nature of some of our institutions – the electoral college, the Senate – give rural states and communities greater weight in national representation than their numbers alone would merit. That has some value, in mitigating the possible downsides of a purely democratic polity. And is tolerable, up to a point, to folks whose representation is thereby diluted.
Up to a point.
And beyond that point, won’t be and really can’t be.
It’s out of balance. Nature abhors the out-of-balance state. All systems seek equilibrium.
bobbyp, that link (at 12:01) is interesting. But jury nullification isn’t the only way refusal to accept evident facts can go. I was on a jury a couple of years back with a guy (a fireman) who took the position that “I have worked with policemen, and if the defendant was arrested, at all, he must be guilty of something.” Even though the evidence was substantially otherwise. And the police had arrived some time after the incident in question.
I expect it will take quite a while for us to get back to a generally shared reality. The first step will be to get back to an agreement that an objective reality exists. I think we lost that, in no small part, on the heels of liberal insistance that everybody’s views were just as good as anybody else’s. Even when they were about which way is north from here.
bobbyp, that link (at 12:01) is interesting. But jury nullification isn’t the only way refusal to accept evident facts can go. I was on a jury a couple of years back with a guy (a fireman) who took the position that “I have worked with policemen, and if the defendant was arrested, at all, he must be guilty of something.” Even though the evidence was substantially otherwise. And the police had arrived some time after the incident in question.
I expect it will take quite a while for us to get back to a generally shared reality. The first step will be to get back to an agreement that an objective reality exists. I think we lost that, in no small part, on the heels of liberal insistance that everybody’s views were just as good as anybody else’s. Even when they were about which way is north from here.
we still have the reality of a government that is characterized by systematic self-dealing and corruption, petty and otherwise
true of every government at every point in human history.
How do we fix that?
we elect new people. that’s exactly what democracy is for.
a lot of people don’t know that. we should address that problem.
we still have the reality of a government that is characterized by systematic self-dealing and corruption, petty and otherwise
true of every government at every point in human history.
How do we fix that?
we elect new people. that’s exactly what democracy is for.
a lot of people don’t know that. we should address that problem.
I think we lost that, in no small part, on the heels of liberal insistance that everybody’s views were just as good as anybody else’s.
That’s one way of looking at it, although speaking as a liberal I personally don’t remember any such insistence. I think you (the US) may have started to lose that when the organs reporting the news were enabled to become organs of partisan propaganda, i.e. when the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine, on the basis that it curtailed free speech, thereby letting slip the dogs of war – I mean confirmation bias.
I think we lost that, in no small part, on the heels of liberal insistance that everybody’s views were just as good as anybody else’s.
That’s one way of looking at it, although speaking as a liberal I personally don’t remember any such insistence. I think you (the US) may have started to lose that when the organs reporting the news were enabled to become organs of partisan propaganda, i.e. when the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine, on the basis that it curtailed free speech, thereby letting slip the dogs of war – I mean confirmation bias.
I think we lost that, in no small part, on the heels of liberal insistance that everybody’s views were just as good as anybody else’s.
That’s one way of looking at it, although speaking as a liberal I personally don’t remember any such insistence. I think you (the US) may have started to lose that when the organs reporting the news were enabled to become organs of partisan propaganda, i.e. when the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine, on the basis that it curtailed free speech, thereby letting slip the dogs of war – I mean confirmation bias.
I think we lost that, in no small part, on the heels of liberal insistance that everybody’s views were just as good as anybody else’s.
That’s one way of looking at it, although speaking as a liberal I personally don’t remember any such insistence. I think you (the US) may have started to lose that when the organs reporting the news were enabled to become organs of partisan propaganda, i.e. when the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine, on the basis that it curtailed free speech, thereby letting slip the dogs of war – I mean confirmation bias.
I think we lost that, in no small part, on the heels of liberal insistance that everybody’s views were just as good as anybody else’s.
That’s one way of looking at it, although speaking as a liberal I personally don’t remember any such insistence. I think you (the US) may have started to lose that when the organs reporting the news were enabled to become organs of partisan propaganda, i.e. when the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine, on the basis that it curtailed free speech, thereby letting slip the dogs of war – I mean confirmation bias.
I think we lost that, in no small part, on the heels of liberal insistance that everybody’s views were just as good as anybody else’s.
That’s one way of looking at it, although speaking as a liberal I personally don’t remember any such insistence. I think you (the US) may have started to lose that when the organs reporting the news were enabled to become organs of partisan propaganda, i.e. when the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine, on the basis that it curtailed free speech, thereby letting slip the dogs of war – I mean confirmation bias.
Well back as early as the 1960s, the liberal position was that very opinion was as good, as deserving, as every other. Unfortunately it didn’t stop at “deserving to be heard.” It ran to inventing “your own reality” — with or without the help of psychedelics. It may have been meant metaphorically, but it look like it didn’t get taken that way in a lot of places.
Well back as early as the 1960s, the liberal position was that very opinion was as good, as deserving, as every other. Unfortunately it didn’t stop at “deserving to be heard.” It ran to inventing “your own reality” — with or without the help of psychedelics. It may have been meant metaphorically, but it look like it didn’t get taken that way in a lot of places.
I expect it will take quite a while for us to get back to a generally shared reality.
but when did it ever exist?
“Facts all come with points of view”, the great David Byrne once rapped, in 1980.
any argument worth the name is going to be between two people who see the same situation differently.
I expect it will take quite a while for us to get back to a generally shared reality.
but when did it ever exist?
“Facts all come with points of view”, the great David Byrne once rapped, in 1980.
any argument worth the name is going to be between two people who see the same situation differently.
Well back as early as the 1960s, the liberal position was that very opinion was as good, as deserving, as every other.
As a liberal with strong opinions who was around (and liberal, and among liberal people) in the ’60’s, I don’t remember that. In fact, I seem to remember fairly strong objections to the opinion that the Vietnam war was justified, and that racism and poverty were acceptable in our society.
Well back as early as the 1960s, the liberal position was that very opinion was as good, as deserving, as every other.
As a liberal with strong opinions who was around (and liberal, and among liberal people) in the ’60’s, I don’t remember that. In fact, I seem to remember fairly strong objections to the opinion that the Vietnam war was justified, and that racism and poverty were acceptable in our society.
back in the 1860s, the US fought a big war against itself because one set of people thought slavery was God’s will (or were cool with it because money is nice), and another set didn’t think that.
same situation: slavery. two radically different viewpoints.
post-modern theory didn’t have anything to do with that.
back in the 1860s, the US fought a big war against itself because one set of people thought slavery was God’s will (or were cool with it because money is nice), and another set didn’t think that.
same situation: slavery. two radically different viewpoints.
post-modern theory didn’t have anything to do with that.
Well back as early as the 1960s, the liberal position was that very opinion was as good, as deserving, as every other.
That is simply a canard. I was there. I was a lunatic radical (still am, I guess). I have no recollection believing that widely held arguments in favor of mindless anti-communism, religious bigotry, oligarchic corporatism, and racial superiority were “as good” as just about any fucking thing that I might believe. I kinda’ thought they were, um, bullshit. Still do. Now I did hold that my (admittedly minority) opinions should be given a fair hearing. That is not the same thing that you are asserting.
Well back as early as the 1960s, the liberal position was that very opinion was as good, as deserving, as every other.
That is simply a canard. I was there. I was a lunatic radical (still am, I guess). I have no recollection believing that widely held arguments in favor of mindless anti-communism, religious bigotry, oligarchic corporatism, and racial superiority were “as good” as just about any fucking thing that I might believe. I kinda’ thought they were, um, bullshit. Still do. Now I did hold that my (admittedly minority) opinions should be given a fair hearing. That is not the same thing that you are asserting.
GftNC: …, i.e. when the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine, on the basis that it curtailed free speech, …
It did curtail free speech in the form of “pay up or shut up.” For example, any radio station that couldn’t afford the air time and expense to cover all sides of an issue, couldn’t cover any side of the issue.
GftNC: …, i.e. when the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine, on the basis that it curtailed free speech, …
It did curtail free speech in the form of “pay up or shut up.” For example, any radio station that couldn’t afford the air time and expense to cover all sides of an issue, couldn’t cover any side of the issue.
I think we lost that, in no small part, on the heels of liberal insistance that everybody’s views were just as good as anybody else’s.
I would argue that the breakdown of the New Deal consensus in the 60’s and 70’s emboldened a well funded and powerful revanchist conservatism that consciously aligned itself with the deep religious bigotry typified by the “evangelical movement” and the white racial backlash generated by the civil rights movement. This has led to a rearrangement of the political chairs into two more deeply opposed and ideologically coherent political parties. These differences are rather heated right now, and despite some fundamental underlying similarities (belief is free markets, belief in US hegemony), are getting close to the tipping point of irreconcilable disagreement, as one of them is veering off into ethnonationalist authoritarianism.
And it is not the Democratic Party that is doing so. That is why the GOP has to be destroyed as a political force.
I think we lost that, in no small part, on the heels of liberal insistance that everybody’s views were just as good as anybody else’s.
I would argue that the breakdown of the New Deal consensus in the 60’s and 70’s emboldened a well funded and powerful revanchist conservatism that consciously aligned itself with the deep religious bigotry typified by the “evangelical movement” and the white racial backlash generated by the civil rights movement. This has led to a rearrangement of the political chairs into two more deeply opposed and ideologically coherent political parties. These differences are rather heated right now, and despite some fundamental underlying similarities (belief is free markets, belief in US hegemony), are getting close to the tipping point of irreconcilable disagreement, as one of them is veering off into ethnonationalist authoritarianism.
And it is not the Democratic Party that is doing so. That is why the GOP has to be destroyed as a political force.
Can we discuss music, food, sports, ancient history, programming languages, poetry, or movies without derailing the impeachment?
Hard to know. But if you are seeking relief, check this out.
Can we discuss music, food, sports, ancient history, programming languages, poetry, or movies without derailing the impeachment?
Hard to know. But if you are seeking relief, check this out.
Well back as early as the 1960s, the liberal position was that very opinion was as good, as deserving, as every other.
bobby, sapient, no doubt I suffer from my own environment. (See Michael’s electoral maps.) I was in Berkeley. Everybody was liberal, and fighting over what was “true” liberalism and whether to care.
Being pro-war wasn’t an option available for division in the environment. Heck, on one occasion an anti-war activists showed up at our AFROTC class. He started with “The War is stupid and insane!” And was more than a little startled when we all nodded and said, “Yes, it certainly is. We should have departed long since, if we ever got involved at all.”
It wasn’t that we would have refused to go if ordered. But we could see that what was going on was daft. And we were what passed for dissident opinions at that time and place. So, as I say, my perspective of liberal positions at the time may well be skewed.
Well back as early as the 1960s, the liberal position was that very opinion was as good, as deserving, as every other.
bobby, sapient, no doubt I suffer from my own environment. (See Michael’s electoral maps.) I was in Berkeley. Everybody was liberal, and fighting over what was “true” liberalism and whether to care.
Being pro-war wasn’t an option available for division in the environment. Heck, on one occasion an anti-war activists showed up at our AFROTC class. He started with “The War is stupid and insane!” And was more than a little startled when we all nodded and said, “Yes, it certainly is. We should have departed long since, if we ever got involved at all.”
It wasn’t that we would have refused to go if ordered. But we could see that what was going on was daft. And we were what passed for dissident opinions at that time and place. So, as I say, my perspective of liberal positions at the time may well be skewed.
despite some fundamental underlying similarities (belief is free markets, belief in US hegemony)
Neither of these things are shared beliefs. Democrats believe in regulated markets. Republicans are isolationist/authoritarians. Republicans no longer believe that the United States has a role in supporting democracy throughout the world – they’re fine with allowing authoritarian governments take the lead in policy in exchange for electoral assistance.
Democrats disagree about the extent to which the US has a military role, but we’re on the side of democracy (except with regard to our historic alliances based on Middle East politics). Republicans no longer are.
check this out.
More and more, I’m thinking that humans are birds without wings.
despite some fundamental underlying similarities (belief is free markets, belief in US hegemony)
Neither of these things are shared beliefs. Democrats believe in regulated markets. Republicans are isolationist/authoritarians. Republicans no longer believe that the United States has a role in supporting democracy throughout the world – they’re fine with allowing authoritarian governments take the lead in policy in exchange for electoral assistance.
Democrats disagree about the extent to which the US has a military role, but we’re on the side of democracy (except with regard to our historic alliances based on Middle East politics). Republicans no longer are.
check this out.
More and more, I’m thinking that humans are birds without wings.
Well back as early as the 1960s, the liberal position was that very opinion was as good, as deserving, as every other. Unfortunately it didn’t stop at “deserving to be heard.” It ran to inventing “your own reality” — with or without the help of psychedelics. It may have been meant metaphorically, but it look like it didn’t get taken that way in a lot of places.
I’m totally with sapient and bobbyp, this is unrecognisable as any part of the zeitgeist that I was involved in or witnessed. wj, you are not normally one to set up absurd straw men supposedly typical of lefty or progressive opinion, as say McKinney sometimes is, but this seems a very strange tack to be taking. What are you thinking of? People were encouraged to follow their bliss, be here now, make love not war etc, and certainly it was considered a bad thing to be too “judgemental” – perhaps this is what you are thinking of? – which I frequently was when arguing against what is now called New Age thinking (but then had no name so we called it “Atlantis Rising” as the most absurd expression of it we could imagine *pauses for extended reverie into the past*).
There were many naive and wrongheaded ideas around in the 60s, and as it turns out many good ones (environmentalism etc), but I am pretty damn sure that the consideration of all points of view as equally valid was not one of them, unless you can provide any convincing contemporary evidence to the contrary.
Well back as early as the 1960s, the liberal position was that very opinion was as good, as deserving, as every other. Unfortunately it didn’t stop at “deserving to be heard.” It ran to inventing “your own reality” — with or without the help of psychedelics. It may have been meant metaphorically, but it look like it didn’t get taken that way in a lot of places.
I’m totally with sapient and bobbyp, this is unrecognisable as any part of the zeitgeist that I was involved in or witnessed. wj, you are not normally one to set up absurd straw men supposedly typical of lefty or progressive opinion, as say McKinney sometimes is, but this seems a very strange tack to be taking. What are you thinking of? People were encouraged to follow their bliss, be here now, make love not war etc, and certainly it was considered a bad thing to be too “judgemental” – perhaps this is what you are thinking of? – which I frequently was when arguing against what is now called New Age thinking (but then had no name so we called it “Atlantis Rising” as the most absurd expression of it we could imagine *pauses for extended reverie into the past*).
