by wj
“He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
– Donald Trump on John McCain
It appears that our Leader has found a way to avoid having people captured: run away. In keeping with his own approach to military service, I suppose. (Well, at least he didn’t require them to, officially, come down with bone spurs before leaving.)
First, after a call with Turkish President Erdogan, Trump decides to pull back from the Syrian/Turkish border. Thus abandoning our Kurdish allies to the invasion/ethnic cleansing that Erdogan has long desired. (That, after all, is why those few dozen US troops were where they were – to provide a trip wire which would keep the Turks from attacking the Syrian Kurds.)
Of course, the Turks went whole hog once they got the chance. Indeed some US troops were attacked with artillery . . . to the point where they considered shooting back in self defense. Perhaps even enthusiastically, given that they were pretty unhappy at being ordered to abandon allies already.
And then, the remaining US troops’ supply lines were being cut, which would have resulted in them being, essentially, captured. Can’t have that (see the quote on McCain above.) So now Trump has decided to withdraw all US troops – otherwise known as running away. This after the Defense Department had been assuring everyone Friday that our pull back from the border didn’t mean that.
Trump’s initial move had everybody thinking that America’s word was perhaps worthless (like his own) when it came to alliances. Now, anyone with two brain cells to rub together (whether the Israelis or the South Koreans or the Europeans — not to mention the Russians) has to be thinking: Suspicions confirmed. It’s going to take a lot of years, and multiple administrations from both parties, to repair this damage. If it can be done at all before everyone alive to watch has died.
So US forces are retreating in the face of an attack by a NATO ally…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50034802
Their regional ally in the fight against IS, having now been abandoned by Trump, is seeking alliance with the Syrians and the Russian regime.
The US military apparently has little idea of what is going on, other than that the extent of the attack is a surprise.
Numerous atrocities against civilians are reported.
The likelihood of IS regrouping increases.
And the president congratulates himself on being “very smart”.
So US forces are retreating in the face of an attack by a NATO ally…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50034802
Their regional ally in the fight against IS, having now been abandoned by Trump, is seeking alliance with the Syrians and the Russian regime.
The US military apparently has little idea of what is going on, other than that the extent of the attack is a surprise.
Numerous atrocities against civilians are reported.
The likelihood of IS regrouping increases.
And the president congratulates himself on being “very smart”.
Trump is going to leave quite the lasting mark on US foreign policy – if only because his entire term has been about finding agreements and alliances he can discard. i’m sure he knows that.
periodic reminder: this is what “burning it down” looks like.
Trump is going to leave quite the lasting mark on US foreign policy – if only because his entire term has been about finding agreements and alliances he can discard. i’m sure he knows that.
periodic reminder: this is what “burning it down” looks like.
A remarkably dignified statement from the Kurdish CinC:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/13/kurds-assad-syria-russia-putin-turkey-genocide/
…When the whole world failed to support us, the United States extended its hands. We shook hands and appreciated its generous support. At Washington’s request, we agreed to withdraw our heavy weapons from the border area with Turkey, destroy our defensive fortifications, and pull back our most seasoned fighters. Turkey would never attack us so long as the U.S. government was true to its word with us.
We are now standing with our chests bare to face the Turkish knives.
President Donald Trump has been promising for a long time to withdraw U.S. troops. We understand and sympathize. Fathers want to see their children laughing on their laps, lovers want to hear the voices of their partners whispering to them, everyone wants to go back to their homes.
We, however, are not asking for American soldiers to be in combat. We know that the United States is not the world police. But we do want the United States to acknowledge its important role in achieving a political solution for Syria. We are sure that Washington has sufficient leverage to mediate a sustainable peace between us and Turkey….
A remarkably dignified statement from the Kurdish CinC:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/13/kurds-assad-syria-russia-putin-turkey-genocide/
…When the whole world failed to support us, the United States extended its hands. We shook hands and appreciated its generous support. At Washington’s request, we agreed to withdraw our heavy weapons from the border area with Turkey, destroy our defensive fortifications, and pull back our most seasoned fighters. Turkey would never attack us so long as the U.S. government was true to its word with us.
We are now standing with our chests bare to face the Turkish knives.
President Donald Trump has been promising for a long time to withdraw U.S. troops. We understand and sympathize. Fathers want to see their children laughing on their laps, lovers want to hear the voices of their partners whispering to them, everyone wants to go back to their homes.
We, however, are not asking for American soldiers to be in combat. We know that the United States is not the world police. But we do want the United States to acknowledge its important role in achieving a political solution for Syria. We are sure that Washington has sufficient leverage to mediate a sustainable peace between us and Turkey….
Turkey has taken initial delivery of parts of the Russian S-400 systems they’re spending a billion dollars or so on. If that equipment “calls home” the way everyone thinks, it will eventually give the Russians a look at how it responds to an F-22 or F-35. What are the Kurds going to offer?
Turkey has taken initial delivery of parts of the Russian S-400 systems they’re spending a billion dollars or so on. If that equipment “calls home” the way everyone thinks, it will eventually give the Russians a look at how it responds to an F-22 or F-35. What are the Kurds going to offer?
THIS what you get, when you put an objective traitor to the USA in the presidency.
Thanks, GOP.
THIS what you get, when you put an objective traitor to the USA in the presidency.
Thanks, GOP.
A succinct summary:
A succinct summary:
What are the Kurds going to offer?
They’ve laid their own lives down. One would think that would be persuasive.
What are the Kurds going to offer?
They’ve laid their own lives down. One would think that would be persuasive.
From the Wash Post link—
“The militias, known as the Free Syrian Army, “are crazy and not reliable.””
Golly, who would have guessed? We only spent years arming them and often they fought side by side with Al Nusra. They’re moderate.
This is a freaking disaster, but, and yes there is a “but”, our entire policy in Syria has been largely a disaster for many years. The support for the Kurds was possibly the only part that wasn’t a freaking war crime and of course in pulling out in this precipitous manner Trump has managed to wreck even that.
From the Wash Post link—
“The militias, known as the Free Syrian Army, “are crazy and not reliable.””
Golly, who would have guessed? We only spent years arming them and often they fought side by side with Al Nusra. They’re moderate.
This is a freaking disaster, but, and yes there is a “but”, our entire policy in Syria has been largely a disaster for many years. The support for the Kurds was possibly the only part that wasn’t a freaking war crime and of course in pulling out in this precipitous manner Trump has managed to wreck even that.
To paraphrase a quote (likely mis-) attributed to Churchill: Given the choice between war and shame, he chose shame and will get war.
And the best case scenario is that it will be his successor that will have to deal with it, not He The Donald himself.
To paraphrase a quote (likely mis-) attributed to Churchill: Given the choice between war and shame, he chose shame and will get war.
And the best case scenario is that it will be his successor that will have to deal with it, not He The Donald himself.
The people who support a sociopath because he gives them goodies (tax cut, radical reactionary judiciary) won’t stop supporting him as long as he keeps giving them goodies (tax cuts, radical reactionary judges).
Their ethos, like his, is entirely transactional.
The people who support a sociopath because he gives them goodies (tax cut, radical reactionary judiciary) won’t stop supporting him as long as he keeps giving them goodies (tax cuts, radical reactionary judges).
Their ethos, like his, is entirely transactional.
To which one can do no better than quote cleek:
You’ve come a long way from pretending to be the moral standard bearers of the world, you despicable frauds.
To which one can do no better than quote cleek:
You’ve come a long way from pretending to be the moral standard bearers of the world, you despicable frauds.
A warning from Poland:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/why-polands-election-matters-beyond-its-borders/599992/
As the example of many other populist governments, from nearby Hungary to faraway Venezuela, show, it is often in their second term in office that populist leaders manage to take full control, intimidating critics and eliminating rival power centers. …
A warning from Poland:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/why-polands-election-matters-beyond-its-borders/599992/
As the example of many other populist governments, from nearby Hungary to faraway Venezuela, show, it is often in their second term in office that populist leaders manage to take full control, intimidating critics and eliminating rival power centers. …
Trump: mastermind™ of the ISIS resurgence.
https://mobile.twitter.com/richardengel/status/1183080487243407361
Trump: mastermind™ of the ISIS resurgence.
https://mobile.twitter.com/richardengel/status/1183080487243407361
First, the YPG is a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group that is part of the PPK terrorist group in Turkey. Their goal is the partition of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Armenia to create a Kurdistan. The destruction of the YPG is in the Turkish national interest. It is a high priority, probably existential, goal for the Turks.
Second, Turkey is our third oldest ally going back to February, 1945. It is essential to our strategic position in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. If allied with Russia, Russia will control the Black and Aegean Seas and the Eastern Mediterranean. Russia will have turned the southern flank of NATO in Romania, Hungary, and Poland. Selling out the Kurds to the Turks is in our national interest.
Third, unification of Syria under Assad is preferable to unification under the Syrian Democratic Force. Assad’s government is non-sectarian and generally tolerant of Christians, Jews, Sunnis and Shias. The forces we have been supporting, like al-Nusra (and likely ISIS, also), are aligned with al-Qaeda. They are Sunni extremists of the worst kind, and they would purge Syria of all other groups via genocide. Our support for al-Qaeda in Syria is sheer lunacy, but it derives from the Obama support for the so-called “Arab Spring,” which was populated by terrorists like the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Kurds have now made peace with Assad, and are submitting to rule from Damascus. Syrian troops are now moving into the Kobane-Raqqa region where they will be confronting Turkish troops and clients. Whether there will actual fighting between Turks and Syrians remains to be seen. Russia and the US will not join the fighting, but what Iran, Hezbollah, and possibly Israel, will do is anyone’s guess.
First, the YPG is a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group that is part of the PPK terrorist group in Turkey. Their goal is the partition of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Armenia to create a Kurdistan. The destruction of the YPG is in the Turkish national interest. It is a high priority, probably existential, goal for the Turks.
Second, Turkey is our third oldest ally going back to February, 1945. It is essential to our strategic position in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. If allied with Russia, Russia will control the Black and Aegean Seas and the Eastern Mediterranean. Russia will have turned the southern flank of NATO in Romania, Hungary, and Poland. Selling out the Kurds to the Turks is in our national interest.
Third, unification of Syria under Assad is preferable to unification under the Syrian Democratic Force. Assad’s government is non-sectarian and generally tolerant of Christians, Jews, Sunnis and Shias. The forces we have been supporting, like al-Nusra (and likely ISIS, also), are aligned with al-Qaeda. They are Sunni extremists of the worst kind, and they would purge Syria of all other groups via genocide. Our support for al-Qaeda in Syria is sheer lunacy, but it derives from the Obama support for the so-called “Arab Spring,” which was populated by terrorists like the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Kurds have now made peace with Assad, and are submitting to rule from Damascus. Syrian troops are now moving into the Kobane-Raqqa region where they will be confronting Turkish troops and clients. Whether there will actual fighting between Turks and Syrians remains to be seen. Russia and the US will not join the fighting, but what Iran, Hezbollah, and possibly Israel, will do is anyone’s guess.
heh. i was just going to say that the justification du jour over at Breitbart is that the Kurds are “Marxists”.
If allied with Russia…
say, who just sold Turkey a bunch of AA missiles?
Selling out the Kurds to the Turks is in our national interest.
ghoulish.
heh. i was just going to say that the justification du jour over at Breitbart is that the Kurds are “Marxists”.
If allied with Russia…
say, who just sold Turkey a bunch of AA missiles?
Selling out the Kurds to the Turks is in our national interest.
ghoulish.
So, Mr Sykes, are you buying Erdogan’s bullsh*t that the Syrian Kurds are somehow allies/proxies for Kurdish terrorists in Turkey? Because other than also being Kurdish, it is far from clear that there is any real reason to think so.
Erdogan has domestic political reasons to gin up paranoia over Turkish domestic Kurdish terrorists. And has worked hard to repress Turkey’s Kurdish citizens, in order to motivate such terrorists. But even so, his claims are ludicrous. About as plausible as Putin’s claims that the insurgents in southeast Ukraine are Ukrainians, rather than Russian military wearing civvies.
So, Mr Sykes, are you buying Erdogan’s bullsh*t that the Syrian Kurds are somehow allies/proxies for Kurdish terrorists in Turkey? Because other than also being Kurdish, it is far from clear that there is any real reason to think so.
Erdogan has domestic political reasons to gin up paranoia over Turkish domestic Kurdish terrorists. And has worked hard to repress Turkey’s Kurdish citizens, in order to motivate such terrorists. But even so, his claims are ludicrous. About as plausible as Putin’s claims that the insurgents in southeast Ukraine are Ukrainians, rather than Russian military wearing civvies.
Yes, the YPG is linked to the PKK. I will leave aside the word terrorist, which could have a real objective meaning, but in practice does not. Ocalan stopped being an orthodox Marxist Leninist and became libertarian socialist. Some people on the far left have been in love with the YPG for this reason.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/a-dream-of-utopia-in-hell.html
I have no idea how democratic the Syrian Kurds are in actuality. The funny thing is that these Chomsky types have been allied with the Green Berets.
Normally you would expect the left to be romanticizing them and the msm to be calling them communist totalitarians but since they were our temporary allies ( now shooting our other allies) the usual ideological lineups have gotten all confused.
Yes, the YPG is linked to the PKK. I will leave aside the word terrorist, which could have a real objective meaning, but in practice does not. Ocalan stopped being an orthodox Marxist Leninist and became libertarian socialist. Some people on the far left have been in love with the YPG for this reason.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/a-dream-of-utopia-in-hell.html
I have no idea how democratic the Syrian Kurds are in actuality. The funny thing is that these Chomsky types have been allied with the Green Berets.
Normally you would expect the left to be romanticizing them and the msm to be calling them communist totalitarians but since they were our temporary allies ( now shooting our other allies) the usual ideological lineups have gotten all confused.
Because other than also being Kurdish, it is far from clear that there is any real reason to think so.
So far as I have read, the Syrian Kurds are splintered so many ways that some group is affiliated with/supports almost anyone you can name. No one seems to deny that the YPG is an offshoot of the PKK, with the same goals in Syria that the PKK has in Turkey (ie, an independent Kurdish state). But there are other Syrian Kurds fighting with the Turkish troops against the YPG because they view the YPG as terrorist fanatics oppressing the civilian population.
If the Kurdish areas in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey were somehow carved off and delivered to the Kurds, it seems the likely outcome would be a 8- or 10-way civil war.
Because other than also being Kurdish, it is far from clear that there is any real reason to think so.
So far as I have read, the Syrian Kurds are splintered so many ways that some group is affiliated with/supports almost anyone you can name. No one seems to deny that the YPG is an offshoot of the PKK, with the same goals in Syria that the PKK has in Turkey (ie, an independent Kurdish state). But there are other Syrian Kurds fighting with the Turkish troops against the YPG because they view the YPG as terrorist fanatics oppressing the civilian population.
If the Kurdish areas in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey were somehow carved off and delivered to the Kurds, it seems the likely outcome would be a 8- or 10-way civil war.
Btw, this moral outrage about the US helping Turkey kill Kurds should sound familiar, but notice the date. February 2016
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-feminist-democratic-leftists-our-military-is-obliterating/
Note that the YPG is mentioned.
One could go further back, to the 90’s, when the US supplied weapons to Turkey to bomb Kurdish villages in Turkey.
Btw, this moral outrage about the US helping Turkey kill Kurds should sound familiar, but notice the date. February 2016
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-feminist-democratic-leftists-our-military-is-obliterating/
Note that the YPG is mentioned.
One could go further back, to the 90’s, when the US supplied weapons to Turkey to bomb Kurdish villages in Turkey.
To be clear, I am not sure I fully believe these stories of democratic leftists because the far left is always finding groups like this to romanticize. Usually the mainstream then demonizes them. What has been different with the Syrian Kurds is that by geopolitical accident we’ve been on the same side, so Chomsky and Lindsay Graham are supporters of what had been a libertarian socialist mini state.
