attention must be paid

by

by russell

A couple of things I've stumbled across recently online.

Kevin Drum on the (D)'s problems with working class voters.

Betty Rivard, social worker in WV, on the (D)'s problems with working class voters.

[ed.link corrected (I think), thx Charles WT lj]

IMO the critical challenge for (D)'s over the next four years is going to be regaining credibility with working class people.  Not "white working class" people, working class people of any color – it's an issue that cuts across race.  At the national level, at least, they are losing ground, in a constituency that they should really own.

See also Rivard's catalog of ground lost over the last few decades:

(WV Democratic party chairwoman) Biafore states that we now take for granted a 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, health insurance, paid leave and pensions. While this may be true for the dwindling number of union workers and those of us in the professional class, our electorate includes large numbers of young people and people without college degrees who suffer from irregular hours, do not earn a living wage, and lack health insurance, paid leave and pensions. These voters have no reason to thank us as Democrats or unions for what they do not have.

Hard to argue that last point.

Trump's out, Biden's in, and the (D)'s have the House for at least the next 2 years and probably 4 or (hopefully) more.  The Senate is a toss-up, probably (R) but by a slim margin if so.  They have a window of opportunity in front of them to place a focus on what has been historically one of their core constituencies.

There are always a lot of issues in play in a country as large and varied as the US, but the economy is always front and center.  It's always the economy, stupid.

770 thoughts on “attention must be paid”

  5. Biafore states that we now take for granted a 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, health insurance, paid leave and pensions. While this may be true for the dwindling number of union workers and those of us in the professional class
    I don’t know about the rest of you. But my experience in “the professional class” (in, admittedly, data processing) suggests that we do NOT take a 40 hour week for granted.

  6. Biafore states that we now take for granted a 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, health insurance, paid leave and pensions. While this may be true for the dwindling number of union workers and those of us in the professional class
    I don’t know about the rest of you. But my experience in “the professional class” (in, admittedly, data processing) suggests that we do NOT take a 40 hour week for granted.

  7. Rivard:
    who suffer from irregular hours, do not earn a living wage, and lack health insurance, paid leave and pensions. These voters have no reason to thank us as Democrats or unions for what they do not have.
    Drum:
    Unfortunately, this inevitably brings us around to the tedious—but important—question of whether liberals need to move toward the center on social issues.
    Needless to say, the progressive wing of the party is massively resistant to this idea. During the election, my Twitter feed was jam packed with quixotic ideas for expanding the Democratic map: … This is all pie-in-the-sky stuff, a desperate attempt to propose anything other than the obvious: embracing social policies that appeal to more people, especially those without college degrees.
    So is it economic policies to benefit members of the working class that are needed, or social polices that appeal to them? Because these don’t sound like the same thing.
    What is Obamacare, or M4A, but an attempt to provide better health care options? Nearly one third of WV’s population is on Medicaid, and most of those came on after the Medicaid expansion.
    What is a $15/hr minimum wage but an attempt to raise the pay of low-wage workers. W. VA’s minimum is $8.75.
    Is it Democrats who keep talking about cuts in SS and Medicare?
    So what do Democrats need to do? Make false promises about the comeback of coal mining?

  8. Rivard:
    who suffer from irregular hours, do not earn a living wage, and lack health insurance, paid leave and pensions. These voters have no reason to thank us as Democrats or unions for what they do not have.
    Drum:
    Unfortunately, this inevitably brings us around to the tedious—but important—question of whether liberals need to move toward the center on social issues.
    Needless to say, the progressive wing of the party is massively resistant to this idea. During the election, my Twitter feed was jam packed with quixotic ideas for expanding the Democratic map: … This is all pie-in-the-sky stuff, a desperate attempt to propose anything other than the obvious: embracing social policies that appeal to more people, especially those without college degrees.
    So is it economic policies to benefit members of the working class that are needed, or social polices that appeal to them? Because these don’t sound like the same thing.
    What is Obamacare, or M4A, but an attempt to provide better health care options? Nearly one third of WV’s population is on Medicaid, and most of those came on after the Medicaid expansion.
    What is a $15/hr minimum wage but an attempt to raise the pay of low-wage workers. W. VA’s minimum is $8.75.
    Is it Democrats who keep talking about cuts in SS and Medicare?
    So what do Democrats need to do? Make false promises about the comeback of coal mining?

  9. What is a $15/hr minimum wage but an attempt to raise the pay of low-wage workers. W. VA’s minimum is $8.75.
    Regardless of what laws the politicians pass, the minimum wage is always $0.00. All the politicians do is set the size of the gap in which it’s illegal to have a job.

  10. What is a $15/hr minimum wage but an attempt to raise the pay of low-wage workers. W. VA’s minimum is $8.75.
    Regardless of what laws the politicians pass, the minimum wage is always $0.00. All the politicians do is set the size of the gap in which it’s illegal to have a job.

  11. My redneck brother-in-law-once-removed in Kansas is retired but still teaches apprentice classes for his local of the electricians’ union. Because it’s in rural Kansas, electricians often have to fabricate various widgets. He tells me the union is getting ready to start teaching how to use 3D printing for that.
    Here in Colorado being a plumber or pipe-fitter is a much better-paying job than most of the other trades since the union has retained control, mostly because if you hire a union plumber you know they’ve been through a thorough training program.
    Democrats could talk about tilting the balance back towards labor and supporting union-based education is one way to do it.

  12. My redneck brother-in-law-once-removed in Kansas is retired but still teaches apprentice classes for his local of the electricians’ union. Because it’s in rural Kansas, electricians often have to fabricate various widgets. He tells me the union is getting ready to start teaching how to use 3D printing for that.
    Here in Colorado being a plumber or pipe-fitter is a much better-paying job than most of the other trades since the union has retained control, mostly because if you hire a union plumber you know they’ve been through a thorough training program.
    Democrats could talk about tilting the balance back towards labor and supporting union-based education is one way to do it.

  15. Sounds like Charles prefers a guaranteed minimum income to a minimum wage. Maybe he’s on to something.

  16. Sounds like Charles prefers a guaranteed minimum income to a minimum wage. Maybe he’s on to something.

  17. I should first give the caveat that I’m not sure I got the right Rivard article, so caveat [Internet] peregrinator. Though I thought it was interesting that paper that Rivard writes in had a column about how a hyperloop might be the answer for WV.
    https://www.wvgazettemail.com/dailymailwv/daily_mail_commentary/hyperloop-has-potential-to-reshape-wv-economic-landscape/article_bfb6e554-4636-549f-b54e-e957800a3b7b.html
    It would have been more ironic if Rivard were the one to pen that. But I think you need those kind of transformative projects for these areas, though any kind of project like that has winners and losers.
    I’ve thrown up my hands at ‘peeling off’ people who voted for Trump, so if I were to be completely consistent, I’d just dismiss this. But, fortunately for me I guess, I’m anything but consistent.
    Japan is a different context, but I support unions here, especially for foreigners, as it is often the only way to protect their jobs, but I’m pretty sympathetic to the problems of sexism and racism, so here, these two often crash straight into each other. Defending jobs for people who were hired in earlier times sometimes doesn’t sit very well with people who were shut out of that job market, especially when those people voice opinions that can be out of date or fail to understand the kind of tax that a woman has to deal with. It is also the case that people hired in that earlier time argue that they were uniquely qualified whereas the rabble they hire now isn’t. This gets into resume measuring contests. Not fun.
    In chess, there is something called a fork, where one piece can make two attacks and this situation is basically a conservative fork. Taking on policies that don’t really boost the economy allows them to maintain moral high ground on individual freedom and rights while giving them the space to be horrified at attempts to deal with sexism and racism. Admittedly, it has never been as much of an oscillation until this current piece of orange crap, but I don’t see a difference in kind, just a difference in degree.
    This also suggests why Republicans are quite happy to tank the economy when Dems are in ascendance, because it naturally leads into this sort of situation.
    https://www.thebalance.com/democrats-vs-republicans-which-is-better-for-the-economy-4771839
    For folks horrified at this suggestion, I’m happy to admit to being hyperbolic if you admit that this isn’t such a good look for Republicans
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/24/house-votes-on-2000-stimulus-checks-after-trump-supports-them.html
    I have a post percolating about hospitalization and COVID that might touch on these things.

  18. I should first give the caveat that I’m not sure I got the right Rivard article, so caveat [Internet] peregrinator. Though I thought it was interesting that paper that Rivard writes in had a column about how a hyperloop might be the answer for WV.
    https://www.wvgazettemail.com/dailymailwv/daily_mail_commentary/hyperloop-has-potential-to-reshape-wv-economic-landscape/article_bfb6e554-4636-549f-b54e-e957800a3b7b.html
    It would have been more ironic if Rivard were the one to pen that. But I think you need those kind of transformative projects for these areas, though any kind of project like that has winners and losers.
    I’ve thrown up my hands at ‘peeling off’ people who voted for Trump, so if I were to be completely consistent, I’d just dismiss this. But, fortunately for me I guess, I’m anything but consistent.
    Japan is a different context, but I support unions here, especially for foreigners, as it is often the only way to protect their jobs, but I’m pretty sympathetic to the problems of sexism and racism, so here, these two often crash straight into each other. Defending jobs for people who were hired in earlier times sometimes doesn’t sit very well with people who were shut out of that job market, especially when those people voice opinions that can be out of date or fail to understand the kind of tax that a woman has to deal with. It is also the case that people hired in that earlier time argue that they were uniquely qualified whereas the rabble they hire now isn’t. This gets into resume measuring contests. Not fun.
    In chess, there is something called a fork, where one piece can make two attacks and this situation is basically a conservative fork. Taking on policies that don’t really boost the economy allows them to maintain moral high ground on individual freedom and rights while giving them the space to be horrified at attempts to deal with sexism and racism. Admittedly, it has never been as much of an oscillation until this current piece of orange crap, but I don’t see a difference in kind, just a difference in degree.
    This also suggests why Republicans are quite happy to tank the economy when Dems are in ascendance, because it naturally leads into this sort of situation.
    https://www.thebalance.com/democrats-vs-republicans-which-is-better-for-the-economy-4771839
    For folks horrified at this suggestion, I’m happy to admit to being hyperbolic if you admit that this isn’t such a good look for Republicans
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/24/house-votes-on-2000-stimulus-checks-after-trump-supports-them.html
    I have a post percolating about hospitalization and COVID that might touch on these things.

  21. Trump signed the thing, like a cheap House of Rep conservative hooker as McConnell’s limo gunned it and pulled away from the curb.

  22. Trump signed the thing, like a cheap House of Rep conservative hooker as McConnell’s limo gunned it and pulled away from the curb.

  25. Regardless of what laws the politicians pass, the minimum wage is always $0.00. All the politicians do is set the size of the gap in which it’s illegal to have a job.
    The world doesn’t exactly work as described in Econ 101, but even if it does you may want to investigate monopsony.
    You may also want to investigate the actual empirical research on the minimum wage, which describes a more complex picture than that drawn in stick-figure economics.

  26. Regardless of what laws the politicians pass, the minimum wage is always $0.00. All the politicians do is set the size of the gap in which it’s illegal to have a job.
    The world doesn’t exactly work as described in Econ 101, but even if it does you may want to investigate monopsony.
    You may also want to investigate the actual empirical research on the minimum wage, which describes a more complex picture than that drawn in stick-figure economics.

  29. So what do Democrats need to do?
    In my opinion, and really only my opinion:
    They need to invest in party infrastructure *everywhere*.
    My perception is that their focus has been on cities, because the bang for the buck there is greater, for them.

  30. So what do Democrats need to do?
    In my opinion, and really only my opinion:
    They need to invest in party infrastructure *everywhere*.
    My perception is that their focus has been on cities, because the bang for the buck there is greater, for them.

  31. the minimum wage is always $0.00
    And there is always some tax rate above which net revenue declines. They tell me it’s somewhere between 0 and 100%.

  32. the minimum wage is always $0.00
    And there is always some tax rate above which net revenue declines. They tell me it’s somewhere between 0 and 100%.

  33. They need to invest in party infrastructure *everywhere*.
    My perception is that their focus has been on cities, because the bang for the buck there is greater, for them.
    I suspect (and it’s only my uninformed suspicion) that part of their problem is methodological. The Democrats know how to organize and build party infrastructure in cities. But outside cities, a different approach is required. And they’re still figuring that out.

  34. They need to invest in party infrastructure *everywhere*.
    My perception is that their focus has been on cities, because the bang for the buck there is greater, for them.
    I suspect (and it’s only my uninformed suspicion) that part of their problem is methodological. The Democrats know how to organize and build party infrastructure in cities. But outside cities, a different approach is required. And they’re still figuring that out.

  35. But outside cities, a different approach is required..
    Let’s take a look. Comparethis table to this table.
    Similar occupational breakdowns? Nothing jumped out at me, but I am open to a slap up the side of the head. And, when you get down to it, most people live in cities.
    Just who are these rurals? Here’s some data.
    One big reason Democrats have to “pander” to rural voters is due to the need to surmount the political chokepoints in our constitutional order.
    Other than that, I got nothin’.

  36. But outside cities, a different approach is required..
    Let’s take a look. Comparethis table to this table.
    Similar occupational breakdowns? Nothing jumped out at me, but I am open to a slap up the side of the head. And, when you get down to it, most people live in cities.
    Just who are these rurals? Here’s some data.
    One big reason Democrats have to “pander” to rural voters is due to the need to surmount the political chokepoints in our constitutional order.
    Other than that, I got nothin’.

  37. Drum points out that voting Dem is associated with education level. Solution? Free college for all who want it. (insert laughing emoji here).
    More from the Riven link:
    The national Democratic Party has, unfortunately, worked in the past couple of decades against the interests of these same voters by taking them for granted, embracing tax cuts for the rich, supporting deregulation, abandoning unions and establishing free trade agreements with inadequate protections for our American workforce. The national party has also allowed the financial sector to develop an oversized role in the national economy that does not support or reward the reinvestment of profits into most employees and their well-being.
    Next thing you know, she will be quoting Mao, or worse, Bernie Sanders.

  38. Drum points out that voting Dem is associated with education level. Solution? Free college for all who want it. (insert laughing emoji here).
    More from the Riven link:
    The national Democratic Party has, unfortunately, worked in the past couple of decades against the interests of these same voters by taking them for granted, embracing tax cuts for the rich, supporting deregulation, abandoning unions and establishing free trade agreements with inadequate protections for our American workforce. The national party has also allowed the financial sector to develop an oversized role in the national economy that does not support or reward the reinvestment of profits into most employees and their well-being.
    Next thing you know, she will be quoting Mao, or worse, Bernie Sanders.

  39. One big reason Democrats have to “pander” to rural voters is due to the need to surmount the political chokepoints in our constitutional order.
    Other than that, I got nothin’.
    Perhaps you got nothin’ because you look at speaking to their common-with-city-folks concerns in their language, that is in terms they understand, as “pandering.” Which I suppose it is, if you resent having to exert yourself to show them something that you assume (incorrectly) must be obvious.
    Just for one organizing difference, in a city you can organize around work places with dozens of potential voters. Whereas in rural areas a workplace may be just a handful of eligible voters. I’m by no means a political organizing expert, but even I can see the probable need for a different approach.

  40. One big reason Democrats have to “pander” to rural voters is due to the need to surmount the political chokepoints in our constitutional order.
    Other than that, I got nothin’.
    Perhaps you got nothin’ because you look at speaking to their common-with-city-folks concerns in their language, that is in terms they understand, as “pandering.” Which I suppose it is, if you resent having to exert yourself to show them something that you assume (incorrectly) must be obvious.
    Just for one organizing difference, in a city you can organize around work places with dozens of potential voters. Whereas in rural areas a workplace may be just a handful of eligible voters. I’m by no means a political organizing expert, but even I can see the probable need for a different approach.

  41. Totally off the subject, but I was wondering why ‘pander’ summons up such strong feelings. Merriam Webster to the rescue
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pander
    In this regard [procure] is similar to the word pander, which entered the English language with the innocent meaning “a go-between in love intrigues” (the word comes from the name Pandare, a character in Chaucer’s poem Troilus and Criseyde who facilitates the affair between the titular characters), and soon after took on the meaning “pimp.”

  42. Totally off the subject, but I was wondering why ‘pander’ summons up such strong feelings. Merriam Webster to the rescue
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pander
    In this regard [procure] is similar to the word pander, which entered the English language with the innocent meaning “a go-between in love intrigues” (the word comes from the name Pandare, a character in Chaucer’s poem Troilus and Criseyde who facilitates the affair between the titular characters), and soon after took on the meaning “pimp.”

  43. Kevin is completely full of shit on means testing.
    #1. It doesn’t save money. Just the opposite. Means-testing costs a lot of money, and generates a significant number of false positives even when it’s fully funded and staffed and directed by people who aren’t trying to deny people benefits capriciously. (This never happens in Republican administrations, and not reliably in Democratic ones.)
    #2. In practice, the process is almost always grueling, humiliating, and degrading, the more so the more important the service is. “People awaiting SSI verdicts” is a well-known (to professionals) very high-risk category for suicide. With things like disability help, it routinely takes years to get a resolution, during which time everything has been getting worse, and even if you get it, it’s hedged about with brutal requirements that just about guarantee you’ll never get out, like being unable to maintain any savings at all.
    I dare anyone who thinks like Kevin to spend a year depending on means-tested services for their health care, housing, food, and transportation, and then get back to us.
    It hasn’t been fun watching him get increasingly detached from reality, but on too many fronts – this, what work is like for people under 40, what life is like for queer people, a lot of others – he’s disappeared up his own ass.

  44. Kevin is completely full of shit on means testing.
    #1. It doesn’t save money. Just the opposite. Means-testing costs a lot of money, and generates a significant number of false positives even when it’s fully funded and staffed and directed by people who aren’t trying to deny people benefits capriciously. (This never happens in Republican administrations, and not reliably in Democratic ones.)
    #2. In practice, the process is almost always grueling, humiliating, and degrading, the more so the more important the service is. “People awaiting SSI verdicts” is a well-known (to professionals) very high-risk category for suicide. With things like disability help, it routinely takes years to get a resolution, during which time everything has been getting worse, and even if you get it, it’s hedged about with brutal requirements that just about guarantee you’ll never get out, like being unable to maintain any savings at all.
    I dare anyone who thinks like Kevin to spend a year depending on means-tested services for their health care, housing, food, and transportation, and then get back to us.
    It hasn’t been fun watching him get increasingly detached from reality, but on too many fronts – this, what work is like for people under 40, what life is like for queer people, a lot of others – he’s disappeared up his own ass.

  45. Kevin lives Behind The Orange Curtain (as Angelinos have called it).
    Just call it “Mean Testing” for accuramacy.
    Regarding minimum wage and Econ 101: does *anyone* think that employees were willing to work for $0.01/hr that an employer would hire hundreds of them for the local convenience store? Clearly there are many more factors involved; *as the studies of actual employment vs minimum wage made clear*.
    But hey, if you want to go with the pure mathematical model: $0 wage = infinite employment: a contradiction which invalidates your entire theorem.

  46. Kevin lives Behind The Orange Curtain (as Angelinos have called it).
    Just call it “Mean Testing” for accuramacy.
    Regarding minimum wage and Econ 101: does *anyone* think that employees were willing to work for $0.01/hr that an employer would hire hundreds of them for the local convenience store? Clearly there are many more factors involved; *as the studies of actual employment vs minimum wage made clear*.
    But hey, if you want to go with the pure mathematical model: $0 wage = infinite employment: a contradiction which invalidates your entire theorem.

  49. it’s an issue that cuts across race.
    It’s still an issue that is mostly male. I read the articles, and other than 2020 voting demographics, there’s very little data to support anything that’s being said in either article.
    For example, Democrats have consistently supported more benefits for working class people, more than ever during the past election. Trade agreements have been a mixed bag for the working class, rather than the unmitigated harm that is often described by protectionists, but to the extent that this has been an issue recently, Democrats have been on the anti-trade agreement side.
    Trump voters don’t care about policy. They care about toxic masculine rhetoric. They care about tribal solidarity (which is something that Democrats most definitely don’t have). There is absolutely no Republican policy that helps them. The history of the ACA in Kentucky (Obamacare/Kynect story) is an example of the phenomenon.
    I think that working harder to organize Democrats in rural areas is always a great idea, but I live in a small city where we vote for progressive Democrats (in our primaries) to run in our mostly rural Republican Congressional district, and they always lose, no matter what populist appeal to the working class they promote. They like strongmen.

  50. it’s an issue that cuts across race.
    It’s still an issue that is mostly male. I read the articles, and other than 2020 voting demographics, there’s very little data to support anything that’s being said in either article.
    For example, Democrats have consistently supported more benefits for working class people, more than ever during the past election. Trade agreements have been a mixed bag for the working class, rather than the unmitigated harm that is often described by protectionists, but to the extent that this has been an issue recently, Democrats have been on the anti-trade agreement side.
    Trump voters don’t care about policy. They care about toxic masculine rhetoric. They care about tribal solidarity (which is something that Democrats most definitely don’t have). There is absolutely no Republican policy that helps them. The history of the ACA in Kentucky (Obamacare/Kynect story) is an example of the phenomenon.
    I think that working harder to organize Democrats in rural areas is always a great idea, but I live in a small city where we vote for progressive Democrats (in our primaries) to run in our mostly rural Republican Congressional district, and they always lose, no matter what populist appeal to the working class they promote. They like strongmen.

  51. $0 wage is also what you have when you don’t have a job and can’t get a job because you’ve been priced out of the labor market.
    Minimum wage: Also known as the black youth disemployment wage.

  52. $0 wage is also what you have when you don’t have a job and can’t get a job because you’ve been priced out of the labor market.
    Minimum wage: Also known as the black youth disemployment wage.

  53. the $0 wage is also purely an abstraction – something that is never found in the real world. nobody has a $0 wage.
    if i’m working for you but you’re not paying me anything, that’s slavery, not employment. the idea of a ‘wage’ is moot.