There were many naive and wrongheaded ideas around in the 60s, and as it turns out many good ones (environmentalism etc), but I am pretty damn sure that the consideration of all points of view as equally valid was not one of them, unless you can provide any convincing contemporary evidence to the contrary.
Everybody was liberal, and fighting over what was “true” liberalism and whether to care.
My extended reverie meant I missed your Berkeley reminiscense, wj, but surely this contradicts your own point?
But as to what you are basing your argument on, I wonder if you are thinking of the current incarnation of the wilder developments of New Age Atlantis Rising type thinking? Certainly, asserting any kind of equivalence (let alone superiority) of homeopathy, reiki, reflexology or the Gerson method over say chemotherapy is as mad as mad can be, but plenty of us were robustly making that argument then as now.
Everybody was liberal, and fighting over what was “true” liberalism and whether to care.
My extended reverie meant I missed your Berkeley reminiscense, wj, but surely this contradicts your own point?
But as to what you are basing your argument on, I wonder if you are thinking of the current incarnation of the wilder developments of New Age Atlantis Rising type thinking? Certainly, asserting any kind of equivalence (let alone superiority) of homeopathy, reiki, reflexology or the Gerson method over say chemotherapy is as mad as mad can be, but plenty of us were robustly making that argument then as now.
bobbyp: … deeply opposed and ideologically coherent political parties …
Hmmmm. What’s “ideologically coherent” about a party that is:
“Pro-life” and pro-gun?
Pro-gun and anti-“death tax”?
Anti-“death tax” and Christianist?
Christianist and racist?
Racist and “pro-business”?
Pro-business and anti-science?
Not saying that’s one of our two parties. Nope. Not at all.
–TP
bobbyp: … deeply opposed and ideologically coherent political parties …
Hmmmm. What’s “ideologically coherent” about a party that is:
“Pro-life” and pro-gun?
Pro-gun and anti-“death tax”?
Anti-“death tax” and Christianist?
Christianist and racist?
Racist and “pro-business”?
Pro-business and anti-science?
Not saying that’s one of our two parties. Nope. Not at all.
–TP
It did curtail free speech in the form of “pay up or shut up.” For example, any radio station that couldn’t afford the air time and expense to cover all sides of an issue, couldn’t cover any side of the issue.
This, while possibly true, seems a small price to pay for the now starkly apparent benefits of the Fairness Doctrine. I can believe that for people like you this may fall under the law of unintended consequences, but I imagine that many of the people who lobbied for the repeal knew exactly what they were doing, and who would benefit.
It did curtail free speech in the form of “pay up or shut up.” For example, any radio station that couldn’t afford the air time and expense to cover all sides of an issue, couldn’t cover any side of the issue.
This, while possibly true, seems a small price to pay for the now starkly apparent benefits of the Fairness Doctrine. I can believe that for people like you this may fall under the law of unintended consequences, but I imagine that many of the people who lobbied for the repeal knew exactly what they were doing, and who would benefit.
I imagine that many of the people who lobbied for the repeal knew exactly what they were doing, and who would benefit.
I was in law school at the time, and took a class in FCC law, taught by a Reagan apparatchik. You are correct, GftNC, and they weren’t afraid to say so.
I imagine that many of the people who lobbied for the repeal knew exactly what they were doing, and who would benefit.
I was in law school at the time, and took a class in FCC law, taught by a Reagan apparatchik. You are correct, GftNC, and they weren’t afraid to say so.
Hmmmm. What’s “ideologically coherent” about a party that is…
At heart, all those “opinions” share a common foundation in a fundamental adherence to a concept of a more or less stepped social hierarchy, that some are better than others, and they they deserve to be “on top” (sic) and run things. This is not to say they are incapable of tearing each others’ throats out at times (it’s what we do), or that they can be otherwise incoherent.
The elemental reaction is the the common strain that holds them together.
Hmmmm. What’s “ideologically coherent” about a party that is…
At heart, all those “opinions” share a common foundation in a fundamental adherence to a concept of a more or less stepped social hierarchy, that some are better than others, and they they deserve to be “on top” (sic) and run things. This is not to say they are incapable of tearing each others’ throats out at times (it’s what we do), or that they can be otherwise incoherent.
The elemental reaction is the the common strain that holds them together.
There were many naive and wrongheaded ideas around in the 60s
LOL….indeed there were! But when you look over human history, you will be amazed to find that not at all uncommon.
Take today, for instance. 🙂
There were many naive and wrongheaded ideas around in the 60s
LOL….indeed there were! But when you look over human history, you will be amazed to find that not at all uncommon.
Take today, for instance. 🙂
Even in the 1960s, I had principles.
If people didn’t like those, I had others.
So, if my kid dies of complications from measles, and I can trace it back to some deliberately non-vaccinated offspring of a mother with the body of some armed, freedom-loving, libertarian/conservative p devotee and the head of a new-age, tie-dyed social worker, what is my course of action in this politely armed world of anti-government, anti-regulatory conservative judges?
Even in the 1960s, I had principles.
If people didn’t like those, I had others.
So, if my kid dies of complications from measles, and I can trace it back to some deliberately non-vaccinated offspring of a mother with the body of some armed, freedom-loving, libertarian/conservative p devotee and the head of a new-age, tie-dyed social worker, what is my course of action in this politely armed world of anti-government, anti-regulatory conservative judges?
My extended reverie meant I missed your Berkeley reminiscense, wj, but surely this contradicts your own point?
Ah, I was worried there for a minute, GftNC. My memory may be imperfect, but I don’t think I was hallucinating then. (*I* didn’t do psychedelics! 😉
I don’t think it does contradict my point. Just clarifies the environment I was looking at. The point was that the glorification of opinion, any opinion, at the expense of objective reality was what I was seeing. It may not have been universal, but it sure was pervasive where I was.
And that glorification of any and every opinion, with no acceptable way to judge between them or how they correspond to reality, leads pretty directly (philosophically, if perhaps not directly) to the place where people think their opinion on whether/how vaccines work is just as good as anybody else’s. Manifestly, it ain’t.
My extended reverie meant I missed your Berkeley reminiscense, wj, but surely this contradicts your own point?
Ah, I was worried there for a minute, GftNC. My memory may be imperfect, but I don’t think I was hallucinating then. (*I* didn’t do psychedelics! 😉
I don’t think it does contradict my point. Just clarifies the environment I was looking at. The point was that the glorification of opinion, any opinion, at the expense of objective reality was what I was seeing. It may not have been universal, but it sure was pervasive where I was.
And that glorification of any and every opinion, with no acceptable way to judge between them or how they correspond to reality, leads pretty directly (philosophically, if perhaps not directly) to the place where people think their opinion on whether/how vaccines work is just as good as anybody else’s. Manifestly, it ain’t.
At heart, all those “opinions” share a common foundation in a fundamental adherence to a concept of a more or less stepped social hierarchy, that some are better than others, and they they deserve to be “on top” (sic)
On the other hand, some of us have the view that our views should be “on top”, not because we are inherently higher in the appropriate social hierarchy. But just because, when tested against objective reality, ours result in fewer bloody noses from refusing to acknowledge that reality. And people get those bloody noses whether they agree with the “opinion” that it’s how the world actually works.
In short, it is NOT (ala what I tend to see as a common liberal mindset) simply a matter of opinion. As noted, I may be misjudging the pervasiveness of that view on the left. All I can say is that I’ve seen a lot of it.
Note also that I’m not saying that I don’t have my share of opinions rooted in my position in society as well. Just that there are some points for which my social hierarchy (or anyone else’s) is irrelevant.
At heart, all those “opinions” share a common foundation in a fundamental adherence to a concept of a more or less stepped social hierarchy, that some are better than others, and they they deserve to be “on top” (sic)
On the other hand, some of us have the view that our views should be “on top”, not because we are inherently higher in the appropriate social hierarchy. But just because, when tested against objective reality, ours result in fewer bloody noses from refusing to acknowledge that reality. And people get those bloody noses whether they agree with the “opinion” that it’s how the world actually works.
In short, it is NOT (ala what I tend to see as a common liberal mindset) simply a matter of opinion. As noted, I may be misjudging the pervasiveness of that view on the left. All I can say is that I’ve seen a lot of it.
Note also that I’m not saying that I don’t have my share of opinions rooted in my position in society as well. Just that there are some points for which my social hierarchy (or anyone else’s) is irrelevant.
GftNC: I can believe that for people like you this may fall under the law of unintended consequences, …
Speaking of unintended consequences, some examples: 🙂
• “The last thing you’d expect to hear from anyone who’s flown recently is that planes are too quiet. But that’s exactly what Airbus is hearing from pilots who say the A380 super-jumbo makes so little noise they’re having trouble getting to sleep.
Emirates airline pilots say the four engines propelling the long-haul jets are so quiet they can hear every crying baby, snoring passenger and flushing toilet, making it all but impossible to nod off during their breaks.”
Pilots Complain the A380 Is Too Quiet for Sleeping
• “This is a story-filled episode that looks at the unintended consequences of trying to control everything from traffic to rodent populations to dangerous gases.”
The Cobra Effect
• “Empirical results using the CPS suggest that the ADA had a negative effect on the employment of disabled men of all working ages and disabled women under age 40. The effects appear to be larger in medium-size firms, possibly because small firms were exempt from the ADA. The effects are also larger in states where there have been more ADA-related discrimination charges. Estimates of effects on hiring and firing suggest the ADA reduced hiring of the disabled but did not affect separations.”
Consequences of Employment Protection?: The Case of the Americans with Disabilities Act
• “This article measures the effect of the driving restrictions on air quality using high-frequency measures from monitoring stations. Across pollutants and specifications, there is no evidence that the restrictions have improved air quality. Evidence from additional sources indicates that the restrictions led to an increase in the total number of vehicles in circulation as well as a change in composition toward high-emissions vehicles.”
The Effect of Driving Restrictions on Air Quality in Mexico City
• “Sam found that mandatory seat belts did indeed cause more accidents. But this effect was roughly the same as the effect in the opposite direction, that accidents were less harmful. So the net number of fatalities of drivers was unaffected by the law. Sam found some evidence that the effect of the law might be to reduce driver fatalities. Unfortunately, because drivers were more reckless, there were more accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists. So their death rate due to cars increased. Total deaths were unchanged.”
What Peltzman Found
GftNC: I can believe that for people like you this may fall under the law of unintended consequences, …
Speaking of unintended consequences, some examples: 🙂
• “The last thing you’d expect to hear from anyone who’s flown recently is that planes are too quiet. But that’s exactly what Airbus is hearing from pilots who say the A380 super-jumbo makes so little noise they’re having trouble getting to sleep.
Emirates airline pilots say the four engines propelling the long-haul jets are so quiet they can hear every crying baby, snoring passenger and flushing toilet, making it all but impossible to nod off during their breaks.”
Pilots Complain the A380 Is Too Quiet for Sleeping
• “This is a story-filled episode that looks at the unintended consequences of trying to control everything from traffic to rodent populations to dangerous gases.”
The Cobra Effect
• “Empirical results using the CPS suggest that the ADA had a negative effect on the employment of disabled men of all working ages and disabled women under age 40. The effects appear to be larger in medium-size firms, possibly because small firms were exempt from the ADA. The effects are also larger in states where there have been more ADA-related discrimination charges. Estimates of effects on hiring and firing suggest the ADA reduced hiring of the disabled but did not affect separations.”
Consequences of Employment Protection?: The Case of the Americans with Disabilities Act
• “This article measures the effect of the driving restrictions on air quality using high-frequency measures from monitoring stations. Across pollutants and specifications, there is no evidence that the restrictions have improved air quality. Evidence from additional sources indicates that the restrictions led to an increase in the total number of vehicles in circulation as well as a change in composition toward high-emissions vehicles.”
The Effect of Driving Restrictions on Air Quality in Mexico City
• “Sam found that mandatory seat belts did indeed cause more accidents. But this effect was roughly the same as the effect in the opposite direction, that accidents were less harmful. So the net number of fatalities of drivers was unaffected by the law. Sam found some evidence that the effect of the law might be to reduce driver fatalities. Unfortunately, because drivers were more reckless, there were more accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists. So their death rate due to cars increased. Total deaths were unchanged.”
What Peltzman Found
All I can say is that I’ve seen a lot of it.
Really? Perhaps you could actually cite an actual piece of evidence, to back up your claim.
We all have opinions, ya’ know. What makes you think that yours are especially tethered to “reality” as opposed to “liberals”? WTF? One would think that somebody making this claim could actually come up with some evidence.
With all due respect, fellow elder person.
All I can say is that I’ve seen a lot of it.
Really? Perhaps you could actually cite an actual piece of evidence, to back up your claim.
We all have opinions, ya’ know. What makes you think that yours are especially tethered to “reality” as opposed to “liberals”? WTF? One would think that somebody making this claim could actually come up with some evidence.
With all due respect, fellow elder person.
I gotta say I’m as baffled by what wj is saying as everyone else, and some examples would be nice. Otherwise it sounds like so much bash the liberals BS, which as GftNC says is not characteristic of wj.
I too am old enough to remember… And I certainly remember, just for example, that part of my transition away from home in the late sixties was deciding that my own opinions about a lot of things were at least as valid as those of, say, the Fathers of the Church.
But that differs from what I take wj to be saying in at least two ways.
One: I’m talking about values, not facts.
Two: I didn’t that decide all opinions were of equal value. I decided that mine were better.
For example, sex. I was taught as “fact” that we humans would burn in hell in unimaginable agony for all eternity for kissing each other in ways that the Fathers of the Church disapproved of.
I didn’t decide that the opinions of the Fathers of the Church, and my opinions, were equally valid. I decided that theirs were vicious poppycock and mine were perfectly sensible.
I never knew anyone who asserted that “which way is north from here” was a matter of opinion, or anything equivalently idiotic.
Sheesh.
I gotta say I’m as baffled by what wj is saying as everyone else, and some examples would be nice. Otherwise it sounds like so much bash the liberals BS, which as GftNC says is not characteristic of wj.
I too am old enough to remember… And I certainly remember, just for example, that part of my transition away from home in the late sixties was deciding that my own opinions about a lot of things were at least as valid as those of, say, the Fathers of the Church.