To be clear, I am not sure I fully believe these stories of democratic leftists because the far left is always finding groups like this to romanticize. Usually the mainstream then demonizes them. What has been different with the Syrian Kurds is that by geopolitical accident we’ve been on the same side, so Chomsky and Lindsay Graham are supporters of what had been a libertarian socialist mini state.
If the Kurdish areas in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey were somehow carved off and delivered to the Kurds, it seems the likely outcome would be a 8- or 10-way civil war.
I’m not so sure. One of the features of the Kurdish area of Syria (Rojava), in addition to having better women’s rights than anywhere in the Middle East bar Israel, was that it had 3 regions. Each with their own government, flag, etc., etc. Which is to say, they seemed to be managing something resembling federalism amongst their various sub-groups.
If the Kurdish areas in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey were somehow carved off and delivered to the Kurds, it seems the likely outcome would be a 8- or 10-way civil war.
I’m not so sure. One of the features of the Kurdish area of Syria (Rojava), in addition to having better women’s rights than anywhere in the Middle East bar Israel, was that it had 3 regions. Each with their own government, flag, etc., etc. Which is to say, they seemed to be managing something resembling federalism amongst their various sub-groups.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/world/middleeast/trump-turkey-syria.html
And over the weekend, State and Energy Department officials were quietly reviewing plans for evacuating roughly 50 tactical nuclear weapons that the United States had long stored, under American control, at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, about 250 miles from the Syrian border, according to two American officials.
Those weapons, one senior official said, were now essentially Erdogan’s hostages. To fly them out of Incirlik would be to mark the de facto end of the Turkish-American alliance. To keep them there, though, is to perpetuate a nuclear vulnerability that should have been eliminated years ago.
“I think this is a first — a country with U.S. nuclear weapons stationed in it literally firing artillery at US forces,” Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies wrote last week.”
No one consulted the “Deep State” regarding preparing to secure/remove the weapons before the decision was made by the gastrointestinal microbiota in the roiling gut of an ignorant psychopath steered by his reptilian brain stem.
Rant appended here detailing the savage killing that is about to descend upon all Americans deleted for my self-protection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/world/middleeast/trump-turkey-syria.html
And over the weekend, State and Energy Department officials were quietly reviewing plans for evacuating roughly 50 tactical nuclear weapons that the United States had long stored, under American control, at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, about 250 miles from the Syrian border, according to two American officials.
Those weapons, one senior official said, were now essentially Erdogan’s hostages. To fly them out of Incirlik would be to mark the de facto end of the Turkish-American alliance. To keep them there, though, is to perpetuate a nuclear vulnerability that should have been eliminated years ago.
“I think this is a first — a country with U.S. nuclear weapons stationed in it literally firing artillery at US forces,” Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies wrote last week.”
No one consulted the “Deep State” regarding preparing to secure/remove the weapons before the decision was made by the gastrointestinal microbiota in the roiling gut of an ignorant psychopath steered by his reptilian brain stem.
Rant appended here detailing the savage killing that is about to descend upon all Americans deleted for my self-protection.
Btw, this moral outrage about the US helping Turkey kill Kurds
no, not “the US”, Trump.
pretty much everyone except Trump’s sycophant army is aghast.
Btw, this moral outrage about the US helping Turkey kill Kurds
no, not “the US”, Trump.
pretty much everyone except Trump’s sycophant army is aghast.
I’m not so sure.
Yeah, I’m getting more pessimistic about the world every year.
I’m not so sure.
Yeah, I’m getting more pessimistic about the world every year.
I’m experiencing some cognitive dissonance with the concept of “libertarian socialist”.
I’m experiencing some cognitive dissonance with the concept of “libertarian socialist”.
More background.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5yajg/trumps-betrayal-of-the-kurds-is-as-incoherent-as-it-is-dangerous
More background.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5yajg/trumps-betrayal-of-the-kurds-is-as-incoherent-as-it-is-dangerous
Chomsky always talked about libertarian socialism. They tend to think the right hijacked the term libertarian. LeGuin’s SF novel The Dispossessed depicts a libertarian socialist society and I gather the Spanish anarchists are in this tradition.
Personally I never spent too much time on it. Sanders style social democracy is about as far left as I can imagine for the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Chomsky always talked about libertarian socialism. They tend to think the right hijacked the term libertarian. LeGuin’s SF novel The Dispossessed depicts a libertarian socialist society and I gather the Spanish anarchists are in this tradition.
Personally I never spent too much time on it. Sanders style social democracy is about as far left as I can imagine for the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
so, kind of anarcho-syndicalist, but not specifically focused on labor?
so, kind of anarcho-syndicalist, but not specifically focused on labor?
Russell— probably. I think of one of those guys in the Monty Python movie. There were anarchists ( Mahkno) in the Russian civil war who fought both Whites and Reds. There were the Spanish anarchists. I think the Zapatista are in this group and most recently the PKK / YPG.
It has been decades since I read much about this. I used to subscribe to Z magazine. The editor and a leftwing economist tried to work out a model for how a large country could become libertarian socialist. They called it participatory economics or parecon for short. To most people it seemed to involve a lot of meetings.
I fell back to just reading Chomsky for the account of US human rights violations ( Larison now fills that niche) and wishing for social democracy.
Russell— probably. I think of one of those guys in the Monty Python movie. There were anarchists ( Mahkno) in the Russian civil war who fought both Whites and Reds. There were the Spanish anarchists. I think the Zapatista are in this group and most recently the PKK / YPG.
It has been decades since I read much about this. I used to subscribe to Z magazine. The editor and a leftwing economist tried to work out a model for how a large country could become libertarian socialist. They called it participatory economics or parecon for short. To most people it seemed to involve a lot of meetings.
I fell back to just reading Chomsky for the account of US human rights violations ( Larison now fills that niche) and wishing for social democracy.
I’m experiencing some cognitive dissonance with the concept of “libertarian socialist”.
Me too.
I’m experiencing some cognitive dissonance with the concept of “libertarian socialist”.
Me too.
The spectre of genuine fascism:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-treason-his-fans-invoke-violence-how-attacks-against-schiff-are-escalating-online/2019/10/14/9f613974-ec4c-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html
The spectre of genuine fascism:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-treason-his-fans-invoke-violence-how-attacks-against-schiff-are-escalating-online/2019/10/14/9f613974-ec4c-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html
At least, unlike Germany in the 1930s, nobody is going to say “Oh the Americans are too civilized for anything like that to happen there.” People say lots of things about us. But “too civilized” has never, to my knowledge, been an accusation hurled at us.
At least, unlike Germany in the 1930s, nobody is going to say “Oh the Americans are too civilized for anything like that to happen there.” People say lots of things about us. But “too civilized” has never, to my knowledge, been an accusation hurled at us.
To the OT,
Sometimes it’s just not possible to say it better:
To the OT,
Sometimes it’s just not possible to say it better:
Carving up 4 neighbouring countries in the Middke East to create a new state for a perpetually divided and inherently heterogeneous minority sounds like a really, really great idea – like something Graham Greene’s ‘Quiet Man’ would come up with. God help us.
Carving up 4 neighbouring countries in the Middke East to create a new state for a perpetually divided and inherently heterogeneous minority sounds like a really, really great idea – like something Graham Greene’s ‘Quiet Man’ would come up with. God help us.
what if the minority did the ‘carving’ on its own, and that’s just where they lived?
what if the minority did the ‘carving’ on its own, and that’s just where they lived?
Drawing arbitrary lines on maps is a time honored tradition of the powerful…sprinkle in a little Wilsonian nationalism…and you have a recipe for ceaseless conflict. Maybe we need the return of the Ottoman Empire.
Drawing arbitrary lines on maps is a time honored tradition of the powerful…sprinkle in a little Wilsonian nationalism…and you have a recipe for ceaseless conflict. Maybe we need the return of the Ottoman Empire.
It’s not entirely clear to me why the Kurds should be less entitled to self-determination than, say, the Palestinians.
It’s not entirely clear to me why the Kurds should be less entitled to self-determination than, say, the Palestinians.
It’s not entirely clear to me why the Kurds should be less entitled to self-determination than, say, the Palestinians.
Sounds so simple when you say it that way.
To me it sounds something like this, regarding the border between Serbia and Kosovo.
Unlike Donald and others, I’m not well-informed about these issues. But you don’t have to study much to understand that there’s nothing simple about the intersection of how people identify themselves (Irish, Northern Irish, British-in-NI, e.g.) with where they live, with how far back we’d like to go to identify “their” territory, and probably in a lot of cases with their religious and political identities. (See Northern Ireland.)
It’s not entirely clear to me why the Kurds should be less entitled to self-determination than, say, the Palestinians.
Sounds so simple when you say it that way.
To me it sounds something like this, regarding the border between Serbia and Kosovo.
Unlike Donald and others, I’m not well-informed about these issues. But you don’t have to study much to understand that there’s nothing simple about the intersection of how people identify themselves (Irish, Northern Irish, British-in-NI, e.g.) with where they live, with how far back we’d like to go to identify “their” territory, and probably in a lot of cases with their religious and political identities. (See Northern Ireland.)
— from “An Ethic for Enemies,” by Donald W. Shriver, Jr.
If I had Shriver in the room right now, I’d ask him when that Romanian identity tying itself to a 2000-year-old “settlement” (one might assume conquest…?) by the Romans was concocted as an rationale for claiming the territory as belonging to one group and not another. It carries more than a faint echo of Confederate statues.
— from “An Ethic for Enemies,” by Donald W. Shriver, Jr.
If I had Shriver in the room right now, I’d ask him when that Romanian identity tying itself to a 2000-year-old “settlement” (one might assume conquest…?) by the Romans was concocted as an rationale for claiming the territory as belonging to one group and not another. It carries more than a faint echo of Confederate statues.
I don’t think it sounds simple however one says it.
I don’t think it sounds simple however one says it.
I’m puzzled by the fact that “Germans” who have been in Romania for 500 years (what’s the secret to their longevity?!) would have any reason to “go back” to Germany in particular.
Maybe it’s the perspective of an American mutt. I don’t know how many different countries (on at least 3 continents) I would have to choose from to “go back” to where my ancestors lived 500 years ago.
I’m puzzled by the fact that “Germans” who have been in Romania for 500 years (what’s the secret to their longevity?!) would have any reason to “go back” to Germany in particular.
Maybe it’s the perspective of an American mutt. I don’t know how many different countries (on at least 3 continents) I would have to choose from to “go back” to where my ancestors lived 500 years ago.
It would really help if people stopped talking about “the Kurds” – this is just ignorant. And there is no way Iran and Turkey would ever give up any territory to form a Kurdish state, why should they?
It would really help if people stopped talking about “the Kurds” – this is just ignorant. And there is no way Iran and Turkey would ever give up any territory to form a Kurdish state, why should they?
But is it ignorant when “the Kurds” do it? Which is to say, when Kurds from different current nations talk about the Kurds, and their aspiration for an independent state?
But is it ignorant when “the Kurds” do it? Which is to say, when Kurds from different current nations talk about the Kurds, and their aspiration for an independent state?
If I had Shriver in the room right now, I’d ask him when that Romanian identity tying itself to a 2000-year-old “settlement” (one might assume conquest…?) by the Romans was concocted as an rationale for claiming the territory as belonging to one group and not another. It carries more than a faint echo of Confederate statues.
To address the elephant in the room, to me it carries more than a faint echo of the justification for the State of Israel. The tenacity of the jews mourning and hankering after an ancestral home for so many thousand years, while unusual in duration, and perpetuated by ritual repetition (“Next year in Jerusalem”), is surely the prime example of how this sort of thing spills down the ages without losing potency.
If I had Shriver in the room right now, I’d ask him when that Romanian identity tying itself to a 2000-year-old “settlement” (one might assume conquest…?) by the Romans was concocted as an rationale for claiming the territory as belonging to one group and not another. It carries more than a faint echo of Confederate statues.
To address the elephant in the room, to me it carries more than a faint echo of the justification for the State of Israel. The tenacity of the jews mourning and hankering after an ancestral home for so many thousand years, while unusual in duration, and perpetuated by ritual repetition (“Next year in Jerusalem”), is surely the prime example of how this sort of thing spills down the ages without losing potency.
I believe the Kurds recognised they weren’t going to get an independent state, and were trying for a measure of independence within a federated Syria.
An impossible dream ? Looks that way now.
I believe the Kurds recognised they weren’t going to get an independent state, and were trying for a measure of independence within a federated Syria.
An impossible dream ? Looks that way now.
In Turkey for many years it was a crime to acknowledge the very existence of a people called Kurds. In official terms those people were ‘mountain Turks”.
Btw, Xenophon had to deal with people we today assume were Kurds in his Anabasis. That was centuries before any Turk showed up in that part of the world (except maybe as a foreign tradesman who left no traces in the records).
In Turkey for many years it was a crime to acknowledge the very existence of a people called Kurds. In official terms those people were ‘mountain Turks”.
Btw, Xenophon had to deal with people we today assume were Kurds in his Anabasis. That was centuries before any Turk showed up in that part of the world (except maybe as a foreign tradesman who left no traces in the records).
GftNC: I get what you’re saying, and I’m the one who speculated about a justification being invented sort of after the fact, but I think with the Romanians in Romania there was no “return” like there was with the Jews to Israel. The Romanians were never driven out, so there was no need to return. (Again, not well versed in this history.)
But the core of my point is that one group or another will find one justification or another for land being “theirs” — 2000 years, 4000 years, 500 years…as hsh hints, where do all of us mongrel Americans go if someone makes us go “back”? (Where do ALL the mongrels go back to, as far as that goes?)
And for that matter, I’m pretty sure some of the peoples that were on this continent when the Europeans came had driven out others, besides driving the big mammals to extinction.
It’s the human story. “An Ethic for Enemies” is all about how to find a way beyond these never-ending bloody fights. Great book, pie in the sky I’m afraid for the foreseeable future and beyond.
P.S. not going to try to find it, but I believe there have been DNA links traced between current residents of Northern Ireland and bones from 5000 years ago. Or maybe I’m getting it mixed up with dwellings. Again, how far back do our ties have to go to justify a link to a specific bit of real estate? And what about us mongrels, hey?
GftNC: I get what you’re saying, and I’m the one who speculated about a justification being invented sort of after the fact, but I think with the Romanians in Romania there was no “return” like there was with the Jews to Israel. The Romanians were never driven out, so there was no need to return. (Again, not well versed in this history.)
But the core of my point is that one group or another will find one justification or another for land being “theirs” — 2000 years, 4000 years, 500 years…as hsh hints, where do all of us mongrel Americans go if someone makes us go “back”? (Where do ALL the mongrels go back to, as far as that goes?)
And for that matter, I’m pretty sure some of the peoples that were on this continent when the Europeans came had driven out others, besides driving the big mammals to extinction.
It’s the human story. “An Ethic for Enemies” is all about how to find a way beyond these never-ending bloody fights. Great book, pie in the sky I’m afraid for the foreseeable future and beyond.
P.S. not going to try to find it, but I believe there have been DNA links traced between current residents of Northern Ireland and bones from 5000 years ago. Or maybe I’m getting it mixed up with dwellings. Again, how far back do our ties have to go to justify a link to a specific bit of real estate? And what about us mongrels, hey?
P.S. not going to try to find it, but I believe there have been DNA links traced between current residents of Northern Ireland and bones from 5000 years ago.
I don’t know about that, but I remember this newspaper story a few years ago:
And Janie, you’re right about the “return” aspect, but I brought it up because I have always been made very uneasy by this basis for the existence of modern Israel (while completely understanding how, after the holocaust, establishing some kind of Jewish homeland was necessary – and if not there, where? I have no answers, just the profound conviction that you cannot house one people by dispossessing another.)