  54. the $0 wage is also purely an abstraction – something that is never found in the real world. nobody has a $0 wage.
    if i’m working for you but you’re not paying me anything, that’s slavery, not employment. the idea of a ‘wage’ is moot.

  55. Trump voters don’t care about policy. They care about toxic masculine rhetoric. They care about tribal solidarity
    [unsurprisingly] this!
    might as well try to convert Yankees fans to Mets fans based on the quality of the plays and parking prices.

  56. Trump voters don’t care about policy. They care about toxic masculine rhetoric. They care about tribal solidarity
    [unsurprisingly] this!
    might as well try to convert Yankees fans to Mets fans based on the quality of the plays and parking prices.

  57. bobbyp,
    The national Democratic Party has, unfortunately, worked in the past couple of decades against the interests of these same voters by taking them for granted, embracing tax cuts for the rich, supporting deregulation, abandoning unions and establishing free trade agreements with inadequate protections for our American workforce. The national party has also allowed the financial sector to develop an oversized role in the national economy that does not support or reward the reinvestment of profits into most employees and their well-being.
    Which of these things have not been done, much more vigorously, by the Republicans?
    Yes, there are the China tariffs, but what have they done for the working class?

  58. bobbyp,
    The national Democratic Party has, unfortunately, worked in the past couple of decades against the interests of these same voters by taking them for granted, embracing tax cuts for the rich, supporting deregulation, abandoning unions and establishing free trade agreements with inadequate protections for our American workforce. The national party has also allowed the financial sector to develop an oversized role in the national economy that does not support or reward the reinvestment of profits into most employees and their well-being.
    Which of these things have not been done, much more vigorously, by the Republicans?
    Yes, there are the China tariffs, but what have they done for the working class?

  59. I want to return to this:

    our electorate includes large numbers of young people and people without college degrees who suffer from irregular hours, do not earn a living wage, and lack health insurance, paid leave and pensions

    All of that amounts to people living with a constant level of instability and financial hazard. And a 1,000 harms flow from that, for people’s physical and mental health, for their ability to form stable families and communities, for their general sense of having a place and a voice in the world and in their own lives.
    The (R) mantra on all of that is that markets must rule, labor is a market, and any social or personal ills that fall out of that are your personal problem and responsibility.
    The (D) mantra on all of that has traditionally been that the public sector – government – can and should intervene through law and regulation to insure that everyone involved in the productive life of the community is afforded the makings of a reasonable and decent life.
    That should be an attractive message to people who live by what they earn through their own labor, and who don’t have the advantages that come with some form or other of professional status. For some reason, it doesn’t seem to be getting through.
    Part of that is because over the last 40 years or so, the (D)’s have de-emphasized their focus on working people in favor of other interests. And part of that is because the (D)’s as a national party have not followed up on the initiatives they began in the early oughts to run everywhere, for everything, in favor of focusing their attention on swing states and on areas where they were already strong.
    I completely agree that a lot of Trump voters find the most offensive aspects of his character – his bullying, his authoritarianism – attractive. And I find that despicable, and hold them responsible for that.
    But a lot of them voted for Obama before voting for Trump. And, a lot of folks don’t vote at all.
    I don’t really see how recognizing practical and logistical gaps in electoral strategy amounts to “pandering”. And I don’t really see how a renewed focus on the interests of working people amounts to “pandering”. And I don’t think renewing that focus requires giving up any ground on all of the social justice issues that (D)’s have championed. If anything, the two should reinforce each other, because a lot of people fall into both demographics of interest.
    Black people and people of color generally are working people. Gay people and people who don’t otherwise fit neatly into traditional cis-gender identities are working people. Immigrants, documented or otherwise, are most definitely working people.
    Mostly, I think all of this amounts to organizations like the DNC getting off their @sses, getting the hell out of DC, and listening to their constituents and their local activists. Spend money, people, and time, in places they’ve more or less ignored for a generation.
    And they should do all of that not just to win elections, but because working people are having a freaking hard time of it, and somebody needs to get their back. That somebody ought to be the (D)’s, because the (R)’s don’t appear to really give a crap if they suffer or not.
    It’s not pandering, it’s acknowledging and responding to the interests of people who live here. People they claim to represent.

  60. I want to return to this:

    our electorate includes large numbers of young people and people without college degrees who suffer from irregular hours, do not earn a living wage, and lack health insurance, paid leave and pensions

    All of that amounts to people living with a constant level of instability and financial hazard. And a 1,000 harms flow from that, for people’s physical and mental health, for their ability to form stable families and communities, for their general sense of having a place and a voice in the world and in their own lives.
    The (R) mantra on all of that is that markets must rule, labor is a market, and any social or personal ills that fall out of that are your personal problem and responsibility.
    The (D) mantra on all of that has traditionally been that the public sector – government – can and should intervene through law and regulation to insure that everyone involved in the productive life of the community is afforded the makings of a reasonable and decent life.
    That should be an attractive message to people who live by what they earn through their own labor, and who don’t have the advantages that come with some form or other of professional status. For some reason, it doesn’t seem to be getting through.
    Part of that is because over the last 40 years or so, the (D)’s have de-emphasized their focus on working people in favor of other interests. And part of that is because the (D)’s as a national party have not followed up on the initiatives they began in the early oughts to run everywhere, for everything, in favor of focusing their attention on swing states and on areas where they were already strong.
    I completely agree that a lot of Trump voters find the most offensive aspects of his character – his bullying, his authoritarianism – attractive. And I find that despicable, and hold them responsible for that.
    But a lot of them voted for Obama before voting for Trump. And, a lot of folks don’t vote at all.
    I don’t really see how recognizing practical and logistical gaps in electoral strategy amounts to “pandering”. And I don’t really see how a renewed focus on the interests of working people amounts to “pandering”. And I don’t think renewing that focus requires giving up any ground on all of the social justice issues that (D)’s have championed. If anything, the two should reinforce each other, because a lot of people fall into both demographics of interest.
    Black people and people of color generally are working people. Gay people and people who don’t otherwise fit neatly into traditional cis-gender identities are working people. Immigrants, documented or otherwise, are most definitely working people.
    Mostly, I think all of this amounts to organizations like the DNC getting off their @sses, getting the hell out of DC, and listening to their constituents and their local activists. Spend money, people, and time, in places they’ve more or less ignored for a generation.
    And they should do all of that not just to win elections, but because working people are having a freaking hard time of it, and somebody needs to get their back. That somebody ought to be the (D)’s, because the (R)’s don’t appear to really give a crap if they suffer or not.
    It’s not pandering, it’s acknowledging and responding to the interests of people who live here. People they claim to represent.

  63. In case anyone prefers the empirical to the abstract/theoretical, here’s something pre-COVID and a couple years into minimum-wage increases my family members in AZ were sure were going to kill jobs in large numbers, supply-side dogma being as pervasive as it is. Not a thought given to the fact that one business’ employees are another business’ customers (on the demand side).
    https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/jobs/2019/07/18/minimum-wage-increase-arizona-has-had-positive-effects-grand-canyon-institute-study-finds/1745202001/

  64. In case anyone prefers the empirical to the abstract/theoretical, here’s something pre-COVID and a couple years into minimum-wage increases my family members in AZ were sure were going to kill jobs in large numbers, supply-side dogma being as pervasive as it is. Not a thought given to the fact that one business’ employees are another business’ customers (on the demand side).
    https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/jobs/2019/07/18/minimum-wage-increase-arizona-has-had-positive-effects-grand-canyon-institute-study-finds/1745202001/

  65. It’s not pandering, it’s acknowledging and responding to the interests of people who live here. People they claim to represent.
    Um, folks, I may be reading your responses wrong, but there is a reason I put quote marks around that word….for what it’s worth.
    There are many threads that have brought the Democratic Party to its current state and its apparent disassociation from the “working class”. Taking up the mantle of civil rights; the deindustrialization of the midwest (took off in the 70’s, accelerated after China joined the WTO…so a long term trend); getting their ass kicked by Reagan and going into an ideological crouch ever since; the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine; a conservative Supreme Count (Nixon’s gift to the nation that keeps on giving) that has put its thumb on the scales in favor of corporate and monied interests; the decline of unions and the abject failure of the Dem establishment to see what this would mean for the party in terms of political efficacy (see Humphry-Hawkins, failure thereof)….and to some extent, their very political success in the 30’s and 40’s. That confluence of political will and opportunity is damned rare in US history.
    The Democratic Party lost its New Deal vision in the 80’s. We are now deep into a 2nd Gilded Age. Perhaps we need to revisit the lessons of the era where that amount of grinding exploitation was blunted.

  66. It’s not pandering, it’s acknowledging and responding to the interests of people who live here. People they claim to represent.
    Um, folks, I may be reading your responses wrong, but there is a reason I put quote marks around that word….for what it’s worth.
    There are many threads that have brought the Democratic Party to its current state and its apparent disassociation from the “working class”. Taking up the mantle of civil rights; the deindustrialization of the midwest (took off in the 70’s, accelerated after China joined the WTO…so a long term trend); getting their ass kicked by Reagan and going into an ideological crouch ever since; the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine; a conservative Supreme Count (Nixon’s gift to the nation that keeps on giving) that has put its thumb on the scales in favor of corporate and monied interests; the decline of unions and the abject failure of the Dem establishment to see what this would mean for the party in terms of political efficacy (see Humphry-Hawkins, failure thereof)….and to some extent, their very political success in the 30’s and 40’s. That confluence of political will and opportunity is damned rare in US history.
    The Democratic Party lost its New Deal vision in the 80’s. We are now deep into a 2nd Gilded Age. Perhaps we need to revisit the lessons of the era where that amount of grinding exploitation was blunted.

  67. That should be an attractive message to people who live by what they earn through their own labor, and who don’t have the advantages that come with some form or other of professional status. For some reason, it doesn’t seem to be getting through.
    Seems to be the nub of it….so what is that “reason”? I believe that is the question that needs to be addressed.
    And I am as stumped as others appear to be.

  68. That should be an attractive message to people who live by what they earn through their own labor, and who don’t have the advantages that come with some form or other of professional status. For some reason, it doesn’t seem to be getting through.
    Seems to be the nub of it….so what is that “reason”? I believe that is the question that needs to be addressed.
    And I am as stumped as others appear to be.

  69. Which of these things have not been done, much more vigorously, by the Republicans?
    A leading question, that! WRS.
    The GOP has a very effective line of bull that hangs together well and has a logical appeal to folks finding themselves increasingly at the mercy of an all consuming unrestrained version of crony capitalism: You’ve worked hard, played by the rules, and stood patiently in line to get your just rewards…but the line is no longer moving and the “elites” are allowing “others” to cut in ahead of you to take what is rightfully yours.
    We need to communicate a vision that replaces that one.

  70. Which of these things have not been done, much more vigorously, by the Republicans?
    A leading question, that! WRS.
    The GOP has a very effective line of bull that hangs together well and has a logical appeal to folks finding themselves increasingly at the mercy of an all consuming unrestrained version of crony capitalism: You’ve worked hard, played by the rules, and stood patiently in line to get your just rewards…but the line is no longer moving and the “elites” are allowing “others” to cut in ahead of you to take what is rightfully yours.
    We need to communicate a vision that replaces that one.

  71. We are now deep into a 2nd Gilded Age. Perhaps we need to revisit the lessons of the era where that amount of grinding exploitation was blunted.
    it was blunted in part because several long, hard recessions – with 50% unemployment in some places – turned enough people against the corruption and inequality.
    but today’s circumstances aren’t that dire. most people in the US today are doing anywhere from great to good enough. there simply aren’t enough people doing terribly to have a massive, sustained push to burn down the current system.

  72. We are now deep into a 2nd Gilded Age. Perhaps we need to revisit the lessons of the era where that amount of grinding exploitation was blunted.
    it was blunted in part because several long, hard recessions – with 50% unemployment in some places – turned enough people against the corruption and inequality.
    but today’s circumstances aren’t that dire. most people in the US today are doing anywhere from great to good enough. there simply aren’t enough people doing terribly to have a massive, sustained push to burn down the current system.

  73. in the real world. nobody has a $0 wage.
    if i’m working for you but you’re not paying me anything, that’s slavery
    Actually, no. In the real world, if you are working for a $0 wage, that’s a hobby. Lots of people have them, from rebuilding steam engines and laying track to singing light opera. Of course, they have to have money from somewhere else….
    In slavery, the owner has to at least feed his slaves in order to get any work out of them, beyond the first couple of days. Granted, it’s not a payment in cash. But payment in kind is still a non-zero payment. What characterizes slavery isn’t zero wages but the fact that you can’t quit.
    And, just a note for any extreme libertarians who might wander by, you can quit paying taxes. You just have to be selective where you emigrate to. So taxes != slavery.

  74. in the real world. nobody has a $0 wage.
    if i’m working for you but you’re not paying me anything, that’s slavery
    Actually, no. In the real world, if you are working for a $0 wage, that’s a hobby. Lots of people have them, from rebuilding steam engines and laying track to singing light opera. Of course, they have to have money from somewhere else….
    In slavery, the owner has to at least feed his slaves in order to get any work out of them, beyond the first couple of days. Granted, it’s not a payment in cash. But payment in kind is still a non-zero payment. What characterizes slavery isn’t zero wages but the fact that you can’t quit.
    And, just a note for any extreme libertarians who might wander by, you can quit paying taxes. You just have to be selective where you emigrate to. So taxes != slavery.

  75. but today’s circumstances aren’t that dire.
    … in large part because of the New Deal reforms that created a safety net.

  76. but today’s circumstances aren’t that dire.
    … in large part because of the New Deal reforms that created a safety net.

  77. The Democratic Party lost its New Deal vision in the 80’s. We are now deep into a 2nd Gilded Age.
    Whether one agrees with the first sentence or not, the second is definitely true. (Well, except for we lack the rapidly rising wages.) It’s one of the things that gives me hope for the future. The era which followed saw a lot of the abuses addressed.

  78. The Democratic Party lost its New Deal vision in the 80’s. We are now deep into a 2nd Gilded Age.
    Whether one agrees with the first sentence or not, the second is definitely true. (Well, except for we lack the rapidly rising wages.) It’s one of the things that gives me hope for the future. The era which followed saw a lot of the abuses addressed.

  79. The Democratic Party lost its New Deal vision in the 80’s.
    The country didn’t want the New Deal in the Yuppy ’80’s. The children of “The Greatest Generation” wanted lots of money, and despite having advantage handed to them, thought they invented success.
    People who ran for office, those who had a conscience, had to do what Bill Clinton did in order to get elected. (Jimmy Carter wanted people to wear a sweater – an affront to people’s freedumb!) Newt Gingrich and the success of his despicable movement (and its current legacy) wasn’t the fault of DNC. What’s really hard is to figure out how to change the country’s cultural values.
    But a lot of them voted for Obama before voting for Trump. And, a lot of folks don’t vote at all.
    Not a mystery why they didn’t vote for the email lady in 2016. Toxic masculinity. A historic number of people voted in this election. Some of them I would rather had stayed home.

  80. The Democratic Party lost its New Deal vision in the 80’s.
    The country didn’t want the New Deal in the Yuppy ’80’s. The children of “The Greatest Generation” wanted lots of money, and despite having advantage handed to them, thought they invented success.
    People who ran for office, those who had a conscience, had to do what Bill Clinton did in order to get elected. (Jimmy Carter wanted people to wear a sweater – an affront to people’s freedumb!) Newt Gingrich and the success of his despicable movement (and its current legacy) wasn’t the fault of DNC. What’s really hard is to figure out how to change the country’s cultural values.
    But a lot of them voted for Obama before voting for Trump. And, a lot of folks don’t vote at all.
    Not a mystery why they didn’t vote for the email lady in 2016. Toxic masculinity. A historic number of people voted in this election. Some of them I would rather had stayed home.

  81. Actually, no. In the real world, if you are working for a $0 wage, that’s a hobby.
    ‘hobby’ implies something done primarily for enjoyment of some kind. ‘work’, in the sense of something you do to get money to live by, doesn’t have that implication. if you’re truly lucky you can enjoy your work and would do it even if you weren’t getting paid. but that’s not expected.

  82. Actually, no. In the real world, if you are working for a $0 wage, that’s a hobby.
    ‘hobby’ implies something done primarily for enjoyment of some kind. ‘work’, in the sense of something you do to get money to live by, doesn’t have that implication. if you’re truly lucky you can enjoy your work and would do it even if you weren’t getting paid. but that’s not expected.

  85. but today’s circumstances aren’t that dire. most people in the US today are doing anywhere from great to good enough. there simply aren’t enough people doing terribly to have a massive, sustained push to burn down the current system.
    Pretty much. But people “doing terribly” is not generally enough to spark a concerted push to burn things down. I read that by a good historian many years ago (Crane Brinton’s The Anatomy of Revolution).
    The Jacobins in the conservative movement have tapped that vein much more effectively than their Democratic Party counterparts.

  86. but today’s circumstances aren’t that dire. most people in the US today are doing anywhere from great to good enough. there simply aren’t enough people doing terribly to have a massive, sustained push to burn down the current system.
    Pretty much. But people “doing terribly” is not generally enough to spark a concerted push to burn things down. I read that by a good historian many years ago (Crane Brinton’s The Anatomy of Revolution).
    The Jacobins in the conservative movement have tapped that vein much more effectively than their Democratic Party counterparts.

  89. that second link starts out good. i like this:

    Where does this amazingly, jaw-droopingly stupid idea of free-dumb come from? Covid’s hardly some kind of anomaly. It’s part of a larger pattern. Americans — in the vast, vast majority — think of freedom in a way that by now the rest of the rich world and much of the poor one regards as dangerously backwards. Freedom is the right not to ever have to cooperate, to invest, to act for the common wealth or common good.

    entirely true.
    but there’s one crucial factor that piece left out: the culture war. Trump and the rest of the conservative machine decided early on to use C19 as a partisan issue. they made it a way for ‘conservatives’ to express their politics. they politicized it in such a way that to be maskless and to go to bars and biker rallies, etc. was a way to prove your Trumpian bona fides.
    it’s not just that certain Americans overvalue a certain kind of freedom, it’s that the GOP tied C19 to that ‘freedom’. now being a COVID denier is a way to be publicly right-wing: like waving a Confederate flag, or bringing a gun to the supermarket.
    but that piece just says “Americans are dumb” (a common theme of that author). it doesn’t give any credit to the tens of millions of us who aren’t pretending COVID doesn’t exist or that it’s not a big deal or that we shouldn’t just wear a mask.

  90. that second link starts out good. i like this:

    Where does this amazingly, jaw-droopingly stupid idea of free-dumb come from? Covid’s hardly some kind of anomaly. It’s part of a larger pattern. Americans — in the vast, vast majority — think of freedom in a way that by now the rest of the rich world and much of the poor one regards as dangerously backwards. Freedom is the right not to ever have to cooperate, to invest, to act for the common wealth or common good.

    entirely true.
    but there’s one crucial factor that piece left out: the culture war. Trump and the rest of the conservative machine decided early on to use C19 as a partisan issue. they made it a way for ‘conservatives’ to express their politics. they politicized it in such a way that to be maskless and to go to bars and biker rallies, etc. was a way to prove your Trumpian bona fides.
    it’s not just that certain Americans overvalue a certain kind of freedom, it’s that the GOP tied C19 to that ‘freedom’. now being a COVID denier is a way to be publicly right-wing: like waving a Confederate flag, or bringing a gun to the supermarket.
    but that piece just says “Americans are dumb” (a common theme of that author). it doesn’t give any credit to the tens of millions of us who aren’t pretending COVID doesn’t exist or that it’s not a big deal or that we shouldn’t just wear a mask.

  91. Unpaid promotion: if you think as I do that Mitch McConnell is even more dangerous than He, Trump, donate to the Warnock campaign if you can.
    Now, about the “working class”.
    Who’s in it?
    I mean, from what they have told us about themselves here, McKinney and Marty as well as russell and cleek work for a living. So do I. Are we in the working class, or not?
    How about people who have retired from plumbing or meatpacking or nursing or teaching? Are they in the working class?
    What about people like the inimitable JDT? Is he the only actual capitalist in our ranks?
    I’m being pedantic, not trolling. As a pedant, I like to know how people define their terms.
    –TP

  92. Unpaid promotion: if you think as I do that Mitch McConnell is even more dangerous than He, Trump, donate to the Warnock campaign if you can.
    Now, about the “working class”.
    Who’s in it?
    I mean, from what they have told us about themselves here, McKinney and Marty as well as russell and cleek work for a living. So do I. Are we in the working class, or not?
    How about people who have retired from plumbing or meatpacking or nursing or teaching? Are they in the working class?
    What about people like the inimitable JDT? Is he the only actual capitalist in our ranks?
    I’m being pedantic, not trolling. As a pedant, I like to know how people define their terms.
    –TP

  93. now being a COVID denier is a way to be publicly right-wing: like waving a Confederate flag, or bringing a gun to the supermarket.
    But at least, unlike those other two, it runs a chance of eliminating the denier. Dangerous for those around him as well, of course. But still, some small prospect of self-correction.

  94. now being a COVID denier is a way to be publicly right-wing: like waving a Confederate flag, or bringing a gun to the supermarket.
    But at least, unlike those other two, it runs a chance of eliminating the denier. Dangerous for those around him as well, of course. But still, some small prospect of self-correction.

  95. if you think as I do that Mitch McConnell is even more dangerous than He, Trump, donate to the Warnock campaign if you can.
    Just a note. At the moment, Warnock has a small lead (inside the margin of error, but at least a lead). While Ossoff is essentially dead even. And slapping down McConnell requires both winning their election. So don’t donate just to Warnock.

  96. if you think as I do that Mitch McConnell is even more dangerous than He, Trump, donate to the Warnock campaign if you can.
    Just a note. At the moment, Warnock has a small lead (inside the margin of error, but at least a lead). While Ossoff is essentially dead even. And slapping down McConnell requires both winning their election. So don’t donate just to Warnock.