But that differs from what I take wj to be saying in at least two ways.
One: I’m talking about values, not facts.
Two: I didn’t that decide all opinions were of equal value. I decided that mine were better.
For example, sex. I was taught as “fact” that we humans would burn in hell in unimaginable agony for all eternity for kissing each other in ways that the Fathers of the Church disapproved of.
I didn’t decide that the opinions of the Fathers of the Church, and my opinions, were equally valid. I decided that theirs were vicious poppycock and mine were perfectly sensible.
I never knew anyone who asserted that “which way is north from here” was a matter of opinion, or anything equivalently idiotic.
Sheesh.
I certainly remember, just for example, that part of my transition away from home in the late sixties was deciding that my own opinions about a lot of things were at least as valid as those of, say, the Fathers of the Church.
But that differs from what I take wj to be saying in at least two ways.
One: I’m talking about values, not facts.
Two: I didn’t that decide all opinions were of equal value. I decided that mine were better.
Actually, it is what I was saying. Making decisions limited to values of opinions/theologies/values was more common than doing the same extended to facts. But the “Overturn Authority” (to quite a common picket sign) attitude beld over for some. Not, it seemed to me, just a few — although that might be my mindset as an engineer swelling their numbers.
I’m trying, unsuccessfully I guess, to make the point that when you move from rejecting an authority to rejecting Authority, you have started down the road to “my opinions of objective reality are just as good as anyone else’s. And I don’t have to do anything to va.idate them either.” Which is where the anti-vaxxers (and, in my opinion, the more extreme libertarians, etc.) are at.
My apologies for not making myself clearer earlier.
I certainly remember, just for example, that part of my transition away from home in the late sixties was deciding that my own opinions about a lot of things were at least as valid as those of, say, the Fathers of the Church.
But that differs from what I take wj to be saying in at least two ways.
One: I’m talking about values, not facts.
Two: I didn’t that decide all opinions were of equal value. I decided that mine were better.
Actually, it is what I was saying. Making decisions limited to values of opinions/theologies/values was more common than doing the same extended to facts. But the “Overturn Authority” (to quite a common picket sign) attitude beld over for some. Not, it seemed to me, just a few — although that might be my mindset as an engineer swelling their numbers.
I’m trying, unsuccessfully I guess, to make the point that when you move from rejecting an authority to rejecting Authority, you have started down the road to “my opinions of objective reality are just as good as anyone else’s. And I don’t have to do anything to va.idate them either.” Which is where the anti-vaxxers (and, in my opinion, the more extreme libertarians, etc.) are at.
My apologies for not making myself clearer earlier.
P.S. Does that “Overturn Authority” sign count as requested example? 😉
P.S. Does that “Overturn Authority” sign count as requested example? 😉
I’m beginning to think you lived through the 60s but didn’t understand them, wj. “Overturn Authority” was a counter to “treat your elders with respect just because they’re older”, or “because I say so”, whereas we were saying “Respect is only due to people who deserve respect”. In other words, “Overturn undeserved, unearned Authority with a capital A”. Or to put it another way, “the Authorities”.
I’m beginning to think you lived through the 60s but didn’t understand them, wj. “Overturn Authority” was a counter to “treat your elders with respect just because they’re older”, or “because I say so”, whereas we were saying “Respect is only due to people who deserve respect”. In other words, “Overturn undeserved, unearned Authority with a capital A”. Or to put it another way, “the Authorities”.
i suspect Roger Ailes wasn’t rejecting authority when he came up with Fox News. rather, he was trying to make money by becoming a new authority, shared objectively reality be damned.
plus, shared objectively reality has never really been a thing. and people have been rejecting inconvenient or unjust authority since the beginning of time – usually in order to make themselves the new authority.
i suspect Roger Ailes wasn’t rejecting authority when he came up with Fox News. rather, he was trying to make money by becoming a new authority, shared objectively reality be damned.
plus, shared objectively reality has never really been a thing. and people have been rejecting inconvenient or unjust authority since the beginning of time – usually in order to make themselves the new authority.
meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I, too, am long enough in tooth to remember the 60’s. The phrase “Well, if it’s true for you…” was not uncommon.
So I think I sort of see wj’s point.
That said, I’m not sure any of that has anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine, or the demise thereof.
How do we fix that?
we elect new people.
I doubt that is a sufficient remedy.
The fundamental assumption underlying the structure of our national government is that people – individuals, not “the people” but individual humans – are a sketchy proposition. Fallible, prone to putting their own interests above those of the nation as a whole, or even above those of the people they represent.
It was a very astute insight.
We can’t rely on electing perfect people, or even extraordinarily good people. We have to assume that many of the people we choose to represent us will be, in many respects, ordinary. Fallible, prone to putting their own interests above those of the nation, or even above ours.
As long as the kinds and amounts of private money – cash, favors, promises of future employment, lucrative seats on boards, etc etc – that currently flow into and through national government continue to do so, we will continue to see the kinds of corruption – legal and otherwise – that is now a commonplace.
I don’t really care about what things were like in the 18th or 19th or 20th C. We live now, and now national government is kind of FUBAR. In spite of all the good people we elect, who are actually many.
You can put the names of all of the folks holding national office on a wall, throw a dart, and your odds are at least 50/50 that any name the dart lands on can be associated with some kind of shifty business. And I’m being generous.
Not necessarily illegal, not even all that horrible. Just… questionable, ethically.
That’s not good.
There are things – large, important, consequential things – that government needs to do. Other parties simply don’t have the juice to get it done, or are simply not willing and/or are not interested in doing them.
In order for government to do those things, it needs the confidence of the governed. Otherwise government’s actions will – correctly – be hobbled. And I say ‘correctly’ because government should not be running around doing big things that nobody wants it to do, or trusts it to do.
It matters. Basic transparency and confidence in government matters.
I, too, am long enough in tooth to remember the 60’s. The phrase “Well, if it’s true for you…” was not uncommon.
So I think I sort of see wj’s point.
That said, I’m not sure any of that has anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine, or the demise thereof.
How do we fix that?
we elect new people.
I doubt that is a sufficient remedy.
The fundamental assumption underlying the structure of our national government is that people – individuals, not “the people” but individual humans – are a sketchy proposition. Fallible, prone to putting their own interests above those of the nation as a whole, or even above those of the people they represent.
It was a very astute insight.
We can’t rely on electing perfect people, or even extraordinarily good people. We have to assume that many of the people we choose to represent us will be, in many respects, ordinary. Fallible, prone to putting their own interests above those of the nation, or even above ours.
As long as the kinds and amounts of private money – cash, favors, promises of future employment, lucrative seats on boards, etc etc – that currently flow into and through national government continue to do so, we will continue to see the kinds of corruption – legal and otherwise – that is now a commonplace.
I don’t really care about what things were like in the 18th or 19th or 20th C. We live now, and now national government is kind of FUBAR. In spite of all the good people we elect, who are actually many.
You can put the names of all of the folks holding national office on a wall, throw a dart, and your odds are at least 50/50 that any name the dart lands on can be associated with some kind of shifty business. And I’m being generous.
Not necessarily illegal, not even all that horrible. Just… questionable, ethically.
That’s not good.
There are things – large, important, consequential things – that government needs to do. Other parties simply don’t have the juice to get it done, or are simply not willing and/or are not interested in doing them.
In order for government to do those things, it needs the confidence of the governed. Otherwise government’s actions will – correctly – be hobbled. And I say ‘correctly’ because government should not be running around doing big things that nobody wants it to do, or trusts it to do.
It matters. Basic transparency and confidence in government matters.
I am liking this suggestion for Democratic reform of the SC:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/10/07/dont-pack-the-supreme-court-fix-it-for-good/
that would require a constitutional amendment, but there are other positive changes that could be implemented immediately. The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of justices at nine. New legislation could increase that number to thirteen or fifteen. That would make each individual justice would be less influential. In addition, the Senate could raise the threshold for confirmation to 75 percent of Senate votes to ensure that every justice would need bipartisan support to get confirmed. If those two reforms were enacted together, it wouldn’t be partisan court packing; it would be a permanent safeguard against ideological extremism. At the same time, it would encourage bipartisan compromise. There might need to be an enforcement mechanism to ensure that seats were not left vacant for too long, but most Americans would likely be thrilled to see Senators working together instead…
I am liking this suggestion for Democratic reform of the SC:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/10/07/dont-pack-the-supreme-court-fix-it-for-good/
that would require a constitutional amendment, but there are other positive changes that could be implemented immediately. The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of justices at nine. New legislation could increase that number to thirteen or fifteen. That would make each individual justice would be less influential. In addition, the Senate could raise the threshold for confirmation to 75 percent of Senate votes to ensure that every justice would need bipartisan support to get confirmed. If those two reforms were enacted together, it wouldn’t be partisan court packing; it would be a permanent safeguard against ideological extremism. At the same time, it would encourage bipartisan compromise. There might need to be an enforcement mechanism to ensure that seats were not left vacant for too long, but most Americans would likely be thrilled to see Senators working together instead…
Basic transparency and confidence in government matters.
certainly.
that people don’t trust it (or fully grasp their role in making it work) is a failing of education and a product of those who profit by that ignorance. the first we can improve. maybe that will help with the second.
Basic transparency and confidence in government matters.
certainly.
that people don’t trust it (or fully grasp their role in making it work) is a failing of education and a product of those who profit by that ignorance. the first we can improve. maybe that will help with the second.
I never knew anyone who asserted that “which way is north from here” was a matter of opinion
I do. But only people who have spent time at South Pole Station.
I never knew anyone who asserted that “which way is north from here” was a matter of opinion
I do. But only people who have spent time at South Pole Station.
In order for government to do those things, it needs the confidence of the governed.
….
It matters. Basic transparency and confidence in government matters.
Strongly agreed, as is the rest of russell’s 08.17 a.m. At issue is how you get the confidence of the governed, when the governed are split into factions (fissiparously or more or less into two) none of whom understand the world or anything in it, including government, even semi-congruously. I do not have a prescription for how to do it, but this is the problem. Do you do it by education? You need the government to take a hand in education by, for example, mandating the teaching of empirical observation, but faith in government is lost. Do you do it by media? You need a Fairness Doctrine, but there is no longer a Fairness Doctrine. How do you do it when the means seem to be unavailable, by bad luck or by design?
In order for government to do those things, it needs the confidence of the governed.
….
It matters. Basic transparency and confidence in government matters.
Strongly agreed, as is the rest of russell’s 08.17 a.m. At issue is how you get the confidence of the governed, when the governed are split into factions (fissiparously or more or less into two) none of whom understand the world or anything in it, including government, even semi-congruously. I do not have a prescription for how to do it, but this is the problem. Do you do it by education? You need the government to take a hand in education by, for example, mandating the teaching of empirical observation, but faith in government is lost. Do you do it by media? You need a Fairness Doctrine, but there is no longer a Fairness Doctrine. How do you do it when the means seem to be unavailable, by bad luck or by design?
Nigel, that WM proposal would imo not work given the polarisation of the parties. If a 3/4 majority is needed tio fill a seat, it will not be filled. And if there is a way around that to prevent seats from not getting filled, the more ruthless party will concentrate on that.
I’d rather have anonymous and mandatory votes on judicial nominations, so the standard maneuvres of the moss cow midge would fail (no procrastination and no retaliatory party discipline).
I have several ideas for a constitutional amendment concerning the nominations for courts including making their term dependent on the majority they get. If it’s only a simple majority, it will not be for life (but with the option to ‘up-vote’ them later to permanent status with super-majority). If the fail a minimum vote, they cannot be renominated by the same president.
Nothing like that is going to happen, naturally.
Nigel, that WM proposal would imo not work given the polarisation of the parties. If a 3/4 majority is needed tio fill a seat, it will not be filled. And if there is a way around that to prevent seats from not getting filled, the more ruthless party will concentrate on that.
I’d rather have anonymous and mandatory votes on judicial nominations, so the standard maneuvres of the moss cow midge would fail (no procrastination and no retaliatory party discipline).
I have several ideas for a constitutional amendment concerning the nominations for courts including making their term dependent on the majority they get. If it’s only a simple majority, it will not be for life (but with the option to ‘up-vote’ them later to permanent status with super-majority). If the fail a minimum vote, they cannot be renominated by the same president.
Nothing like that is going to happen, naturally.
My favored solution: fifteen judges, fifteen year term staggered so that we replace one a year. Judges work on three judge panels for cases, subject to review and approval by the court as a whole.
My favored solution: fifteen judges, fifteen year term staggered so that we replace one a year. Judges work on three judge panels for cases, subject to review and approval by the court as a whole.
As always, thanks for kind words about maps. Just for eye candy, here’s the same data presented as a prism map.
http://mcain6925.com/obsidian/counties_2016.02.png
Same color code. The volume of each prism reflects total votes, the height reflects density (votes per square mile). The heights of a few counties are truncated for presentation purposes. Prism maps have a different set of advantages/shortcomings compared to cartograms.
As always, thanks for kind words about maps. Just for eye candy, here’s the same data presented as a prism map.
http://mcain6925.com/obsidian/counties_2016.02.png
Same color code. The volume of each prism reflects total votes, the height reflects density (votes per square mile). The heights of a few counties are truncated for presentation purposes. Prism maps have a different set of advantages/shortcomings compared to cartograms.
My favored solution: fifteen judges, fifteen year term staggered so that we replace one a year. Judges work on three judge panels for cases, subject to review and approval by the court as a whole.
that’s pretty much my favorite, too.
increase the size of SCOTUS to 15 or something. then have each case be decided by a panel of three justices chosen at random from the pool. make it more like the lower courts.
the current system is too easy to game.
My favored solution: fifteen judges, fifteen year term staggered so that we replace one a year. Judges work on three judge panels for cases, subject to review and approval by the court as a whole.
that’s pretty much my favorite, too.
increase the size of SCOTUS to 15 or something. then have each case be decided by a panel of three justices chosen at random from the pool. make it more like the lower courts.
the current system is too easy to game.
Three would be too few, particularly in important cases with major consequences.
The UK, for instance, has twelve SC judges. Most often, only five will sit on a case, but for those of major constitutionalists significance (as recently*), eleven out of the twelve may sit in judgment.
*11/0 against the government…
Three would be too few, particularly in important cases with major consequences.
The UK, for instance, has twelve SC judges. Most often, only five will sit on a case, but for those of major constitutionalists significance (as recently*), eleven out of the twelve may sit in judgment.