P.S. not going to try to find it, but I believe there have been DNA links traced between current residents of Northern Ireland and bones from 5000 years ago.
I don’t know about that, but I remember this newspaper story a few years ago:
And Janie, you’re right about the “return” aspect, but I brought it up because I have always been made very uneasy by this basis for the existence of modern Israel (while completely understanding how, after the holocaust, establishing some kind of Jewish homeland was necessary – and if not there, where? I have no answers, just the profound conviction that you cannot house one people by dispossessing another.)
Most likely somebody who was around 9,000 years ago is either related to almost nobody living today, or to a whole lot of people living today, more or less any and everywhere.
That’s something like 350 generations. People move around.
Not saying it isn’t a remarkable thing to be able to make the association, just saying it may not be grounds for saying “I belong in this particular place”. It’s kind of a crap shoot, at that kind of time scale.
Most likely somebody who was around 9,000 years ago is either related to almost nobody living today, or to a whole lot of people living today, more or less any and everywhere.
That’s something like 350 generations. People move around.
Not saying it isn’t a remarkable thing to be able to make the association, just saying it may not be grounds for saying “I belong in this particular place”. It’s kind of a crap shoot, at that kind of time scale.
I have no answers, just the profound conviction that you cannot house one people by dispossessing another.
Agree. And since we’ve now crawled into every habitable square inch on the planet, it sure would be nice if we could figure out how to share it without shooting each other.
Also, wrs.
I keep coming back to the Clickbait-and-Miller enhanced hysteria about immigrants in the US right now. As someone on here once said (maybe Davis X. Machina), “We stole it fair and square” — so now I guess some of us think we have a right never to have it “stolen” from us. Never mind that having new neighbors isn’t quite the same as being conquered and displaced.
I have no answers, just the profound conviction that you cannot house one people by dispossessing another.
Agree. And since we’ve now crawled into every habitable square inch on the planet, it sure would be nice if we could figure out how to share it without shooting each other.
Also, wrs.
I keep coming back to the Clickbait-and-Miller enhanced hysteria about immigrants in the US right now. As someone on here once said (maybe Davis X. Machina), “We stole it fair and square” — so now I guess some of us think we have a right never to have it “stolen” from us. Never mind that having new neighbors isn’t quite the same as being conquered and displaced.
It would really help if people stopped talking about “the Kurds” – this is just ignorant.
What’s ignorant about it? You’ve got a self-identified ethnic group which even has a distinct language. One that differs from those of other groups in the region. (That is, it’s neither Arabic nor Turkish nor Farsi — those being the other major languages in the neighborhood. Nor Georgian or Armenian either, which I mention because the Armenian alphabet is one of those used for writing Kurdish.)
Certainly it’s inconvenient for the Turks, the Iraqis, the Syrians, and even the Iranians that they exist. Tough.
It would really help if people stopped talking about “the Kurds” – this is just ignorant.
What’s ignorant about it? You’ve got a self-identified ethnic group which even has a distinct language. One that differs from those of other groups in the region. (That is, it’s neither Arabic nor Turkish nor Farsi — those being the other major languages in the neighborhood. Nor Georgian or Armenian either, which I mention because the Armenian alphabet is one of those used for writing Kurdish.)
Certainly it’s inconvenient for the Turks, the Iraqis, the Syrians, and even the Iranians that they exist. Tough.
Never mind that having new neighbors isn’t quite the same as being conquered and displaced.
Ah, yes, the “invasion.” The people who use that term for immigrants are lucky not to know what living through a real invasion is like. Perhaps some of their recent ancestors did – from the side of the invaders, of course.
Never mind that having new neighbors isn’t quite the same as being conquered and displaced.
Ah, yes, the “invasion.” The people who use that term for immigrants are lucky not to know what living through a real invasion is like. Perhaps some of their recent ancestors did – from the side of the invaders, of course.
so now I guess some of us think we have a right never to have it “stolen” from us.
Something of a challenge to warp the meaning of words to the point that someone peacefully moving in and buying land constitutes invading and “stealing” it. Not that the Millers of the world don’t manage it.
so now I guess some of us think we have a right never to have it “stolen” from us.
Something of a challenge to warp the meaning of words to the point that someone peacefully moving in and buying land constitutes invading and “stealing” it. Not that the Millers of the world don’t manage it.
they’re stealing our precious cultural identity, which is %%INSERT_SELF_IMAGE_HERE%% !
they’re stealing our precious cultural identity, which is %%INSERT_SELF_IMAGE_HERE%% !
Property (land): If it has never been stolen it’s because nobody has ever wanted it.
If we had One World Government under (something approaching) pure communism, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
“Property is Theft, my friend,” said somebody.
Property (land): If it has never been stolen it’s because nobody has ever wanted it.
If we had One World Government under (something approaching) pure communism, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
“Property is Theft, my friend,” said somebody.
“Property is Theft”
It has been my observation, over the years, that this gets hauled out almost exclusively by people who have never been willing to save money in order to buy something resembling property. But still think that the world should make them a gift of it, or at least the use of it. “Something for nothing” at its finest.
“Property is Theft”
It has been my observation, over the years, that this gets hauled out almost exclusively by people who have never been willing to save money in order to buy something resembling property. But still think that the world should make them a gift of it, or at least the use of it. “Something for nothing” at its finest.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be rude, but a certain very persistent, shall we say, naiveté regarding the ME just drives me up the wall – and it is actually dangerous when decision makers in Washington and elsewhere display it.
Treating the Kurds as a homogenous group with a common goal is such an extreme simplification that it is just wrong. Cf. e.g.:
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/05/19/kurds-syria-iraq-divided-future/
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be rude, but a certain very persistent, shall we say, naiveté regarding the ME just drives me up the wall – and it is actually dangerous when decision makers in Washington and elsewhere display it.
Treating the Kurds as a homogenous group with a common goal is such an extreme simplification that it is just wrong. Cf. e.g.:
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/05/19/kurds-syria-iraq-divided-future/
Well wj, since the actual way the world works seems to be, whether overtly or deep down, “Whatever I can grab and hold is mine,” I think there’s more to be said for the “property is theft” POV than you’re allowing for.
I have a neighbor who just loves to go on about social service programs in terms of, “What, we should just give people stuff?” A very well off older white guy, who associates mostly with more of the same. His definition of “we” is obvious. The sick, the infirm, the unemployed — well, they’re mostly faking it, so there.
Well wj, since the actual way the world works seems to be, whether overtly or deep down, “Whatever I can grab and hold is mine,” I think there’s more to be said for the “property is theft” POV than you’re allowing for.
I have a neighbor who just loves to go on about social service programs in terms of, “What, we should just give people stuff?” A very well off older white guy, who associates mostly with more of the same. His definition of “we” is obvious. The sick, the infirm, the unemployed — well, they’re mostly faking it, so there.
Well wj, since the actual way the world works seems to be, whether overtly or deep down, “Whatever I can grab and hold is mine,” I think there’s more to be said for the “property is theft” POV than you’re allowing for.
I’m willing to grant that much of relations between nations have historically worked that way. Much, but not all. Consider, for example, that the US could unquestionably have held western Germany indefinitely after WW II. We could have, but we didn’t. Ditto Japan. Sure, we had reasons for what we did, but our ability to hold that area was never really in question.
However the “if I can grab and hold it, it’s mine” approach is rather less routine in private dealings between individuals. Trump (and others like him) do take that approach. But most people don’t consider it an acceptable way to treat others. At least in my experience. To the point that we actually craft laws to try to constrain the minority who think that way.
Well wj, since the actual way the world works seems to be, whether overtly or deep down, “Whatever I can grab and hold is mine,” I think there’s more to be said for the “property is theft” POV than you’re allowing for.
I’m willing to grant that much of relations between nations have historically worked that way. Much, but not all. Consider, for example, that the US could unquestionably have held western Germany indefinitely after WW II. We could have, but we didn’t. Ditto Japan. Sure, we had reasons for what we did, but our ability to hold that area was never really in question.
However the “if I can grab and hold it, it’s mine” approach is rather less routine in private dealings between individuals. Trump (and others like him) do take that approach. But most people don’t consider it an acceptable way to treat others. At least in my experience. To the point that we actually craft laws to try to constrain the minority who think that way.
People coming to the US, and other first world countries, makes the world, as a whole, wealthier.
(PQ: Does my propensity for commas make for difficult reading?)
People coming to the US, and other first world countries, makes the world, as a whole, wealthier.
(PQ: Does my propensity for commas make for difficult reading?)
Don’t see a handy open thread. But can’t resist sharing >this:
Don’t see a handy open thread. But can’t resist sharing >this:
However the “if I can grab and hold it, it’s mine” approach is rather less routine in private dealings between individuals.
It’s deeply obscured by the complexity of modern life, but it’s still very much alive, even routine, in the way our culture works. It’s not so much property-as-land directly (although Clickbait’s career, as you say, illustrates the point in that realm). But sorry, how does a greedy, arrogant, strutting little asshole (I’ve read that he manipulates public and video appearances to make himself appear taller than he is) like Zuckerberg end up a multi-gazillionaire while other people are still starving? Grab grab grab, manipulate, grab.
However the “if I can grab and hold it, it’s mine” approach is rather less routine in private dealings between individuals.
It’s deeply obscured by the complexity of modern life, but it’s still very much alive, even routine, in the way our culture works. It’s not so much property-as-land directly (although Clickbait’s career, as you say, illustrates the point in that realm). But sorry, how does a greedy, arrogant, strutting little asshole (I’ve read that he manipulates public and video appearances to make himself appear taller than he is) like Zuckerberg end up a multi-gazillionaire while other people are still starving? Grab grab grab, manipulate, grab.
(PQ: Does my propensity for commas make for difficult reading?)
It’s very Victorian of you. ;=)
Putting on my amateur copy editor hat, I’d say your commas are all well-placed, but it would also have been fine, and maybe smoother to the modern mind’s ear, to leave them all out. But in that case I might have suggested reordering the sentence to put the singular subject nearer to the verb, given that there are plural entities intervening.
Or you could have left one pair of commas out. If I had to choose which one, I’d choose the second, since “the world as a whole” is a perfectly familiar idiomatic usage.
(PQ: Does my propensity for commas make for difficult reading?)
It’s very Victorian of you. ;=)
Putting on my amateur copy editor hat, I’d say your commas are all well-placed, but it would also have been fine, and maybe smoother to the modern mind’s ear, to leave them all out. But in that case I might have suggested reordering the sentence to put the singular subject nearer to the verb, given that there are plural entities intervening.
Or you could have left one pair of commas out. If I had to choose which one, I’d choose the second, since “the world as a whole” is a perfectly familiar idiomatic usage.
The Trump administration has inadvertently accomplished what his predecessors only promised: transparency.
The Trump administration has inadvertently accomplished what his predecessors only promised: transparency.
JanieM, thanks for the advice.
JanieM, thanks for the advice.
CharlesWT: you’re welcome. It was given very lightheartedly, and only because you asked, and even then I wasn’t sure if you were serious or just kidding around. If you hadn’t added the PQ, I wouldn’t have noticed the commas particularly, but I actually *did* notice the subject-verb issue. IMHO — and I’m not a pro but I’ve done a *lot* of editing — it’s better not to offer readers opportunities to stumble and have to reread. It slows them down.
But hey, it’s a blog comment! But we have a lot of very competent writers here. I almost never notice grammatical glitches that aren’t pretty obviously the product of haste or goofy auto-corrections.
CharlesWT: you’re welcome. It was given very lightheartedly, and only because you asked, and even then I wasn’t sure if you were serious or just kidding around. If you hadn’t added the PQ, I wouldn’t have noticed the commas particularly, but I actually *did* notice the subject-verb issue. IMHO — and I’m not a pro but I’ve done a *lot* of editing — it’s better not to offer readers opportunities to stumble and have to reread. It slows them down.
But hey, it’s a blog comment! But we have a lot of very competent writers here. I almost never notice grammatical glitches that aren’t pretty obviously the product of haste or goofy auto-corrections.
The Trump administration has inadvertently accomplished what his predecessors only promised: transparency.
inadvertently ?
i think you misspelled “unintentionally”
The Trump administration has inadvertently accomplished what his predecessors only promised: transparency.
inadvertently ?
i think you misspelled “unintentionally”
i think you misspelled “unintentionally”
Yes, that’s a better fit.
i think you misspelled “unintentionally”
Yes, that’s a better fit.
Okay, not to pick on CharlesWT (SRSLY!), but our earlier exchange made me think of something else.
“World as a whole” is redundant. Does “makes the world as a whole wealthier” meaning something other than “makes the world wealthier”?
What else does “world” mean other than the whole thing?
I bring it up because it’s a variation on one of my current pet usage peeves: the unnecessary use of “separate,” or “different.”
For instance,
“He called me five separate times.”
“We went to two different restaurants last week.”
Then there’s may for might, assist for help…a long list.
Okay, not to pick on CharlesWT (SRSLY!), but our earlier exchange made me think of something else.
“World as a whole” is redundant. Does “makes the world as a whole wealthier” meaning something other than “makes the world wealthier”?
What else does “world” mean other than the whole thing?
I bring it up because it’s a variation on one of my current pet usage peeves: the unnecessary use of “separate,” or “different.”
For instance,
“He called me five separate times.”
“We went to two different restaurants last week.”
Then there’s may for might, assist for help…a long list.
Then there’s the perennial “levy” vs “level” malapropism.
You “levy” a tax. You “level” a charge.
Persons looking for any equivalence they can find between, say, MSNBC and Fox News need look no farther than the propensity of both to get this bit of usage wrong on the air.
–TP
Then there’s the perennial “levy” vs “level” malapropism.
You “levy” a tax. You “level” a charge.
Persons looking for any equivalence they can find between, say, MSNBC and Fox News need look no farther than the propensity of both to get this bit of usage wrong on the air.
–TP
What else does “world” mean other than the whole thing?
English has quite a bit of syntactical sugar that all too many people, including myself, are prone to use.
What else does “world” mean other than the whole thing?
English has quite a bit of syntactical sugar that all too many people, including myself, are prone to use.
“ It’s not entirely clear to me why the Kurds should be less entitled to self-determination than, say, the Palestinians.”
The Palestinians don’t have self determination.
Personally, and they aren’t asking me, it is overrated anyway. One man one vote is the way to go. I think nationalism was a bad idea. Understandable as a reaction to colonialism, but often the imperialists are thrown out and then new forms of oppression kick in. People in the Mideast ( and a few other places) need to learn to live in multi- ethnic democracies giving equal rights for everyone. Not that I am suggesting we force this on them. We aren’t doing that great ourselves.
As for Kurdistan, I tend to agree with novakant. Trump of course handled things in the worst way possible, but were we supposed to occupy part of Syria forever? And what would Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria think about that? I gather that part of Syria has oil, btw.
“ It’s not entirely clear to me why the Kurds should be less entitled to self-determination than, say, the Palestinians.”
The Palestinians don’t have self determination.
Personally, and they aren’t asking me, it is overrated anyway. One man one vote is the way to go. I think nationalism was a bad idea. Understandable as a reaction to colonialism, but often the imperialists are thrown out and then new forms of oppression kick in. People in the Mideast ( and a few other places) need to learn to live in multi- ethnic democracies giving equal rights for everyone. Not that I am suggesting we force this on them. We aren’t doing that great ourselves.
As for Kurdistan, I tend to agree with novakant. Trump of course handled things in the worst way possible, but were we supposed to occupy part of Syria forever? And what would Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria think about that? I gather that part of Syria has oil, btw.
“World as a whole” is redundant. Does “makes the world as a whole wealthier” meaning something other than “makes the world wealthier”?
What else does “world” mean other than the whole thing?
I think the distinction being drawn is that, while overall the world is wealthier, particular individuals or groups may well not be. May, indeed, be less well off.