  97. But at least, unlike those other two, it runs a chance of eliminating the denier.
    prediction:
    since it’s not a large chance that any one person will get it and die, most deniers will live. and they’ll go on to ruin the response to the next virus, too.
    not only has Trump destroyed political norms, he’s now made it acceptable to flaunt public health.
    thanks GOP!

  98. But at least, unlike those other two, it runs a chance of eliminating the denier.
    prediction:
    since it’s not a large chance that any one person will get it and die, most deniers will live. and they’ll go on to ruin the response to the next virus, too.
    not only has Trump destroyed political norms, he’s now made it acceptable to flaunt public health.
    thanks GOP!

  99. prediction: having denied covid, there will be a significant number who will decline to get the vaccine. And that will, subsequently, spread to them becoming across the board anti-vaxxers.
    It’s the second order effects like that which will do them the most harm. And, unfortunately, their children.

  100. prediction: having denied covid, there will be a significant number who will decline to get the vaccine. And that will, subsequently, spread to them becoming across the board anti-vaxxers.
    It’s the second order effects like that which will do them the most harm. And, unfortunately, their children.

  103. There’s evidence that young people can tolerate the virus better than they can tolerate the vaccine. The second dose of the vaccine is making some of them pretty sick with 104-degree fevers and some hospitalizations. Older people seem to tolerate the vaccine well while the virus can kill them.

  104. There’s evidence that young people can tolerate the virus better than they can tolerate the vaccine. The second dose of the vaccine is making some of them pretty sick with 104-degree fevers and some hospitalizations. Older people seem to tolerate the vaccine well while the virus can kill them.

  107. It does kill people under 55 but it’s greatly more deadly to people over 55. Especially so when the number of people in each age group is considered. The largest number of deaths is in the over 85 age group. But there are only about 6.5 million people in that group.
    COVID-19 Deaths by Age

  108. It does kill people under 55 but it’s greatly more deadly to people over 55. Especially so when the number of people in each age group is considered. The largest number of deaths is in the over 85 age group. But there are only about 6.5 million people in that group.
    COVID-19 Deaths by Age

  109. An interesting take on the Georgia runoffs.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/georgia-senate-run-offs-early-voting/2020/12/27/80d55626-4604-11eb-a277-49a6d1f9dff1_story.html
    Money quote:

    “You can only get 100 percent turnout in a rural county,” said Lawrence “Lane” Flynn, the chair of the DeKalb County Republican Party. “All that red ink on the map is great, but at some point you run out of people. Meanwhile, there are 10,000 people a day moving to Atlanta. All our ads are people in jeans and orange vests with shotguns and pickup trucks. That’s not going to appeal to the guy from Auburn or Georgetown who just got a job in Atlanta and a condo in Brookhaven.”

  110. An interesting take on the Georgia runoffs.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/georgia-senate-run-offs-early-voting/2020/12/27/80d55626-4604-11eb-a277-49a6d1f9dff1_story.html
    Money quote:

    “You can only get 100 percent turnout in a rural county,” said Lawrence “Lane” Flynn, the chair of the DeKalb County Republican Party. “All that red ink on the map is great, but at some point you run out of people. Meanwhile, there are 10,000 people a day moving to Atlanta. All our ads are people in jeans and orange vests with shotguns and pickup trucks. That’s not going to appeal to the guy from Auburn or Georgetown who just got a job in Atlanta and a condo in Brookhaven.”

  111. There’s evidence that young people can tolerate the virus better than they can tolerate the vaccine. The second dose of the vaccine is making some of them pretty sick with 104-degree fevers and some hospitalizations.
    How young is young here? IIRC, the Pfizer vaccine is not licensed, even on an emergency basis, for people under 18. Moderna 16, I think.

  112. There’s evidence that young people can tolerate the virus better than they can tolerate the vaccine. The second dose of the vaccine is making some of them pretty sick with 104-degree fevers and some hospitalizations.
    How young is young here? IIRC, the Pfizer vaccine is not licensed, even on an emergency basis, for people under 18. Moderna 16, I think.

  115. Jen Rubin reminds us that the Dems don’t really have a votes problem, they have a Constitution problem.

    More generally, we can see that it is the electoral college that transforms President-elect Joe Biden’s margin of 7 million votes into a multistate nail-biter. But forget the electoral college for a moment: Democrats have won the popular vote in the past four consecutive elections with margins ranging from 2.9 million (Clinton in 2016) to 10 million (Obama in 2008). And Al Gore, by the way, won by more than half a million votes nationally. One “solution” to the deep division problem, then, would be to junk the electoral college.
    A similar lack of majority rule gives Republicans control of the Senate, despite having support from a minority of the population. The disproportionate power of lightly populated states turns significant majority rule by Democrats into persistent minority rule by Republicans. Gerrymandering offers many Republicans a similar artificial advantage in their House seats.
    In other words, we have an enduring and significant majority in favor of Democrats nationally, but our constitutional system consistently hands that advantage over to a Republican Party that is increasingly radical, irrational and racist. (As The Post’s Dan Balz writes, “For Trump supporters, cultural preservation of an America long dominated by a White, Christian majority remains a cornerstone of their beliefs.” That is the definition of white supremacy.)
    …
    The bottom line: Democrats have a small but stubborn national popular vote majority. The electorate as a whole agrees with their positions on gun safety, climate change and health care. The trick is expanding democracy, maximizing the benefits of federalism and working hard to create an electorate that resembles the increasingly diverse — and progressive — population.

    Jennifer Rubin wrote that. LOL. Trump wrecked the GOP.

  116. Jen Rubin reminds us that the Dems don’t really have a votes problem, they have a Constitution problem.

    More generally, we can see that it is the electoral college that transforms President-elect Joe Biden’s margin of 7 million votes into a multistate nail-biter. But forget the electoral college for a moment: Democrats have won the popular vote in the past four consecutive elections with margins ranging from 2.9 million (Clinton in 2016) to 10 million (Obama in 2008). And Al Gore, by the way, won by more than half a million votes nationally. One “solution” to the deep division problem, then, would be to junk the electoral college.
    A similar lack of majority rule gives Republicans control of the Senate, despite having support from a minority of the population. The disproportionate power of lightly populated states turns significant majority rule by Democrats into persistent minority rule by Republicans. Gerrymandering offers many Republicans a similar artificial advantage in their House seats.
    In other words, we have an enduring and significant majority in favor of Democrats nationally, but our constitutional system consistently hands that advantage over to a Republican Party that is increasingly radical, irrational and racist. (As The Post’s Dan Balz writes, “For Trump supporters, cultural preservation of an America long dominated by a White, Christian majority remains a cornerstone of their beliefs.” That is the definition of white supremacy.)
    …
    The bottom line: Democrats have a small but stubborn national popular vote majority. The electorate as a whole agrees with their positions on gun safety, climate change and health care. The trick is expanding democracy, maximizing the benefits of federalism and working hard to create an electorate that resembles the increasingly diverse — and progressive — population.

    Jennifer Rubin wrote that. LOL. Trump wrecked the GOP.

  117. There have been a few thousand adverse reactions to the first shot too.
    how do they compare in count and severity to other common vaccines? for example, the typical flu vaccine makes most people feel worn out for a day or so. the shingles vaccine is even worse. vaccines that stimulate your immune system always make you feel like you have a slight cold (because what you feel with a cold is pretty much your immune reaction at work).
    my brother in law got the vaccine. he says it made him feel like he got a flu vaccine. totally expected.

  118. There have been a few thousand adverse reactions to the first shot too.
    how do they compare in count and severity to other common vaccines? for example, the typical flu vaccine makes most people feel worn out for a day or so. the shingles vaccine is even worse. vaccines that stimulate your immune system always make you feel like you have a slight cold (because what you feel with a cold is pretty much your immune reaction at work).
    my brother in law got the vaccine. he says it made him feel like he got a flu vaccine. totally expected.

  119. my brother in law got the vaccine. he says it made him feel like he got a flu vaccine. totally expected.
    You just don’t have the proper mindset for getting (in)appropriately hysterical about government tyrrany when it comes to vaccines.

  120. my brother in law got the vaccine. he says it made him feel like he got a flu vaccine. totally expected.
    You just don’t have the proper mindset for getting (in)appropriately hysterical about government tyrrany when it comes to vaccines.

  121. That’s not going to appeal to the guy from Auburn or Georgetown who just got a job in Atlanta and a condo in Brookhaven.
    Borrowing a thought from a friend in Georgia, “Every time a business moves from NJ to Atlanta, they bring 10 executives who are conservative and want to vote Republican, and 100 middle-managers who want to vote Democratic. This is not a good long-term strategy for those of us who are conservative.”
    Same thing as Colorado. Sen. Cory Gardner’s big starting problem this year was that since he got elected in 2014, 300,000 new voters, about 75% of them leaning Democratic, moved to Colorado. His second biggest problem is that the Colorado Republican Party seems to have decided to make some policy choices disliked by a bunch of the 2014 voters.
    My guess is Texas is eight years away. Utah 12.

  122. That’s not going to appeal to the guy from Auburn or Georgetown who just got a job in Atlanta and a condo in Brookhaven.
    Borrowing a thought from a friend in Georgia, “Every time a business moves from NJ to Atlanta, they bring 10 executives who are conservative and want to vote Republican, and 100 middle-managers who want to vote Democratic. This is not a good long-term strategy for those of us who are conservative.”
    Same thing as Colorado. Sen. Cory Gardner’s big starting problem this year was that since he got elected in 2014, 300,000 new voters, about 75% of them leaning Democratic, moved to Colorado. His second biggest problem is that the Colorado Republican Party seems to have decided to make some policy choices disliked by a bunch of the 2014 voters.
    My guess is Texas is eight years away. Utah 12.

  123. My guess is Texas is eight years away.
    And right up until the end we will be stuck listening to folks trumpeting the fact that all these people are moving from California to Texas. (Perhaps because reality is so inconvenient to their worldview.)
    And then, the world will be ending, because Texas no longer fits their fantasies.

  124. My guess is Texas is eight years away.
    And right up until the end we will be stuck listening to folks trumpeting the fact that all these people are moving from California to Texas. (Perhaps because reality is so inconvenient to their worldview.)
    And then, the world will be ending, because Texas no longer fits their fantasies.

  125. His second biggest problem is that the Colorado Republican Party seems to have decided to make some policy choices disliked by a bunch of the 2014 voters.
    The California Republican Party did the same thing, back in the early 1990s. It’s almost like they have a death wish. And an inability to learn from the mistakes of others.

  126. His second biggest problem is that the Colorado Republican Party seems to have decided to make some policy choices disliked by a bunch of the 2014 voters.
    The California Republican Party did the same thing, back in the early 1990s. It’s almost like they have a death wish. And an inability to learn from the mistakes of others.

  127. There’s evidence that young people can tolerate the virus better than they can tolerate the vaccine.
    Well, how many “youngs” have received the vaccine so far? How many deaths?

  128. There’s evidence that young people can tolerate the virus better than they can tolerate the vaccine.
    Well, how many “youngs” have received the vaccine so far? How many deaths?

  129. And right up until the end we will be stuck listening to folks trumpeting the fact that all these people are moving from California to Texas.
    :^)
    Or from other places. Some years back, I pointed out to some Texas friends that they were 12M people behind California. At that time, the equivalent of another Houston metro area and another Dallas metro area. My claim then, and I have seen no reason to change it, was that if they ever caught up to California’s population, Texas would have either (a) adopted water and pollution and other regulatory policies that looked a lot like California or (b) become unlivable.

  130. And right up until the end we will be stuck listening to folks trumpeting the fact that all these people are moving from California to Texas.
    :^)
    Or from other places. Some years back, I pointed out to some Texas friends that they were 12M people behind California. At that time, the equivalent of another Houston metro area and another Dallas metro area. My claim then, and I have seen no reason to change it, was that if they ever caught up to California’s population, Texas would have either (a) adopted water and pollution and other regulatory policies that looked a lot like California or (b) become unlivable.

  131. Texas would have either (a) adopted water and pollution and other regulatory policies that looked a lot like California or (b) become unlivable.
    And California at least has snow-capped mountains to serve as a source of water. It’s not where it’s wanted, but at least it’s available.
    Texas? Not so’s you would notice. Last I looked, the Rio Grande wasn’t so grand. Indeed, its bed was dry for a lot of its length for a significant part of the year. Texas complains that it isn’t getting the share of the water it was promised. But somehow I suspect that Colorado and New Mexico aren’t falling all over themselves to cut use so Texas can have more.

  132. Texas would have either (a) adopted water and pollution and other regulatory policies that looked a lot like California or (b) become unlivable.
    And California at least has snow-capped mountains to serve as a source of water. It’s not where it’s wanted, but at least it’s available.
    Texas? Not so’s you would notice. Last I looked, the Rio Grande wasn’t so grand. Indeed, its bed was dry for a lot of its length for a significant part of the year. Texas complains that it isn’t getting the share of the water it was promised. But somehow I suspect that Colorado and New Mexico aren’t falling all over themselves to cut use so Texas can have more.

  133. “IIRC, the Pfizer vaccine is not licensed, even on an emergency basis, for people under 18. Moderna 16, I think.”
    Other way around, Moderna approval starts at 18 and Pfizer at 16.
    Apparently Pfizer is working on trials for ages down to 12.
    That older people may have fewer side-effects than younger people seems plausible, even though still unproven.
    I’d like to see the evidence that “young people tolerate the virus better than the vaccine.”
    There have been no reports I’m aware of that there have been any deaths or lasting damage from the vaccine in 16/17-year-olds. You can’t say the same about the virus.
    The claim that the virus causes less damage to young people than the vaccine seems implausible at this point.
    Studies and time will tell.

  134. “IIRC, the Pfizer vaccine is not licensed, even on an emergency basis, for people under 18. Moderna 16, I think.”
    Other way around, Moderna approval starts at 18 and Pfizer at 16.
    Apparently Pfizer is working on trials for ages down to 12.
    That older people may have fewer side-effects than younger people seems plausible, even though still unproven.
    I’d like to see the evidence that “young people tolerate the virus better than the vaccine.”
    There have been no reports I’m aware of that there have been any deaths or lasting damage from the vaccine in 16/17-year-olds. You can’t say the same about the virus.
    The claim that the virus causes less damage to young people than the vaccine seems implausible at this point.
    Studies and time will tell.

  135. Texas would have either (a) adopted water and pollution and other regulatory policies that looked a lot like California or (b) become unlivable.
    As the saying goes:
    First God made Hell.
    That was for practice.
    Then He made TEXAS.
    They seem proud of it too.

  136. Texas would have either (a) adopted water and pollution and other regulatory policies that looked a lot like California or (b) become unlivable.
    As the saying goes:
    First God made Hell.
    That was for practice.
    Then He made TEXAS.
    They seem proud of it too.

  137. I’ve never understood why we have vanity license plates in Texas. After all, the plates already have TEXAS stamped on them…

  138. I’ve never understood why we have vanity license plates in Texas. After all, the plates already have TEXAS stamped on them…

  139. In this article, the reactions experienced by people taking the vaccines haven’t been too awful bad.
    “Two and a half hours after being injected with a Covid-19 vaccine, Dr. Taneisha Wilson was hit with the worst headache of her life.
    In her home office in Cranston, R.I., Dr. Wilson, 36, an emergency physician with a constitution she calls “horse-like,” laid her head down on the desk. Fighting a wave of nausea, she let out an involuntary groan loud enough to be heard by her husband in a room down the hall.
    “Are you OK, babe?” he called.
    “It felt like I got smacked,” Dr. Wilson recalled in an interview.”
    What the Vaccine Side Effects Feel Like, According to Those Who’ve Gotten It: Here is what some of the first Americans to be vaccinated against Covid-19 are saying about how they felt afterward, with some side effects but no second thoughts.

  140. In this article, the reactions experienced by people taking the vaccines haven’t been too awful bad.
    “Two and a half hours after being injected with a Covid-19 vaccine, Dr. Taneisha Wilson was hit with the worst headache of her life.
    In her home office in Cranston, R.I., Dr. Wilson, 36, an emergency physician with a constitution she calls “horse-like,” laid her head down on the desk. Fighting a wave of nausea, she let out an involuntary groan loud enough to be heard by her husband in a room down the hall.
    “Are you OK, babe?” he called.
    “It felt like I got smacked,” Dr. Wilson recalled in an interview.”
    What the Vaccine Side Effects Feel Like, According to Those Who’ve Gotten It: Here is what some of the first Americans to be vaccinated against Covid-19 are saying about how they felt afterward, with some side effects but no second thoughts.

  141. A friend of mine was in the trials for the Moderna vaccine. He got a pretty solid headache and felt kind of crappy for a day or so.
    And now, he’s vaccinated.

  142. A friend of mine was in the trials for the Moderna vaccine. He got a pretty solid headache and felt kind of crappy for a day or so.
    And now, he’s vaccinated.

  145. Regarding the vaccine: I’m getting vaccinated as soon as I’m eligible, then having a dinner party (or attending one), then going to the beach with my extended family. Looking forward to it!
    As for politics, we really should have foregone the peaceful transition of power before the Republicans tried it. Although we wanted to seize the “democracy” high ground, we knew very well that the 2016 election was iffy. We won the popular vote despite the Russian interference which Milquetoast Mueller admitted swung the election (electoral college only) for Trump. We knew this at the outset, and should have figured out a way to enjoin his inauguration, and challenge the results.
    I know: the smartest lawyers in the country didn’t want to face judges – they were afraid of not passing the laugh test. But the laughter would have been much quieter than the court challenges that have been raised on Trump’s behalf – our argument actually involved mobsters laundering money for Putin, etc. Republicans are liars, and ridiculous. I actually think we had a colorable claim.
    I know – it’s not the conventional take.

  146. Regarding the vaccine: I’m getting vaccinated as soon as I’m eligible, then having a dinner party (or attending one), then going to the beach with my extended family. Looking forward to it!
    As for politics, we really should have foregone the peaceful transition of power before the Republicans tried it. Although we wanted to seize the “democracy” high ground, we knew very well that the 2016 election was iffy. We won the popular vote despite the Russian interference which Milquetoast Mueller admitted swung the election (electoral college only) for Trump. We knew this at the outset, and should have figured out a way to enjoin his inauguration, and challenge the results.
    I know: the smartest lawyers in the country didn’t want to face judges – they were afraid of not passing the laugh test. But the laughter would have been much quieter than the court challenges that have been raised on Trump’s behalf – our argument actually involved mobsters laundering money for Putin, etc. Republicans are liars, and ridiculous. I actually think we had a colorable claim.
    I know – it’s not the conventional take.

  147. On the other hand (arguing with myself here), what my Democratic leaders did was very sweet and noble. I just love us. But maybe we need to go low.

  148. On the other hand (arguing with myself here), what my Democratic leaders did was very sweet and noble. I just love us. But maybe we need to go low.

  151. Further to the point, Republicans are sabotaging the country in an incredibly treasonous way right now.
    Fortunately, the obstruction is by the massively incompetent politican appointees. While the non-politican staff are coopetating. So the damage is far less than it might be. Still not good, just less bad.
    There may not have been a “deep state” before the Trump administration. (Except in the fevered imaginations of the RWNJs.) But Trump and his boys appear to have generated at least the beginnings of one.

  152. Further to the point, Republicans are sabotaging the country in an incredibly treasonous way right now.
    Fortunately, the obstruction is by the massively incompetent politican appointees. While the non-politican staff are coopetating. So the damage is far less than it might be. Still not good, just less bad.
    There may not have been a “deep state” before the Trump administration. (Except in the fevered imaginations of the RWNJs.) But Trump and his boys appear to have generated at least the beginnings of one.

  157. Jackson Lears has an entertaining and insightful rant on this topic
    apparently based on a post from dKos and how it meshes with a decades old grudge against Clinton-era Dems.
    i can’t read it all (paywalled). but does he ever touch on the fact that Trump had a 95% approval rating among Republicans, the week before the election? if not he’s ignoring one simple fact: a Republican will never vote for a Democrat, no matter how shitty the Republican choice might be, because being a Republican is their identity. they’ll vote for a third-party yahoo, or stay home, or skip the race, but voting for a Democrat is anathema. (and no, party ID percentages haven’t changed since 2016)
    and until the hold that political identity has on people, a huge number of people (95% of the GOP, maybe) are unreachable to Dems. blaming it on policy is pure Pundit’s Fallacy.

  158. Jackson Lears has an entertaining and insightful rant on this topic
    apparently based on a post from dKos and how it meshes with a decades old grudge against Clinton-era Dems.
    i can’t read it all (paywalled). but does he ever touch on the fact that Trump had a 95% approval rating among Republicans, the week before the election? if not he’s ignoring one simple fact: a Republican will never vote for a Democrat, no matter how shitty the Republican choice might be, because being a Republican is their identity. they’ll vote for a third-party yahoo, or stay home, or skip the race, but voting for a Democrat is anathema. (and no, party ID percentages haven’t changed since 2016)
    and until the hold that political identity has on people, a huge number of people (95% of the GOP, maybe) are unreachable to Dems. blaming it on policy is pure Pundit’s Fallacy.

  159. a Republican will never vote for a Democrat, no matter how shitty the Republican choice might be, because being a Republican is their identity.
    Say rather that “some Republicans will never….” Because pretty clearly there area fair number who have and will (Obama-Trump voters, just for openers). We can argue about how few or many they are. But clearly they are enough to swing an election.

  160. a Republican will never vote for a Democrat, no matter how shitty the Republican choice might be, because being a Republican is their identity.
    Say rather that “some Republicans will never….” Because pretty clearly there area fair number who have and will (Obama-Trump voters, just for openers). We can argue about how few or many they are. But clearly they are enough to swing an election.

  161. We can argue about how few or many they are.
    let’s!
    wiki says 9% of Republicans voted for Obama in 2008.

    Party           Obama   McCain  Other   Total
Democrats 	89 	10 	1 	39
Republicans 	9 	90 	1 	32
Independents 	52 	44 	4 	29

    2020:

    Party           Biden   Trump   Total
Democrats 	94 	5 	37
Republicans 	6 	94 	36
Independents 	54 	41 	26

    But clearly they are enough to swing an election.
    i’m not sure about that.
    looks like more Democrats voted for the Democrat this time. plus, 22M more people voted this year than in 2016 and i bet Biden got a lot of them (can’t find the polling).
    just ask our local ‘conservatives’ who they voted for.