*11/0 against the government…
I would also approve of such a rotation system with a few refinements added for special cases (in particular justices getting off the court out of (numerical) order for whatever reasons, e.g death, early retirement, impeachment). E.g this could be done with a pool of pre-arranged deputies that would fill in temporarily or as full replacement.
I would also approve of such a rotation system with a few refinements added for special cases (in particular justices getting off the court out of (numerical) order for whatever reasons, e.g death, early retirement, impeachment). E.g this could be done with a pool of pre-arranged deputies that would fill in temporarily or as full replacement.
I’m beginning to think you lived through the 60s but didn’t understand them, wj.
Entirely possible. At the time, I wasn’t trying to understand them, per se. I was just getting on with my life and my education.
And I actually do realize that picket signs necessarily over-simplify things. Still, done well at least, they are suppose to capture the essence. And if I see the same message repeated over time, I think that it probably does accurately capture the essence of their message –else they would change wording.
“In other words, “Overturn undeserved, unearned Authority with a capital A”.
You might be right that this was the intended message. What I’m suggesting is that, in that case, the message received may have been different from the message sent. Even with the biggest demonstrations (at least until Hong Kong currently) there are always far more people watching than demonstrating. And mostly what they pick up is signs and chants.
I’m beginning to think you lived through the 60s but didn’t understand them, wj.
Entirely possible. At the time, I wasn’t trying to understand them, per se. I was just getting on with my life and my education.
And I actually do realize that picket signs necessarily over-simplify things. Still, done well at least, they are suppose to capture the essence. And if I see the same message repeated over time, I think that it probably does accurately capture the essence of their message –else they would change wording.
“In other words, “Overturn undeserved, unearned Authority with a capital A”.
You might be right that this was the intended message. What I’m suggesting is that, in that case, the message received may have been different from the message sent. Even with the biggest demonstrations (at least until Hong Kong currently) there are always far more people watching than demonstrating. And mostly what they pick up is signs and chants.
Michael — fun to see both kinds of maps. In the prism map, not surprisingly I guess, there are far more tall blue counties than tall red. It would be interesting to do a study of the flat blue counties sitting inside lakes of red. Who are those people…? Why hasn’t the press been doing interviews in *those* diners for the past three years? 😉
*****
As to the OP and russell’s equally thoughtful and thought-provoking 8:17 — I’m with cleek about education being important (but hard to do anything about), and with Hartmut about the unworkability of the proposal in Nigel’s linked article. My pessimism comes out of the near-despair of this moment: any system we design will ultimately be broken. Even so, we have no choice but to try to not only fix the flaws in the current system, but dream up a better one, which will work for a while….
As to education — twenty years ago my son had a high school social studies teacher who tried his damndest to get the kids to learn how to think for themselves, to evaluate propaganda, and to see their (our) culture from the outside.
I have thought for a long time that the curriculum for kids should include conflict resolution/management studies, how to deal with bullies, etc. We could probably add self-government and collective decision-making, on top of ordinary civics, so that kids start to learn about “government” in a hands-on way.
That will be the day.
Michael — fun to see both kinds of maps. In the prism map, not surprisingly I guess, there are far more tall blue counties than tall red. It would be interesting to do a study of the flat blue counties sitting inside lakes of red. Who are those people…? Why hasn’t the press been doing interviews in *those* diners for the past three years? 😉
*****
As to the OP and russell’s equally thoughtful and thought-provoking 8:17 — I’m with cleek about education being important (but hard to do anything about), and with Hartmut about the unworkability of the proposal in Nigel’s linked article. My pessimism comes out of the near-despair of this moment: any system we design will ultimately be broken. Even so, we have no choice but to try to not only fix the flaws in the current system, but dream up a better one, which will work for a while….
As to education — twenty years ago my son had a high school social studies teacher who tried his damndest to get the kids to learn how to think for themselves, to evaluate propaganda, and to see their (our) culture from the outside.
I have thought for a long time that the curriculum for kids should include conflict resolution/management studies, how to deal with bullies, etc. We could probably add self-government and collective decision-making, on top of ordinary civics, so that kids start to learn about “government” in a hands-on way.
That will be the day.
I never knew anyone who asserted that “which way is north from here” was a matter of opinion.
I have. Especially when they were supposedly trying to use a map.
I never knew anyone who asserted that “which way is north from here” was a matter of opinion.
I have. Especially when they were supposedly trying to use a map.
Who are those people…?
College towns.
And the anomalous Floyd, VA. 🙂
Who are those people…?
College towns.
And the anomalous Floyd, VA. 🙂
Invoke the 25th now !
As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)…
Invoke the 25th now !
As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)…
My pessimism comes out of the near-despair of this moment: any system we design will ultimately be broken. Even so, we have no choice but to try to not only fix the flaws in the current system, but dream up a better one, which will work for a while….
Agreed.
Though the ideas in the article I posted wouldn’t be a terrible way for a newly Democratic Senate to start.
I quite like curriculum, but a course on practical skepticism would be a useful addition.
My pessimism comes out of the near-despair of this moment: any system we design will ultimately be broken. Even so, we have no choice but to try to not only fix the flaws in the current system, but dream up a better one, which will work for a while….
Agreed.
Though the ideas in the article I posted wouldn’t be a terrible way for a newly Democratic Senate to start.
I quite like curriculum, but a course on practical skepticism would be a useful addition.
(Your) curriculum…
(Your) curriculum…
My favored solution: fifteen judges, fifteen year term staggered so that we replace one a year. Judges work on three judge panels for cases, subject to review and approval by the court as a whole.
The trouble I see with smaller panels is that it leaves a tendency to game this system, too. Go back early and often. You can always hope for a different panel of judges and a different decision. Even a unanimous 3 judge decision just doesn’t have the clout of even a 7-2 decision of the full Court.
One of the things we need out of a Supreme Court is definitive decisions, which get applied nationwide. Going back to revisit a decision in a decade or five is one thing; going back every term or two is another.
My favored solution: fifteen judges, fifteen year term staggered so that we replace one a year. Judges work on three judge panels for cases, subject to review and approval by the court as a whole.
The trouble I see with smaller panels is that it leaves a tendency to game this system, too. Go back early and often. You can always hope for a different panel of judges and a different decision. Even a unanimous 3 judge decision just doesn’t have the clout of even a 7-2 decision of the full Court.
One of the things we need out of a Supreme Court is definitive decisions, which get applied nationwide. Going back to revisit a decision in a decade or five is one thing; going back every term or two is another.
Invoke the 25th now !
Who on earth do you think is going to invoke the 25th? The guy’s cabinet officers are all his loyal flunkies, or they wouldn’t be there. Not to mention how many of them are implicated in his crimes. See Rick Perry, soon to be former Secretary of Energy, and as soon as he announced that, also found to be implicated in the Ukraine mess. See William Barr, who is actively collaborating with Clickbait to thwart the House investigation.
Read the language below and show me any remotely feasible pathway to making use of it.
Section 4 of the 25th amendment:
Invoke the 25th now !
Who on earth do you think is going to invoke the 25th? The guy’s cabinet officers are all his loyal flunkies, or they wouldn’t be there. Not to mention how many of them are implicated in his crimes. See Rick Perry, soon to be former Secretary of Energy, and as soon as he announced that, also found to be implicated in the Ukraine mess. See William Barr, who is actively collaborating with Clickbait to thwart the House investigation.
Read the language below and show me any remotely feasible pathway to making use of it.
Section 4 of the 25th amendment:
allow the full Court to decide whether it will take up a case or not, then let a smaller panel decide it.
?
allow the full Court to decide whether it will take up a case or not, then let a smaller panel decide it.
?
Sorry, the vehemence of my 12:28 was inspired by the situation, not by Nigel, whose comment I was responding to.
Sorry, the vehemence of my 12:28 was inspired by the situation, not by Nigel, whose comment I was responding to.
I quite like your curriculum, but a course on practical skepticism would be a useful addition.
Seconded.
OT: Hartmut, if you’re still around, I wonder if you could answer a question for me? The great love of my life, in my super-impressionable youth, used to tell the story of the statesman or general whose slave was tasked to wake him every morning with the words “Remember to hate the Greeks”.
We all know about the slave who was tasked with whispering Remember you are mortal in the ears of victors parading through Rome, and Cato and Carthago delenda est, and I had occasion very recently to quote Timeo danaos et dona ferentes, but when I searched for any version of Remember to hate the Greeks I couldn’t find it. Do you have a source or explanation for this story?!
I quite like your curriculum, but a course on practical skepticism would be a useful addition.
Seconded.
OT: Hartmut, if you’re still around, I wonder if you could answer a question for me? The great love of my life, in my super-impressionable youth, used to tell the story of the statesman or general whose slave was tasked to wake him every morning with the words “Remember to hate the Greeks”.
We all know about the slave who was tasked with whispering Remember you are mortal in the ears of victors parading through Rome, and Cato and Carthago delenda est, and I had occasion very recently to quote Timeo danaos et dona ferentes, but when I searched for any version of Remember to hate the Greeks I couldn’t find it. Do you have a source or explanation for this story?!
Clickbait just tweeted this (hat tip Betty Cracker at BJ, but I went to Twitter to make sure):
If that doesn’t inspire someone to try the 25th, nothing ever will.
Clickbait just tweeted this (hat tip Betty Cracker at BJ, but I went to Twitter to make sure):
If that doesn’t inspire someone to try the 25th, nothing ever will.
It’s nice to know that the decline and fall of Western Civilization can now confidently be attributed to some hippie selling candles (and a bit of meth on the side) in 1968 when he uttered the infamous words, “Do your thang.” Naturally “liberals” are brought into this, because as we all know, “liberals” do not believe in the TRUTH of ANYTHING, unlike conservatives who trot out Authority (capital A!!!!!), and thus have the epistemological upper hand.
Thus we are beset by 9/11 Truthers, anti-vaxers, chem trail adherents, fake moon landings, The Intercept, moonies, flat earthers, Alex Jones, and a host of others.
And don’t overlook the doukhobors.
Despite all the hullabaloo and the 1968 Democratic Convention, hippies and New Age-ers were a distinct minority at the time, and their influence over the succeeding decades is just about nil.
But I’ll point you to a couple of “truisms” that have done a whole lot of ‘effin’ damage:
Greed is Good.
I’m from the government, and I’m here to help (ha,ha,ha).
There is no society.
They were, after all, invoked with Authority. If you want to ascribe our current pathetic state to some words…well, those are them.
But whatever. I can’t find my ass with both hands.
It’s nice to know that the decline and fall of Western Civilization can now confidently be attributed to some hippie selling candles (and a bit of meth on the side) in 1968 when he uttered the infamous words, “Do your thang.” Naturally “liberals” are brought into this, because as we all know, “liberals” do not believe in the TRUTH of ANYTHING, unlike conservatives who trot out Authority (capital A!!!!!), and thus have the epistemological upper hand.
Thus we are beset by 9/11 Truthers, anti-vaxers, chem trail adherents, fake moon landings, The Intercept, moonies, flat earthers, Alex Jones, and a host of others.
And don’t overlook the doukhobors.
Despite all the hullabaloo and the 1968 Democratic Convention, hippies and New Age-ers were a distinct minority at the time, and their influence over the succeeding decades is just about nil.
But I’ll point you to a couple of “truisms” that have done a whole lot of ‘effin’ damage:
Greed is Good.
I’m from the government, and I’m here to help (ha,ha,ha).
There is no society.
They were, after all, invoked with Authority. If you want to ascribe our current pathetic state to some words…well, those are them.
But whatever. I can’t find my ass with both hands.
Janie, the grammar is too good (and the vocabulary too large). I bet it’s one the staff created — albeit at his (vague) direction.
Janie, the grammar is too good (and the vocabulary too large). I bet it’s one the staff created — albeit at his (vague) direction.
The trouble I see with smaller panels is that it leaves a tendency to game this system, too. Go back early and often. You can always hope for a different panel of judges and a different decision. Even a unanimous 3 judge decision just doesn’t have the clout of even a 7-2 decision of the full Court.
Three judge panel has to present its judgment to the full 15 for approval like a peer review process, and the judgment is not made final until it passes peer review.
Three judges of appropriate legal expertise. Prosecution and defense each pick one (or a small set number of acceptable judges from which to select one) and the court itself picks the third member to oversee the trial proceedings.
That’s my best consociational, game theory take on the subject.
The trouble I see with smaller panels is that it leaves a tendency to game this system, too. Go back early and often. You can always hope for a different panel of judges and a different decision. Even a unanimous 3 judge decision just doesn’t have the clout of even a 7-2 decision of the full Court.
Three judge panel has to present its judgment to the full 15 for approval like a peer review process, and the judgment is not made final until it passes peer review.
Three judges of appropriate legal expertise. Prosecution and defense each pick one (or a small set number of acceptable judges from which to select one) and the court itself picks the third member to oversee the trial proceedings.
That’s my best consociational, game theory take on the subject.
It’s nice to know that the decline and fall of Western Civilization can now confidently be attributed to some hippie selling candles (and a bit of meth on the side) in 1968 when he uttered the infamous words, “Do your thang.” Naturally “liberals” are brought into this, because as we all know, “liberals” do not believe in the TRUTH of ANYTHING, unlike conservatives who trot out Authority (capital A!!!!!), and thus have the epistemological upper hand.
Yeah, I’ve been on a college campus for enough years to know that the version of mass culture that rules on a campus is a particularly weird and polarized subset of the larger mass culture. I mean the right was positively frothing over what a handful of college students at Evergreen College were doing as if that were representative of All Libruls Everywhere!!!
It’s nice to know that the decline and fall of Western Civilization can now confidently be attributed to some hippie selling candles (and a bit of meth on the side) in 1968 when he uttered the infamous words, “Do your thang.” Naturally “liberals” are brought into this, because as we all know, “liberals” do not believe in the TRUTH of ANYTHING, unlike conservatives who trot out Authority (capital A!!!!!), and thus have the epistemological upper hand.
Yeah, I’ve been on a college campus for enough years to know that the version of mass culture that rules on a campus is a particularly weird and polarized subset of the larger mass culture. I mean the right was positively frothing over what a handful of college students at Evergreen College were doing as if that were representative of All Libruls Everywhere!!!
Janie, the grammar is too good (and the vocabulary too large). I bet it’s one the staff created — albeit at his (vague) direction.