Whereas just saying “makes the world wealthier” somehow implies that all the pieces are wealthier as well. It’s about unstated (and quite possibly counter-intuitive when you stop and parse it out) assumptions which are being addressed.
Thus, at least, my take on why we say things that are repetitively redundant.
“World as a whole” is redundant. Does “makes the world as a whole wealthier” meaning something other than “makes the world wealthier”?
What else does “world” mean other than the whole thing?
I think the distinction being drawn is that, while overall the world is wealthier, particular individuals or groups may well not be. May, indeed, be less well off.
Whereas just saying “makes the world wealthier” somehow implies that all the pieces are wealthier as well. It’s about unstated (and quite possibly counter-intuitive when you stop and parse it out) assumptions which are being addressed.
Thus, at least, my take on why we say things that are repetitively redundant.
As for Kurdistan, I tend to agree with novakant. Trump of course handled things in the worst way possible, but were we supposed to occupy part of Syria forever?
The thing is, we weren’t occupying part of Syria. We had a handful of troops on site, whose primary function (obviously in hindsight, for those too dense to understand it initially) was to provide a trip wire which would deter the particular bit of ethnic cleansing that Turkey is now engaged in.
And, as a side benefit, allow the Kurds to expend resources keeping ISIS fighters (and dependents) in custody. That is, not running around Syria (and the rest of the Middle East, and the rest of the world), engaging in the kind of religious-based terrorism that they embrace with such enthusiasm. On any conceivable cost/benefit analysis, some of the best use of funds we have managed in the Middle East in ages.
As for Kurdistan, I tend to agree with novakant. Trump of course handled things in the worst way possible, but were we supposed to occupy part of Syria forever?
The thing is, we weren’t occupying part of Syria. We had a handful of troops on site, whose primary function (obviously in hindsight, for those too dense to understand it initially) was to provide a trip wire which would deter the particular bit of ethnic cleansing that Turkey is now engaged in.
And, as a side benefit, allow the Kurds to expend resources keeping ISIS fighters (and dependents) in custody. That is, not running around Syria (and the rest of the Middle East, and the rest of the world), engaging in the kind of religious-based terrorism that they embrace with such enthusiasm. On any conceivable cost/benefit analysis, some of the best use of funds we have managed in the Middle East in ages.
Treating the Kurds as a homogenous group with a common goal is such an extreme simplification that it is just wrong
Would that not also be the case for Americans, or Iranians, or Syrians ?
I may be being obtuse, but I don’t really get the point you are making, other than there is no Kurdish nation state – which is perhaps part of the problem.
Treating the Kurds as a homogenous group with a common goal is such an extreme simplification that it is just wrong
Would that not also be the case for Americans, or Iranians, or Syrians ?
I may be being obtuse, but I don’t really get the point you are making, other than there is no Kurdish nation state – which is perhaps part of the problem.
novakant-good and informative article from NYRB. Thanks.
wj – What Janie said. You really need to expand your intellectual horizons.
More on the theme: “Behind all great wealth is a crime.”
novakant-good and informative article from NYRB. Thanks.
wj – What Janie said. You really need to expand your intellectual horizons.
More on the theme: “Behind all great wealth is a crime.”
@Donald: I think nationalism was a bad idea. Understandable as a reaction to colonialism, but often the imperialists are thrown out and then new forms of oppression kick in. People in the Mideast ( and a few other places) need to learn to live in multi- ethnic democracies giving equal rights for everyone. Not that I am suggesting we force this on them. We aren’t doing that great ourselves.
I was trying to get at something like this with my ramblings about ethnicity vs land. This is much clearer.
*****
@CharlesWT: syntactical sugar
A great phrase! And I don’t think it’s exclusive to English. My son spent five years in China, mostly teaching English, and sometimes he was asked to help people prepare for contests where people made speeches in English. He occasionally showed me drafts, and it was interesting to see whole sentences and paragraphs that were more or less “correct” English, but very different from anything a native speaker would have written: more flowery, more lyrical, more reliant on vivid images…or something. It’s hard to explain. Language is so fascinating!
@Donald: I think nationalism was a bad idea. Understandable as a reaction to colonialism, but often the imperialists are thrown out and then new forms of oppression kick in. People in the Mideast ( and a few other places) need to learn to live in multi- ethnic democracies giving equal rights for everyone. Not that I am suggesting we force this on them. We aren’t doing that great ourselves.
I was trying to get at something like this with my ramblings about ethnicity vs land. This is much clearer.
*****
@CharlesWT: syntactical sugar
A great phrase! And I don’t think it’s exclusive to English. My son spent five years in China, mostly teaching English, and sometimes he was asked to help people prepare for contests where people made speeches in English. He occasionally showed me drafts, and it was interesting to see whole sentences and paragraphs that were more or less “correct” English, but very different from anything a native speaker would have written: more flowery, more lyrical, more reliant on vivid images…or something. It’s hard to explain. Language is so fascinating!
Back to people taking other people’s property, it isn’t always all that deeply buried in complexity, either.
There was a housing bubble within very recent mamory. How many people made fortunes out of a process, much of it deliberately predatory, where a lot of other people lost their homes?
Back to people taking other people’s property, it isn’t always all that deeply buried in complexity, either.
There was a housing bubble within very recent mamory. How many people made fortunes out of a process, much of it deliberately predatory, where a lot of other people lost their homes?
…, and it was interesting to see whole sentences and paragraphs that were more or less “correct” English, but very different from anything a native speaker would have written: more flowery, more lyrical, more reliant on vivid images…or something.
The subtitles in a Chinese drama I was once trying to watch was something like that. Perhaps the translation was too literal. I had to switch to watching the drama on a different streaming service to have any idea what the characters were saying.
…, and it was interesting to see whole sentences and paragraphs that were more or less “correct” English, but very different from anything a native speaker would have written: more flowery, more lyrical, more reliant on vivid images…or something.
The subtitles in a Chinese drama I was once trying to watch was something like that. Perhaps the translation was too literal. I had to switch to watching the drama on a different streaming service to have any idea what the characters were saying.
A great phrase! And I don’t think it’s exclusive to English.
Wikipedia credits the first use of “syntactic sugar” to Peter J. Landin in 1964 for computer languages. I first heard it with respect to the C language at Bell Labs in the late 70s, where subscript notation — eg, a[i] — was syntactic sugar for more cumbersome pointer arithmetic.
A great phrase! And I don’t think it’s exclusive to English.
Wikipedia credits the first use of “syntactic sugar” to Peter J. Landin in 1964 for computer languages. I first heard it with respect to the C language at Bell Labs in the late 70s, where subscript notation — eg, a[i] — was syntactic sugar for more cumbersome pointer arithmetic.
I think usages like “the world as a whole” are intended to emphasize a particular one of the possible things that plain old “the world” could mean.
Phrases can go in a lot of directions. Sometimes folks need a clue as to which direction was intended.
“the world as a whole” as opposed to “the world” emphasizes inclusion – the general application of whatever is under consideration to the broadest possible range of humanity.
And, specifically, humanity – plants minerals and non-human animals are on their own.
Likewise, “property is theft” is generally less a statement that all forms of private property are criminal, and more a statement that when a very few people have all or nearly all the cookies, or at least all the cookies worth having, some kind of fnckery is probably afoot.
And yeah, Zuckerberg is a putz.
I think usages like “the world as a whole” are intended to emphasize a particular one of the possible things that plain old “the world” could mean.
Phrases can go in a lot of directions. Sometimes folks need a clue as to which direction was intended.
“the world as a whole” as opposed to “the world” emphasizes inclusion – the general application of whatever is under consideration to the broadest possible range of humanity.
And, specifically, humanity – plants minerals and non-human animals are on their own.
Likewise, “property is theft” is generally less a statement that all forms of private property are criminal, and more a statement that when a very few people have all or nearly all the cookies, or at least all the cookies worth having, some kind of fnckery is probably afoot.
And yeah, Zuckerberg is a putz.
it was interesting to see whole sentences and paragraphs that were more or less “correct” English, but very different from anything a native speaker would have written
And thus, the endless delights of reading instruction manuals translated from other languages into English.
it was interesting to see whole sentences and paragraphs that were more or less “correct” English, but very different from anything a native speaker would have written
And thus, the endless delights of reading instruction manuals translated from other languages into English.
And, no doubt, vice versa
And, no doubt, vice versa
For the record: I think what Trump did was terrible and my heart bleeds for the victims.
But, a romantic, uniformed view of “the Kurds” and Kurdish separatism isn’t helping anyone – actually it has the potential to do great harm.
For the record: I think what Trump did was terrible and my heart bleeds for the victims.
But, a romantic, uniformed view of “the Kurds” and Kurdish separatism isn’t helping anyone – actually it has the potential to do great harm.
“Property is Theft”
It has been my observation, over the years, that this gets hauled out almost exclusively by people who have never been willing to save money in order to buy something resembling property.
Proudhon himself was all in favour of workers enjoying the fruits of their labours. What he was against was the ownership of land for rent.
“Property is Theft”
It has been my observation, over the years, that this gets hauled out almost exclusively by people who have never been willing to save money in order to buy something resembling property.
Proudhon himself was all in favour of workers enjoying the fruits of their labours. What he was against was the ownership of land for rent.
a certain very persistent, shall we say, naiveté regarding the ME just drives me up the wall
Who is entitled to self-determination, and who is not? And how long ago must a people have been displaced to forfeit all right of return?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. If you do, please tell me.
a certain very persistent, shall we say, naiveté regarding the ME just drives me up the wall
Who is entitled to self-determination, and who is not? And how long ago must a people have been displaced to forfeit all right of return?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. If you do, please tell me.
“Who is entitled to self-determination, and who is not?”
Please include the specific cases of Kashmir, Tibet, Brittany, Scotland, Palestine, Greenland, Kurdistan, Eritrea, South Sudan, Catalonia, Hong Kong, Northern Cyprus, Åland, and Texas.
“Who is entitled to self-determination, and who is not?”
Please include the specific cases of Kashmir, Tibet, Brittany, Scotland, Palestine, Greenland, Kurdistan, Eritrea, South Sudan, Catalonia, Hong Kong, Northern Cyprus, Åland, and Texas.
Then there’s may for might, assist for help…a long list.
Speaking (probably only) for myself, I would welcome a tutorial on this! I’m not at all sure I can properly differentiate may from might, or assist from help, although I’m good on flaunt from flout, uninterested from disinterested and levy from level.
Then there’s may for might, assist for help…a long list.
Speaking (probably only) for myself, I would welcome a tutorial on this! I’m not at all sure I can properly differentiate may from might, or assist from help, although I’m good on flaunt from flout, uninterested from disinterested and levy from level.
I think I can figure out may from might, though I would never have thought about it without it being pointed out. But I need some help with help. Or assistance. Whatever.
I think I can figure out may from might, though I would never have thought about it without it being pointed out. But I need some help with help. Or assistance. Whatever.
I first heard it with respect to the C language at Bell Labs in the late 70s…
In NJ? You might have known some of my profs at Rutgers. Michael Caggiano? Thomas Papathomas? There were probably others. Bell Labs guys were pretty common in the EE department.
I first heard it with respect to the C language at Bell Labs in the late 70s…
In NJ? You might have known some of my profs at Rutgers. Michael Caggiano? Thomas Papathomas? There were probably others. Bell Labs guys were pretty common in the EE department.
“I think I can figure out may from might”
Worst of the worst: “due to” vs. “because of”
Yes, there’s a persnickety real difference, have to look it up every time the memory fades.
It’s easier to keep track of the infield-fly rule, also, too.
“I think I can figure out may from might”
Worst of the worst: “due to” vs. “because of”
Yes, there’s a persnickety real difference, have to look it up every time the memory fades.
It’s easier to keep track of the infield-fly rule, also, too.
which v that
good v well
lie v lay (Dylan should have wrote ‘lie lady lie’, but that sucks)
which v that
good v well
lie v lay (Dylan should have wrote ‘lie lady lie’, but that sucks)
Comprise and compose drive me nuts. Not because I don’t know the difference, but because so many people use comprise when they should use compose. I think it bothers me because they are almost mathematical in a set-element sort of way, so it hurts my brain when comprise is used for compose.
(Nothing is comprised of anything. Things can comprise things or be comprised by things. Things can be composed of things, though.)
Comprise and compose drive me nuts. Not because I don’t know the difference, but because so many people use comprise when they should use compose. I think it bothers me because they are almost mathematical in a set-element sort of way, so it hurts my brain when comprise is used for compose.
(Nothing is comprised of anything. Things can comprise things or be comprised by things. Things can be composed of things, though.)
Heh, my longtime dream, to turn ObWi into a grammar discussion site. 😉
I will take my own pet peeve items one at a time, as I get time.
First I want to add all the variations of who/whom and whoever/whomever to cleek’s 10:18 list.
And I also want to thank everyone for the ruminations on “world” vs “world as a whole.” Good points, although I’m not 100% convinced that we wouldn’t all have understood CharlesWT’s meaning in the simpler formulation. (Yes, Mama, double negatives are okay sometimes. “You’ve got to mean it.”)
Heh, my longtime dream, to turn ObWi into a grammar discussion site. 😉
I will take my own pet peeve items one at a time, as I get time.
First I want to add all the variations of who/whom and whoever/whomever to cleek’s 10:18 list.
And I also want to thank everyone for the ruminations on “world” vs “world as a whole.” Good points, although I’m not 100% convinced that we wouldn’t all have understood CharlesWT’s meaning in the simpler formulation. (Yes, Mama, double negatives are okay sometimes. “You’ve got to mean it.”)
help/assist
There’s really no difference in meaning. It’s on my pet peeve list because during the years when I did a lot of editing at work, people would NEVER EVER EVER EVER use the simple, perfectly good word “help.” They insisted on “assist” because — as far as I could tell — it sounds more highfalutin, and heaven knows they wanted our clients to think we were highfalutin (especially our European clients, let me make clear ;-).
An even bigger pet peeve, which I run across everywhere now, but which started to drive me crazy at work originally, is “utilize” for “use.” I don’t think I ever edited a document at work where someone remembered that perfectly serviceable three-letter English word.
Once I changed a couple of instances of “assist” to “help” in a document I was editing, because the repetition of “assist” got irresistibly tedious. But that requries some attention to context:
“We assist clients in finding housing” becomes “We help clients find housing.”
The author of the document, the absolute worst offender for pretentiousness, changed it back, but without taking care over the details. (That’s why she got the big bucks, I guess. Her mind was on bigger things than details. Except that she could take the time to edit my editing….)
Her version then became: “We assist clients find housing.”
Luckily I caught it on another pass, although that was another bone of contention. I kept trying to insist that everyone else do their thing with documents before I got them, so I only had to edit them once. Inevitably, people couldn’t keep their mitts off stuff I had already worked on, so it was back and forth, back and forth.
Sometimes I used to say, in times of frustration, “They give me money, I give them spreadsheets,” the money being the consolation prize for various kinds of tedium. Other times it was “They give me money, I give them commas.” (Or take commas away.)
help/assist
There’s really no difference in meaning. It’s on my pet peeve list because during the years when I did a lot of editing at work, people would NEVER EVER EVER EVER use the simple, perfectly good word “help.” They insisted on “assist” because — as far as I could tell — it sounds more highfalutin, and heaven knows they wanted our clients to think we were highfalutin (especially our European clients, let me make clear ;-).
An even bigger pet peeve, which I run across everywhere now, but which started to drive me crazy at work originally, is “utilize” for “use.” I don’t think I ever edited a document at work where someone remembered that perfectly serviceable three-letter English word.
Once I changed a couple of instances of “assist” to “help” in a document I was editing, because the repetition of “assist” got irresistibly tedious. But that requries some attention to context:
“We assist clients in finding housing” becomes “We help clients find housing.”
The author of the document, the absolute worst offender for pretentiousness, changed it back, but without taking care over the details. (That’s why she got the big bucks, I guess. Her mind was on bigger things than details. Except that she could take the time to edit my editing….)