  162. We can argue about how few or many they are.
    let’s!
    wiki says 9% of Republicans voted for Obama in 2008.

    Party           Obama   McCain  Other   Total
Democrats 	89 	10 	1 	39
Republicans 	9 	90 	1 	32
Independents 	52 	44 	4 	29

    2020:

    Party           Biden   Trump   Total
Democrats 	94 	5 	37
Republicans 	6 	94 	36
Independents 	54 	41 	26

    But clearly they are enough to swing an election.
    i’m not sure about that.
    looks like more Democrats voted for the Democrat this time. plus, 22M more people voted this year than in 2016 and i bet Biden got a lot of them (can’t find the polling).
    just ask our local ‘conservatives’ who they voted for.

  163. From the Jackson Lears piece:
    Donald Trump’s grotesque incapacity to govern has made him an easy target, but the difficulties with democracy are subtler, wider, and deeper. One clue to their complexity is a blog post that appeared on the liberal website Daily Kos a month after Trump’s election in 2016. “Be Happy for Coal Miners Losing Their Health Insurance,” the headline blared. “They’re Getting Exactly What They Voted For.”
    The dismissal is curt and callous: clearly, Trump’s victory provoked some of his opponents to double down on their hostility toward his supporters. But the blog post also shows—more broadly—that being a liberal Democrat no longer means what it once meant. Sympathy for the working class has, for many, curdled into contempt.
    My bold. Based on one piece (as cleek notes) in Daily Kos. To say facts not in evidence is hardly adequate.

  164. From the Jackson Lears piece:
    Donald Trump’s grotesque incapacity to govern has made him an easy target, but the difficulties with democracy are subtler, wider, and deeper. One clue to their complexity is a blog post that appeared on the liberal website Daily Kos a month after Trump’s election in 2016. “Be Happy for Coal Miners Losing Their Health Insurance,” the headline blared. “They’re Getting Exactly What They Voted For.”
    The dismissal is curt and callous: clearly, Trump’s victory provoked some of his opponents to double down on their hostility toward his supporters. But the blog post also shows—more broadly—that being a liberal Democrat no longer means what it once meant. Sympathy for the working class has, for many, curdled into contempt.
    My bold. Based on one piece (as cleek notes) in Daily Kos. To say facts not in evidence is hardly adequate.

  167. You can read the whole article after free registration. I can also recap some points when I have time but am not sure the audience would be very appreciative.

  168. You can read the whole article after free registration. I can also recap some points when I have time but am not sure the audience would be very appreciative.

  175. from novakant’s piece
    So it should come as no surprise that Trump maintained his support among rural and less educated voters and even improved it among African-Americans and Latinos.
    Really?

  176. from novakant’s piece
    So it should come as no surprise that Trump maintained his support among rural and less educated voters and even improved it among African-Americans and Latinos.
    Really?

  177. To Tony P’s question upthread: for purposes of this discussion I would define working class as employed or at least employed before COVID hit, probably not college grad, not poor but not wealthy.
    It’s also worth noting here that people who are actually poor – let’s say the bottom third of household income – generally don’t vote for (R)’s and did not go for Trump in either 2016 or 2020. Wealthy folks, in contrast, went for Trump in both elections. The category that moved from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020 were the $50K-$100K folks. Working class.
    Biden was able to connect with them, I think, because he comes from that background and knows (and remembers) how to speak that language. PA Lt Governor Fetterman, who Donald has referred to here a few times recently, likewise. Most (D)’s, and most professional politicians for that matter, don’t. They’re mostly lawyers or have some similar professional resume.
    The (R)’s are generally not blue-collar folks either, but they work around that by validating working people’s sense of resentment, and by appealing to culture war crap. “They’re looking down on you!”. It rings true, not least because professional-class people, and in particular liberal (D)’s, quite often refer to working class people with what seem, not without justification, to be condescending and patronizing ways. Regrettably.
    What I think we are talking about here is a class issue – people with college degrees and professional credentials, vs people who don’t have those things. And I don’t think it is actually all that hard to find examples of professional class liberals condescending to working people who don’t have college degrees. The (D)’s support policies that are better for those people, IMO, but the people who speak for the (D)’s as a party are prone to condescending to them. In my opinion, and actually in my experience.
    That’s my take on it.

  178. To Tony P’s question upthread: for purposes of this discussion I would define working class as employed or at least employed before COVID hit, probably not college grad, not poor but not wealthy.
    It’s also worth noting here that people who are actually poor – let’s say the bottom third of household income – generally don’t vote for (R)’s and did not go for Trump in either 2016 or 2020. Wealthy folks, in contrast, went for Trump in both elections. The category that moved from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020 were the $50K-$100K folks. Working class.
    Biden was able to connect with them, I think, because he comes from that background and knows (and remembers) how to speak that language. PA Lt Governor Fetterman, who Donald has referred to here a few times recently, likewise. Most (D)’s, and most professional politicians for that matter, don’t. They’re mostly lawyers or have some similar professional resume.
    The (R)’s are generally not blue-collar folks either, but they work around that by validating working people’s sense of resentment, and by appealing to culture war crap. “They’re looking down on you!”. It rings true, not least because professional-class people, and in particular liberal (D)’s, quite often refer to working class people with what seem, not without justification, to be condescending and patronizing ways. Regrettably.
    What I think we are talking about here is a class issue – people with college degrees and professional credentials, vs people who don’t have those things. And I don’t think it is actually all that hard to find examples of professional class liberals condescending to working people who don’t have college degrees. The (D)’s support policies that are better for those people, IMO, but the people who speak for the (D)’s as a party are prone to condescending to them. In my opinion, and actually in my experience.
    That’s my take on it.

  179. Really?
    Based on exit polls, Trump gained 2-4% more of the black vote in 2020 as compared to 2016, virtually all of the coming from black men.

  180. Really?
    Based on exit polls, Trump gained 2-4% more of the black vote in 2020 as compared to 2016, virtually all of the coming from black men.

  181. To Tony P’s question upthread: for purposes of this discussion I would define working class as employed or at least employed before COVID hit, probably not college grad, not poor but not wealthy.
    It’s also worth noting here that people who are actually poor – let’s say the bottom third of household income – generally don’t vote for (R)’s and did not go for Trump in either 2016 or 2020. Wealthy folks, in contrast, went for Trump in both elections. The category that moved from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020 were the $50K-$100K folks. Working class.
    That’s not how “working class” is defined by most other people, so your argument is kind of confusing.
    Working class people (as you acknowledged, russell) aren’t just white. But they also aren’t just male. If we’re talking about someone who makes just under $100,000, that includes a lot of people with professional degrees. Are you including teachers, for example, because they require significant education, and still make within that range, and are mostly (just guessing based on stereotype) not Trump supporters?
    As to voting statistics, is the actual data even in yet? If so, is there a link that I’ve missed? I know that there was some exit polling done, but are we to trust those numbers?
    I’m very skeptical of the whole “working class are feeling oppressed because Democrats don’t do it right” theory. In addition, if a college education is (in general) what it takes to give someone the critical thinking skills to be something other than a Trump supporter, that’s a huge selling point for college (and I could spin off into a rant about the vapid, disingenuous, jealousy-laden “meritocracy” article that was posted by novakant, but since there was nothing really new in it, why bother).
    In other words, I do gladly condescend to Trump supporters, no matter what their educational attainment or income level. They are dumb-asses, and in many cases worse than that.
    As to college, college is too expensive now for many people who would like to go, and I would like to change that. What I don’t want to change (except to make it more accessible) is the ideal of education. There’s a valorization of ignorance in our culture that is becoming extremely pernicious. If you want to be a tradesperson, fine – but you need to acquire adequate information, historical knowledge and critical thinking skills to participate in our democracy.

  182. To Tony P’s question upthread: for purposes of this discussion I would define working class as employed or at least employed before COVID hit, probably not college grad, not poor but not wealthy.
    It’s also worth noting here that people who are actually poor – let’s say the bottom third of household income – generally don’t vote for (R)’s and did not go for Trump in either 2016 or 2020. Wealthy folks, in contrast, went for Trump in both elections. The category that moved from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020 were the $50K-$100K folks. Working class.
    That’s not how “working class” is defined by most other people, so your argument is kind of confusing.
    Working class people (as you acknowledged, russell) aren’t just white. But they also aren’t just male. If we’re talking about someone who makes just under $100,000, that includes a lot of people with professional degrees. Are you including teachers, for example, because they require significant education, and still make within that range, and are mostly (just guessing based on stereotype) not Trump supporters?
    As to voting statistics, is the actual data even in yet? If so, is there a link that I’ve missed? I know that there was some exit polling done, but are we to trust those numbers?
    I’m very skeptical of the whole “working class are feeling oppressed because Democrats don’t do it right” theory. In addition, if a college education is (in general) what it takes to give someone the critical thinking skills to be something other than a Trump supporter, that’s a huge selling point for college (and I could spin off into a rant about the vapid, disingenuous, jealousy-laden “meritocracy” article that was posted by novakant, but since there was nothing really new in it, why bother).
    In other words, I do gladly condescend to Trump supporters, no matter what their educational attainment or income level. They are dumb-asses, and in many cases worse than that.
    As to college, college is too expensive now for many people who would like to go, and I would like to change that. What I don’t want to change (except to make it more accessible) is the ideal of education. There’s a valorization of ignorance in our culture that is becoming extremely pernicious. If you want to be a tradesperson, fine – but you need to acquire adequate information, historical knowledge and critical thinking skills to participate in our democracy.

  183. Based on exit polls, Trump gained 2-4% more of the black vote in 2020 as compared to 2016, virtually all of the coming from black men.
    So you are citing exit polls, which is fine – that’s all we have now. As to the whole “men” increase? Toxic masculinity and tribalism. They love somebody cruel telling them that they can be cruel too.

  184. Based on exit polls, Trump gained 2-4% more of the black vote in 2020 as compared to 2016, virtually all of the coming from black men.
    So you are citing exit polls, which is fine – that’s all we have now. As to the whole “men” increase? Toxic masculinity and tribalism. They love somebody cruel telling them that they can be cruel too.

  185. So, basically, what we’re really talking about is men who feel inadequate. That’s sad, and it always seems to have been true that men who feel inadequate are bullies. That’s what we’re talking about here. Maybe we should hire a whole lot of psychotherapists. Or get McKinney, or someone else, to give us an analysis of whether they all had a single mother who failed them.

  186. So, basically, what we’re really talking about is men who feel inadequate. That’s sad, and it always seems to have been true that men who feel inadequate are bullies. That’s what we’re talking about here. Maybe we should hire a whole lot of psychotherapists. Or get McKinney, or someone else, to give us an analysis of whether they all had a single mother who failed them.

  187. Based on exit polls, Trump gained 2-4% more of the black vote in 2020 as compared to 2016, virtually all of the coming from black men.
    Admiration for toxic masculinity is not limited to white lower class men.

  188. Based on exit polls, Trump gained 2-4% more of the black vote in 2020 as compared to 2016, virtually all of the coming from black men.
    Admiration for toxic masculinity is not limited to white lower class men.

  193. Thanks Russell. And yeah, it seems to me more like toxic masculinity at work rather than Trump articulating some sort of vision the Dems need to embrace.
    It plugs in, I think, to the discussion of ‘charm’ in a different thread. It’s a fascinating word if you think about it, charm is often (but not always) a quality that men are supposed to exhibit that often takes on the quality of seduction (ex, he charmed the pants off, pants being chosen over socks because of this
    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=charm+the+pants+off%2C+charm+the+socks+off&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccharm%20the%20pants%20off%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccharm%20the%20socks%20off%3B%2Cc0 )
    Women, of course, can be charming, (the google ngram is interesting in that regard) and child is thrown in there which suggests it is somehow associated with adult things)
    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=charming+man%2Ccharming+woman%2C+charming+child&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccharming%20man%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccharming%20woman%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccharming%20child%3B%2Cc0
    But my take is that charm for Americans mirrors nous comment about Trump being what a poor (man) thinks a rich (man) is like and for women, and I’d extend that to say charm means, for some women, someone they would like to marry.
    Another note, sapient mentions Lord of the Flies, and I had the same view until I read this Guardian article
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months

  194. Thanks Russell. And yeah, it seems to me more like toxic masculinity at work rather than Trump articulating some sort of vision the Dems need to embrace.
    It plugs in, I think, to the discussion of ‘charm’ in a different thread. It’s a fascinating word if you think about it, charm is often (but not always) a quality that men are supposed to exhibit that often takes on the quality of seduction (ex, he charmed the pants off, pants being chosen over socks because of this
    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=charm+the+pants+off%2C+charm+the+socks+off&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccharm%20the%20pants%20off%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccharm%20the%20socks%20off%3B%2Cc0 )
    Women, of course, can be charming, (the google ngram is interesting in that regard) and child is thrown in there which suggests it is somehow associated with adult things)
    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=charming+man%2Ccharming+woman%2C+charming+child&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccharming%20man%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccharming%20woman%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccharming%20child%3B%2Cc0
    But my take is that charm for Americans mirrors nous comment about Trump being what a poor (man) thinks a rich (man) is like and for women, and I’d extend that to say charm means, for some women, someone they would like to marry.
    Another note, sapient mentions Lord of the Flies, and I had the same view until I read this Guardian article
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months

  195. That’s a beautiful real life story, lj. Any optimism I have is based on the young people I know, so Lord of the Flies doesn’t apply to everyone. Sadly, there’s still something that accounts for the unbridled cruelty that is apparently so seductive to 40% of us. And I don’t think it’s that Democrats are mean to the working class.

  196. That’s a beautiful real life story, lj. Any optimism I have is based on the young people I know, so Lord of the Flies doesn’t apply to everyone. Sadly, there’s still something that accounts for the unbridled cruelty that is apparently so seductive to 40% of us. And I don’t think it’s that Democrats are mean to the working class.

  197. If we’re talking about someone who makes just under $100,000, that includes a lot of people with professional degrees. Are you including teachers, for example, because they require significant education, and still make within that range
    Yes, folks in the (let’s say) $50K to $100K band include folks with professional degrees. And for purposes of this discussion – a discussion of people for whom the (D)’s should have a good story, but apparently are not connecting to the degree that they have historically – I don’t include in ‘working class’.
    The key word here being ‘class’. It’s not just about money, it’s also about social standing.
    And I’d probably exclude teachers, due to their professional accreditation, even though they probably get paid worse than many or most tradesmen (for example).
    So you are citing exit polls, which is fine – that’s all we have now.
    Yes, my comment about shifts in support of black men (and probably other men of color) for Trump is based on exit polls. Which is what is available now. Please do take with whatever grains of salt seem appropriate.
    Some cites for some of my comments upthread:
    2016 voters by income.
    2020 voters by income.
    Note the shift in the middle band – $50k to $100k – between 2016 and 2020.
    Shift in support for Trump among minorities. Still overwhelmingly for Biden, but shifting by small numbers.
    All of the above is from exit poll data, take with whatever grains of salt you think are relevant.
    FWIW, I basically live in professional white liberal coastal urban land. I can tell you from my own experience that there are several grains of truth to the idea that People In My World don’t have a deep understanding of working class people (as I’ve defined it above), and often talk about them in patronizing ways.
    It’s a correctable thing, and correcting it begins (always IMO) with self-awareness.

  198. If we’re talking about someone who makes just under $100,000, that includes a lot of people with professional degrees. Are you including teachers, for example, because they require significant education, and still make within that range
    Yes, folks in the (let’s say) $50K to $100K band include folks with professional degrees. And for purposes of this discussion – a discussion of people for whom the (D)’s should have a good story, but apparently are not connecting to the degree that they have historically – I don’t include in ‘working class’.
    The key word here being ‘class’. It’s not just about money, it’s also about social standing.
    And I’d probably exclude teachers, due to their professional accreditation, even though they probably get paid worse than many or most tradesmen (for example).
    So you are citing exit polls, which is fine – that’s all we have now.
    Yes, my comment about shifts in support of black men (and probably other men of color) for Trump is based on exit polls. Which is what is available now. Please do take with whatever grains of salt seem appropriate.
    Some cites for some of my comments upthread:
    2016 voters by income.
    2020 voters by income.
    Note the shift in the middle band – $50k to $100k – between 2016 and 2020.
    Shift in support for Trump among minorities. Still overwhelmingly for Biden, but shifting by small numbers.
    All of the above is from exit poll data, take with whatever grains of salt you think are relevant.
    FWIW, I basically live in professional white liberal coastal urban land. I can tell you from my own experience that there are several grains of truth to the idea that People In My World don’t have a deep understanding of working class people (as I’ve defined it above), and often talk about them in patronizing ways.
    It’s a correctable thing, and correcting it begins (always IMO) with self-awareness.

  199. I don’t really know anyone whose work type gives that person a lesser social standing. I have extended family members who haven’t gone to college, who have jobs that put them into the category that you describe. Although I wouldn’t doubt that some people are condescending toward these family members, I am not. However, the ones who are Trumpers, I most definitely am. In other words, their social standing isn’t determined by their social status; it’s a matter of their ridiculous, impossible-to-accept political views. So there’s some chicken and egg going on here.
    There are a lot of factors that enable or destroy people’s ability to succeed in school, or on whatever career trajectory is available. My own life has been quirky and full of false starts. There are plenty of people who think I’m inadequate in various ways. But that doesn’t make me want to turn my government into a weapon to screw my fellow citizens. Please explain that impulse to me, because I don’t get it.

  200. I don’t really know anyone whose work type gives that person a lesser social standing. I have extended family members who haven’t gone to college, who have jobs that put them into the category that you describe. Although I wouldn’t doubt that some people are condescending toward these family members, I am not. However, the ones who are Trumpers, I most definitely am. In other words, their social standing isn’t determined by their social status; it’s a matter of their ridiculous, impossible-to-accept political views. So there’s some chicken and egg going on here.
    There are a lot of factors that enable or destroy people’s ability to succeed in school, or on whatever career trajectory is available. My own life has been quirky and full of false starts. There are plenty of people who think I’m inadequate in various ways. But that doesn’t make me want to turn my government into a weapon to screw my fellow citizens. Please explain that impulse to me, because I don’t get it.

  201. So there’s some chicken and egg going on here.
    I feel like the steady diet of Fox/FB circles/etc could be a prime mover. It’s why I am such a PITA about posting links so people can see where it is from. Unfortunately, you have this parallel phenomenon where people will oppose something, and use a 5 minute google to grab an article or two that they think supports their point, which brings its own problems.

  202. So there’s some chicken and egg going on here.
    I feel like the steady diet of Fox/FB circles/etc could be a prime mover. It’s why I am such a PITA about posting links so people can see where it is from. Unfortunately, you have this parallel phenomenon where people will oppose something, and use a 5 minute google to grab an article or two that they think supports their point, which brings its own problems.

  203. And I don’t think it’s that Democrats are mean to the working class.
    My sense is that the issue is Democrats being condescending, rather than mean, when it comes to the working class. Not precisely the same thing, at least as I understand the words.

  204. And I don’t think it’s that Democrats are mean to the working class.
    My sense is that the issue is Democrats being condescending, rather than mean, when it comes to the working class. Not precisely the same thing, at least as I understand the words.

  205. Trump articulating some sort of vision the Dems need to embrace.
    Screw Trump. The (D)’s do not need to, and should not, try to out-Trump Trump.
    The (D)’s have a perfectly good story for working people. It’s the same story they’ve have for 90 years now.
    People who work for a living should be able to build a decent life from their labor. That’s the story.
    The (R) story on this is that labor is a market, that government should not interfere in markets, and that if the vagaries of depending on market dynamics for your daily bread cause problems for you, that’s on you.
    The (D) story is that government can and should intervene via law and regulation to make sure that, in a rich country such as this one, everybody gets enough of the value their labor creates to not have to live their lives in some kind of financial and social hazard.
    That is the story. It isn’t getting the traction it should be getting.
    Part of the problem, as far as I can tell, is that the (D)’s as a party and an institution have let their focus on communities and parts of the country that used to be strongholds for them slip. They aren’t investing in rural areas and traditionally industrial areas to the degree that they used to.
    Another part of the problem is that – in my opinion – (D)’s and liberals in general have fallen into the habit of thinking about working people in ways that are, from the working person’s point of view, patronizing and condescending. Folks here might think that isn’t so, I kinda think it is.
    These are correctable problems.
    When Rivard says this:

    young people and people without college degrees … suffer from irregular hours, do not earn a living wage, and lack health insurance, paid leave and pensions

    the correct response is not “then you better quit voting against your best interests”. The correct response is clearly and unequivocally advocating for policies that address irregular hours, wages people can’t live on, health insurance, and other basic benefits.
    Which (D)’s do a better job of than (R)’s do, by far, and which they include in their platform. But they don’t always rise to the bar of “clearly and unequivocally”.
    FDR publicly and vocally welcomed the hate of the people he was pissing off with his reforms. That’s fire in the belly. More fire in the belly, please.
    And they need to invest money, people, and time in places like WV. I can’t find it right now, but there are a number of places that document things like counties with no (D) organization, or where the (D) organization has no reliable point of contact, no website, nobody answers the phone.
    These are correctable problems, but they do need correcting.
    And they *do not* have to reduce their support for minorities, women, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, or whoever, to do all of the above. They have a lot of money, and they can walk and chew gum at the same time.
    They need to get off their @sses, get their heads out of DC, and start talking to people they haven’t talked to in a long time.
    All in my opinion.