I’d buy that he’s got a stenographer typing for him instead of his own fat fingers, but come on, a staffer wrote “my great and unmatched wisdom”? What are they doing, a Wizard of Oz remake?
Give it up, wj. The standard-bearer of your party is a sadistic lunatic who is making this country the laughingstock of the world, and the people who run your party don’t give a sh!t as long as they get their policies enacted.
Janie, the grammar is too good (and the vocabulary too large). I bet it’s one the staff created — albeit at his (vague) direction.
I’d buy that he’s got a stenographer typing for him instead of his own fat fingers, but come on, a staffer wrote “my great and unmatched wisdom”? What are they doing, a Wizard of Oz remake?
Give it up, wj. The standard-bearer of your party is a sadistic lunatic who is making this country the laughingstock of the world, and the people who run your party don’t give a sh!t as long as they get their policies enacted.
Janie, I see that tweet is in the context of Trump talking to Erdogan and then announcing that US troops are being pulled out of northern Syria ahead of an invasion Turkey is preparing.
And so the Kurds learn the same lesson as everyone else who has dealt with Trump. His word, and the promise of any organization (or nation) he heads, is worthless. Our other allies will doubtless note: Suspicions confirmed.
Janie, I see that tweet is in the context of Trump talking to Erdogan and then announcing that US troops are being pulled out of northern Syria ahead of an invasion Turkey is preparing.
And so the Kurds learn the same lesson as everyone else who has dealt with Trump. His word, and the promise of any organization (or nation) he heads, is worthless. Our other allies will doubtless note: Suspicions confirmed.
Supreme Court: Both parties each maintain an ongoing mutually accepted list of 10 (just to pick a number) candidates. When a vacancy comes up, throw all 20 names into a bag and pick one.
On the other hand, there is no taking the politics out of politics. So win a lot of elections, and crush the other side.
I have it on good AUTHORITY that it’s always been done that way, and most likely will continue to be the case.
Who am I to argue with tradition?
Supreme Court: Both parties each maintain an ongoing mutually accepted list of 10 (just to pick a number) candidates. When a vacancy comes up, throw all 20 names into a bag and pick one.
On the other hand, there is no taking the politics out of politics. So win a lot of elections, and crush the other side.
I have it on good AUTHORITY that it’s always been done that way, and most likely will continue to be the case.
Who am I to argue with tradition?
How do we fix that?
Burn incense. I have some leftover holders from the 60’s that I’ll let go cheap.
How do we fix that?
Burn incense. I have some leftover holders from the 60’s that I’ll let go cheap.
If that doesn’t inspire someone to try the 25th, nothing ever will
Which incredible tweet was of course exactly what Nigel was referring to, way upthread. By the way, my plea to the classically educated Hartmut should not deter any other classicists, lurking or otherwise, from giving any answers of which they might be aware!
If that doesn’t inspire someone to try the 25th, nothing ever will
Which incredible tweet was of course exactly what Nigel was referring to, way upthread. By the way, my plea to the classically educated Hartmut should not deter any other classicists, lurking or otherwise, from giving any answers of which they might be aware!
Which incredible tweet was of course exactly what Nigel was referring to, way upthread.
True enough, credit where it is due. But I don’t see the 25th as a remotely possible remedy. I would sooner think the senate would actually vote to convict than I would think anything could come of the 25th. It just wasn’t made for this situation. Not that anything was, for who could have foreseen it?
Which incredible tweet was of course exactly what Nigel was referring to, way upthread.
True enough, credit where it is due. But I don’t see the 25th as a remotely possible remedy. I would sooner think the senate would actually vote to convict than I would think anything could come of the 25th. It just wasn’t made for this situation. Not that anything was, for who could have foreseen it?
Gandalf:
(Although unfortunately, we are now at the point where what weather they have may be ours to ruin.)
Gandalf:
(Although unfortunately, we are now at the point where what weather they have may be ours to ruin.)
Although unfortunately, we are now at the point where what weather they have may be ours to ruin.
Very true, as is your comment immediately above it!
Although unfortunately, we are now at the point where what weather they have may be ours to ruin.
Very true, as is your comment immediately above it!
Who are those people…?
In the western states, in addition to the college towns russell mentioned, there are Indian reservations and mountain resort communities. The resort communities are full of young highly-educated people. An old joke here in Colorado is that at most restaurants in Vail or Aspen, chances are good your waiter or waitress has a better degree than you do.
West of the 100th meridian, those flat counties are really empty. A single resort town can make the whole county blue. Here’s a blow-up of an area farther east. If you look at all the “empty” rural counties, there are actually significant populations there, so the counties look more like cobblestones of various heights, not flat like linoleum.
http://mcain6925.com/obsidian/counties_2016.03.png
Who are those people…?
In the western states, in addition to the college towns russell mentioned, there are Indian reservations and mountain resort communities. The resort communities are full of young highly-educated people. An old joke here in Colorado is that at most restaurants in Vail or Aspen, chances are good your waiter or waitress has a better degree than you do.
West of the 100th meridian, those flat counties are really empty. A single resort town can make the whole county blue. Here’s a blow-up of an area farther east. If you look at all the “empty” rural counties, there are actually significant populations there, so the counties look more like cobblestones of various heights, not flat like linoleum.
http://mcain6925.com/obsidian/counties_2016.03.png
The standard-bearer of your party is a sadistic lunatic who is making this country the laughingstock of the world, and the people who run your party don’t give a sh!t as long as they get their policies enacted.
Of course he is. And has been since before he was even nominated. (*I* certainly didn’t vote for him!)
But that doesn’t change the fact that this was better than he is capable of producing. Some of the phrases sound like him, but then devout syncophants learn to do that.
The standard-bearer of your party is a sadistic lunatic who is making this country the laughingstock of the world, and the people who run your party don’t give a sh!t as long as they get their policies enacted.
Of course he is. And has been since before he was even nominated. (*I* certainly didn’t vote for him!)
But that doesn’t change the fact that this was better than he is capable of producing. Some of the phrases sound like him, but then devout syncophants learn to do that.
Some of the phrases sound like him, but then devout syncophants learn to do that.
Ever watch and listen to Stephen Miller on the TV?
Frightening stuff.
Some of the phrases sound like him, but then devout syncophants learn to do that.
Ever watch and listen to Stephen Miller on the TV?
Frightening stuff.
this was better than he is capable of producing
So what?!?!?!?!?!?!?
What point are you trying to make? You think that makes it better, that he didn’t write that garbage all by himself?
this was better than he is capable of producing
So what?!?!?!?!?!?!?
What point are you trying to make? You think that makes it better, that he didn’t write that garbage all by himself?
“I’m beginning to think you lived through the 60s but didn’t understand them, wj.”
I thought the rule was that if you could remember the 1960s, that was proof you DIDN’T live through them.
Let’s remember this: It’s not the longhairs, dharma bums, flower children, airheads who forgot their mantras, and antiwar folks who inherited the Earth and are now fucking everything they touch in this country.
It was the dumb shit conservative draft dodgers who saw the main chance in what was going on around them to fake bone spurs, anal cysts, and dodgy deferments to avoid getting their ample, asses shot off in Vietnam.
It was all a dry run for avoiding their personal responsibility to pay their fucking taxes in subsequent decades.
Hell, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren were conservative Goldwater Republicans until pretty late in the going.
Jerry Rubin, who in the Sixties campaigned to elect a pig as President, was working on Wall Street by the time the 1970s were halfway over.
He was right on the pig as President, but Rubin didn’t live to witness the whole-hog bringing home of the bacon by the conservative movement.
Christ, by the end of the Nixon administration, truck drivers and fuckwad Archie Bunker union members were bashing liberals and towelheads over the their heads in the streets, while of course themselves sporting long hair and mustaches as they committed violence.
But, they inherited a pig in the poke, the shits, by embracing the conservative economic “program”.
Who inherited the world? Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters, or the murderous, criminal enterprise Hell’s Angels the Pranksters mistakenly permitted into their midst for a short while and who now ride, threateningly on every fucking conservative parade for p there is.
Who levitated the Pentagon to its current untouchable position hovering over everything, every spending priority?
Abbie Hoffman? Gong show hook for you!
No, it was the conservative movement who levitated the Pentagon’s budget above all other spending priorities.
There’s a punk Catholic theocrat, among others, over at the American Conservative who wrote some months ago that the Sixties was a Godless debauch all the way down, which first shows that he actually wasn’t there AND can’t remember it, and second, shows that I will kick his punk, know-nothing, nationalist, Christianist ass when we meet.
God was everywhere, for the faithful, and was in the Birmingham Jail alongside Martin Luther King, conservative asshole!
Where God wasn’t, was alongside Southern Confederate Sheriffs, Mayors and the racist oafs who now populate the p republican party.
But HE is NOW, from all reports.
Let’s remember, Ted Bundy day job was as a canvasser/cadre for the Republican Party.
Charles Manson’s “Helter Skelter” crackpot theory of the Negros coming out of the urban centers and wreaking mayhem on the white race was the precursor of Jesse Helm’s racist bullshit, and every conservative AM right-wing radio and TV talk show host since in this benighted land.
Manson murdered liberal Hollywood types, precisely one of the many groups the Christian, conservative identity-mongers fucking hate to this day.
“I’m beginning to think you lived through the 60s but didn’t understand them, wj.”
I thought the rule was that if you could remember the 1960s, that was proof you DIDN’T live through them.
Let’s remember this: It’s not the longhairs, dharma bums, flower children, airheads who forgot their mantras, and antiwar folks who inherited the Earth and are now fucking everything they touch in this country.
It was the dumb shit conservative draft dodgers who saw the main chance in what was going on around them to fake bone spurs, anal cysts, and dodgy deferments to avoid getting their ample, asses shot off in Vietnam.
It was all a dry run for avoiding their personal responsibility to pay their fucking taxes in subsequent decades.
Hell, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren were conservative Goldwater Republicans until pretty late in the going.
Jerry Rubin, who in the Sixties campaigned to elect a pig as President, was working on Wall Street by the time the 1970s were halfway over.
He was right on the pig as President, but Rubin didn’t live to witness the whole-hog bringing home of the bacon by the conservative movement.
Christ, by the end of the Nixon administration, truck drivers and fuckwad Archie Bunker union members were bashing liberals and towelheads over the their heads in the streets, while of course themselves sporting long hair and mustaches as they committed violence.
But, they inherited a pig in the poke, the shits, by embracing the conservative economic “program”.
Who inherited the world? Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters, or the murderous, criminal enterprise Hell’s Angels the Pranksters mistakenly permitted into their midst for a short while and who now ride, threateningly on every fucking conservative parade for p there is.
Who levitated the Pentagon to its current untouchable position hovering over everything, every spending priority?
Abbie Hoffman? Gong show hook for you!
No, it was the conservative movement who levitated the Pentagon’s budget above all other spending priorities.
There’s a punk Catholic theocrat, among others, over at the American Conservative who wrote some months ago that the Sixties was a Godless debauch all the way down, which first shows that he actually wasn’t there AND can’t remember it, and second, shows that I will kick his punk, know-nothing, nationalist, Christianist ass when we meet.
God was everywhere, for the faithful, and was in the Birmingham Jail alongside Martin Luther King, conservative asshole!
Where God wasn’t, was alongside Southern Confederate Sheriffs, Mayors and the racist oafs who now populate the p republican party.
But HE is NOW, from all reports.
Let’s remember, Ted Bundy day job was as a canvasser/cadre for the Republican Party.
Charles Manson’s “Helter Skelter” crackpot theory of the Negros coming out of the urban centers and wreaking mayhem on the white race was the precursor of Jesse Helm’s racist bullshit, and every conservative AM right-wing radio and TV talk show host since in this benighted land.
Manson murdered liberal Hollywood types, precisely one of the many groups the Christian, conservative identity-mongers fucking hate to this day.
Stephen Miller, and Bannon, wrote the first draft of p’s Inaugural speech, until the p daughter, her corrupt commercial interests in mind, softened the edges of what sources say was a fuck-you litany of threats of what the p subhuman vermin were going to do to their enemies when they entered the White House.
Yes, yes, the grammar and punctuation were adequate amid the pedestrian, spittle-flecked prose, much as you would expect from Mein Kampf, the sequel.
Here’s how Miller will be executed.
He will be trussed up, alive, and hung by his ankle shanks among the sparkling concertina wire festooning the Mexico side of the Wall dividing the border town of Nogales in the sonoran Desert, until he is baked as black as a walnut in the sun (Nogales means: black walnut) and pecked and defiled by the crows and our good neighbors, allies and trade partners to the South.
ICE officers will join him.
I haven’t concocted the death throes of Bannon yet.
My imagination has thus far fallen short.
Don’t worry, my last post will be along shortly.
Stephen Miller, and Bannon, wrote the first draft of p’s Inaugural speech, until the p daughter, her corrupt commercial interests in mind, softened the edges of what sources say was a fuck-you litany of threats of what the p subhuman vermin were going to do to their enemies when they entered the White House.
Yes, yes, the grammar and punctuation were adequate amid the pedestrian, spittle-flecked prose, much as you would expect from Mein Kampf, the sequel.
Here’s how Miller will be executed.
He will be trussed up, alive, and hung by his ankle shanks among the sparkling concertina wire festooning the Mexico side of the Wall dividing the border town of Nogales in the sonoran Desert, until he is baked as black as a walnut in the sun (Nogales means: black walnut) and pecked and defiled by the crows and our good neighbors, allies and trade partners to the South.
ICE officers will join him.
I haven’t concocted the death throes of Bannon yet.
My imagination has thus far fallen short.
Don’t worry, my last post will be along shortly.
Great news for Trump: he’s now got McConnell speaking out against him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mcconnell-joins-other-republicans-in-rebuking-trumps-syria-withdrawal/2019/10/07/aef0d11e-e914-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html
The US may be in the Kurd’s debt yet again.
Great news for Trump: he’s now got McConnell speaking out against him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mcconnell-joins-other-republicans-in-rebuking-trumps-syria-withdrawal/2019/10/07/aef0d11e-e914-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html
The US may be in the Kurd’s debt yet again.
GftNC, at the moment I cannot come up with a source for that anecdote either. Ask me again next week, when I will be back at the university, so I can ask some professional latinist about that.
If I had to make a wild guess, the person is likely Persian. I vaguely remember that one Persian king ordered to remind him on a regular base of a defeat against the Greek, so he would not forget the need for revenge.