Her version then became: “We assist clients find housing.”
Luckily I caught it on another pass, although that was another bone of contention. I kept trying to insist that everyone else do their thing with documents before I got them, so I only had to edit them once. Inevitably, people couldn’t keep their mitts off stuff I had already worked on, so it was back and forth, back and forth.
Sometimes I used to say, in times of frustration, “They give me money, I give them spreadsheets,” the money being the consolation prize for various kinds of tedium. Other times it was “They give me money, I give them commas.” (Or take commas away.)
my current biggest grammar peeve is “on a __ basis”, where __ is an adjective that already means “on a __ basis”.
my current biggest grammar peeve is “on a __ basis”, where __ is an adjective that already means “on a __ basis”.
@cleek: Yes!!! I run across that sh!t on a daily — or even hourly! — basis!
@cleek: Yes!!! I run across that sh!t on a daily — or even hourly! — basis!
In NJ?
Yes, but Bell Labs was big (about 26,000 people at its peak). No one knew more than a small fraction of the people. Most of the back-and-forth between the Labs and NJ/NYC universities were people in the Research area, usually from Murray Hill. Research was the “Bell Labs of song and legend” and to a significant extent their own little world.
I was officially a systems guy who did odd inter-disciplinary things. I worked with Research people a few times, when they were interested in actually seeing an idea used, rather than just tossing it over the wall.
In NJ?
Yes, but Bell Labs was big (about 26,000 people at its peak). No one knew more than a small fraction of the people. Most of the back-and-forth between the Labs and NJ/NYC universities were people in the Research area, usually from Murray Hill. Research was the “Bell Labs of song and legend” and to a significant extent their own little world.
I was officially a systems guy who did odd inter-disciplinary things. I worked with Research people a few times, when they were interested in actually seeing an idea used, rather than just tossing it over the wall.
I try not to be peevish, since I think grammar should be descriptive not prescriptive. But I do share JanieM’s dislike of pretentious language. Such as “myself” for “me”, as used by one esteemed commentator higher up the thread.
On the other hand, if one’s typist puts “tudor” for “tutor”, one just laughs at his incompetence.
I try not to be peevish, since I think grammar should be descriptive not prescriptive. But I do share JanieM’s dislike of pretentious language. Such as “myself” for “me”, as used by one esteemed commentator higher up the thread.
On the other hand, if one’s typist puts “tudor” for “tutor”, one just laughs at his incompetence.
Pro Bono — I think life itself should be more descriptive than prescriptive (I’m thinking of my highly prescriptive Catholic upbringing), but grammar runs smack into my OCD-ish tendencies, which I try to keep in check with only mixed success. The fact that I still do a lot of editing (for a self-published author of my acquaintance, and as a volunteer for a local non-profit) keeps all this stuff fresh in my mind, and the fact that unedited prose is produced in torrents on the internet also contributes. Certain things grammar-wise are like fingernails on a blackboard, and it’s fun to vent about them sometimes.
My sisters and I have grammar discussions via email sometimes and it’s funny how different things bother one of us but not the others, and vice versa.
E.g. I utterly can’t stand the usage, seen only in business contexts in my experience, where someone sends an email and tells me that the information is in “the below chart.”
ARRGGGGGHHHH! No! It’s “the chart below” as far as I’m concerned, and always will (should) be. But my administrative assistant sister, who is about as picky as I am overall, uses it all the time.
On the other hand, she hates “send me an invite,” which doesn’t bother me at all. It’s now so common in the US as to rate a “stage 4” (out of 5) on Bryan Garner’s language change index — but he himself still disapproves of it.
I still have to get to may/might, with some addenda on the pronunciation of “candidate” and related items. I think of it as “How the Cool Kids Talk.” 😉
But later.
Pro Bono — I think life itself should be more descriptive than prescriptive (I’m thinking of my highly prescriptive Catholic upbringing), but grammar runs smack into my OCD-ish tendencies, which I try to keep in check with only mixed success. The fact that I still do a lot of editing (for a self-published author of my acquaintance, and as a volunteer for a local non-profit) keeps all this stuff fresh in my mind, and the fact that unedited prose is produced in torrents on the internet also contributes. Certain things grammar-wise are like fingernails on a blackboard, and it’s fun to vent about them sometimes.
My sisters and I have grammar discussions via email sometimes and it’s funny how different things bother one of us but not the others, and vice versa.
E.g. I utterly can’t stand the usage, seen only in business contexts in my experience, where someone sends an email and tells me that the information is in “the below chart.”
ARRGGGGGHHHH! No! It’s “the chart below” as far as I’m concerned, and always will (should) be. But my administrative assistant sister, who is about as picky as I am overall, uses it all the time.
On the other hand, she hates “send me an invite,” which doesn’t bother me at all. It’s now so common in the US as to rate a “stage 4” (out of 5) on Bryan Garner’s language change index — but he himself still disapproves of it.
I still have to get to may/might, with some addenda on the pronunciation of “candidate” and related items. I think of it as “How the Cool Kids Talk.” 😉
But later.
What used to irritate me was the overuse of the phrase, you know. Usually in interviews with pro athletes which I rarely ever see anymore. Now it’s the overuse of the word, like, by the thirties something and younger crowd. You know like they’re all Valley Girls or something.
What used to irritate me was the overuse of the phrase, you know. Usually in interviews with pro athletes which I rarely ever see anymore. Now it’s the overuse of the word, like, by the thirties something and younger crowd. You know like they’re all Valley Girls or something.
I personally find the various grammar errors to be useful. As markers for “ignoramus”, for “pompous”, or for “pompous ignoramus.”
I do realize the bad grammar doesn’t necessarily mean someone has nothing useful to say on other topics. But my willingness to be tolerant of it is weak. It’s such a quick and easy filter….
I personally find the various grammar errors to be useful. As markers for “ignoramus”, for “pompous”, or for “pompous ignoramus.”
I do realize the bad grammar doesn’t necessarily mean someone has nothing useful to say on other topics. But my willingness to be tolerant of it is weak. It’s such a quick and easy filter….
Murray Hill
Yes. That’s where they came from.
Murray Hill
Yes. That’s where they came from.
Is everyone with me, though, on getting rid of stupid rules like no split infinitives?
(I get the impression that the High Lords of Grammar have already come around on that one, so maybe I’m running to the front of the parade well after it started.)
Is everyone with me, though, on getting rid of stupid rules like no split infinitives?
(I get the impression that the High Lords of Grammar have already come around on that one, so maybe I’m running to the front of the parade well after it started.)
wj: sometimes a bit of bad usage bugs me a lot…then wait a few years, and it’s “eh, whatev”, and something ELSE is what bugs me.
It’s not just the language that’s evolving, I guess.
So, just follow the prescription:
“At first I was disgusted, now I’m just amused”
It applies to language and so much more, ifyouknowwhatImean.
wj: sometimes a bit of bad usage bugs me a lot…then wait a few years, and it’s “eh, whatev”, and something ELSE is what bugs me.
It’s not just the language that’s evolving, I guess.
So, just follow the prescription:
“At first I was disgusted, now I’m just amused”
It applies to language and so much more, ifyouknowwhatImean.
hsh — I’m certainly with you. I’ve seen writers on grammar agree with us for decades, it’s the high school English teachers who — apparently — will never come around. Which is odd, because I think they stopped teaching grammar as such a long time ago.
It’s not hard to find Amazon reviews (and often ones that don’t seem to be written by old fogies like me) bitching about split infinitives, sentences ending in prepositions, and sentences starting with “and” or “but.”
hsh — I’m certainly with you. I’ve seen writers on grammar agree with us for decades, it’s the high school English teachers who — apparently — will never come around. Which is odd, because I think they stopped teaching grammar as such a long time ago.
It’s not hard to find Amazon reviews (and often ones that don’t seem to be written by old fogies like me) bitching about split infinitives, sentences ending in prepositions, and sentences starting with “and” or “but.”
Split infinitives are, as I recall, one of the cases where English grammar rules were created by grammarians taking Latin grammar rules and forcing them onto a non-Romance language. Getting rid of those has been all to the good.
Split infinitives are, as I recall, one of the cases where English grammar rules were created by grammarians taking Latin grammar rules and forcing them onto a non-Romance language. Getting rid of those has been all to the good.
lie v lay (Dylan should have wrote ‘lie lady lie’, but that sucks)
Except that it probably needs the slight allusion to getting laid.
****
An even bigger pet peeve, which I run across everywhere now, but which started to drive me crazy at work originally, is “utilize” for “use.”
Yes, the tendency to use longer words to indicate greater levels of sophistication or education is very tiresome. I also detest the increasing confusion between “on the part of” and “on behalf of”. And on and on. And if I was the esteemed commenter who used “myself” wrongly, I apologise. But speaking (yet again!) for myself, I have a great nostalgia for times when Janie was the grammar police, and would be more than happy to see their return.
lie v lay (Dylan should have wrote ‘lie lady lie’, but that sucks)
Except that it probably needs the slight allusion to getting laid.
****
An even bigger pet peeve, which I run across everywhere now, but which started to drive me crazy at work originally, is “utilize” for “use.”
Yes, the tendency to use longer words to indicate greater levels of sophistication or education is very tiresome. I also detest the increasing confusion between “on the part of” and “on behalf of”. And on and on. And if I was the esteemed commenter who used “myself” wrongly, I apologise. But speaking (yet again!) for myself, I have a great nostalgia for times when Janie was the grammar police, and would be more than happy to see their return.
Years ago, but also nearly two decades after “Lay Lady Lay” was a hit, during a visit home I heard my mother humming/half singing the song as she made dinner in her kitchen.
Soon after, I asked her if she liked that song, and she said yes she had for some time, which was the first evidence really that she had been listening to her kids’ music with some attention, though perhaps it was we/us/we/us? who had not been paying attention.
I never asked my mother how it is that she thought to give me the first Kinks album in 1964 for Christmas when I was 14. Obviously, she had never listened to those lyrics, which for the time were suggestive as hell. I think she probably asked the kid at the record store what the other kids were listening to and went with it.
In “Lay Lady Lay”, Dylan also changes from first person to third person mid-lyric.
Lay lady lay
Lay across my big brass bed
Stay lady stay
Stay with your man a while
Until the break of day
Let me see you make him smile.
How crowded was that bed?
Late in my mother’s life, I wondered regarding her affection for the song whether it caused her to think about my Dad, who died when I was 14, and when she was only 38 years into her 87-year-long life with five kids to raise and a lonely bed to repair to for her remaining years, which is of course not something I was mature enough to fully appreciate until I was much older.
Which makes that song almost unbearably poignant for me when I hear it today.
I suggested, and we chose, as I said here at the time, and among other pieces, to play the Cash/Dylan “Girl From the North Country” at her memorial service, which I held in my private mind, not even explaining it to my siblings, as a kind of bookend to her “Lay Lady Lay”, but with my imaginings of my Dad’s, then dead 49 years and still counting, sentiments toward HER expressed instead in GFTNC.
And, of course, I probably wouldn’t have thought of the song without seeing our GFTNC’s handle on a daily basis at the time.
I’ve always thought this sounded better:
Lay lady lay
Lie across my big brass bed
You get both intentions.
Years ago, but also nearly two decades after “Lay Lady Lay” was a hit, during a visit home I heard my mother humming/half singing the song as she made dinner in her kitchen.
Soon after, I asked her if she liked that song, and she said yes she had for some time, which was the first evidence really that she had been listening to her kids’ music with some attention, though perhaps it was we/us/we/us? who had not been paying attention.
I never asked my mother how it is that she thought to give me the first Kinks album in 1964 for Christmas when I was 14. Obviously, she had never listened to those lyrics, which for the time were suggestive as hell. I think she probably asked the kid at the record store what the other kids were listening to and went with it.
In “Lay Lady Lay”, Dylan also changes from first person to third person mid-lyric.
Lay lady lay
Lay across my big brass bed
Stay lady stay
Stay with your man a while
Until the break of day
Let me see you make him smile.
How crowded was that bed?
Late in my mother’s life, I wondered regarding her affection for the song whether it caused her to think about my Dad, who died when I was 14, and when she was only 38 years into her 87-year-long life with five kids to raise and a lonely bed to repair to for her remaining years, which is of course not something I was mature enough to fully appreciate until I was much older.
Which makes that song almost unbearably poignant for me when I hear it today.
I suggested, and we chose, as I said here at the time, and among other pieces, to play the Cash/Dylan “Girl From the North Country” at her memorial service, which I held in my private mind, not even explaining it to my siblings, as a kind of bookend to her “Lay Lady Lay”, but with my imaginings of my Dad’s, then dead 49 years and still counting, sentiments toward HER expressed instead in GFTNC.
And, of course, I probably wouldn’t have thought of the song without seeing our GFTNC’s handle on a daily basis at the time.
I’ve always thought this sounded better:
Lay lady lay
Lie across my big brass bed
You get both intentions.
JDT: never go away.
Nashville Skyline was the first album I ever bought, when I was still at boarding school.
The Cash/Dylan version of the song is achingly beautiful, and the example I always use to refute the suggestion that Dylan has always had a lousy voice.
When I was travelling back and forth to Yorkshire to my late husband, and started commenting here, I was very delighted to choose GftNC as my handle. If it happened to give you, JDT, any inspiration at a time of need, I’m glad.
JDT: never go away.
Nashville Skyline was the first album I ever bought, when I was still at boarding school.
The Cash/Dylan version of the song is achingly beautiful, and the example I always use to refute the suggestion that Dylan has always had a lousy voice.
When I was travelling back and forth to Yorkshire to my late husband, and started commenting here, I was very delighted to choose GftNC as my handle. If it happened to give you, JDT, any inspiration at a time of need, I’m glad.
Yes, it was the inspiration, and thanks for that.
If your handle was “Love Shack” or something else, I might have passed.
You never know, though, with me.
Yes, it was the inspiration, and thanks for that.
If your handle was “Love Shack” or something else, I might have passed.
You never know, though, with me.
ARRGGGGGHHHH! No! It’s “the chart below”
Absolutely – and yet why is the above chart entirely acceptable ?
I used to be a grammar pedant, but now even the most egregious misplaced apostrophe doesn’t bother me the way it did.
ARRGGGGGHHHH! No! It’s “the chart below”
Absolutely – and yet why is the above chart entirely acceptable ?
I used to be a grammar pedant, but now even the most egregious misplaced apostrophe doesn’t bother me the way it did.
Nigel — absolutely, and I think at one point I tried to dig into that question, but didn’t get far, or just got frustrated.
We do have a real linguist on this blog, so maybe he’ll chime in at some point on the general pattern of these things.
But other superficially similar questions come to mind, like:
–I gave money to the library.
–I gave the library money.
–I donated money to the library.
–I donated the library money. (Nope.)
I’d guess that the give/donate difference has something to do with the origins of the two words. And indeed…hmmmmm.
As you might guess, “give” is via the Germanic side while “donate” is via the French. But who knew: “donate” (acc to the internet) is an 18th century backformation from “donation.”
Misplaced apostrophes fly right be me these days, too. Although I was just listening to someone joke around about a local grocer’s supply of (misplaced) apostrophes for the marquee out front. I leave them out in texts all the time because I’m too lazy to switch to the other “keyboard.”
Nigel — absolutely, and I think at one point I tried to dig into that question, but didn’t get far, or just got frustrated.
We do have a real linguist on this blog, so maybe he’ll chime in at some point on the general pattern of these things.
But other superficially similar questions come to mind, like:
–I gave money to the library.
–I gave the library money.
–I donated money to the library.
–I donated the library money. (Nope.)
I’d guess that the give/donate difference has something to do with the origins of the two words. And indeed…hmmmmm.
As you might guess, “give” is via the Germanic side while “donate” is via the French. But who knew: “donate” (acc to the internet) is an 18th century backformation from “donation.”