  206. Trump articulating some sort of vision the Dems need to embrace.
    Screw Trump. The (D)’s do not need to, and should not, try to out-Trump Trump.
    The (D)’s have a perfectly good story for working people. It’s the same story they’ve have for 90 years now.
    People who work for a living should be able to build a decent life from their labor. That’s the story.
    The (R) story on this is that labor is a market, that government should not interfere in markets, and that if the vagaries of depending on market dynamics for your daily bread cause problems for you, that’s on you.
    The (D) story is that government can and should intervene via law and regulation to make sure that, in a rich country such as this one, everybody gets enough of the value their labor creates to not have to live their lives in some kind of financial and social hazard.
    That is the story. It isn’t getting the traction it should be getting.
    Part of the problem, as far as I can tell, is that the (D)’s as a party and an institution have let their focus on communities and parts of the country that used to be strongholds for them slip. They aren’t investing in rural areas and traditionally industrial areas to the degree that they used to.
    Another part of the problem is that – in my opinion – (D)’s and liberals in general have fallen into the habit of thinking about working people in ways that are, from the working person’s point of view, patronizing and condescending. Folks here might think that isn’t so, I kinda think it is.
    These are correctable problems.
    When Rivard says this:

    young people and people without college degrees … suffer from irregular hours, do not earn a living wage, and lack health insurance, paid leave and pensions

    the correct response is not “then you better quit voting against your best interests”. The correct response is clearly and unequivocally advocating for policies that address irregular hours, wages people can’t live on, health insurance, and other basic benefits.
    Which (D)’s do a better job of than (R)’s do, by far, and which they include in their platform. But they don’t always rise to the bar of “clearly and unequivocally”.
    FDR publicly and vocally welcomed the hate of the people he was pissing off with his reforms. That’s fire in the belly. More fire in the belly, please.
    And they need to invest money, people, and time in places like WV. I can’t find it right now, but there are a number of places that document things like counties with no (D) organization, or where the (D) organization has no reliable point of contact, no website, nobody answers the phone.
    These are correctable problems, but they do need correcting.
    And they *do not* have to reduce their support for minorities, women, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, or whoever, to do all of the above. They have a lot of money, and they can walk and chew gum at the same time.
    They need to get off their @sses, get their heads out of DC, and start talking to people they haven’t talked to in a long time.
    All in my opinion.

  207. +1 russell.
    Especially “(D)’s do a better job of than (R)’s do, by far, and which they include in their platform. But they don’t always rise to the bar of “clearly and unequivocally”.”
    In other words, it’s not what you say. It’s the way that you say it.
    As we’ve seen here, there’s a tendency to blame the audience. Rather than accepting that, if you want to communicate, it’s on you to get your message across.

  208. +1 russell.
    Especially “(D)’s do a better job of than (R)’s do, by far, and which they include in their platform. But they don’t always rise to the bar of “clearly and unequivocally”.”
    In other words, it’s not what you say. It’s the way that you say it.
    As we’ve seen here, there’s a tendency to blame the audience. Rather than accepting that, if you want to communicate, it’s on you to get your message across.

  209. As far as the libs condescending to conservatives argument goes, my brother’s family falls back on this often. Libs, especially scientists and other experts, condescend to them every time they put forth any argument that does not afford them an equal stance with the expert in arguments bearing on the area of that person’s expertise. You cannot explain to them why it is that their extensive reading of alternative health and of “takedowns” of medical science by lawyers and of environmental science by engineers are not afforded the same standing as a peer reviewed analysis done by a rival scientist. They have a full cup that shall not be jostled or spilled by any contradictory so-called facts.
    And they have no conception of how science actually works, just a vague notion that it is largely ego driven and affected by something like their own workplace politics. Which is true to a degree, but the breadth and scale of the work not affected by that bias completely escapes them.

  210. As far as the libs condescending to conservatives argument goes, my brother’s family falls back on this often. Libs, especially scientists and other experts, condescend to them every time they put forth any argument that does not afford them an equal stance with the expert in arguments bearing on the area of that person’s expertise. You cannot explain to them why it is that their extensive reading of alternative health and of “takedowns” of medical science by lawyers and of environmental science by engineers are not afforded the same standing as a peer reviewed analysis done by a rival scientist. They have a full cup that shall not be jostled or spilled by any contradictory so-called facts.
    And they have no conception of how science actually works, just a vague notion that it is largely ego driven and affected by something like their own workplace politics. Which is true to a degree, but the breadth and scale of the work not affected by that bias completely escapes them.

  211. But also, don’t bother with trying to persuade people like my brother and his family to vote for a Democrat. They cannot be reached by the likes of us. Perhaps someday they will abandon their folly after being lured by the Lincoln Project into some less toxic and hubristic version of conservatism, but they will not be tempted into voting for a Democrat no matter how diabolical the Republicans become. They are more open to the idea that Trump represents the will of the Christian God than they are to even a completely anodyne midwestern Democrat like Kobuchar.

  212. But also, don’t bother with trying to persuade people like my brother and his family to vote for a Democrat. They cannot be reached by the likes of us. Perhaps someday they will abandon their folly after being lured by the Lincoln Project into some less toxic and hubristic version of conservatism, but they will not be tempted into voting for a Democrat no matter how diabolical the Republicans become. They are more open to the idea that Trump represents the will of the Christian God than they are to even a completely anodyne midwestern Democrat like Kobuchar.

  213. FDR publicly and vocally welcomed the hate of the people he was pissing off with his reforms. That’s fire in the belly. More fire in the belly, please.
    Perhaps this is the lesson Democrats can learn from Trump?

  214. FDR publicly and vocally welcomed the hate of the people he was pissing off with his reforms. That’s fire in the belly. More fire in the belly, please.
    Perhaps this is the lesson Democrats can learn from Trump?

  215. I’m probably the most condescending lib here, as witness my frequent run-ins with Marty. But I sure as hell don’t despise or have contempt for the working class, as novakant’s piece would have it, although russell is probably right that condescension is never a good strategy in any case and definitely needs to be avoided in any attempt the Dems need to make to reconnect with the working class.
    However, I do fight (unsuccessfully on the whole) not to have contempt for Trump supporters (of whatever class, particularly the richer more educated ones), and I can’t help totally agreeing with nous when he says this, although it too would probably be considered condescending:
    You cannot explain to them why it is that their extensive reading of alternative health and of “takedowns” of medical science by lawyers and of environmental science by engineers are not afforded the same standing as a peer reviewed analysis done by a rival scientist.

  216. I’m probably the most condescending lib here, as witness my frequent run-ins with Marty. But I sure as hell don’t despise or have contempt for the working class, as novakant’s piece would have it, although russell is probably right that condescension is never a good strategy in any case and definitely needs to be avoided in any attempt the Dems need to make to reconnect with the working class.
    However, I do fight (unsuccessfully on the whole) not to have contempt for Trump supporters (of whatever class, particularly the richer more educated ones), and I can’t help totally agreeing with nous when he says this, although it too would probably be considered condescending:
    You cannot explain to them why it is that their extensive reading of alternative health and of “takedowns” of medical science by lawyers and of environmental science by engineers are not afforded the same standing as a peer reviewed analysis done by a rival scientist.

  217. “You cannot explain to them why it is that their extensive reading of alternative health and of “takedowns” of medical science by lawyers and of environmental science by engineers are not afforded the same standing as a peer reviewed analysis done by a rival scientist.”
    Is there an actual explanation?
    Unfortunately,the state of science today, and the perception of it, is quite religious.
    The best example is in medicine where competing denominations demean the other alternatives regularly creating congregations of everything from holistic ritual medicine to antivaxxers to better life through chemicals adherents. For decades chiropractics was dememeaned by doctors as voodoo medicine only to be accepted as a standard part of treatment protocols these days. There are lots of examples of this.
    Appeals to authority in climate science abound in both churches, and peer review is rightfully regarded as the rubber stamp of the establishment. For decades we were told that there is a difference between weather and climate, now every time there is a weather catastrophe scientists point and say it is an indicator of climate change
    And while that could be true, no one exlains how the hottest day in 100 years somehow now represents climate change yet 100 years ago it was weather. And a record cold day in Florida is just weather.
    It is much like listening to a pentecostal preacher attribute a hurricane to the evils of gambling.
    So my question is, outside the church of we’re science believers, which is only half true because the scientists that disagree have always been clearly disproven, how do you explain why someone should passively accept the status quo doctrine?
    I believe that climate change is a real threat, doctors by and large would like to cure you rather than treat you, vaccinations are good things, human beings can survive outside the womb after 20 – 22 weeks, covid spread is primarily airborne, God created the earth, Jesus was God’s son, I find much of the Urania book fascinating, but all of these are based on my assessment of things I have read, seen, and experienced. none of those three things require a college education and many people who I respect as intelligent, thoughtful people disagree with some of that list.
    I dont smh and think they are stupid, or how could they possibly believe that. I accept that looking at all of the available information, filtering it through their particular prejudices based on their life experience and deciding.
    I observe, so my opinion, that the more education one has the less they question the popular accepted science of the day.
    So, back to the quote, I am sure they are as frustrated that your opinion has been captured by the powers that be and you just can’t see how they fool you to ensure they get rich or stay powerful

  218. “You cannot explain to them why it is that their extensive reading of alternative health and of “takedowns” of medical science by lawyers and of environmental science by engineers are not afforded the same standing as a peer reviewed analysis done by a rival scientist.”
    Is there an actual explanation?
    Unfortunately,the state of science today, and the perception of it, is quite religious.
    The best example is in medicine where competing denominations demean the other alternatives regularly creating congregations of everything from holistic ritual medicine to antivaxxers to better life through chemicals adherents. For decades chiropractics was dememeaned by doctors as voodoo medicine only to be accepted as a standard part of treatment protocols these days. There are lots of examples of this.
    Appeals to authority in climate science abound in both churches, and peer review is rightfully regarded as the rubber stamp of the establishment. For decades we were told that there is a difference between weather and climate, now every time there is a weather catastrophe scientists point and say it is an indicator of climate change
    And while that could be true, no one exlains how the hottest day in 100 years somehow now represents climate change yet 100 years ago it was weather. And a record cold day in Florida is just weather.
    It is much like listening to a pentecostal preacher attribute a hurricane to the evils of gambling.
    So my question is, outside the church of we’re science believers, which is only half true because the scientists that disagree have always been clearly disproven, how do you explain why someone should passively accept the status quo doctrine?
    I believe that climate change is a real threat, doctors by and large would like to cure you rather than treat you, vaccinations are good things, human beings can survive outside the womb after 20 – 22 weeks, covid spread is primarily airborne, God created the earth, Jesus was God’s son, I find much of the Urania book fascinating, but all of these are based on my assessment of things I have read, seen, and experienced. none of those three things require a college education and many people who I respect as intelligent, thoughtful people disagree with some of that list.
    I dont smh and think they are stupid, or how could they possibly believe that. I accept that looking at all of the available information, filtering it through their particular prejudices based on their life experience and deciding.
    I observe, so my opinion, that the more education one has the less they question the popular accepted science of the day.
    So, back to the quote, I am sure they are as frustrated that your opinion has been captured by the powers that be and you just can’t see how they fool you to ensure they get rich or stay powerful

  221. Unfortunately, the state of science today, and the perception of it, is quite religious.
    This is absolutely not true of the state of science. All this great technology we have works not because of religious belief, but because scientific ideas are tested by experiment.
    The best example is in medicine…
    Medical science sometimes changes its mind about the effectiveness of treatments, on the basis of accumulated evidence. There’s nothing religious about that.
    …For decades chiropractics was demeaned by doctors as voodoo medicine only to be accepted as a standard part of treatment protocols these days.
    Really? Not on this side of the Atlantic. Gobbledygook about ‘subluxations’ is indeed voodoo medicine.
    …every time there is a weather catastrophe scientists point and say it is an indicator of climate change
    Do they? If they’re being careful, they say, for example, that stronger hurricanes over land are what one would expect in a warming climate. I dare say this gets dumbed down in popular commentary, but not by actual climate scientists.
    I believe that [a list]… many people who I respect as intelligent, thoughtful people disagree with some of that list.
    This is the crux of the matter. Other than for deciding elections, what you and other people you respect believe about science is irrelevant. The truth is the truth, and the considered consensus of experts should be worth more to a layman in estimating what it might be than any number of gut feelings.
    I observe, so my opinion, that the more education one has the less they question the popular accepted science of the day.
    The more education one has, the more one understands the limits of one’s analytical competence, so the more likely one is to accept the expert consensus in areas where one is not expert. And rightly so.
    …your opinion has been captured by the powers that be and you just can’t see how they fool you to ensure they get rich or stay powerful
    Strange that you should say that, since your political opinions have indeed been captured by the interests of the rich and powerful.
    Science, however, doesn’t work like that. One attains a scientific reputation by putting forward original ideas, not by agreeing with everyone else.

  222. Unfortunately, the state of science today, and the perception of it, is quite religious.
    This is absolutely not true of the state of science. All this great technology we have works not because of religious belief, but because scientific ideas are tested by experiment.
    The best example is in medicine…
    Medical science sometimes changes its mind about the effectiveness of treatments, on the basis of accumulated evidence. There’s nothing religious about that.
    …For decades chiropractics was demeaned by doctors as voodoo medicine only to be accepted as a standard part of treatment protocols these days.
    Really? Not on this side of the Atlantic. Gobbledygook about ‘subluxations’ is indeed voodoo medicine.
    …every time there is a weather catastrophe scientists point and say it is an indicator of climate change
    Do they? If they’re being careful, they say, for example, that stronger hurricanes over land are what one would expect in a warming climate. I dare say this gets dumbed down in popular commentary, but not by actual climate scientists.
    I believe that [a list]… many people who I respect as intelligent, thoughtful people disagree with some of that list.
    This is the crux of the matter. Other than for deciding elections, what you and other people you respect believe about science is irrelevant. The truth is the truth, and the considered consensus of experts should be worth more to a layman in estimating what it might be than any number of gut feelings.
    I observe, so my opinion, that the more education one has the less they question the popular accepted science of the day.
    The more education one has, the more one understands the limits of one’s analytical competence, so the more likely one is to accept the expert consensus in areas where one is not expert. And rightly so.
    …your opinion has been captured by the powers that be and you just can’t see how they fool you to ensure they get rich or stay powerful
    Strange that you should say that, since your political opinions have indeed been captured by the interests of the rich and powerful.
    Science, however, doesn’t work like that. One attains a scientific reputation by putting forward original ideas, not by agreeing with everyone else.

  223. So my question is, outside the church of we’re science believers, which is only half true because the scientists that disagree have always been clearly disproven, how do you explain why someone should passively accept the status quo doctrine?
    For myself, all questions of science are subject to a reasonable degree of skepticism and the possibility of change. The answers are what appears most likely based on the available evidence. To the extent that it’s passive or an appeal to authority, it’s because I’m not an expert and lack a basis on which to dispute well-established science. I’d say science-deniers have a more dogmatic belief system and that their skepticism is highly selective.

  224. So my question is, outside the church of we’re science believers, which is only half true because the scientists that disagree have always been clearly disproven, how do you explain why someone should passively accept the status quo doctrine?
    For myself, all questions of science are subject to a reasonable degree of skepticism and the possibility of change. The answers are what appears most likely based on the available evidence. To the extent that it’s passive or an appeal to authority, it’s because I’m not an expert and lack a basis on which to dispute well-established science. I’d say science-deniers have a more dogmatic belief system and that their skepticism is highly selective.

  225. Really? Not on this side of the Atlantic. Gobbledygook about ‘subluxations’ is indeed voodoo medicine.
    There is no doubt that what is called chiropractic in the UK is woo-woo voodoo, but I think we established during the Trump hospitalisation that chiropractic may have attained somewhat more respectability in the US (although given the following, from Wikipedia, I don’t know why):
    Throughout its history, chiropractic has been controversial.[24][25] Its foundation is at odds with evidence-based medicine, and has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as vertebral subluxation and innate intelligence.[26] Despite the overwhelming evidence that vaccination is an effective public health intervention, among chiropractors there are significant disagreements over the subject,[27] which has led to negative impacts on both public vaccination and mainstream acceptance of chiropractic.[28] The American Medical Association called chiropractic an “unscientific cult” in 1966[29] and boycotted it until losing an antitrust case in 1987.[19] Chiropractic has had a strong political base and sustained demand for services. In recent decades, it has gained more legitimacy and greater acceptance among conventional physicians and health plans in the United States.[19]

  226. Really? Not on this side of the Atlantic. Gobbledygook about ‘subluxations’ is indeed voodoo medicine.
    There is no doubt that what is called chiropractic in the UK is woo-woo voodoo, but I think we established during the Trump hospitalisation that chiropractic may have attained somewhat more respectability in the US (although given the following, from Wikipedia, I don’t know why):
    Throughout its history, chiropractic has been controversial.[24][25] Its foundation is at odds with evidence-based medicine, and has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as vertebral subluxation and innate intelligence.[26] Despite the overwhelming evidence that vaccination is an effective public health intervention, among chiropractors there are significant disagreements over the subject,[27] which has led to negative impacts on both public vaccination and mainstream acceptance of chiropractic.[28] The American Medical Association called chiropractic an “unscientific cult” in 1966[29] and boycotted it until losing an antitrust case in 1987.[19] Chiropractic has had a strong political base and sustained demand for services. In recent decades, it has gained more legitimacy and greater acceptance among conventional physicians and health plans in the United States.[19]

  227. Also, too, thinking something along the lines of “this appears to be the best basis on which to make decisions, at least for now” is a far cry from an article of faith. It’s different from simply being convinced of an absolute truth.

  228. Also, too, thinking something along the lines of “this appears to be the best basis on which to make decisions, at least for now” is a far cry from an article of faith. It’s different from simply being convinced of an absolute truth.

  229. I think I need to clarify the point I’m trying to make here.
    I’m not primarily interested in turning Trump supporters into (D) voters. I am primarily interested in the (D)’s finding effective ways to get their message to a demographic that has traditionally been strong for them, but where they have been losing ground.
    People are gonna vote however they want to vote, and there are a lot of people that are never gonna vote for a (D), for any of a number of reasons.
    But the people whose interests are well served by (D) policies should at least get the attention of the (D)’s as a party. And in a lot of places, they don’t appear to be. And a lot of them have been saying so for a number of election cycles now.
    The (D)’s should listen to them, and support them. And, in fact, should follow the lead of the folks who live and work in areas that have been neglected in terms of how best to reach the people in those communities.
    Start at the bottom, and build from there, rather than top-down. Don’t just focus on the places that are easy wins.
    Rebuild the natural and historical alignment with working people, from the ground up.
    The issue of liberal condescension, for lack of a better word, is mostly a matter of people developing some self-awareness of how the things they say and do sound to people who aren’t like them.
    I’m as guilty of the “point and laugh” thing as anybody else I can think of, so I’m not really judging anybody with this. It’s simply that a lot of people keep saying that it puts them off. I’m not just, or even primarily, talking about Trump supporters, I hear this from all kinds of people. Social justice warrior kinds of people, just not social justice warriors who live in my area code.
    So maybe we – i.e., me, and people like me – should hear it.
    It’s entirely possible that some folks may be too thin-skinned, but we should at least hear them out.

  230. I think I need to clarify the point I’m trying to make here.
    I’m not primarily interested in turning Trump supporters into (D) voters. I am primarily interested in the (D)’s finding effective ways to get their message to a demographic that has traditionally been strong for them, but where they have been losing ground.
    People are gonna vote however they want to vote, and there are a lot of people that are never gonna vote for a (D), for any of a number of reasons.
    But the people whose interests are well served by (D) policies should at least get the attention of the (D)’s as a party. And in a lot of places, they don’t appear to be. And a lot of them have been saying so for a number of election cycles now.
    The (D)’s should listen to them, and support them. And, in fact, should follow the lead of the folks who live and work in areas that have been neglected in terms of how best to reach the people in those communities.
    Start at the bottom, and build from there, rather than top-down. Don’t just focus on the places that are easy wins.
    Rebuild the natural and historical alignment with working people, from the ground up.
    The issue of liberal condescension, for lack of a better word, is mostly a matter of people developing some self-awareness of how the things they say and do sound to people who aren’t like them.
    I’m as guilty of the “point and laugh” thing as anybody else I can think of, so I’m not really judging anybody with this. It’s simply that a lot of people keep saying that it puts them off. I’m not just, or even primarily, talking about Trump supporters, I hear this from all kinds of people. Social justice warrior kinds of people, just not social justice warriors who live in my area code.
    So maybe we – i.e., me, and people like me – should hear it.
    It’s entirely possible that some folks may be too thin-skinned, but we should at least hear them out.

  231. I have to admit that I thought ‘chiropractician’ was simply a job title for people practicing physiotherapy and remedial gymnastics (with emphasis on the latter). Maybe I should have paid more attention to the reflexology chart on the wall, it seems.

  232. I have to admit that I thought ‘chiropractician’ was simply a job title for people practicing physiotherapy and remedial gymnastics (with emphasis on the latter). Maybe I should have paid more attention to the reflexology chart on the wall, it seems.

  233. all of this “science is a religion” etc stuff feels, to me, a lot like people trying to find ways to dismiss anything that will make them change (even a little) anything they’re used to doing.
    climate deniers for example… maybe they don’t want to have to make different choices about energy usage (they like their big SUV); maybe they make a lot of money from fossil fuels and don’t want to stop; (and as always) maybe they just want to spite liberals (rollin coal! drive on under-inflated tires! turn your heat on full blast! ~whatever a liberal wants).
    it often feels a lot like lazy contrarianism.

  234. all of this “science is a religion” etc stuff feels, to me, a lot like people trying to find ways to dismiss anything that will make them change (even a little) anything they’re used to doing.
    climate deniers for example… maybe they don’t want to have to make different choices about energy usage (they like their big SUV); maybe they make a lot of money from fossil fuels and don’t want to stop; (and as always) maybe they just want to spite liberals (rollin coal! drive on under-inflated tires! turn your heat on full blast! ~whatever a liberal wants).
    it often feels a lot like lazy contrarianism.

  235. When you walk into a chiropractor’s office with pain in your back that the doctor prescribes pain meds for and the specialist thinks might require surgery, but in a few years. This pain being constant and debilitating. Then you walk out with no pain and after 19 sessions, covered by most health plans in the US now, with no pain recurring, it could lead to a cultish belief that it is not voodoo medicine.