I know of no Roman (including Cato the Elder) who was that type of gaecophobe. Trying different Latin versions of the phrase did not yield anything. My classical Greek is too rusty to try (and finding original Greek phrases via Google is a nightmare anyway).
Edit: There is an anecdote that Dareios ordered a slave to daily call ou to him thrice at the eating table: ‘My lord, remember the Athenians’ Ὦ δέσποτα, μέμνησο Ἀθηναίων.
The source seems to be Herodotus 5,105
GftNC, at the moment I cannot come up with a source for that anecdote either. Ask me again next week, when I will be back at the university, so I can ask some professional latinist about that.
If I had to make a wild guess, the person is likely Persian. I vaguely remember that one Persian king ordered to remind him on a regular base of a defeat against the Greek, so he would not forget the need for revenge.
I know of no Roman (including Cato the Elder) who was that type of gaecophobe. Trying different Latin versions of the phrase did not yield anything. My classical Greek is too rusty to try (and finding original Greek phrases via Google is a nightmare anyway).
Edit: There is an anecdote that Dareios ordered a slave to daily call ou to him thrice at the eating table: ‘My lord, remember the Athenians’ Ὦ δέσποτα, μέμνησο Ἀθηναίων.
The source seems to be Herodotus 5,105
Many, many thanks, Hartmut. A Persian makes lots of sense. I’ll keep searching, especially on Dareios, but since my Ancient Greek now may as well be non-existent (and was never very good) I probably won’t get very far.
If you ever think of it again and get any more info, I’ll be grateful, but I don’t want to bother you when you are back at work.
Many, many thanks, Hartmut. A Persian makes lots of sense. I’ll keep searching, especially on Dareios, but since my Ancient Greek now may as well be non-existent (and was never very good) I probably won’t get very far.
If you ever think of it again and get any more info, I’ll be grateful, but I don’t want to bother you when you are back at work.
Here is the chapter in question in English translation:
105. Onesilos then was besieging Amathus; and meanwhile, when it was reported to king Dareios that Sardis had been captured and burnt by the Athenians and the Ionians together, and that the leader of the league for being about these things was the Milesian Aristagoras, it is said that at first being informed of this he made no account of the Ionians, because he knew that they at all events would not escape unpunished for their revolt, but he inquired into who the Athenians were; and when he had been informed, he asked for his bow, and having received it and placed an arrow upon the string, he discharged it upwards towards heaven, and as he shot into the air he said: “Zeus, that it may be granted me to take vengeance upon the Athenians!” Having so said he charged one of his attendants, that when dinner was set before the king he should say always three times: “Master, remember the Athenians.”
Here is the chapter in question in English translation:
105. Onesilos then was besieging Amathus; and meanwhile, when it was reported to king Dareios that Sardis had been captured and burnt by the Athenians and the Ionians together, and that the leader of the league for being about these things was the Milesian Aristagoras, it is said that at first being informed of this he made no account of the Ionians, because he knew that they at all events would not escape unpunished for their revolt, but he inquired into who the Athenians were; and when he had been informed, he asked for his bow, and having received it and placed an arrow upon the string, he discharged it upwards towards heaven, and as he shot into the air he said: “Zeus, that it may be granted me to take vengeance upon the Athenians!” Having so said he charged one of his attendants, that when dinner was set before the king he should say always three times: “Master, remember the Athenians.”
Again, Hartmut, thanks. I particularly love that he had first to be informed who the Athenians were!
Again, Hartmut, thanks. I particularly love that he had first to be informed who the Athenians were!
Cyrus the Great also had to ask who the Spartans were when their emissaries (in his view) misbehaved in his presence.
Herodotus 1,152-3
152. Now when the messengers from the Ionians and Aiolians came to Sparta (for this business was carried out with speed), they chose before all others to speak for them the Phocaian, whose name was Pythermos. He then put upon him a purple cloak, in order that as many as possible of the Spartans might hear of it and come together, and having been introduced before the assembly he spoke at length, asking the Spartans to help them. The Lacedemonians however would not listen to him, but resolved on the contrary not to help the Ionians. So they departed, and the Lacedemonians, having dismissed the messengers of the Ionians, sent men notwithstanding in a ship of fifty oars, to find out, as I imagine, about the affairs of Cyrus and about Ionia. These when they came to Phocaia sent to Sardis the man of most repute among them, whose name was Lacrines, to report to Cyrus the saying of the Lacedemonians, bidding him do hurt to no city of the Hellas, since they would not permit it.
153. When the herald had spoken thus, Cyrus is said to have asked those of the Hellenes whom he had with him, what men the Lacedemonians were and how many in number, that they made this proclamation to him; and hearing their answer he said to the Spartan herald: “Never yet did I fear men such as these, who have a place appointed in the midst of their city where they gather together and deceive one another by false oaths: and if I continue in good health, not the misfortunes of the Ionians will be for them a subject of talk, but rather their own.” These words Cyrus threw out scornfully with reference to the Hellenes in general, because they have got for themselves markets and practise buying and selling there; for the Persians themselves are not wont to use markets nor have they any market-place at all. After this he entrusted Sardis to Tabalos a Persian, and the gold both of Crœsus and of the other Lydians he gave to Pactyas a Lydian to take charge of, and himself marched away to Agbatana, taking with him Crœsus and making for the present no account of the Ionians. For Babylon stood in his way still, as also the Bactrian nation and the Sacans and the Egyptians; and against these he meant to make expeditions himself, while sending some other commander about the Ionians.
Cyrus the Great also had to ask who the Spartans were when their emissaries (in his view) misbehaved in his presence.
Herodotus 1,152-3
152. Now when the messengers from the Ionians and Aiolians came to Sparta (for this business was carried out with speed), they chose before all others to speak for them the Phocaian, whose name was Pythermos. He then put upon him a purple cloak, in order that as many as possible of the Spartans might hear of it and come together, and having been introduced before the assembly he spoke at length, asking the Spartans to help them. The Lacedemonians however would not listen to him, but resolved on the contrary not to help the Ionians. So they departed, and the Lacedemonians, having dismissed the messengers of the Ionians, sent men notwithstanding in a ship of fifty oars, to find out, as I imagine, about the affairs of Cyrus and about Ionia. These when they came to Phocaia sent to Sardis the man of most repute among them, whose name was Lacrines, to report to Cyrus the saying of the Lacedemonians, bidding him do hurt to no city of the Hellas, since they would not permit it.
153. When the herald had spoken thus, Cyrus is said to have asked those of the Hellenes whom he had with him, what men the Lacedemonians were and how many in number, that they made this proclamation to him; and hearing their answer he said to the Spartan herald: “Never yet did I fear men such as these, who have a place appointed in the midst of their city where they gather together and deceive one another by false oaths: and if I continue in good health, not the misfortunes of the Ionians will be for them a subject of talk, but rather their own.” These words Cyrus threw out scornfully with reference to the Hellenes in general, because they have got for themselves markets and practise buying and selling there; for the Persians themselves are not wont to use markets nor have they any market-place at all. After this he entrusted Sardis to Tabalos a Persian, and the gold both of Crœsus and of the other Lydians he gave to Pactyas a Lydian to take charge of, and himself marched away to Agbatana, taking with him Crœsus and making for the present no account of the Ionians. For Babylon stood in his way still, as also the Bactrian nation and the Sacans and the Egyptians; and against these he meant to make expeditions himself, while sending some other commander about the Ionians.
Michael Cain: An old joke here in Colorado is that at most restaurants in Vail or Aspen, chances are good your waiter or waitress has a better degree than you do.
That joke applies in Boston/Cambridge, as well. It makes for some interesting interactions.
I love these maps. If I were 10 or 15 years younger, I could see myself plunging into them in a big way, with what you’ve made available at your website. But at nearly 70, and recently retired from my techie job, I find myself reluctant to immerse myself even in the various coding-type projects I’ve had on my to-do list for a long time already. There’s just too much else that’s been waiting for a turn: writing, taking pics, sometimes just driving around the countryside exploring back roads.
So it’s nice that I can at least enjoy the maps you make. Thanks again!
Michael Cain: An old joke here in Colorado is that at most restaurants in Vail or Aspen, chances are good your waiter or waitress has a better degree than you do.
That joke applies in Boston/Cambridge, as well. It makes for some interesting interactions.
I love these maps. If I were 10 or 15 years younger, I could see myself plunging into them in a big way, with what you’ve made available at your website. But at nearly 70, and recently retired from my techie job, I find myself reluctant to immerse myself even in the various coding-type projects I’ve had on my to-do list for a long time already. There’s just too much else that’s been waiting for a turn: writing, taking pics, sometimes just driving around the countryside exploring back roads.
So it’s nice that I can at least enjoy the maps you make. Thanks again!
There’s just too much else that’s been waiting for a turn
I’m currently about 3 1/2 years away from retirement. What I am looking forward to, more than anything else, is spending most if not all of the hours of every day in the company of things that are actually alive.
Can’t wait.
There’s just too much else that’s been waiting for a turn
I’m currently about 3 1/2 years away from retirement. What I am looking forward to, more than anything else, is spending most if not all of the hours of every day in the company of things that are actually alive.
Can’t wait.
also: enough of this shit.
If Sondland doesn’t show up to testify, have him arrested and placed in jail for contempt of Congress.
Or fine him a million bucks a day. Or an hour.
He’s a hotel guy who got to be ambassador to the EU because he gave a million bucks to Trump’s inaugural. Surreptitiously, of course.
You’re the House of Representatives of the United States of America.
Kick his ass.
There’s a time and place to be civil and decorous, and a time and place kick ass, take names, and knock heads until people wise up. We have achieved the latter.
also: enough of this shit.
If Sondland doesn’t show up to testify, have him arrested and placed in jail for contempt of Congress.
Or fine him a million bucks a day. Or an hour.
He’s a hotel guy who got to be ambassador to the EU because he gave a million bucks to Trump’s inaugural. Surreptitiously, of course.
You’re the House of Representatives of the United States of America.
Kick his ass.
There’s a time and place to be civil and decorous, and a time and place kick ass, take names, and knock heads until people wise up. We have achieved the latter.
the GOP Senate bears a huge amount of responsibility for this. they could have, and should have, told Trump to knock this shit off months ago. but instead, they’ve told him that there will be no real consequences for his actions (besides a possible asterisk next to his name in the history books), and now he’s decided that he’s going to flaunt his misbehavior and bet his supporters will love it enough to reelect him and the GOP.
(but, yes, liberals exist)
the GOP Senate bears a huge amount of responsibility for this. they could have, and should have, told Trump to knock this shit off months ago. but instead, they’ve told him that there will be no real consequences for his actions (besides a possible asterisk next to his name in the history books), and now he’s decided that he’s going to flaunt his misbehavior and bet his supporters will love it enough to reelect him and the GOP.
(but, yes, liberals exist)
he’s going to flaunt his misbehavior and bet his supporters will love it
In this, he is correct.
Fncking irresponsible children.
he’s going to flaunt his misbehavior and bet his supporters will love it
In this, he is correct.
Fncking irresponsible children.
Interesting.
Interesting.
Sudafed just makes me sleepy.
Sudafed just makes me sleepy.
I’m thinking about what term should be used for someone who abuses Sudafed. The “aholic” convention doesn’t seem to work. Then I thought of all the “head” terms, like crackhead and meth-head. I’m going with “Sudaf-head.”
I’m thinking about what term should be used for someone who abuses Sudafed. The “aholic” convention doesn’t seem to work. Then I thought of all the “head” terms, like crackhead and meth-head. I’m going with “Sudaf-head.”
There’s a time and place to be civil and decorous, and a time and place kick ass, take names, and knock heads until people wise up. We have achieved the latter.
Indeed.
There’s a time and place to be civil and decorous, and a time and place kick ass, take names, and knock heads until people wise up. We have achieved the latter.
Indeed.
OT, but today is the release day for my wife’s latest, completely awesome, space opera/fractured fairytale/feminist manifesto.
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/k-eason/how-rory-thorne-destroyed-the-multiverse/
If nothing else, it’s balm for our current political frustration and nihilism.
OT, but today is the release day for my wife’s latest, completely awesome, space opera/fractured fairytale/feminist manifesto.
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/k-eason/how-rory-thorne-destroyed-the-multiverse/
If nothing else, it’s balm for our current political frustration and nihilism.
Nous, have just read the description of your wife’s book. It sounds absolutely great, I may make an exception to my current policy of only buying secondhand books (because of the number I have been getting through). Thanks for the info!
Nous, have just read the description of your wife’s book. It sounds absolutely great, I may make an exception to my current policy of only buying secondhand books (because of the number I have been getting through). Thanks for the info!
Congratulations to your wife, Nous.
Congratulations to your wife, Nous.
Campos over at LGM today:
Liberal democracy and the current incarnation of the Republican party cannot co-exist for much longer. One of them must be destroyed; and the Democratic party’s standard bearer needs to understand this above all.
Indeed.
Campos over at LGM today:
Liberal democracy and the current incarnation of the Republican party cannot co-exist for much longer. One of them must be destroyed; and the Democratic party’s standard bearer needs to understand this above all.
Indeed.
Hoocoodanode?
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/768319934/senate-report-russians-used-used-social-media-mostly-to-target-race-in-2016
From “The report, written by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee.”
Hoocoodanode?
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/768319934/senate-report-russians-used-used-social-media-mostly-to-target-race-in-2016
From “The report, written by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee.”
Richard Burr is making me think there’s something of an ember of integrity left in the GOP.
shame i’m going to have to vote against him next chance i get. i need more than a spark.
Richard Burr is making me think there’s something of an ember of integrity left in the GOP.
shame i’m going to have to vote against him next chance i get. i need more than a spark.
Now you have a full blown constitutional crisis:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-100819/
Now you have a full blown constitutional crisis:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-100819/
Nixon got a bum deal.
That’s (part of) the legal argument for why the Mueller grand jury materials should not be given to the House Judiciary Committee.
To which the judge responded, “Wow, O.K.”. Because what the hell do you say to something like that?
This is basically the Roy Cohn playbook. Be the biggest prick on the block until your opponents just get sick of dealing with you.
Time to start throwing the book at some of these assholes.
Nixon got a bum deal.
That’s (part of) the legal argument for why the Mueller grand jury materials should not be given to the House Judiciary Committee.
To which the judge responded, “Wow, O.K.”. Because what the hell do you say to something like that?