Misplaced apostrophes fly right be me these days, too. Although I was just listening to someone joke around about a local grocer’s supply of (misplaced) apostrophes for the marquee out front. I leave them out in texts all the time because I’m too lazy to switch to the other “keyboard.”
The only apostrophe which truly infuriates me now is the one which some incarnations of autocorrect add inappropriately to ‘its’.
The only apostrophe which truly infuriates me now is the one which some incarnations of autocorrect add inappropriately to ‘its’.
“I donated the library money” is a grammatically correct sentence, it just has a meaning different from the others.
“I donated the library money” is a grammatically correct sentence, it just has a meaning different from the others.
Hartmut….I’m so glad I learned English as an infant and didn’t have to do it after my language-learning module switched off. 😉
*****
may/might
I’m talking about a specific misuse of “may” for “might,” separate from any distinction between, e.g.,
–We may go to the beach tomorrow.
–We might go to the beach tomorrow.
With that one, if memory serves, “may” suggests a slightly higher likelihood of going to the beach than “might.” But don’t quote me on that.
No, the thing that makes me grind my teeth is this one:
–If it hadn’t rained yesterday, we may have gone to the beach.
Ding ding ding. It should be:
–…we might have gone to the beach.
I have a long file of examples of this (mis)usage, many of them from the internet, where editing is almost unknown, but some of them from published books that you’d think might have had at least a minimal standard of copy editing.
This one goes with who/whom, meaning I think it’s an example of overcorrection, born of anxiety about using the right construction.
It really grates on me…as does using “whom/ever” in the subject slot. Who/whom is a nuisance, because even to my picky ear “whom” sounds pretentious a lot of the time when it’s used correctly. But that very pretentiousness may be why people are increasingly using it where “who” belongs (I have a whole file of these, too). I would have thought that if one of them was going to disappear, it would have been “whom.” I wouldn’t bet on it now.
*****
P.S. GftNC: Was I once the grammar police? Yeesh, I think I should apologize to everyone but you, if you truly did like it. I do like to hash this stuff out for venting purposes (and entertainment?), but I’ve gotten less and less apt to bring up grammar, because a lot of people don’t like it at all, and I do get that it can be irritating.
lj……..Language discussions make me think of you. We miss you! I hope you’re having fun and getting ever more fluent in Korean.
Hartmut….I’m so glad I learned English as an infant and didn’t have to do it after my language-learning module switched off. 😉
*****
may/might
I’m talking about a specific misuse of “may” for “might,” separate from any distinction between, e.g.,
–We may go to the beach tomorrow.
–We might go to the beach tomorrow.
With that one, if memory serves, “may” suggests a slightly higher likelihood of going to the beach than “might.” But don’t quote me on that.
No, the thing that makes me grind my teeth is this one:
–If it hadn’t rained yesterday, we may have gone to the beach.
Ding ding ding. It should be:
–…we might have gone to the beach.
I have a long file of examples of this (mis)usage, many of them from the internet, where editing is almost unknown, but some of them from published books that you’d think might have had at least a minimal standard of copy editing.
This one goes with who/whom, meaning I think it’s an example of overcorrection, born of anxiety about using the right construction.
It really grates on me…as does using “whom/ever” in the subject slot. Who/whom is a nuisance, because even to my picky ear “whom” sounds pretentious a lot of the time when it’s used correctly. But that very pretentiousness may be why people are increasingly using it where “who” belongs (I have a whole file of these, too). I would have thought that if one of them was going to disappear, it would have been “whom.” I wouldn’t bet on it now.
*****
P.S. GftNC: Was I once the grammar police? Yeesh, I think I should apologize to everyone but you, if you truly did like it. I do like to hash this stuff out for venting purposes (and entertainment?), but I’ve gotten less and less apt to bring up grammar, because a lot of people don’t like it at all, and I do get that it can be irritating.
lj……..Language discussions make me think of you. We miss you! I hope you’re having fun and getting ever more fluent in Korean.
OMG
I thought, when I saw this editorial cartoon, that it was a cute commentary on how Trump does foreign affairs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/16/trump-writes-letter-one-his-favorite-autocrats/
To my astonishment (proving I can, somehow, still be amazed by him), it turns out that the letter shown is an absolutely, 100%, accurate copy of a letter that Trump actually sent to Erdogan. “Bizarre” barely begins to describe it.
OMG
I thought, when I saw this editorial cartoon, that it was a cute commentary on how Trump does foreign affairs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/16/trump-writes-letter-one-his-favorite-autocrats/
To my astonishment (proving I can, somehow, still be amazed by him), it turns out that the letter shown is an absolutely, 100%, accurate copy of a letter that Trump actually sent to Erdogan. “Bizarre” barely begins to describe it.
More presidential than Lincoln.
More presidential than Lincoln.
More honest than Harding, too.
More honest than Harding, too.
A reminder: there were people here who were willing to roll to dice to let Trump win (in addition to the people here who still refuse to support his opposition). Just putting it out there, since it’s unpopular for me to say mean things.
A reminder: there were people here who were willing to roll to dice to let Trump win (in addition to the people here who still refuse to support his opposition). Just putting it out there, since it’s unpopular for me to say mean things.
Unfortunately, as in dire for America, also less impeached than Andrew Johnson, less pneumoccocal than Harrison, less lead-poisoned than McKinley, less stroked-out than Wilson, less book repositoried and grassy-knolled than Kennedy, less wounded than Garfield.
If he wrote his own medical update, he couldn’t be in better health.
The Republic’s medical scans, on the other hand, show rapidly metastasizing malignancies, advanced arteriosclerosis, and major blockages in the lower GI tract, particularly in the McConnell quadrant, and the Graham anal canal.
The patient shows signs of fatal buildup of concentrated methane and spontaneous combustion with explosive mortality dangerous to all bystanders.
Unfortunately, as in dire for America, also less impeached than Andrew Johnson, less pneumoccocal than Harrison, less lead-poisoned than McKinley, less stroked-out than Wilson, less book repositoried and grassy-knolled than Kennedy, less wounded than Garfield.
If he wrote his own medical update, he couldn’t be in better health.
The Republic’s medical scans, on the other hand, show rapidly metastasizing malignancies, advanced arteriosclerosis, and major blockages in the lower GI tract, particularly in the McConnell quadrant, and the Graham anal canal.
The patient shows signs of fatal buildup of concentrated methane and spontaneous combustion with explosive mortality dangerous to all bystanders.
The patient shows signs of fatal buildup of concentrated methane and spontaneous combustion with explosive mortality dangerous to all bystanders.
Who could’ve knowed?
The patient shows signs of fatal buildup of concentrated methane and spontaneous combustion with explosive mortality dangerous to all bystanders.
Who could’ve knowed?
“Just putting it out there, since it’s unpopular for me to say mean things.”
I’ll be gone soon, so let me be the mean one.
There are people here, and everywhere in the fucking world, who put forth the proposition that we liberals and moderates were personally responsible for not nominating someone more appealing to conservatives in 2016.
They are not going to like shouldering the personal responsibility for THEIR electoral decisions as chaos descends on their heads.
“Just putting it out there, since it’s unpopular for me to say mean things.”
I’ll be gone soon, so let me be the mean one.
There are people here, and everywhere in the fucking world, who put forth the proposition that we liberals and moderates were personally responsible for not nominating someone more appealing to conservatives in 2016.
They are not going to like shouldering the personal responsibility for THEIR electoral decisions as chaos descends on their heads.
I’ll be gone soon …
Since none of us (except for you) want you to be gone soon (or at all), can I be the buttinski to ask why? We [speaking for myself, and I’m pretty sure many others] love you. We don’t deserve an explanation or anything else, other than the gift of having you around. But [out of character, I know] it’s going to hurt us (not that you’re responsible, but it’s how grief works).
Don’t want to guilt you, but just (again) putting it out there.
I’ll be gone soon …
Since none of us (except for you) want you to be gone soon (or at all), can I be the buttinski to ask why? We [speaking for myself, and I’m pretty sure many others] love you. We don’t deserve an explanation or anything else, other than the gift of having you around. But [out of character, I know] it’s going to hurt us (not that you’re responsible, but it’s how grief works).
Don’t want to guilt you, but just (again) putting it out there.
Also, correction: The gift of having you around isn’t deserved. It’s just a gift. Thank you for it.
[The rest of my ridiculous writing style in this thread is my vernacular and I’m okay with it.]
Also, correction: The gift of having you around isn’t deserved. It’s just a gift. Thank you for it.
[The rest of my ridiculous writing style in this thread is my vernacular and I’m okay with it.]
I’ll get to it … the explanation, which is no big deal, soon.
And thanks.
I’ll get to it … the explanation, which is no big deal, soon.
And thanks.
I admit to a piece of deliberate pretentiousness: I use ‘whether’ whereever it can be correctly used in place of ‘if’.
I think it sounds better but originally I did so merely because it was somewhat old-fashioned and therefore snobbish (or posh).
Same for consistently writing to-morrow with a hyphen (which may even be officially wrong according to current rules).
I admit to a piece of deliberate pretentiousness: I use ‘whether’ whereever it can be correctly used in place of ‘if’.
I think it sounds better but originally I did so merely because it was somewhat old-fashioned and therefore snobbish (or posh).
Same for consistently writing to-morrow with a hyphen (which may even be officially wrong according to current rules).
There are people here, and everywhere in the fucking world, who put forth the proposition that we liberals and moderates were personally responsible for not nominating someone more appealing to conservatives in 2016.
They are not going to like shouldering the personal responsibility for THEIR electoral decisions as chaos descends on their heads.
Yes. But also (sorry guys), no.
No question, anyone who voted for Trump, in the primaries or the general election, for any reason, bears the responsibility for the totally foreseeable disaster he is being. Totally.
However, those who selected Clinton as the nominee to run against him do not, IMHO, get a pass. You managed to choose someone who was sufficiently disliked that she lost the “dislike both” voters by something like 65% to 15%. That’s simply off the charts huge. And it’s not like it was any kind of secret just how disliked she was.
It doesn’t matter how unjustified that dislike was — and the reasons to dislike Trump were far more substantive, not to mention real. If you are trying to win an election, you go with the voters you have. You deal with how they will vote, not on how they ought to vote.
I know it’s agonizing to hear. But you guys made a poor choice, which contributed to the scumbag winning. Personally, I would have been far happier with a President Clinton than a President Sanders. But if you didn’t vote for Bernie**, you contributed to the problem today. Sorry, but that’s just how it is.
** Or, [insert name of different alternative Democratic nominee here], if you prefer.
There are people here, and everywhere in the fucking world, who put forth the proposition that we liberals and moderates were personally responsible for not nominating someone more appealing to conservatives in 2016.
They are not going to like shouldering the personal responsibility for THEIR electoral decisions as chaos descends on their heads.
Yes. But also (sorry guys), no.
No question, anyone who voted for Trump, in the primaries or the general election, for any reason, bears the responsibility for the totally foreseeable disaster he is being. Totally.
However, those who selected Clinton as the nominee to run against him do not, IMHO, get a pass. You managed to choose someone who was sufficiently disliked that she lost the “dislike both” voters by something like 65% to 15%. That’s simply off the charts huge. And it’s not like it was any kind of secret just how disliked she was.
It doesn’t matter how unjustified that dislike was — and the reasons to dislike Trump were far more substantive, not to mention real. If you are trying to win an election, you go with the voters you have. You deal with how they will vote, not on how they ought to vote.
I know it’s agonizing to hear. But you guys made a poor choice, which contributed to the scumbag winning. Personally, I would have been far happier with a President Clinton than a President Sanders. But if you didn’t vote for Bernie**, you contributed to the problem today. Sorry, but that’s just how it is.
** Or, [insert name of different alternative Democratic nominee here], if you prefer.
Are you saying that it was apparent in 2015-16 that centrist voters would prefer Sanders to Trump but Trump to Hillary?
Are you saying that it was apparent in 2015-16 that centrist voters would prefer Sanders to Trump but Trump to Hillary?
Fair point, Pro Bono. Though it’s far from impossible.
The mistake, if there was one, was more likely Obama’s in persuading Biden not to run. Whether he would have actually got the nomination is unknowable, but it’s certainly possible – and ever there was a time for him, it was back then.
Fair point, Pro Bono. Though it’s far from impossible.
The mistake, if there was one, was more likely Obama’s in persuading Biden not to run. Whether he would have actually got the nomination is unknowable, but it’s certainly possible – and ever there was a time for him, it was back then.
Personally, I think Sanders would not have won in 2016. His local margins would imo have been even more extreme than Hillary’s, i.e. he might have won higher in places where it would not have mattered but would have lost more in other places.
I also think a lot of ‘centrists’ would have done what was claimed (by them) about Sander’s followers, i.e. out of pique not voted for the winning candidate. Probably not that many ‘rather vote Trump than Sanders’ guys on the Dem side but quite a lot of ‘can’t vote for either’. Perhaps even some ‘strategic’ thinking along the lines of ‘Trump will ruin the GOP brand but Sanders our’s’, so a Trump win (while not good) would be of benefit in the long run.
Without the moss cow midge there was a remote chance of that being the case but the damage the combo of him and the Jabbabonky inflicted and still inflicts on the US (and the world) far outweighs any of that potential benefit. Dem congresscritters may still see their own advantage on the Trump side though, if Sanders is the alternative (many would fall for zombie Reagan in an instant).
I am pessimistic as usual. Even if (what I do not believe) the senate goes Dem, it would not change that much as far as true reforms go. ‘Principled’ Dems will kill anything ‘radical’ a president Sanders or Warren could propose. Cutting benefits will stay popular.
The only main difference will be a temporary stop of radical RW judges appointed to the courts. I have very little hope that any Dem president can shift the balance leftward in a significant way. There will be few vacancies left to fill and enough Dems will join the GOP to block anything left of a Garland.
My prediction: no end to the filibuster and consequently no end to the gridlock.
Personally, I think Sanders would not have won in 2016. His local margins would imo have been even more extreme than Hillary’s, i.e. he might have won higher in places where it would not have mattered but would have lost more in other places.
I also think a lot of ‘centrists’ would have done what was claimed (by them) about Sander’s followers, i.e. out of pique not voted for the winning candidate. Probably not that many ‘rather vote Trump than Sanders’ guys on the Dem side but quite a lot of ‘can’t vote for either’. Perhaps even some ‘strategic’ thinking along the lines of ‘Trump will ruin the GOP brand but Sanders our’s’, so a Trump win (while not good) would be of benefit in the long run.
Without the moss cow midge there was a remote chance of that being the case but the damage the combo of him and the Jabbabonky inflicted and still inflicts on the US (and the world) far outweighs any of that potential benefit. Dem congresscritters may still see their own advantage on the Trump side though, if Sanders is the alternative (many would fall for zombie Reagan in an instant).
I am pessimistic as usual. Even if (what I do not believe) the senate goes Dem, it would not change that much as far as true reforms go. ‘Principled’ Dems will kill anything ‘radical’ a president Sanders or Warren could propose. Cutting benefits will stay popular.
The only main difference will be a temporary stop of radical RW judges appointed to the courts. I have very little hope that any Dem president can shift the balance leftward in a significant way. There will be few vacancies left to fill and enough Dems will join the GOP to block anything left of a Garland.
My prediction: no end to the filibuster and consequently no end to the gridlock.
i’ll just note that only one person has ever received more votes in a Presidential election than the disliked candidate did, and that person was Barack Obama.
see also: Comey, NYT, Russia.
i’ll just note that only one person has ever received more votes in a Presidential election than the disliked candidate did, and that person was Barack Obama.
see also: Comey, NYT, Russia.
wj: It doesn’t matter how unjustified that dislike was
Bollocks. Of course it matters. It matters because once you decide that irrational, ginned-up hatred is worth deferring to, you might as well give up on the government of the people, by the people, and for the people thing.