  236. When you walk into a chiropractor’s office with pain in your back that the doctor prescribes pain meds for and the specialist thinks might require surgery, but in a few years. This pain being constant and debilitating. Then you walk out with no pain and after 19 sessions, covered by most health plans in the US now, with no pain recurring, it could lead to a cultish belief that it is not voodoo medicine.

  237. I think we established during the Trump hospitalisation that chiropractic may have attained somewhat more respectability in the US
    No. Unless I missed it, that discussion was about osteopaths, not chiropractors. Osteopaths in the US are trained essentially like MDs, with some other stuff thrown in, as I understand it. I don’t know about chiropractors, I pay no attention to them, but they are certainly not considered interchangeable with primary care doctors in the US, which osteopaths are. (I speak for the situation in Maine, but I think as regards osteopaths it’s similar all ove rthe US. Don’t have time to do any digging for sources. Several of my primary care docs have been osteopaths, for the record.)

  238. I think we established during the Trump hospitalisation that chiropractic may have attained somewhat more respectability in the US
    No. Unless I missed it, that discussion was about osteopaths, not chiropractors. Osteopaths in the US are trained essentially like MDs, with some other stuff thrown in, as I understand it. I don’t know about chiropractors, I pay no attention to them, but they are certainly not considered interchangeable with primary care doctors in the US, which osteopaths are. (I speak for the situation in Maine, but I think as regards osteopaths it’s similar all ove rthe US. Don’t have time to do any digging for sources. Several of my primary care docs have been osteopaths, for the record.)

  239. “Several of my primary care docs have been osteopaths, for the record.”
    Mine too(2). No complaints. Tended to have a more holistic view than my other primaries.

  240. “Several of my primary care docs have been osteopaths, for the record.”
    Mine too(2). No complaints. Tended to have a more holistic view than my other primaries.

  241. Chiropractic is good for what it’s good for. Specifically, for pain due to joints (primarily the spine) becoming mis-aligned. That part isn’t voodoo; it just works.
    Unfortunately for its reputation, enthusiasts go much further. They make wild claims for benefits that it simply cannot reliably (or at all) deliver. Which is where, I suspect, Hartmut and GFTNC are coming from.

  242. Chiropractic is good for what it’s good for. Specifically, for pain due to joints (primarily the spine) becoming mis-aligned. That part isn’t voodoo; it just works.
    Unfortunately for its reputation, enthusiasts go much further. They make wild claims for benefits that it simply cannot reliably (or at all) deliver. Which is where, I suspect, Hartmut and GFTNC are coming from.

  243. Among Greeks of my parents’ generation, the “science” of casting out the Evil Eye was widely accepted. The procedure involved a pinch of salt tied up inside a knot in a handkerchief which the caster-out used to make the sign of the cross over the patient while silently reciting certain prayers. (To Marty’s god, not Zeus or any of that crowd.) It was well-known to reduce fever, relieve headaches, and otherwise cure the patient of the general ennui arising from having been eyed evil-ly. My father was an accomplished practitioner. He could work the cure from across the street. The old lady who lived across the street from us still thanks me occasionally for the many times my father cast out the Evil Eye from her sons as well as herself. For all I know, this curative art is still practiced in Greece, though I doubt it’s covered by health insurance.
    About chiropractic I know nothing. Not even how it differs from massage or physical therapy. I am perfectly willing to accept that it makes people feel better, because I know people who swear that getting the Evil Eye cast out of them made them feel better.
    But don’t get me started on homeopathy:)
    –TP

  244. Among Greeks of my parents’ generation, the “science” of casting out the Evil Eye was widely accepted. The procedure involved a pinch of salt tied up inside a knot in a handkerchief which the caster-out used to make the sign of the cross over the patient while silently reciting certain prayers. (To Marty’s god, not Zeus or any of that crowd.) It was well-known to reduce fever, relieve headaches, and otherwise cure the patient of the general ennui arising from having been eyed evil-ly. My father was an accomplished practitioner. He could work the cure from across the street. The old lady who lived across the street from us still thanks me occasionally for the many times my father cast out the Evil Eye from her sons as well as herself. For all I know, this curative art is still practiced in Greece, though I doubt it’s covered by health insurance.
    About chiropractic I know nothing. Not even how it differs from massage or physical therapy. I am perfectly willing to accept that it makes people feel better, because I know people who swear that getting the Evil Eye cast out of them made them feel better.
    But don’t get me started on homeopathy:)
    –TP

  245. Chiropractic is a perfectly functional physiotherapy practice tied to a non-scientific natural philosophy of the body that has adopted enough actual functional, scientific medical theory to tamp down its more exuberant pseudoscientific tendencies. It’s solid praxis backed by dodgy theory.
    And this is where we are in all of these discussions, with the contrarians falling back on practice and practicality and demanding a simple answer to why the scientific theory is supported by the experts. But there are no simple answers. All the important theoretical questions come with a bibliography that requires the equivalent of a masters degree just to understand why those questions dominate the conversation.
    A bibliography is not an appeal to authority. If you want a real answer you have to put in the work to understand the conversation. That work is hard work. It takes time and concentration and it challenges ones sense of certitude at a foundational level. Most people don’t actually want any part of that.
    But asserting that is often read as condescension and an appeal to authority, but it’s actually the opposite. You spend a lot of time getting your common sense notions knocked down before you finally reach a point where you are competent in your area of expertise.

  246. Chiropractic is a perfectly functional physiotherapy practice tied to a non-scientific natural philosophy of the body that has adopted enough actual functional, scientific medical theory to tamp down its more exuberant pseudoscientific tendencies. It’s solid praxis backed by dodgy theory.
    And this is where we are in all of these discussions, with the contrarians falling back on practice and practicality and demanding a simple answer to why the scientific theory is supported by the experts. But there are no simple answers. All the important theoretical questions come with a bibliography that requires the equivalent of a masters degree just to understand why those questions dominate the conversation.
    A bibliography is not an appeal to authority. If you want a real answer you have to put in the work to understand the conversation. That work is hard work. It takes time and concentration and it challenges ones sense of certitude at a foundational level. Most people don’t actually want any part of that.
    But asserting that is often read as condescension and an appeal to authority, but it’s actually the opposite. You spend a lot of time getting your common sense notions knocked down before you finally reach a point where you are competent in your area of expertise.

  247. “All the important theoretical questions come with a bibliography that requires the equivalent of a masters degree just to understand why those questions dominate the conversation.”
    Wow. There are only a few of us special people that can possibly understand this, so just trust us.
    You cant get more religious than that.

  248. “All the important theoretical questions come with a bibliography that requires the equivalent of a masters degree just to understand why those questions dominate the conversation.”
    Wow. There are only a few of us special people that can possibly understand this, so just trust us.
    You cant get more religious than that.

  249. Marty,
    Do you believe that god made atoms?
    As I have confessed here before, I have never seen an atom. Yet I believe in atoms as much as you believe in Jesus. So far, you might say, we are equal.
    The writings which lead me to believe that the world is made of atoms were originally written in what amounts to a foreign language. Just like Scripture. I have not read the original papers in their original language. You may, for all I know, have read the New Testament in the original Greek. But I doubt it. We both rely on translations and popularizations, I think. Still equal, so far.
    Now, you might claim (as many Christians do) that you have direct, personal experience of god, something I cannot claim about atoms. That would put you one up on me. Whether that’s “one up” in religiosity or in reason, I forbear to judge.
    –TP

  250. Marty,
    Do you believe that god made atoms?
    As I have confessed here before, I have never seen an atom. Yet I believe in atoms as much as you believe in Jesus. So far, you might say, we are equal.
    The writings which lead me to believe that the world is made of atoms were originally written in what amounts to a foreign language. Just like Scripture. I have not read the original papers in their original language. You may, for all I know, have read the New Testament in the original Greek. But I doubt it. We both rely on translations and popularizations, I think. Still equal, so far.
    Now, you might claim (as many Christians do) that you have direct, personal experience of god, something I cannot claim about atoms. That would put you one up on me. Whether that’s “one up” in religiosity or in reason, I forbear to judge.
    –TP

  251. If you’re going to restate someone’s point in a way that completely changes its meaning, you can win any argument in your own mind. Righteous!

  252. If you’re going to restate someone’s point in a way that completely changes its meaning, you can win any argument in your own mind. Righteous!

  255. “All the important theoretical questions come with a bibliography that requires the equivalent of a masters degree just to understand why those questions dominate the conversation.”
    Another way to say something like this is that some matters are pretty complicated, and take substantial study to understand.
    I’d say that the arrogant person is not the expert, but the one who thinks he understands such things better, by applying simple common sense, than those who have spent many years studying them.

  256. “All the important theoretical questions come with a bibliography that requires the equivalent of a masters degree just to understand why those questions dominate the conversation.”
    Another way to say something like this is that some matters are pretty complicated, and take substantial study to understand.
    I’d say that the arrogant person is not the expert, but the one who thinks he understands such things better, by applying simple common sense, than those who have spent many years studying them.

  257. Wow. There are only a few of us special people that can possibly understand this, so just trust us.
    You cant get more religious than that.
    That’s not religion. Anyone has access to those answers and can check the work. It’s just that doing that work is hard and takes time and a competent foundation in the subject.
    You can do the work or you can trust the people doing the work. People who have gone through the process of getting a similar degree understand, acknowledge and value the work that goes into attaining that level of expertise in another field and respect that.
    We extend this respect all the time to people in practical and professional fields. Why is it so hard to do the same for people who produce knowledge without people getting insecure and feeling condescended to?

  258. Wow. There are only a few of us special people that can possibly understand this, so just trust us.
    You cant get more religious than that.
    That’s not religion. Anyone has access to those answers and can check the work. It’s just that doing that work is hard and takes time and a competent foundation in the subject.
    You can do the work or you can trust the people doing the work. People who have gone through the process of getting a similar degree understand, acknowledge and value the work that goes into attaining that level of expertise in another field and respect that.
    We extend this respect all the time to people in practical and professional fields. Why is it so hard to do the same for people who produce knowledge without people getting insecure and feeling condescended to?

  259. In the end, science says: “If you go where I have gone, you will see what I have seen. If you do the experiment I have done, you will get the results I have reported.” Reliably. Consistently. No matter who you are. No matter how you thought it would turn out. Even if you were doing it to try to disprove the report, the results will still happen.**
    Religion, on the other hand, asserts that something is true. If you don’t get the results predicted, either you aren’t special enough or your faith isn’t strong enough.
    Both may talk about interpretations that require study and effort to understand. But the foundations are very different.
    ** Because, after all, mistakes can happen. Not to mention deliberate misstatements. Which is why multiple experiments are routine — to identify the mistakes.

  260. In the end, science says: “If you go where I have gone, you will see what I have seen. If you do the experiment I have done, you will get the results I have reported.” Reliably. Consistently. No matter who you are. No matter how you thought it would turn out. Even if you were doing it to try to disprove the report, the results will still happen.**
    Religion, on the other hand, asserts that something is true. If you don’t get the results predicted, either you aren’t special enough or your faith isn’t strong enough.
    Both may talk about interpretations that require study and effort to understand. But the foundations are very different.
    ** Because, after all, mistakes can happen. Not to mention deliberate misstatements. Which is why multiple experiments are routine — to identify the mistakes.

  261. cleek,
    Better make it “a movie OF a god, any god”. Movies ABOUT gods, all sorts of gods, are plentiful. Why, I have seen some myself.
    –TP

  262. cleek,
    Better make it “a movie OF a god, any god”. Movies ABOUT gods, all sorts of gods, are plentiful. Why, I have seen some myself.
    –TP

  263. “If you do the experiment I have done, you will get the results I have reported.”
    and iterate, with thousands of people of all religions, over a few hundred years, and you end up with the devices on which we’re reading and writing all this, as well as the network that makes this communication possible. science is responsible for this. amateurs, academics, people working for commercial enterprises, all following the scientific method, all figuring out little bits of how the universe works, and how to turn that knowledge into useful tools.
    seems like a good system.
    no religion required.

  264. “If you do the experiment I have done, you will get the results I have reported.”
    and iterate, with thousands of people of all religions, over a few hundred years, and you end up with the devices on which we’re reading and writing all this, as well as the network that makes this communication possible. science is responsible for this. amateurs, academics, people working for commercial enterprises, all following the scientific method, all figuring out little bits of how the universe works, and how to turn that knowledge into useful tools.
    seems like a good system.
    no religion required.

  267. may Zeus strike me down!
    Religious assertion: blasphemy like this will be punished. Experience says: unless you are a believer in this specific religion, nothing much will happen. Which is why religions typically report unbelievers being struck down — trying to establish scientific credibility. But the reports routinely do not stand up to fact checking.

  268. may Zeus strike me down!
    Religious assertion: blasphemy like this will be punished. Experience says: unless you are a believer in this specific religion, nothing much will happen. Which is why religions typically report unbelievers being struck down — trying to establish scientific credibility. But the reports routinely do not stand up to fact checking.

  269. Practical science is all the things stated here, theoretical science is not. Theoretical physics is taking those practical experiments and, well theorizing about all kinds of things. Climate science is building models based on the past and gets better all the time but it is still primarily statistics based on broad assumptions.
    And nous led with:
    “All the important theoretical questions come with a bibliography that requires the equivalent of a masters degree just to understand why those questions dominate the conversation.”
    Science is great, I am an engineer by training and built a career on technology advancements.
    If understanding the question is so hard you need a degree (which is an elitist measure in the first place, I know lots of people with Masters degree that don’t know shit from shinola) just to understand the question, you aren’t doing any repeatable experiments that prove it.

  270. Practical science is all the things stated here, theoretical science is not. Theoretical physics is taking those practical experiments and, well theorizing about all kinds of things. Climate science is building models based on the past and gets better all the time but it is still primarily statistics based on broad assumptions.
    And nous led with:
    “All the important theoretical questions come with a bibliography that requires the equivalent of a masters degree just to understand why those questions dominate the conversation.”
    Science is great, I am an engineer by training and built a career on technology advancements.
    If understanding the question is so hard you need a degree (which is an elitist measure in the first place, I know lots of people with Masters degree that don’t know shit from shinola) just to understand the question, you aren’t doing any repeatable experiments that prove it.

  271. One more thing, science sets its own parameters. Vaccine testing is a great example. We find after a few people have allergic reactions that people that would likely have an allergic reaction were disqualified from the trials. Then, and I can’t find it right now, there are a list of other conditions that excluded people from the trials.
    So the average person finds this out after the negative reactions hit the news and the science gets questioned, because they set up the trial to succeed by excluding risky people. Then the people who don’t want the inadequately(to them) tested vaccine are mocked or whatever.
    That’s ok science but if you think people who question it are, whatever, then you are wrong. They get to apply a practical filter to the information they are getting from the scientist and evaluate their risk.

  272. One more thing, science sets its own parameters. Vaccine testing is a great example. We find after a few people have allergic reactions that people that would likely have an allergic reaction were disqualified from the trials. Then, and I can’t find it right now, there are a list of other conditions that excluded people from the trials.
    So the average person finds this out after the negative reactions hit the news and the science gets questioned, because they set up the trial to succeed by excluding risky people. Then the people who don’t want the inadequately(to them) tested vaccine are mocked or whatever.
    That’s ok science but if you think people who question it are, whatever, then you are wrong. They get to apply a practical filter to the information they are getting from the scientist and evaluate their risk.

  273. Experience says: unless you are a believer in this specific religion, nothing much will happen.
    of course since anyone who would say such a thing can’t be a true believer, nobody is ever struck down. the system is self-healing!

  274. Experience says: unless you are a believer in this specific religion, nothing much will happen.
    of course since anyone who would say such a thing can’t be a true believer, nobody is ever struck down. the system is self-healing!

  275. Practical science is all the things stated here, theoretical science is not. Theoretical physics is taking those practical experiments and, well theorizing about all kinds of things. Climate science is building models based on the past and gets better all the time but it is still primarily statistics based on broad assumptions.
    If you believe this then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science actually works. There is no bright line dividing practical and theoretical science, or experimental and observational science. In practice they all inform each other.
    Also, I notice Marty failed to parse the significant difference between “needing a degree” and “having the equivalent of a degree.” I qualified my claim that way for a reason.

  276. Practical science is all the things stated here, theoretical science is not. Theoretical physics is taking those practical experiments and, well theorizing about all kinds of things. Climate science is building models based on the past and gets better all the time but it is still primarily statistics based on broad assumptions.
    If you believe this then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science actually works. There is no bright line dividing practical and theoretical science, or experimental and observational science. In practice they all inform each other.
    Also, I notice Marty failed to parse the significant difference between “needing a degree” and “having the equivalent of a degree.” I qualified my claim that way for a reason.

  277. I parsed it fine, the equivalent of a degree is still using the degree as the yardstick.
    I note that you didn’t address the repeatable experiments, I separated those to make the point that science requires a thesis to be tested and changed and tested again and those foundational assumptions change over time and across scientists.
    And yes, there are bright lines that differentiate those fields, not to say they don’t inform each other.

  278. I parsed it fine, the equivalent of a degree is still using the degree as the yardstick.
    I note that you didn’t address the repeatable experiments, I separated those to make the point that science requires a thesis to be tested and changed and tested again and those foundational assumptions change over time and across scientists.
    And yes, there are bright lines that differentiate those fields, not to say they don’t inform each other.

  279. There is no bright line dividing practical and theoretical science, or experimental and observational science. In practice they all inform each other.
    The whole point of scientific theories is to make predictions about what might happen in circumstances/experiments that have not yet been done. That gives you an idea about what to do in order to decide if the theory is correct or not.
    Case in point: dark matter. It’s a theory created to account for what is observed. Personally, I expect that it will eventually turn out to be like the ether — something that was necessary due to lack of understood.
    And which, after doing the experiments which the theory suggested would work out one way, got dropped when the experiments showed something different. Which doesn’t make it useless, merely wrong.

  280. There is no bright line dividing practical and theoretical science, or experimental and observational science. In practice they all inform each other.
    The whole point of scientific theories is to make predictions about what might happen in circumstances/experiments that have not yet been done. That gives you an idea about what to do in order to decide if the theory is correct or not.
    Case in point: dark matter. It’s a theory created to account for what is observed. Personally, I expect that it will eventually turn out to be like the ether — something that was necessary due to lack of understood.
    And which, after doing the experiments which the theory suggested would work out one way, got dropped when the experiments showed something different. Which doesn’t make it useless, merely wrong.

  281. No. Unless I missed it, that discussion was about osteopaths, not chiropractors.
    Aha, the tricks memory can play. Certainly, although osteopaths are reasonably respectable in the UK where musculo-skeletal stuff is concerned, they have nothing like a medical qualification, which is what confused me during the Trump hospitalisation. Chiropractic, on the other hand, is regarded rather like reflexology, as Hartmut suggested.
    That’s not religion. Anyone has access to those answers and can check the work. It’s just that doing that work is hard and takes time and a competent foundation in the subject.
    This, and everything else nous says in his 01.51. As well as what wj says at 01.53. Trying to compare respect for scientific specialisation and expertise to religion ignores the very definition of the scientific method. This is the kind of thinking that leads, in the end, to “alternative facts”.
    They get to apply a practical filter to the information they are getting from the scientist and evaluate their risk
    I assume you all saw the footage of the close to breakdown ICU nurse talking about the patients who kept saying, as they were dying of Covid, “Stop saying I have Covid, it’s a hoax.”

  282. No. Unless I missed it, that discussion was about osteopaths, not chiropractors.
    Aha, the tricks memory can play. Certainly, although osteopaths are reasonably respectable in the UK where musculo-skeletal stuff is concerned, they have nothing like a medical qualification, which is what confused me during the Trump hospitalisation. Chiropractic, on the other hand, is regarded rather like reflexology, as Hartmut suggested.
    That’s not religion. Anyone has access to those answers and can check the work. It’s just that doing that work is hard and takes time and a competent foundation in the subject.
    This, and everything else nous says in his 01.51. As well as what wj says at 01.53. Trying to compare respect for scientific specialisation and expertise to religion ignores the very definition of the scientific method. This is the kind of thinking that leads, in the end, to “alternative facts”.
    They get to apply a practical filter to the information they are getting from the scientist and evaluate their risk
    I assume you all saw the footage of the close to breakdown ICU nurse talking about the patients who kept saying, as they were dying of Covid, “Stop saying I have Covid, it’s a hoax.”

  283. “Practical” science versus “theoretical” science reminds me of creationist assertions that there’s a difference between “experimental science” and “observational science”. Chemistry is experimental, you see, while geology, paleontology, and whatever other disciplines purport to prove evolution by natural selection are merely “observational”.
    Creationists are entitled to make up meaningless distinctions if it makes them feel better, of course. Just like Marty.
    As for the structure of vaccine trials, I can allow the possibility that they are rigged to show success because I can understand the profit motive behind it. Not that I actually believe tax-cut-deserving corporations would be so venal, mind you, or that MAGAt-led government agencies would conspire in such venality. I leave Marty to make that case if he cares to.
    –TP

  284. “Practical” science versus “theoretical” science reminds me of creationist assertions that there’s a difference between “experimental science” and “observational science”. Chemistry is experimental, you see, while geology, paleontology, and whatever other disciplines purport to prove evolution by natural selection are merely “observational”.
    Creationists are entitled to make up meaningless distinctions if it makes them feel better, of course. Just like Marty.
    As for the structure of vaccine trials, I can allow the possibility that they are rigged to show success because I can understand the profit motive behind it. Not that I actually believe tax-cut-deserving corporations would be so venal, mind you, or that MAGAt-led government agencies would conspire in such venality. I leave Marty to make that case if he cares to.
    –TP

  285. There is no bright line dividing practical and theoretical science, or experimental and observational science. In practice they all inform each other.
    a lot of technology we take for granted today is based in science that was purely theoretical in the past. what changes it from theoretical to practical is learning enough about something to put it to use.
    less than 100 years ago, nuclear energy was entirely theoretical.

  286. There is no bright line dividing practical and theoretical science, or experimental and observational science. In practice they all inform each other.
    a lot of technology we take for granted today is based in science that was purely theoretical in the past. what changes it from theoretical to practical is learning enough about something to put it to use.
    less than 100 years ago, nuclear energy was entirely theoretical.