This is basically the Roy Cohn playbook. Be the biggest prick on the block until your opponents just get sick of dealing with you.
Time to start throwing the book at some of these assholes.
Now you have a full blown constitutional crisis:
the sheer disingeniousness of the whole “he should be allowed to confront his accuser!” thing is really amazing. the idiot base is buying it, of course, but even the dumbest WH cabinet member must know that what the House is doing is not actually a trial. at this point, it’s an investigation, and nobody in the history of the US has ever “confronted their accuser” and “called witnesses” during an investigation.
but, liars gonna lie, i guess. and idiots gonna idiot.
Now you have a full blown constitutional crisis:
the sheer disingeniousness of the whole “he should be allowed to confront his accuser!” thing is really amazing. the idiot base is buying it, of course, but even the dumbest WH cabinet member must know that what the House is doing is not actually a trial. at this point, it’s an investigation, and nobody in the history of the US has ever “confronted their accuser” and “called witnesses” during an investigation.
but, liars gonna lie, i guess. and idiots gonna idiot.
i mean… the disrespect Trump and his people show towards the American public is truly, utterly, astounding. they lie to us – supporter and detractor alike – every day, all day, about literally everything. they don’t even bother with the truth. they don’t care if we believe them or not. they have the veracity of a high school cheerleading squad. say anything, as long as it keeps the fans cheering.
if the Trump administration was a person, he’d be in a psychiatric hospital.
i mean… the disrespect Trump and his people show towards the American public is truly, utterly, astounding. they lie to us – supporter and detractor alike – every day, all day, about literally everything. they don’t even bother with the truth. they don’t care if we believe them or not. they have the veracity of a high school cheerleading squad. say anything, as long as it keeps the fans cheering.
if the Trump administration was a person, he’d be in a psychiatric hospital.
As russell points out, the Justice Department is arguing Trump’s bullshit in court on his behalf.
This is basically an attempt to say that while in office, the president is beyond the law. And I am not entirely confident that the current Supreme Court will disagree with that.
As russell points out, the Justice Department is arguing Trump’s bullshit in court on his behalf.
This is basically an attempt to say that while in office, the president is beyond the law. And I am not entirely confident that the current Supreme Court will disagree with that.
I posted about Carl Schmitt earlier on here. He was the jurist who argued to allow the Reich to install a commissar to oversee the (leftist) Prussian government.
John Roberts may be called on to decide if our nation is also to move down that Schmittian path towards authoritarianism. I am not at all convinced that he will choose to intervene and make the executive comply with the demands of congress.
I posted about Carl Schmitt earlier on here. He was the jurist who argued to allow the Reich to install a commissar to oversee the (leftist) Prussian government.
John Roberts may be called on to decide if our nation is also to move down that Schmittian path towards authoritarianism. I am not at all convinced that he will choose to intervene and make the executive comply with the demands of congress.
There is nothing new under the sun. From the recent volume of the senate report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election:
There is nothing new under the sun. From the recent volume of the senate report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election:
silly OBL, he thought he could wreck the US by getting it to over-commit militarily. Putin showed that all you need to do is show enough Facebook ads to simpletons that they’ll vote in someone so aggressively incompetent that he can wreck it from the top down.
silly OBL, he thought he could wreck the US by getting it to over-commit militarily. Putin showed that all you need to do is show enough Facebook ads to simpletons that they’ll vote in someone so aggressively incompetent that he can wreck it from the top down.
Silly cleek. Don’t you know Antifa and black people are the real problems?
Silly cleek. Don’t you know Antifa and black people are the real problems?
Silly hsh. Don’t you know that they are all one and the same (together with the gays and the feminazis)?
Silly hsh. Don’t you know that they are all one and the same (together with the gays and the feminazis)?
-Paul Waldman
-Paul Waldman
All 7th graders should feel insulted.
Seriously, the letter reads like something that Trump dictated (being incapable of writing anything that long), someone edited for spelling and grammar, and then they found a lawyer who was willing to jeopardize his law license by signing it.
All 7th graders should feel insulted.
Seriously, the letter reads like something that Trump dictated (being incapable of writing anything that long), someone edited for spelling and grammar, and then they found a lawyer who was willing to jeopardize his law license by signing it.
“Seriously, the letter reads like something that Trump dictated (being incapable of writing anything that long), someone edited for spelling and grammar, and then they found a lawyer who was willing to jeopardize license by signing it.”
Speech-to-text into Word, autocorrect turned on, then “attach signature file”.
Sure hope they’re not using the same interface for communications with NORAD.
“Seriously, the letter reads like something that Trump dictated (being incapable of writing anything that long), someone edited for spelling and grammar, and then they found a lawyer who was willing to jeopardize license by signing it.”
Speech-to-text into Word, autocorrect turned on, then “attach signature file”.
Sure hope they’re not using the same interface for communications with NORAD.
and then they found a lawyer who was willing to jeopardize his law license by signing it
i really expected more from a guy who represented both Laura Ingraham and Donald Trump before becoming Trump’s other personal tax-payer-funded lawyer.
and then they found a lawyer who was willing to jeopardize his law license by signing it
i really expected more from a guy who represented both Laura Ingraham and Donald Trump before becoming Trump’s other personal tax-payer-funded lawyer.
Well, some people get their kicks running around the streets at night pretending to be zombies. Maybe he’s got all the money he’ll ever need, and is merely indulging himself in playing a role. No accounting for taste.
Well, some people get their kicks running around the streets at night pretending to be zombies. Maybe he’s got all the money he’ll ever need, and is merely indulging himself in playing a role. No accounting for taste.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the President of The United States of America:
But it was a very fine and very perfect letter.Absolutely.Absolutely perfect in every way.The Democrat kangaroos and pencil neck Schiff can only fail.We are not allowed to cross examine these liars and traitors, so we will not testify or respond to supreaneas.And i’ll tell you this,Turkey better behave if they haven’t already, because Erdrogan is a terrific guy…terrific.Did I tell you about Trump Towers in Instanbool?Yes, two of them.The best.The very best.Two of them…not one.And that Ivanka!I bet she’s a nice piece of a@@The very best.None better.But I am not a betting man.I am perfect and very up to speed.Always…and as I always say, we’ll get around to it sooner or later…count on it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the President of The United States of America:
But it was a very fine and very perfect letter.Absolutely.Absolutely perfect in every way.The Democrat kangaroos and pencil neck Schiff can only fail.We are not allowed to cross examine these liars and traitors, so we will not testify or respond to supreaneas.And i’ll tell you this,Turkey better behave if they haven’t already, because Erdrogan is a terrific guy…terrific.Did I tell you about Trump Towers in Instanbool?Yes, two of them.The best.The very best.Two of them…not one.And that Ivanka!I bet she’s a nice piece of a@@The very best.None better.But I am not a betting man.I am perfect and very up to speed.Always…and as I always say, we’ll get around to it sooner or later…count on it.
From the steaming pile of manure in the White House:
Asked about the Kurds, President Trump said that the Kurds did not help the US during WWII or in the Normandy invasion/ D-Day….
From the steaming pile of manure in the White House:
Asked about the Kurds, President Trump said that the Kurds did not help the US during WWII or in the Normandy invasion/ D-Day….
It doesn’t really matter whether they did or not. Either way, Trump is pretty much certain to be ignorant of the real facts of the situation.
It doesn’t really matter whether they did or not. Either way, Trump is pretty much certain to be ignorant of the real facts of the situation.
Are we still a hegemon? Hope we’re all good!
Are we still a hegemon? Hope we’re all good!
Are we still a hegemon?
Clearly not. We’re a monarchy. (How else could you have a regicide?)
Are we still a hegemon?
Clearly not. We’re a monarchy. (How else could you have a regicide?)
Of course there are genuine reasons behind Trump’s Syria policy:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/donald-trump-s-longtime-business-connections-turkey-back-spotlight-n1064011
Of course there are genuine reasons behind Trump’s Syria policy:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/donald-trump-s-longtime-business-connections-turkey-back-spotlight-n1064011
my hunch on the future of the ISIS prisoners: Trump told E that he could just bomb the prisons.
my hunch on the future of the ISIS prisoners: Trump told E that he could just bomb the prisons.
Tee hee.
Tee hee.
Telling list.
Telling list.
The. Best. People.
The. Best. People.
everything anyone needs to know about Trump, his family, his associates, and anybody within 5 miles of the guy, is this:
Trump is a crook.
The rest is commentary.
everything anyone needs to know about Trump, his family, his associates, and anybody within 5 miles of the guy, is this:
Trump is a crook.
The rest is commentary.
Giuliani…and his two paisans, Pasquale and Luigi, right?
Nah, it’s Lev and Igor now….
Two Soviet-born businessmen…
Giuliani…and his two paisans, Pasquale and Luigi, right?
Nah, it’s Lev and Igor now….
Two Soviet-born businessmen…
Soon it will be Rudy’s time in the barrel…
Soon it will be Rudy’s time in the barrel…
Soon it will be Rudy’s time in the barrel…
Not until Mobster Barr is gone.
Soon it will be Rudy’s time in the barrel…
Not until Mobster Barr is gone.
And here I was, just joking around. I didn’t know Rudy’s actual background (from Wikipedia):
D’Avanzo was Rudy’s mother’s maiden name.
Role modeling is so important…
And here I was, just joking around. I didn’t know Rudy’s actual background (from Wikipedia):
D’Avanzo was Rudy’s mother’s maiden name.
Role modeling is so important…
this is Senator Burr’s FB statement on the Syria horrorshow:
i feel like he’s skipped over an important player in all of this. hmm.
this is Senator Burr’s FB statement on the Syria horrorshow:
i feel like he’s skipped over an important player in all of this. hmm.
Role modeling is so important…
Does make it clear how he can be so comfortable working for a crime boss.
Role modeling is so important…
Does make it clear how he can be so comfortable working for a crime boss.
Is Barr jealous that Meese got the medal not he? Or will it just spur him on, so he might be next?
Is Barr jealous that Meese got the medal not he? Or will it just spur him on, so he might be next?
are Oxbridge admissions more merit based than Ivy League “legacy” admissions? (Note that something like 40% of those Ivy Leaguers wouldn’t get in on merit.)
Yes, and increasingly so. Princes and suchlike used to study at Oxbridge (or their bodyguards did): nowadays the less dim go to St Andrews. There is a thing where Admissions Tudors look favourably on the sort of polished ease evinced at interview by pupils from expensive schools, but much less so than previously.
But what about the question in the OP? How are we to change things so that the children of otherwise reputable politicians don’t get rich out of the relationship?
are Oxbridge admissions more merit based than Ivy League “legacy” admissions? (Note that something like 40% of those Ivy Leaguers wouldn’t get in on merit.)
Yes, and increasingly so. Princes and suchlike used to study at Oxbridge (or their bodyguards did): nowadays the less dim go to St Andrews. There is a thing where Admissions Tudors look favourably on the sort of polished ease evinced at interview by pupils from expensive schools, but much less so than previously.
But what about the question in the OP? How are we to change things so that the children of otherwise reputable politicians don’t get rich out of the relationship?
How are we to change things so that the children of otherwise reputable politicians don’t get rich out of the relationship?
Reputable politicians is almost an oxymoron.
And, as long as politicians have power and influence, people associated with them will attempt to ride their coattails. Any laws and regulations to prevent it will be circumvented.
How are we to change things so that the children of otherwise reputable politicians don’t get rich out of the relationship?
Reputable politicians is almost an oxymoron.
And, as long as politicians have power and influence, people associated with them will attempt to ride their coattails. Any laws and regulations to prevent it will be circumvented.
How are we to change things so that the children of otherwise reputable politicians don’t get rich out of the relationship?
What that basically requires is evidence that will persuade businesses that (indirect) bribery won’t be rewarded. If there’s no illicit return, executives will find better things to do with their company’s money — put it in their own pockets, if nothing else. But as long as they have a reason to think giving money to politicians’ children will pay off, they’ll keep doing it.
How are we to change things so that the children of otherwise reputable politicians don’t get rich out of the relationship?
What that basically requires is evidence that will persuade businesses that (indirect) bribery won’t be rewarded. If there’s no illicit return, executives will find better things to do with their company’s money — put it in their own pockets, if nothing else. But as long as they have a reason to think giving money to politicians’ children will pay off, they’ll keep doing it.
Any laws and regulations to prevent it will be circumvented.
Meet Finland: https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/05/europe/finland-fake-news-intl/
Any laws and regulations to prevent it will be circumvented.
Meet Finland: https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/05/europe/finland-fake-news-intl/
Somewhat OT
I confess to being somewhat baffled by the regularity with which these people deny saying/doing things when they have to know that they’ve left a paper trail doing exactly that:
Bad enough when you have documents (which could be subpoenaed) demonstrating that you’re lying. But when you know that the people whose statements you’re disputing have them? “Dumb” doesn’t begin to describe it.
Somewhat OT
I confess to being somewhat baffled by the regularity with which these people deny saying/doing things when they have to know that they’ve left a paper trail doing exactly that:
Bad enough when you have documents (which could be subpoenaed) demonstrating that you’re lying. But when you know that the people whose statements you’re disputing have them? “Dumb” doesn’t begin to describe it.
they’re all frauds.
they’re all frauds.
Any laws and regulations to prevent it will be circumvented.
The requirement is to make it more work and/or greater risk to be corrupt than it is to be honest. Perfection is not required.
I’d be happy with really freaking easy stuff.
If you are responsible for oversight of something – some industry, some activity – you can’t go work in that field for at least five years after leaving your job. Immediate family members can’t work in that field while you hold the position of oversight.
People in positions of public responsibility, elected or not, cannot receive anything of value greater than, let’s say, $100, from anyone other than maybe immediate family. Full stop.
Full disclosure – name and amount of donation – of all donors to organizations the participate in direct political action. If you want to go really nuts, require all donors to such organizations to be natural (not corporate) US persons.
We don’t need, and aren’t going to achieve, perfection. What would be helpful would be something short of pigs at the trough.
Any laws and regulations to prevent it will be circumvented.
The requirement is to make it more work and/or greater risk to be corrupt than it is to be honest. Perfection is not required.
I’d be happy with really freaking easy stuff.
If you are responsible for oversight of something – some industry, some activity – you can’t go work in that field for at least five years after leaving your job. Immediate family members can’t work in that field while you hold the position of oversight.
People in positions of public responsibility, elected or not, cannot receive anything of value greater than, let’s say, $100, from anyone other than maybe immediate family. Full stop.