If you are trying to win an election, you go with the voters you have. You deal with how they will vote, not on how they ought to vote.
And of course everybody just knew, back during the Democratic primaries, that the so-called Grand Old Party would barf up He, Trump as its nominee, and that the “white working class” would vote for Him in the general. Just plain knew it. It was dead obvious. All the polls said so.
–TP
wj: It doesn’t matter how unjustified that dislike was
Bollocks. Of course it matters. It matters because once you decide that irrational, ginned-up hatred is worth deferring to, you might as well give up on the government of the people, by the people, and for the people thing.
If you are trying to win an election, you go with the voters you have. You deal with how they will vote, not on how they ought to vote.
And of course everybody just knew, back during the Democratic primaries, that the so-called Grand Old Party would barf up He, Trump as its nominee, and that the “white working class” would vote for Him in the general. Just plain knew it. It was dead obvious. All the polls said so.
–TP
“Bizarre” barely begins to describe it.
Indeed. Could it be a harbinger of the total implosion of this administration? If only.
And what TP said.
“Bizarre” barely begins to describe it.
Indeed. Could it be a harbinger of the total implosion of this administration? If only.
And what TP said.
My two-pence worth on one of our regular revisitings of the advisability or otherwise of nominating HRC: since most of the dislike against her was invented, stoked and kept warm by Fox et al, they would have done the same to any Dem nominee, the only difference being that they would have had less time to do it in before the election, with who knows what result. I’m guessing the “socialist” tag would have done for Sanders even without much of their help.
GftNC: Was I once the grammar police? Yeesh, I think I should apologize to everyone but you, if you truly did like it.
Don’t worry, it was just that once I called for the (theoretical) grammar police to intervene in a discussion, and you responded to my delight with “You rang?” Further to which, thanks for the may/might comment, I now understand what you were talking about, and it is annoying, along with much else. Alas, I am still vulnerable to apostrophe irritations, but perhaps it will pass. The only thing is, I’m not entirely sure I want it to, if you know what I mean.
My two-pence worth on one of our regular revisitings of the advisability or otherwise of nominating HRC: since most of the dislike against her was invented, stoked and kept warm by Fox et al, they would have done the same to any Dem nominee, the only difference being that they would have had less time to do it in before the election, with who knows what result. I’m guessing the “socialist” tag would have done for Sanders even without much of their help.
GftNC: Was I once the grammar police? Yeesh, I think I should apologize to everyone but you, if you truly did like it.
Don’t worry, it was just that once I called for the (theoretical) grammar police to intervene in a discussion, and you responded to my delight with “You rang?” Further to which, thanks for the may/might comment, I now understand what you were talking about, and it is annoying, along with much else. Alas, I am still vulnerable to apostrophe irritations, but perhaps it will pass. The only thing is, I’m not entirely sure I want it to, if you know what I mean.
And what Tony P said.
And what Tony P said.
I think Hartmut might be right. I’m not sure because nobody can be, but what I have noticed on all parts of the political spectrum ( including mine) is a lot of wishful thinking and perfect certainty not just about issues, but about how their preferred candidate has widespread appeal except amongst all those people who disagree and they are all idiots.
So it is traditional for we Sanders types to say Bernie would have won. Maybe, but I am not sure and I could well imagine Hartmut being right. As for Clinton’s vote totals, she was running against a circus freak and the most openly racist candidate in a generation. Some of her voters liked her. Some loved her. Some did the lesser evil thing.
I have no idea how the electoral calculus goes in 2020. I like Sanders and then Warren, but as for who has the best shot, for all I know it might be Biden.
I think Hartmut might be right. I’m not sure because nobody can be, but what I have noticed on all parts of the political spectrum ( including mine) is a lot of wishful thinking and perfect certainty not just about issues, but about how their preferred candidate has widespread appeal except amongst all those people who disagree and they are all idiots.
So it is traditional for we Sanders types to say Bernie would have won. Maybe, but I am not sure and I could well imagine Hartmut being right. As for Clinton’s vote totals, she was running against a circus freak and the most openly racist candidate in a generation. Some of her voters liked her. Some loved her. Some did the lesser evil thing.
I have no idea how the electoral calculus goes in 2020. I like Sanders and then Warren, but as for who has the best shot, for all I know it might be Biden.
More food for thought about “forgiving” Trump voters can be found here.
More food for thought about “forgiving” Trump voters can be found here.
“Bizarre” barely begins to describe it.
It will look upon you forever as the devil if good things don’t happen. Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool!
words that will live in infamy
“Bizarre” barely begins to describe it.
It will look upon you forever as the devil if good things don’t happen. Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool!
words that will live in infamy
My thought about all of this is that Hilary prevailed as the (D) nominee because more (D)’s thought she would be a better president than Sanders or the other folks who were running.
That is both a completely reasonable opinion to hold, and a completely reasonable way to select a candidate for president.
And I heartily second all of the other comments made by Tony P, GFTNC, and others.
Trump is an obvious crook and ran a campaign of malice bigotry and resentment. There was no innuendo or dog whistling, it was all out front. Folks who voted for him knew what they were getting, and it’s what they voted for.
Clinton’s “unlikeability” seems like small beer, in comparison. To me, anyway.
My thought about all of this is that Hilary prevailed as the (D) nominee because more (D)’s thought she would be a better president than Sanders or the other folks who were running.
That is both a completely reasonable opinion to hold, and a completely reasonable way to select a candidate for president.
And I heartily second all of the other comments made by Tony P, GFTNC, and others.
Trump is an obvious crook and ran a campaign of malice bigotry and resentment. There was no innuendo or dog whistling, it was all out front. Folks who voted for him knew what they were getting, and it’s what they voted for.
Clinton’s “unlikeability” seems like small beer, in comparison. To me, anyway.
also, Trump’s ‘likeability’ polling was always lower than HRC’s. Trump has never been popular, or had positive approval in polling.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html
HRC was in the mid 60s during her time as Sec State, IIRC.
also, Trump’s ‘likeability’ polling was always lower than HRC’s. Trump has never been popular, or had positive approval in polling.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html
HRC was in the mid 60s during her time as Sec State, IIRC.
GftNC: My two-pence worth on one of our regular revisitings of the advisability or otherwise of nominating HRC: since most of the dislike against her was invented, stoked and kept warm by Fox et al, they would have done the same to any Dem nominee, the only difference being that they would have had less time to do it in before the election, with who knows what result. I’m guessing the “socialist” tag would have done for Sanders even without much of their help.
This, and what everyone else said. wj’s argument that Clickbait is our fault is one of the most infuriating bits of blame-deflecting blatherskite it is possible to imagine. Unbelievable.
GftNC: My two-pence worth on one of our regular revisitings of the advisability or otherwise of nominating HRC: since most of the dislike against her was invented, stoked and kept warm by Fox et al, they would have done the same to any Dem nominee, the only difference being that they would have had less time to do it in before the election, with who knows what result. I’m guessing the “socialist” tag would have done for Sanders even without much of their help.
This, and what everyone else said. wj’s argument that Clickbait is our fault is one of the most infuriating bits of blame-deflecting blatherskite it is possible to imagine. Unbelievable.
As a noun from late 14c. Written as two words until 16c., then as to-morrow until early 20c.
From here. (Don’t know how reliable a source it is.)
Hartmut, just how old are you, anyhow?!!?!?!?
😉
As a noun from late 14c. Written as two words until 16c., then as to-morrow until early 20c.
From here. (Don’t know how reliable a source it is.)
Hartmut, just how old are you, anyhow?!!?!?!?
😉
But speaking of “whether” — another mild pet peeve of mine is people who say “whether or not” when “whether” would do just fine. “Whether or not” is deeply ingrained, though, and sometimes a sentence actually does come along where it makes more sense, especially (maybe) if it’s split.
I had a friend once who would say, completely unconsciously, “whether or whether or not.”
But speaking of “whether” — another mild pet peeve of mine is people who say “whether or not” when “whether” would do just fine. “Whether or not” is deeply ingrained, though, and sometimes a sentence actually does come along where it makes more sense, especially (maybe) if it’s split.
I had a friend once who would say, completely unconsciously, “whether or whether or not.”
If Hillary Clinton had won the election, you can bet there would be a steady barrage by individuals here assigning personal responsibility to Democratic voters in general and specific individuals here who chose to divulge their private ballot choices for whatever inevitable failures ensued from her administration.
I believe she would have been assassinated within months of her inauguration, as in physically gunned down by conservative movement operatives, rather than the usual unending and mostly scurrilous fusillades of character assassination, because the kind of mortal hate wielded by the conservative movement always has its inevitable violent ending, but of course only one or two gunman, armed by the conservative movement, would have been assigned personal responsibility for their actions.
Here’s the look of contrition and one hopes the onset of personal responsibility, because don’t think that any republican/conservative who has served this administration or who has voiced support for even one of their policies is going to escape the same fate of those who associated with Ethel and Julius Rosenberg and Alger Hiss everlasting lifelong suspicion of being anti- and un-American.
https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1184606518756413442/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1184606518756413442&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
James Mattis:
“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
He had his chance. He had his opportunity. But just more empty bullshit self-crotch grabbing from another big swinging dick conservative.
I’ll take personal responsibility for the nomination of Hillary Clinton. She was a crappy candidate and only tangentially in agreement with the issues I care about, but then so were the Centre and conservative parties in a German election in 1933, another fucking binary choice.
If the Democratic Party’s function is to cater to the political tastes of conservatives, then fuck the two-party system.
Merge the political parties and get it over with.
I don’t recall Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush keeping ANY campaign promises they made as appeal to moderate Democrats during the election once in office. It was radical conservative fuck you pig shit from the get go to the very end.
Besides, the entire claim to allegiance to personal responsibility by conservatives, or anyone in America is a travesty.
The first thing an American does when starting a business is shield themselves and their assets from personal responsibility for their corporate actions by setting up a limited liability entity.
They set up a “person”, a doppelganger corporation, and point at it when the shit hits the fan because of their personal actions. Not my fault.
They keep the house, the car, the golden parachutes.
Then they, the unelected, take full advantage of our dumbass Citizen’s United Law, often times pleading anonymity, to gut any law that might cause them personally or corporately to be accountable for the results of their private and corporate actions or even to pay, via taxes, for what’s left of any government enforcement of the hollowed out laws, unless it’s the laws enacted against the un-monied powerless.
Ok, so that’s a simplification. I’m a big boy, I know how this shit works and that it will probably never work any other way.
But just STFU about “personal responsibility”.
If Hillary Clinton had won the election, you can bet there would be a steady barrage by individuals here assigning personal responsibility to Democratic voters in general and specific individuals here who chose to divulge their private ballot choices for whatever inevitable failures ensued from her administration.
I believe she would have been assassinated within months of her inauguration, as in physically gunned down by conservative movement operatives, rather than the usual unending and mostly scurrilous fusillades of character assassination, because the kind of mortal hate wielded by the conservative movement always has its inevitable violent ending, but of course only one or two gunman, armed by the conservative movement, would have been assigned personal responsibility for their actions.
Here’s the look of contrition and one hopes the onset of personal responsibility, because don’t think that any republican/conservative who has served this administration or who has voiced support for even one of their policies is going to escape the same fate of those who associated with Ethel and Julius Rosenberg and Alger Hiss everlasting lifelong suspicion of being anti- and un-American.
https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1184606518756413442/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1184606518756413442&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
James Mattis:
“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
He had his chance. He had his opportunity. But just more empty bullshit self-crotch grabbing from another big swinging dick conservative.
I’ll take personal responsibility for the nomination of Hillary Clinton. She was a crappy candidate and only tangentially in agreement with the issues I care about, but then so were the Centre and conservative parties in a German election in 1933, another fucking binary choice.
If the Democratic Party’s function is to cater to the political tastes of conservatives, then fuck the two-party system.
Merge the political parties and get it over with.
I don’t recall Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush keeping ANY campaign promises they made as appeal to moderate Democrats during the election once in office. It was radical conservative fuck you pig shit from the get go to the very end.
Besides, the entire claim to allegiance to personal responsibility by conservatives, or anyone in America is a travesty.
The first thing an American does when starting a business is shield themselves and their assets from personal responsibility for their corporate actions by setting up a limited liability entity.
They set up a “person”, a doppelganger corporation, and point at it when the shit hits the fan because of their personal actions. Not my fault.
They keep the house, the car, the golden parachutes.
Then they, the unelected, take full advantage of our dumbass Citizen’s United Law, often times pleading anonymity, to gut any law that might cause them personally or corporately to be accountable for the results of their private and corporate actions or even to pay, via taxes, for what’s left of any government enforcement of the hollowed out laws, unless it’s the laws enacted against the un-monied powerless.
Ok, so that’s a simplification. I’m a big boy, I know how this shit works and that it will probably never work any other way.
But just STFU about “personal responsibility”.
I can very clearly remember standing in my kitchen just before the general election telling my dad how Hillary was going to win in a landslide. That is what I believed at the time.
I also clearly remember being at an election-night party watching the results coming in. It was very much like the SNL skit of the Clinton supporters watching at first with gleeful anticipation, which turned into nervous denial, then into shocked disbelief, and finally into despair.
I say that as someone who wasn’t necessarily a big Clinton supporter from the beginning or in general [and I mean “in general,” not “in the general (election)”]. I simply believed she was actually qualified and fit for the presidency and would have been extremely competent at running the executive branch, regardless of where she and I might not have shared the same policy preferences. Given the alternative, my support became great as a matter of relativity.
In any case, if you think people who voted for Clinton just had to know that Rump’s winning was especially probable, or that it was more probable with Clinton as the nominee than it would have been with one of the other potential nominees, you are quite wrong.
I can very clearly remember standing in my kitchen just before the general election telling my dad how Hillary was going to win in a landslide. That is what I believed at the time.
I also clearly remember being at an election-night party watching the results coming in. It was very much like the SNL skit of the Clinton supporters watching at first with gleeful anticipation, which turned into nervous denial, then into shocked disbelief, and finally into despair.
I say that as someone who wasn’t necessarily a big Clinton supporter from the beginning or in general [and I mean “in general,” not “in the general (election)”]. I simply believed she was actually qualified and fit for the presidency and would have been extremely competent at running the executive branch, regardless of where she and I might not have shared the same policy preferences. Given the alternative, my support became great as a matter of relativity.
In any case, if you think people who voted for Clinton just had to know that Rump’s winning was especially probable, or that it was more probable with Clinton as the nominee than it would have been with one of the other potential nominees, you are quite wrong.
Saying Clickbait is our fault is like if Wayne LaPierre shot himself in the head while handling a firearm carelessly, and NRA members and other gun worshipers started screeching at the rest of us that it was our fault because we didn’t get better gun control measures passed.
Cf. the Republican Party. Sadly, not dead yet.
Saying Clickbait is our fault is like if Wayne LaPierre shot himself in the head while handling a firearm carelessly, and NRA members and other gun worshipers started screeching at the rest of us that it was our fault because we didn’t get better gun control measures passed.
Cf. the Republican Party. Sadly, not dead yet.
Also, too, I still experience moments of shock when the reality of Donald f**king Trump, NY tabloid freak show of my youth, being the goddamned president sinks into some deep part of my brain for whatever reason.
It’s an absurdity – a Simpsons episode come to life. Not only could I not foresee it, I have a hard time post-seeing it.
Also, too, I still experience moments of shock when the reality of Donald f**king Trump, NY tabloid freak show of my youth, being the goddamned president sinks into some deep part of my brain for whatever reason.
It’s an absurdity – a Simpsons episode come to life. Not only could I not foresee it, I have a hard time post-seeing it.
“But my administrative assistant sister”
Speaking of pet peeves, as a secretary I hope one day the phrase “administrative assistant” dies a hot, painful death. The firm I work for insists upon it, which is bad enough because it’s clunky and no improvement over secretary. The common usage, though, is to shorten it to “admins,” which sounds like the bad guys in a science fiction movie.