  287. wj – Dark matter is not a theory. Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter that was proposed as a possible solution to an unsolved problem within a theory.
    Theory means something much less formal in ordinary conversation than it does in scientific conversation.
    Replicability is a good standard for science when possible, but there are many sorts of science for which replicability is not feasible. Those fields and problems are no less scientific than the ones where replicability is an option.
    These are not my arguments, they are the heart of any reading in the Philosophy of Science.
    No condescension here. Go read and verify if you have the time and inclination.

  288. wj – Dark matter is not a theory. Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter that was proposed as a possible solution to an unsolved problem within a theory.
    Theory means something much less formal in ordinary conversation than it does in scientific conversation.
    Replicability is a good standard for science when possible, but there are many sorts of science for which replicability is not feasible. Those fields and problems are no less scientific than the ones where replicability is an option.
    These are not my arguments, they are the heart of any reading in the Philosophy of Science.
    No condescension here. Go read and verify if you have the time and inclination.

  289. All of which has drifted far afield of russell’s opening question, but the rancor with which theory is treated here does speak to some of the difficulty Democrats have in reaching across the class divide.

  290. All of which has drifted far afield of russell’s opening question, but the rancor with which theory is treated here does speak to some of the difficulty Democrats have in reaching across the class divide.

  293. There are only a few of us special people that can possibly understand this, so just trust us.
    That’s not religion. Anyone has access to those answers and can check the work. It’s just that doing that work is hard and takes time and a competent foundation in the subject.
    You can do the work or you can trust the people doing the work.
    Yeah, that’s my view as well.
    In my own personal world, the number of people who I just basically trust because they have actual knowledge about stuff that I don’t have is pretty enormous.
    I’ll start with my car mechanic, our tree guy, our plumber, and our electrician. I’ll continue with the guy that manages our investments, my doctor, and my dentist. Also, since we’re venturing afield into alternative medicine, our herbalist and various yoga and chinese medicine practicioners I’ve gone to or studied with over the decades.
    Or, you know, the guy I study jazz with.
    I guess I could go google up a bunch of stuff about any of those subjects and draw my own conclusions about any topic therein. But the likelihood that they have better insight than me is probably somewhere above 95%. Because they’ve been at it for decades, and I have not.
    I’m a smart guy, but so are all of them. And they know stuff that I don’t, and probably never will. So, advantage them.
    Climate science is building models based on the past and gets better all the time but it is still primarily statistics based on broad assumptions.
    Those “broad assumptions” are commonly known as “physics”.
    Can you name the basic disciplines that make up climate science? Not demonstrate expertise in them, just name them?
    I looked it up once, just out of curiosity. There are five or six of them, each of which is a fairly intensive area of expertise on its own terms. I don’t remember them all, I’d have to go look it up again to answer my own question. Maybe you know off the top of your head.
    As an aside, I used to work with people who did stuff like run atmospheric models at home on server clusters they built up for that purpose. Because they were just into weather and climate science, it was their idea of a fun hobby. As noted above, I’m a pretty smart guy, but I had no freaking idea what they were talking about.
    They did, I didn’t. Some things are like that.

  294. There are only a few of us special people that can possibly understand this, so just trust us.
    That’s not religion. Anyone has access to those answers and can check the work. It’s just that doing that work is hard and takes time and a competent foundation in the subject.
    You can do the work or you can trust the people doing the work.
    Yeah, that’s my view as well.
    In my own personal world, the number of people who I just basically trust because they have actual knowledge about stuff that I don’t have is pretty enormous.
    I’ll start with my car mechanic, our tree guy, our plumber, and our electrician. I’ll continue with the guy that manages our investments, my doctor, and my dentist. Also, since we’re venturing afield into alternative medicine, our herbalist and various yoga and chinese medicine practicioners I’ve gone to or studied with over the decades.
    Or, you know, the guy I study jazz with.
    I guess I could go google up a bunch of stuff about any of those subjects and draw my own conclusions about any topic therein. But the likelihood that they have better insight than me is probably somewhere above 95%. Because they’ve been at it for decades, and I have not.
    I’m a smart guy, but so are all of them. And they know stuff that I don’t, and probably never will. So, advantage them.
    Climate science is building models based on the past and gets better all the time but it is still primarily statistics based on broad assumptions.
    Those “broad assumptions” are commonly known as “physics”.
    Can you name the basic disciplines that make up climate science? Not demonstrate expertise in them, just name them?
    I looked it up once, just out of curiosity. There are five or six of them, each of which is a fairly intensive area of expertise on its own terms. I don’t remember them all, I’d have to go look it up again to answer my own question. Maybe you know off the top of your head.
    As an aside, I used to work with people who did stuff like run atmospheric models at home on server clusters they built up for that purpose. Because they were just into weather and climate science, it was their idea of a fun hobby. As noted above, I’m a pretty smart guy, but I had no freaking idea what they were talking about.
    They did, I didn’t. Some things are like that.

  295. So the average person finds this out after the negative reactions hit the news and the science gets questioned, because they set up the trial to succeed by excluding risky people. Then the people who don’t want the inadequately(to them) tested vaccine are mocked or whatever.
    If the “whatever” here includes being agreed with by experts and non-experts alike, then, yes. I’m not sure who’s mocking, for example, people prone to severe allergic reactions for not wanting to take the Pfizer vaccine that is known to have caused severe allergic reactions. But if imagining such mockery makes it easier for you to argue your point, I guess that’s what you’ll do.
    Whittling the examples of people “questioning the science” to those involving lay people following the advice of experts who have questioned the science and pretending those examples are representative of how lay people question science in general makes it much easier to say us libs (or whoever you have in your head) are a bunch of condescending jerks.
    Keep the generalizations moving and changing in size an shape so you can never be pinned down to a specific point and you can argue forever.

  296. So the average person finds this out after the negative reactions hit the news and the science gets questioned, because they set up the trial to succeed by excluding risky people. Then the people who don’t want the inadequately(to them) tested vaccine are mocked or whatever.
    If the “whatever” here includes being agreed with by experts and non-experts alike, then, yes. I’m not sure who’s mocking, for example, people prone to severe allergic reactions for not wanting to take the Pfizer vaccine that is known to have caused severe allergic reactions. But if imagining such mockery makes it easier for you to argue your point, I guess that’s what you’ll do.
    Whittling the examples of people “questioning the science” to those involving lay people following the advice of experts who have questioned the science and pretending those examples are representative of how lay people question science in general makes it much easier to say us libs (or whoever you have in your head) are a bunch of condescending jerks.
    Keep the generalizations moving and changing in size an shape so you can never be pinned down to a specific point and you can argue forever.

  297. Because they’ve been at it for decades, and I have not.
    This is also my beef with the anti-meritocracy crew.
    In the area of government policy, whether domestic or international, there are obviously many dedicated professionals who disagree. As citizens, we have a duty to make an effort to understand what’s happening in the world even though we’re part-time observers. But there’s something to be said for people making an dedicated effort for years and years. Democracy doesn’t require ignoring people who have put in the time.

  298. Because they’ve been at it for decades, and I have not.
    This is also my beef with the anti-meritocracy crew.
    In the area of government policy, whether domestic or international, there are obviously many dedicated professionals who disagree. As citizens, we have a duty to make an effort to understand what’s happening in the world even though we’re part-time observers. But there’s something to be said for people making an dedicated effort for years and years. Democracy doesn’t require ignoring people who have put in the time.

  299. how many allergic reactions? how severe? how does it compare to other vaccines?
    people who are suddenly so concerned about reports of side effects should definitely not read the literature that comes with every FDA-approved drug they take. *
    seems like the free market should invent a bunch of drugs that have no side effects! get on it, brave entrepreneurs!
    * if they do, they’ll end up like my father, who won’t take anything prescribed to him for more than a day or two because the first thing he does is google for the drug’s side effects, and then convinces himself that he is experiencing all of them. and then his condition worsens and his doctors throw up their hands and give him the prednisone he’s been angling for the whole time (even though the side effects of long-term use of that aren’t great either.

  300. how many allergic reactions? how severe? how does it compare to other vaccines?
    people who are suddenly so concerned about reports of side effects should definitely not read the literature that comes with every FDA-approved drug they take. *
    seems like the free market should invent a bunch of drugs that have no side effects! get on it, brave entrepreneurs!
    * if they do, they’ll end up like my father, who won’t take anything prescribed to him for more than a day or two because the first thing he does is google for the drug’s side effects, and then convinces himself that he is experiencing all of them. and then his condition worsens and his doctors throw up their hands and give him the prednisone he’s been angling for the whole time (even though the side effects of long-term use of that aren’t great either.

  301. We find after a few people have allergic reactions that people that would likely have an allergic reaction were disqualified from the trials. Then, and I can’t find it right now, there are a list of other conditions that excluded people from the trials.
    So the average person finds this out after the negative reactions hit the news and the science gets questioned, because they set up the trial to succeed by excluding risky people.
    This doesn’t make any sense.
    Why wouldn’t they exclude people from the trials if they knew in advance that they would have an allergic reaction? I’m impressed that their understanding of the situation is sufficiently advanced that they can, in fact, identify people who are likely to have an allergic reaction. For me, personally, it increases my confidence in the vaccinations, because if I have any of whatever those risk factors are, they’ll be able to tell me and I can make an informed decision about whether to get the vax or not.
    How does that automatically translate into “them setting up the trial to succeed”? They tried the vax, found that some people were likely to have an allergic reaction due to identifiable factors, and then *stopped giving the vax to those people*. What else should they do? Provoke predictable allergic reactions in people? Not doing so just seems like basic medical prudence.
    I’m allergic to sulfa and amoxycillin. My doctor doesn’t prescribe those for me. Right?
    One thing does not imply the other.

  302. We find after a few people have allergic reactions that people that would likely have an allergic reaction were disqualified from the trials. Then, and I can’t find it right now, there are a list of other conditions that excluded people from the trials.
    So the average person finds this out after the negative reactions hit the news and the science gets questioned, because they set up the trial to succeed by excluding risky people.
    This doesn’t make any sense.
    Why wouldn’t they exclude people from the trials if they knew in advance that they would have an allergic reaction? I’m impressed that their understanding of the situation is sufficiently advanced that they can, in fact, identify people who are likely to have an allergic reaction. For me, personally, it increases my confidence in the vaccinations, because if I have any of whatever those risk factors are, they’ll be able to tell me and I can make an informed decision about whether to get the vax or not.
    How does that automatically translate into “them setting up the trial to succeed”? They tried the vax, found that some people were likely to have an allergic reaction due to identifiable factors, and then *stopped giving the vax to those people*. What else should they do? Provoke predictable allergic reactions in people? Not doing so just seems like basic medical prudence.
    I’m allergic to sulfa and amoxycillin. My doctor doesn’t prescribe those for me. Right?
    One thing does not imply the other.

  303. anti-science is yet another way to be a conservative.
    Hardly. All sides can be anti-science when they find it convenient to their world view.

  304. anti-science is yet another way to be a conservative.
    Hardly. All sides can be anti-science when they find it convenient to their world view.

  305. hsh, there is a point, and an example, the point is that science sets its own parameters. Whether that’s vaccine testing or climate science. I pretty clearly said a, meaning one, great example.

  306. hsh, there is a point, and an example, the point is that science sets its own parameters. Whether that’s vaccine testing or climate science. I pretty clearly said a, meaning one, great example.

  307. Climate science is building models based on the past and gets better all the time but it is still primarily statistics based on broad assumptions.
    Since my son’s girlfriend does climate/weather models professionally (often the same code is used for both purposes), I’ll speak up. You’ve got “broad assumptions” doing some very heavy lifting here. Those assumptions are a ton of fluid dynamics, heat transfer, and finite element modeling. Hurricane forecasts, to pick an example, are not getting so much better because of better statistical tools; they’re getting better because the fluid dynamics, heat transfer, and finite element models are getting so much better.

  308. Climate science is building models based on the past and gets better all the time but it is still primarily statistics based on broad assumptions.
    Since my son’s girlfriend does climate/weather models professionally (often the same code is used for both purposes), I’ll speak up. You’ve got “broad assumptions” doing some very heavy lifting here. Those assumptions are a ton of fluid dynamics, heat transfer, and finite element modeling. Hurricane forecasts, to pick an example, are not getting so much better because of better statistical tools; they’re getting better because the fluid dynamics, heat transfer, and finite element models are getting so much better.

  309. “You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to you own facts.”
    And that is, routinely, the problem with the anti-science crowd: they insist on “alternative facts” which support their opinions. And ignore the facts in the real world. Which, inconveniently, do not.

  310. “You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to you own facts.”
    And that is, routinely, the problem with the anti-science crowd: they insist on “alternative facts” which support their opinions. And ignore the facts in the real world. Which, inconveniently, do not.

  311. All sides can be anti-science when they find it convenient to their world view.
    eh, religious fundamentalism is a pretty strict subset of conservatism.

  312. All sides can be anti-science when they find it convenient to their world view.
    eh, religious fundamentalism is a pretty strict subset of conservatism.

  315. hsh, there is a point, and an example, the point is that science sets its own parameters.
    If this is your point, fine. It’s meaningless.

  316. hsh, there is a point, and an example, the point is that science sets its own parameters.
    If this is your point, fine. It’s meaningless.

  317. Marty – I parsed it fine, the equivalent of a degree is still using the degree as the yardstick.
    Yardstick? Pfaugh, imperialists.
    Metric or go home.

  318. Marty – I parsed it fine, the equivalent of a degree is still using the degree as the yardstick.
    Yardstick? Pfaugh, imperialists.
    Metric or go home.

  319. Yardstick? Pfaugh, imperialists.
    Metric or go home.
    And yet we still say “In for a penny, in for a pound.” Even though we haven’t used pounds as currency here for centuries. Language can be conservative that way.

  320. Yardstick? Pfaugh, imperialists.
    Metric or go home.
    And yet we still say “In for a penny, in for a pound.” Even though we haven’t used pounds as currency here for centuries. Language can be conservative that way.

  321. An article on anti-science on the left. The article is from 2016 and is a bit dated in that, based on subsequent events, the author would likely use some different examples and emphasizes if he were writing the article today.
    “The danger from the Left does not arise from stupidity or dishonesty; those failings are bipartisan. Some surveys show that Republicans, particularly libertarians, are more scientifically literate than Democrats, but there’s plenty of ignorance all around. Both sides cherry-pick research and misrepresent evidence to support their agendas. Whoever’s in power, the White House plays politics in appointing advisory commissions and editing the executive summaries of their reports. Scientists of all ideologies exaggerate the importance of their own research and seek results that will bring them more attention and funding.”
    The Real War on Science: The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress.

  322. An article on anti-science on the left. The article is from 2016 and is a bit dated in that, based on subsequent events, the author would likely use some different examples and emphasizes if he were writing the article today.
    “The danger from the Left does not arise from stupidity or dishonesty; those failings are bipartisan. Some surveys show that Republicans, particularly libertarians, are more scientifically literate than Democrats, but there’s plenty of ignorance all around. Both sides cherry-pick research and misrepresent evidence to support their agendas. Whoever’s in power, the White House plays politics in appointing advisory commissions and editing the executive summaries of their reports. Scientists of all ideologies exaggerate the importance of their own research and seek results that will bring them more attention and funding.”
    The Real War on Science: The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress.

  323. An article on anti-science on the left.
    first link (“Some surveys”) is dead.
    from the second (“particularly libertarians”):

    We find that self-identified conservatives and social conservatives are less scientifically literate and optimistic about science than, respectively, self-identified liberals and social progressives. However, we find that economic conservatives are as or more scientifically literate and optimistic about science than economic leftists.

    so, nothing about libertarians there.
    the third link spends most of its time talking about how Republicans are vastly outnumbered in the ‘social sciences’. it talks about a controversy on the left from 1965, another from 1991. then it talks about an academic disagreement between Steven Pinker and Stephen Jay Gould… still waiting for that groundswell of anti-science on the left… then we’re off to the right’s favorite topic: the genetic basis of IQ and how it can’t be racist to talk about such things (despite, ya know, science pointing out the flaws in these studies).
    finally, we get to:

    And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics.

    how long? well, we’re gonna go all the way back to … eugenics! yes, the 1920s. Margaret Sanger! Hitler! socialism! DDT saved lives!
    it’s preaching to the choir.
    ugh. tired arguments are tiring.

  324. An article on anti-science on the left.
    first link (“Some surveys”) is dead.
    from the second (“particularly libertarians”):

    We find that self-identified conservatives and social conservatives are less scientifically literate and optimistic about science than, respectively, self-identified liberals and social progressives. However, we find that economic conservatives are as or more scientifically literate and optimistic about science than economic leftists.

    so, nothing about libertarians there.
    the third link spends most of its time talking about how Republicans are vastly outnumbered in the ‘social sciences’. it talks about a controversy on the left from 1965, another from 1991. then it talks about an academic disagreement between Steven Pinker and Stephen Jay Gould… still waiting for that groundswell of anti-science on the left… then we’re off to the right’s favorite topic: the genetic basis of IQ and how it can’t be racist to talk about such things (despite, ya know, science pointing out the flaws in these studies).
    finally, we get to:

    And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics.

    how long? well, we’re gonna go all the way back to … eugenics! yes, the 1920s. Margaret Sanger! Hitler! socialism! DDT saved lives!
    it’s preaching to the choir.
    ugh. tired arguments are tiring.

  325. Anti-VAXxers are seemingly rather bipartisan loonies.
    I’ve been against ’em for a long long time, so let me tell you what I think of them
    %SYS-F-TMFKBD, Too many fingers on keyboard
    *ABORT*

  326. Anti-VAXxers are seemingly rather bipartisan loonies.
    I’ve been against ’em for a long long time, so let me tell you what I think of them
    %SYS-F-TMFKBD, Too many fingers on keyboard
    *ABORT*

  327. ugh. tired arguments are tiring.
    Everything, including the article, should be viewed critically and criticized. I find it equally tiring that the left/liberals/progressives are virtuously pro-science while everyone else is anti-science buffoons.

  328. ugh. tired arguments are tiring.
    Everything, including the article, should be viewed critically and criticized. I find it equally tiring that the left/liberals/progressives are virtuously pro-science while everyone else is anti-science buffoons.

  329. for the record: yes i do not deny that there are anti-science loons on the left: anti-vaxxers of course.
    but anti-vaxxers are widespread on the right too.
    maybe it’s not really a left/right issue. maybe that’s more like a distrust of The Man issue.

  330. for the record: yes i do not deny that there are anti-science loons on the left: anti-vaxxers of course.
    but anti-vaxxers are widespread on the right too.
    maybe it’s not really a left/right issue. maybe that’s more like a distrust of The Man issue.

  331. CharlesWT,
    What’s an “economic conservative”? Is it a label anybody can apply to himself, or do “researchers” use some objective definition?
    I suppose stingy shoppers, bad tippers, and just plain misers could all be called “economic conservatives”, but I suspect Libertarians(TM) have a more sophisticated criterion. Enlighten us, please.
    When we all know what “fiscal conservative” means to John Tierney or the researchers he alludes to, we will have a better chance to “view critically and criticize” that assertion in the article.
    –TP

  332. CharlesWT,
    What’s an “economic conservative”? Is it a label anybody can apply to himself, or do “researchers” use some objective definition?
    I suppose stingy shoppers, bad tippers, and just plain misers could all be called “economic conservatives”, but I suspect Libertarians(TM) have a more sophisticated criterion. Enlighten us, please.
    When we all know what “fiscal conservative” means to John Tierney or the researchers he alludes to, we will have a better chance to “view critically and criticize” that assertion in the article.
    –TP

  333. Libertarians are often superficially described as economically conservative and socially liberal. Economic conservative is essentially the same as fiscal conservative.
    Conservative: Economically and socially conservative.
    Libertarian: Economically conservative and socially liberal.
    Liberal: Economically and socially liberal.
    Authoritarian: Economically liberal and socially conservative.

  334. Libertarians are often superficially described as economically conservative and socially liberal. Economic conservative is essentially the same as fiscal conservative.
    Conservative: Economically and socially conservative.
    Libertarian: Economically conservative and socially liberal.
    Liberal: Economically and socially liberal.
    Authoritarian: Economically liberal and socially conservative.

  335. BTW, there *is* a real difference between “experimental” science and “observational” science.
    Not it terms of validity, or whatever it is that creationist-loons want it to be, but rather a psychological difference in who prefers which.
    If you’re of a personality that just *has* to have “knobs to twiddle”, observational science is highly frustrating, while “experimental” science is very fulfilling.
    And there is a converse situation where some people prefer to observe from a short distance (geologists), a long distance (astronomers) or a VERY long distance (cosmologists).
    The hands-on vs hands-off preferences could be as innate as left- vs right-handedness.
    But I’m no psychologist or neurologist, so it’s just a WAG on my part.

  336. BTW, there *is* a real difference between “experimental” science and “observational” science.
    Not it terms of validity, or whatever it is that creationist-loons want it to be, but rather a psychological difference in who prefers which.
    If you’re of a personality that just *has* to have “knobs to twiddle”, observational science is highly frustrating, while “experimental” science is very fulfilling.
    And there is a converse situation where some people prefer to observe from a short distance (geologists), a long distance (astronomers) or a VERY long distance (cosmologists).
    The hands-on vs hands-off preferences could be as innate as left- vs right-handedness.
    But I’m no psychologist or neurologist, so it’s just a WAG on my part.

  337. I would say the economic conservatives oppose government routinely spending more money than it takes in from taxes.** And prefer low taxes; but not necessarily zero taxes, because some things do require government action/spending.
    Whereas libertarians, in my observation, not only oppose government spending but government doing anything — whether it costs money or not. And prefer taxes approximating zero. Because, after all, if government isn’t doing/spending anything, why does it need income?
    The real conundrum, for me, is how to distinguish libertarians from anarchists. Best I’ve come up with is that anarchists like throwing bombs, whereas libertarians are merely not bothered by it. (Libertarians, feel free to educate me on the differences as you see them.)
    ** This makes me only mildly conservative in this sense. I observe (oh, that nasty science stuff!) that governments can run a substantial deficit for decades without disaster striking. But I also observe that very large deficit can result in runaway inflation, which is disastrous. Leading me to prefer to hold deficits down, so as to have room to maneuver in emergencies.