Full disclosure – name and amount of donation – of all donors to organizations the participate in direct political action. If you want to go really nuts, require all donors to such organizations to be natural (not corporate) US persons.
We don’t need, and aren’t going to achieve, perfection. What would be helpful would be something short of pigs at the trough.
If you want to go really nuts, require all donors to such organizations to be natural (not corporate) US persons.
Allow me to suggest that this is NOT going “really nuts”. It should be one of the minimum requirements. Even before limiting gifts, etc.
If you want to go really nuts, require all donors to such organizations to be natural (not corporate) US persons.
Allow me to suggest that this is NOT going “really nuts”. It should be one of the minimum requirements. Even before limiting gifts, etc.
There is a thing where Admissions Tudors look favourably on the sort of polished ease evinced at interview by pupils from expensive schools, but much less so than previously.
I’m very keen on the Admissions Tudors! Could they be some of the more dim princes?
There is a thing where Admissions Tudors look favourably on the sort of polished ease evinced at interview by pupils from expensive schools, but much less so than previously.
I’m very keen on the Admissions Tudors! Could they be some of the more dim princes?
It’s the follow-up to Monty Python’s “Tudor Porn Shop” sketch.
It’s the follow-up to Monty Python’s “Tudor Porn Shop” sketch.
Tudor?
OK, so if it’s a two-door, that makes it a coupe. And a coup is what it’s claimed we are seeing now.
See! It all ties together….
Tudor?
OK, so if it’s a two-door, that makes it a coupe. And a coup is what it’s claimed we are seeing now.
See! It all ties together….
https://twitter.com/nick_anderson_?lang=en
https://twitter.com/nick_anderson_?lang=en
Is that the Tudor that tooted a flute, who tried to tutor two Tudor’s to toot?
Is that the Tudor that tooted a flute, who tried to tutor two Tudor’s to toot?
All those suggestions seem kind of pointless when you have unlimited campaign finance protected by the Supreme Court.
And how do you prevent someone being paid half a million dollars for a half hour speech ?
Genuine limitations on corruption depend as much on culture as they do on law.
All those suggestions seem kind of pointless when you have unlimited campaign finance protected by the Supreme Court.
And how do you prevent someone being paid half a million dollars for a half hour speech ?
Genuine limitations on corruption depend as much on culture as they do on law.
Baby steps.
Baby steps.
You can have unlimited campaign finance contributions, as long as the “public disclosure” is up to the task.
My proposal, which is mine (ahem) is to require candidates to be tattooed with the name/logo of their contributor, in a size proportional to the contribution.
GOP candidates would have to go around looking like Darth Vader, because of the mass of painful, all-encompassing tattoos.
Truth in advertising, one might call it.
You can have unlimited campaign finance contributions, as long as the “public disclosure” is up to the task.
My proposal, which is mine (ahem) is to require candidates to be tattooed with the name/logo of their contributor, in a size proportional to the contribution.
GOP candidates would have to go around looking like Darth Vader, because of the mass of painful, all-encompassing tattoos.
Truth in advertising, one might call it.
On the ‘actually there is a problem’ front, Giuliani’s own attempts at self-enrichment are far more consequential:
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/13/joe-biden-rudy-giuliani-2020-045163
The whole article is well worth reading, particularly for the way in which Giuliani is condemned by his own former advisor, but this is particularly salient:
In TV appearances, Giuliani has waved around an affidavit signed by the disgraced former prosecutor who swears he was dismissed because of the Burisma investigation. Unmentioned by Giuliani: the affidavit is filed on behalf of a Ukrainian gas magnate, Dmitry Firtash, who is employing two Trump loyalist attorneys to fight extradition to the U.S. in another corruption scheme.
An ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Firtash lives in Vienna, where Giuliani’s now-indicted associates, Parnas and Fruman, were headed on one-way tickets…
… and where Giuliani headed immediately after their arrest.
On the ‘actually there is a problem’ front, Giuliani’s own attempts at self-enrichment are far more consequential:
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/13/joe-biden-rudy-giuliani-2020-045163
The whole article is well worth reading, particularly for the way in which Giuliani is condemned by his own former advisor, but this is particularly salient:
In TV appearances, Giuliani has waved around an affidavit signed by the disgraced former prosecutor who swears he was dismissed because of the Burisma investigation. Unmentioned by Giuliani: the affidavit is filed on behalf of a Ukrainian gas magnate, Dmitry Firtash, who is employing two Trump loyalist attorneys to fight extradition to the U.S. in another corruption scheme.
An ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Firtash lives in Vienna, where Giuliani’s now-indicted associates, Parnas and Fruman, were headed on one-way tickets…
… and where Giuliani headed immediately after their arrest.
Messed the italics again.
Sorry.
Fixed — wj
Messed the italics again.
Sorry.
Fixed — wj
It’s kind of relevant to the thread, I think, but in any case: I really like Elizabeth Warren’s current strategy to try to hold Facebook and Zuckerberg to account before the 2020 election. Obviously, I would support any Dem I thought could beat Trump, and whichever Dem wins the primary, but this woman seems to me to be a really good candidate for POTUS. She’s clever, has good values and plans to put them into action, has shown in the past she can get things done, and generally seems like a really viable candidate who lacks Biden’s disadvantages (age, gaffe-proneness, disadvantage among African American women etc). I know she has some disadvantages herself, not to mention the misogyny thing, but if I were American I’d be a whole lot happier with her in the White House than Biden or Sanders. But, in russell’s immortal formulation, a ham sandwich would do.
It’s kind of relevant to the thread, I think, but in any case: I really like Elizabeth Warren’s current strategy to try to hold Facebook and Zuckerberg to account before the 2020 election. Obviously, I would support any Dem I thought could beat Trump, and whichever Dem wins the primary, but this woman seems to me to be a really good candidate for POTUS. She’s clever, has good values and plans to put them into action, has shown in the past she can get things done, and generally seems like a really viable candidate who lacks Biden’s disadvantages (age, gaffe-proneness, disadvantage among African American women etc). I know she has some disadvantages herself, not to mention the misogyny thing, but if I were American I’d be a whole lot happier with her in the White House than Biden or Sanders. But, in russell’s immortal formulation, a ham sandwich would do.
if I were American I’d be a whole lot happier with her in the White House than Biden or Sanders. But, in russell’s immortal formulation, a ham sandwich would do.
As a (moderately) conservative American, if I were a Democrat I’d prefer Buttigieg or Bullock. That said, I’d definitely prefer Warren over Sanders — we’ve had enough of cranky old white guys for the moment (says the cranky old white guy).
But yes, definitely a ham sandwich, if that’s what’s on offer next November.
if I were American I’d be a whole lot happier with her in the White House than Biden or Sanders. But, in russell’s immortal formulation, a ham sandwich would do.
As a (moderately) conservative American, if I were a Democrat I’d prefer Buttigieg or Bullock. That said, I’d definitely prefer Warren over Sanders — we’ve had enough of cranky old white guys for the moment (says the cranky old white guy).
But yes, definitely a ham sandwich, if that’s what’s on offer next November.
i’m torn on Warren.
on one hand, she’s very liberal. and while that doesn’t bother me, it does bother a lot of people – at least in the abstract. so i wonder if that hurts her too much to beat Trump.
on the other hand, she is charismatic, and very smart, and relatable, and she’s an excellent communicator. and that could potentially offset a lot of the liberal panic the GOP would try to inspire.
Biden, Sanders – thanks for your service. we got it from here.
i’m torn on Warren.
on one hand, she’s very liberal. and while that doesn’t bother me, it does bother a lot of people – at least in the abstract. so i wonder if that hurts her too much to beat Trump.
on the other hand, she is charismatic, and very smart, and relatable, and she’s an excellent communicator. and that could potentially offset a lot of the liberal panic the GOP would try to inspire.
Biden, Sanders – thanks for your service. we got it from here.
For me, at the moment, the least unfavorable candidate is Tulsi Gabbard.
And, yes, enough of the old white people from the last century.
For me, at the moment, the least unfavorable candidate is Tulsi Gabbard.
And, yes, enough of the old white people from the last century.
Warren is 70, so she’s not actually young. But she has the energy and wit of a younger person.
She is an Okie, from a modest background, who made her way up in the world through grit and hard work. She’s extremely intelligent and is well informed about pretty much any topic she has a position on. She was a conservative free-market (R) until her research into personal bankruptcy in the US drove her to the conclusion that the financial sector was actually kind of predatory, and our famous “free markets” were not quite that in practice.
She’s a professor at Harvard, so strike one. She’s made it clear that reining in Wall St is pretty much at the top of her agenda, which people who are profoundly unclear on the concept will read as “socialist”, so strike two. Her tone in public speaking can be kind of tutorial, for lack of a better word – prior to her life in public service, she was a teacher – and some folks find that off-putting, so strike three.
Plus, Massachusetts, because everybody who doesn’t live in MA just hates the hell out of MA. Hell, half the people who live in MA just hate the hell out of MA.
So, an uphill climb.
My initial thought about Warren running was no, please don’t. My sense was that she would be much more effective as a Senator.
But I’ve been pleased to see how well she’s done on the campaign trail. So, maybe I’m wrong.
I will not only vote for a ham sandwich in 2020, I’ll vote for a past-its-sell-by-date ham sandwich from a vending machine in a rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike if that is what the (D)’s cough up.
Ham sandwich, pet rock, Beanie Baby, trained seal, retired circus clown, used car salesman, dog trainer, cigar store Indian. All good.
I’ll vote for whoever or whatever is in the POTUS column with a (D) next to its name. Just get that MF’er out of there before he breaks everything he hasn’t already broken.
Warren would be more than fine with me. It’s dead easy to paint her as Yet Another East Coast Pointy-Headed LIberal Do-Gooder, but somehow or other she actually appears to be connecting with some folks I wouldn’t have expected her to connect with.
Maybe because, after all, she’s an Okie from a modest background who earned her way in the world, and a former conservative (R) free-market cheerleader who saw the light. And, she does her damned homework.
We could do worse.
Warren is 70, so she’s not actually young. But she has the energy and wit of a younger person.
She is an Okie, from a modest background, who made her way up in the world through grit and hard work. She’s extremely intelligent and is well informed about pretty much any topic she has a position on. She was a conservative free-market (R) until her research into personal bankruptcy in the US drove her to the conclusion that the financial sector was actually kind of predatory, and our famous “free markets” were not quite that in practice.
She’s a professor at Harvard, so strike one. She’s made it clear that reining in Wall St is pretty much at the top of her agenda, which people who are profoundly unclear on the concept will read as “socialist”, so strike two. Her tone in public speaking can be kind of tutorial, for lack of a better word – prior to her life in public service, she was a teacher – and some folks find that off-putting, so strike three.
Plus, Massachusetts, because everybody who doesn’t live in MA just hates the hell out of MA. Hell, half the people who live in MA just hate the hell out of MA.
So, an uphill climb.
My initial thought about Warren running was no, please don’t. My sense was that she would be much more effective as a Senator.
But I’ve been pleased to see how well she’s done on the campaign trail. So, maybe I’m wrong.
I will not only vote for a ham sandwich in 2020, I’ll vote for a past-its-sell-by-date ham sandwich from a vending machine in a rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike if that is what the (D)’s cough up.
Ham sandwich, pet rock, Beanie Baby, trained seal, retired circus clown, used car salesman, dog trainer, cigar store Indian. All good.
I’ll vote for whoever or whatever is in the POTUS column with a (D) next to its name. Just get that MF’er out of there before he breaks everything he hasn’t already broken.
Warren would be more than fine with me. It’s dead easy to paint her as Yet Another East Coast Pointy-Headed LIberal Do-Gooder, but somehow or other she actually appears to be connecting with some folks I wouldn’t have expected her to connect with.
Maybe because, after all, she’s an Okie from a modest background who earned her way in the world, and a former conservative (R) free-market cheerleader who saw the light. And, she does her damned homework.
We could do worse.
You are wrong about Strike One. It’s this:
She is an Okie, from a modest background, who made her way up in the world through grit and hard work.
Consider all those folks who are heavily invested in blaming “Them” (variously defined) for their lack of success in life. She’s a living, breathing rebuke to them. Because she started with as few advantages as they had, but succeeded anyway. The only ones more insulted are those who were born with the proverbial silver spoon, and still have barely avoided bankrupting themselves thru sheer incompetence.
You might also mention the grave insult taken by those who want to maintain their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. That she was willing to rethink her views is an insult to them as well.
Fortunately, even the combination may not be enough to get Trump past the post.
You are wrong about Strike One. It’s this:
She is an Okie, from a modest background, who made her way up in the world through grit and hard work.
Consider all those folks who are heavily invested in blaming “Them” (variously defined) for their lack of success in life. She’s a living, breathing rebuke to them. Because she started with as few advantages as they had, but succeeded anyway. The only ones more insulted are those who were born with the proverbial silver spoon, and still have barely avoided bankrupting themselves thru sheer incompetence.
You might also mention the grave insult taken by those who want to maintain their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. That she was willing to rethink her views is an insult to them as well.
Fortunately, even the combination may not be enough to get Trump past the post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr2X4ty1ZVU
Some female FOX big-haired, leggy, cuck Ailes twirler anchor was predicting a second Civil War the other day, straling from me, comparing now to the 1850s.
It’s later than she thinks, and Sherman will terminate her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr2X4ty1ZVU
Some female FOX big-haired, leggy, cuck Ailes twirler anchor was predicting a second Civil War the other day, straling from me, comparing now to the 1850s.
It’s later than she thinks, and Sherman will terminate her.
No used car salesman!
No used car salesman!
My initial thought about Warren running was no, please don’t. My sense was that she would be much more effective as a Senator.
But I’ve been pleased to see how well she’s done on the campaign trail. So, maybe I’m wrong.
Those were very much my thoughts on Warren, too.
That she was able to overcome the very public humiliation of the ‘Pocahontas’ attacks from Trump demonstrates a political resilience which will serve her well, should she get the nomination.
My initial thought about Warren running was no, please don’t. My sense was that she would be much more effective as a Senator.
But I’ve been pleased to see how well she’s done on the campaign trail. So, maybe I’m wrong.
Those were very much my thoughts on Warren, too.
That she was able to overcome the very public humiliation of the ‘Pocahontas’ attacks from Trump demonstrates a political resilience which will serve her well, should she get the nomination.