“But my administrative assistant sister”
Speaking of pet peeves, as a secretary I hope one day the phrase “administrative assistant” dies a hot, painful death. The firm I work for insists upon it, which is bad enough because it’s clunky and no improvement over secretary. The common usage, though, is to shorten it to “admins,” which sounds like the bad guys in a science fiction movie.
I would not be surprised at all, if Wayne LaPierre never laid hands on a loaded gun in his life (no idea, whether he served at any time in the armed forces but he looks like a typical RW draft dodging hawk to me).
JanieM, I am 46 years of age. But English is also not my native language, so the number does not mean much.
I would not be surprised at all, if Wayne LaPierre never laid hands on a loaded gun in his life (no idea, whether he served at any time in the armed forces but he looks like a typical RW draft dodging hawk to me).
JanieM, I am 46 years of age. But English is also not my native language, so the number does not mean much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Cummings
I have a list of conservative/republican politicians, thousands of names, at every level of government, conservative whackjob judges, conservative media jackasses (who brought up Drudge’s name the other day, I’ll get to that dumb-hatted gift shop traitorous fuck in a post very soon), the conservative political operatives/ratfuckers who nonstop ratfuck (notice how they are coming out of the woodwork, they never seem to die; really, Toensing and Digenova AGAIN?, the Elaine May and Mike Nichols of grifting slapstick conservative slasher politics), to once again ratfuck whether ( … OR NOT, aarghhh!) their party is in the majority or in the minority, the entire edifice of conservative academia, all right wing bloggers, all conservative gun-wielding militia leaders and members, all right wing evangelicals, of the spitting, all conservative business donors killing my government, every spitting poisonous head of the snake that is the conservative movement .. who will wish they could depart this world peaceably by natural causes (ah, but was Cummings’ death by natural causes, weren’t there pillows on his deathbed as on Scalia’s, the fuck, when he checked out, inquiring conservative minds would want to know, wouldn’t they?) as their final days crash on to their severed heads in goddamned uncivil war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Cummings
I have a list of conservative/republican politicians, thousands of names, at every level of government, conservative whackjob judges, conservative media jackasses (who brought up Drudge’s name the other day, I’ll get to that dumb-hatted gift shop traitorous fuck in a post very soon), the conservative political operatives/ratfuckers who nonstop ratfuck (notice how they are coming out of the woodwork, they never seem to die; really, Toensing and Digenova AGAIN?, the Elaine May and Mike Nichols of grifting slapstick conservative slasher politics), to once again ratfuck whether ( … OR NOT, aarghhh!) their party is in the majority or in the minority, the entire edifice of conservative academia, all right wing bloggers, all conservative gun-wielding militia leaders and members, all right wing evangelicals, of the spitting, all conservative business donors killing my government, every spitting poisonous head of the snake that is the conservative movement .. who will wish they could depart this world peaceably by natural causes (ah, but was Cummings’ death by natural causes, weren’t there pillows on his deathbed as on Scalia’s, the fuck, when he checked out, inquiring conservative minds would want to know, wouldn’t they?) as their final days crash on to their severed heads in goddamned uncivil war.
wj’s argument that Clickbait is our fault is one of the most infuriating bits of blame-deflecting blatherskite it is possible to imagine. Unbelievable.
Janie, I was really really trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to make clear that Trump is definitely the fault of the folks who voted for him. But that the rest of us are not without blame either. That is, it isn’t 100% virtue on us. Nothing more.
wj’s argument that Clickbait is our fault is one of the most infuriating bits of blame-deflecting blatherskite it is possible to imagine. Unbelievable.
Janie, I was really really trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to make clear that Trump is definitely the fault of the folks who voted for him. But that the rest of us are not without blame either. That is, it isn’t 100% virtue on us. Nothing more.
Kudlow, wrong eternally about every major economic turning point in the last 50 years, and extravagantly so, and the shit “journalist” Kernan “objectively” without “media bias” “interviewing” the space between the former’s balls and his butthole are on my list, Kudlow shows up more than once.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-white-house-aide-kudlow-implies-deep-state-fed-staff-part-of-trump-resistance-2019-10-17?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Deep State? They’d better hope there is a deep state when savage chaos explodes.
What fucking bullshit.
It will be their only protection.
Kudlow, wrong eternally about every major economic turning point in the last 50 years, and extravagantly so, and the shit “journalist” Kernan “objectively” without “media bias” “interviewing” the space between the former’s balls and his butthole are on my list, Kudlow shows up more than once.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-white-house-aide-kudlow-implies-deep-state-fed-staff-part-of-trump-resistance-2019-10-17?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Deep State? They’d better hope there is a deep state when savage chaos explodes.
What fucking bullshit.
It will be their only protection.
What hsh said at 11:26. Bigtime.
*****
Hartmut: I hope you know I was only teasing you. I couldn’t remember “to-morrow” (with the hyphen) within my lifetime, but my memory being what it is, I looked it up. What about email/e-mail?
*****
john not mccain: Heh. At the company I recently retired from, “admins” were the people who kept our computers going. We no longer even had a role that you might label “secretary” or “administrative assistant.” We had an office manager, but that was a managerial role. The secretaries disappeared when everyone started typing on their own keyboards.
My company had maybe 120 employees. My “administrative assistant” sister works for a mega-corporation, so it’s a rather different context.
What hsh said at 11:26. Bigtime.
*****
Hartmut: I hope you know I was only teasing you. I couldn’t remember “to-morrow” (with the hyphen) within my lifetime, but my memory being what it is, I looked it up. What about email/e-mail?
*****
john not mccain: Heh. At the company I recently retired from, “admins” were the people who kept our computers going. We no longer even had a role that you might label “secretary” or “administrative assistant.” We had an office manager, but that was a managerial role. The secretaries disappeared when everyone started typing on their own keyboards.
My company had maybe 120 employees. My “administrative assistant” sister works for a mega-corporation, so it’s a rather different context.
Deep state is like political correctness. It means whatever you want it to mean at the time if you’re the sort of person inclined to use it. To other people, it might mean that the government has a bunch of non-political staff who do all sorts of things most people don’t notice (but probably would notice if those staff members didn’t do their jobs).
Sort of like political correctness just means “Don’t be an a**hole” to people who don’t use it as an insult. (These days, that is. It used to be a term of liberal infighting. Language evolves!)
Deep state is like political correctness. It means whatever you want it to mean at the time if you’re the sort of person inclined to use it. To other people, it might mean that the government has a bunch of non-political staff who do all sorts of things most people don’t notice (but probably would notice if those staff members didn’t do their jobs).
Sort of like political correctness just means “Don’t be an a**hole” to people who don’t use it as an insult. (These days, that is. It used to be a term of liberal infighting. Language evolves!)
hsh @11.26 perfectly expresses my own feelings too.
hsh @11.26 perfectly expresses my own feelings too.
Sort of like political correctness just means “Don’t be an a**hole” to people who don’t use it as an insult.
i don’t think anybody uses it except as an insult. even liberals roll their eyes when they use it.
Sort of like political correctness just means “Don’t be an a**hole” to people who don’t use it as an insult.
i don’t think anybody uses it except as an insult. even liberals roll their eyes when they use it.
I’m trying to think of a candidate for POTUS in my lifetime that I thought of us “likeable”.
Carter, maybe Howard Dean.
Obama is a guy I had, and have, profound respect for, but even he had that weird competitive thing going on. Not a bad thing, in that position, but not warm and fuzzy either.
I like Warren mostly because she is smart and earnest and works her ass off and I think most of her positions are right on. Although if she is the nominee, if she hangs on to the “you’re gonna have to give up your private insurance” thing, we’re looking at four more years of Trump. But she definitely has that teacher vibe – she is going to explain how it oughta be to you, until you get it – and that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
Biden is actually somebody I find likeable, and for reasons that I think would make him a bad POTUS. This is not the time and place for the whole collegial, hail-fellow-well-met vibe. Plus I just don’t think he has the energy for it at this point.
All of which is simply to point out that “likeability” is really not how people should be thinking about candidates for POTUS. It appears, sadly, to be one of the qualifications of *running* for the job, but it’s utterly irrelevant to being good at it, and may in fact get in the way. The POTUS has to be an effective executive. Sometimes asses need to be kicked and heads need to be knocked.
My assumption is that anybody who gets within 10 miles of the office is some version of driven, ambitious workaholic. Anyone who comes to the office from any kind of significant political career has almost certainly made compromises of various kinds, because that’s a big part of the gig. And pretty much anyone old enough to run for the office has some collection of baggage in their life.
We seem to have arrived at the place where the qualification for being . elected to be POTUS is whether you make people feel good about themselves. Which is not really a good situation.
I’m trying to think of a candidate for POTUS in my lifetime that I thought of us “likeable”.
Carter, maybe Howard Dean.
Obama is a guy I had, and have, profound respect for, but even he had that weird competitive thing going on. Not a bad thing, in that position, but not warm and fuzzy either.
I like Warren mostly because she is smart and earnest and works her ass off and I think most of her positions are right on. Although if she is the nominee, if she hangs on to the “you’re gonna have to give up your private insurance” thing, we’re looking at four more years of Trump. But she definitely has that teacher vibe – she is going to explain how it oughta be to you, until you get it – and that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
Biden is actually somebody I find likeable, and for reasons that I think would make him a bad POTUS. This is not the time and place for the whole collegial, hail-fellow-well-met vibe. Plus I just don’t think he has the energy for it at this point.
All of which is simply to point out that “likeability” is really not how people should be thinking about candidates for POTUS. It appears, sadly, to be one of the qualifications of *running* for the job, but it’s utterly irrelevant to being good at it, and may in fact get in the way. The POTUS has to be an effective executive. Sometimes asses need to be kicked and heads need to be knocked.
My assumption is that anybody who gets within 10 miles of the office is some version of driven, ambitious workaholic. Anyone who comes to the office from any kind of significant political career has almost certainly made compromises of various kinds, because that’s a big part of the gig. And pretty much anyone old enough to run for the office has some collection of baggage in their life.
We seem to have arrived at the place where the qualification for being . elected to be POTUS is whether you make people feel good about themselves. Which is not really a good situation.
JanieM, I follow the German custom of not hyphenatig email. One potential problem there is that email is also a (now) legit spelling in German for enamel (formerly Emaille).
JanieM, I follow the German custom of not hyphenatig email. One potential problem there is that email is also a (now) legit spelling in German for enamel (formerly Emaille).
I notice some people hyphenate no-one. I find that weird. Not as weird as human-insect hybrids or unexplained glowing orbs floating around or talking dogs or other stuff like that. Just a little weird.
I notice some people hyphenate no-one. I find that weird. Not as weird as human-insect hybrids or unexplained glowing orbs floating around or talking dogs or other stuff like that. Just a little weird.
I can see why some people found GWB to be likable, and can see even more why people find him likable now. I would probably find him likable if he were never (such a horrible) president. At any rate, look what his likability got us.
I can see why some people found GWB to be likable, and can see even more why people find him likable now. I would probably find him likable if he were never (such a horrible) president. At any rate, look what his likability got us.
I take GWB to be a classic example of why “likeable” (aka “someone you’d like to have a beer with”) is a really poor basis on which to choose a President.
I take GWB to be a classic example of why “likeable” (aka “someone you’d like to have a beer with”) is a really poor basis on which to choose a President.
Been seeing campaign signs (for a local office) for some dude named “NOONE”.
I wonder how many voters will think that they’re voting for “no-one”.
Been seeing campaign signs (for a local office) for some dude named “NOONE”.
I wonder how many voters will think that they’re voting for “no-one”.
And, as always, it’s worth remembering that about 3 million more people voted for Clinton, than for Trump.
In all, about 10 million more people voted for someone other than Trump, than for Trump.
If “likeability” and “electability” were the only factors in play, he would not be President.
Too bad about the whole “We, the People” thing.
And, as always, it’s worth remembering that about 3 million more people voted for Clinton, than for Trump.
In all, about 10 million more people voted for someone other than Trump, than for Trump.
If “likeability” and “electability” were the only factors in play, he would not be President.
Too bad about the whole “We, the People” thing.
By purely random chance, Rump awarded the G-7 summit to a resort he happens to own. How do you do something like that under the current circumstances? I suppose his fans will say he’s got “balls” or some such bullsh*t. I think it shows what a jackass he is.
By purely random chance, Rump awarded the G-7 summit to a resort he happens to own. How do you do something like that under the current circumstances? I suppose his fans will say he’s got “balls” or some such bullsh*t. I think it shows what a jackass he is.
remember that one time gave a speech?
shocking stuff.
remember that one time gave a speech?
shocking stuff.
missing noun. add your own. they all work.
missing noun. add your own. they all work.
Speaking of profiles in non-courage, here is the vote on the resolution in the House to condemn Trump’s sell-out of the Kurds:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll560.xml
I refer not to the scum who voted against the resolution. But to the 4 individuals who could only bring themselves to vote “Present”. Really, really pathetic.
Speaking of profiles in non-courage, here is the vote on the resolution in the House to condemn Trump’s sell-out of the Kurds:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll560.xml
I refer not to the scum who voted against the resolution. But to the 4 individuals who could only bring themselves to vote “Present”. Really, really pathetic.
i don’t think anybody uses it except as an insult. even liberals roll their eyes when they use it.
Die hard Maoists used it, and did not roll their eyes. Politically correct was, you know, being CORRECT.
Alas, they were usually incorrect on just about everything.
i don’t think anybody uses it except as an insult. even liberals roll their eyes when they use it.
Die hard Maoists used it, and did not roll their eyes. Politically correct was, you know, being CORRECT.
Alas, they were usually incorrect on just about everything.
But that the rest of us are not without blame either.
We lost. Not our fault. Please stop. On to the next circus.
Thank you.
But that the rest of us are not without blame either.
We lost. Not our fault. Please stop. On to the next circus.
Thank you.
looks like Turkey just annexed a chunk of Syria.
that’ll lead to lasting peace.
looks like Turkey just annexed a chunk of Syria.
that’ll lead to lasting peace.
looks like Turkey just annexed a chunk of Syria.
Brilliant! A whole new bunch of “mountain Turks” to be forcibly turned into Turks. Well, forcibly and massively unsuccessfully. Great recruiting tool for the PKK tho.
looks like Turkey just annexed a chunk of Syria.
Brilliant! A whole new bunch of “mountain Turks” to be forcibly turned into Turks. Well, forcibly and massively unsuccessfully. Great recruiting tool for the PKK tho.
In case anyone is still in the dark about Biden’s comments on getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired that had Marty so worked up a bit ago (so worked up that he wouldn’t tell us what the comments were or provide a link after being asked to do so), here’s a story about them. Most of the information is old hat at this point, but at least I finally know what Biden said.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/miriamelder/joe-biden-ukraine-hunter
In case anyone is still in the dark about Biden’s comments on getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired that had Marty so worked up a bit ago (so worked up that he wouldn’t tell us what the comments were or provide a link after being asked to do so), here’s a story about them. Most of the information is old hat at this point, but at least I finally know what Biden said.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/miriamelder/joe-biden-ukraine-hunter
Oh, and Russian propaganda at work right here at Obsidian Wings! We got to see it in action first-hand.
Oh, and Russian propaganda at work right here at Obsidian Wings! We got to see it in action first-hand.
but at least I finally know what Biden said.
interesting that RT and Sputnik were early adopters of that stuff. i wonder if Peter Schweizer (Trump’s source for this scheisse) is a fan of theirs.
but at least I finally know what Biden said.
interesting that RT and Sputnik were early adopters of that stuff. i wonder if Peter Schweizer (Trump’s source for this scheisse) is a fan of theirs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9az6MMNZJl8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7fQgg_T9Gk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9az6MMNZJl8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7fQgg_T9Gk