  338. I would say the economic conservatives oppose government routinely spending more money than it takes in from taxes.** And prefer low taxes; but not necessarily zero taxes, because some things do require government action/spending.
    Whereas libertarians, in my observation, not only oppose government spending but government doing anything — whether it costs money or not. And prefer taxes approximating zero. Because, after all, if government isn’t doing/spending anything, why does it need income?
    The real conundrum, for me, is how to distinguish libertarians from anarchists. Best I’ve come up with is that anarchists like throwing bombs, whereas libertarians are merely not bothered by it. (Libertarians, feel free to educate me on the differences as you see them.)
    ** This makes me only mildly conservative in this sense. I observe (oh, that nasty science stuff!) that governments can run a substantial deficit for decades without disaster striking. But I also observe that very large deficit can result in runaway inflation, which is disastrous. Leading me to prefer to hold deficits down, so as to have room to maneuver in emergencies.

  339. It would be nice if researchers or writers said “fiscally conservative” when they mean “fiscally conservative”, but let that pass. Your wikipedia link says:

    Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt. Fiscal conservatives advocate the avoidance of deficit spending, the reduction of overall government spending and national debt whilst ensuring balanced budgets. In other words, fiscal conservatives are against the government expanding beyond its means through debt, but they will usually choose debt over tax increases.

    Is that last bit correct, in your view? Just curious.
    I’m also curious to know whether politicians who care about federal deficits and federal debt ONLY when the other party is in power (cough, Republicans, cough) count as “fiscal conservatives” in your terminology.
    FWIW, the wikipedia description makes no mention of investment by government. Government can’t invest without spending, of course, but I wonder whether “fiscal conservatives” ignore the distinction — unlike “economic conservatives” in ordinary life who don’t call it “spending” when they buy houses or stocks as a general thing.
    BTW, your (own?) definition of “Authoritarian” is remarkably ridiculous, unless you count the likes of Kim Jong-Un as “economically liberal”.
    –TP

  340. It would be nice if researchers or writers said “fiscally conservative” when they mean “fiscally conservative”, but let that pass. Your wikipedia link says:

    Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt. Fiscal conservatives advocate the avoidance of deficit spending, the reduction of overall government spending and national debt whilst ensuring balanced budgets. In other words, fiscal conservatives are against the government expanding beyond its means through debt, but they will usually choose debt over tax increases.

    Is that last bit correct, in your view? Just curious.
    I’m also curious to know whether politicians who care about federal deficits and federal debt ONLY when the other party is in power (cough, Republicans, cough) count as “fiscal conservatives” in your terminology.
    FWIW, the wikipedia description makes no mention of investment by government. Government can’t invest without spending, of course, but I wonder whether “fiscal conservatives” ignore the distinction — unlike “economic conservatives” in ordinary life who don’t call it “spending” when they buy houses or stocks as a general thing.
    BTW, your (own?) definition of “Authoritarian” is remarkably ridiculous, unless you count the likes of Kim Jong-Un as “economically liberal”.
    –TP

  341. Also WRT CharlesWT’s linked article…I share the general dissatisfaction that many academics express over Haidt’s “Viewpoint Diversity” (not to mention finding his “Moral Foundations Theory” a bit wrongheaded). I don’t think that political affiliation is the most productive measure for judging viewpoint diversity, especially in a particular academic discipline or research field. By that measure, for example, Judith Butler, Kathleen Lowrey, and Nancy Fraser are ideologically indistinguishable despite being a transexual rights activist, a gender critical feminist, and an anti-identity politics feminist respectively.
    Which is absurd.
    I really don’t get Haidt’s habit of binary thinking on this and so many other subjects.

  342. Also WRT CharlesWT’s linked article…I share the general dissatisfaction that many academics express over Haidt’s “Viewpoint Diversity” (not to mention finding his “Moral Foundations Theory” a bit wrongheaded). I don’t think that political affiliation is the most productive measure for judging viewpoint diversity, especially in a particular academic discipline or research field. By that measure, for example, Judith Butler, Kathleen Lowrey, and Nancy Fraser are ideologically indistinguishable despite being a transexual rights activist, a gender critical feminist, and an anti-identity politics feminist respectively.
    Which is absurd.
    I really don’t get Haidt’s habit of binary thinking on this and so many other subjects.

  343. Whereas libertarians, in my observation, not only oppose government spending but government doing anything — whether it costs money or not.
    Depends on the gradation of libertarian. Left/right, hard/soft, infinite variations.
    Examples:
    Anarcho-capitalism envisions society with a near complete absence of any formal government.
    Minarchism envisions government as necessary, but should be kept small and limited.
    And there’s Left-libertarianism which some concider an oxymoron.
    Best I’ve come up with is that anarchists like throwing bombs, whereas libertarians are merely not bothered by it.
    Most, if not all, flavors of libertarianism abide by, at least in principle, the non-aggression principle.
    Is that last bit correct, in your view? Just curious.
    Libertarians tend to prefer decreasing spending before decreasing taxes. But will take decreased taxes if that’s all that’s on offer.
    For decades Republicans seem to only give lip service to fiscal conservativism only when Democrats are in control of spending.
    From my point of view, calling government spending an investment is putting lipstick on a pig.
    An authoritarian wants control of all aspects of people’s lives. Economicanomic liberalism and social conservatism pretty much cover it.

  344. Whereas libertarians, in my observation, not only oppose government spending but government doing anything — whether it costs money or not.
    Depends on the gradation of libertarian. Left/right, hard/soft, infinite variations.
    Examples:
    Anarcho-capitalism envisions society with a near complete absence of any formal government.
    Minarchism envisions government as necessary, but should be kept small and limited.
    And there’s Left-libertarianism which some concider an oxymoron.
    Best I’ve come up with is that anarchists like throwing bombs, whereas libertarians are merely not bothered by it.
    Most, if not all, flavors of libertarianism abide by, at least in principle, the non-aggression principle.
    Is that last bit correct, in your view? Just curious.
    Libertarians tend to prefer decreasing spending before decreasing taxes. But will take decreased taxes if that’s all that’s on offer.
    For decades Republicans seem to only give lip service to fiscal conservativism only when Democrats are in control of spending.
    From my point of view, calling government spending an investment is putting lipstick on a pig.
    An authoritarian wants control of all aspects of people’s lives. Economicanomic liberalism and social conservatism pretty much cover it.

  347. I’ve mentioned this before, but I believe the initial germ of the current anti-vax movement is based on a logical notion. Autism (which we now realize is not a binary diagnosis but on a spectrum) was perceived to be increasing and many of the symptoms of autism seemed to synch with mercury poisoning, which was used in vaccinations (and fillings) and with increased diagnoses of autism spectrum conditions, the thought was that these vaccinations caused autism. This is the sort of observation that generates hypotheses that can be tested. However, when these were tested, they found that there was no link.
    But that created an audience for the argument that floats around and gloms on other hypotheses (cf 5g) It’s quite possible, in a market driven society, that things get rolled out that have an unforseen adverse impact, but you again get this fork. Pushing the market while deregulating is going to have those kinds of incidents increase, which then can be leveraged into gains at the ballot box.
    On a separate note
    Best I’ve come up with is that anarchists like throwing bombs,
    unfortunately, that’s an understanding of the term anarchist that was largely created by forces that oppose the ideas they had.
    https://allthetropes.fandom.com/wiki/Bomb-Throwing_Anarchists
    The “bomb-throwing” image of the anarchist was locked into the mindset of the public after the 1886 Haymarket Square riot in Chicago, where eight anarchists went on trial for a bomb that was thrown at a rally (not to say that these eight anarchists threw it, as some weren’t even at the rally and were rather targeted for being influential anarchist figures in Chicago). Most people had probably never paid much attention to one of the 19th century’s many radical social movements before, but the sensationalized spread of the incident left a negative impression in media for a long time.
    Needless to say, who threw the bomb is a question without a definitive answer
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
    There is room to discuss this,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
    Again, it’s just a throwaway line, but as a person who is concerned about how terms like Republican and conservative are viewed, you may want to be cautious in letting other people define the other terms you use.

  348. I’ve mentioned this before, but I believe the initial germ of the current anti-vax movement is based on a logical notion. Autism (which we now realize is not a binary diagnosis but on a spectrum) was perceived to be increasing and many of the symptoms of autism seemed to synch with mercury poisoning, which was used in vaccinations (and fillings) and with increased diagnoses of autism spectrum conditions, the thought was that these vaccinations caused autism. This is the sort of observation that generates hypotheses that can be tested. However, when these were tested, they found that there was no link.
    But that created an audience for the argument that floats around and gloms on other hypotheses (cf 5g) It’s quite possible, in a market driven society, that things get rolled out that have an unforseen adverse impact, but you again get this fork. Pushing the market while deregulating is going to have those kinds of incidents increase, which then can be leveraged into gains at the ballot box.
    On a separate note
    Best I’ve come up with is that anarchists like throwing bombs,
    unfortunately, that’s an understanding of the term anarchist that was largely created by forces that oppose the ideas they had.
    https://allthetropes.fandom.com/wiki/Bomb-Throwing_Anarchists
    The “bomb-throwing” image of the anarchist was locked into the mindset of the public after the 1886 Haymarket Square riot in Chicago, where eight anarchists went on trial for a bomb that was thrown at a rally (not to say that these eight anarchists threw it, as some weren’t even at the rally and were rather targeted for being influential anarchist figures in Chicago). Most people had probably never paid much attention to one of the 19th century’s many radical social movements before, but the sensationalized spread of the incident left a negative impression in media for a long time.
    Needless to say, who threw the bomb is a question without a definitive answer
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
    There is room to discuss this,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
    Again, it’s just a throwaway line, but as a person who is concerned about how terms like Republican and conservative are viewed, you may want to be cautious in letting other people define the other terms you use.

  349. From my point of view, calling government spending an investment is putting lipstick on a pig.
    You are wrong. Simply wrong.
    Government spending on say, transportation, has a significant return, which can easily justify the expenditure.
    Government spending on education is similar.
    Stimulus spending in a recession can also generate returns.
    As can many other expenditures.

  350. From my point of view, calling government spending an investment is putting lipstick on a pig.
    You are wrong. Simply wrong.
    Government spending on say, transportation, has a significant return, which can easily justify the expenditure.
    Government spending on education is similar.
    Stimulus spending in a recession can also generate returns.
    As can many other expenditures.

  351. Oh, but those things don’t turn a profit, at least not directly, so how can they be investments? (Hint for those who need it: Not all externalities are negative.)

  352. Oh, but those things don’t turn a profit, at least not directly, so how can they be investments? (Hint for those who need it: Not all externalities are negative.)

  353. All too often government spending is to buy votes or to appease influential special interests and donors. Regardless of whether there’s a net benefit to the spending or not.
    Municipalities continue to be extorted by billionaires with millionaire employees into paying for sports stadiums at taxpayers’ expense.
    California is trying to shoehorn a 19th-century technology with a 20th-century facade into a 21st-century environment in the form of high-speed rail from nowhere to nowhere. It could end up being abandon after billions of dollars are spent. That may be the best outcome. If it ever goes into service, it could be a yawning money pit for decades.
    The erstwhile customers of K-12 schools are getting their money’s worth this year. Their kids are at home going nuts while driving them nuts. Too many government schools come across as jobs programs that, unfortunately, have to deal with kids.

  354. All too often government spending is to buy votes or to appease influential special interests and donors. Regardless of whether there’s a net benefit to the spending or not.
    Municipalities continue to be extorted by billionaires with millionaire employees into paying for sports stadiums at taxpayers’ expense.
    California is trying to shoehorn a 19th-century technology with a 20th-century facade into a 21st-century environment in the form of high-speed rail from nowhere to nowhere. It could end up being abandon after billions of dollars are spent. That may be the best outcome. If it ever goes into service, it could be a yawning money pit for decades.
    The erstwhile customers of K-12 schools are getting their money’s worth this year. Their kids are at home going nuts while driving them nuts. Too many government schools come across as jobs programs that, unfortunately, have to deal with kids.

  355. as a person who is concerned about how terms like Republican and conservative are viewed, you may want to be cautious in letting other people define the other terms you use.
    Makes me glad I asked for correction, if I had misunderstood. (Admittedly, I asked the wrong group. But then, I don’t know that we have any anarchists here to educate me.)
    Still, if anarchists are not generally violent, then where’s the difference from libertarians? Is “libertarian” just a rebranding, when “anarchist” acquired negative connotations from more than just me?

  356. as a person who is concerned about how terms like Republican and conservative are viewed, you may want to be cautious in letting other people define the other terms you use.
    Makes me glad I asked for correction, if I had misunderstood. (Admittedly, I asked the wrong group. But then, I don’t know that we have any anarchists here to educate me.)
    Still, if anarchists are not generally violent, then where’s the difference from libertarians? Is “libertarian” just a rebranding, when “anarchist” acquired negative connotations from more than just me?

  357. but those things don’t turn a profit, at least not directly, so how can they be investments?
    They return a profit to the “beneficial owners”, if you will, of the government. Which is to say, the voters and taxpayers. The existance of an intermediary here doesn’t keep it from being an investment. Any more than a mutual fund as an intermediary makes it not an investment.

  358. but those things don’t turn a profit, at least not directly, so how can they be investments?
    They return a profit to the “beneficial owners”, if you will, of the government. Which is to say, the voters and taxpayers. The existance of an intermediary here doesn’t keep it from being an investment. Any more than a mutual fund as an intermediary makes it not an investment.

  359. I say put libertarianism to the test of history.
    Let’s enumerate all of the successful libertarian societies that have ever been known to exist. To keep it realistic and relevant to our current context, let’s confine the list to societies with populations greater than 5,000.
    Just to pull a number out of the air.
    Go!

  360. I say put libertarianism to the test of history.
    Let’s enumerate all of the successful libertarian societies that have ever been known to exist. To keep it realistic and relevant to our current context, let’s confine the list to societies with populations greater than 5,000.
    Just to pull a number out of the air.
    Go!

  361. Well, my (biased) reading is that libertarian is an attempt to try and leverage ‘liberty’ as an organizing principal in order to make naked capitalism a warm fuzzy term. I’ve only encountered it in relation to the US and I’ve never seen a libertarian cite Bakunin or Kropotkin, let alone support of labor. In fact, that connection with labor (and I acknowledge the fact that if something like anarchism ever comes back, it is going to have to deny any connection with the name, precisely because of the initial connection of ‘bomb-throwing’ with ‘anarchist’) is the reason I’m drawn to it. I’m not an anarchist, but I think the anti-capitalism aspect of anarchism is worth thinking about.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
    Chomsky also models himself as an anarchist. I’ve got issues with Chomsky, but I do think that anarchism has gotten a bad rap
    https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/what-happens-when-anarchists-run-a-country-history-has-an-answer
    Wikipedia, in its entry on libertarianism, has this quote
    Many of us call ourselves “liberals.” And it is true that the word “liberal” once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word “libertarian.”
    which clearly indicated how the word was taken over and was a rebranding of liberalism rather than of anarchism.

  362. Well, my (biased) reading is that libertarian is an attempt to try and leverage ‘liberty’ as an organizing principal in order to make naked capitalism a warm fuzzy term. I’ve only encountered it in relation to the US and I’ve never seen a libertarian cite Bakunin or Kropotkin, let alone support of labor. In fact, that connection with labor (and I acknowledge the fact that if something like anarchism ever comes back, it is going to have to deny any connection with the name, precisely because of the initial connection of ‘bomb-throwing’ with ‘anarchist’) is the reason I’m drawn to it. I’m not an anarchist, but I think the anti-capitalism aspect of anarchism is worth thinking about.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
    Chomsky also models himself as an anarchist. I’ve got issues with Chomsky, but I do think that anarchism has gotten a bad rap
    https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/what-happens-when-anarchists-run-a-country-history-has-an-answer
    Wikipedia, in its entry on libertarianism, has this quote
    Many of us call ourselves “liberals.” And it is true that the word “liberal” once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word “libertarian.”
    which clearly indicated how the word was taken over and was a rebranding of liberalism rather than of anarchism.

  363. Just to pull a number out of the air.
    No government like the US constitutional government had ever existed until it did.

  364. Just to pull a number out of the air.
    No government like the US constitutional government had ever existed until it did.

  365. ‘Like’ is doing a lot of work there, Charles.
    Exactly like? Mostly like? We didn’t borrow anything from any prior art?

  366. ‘Like’ is doing a lot of work there, Charles.
    Exactly like? Mostly like? We didn’t borrow anything from any prior art?

  367. I’d actually say that most anarchists have a greater sense of community than most libertarians. Anarchists do very much believe in collective action and in organization; they just don’t believe in hierarchy.
    And while the US was an early example of a representative constitutional government, there is a reason why not many countries built on the US model have lasted and why US political scientists have not used the US model when rebuilding Germany, Japan, and Iraq. It’s not a very good model either for promoting consensus rule or for representing a wide range of political views.

  368. I’d actually say that most anarchists have a greater sense of community than most libertarians. Anarchists do very much believe in collective action and in organization; they just don’t believe in hierarchy.
    And while the US was an early example of a representative constitutional government, there is a reason why not many countries built on the US model have lasted and why US political scientists have not used the US model when rebuilding Germany, Japan, and Iraq. It’s not a very good model either for promoting consensus rule or for representing a wide range of political views.

  369. I’d say these days the ‘Right’ is more anti-science in those circles that count (i.e. those in positions of power) than the ‘Left’, while the latter has it more on the individual level. But those in power try to spread it to the individual for their own purposes.
    I also see a disctinction what science is actually opposed. Personally, I see a lot of/in ‘social sciences’ that seems rather questionable to me, so I would question that stuff to be actual science or at least failing as far as objective standards go. I also have my doubts about certain areas of theoretical physics, in particular those parts that can almost by definition not be put to an external test but only to ones of inner consistency (that is akin to theology in my opinion).
    Anti-science seems to be highly selective as far as left and right go (but imo the authoritarian Left has more in common with the Right in general on that). I.e., the target of the ‘anti’ is often quite different. But a general aversion to the idea of science itself is (again: these days) to be found more on the Right than the Left. On the other hand people on the left seem to be more inclinced to accept stuff as ‘scientific’ that does not actually meet the criteria.
    Religion is in a category of its own. There we find both an absolutist anti science stand and as well one of ‘we agree with that science that bows down to our dogmas first’. The majority of religious people (at least in the 1st world) keep those spheres apart in their personal life. They do not seek scientific proof for their beliefs nor do they see science as a fundamental threat to those.
    Nothing new there btw. At least as far back as late antiquity we find that dispute. Some theologians opposed anything any pagan had ever taught because as a pagan that person simply had to be wrong (imo there were exactly two that wanted to make the question of a spherical earth a litmus test, so that part was definitely not mainstream), others tried to beat the pagans with their own weapons (i.e,: the science is correct but it supports OUR positions not yours). But up to the rise of scholastic theology the mainsteam clearly was: Religion and science are non-overlapping spheres. It would be absurd (if not outright blasphemous) to try to proof the truth in religion by (non-religious) scientific means (and to a more limited degree vice versa).

  370. I’d say these days the ‘Right’ is more anti-science in those circles that count (i.e. those in positions of power) than the ‘Left’, while the latter has it more on the individual level. But those in power try to spread it to the individual for their own purposes.
    I also see a disctinction what science is actually opposed. Personally, I see a lot of/in ‘social sciences’ that seems rather questionable to me, so I would question that stuff to be actual science or at least failing as far as objective standards go. I also have my doubts about certain areas of theoretical physics, in particular those parts that can almost by definition not be put to an external test but only to ones of inner consistency (that is akin to theology in my opinion).
    Anti-science seems to be highly selective as far as left and right go (but imo the authoritarian Left has more in common with the Right in general on that). I.e., the target of the ‘anti’ is often quite different. But a general aversion to the idea of science itself is (again: these days) to be found more on the Right than the Left. On the other hand people on the left seem to be more inclinced to accept stuff as ‘scientific’ that does not actually meet the criteria.
    Religion is in a category of its own. There we find both an absolutist anti science stand and as well one of ‘we agree with that science that bows down to our dogmas first’. The majority of religious people (at least in the 1st world) keep those spheres apart in their personal life. They do not seek scientific proof for their beliefs nor do they see science as a fundamental threat to those.
    Nothing new there btw. At least as far back as late antiquity we find that dispute. Some theologians opposed anything any pagan had ever taught because as a pagan that person simply had to be wrong (imo there were exactly two that wanted to make the question of a spherical earth a litmus test, so that part was definitely not mainstream), others tried to beat the pagans with their own weapons (i.e,: the science is correct but it supports OUR positions not yours). But up to the rise of scholastic theology the mainsteam clearly was: Religion and science are non-overlapping spheres. It would be absurd (if not outright blasphemous) to try to proof the truth in religion by (non-religious) scientific means (and to a more limited degree vice versa).

  371. What I have not commented on is of course the anti-science out of convenience or ulterior motives. There are some genuine idiots in Congress who actually believe the absurdities they claim, while others clearly don’t but get paid to claim that they believe the stuff. And of course the cynical opportunists that tell everyone what they believe the other side wants to hear that very moment (and will change their tune in an instant, if that suits them).

  372. What I have not commented on is of course the anti-science out of convenience or ulterior motives. There are some genuine idiots in Congress who actually believe the absurdities they claim, while others clearly don’t but get paid to claim that they believe the stuff. And of course the cynical opportunists that tell everyone what they believe the other side wants to hear that very moment (and will change their tune in an instant, if that suits them).

  373. All too often government spending is to buy votes or to appease influential special interests and donors. Regardless of whether there’s a net benefit to the spending or not.
    Some government spending is wasteful.
    Some corporate spending is wasteful. Ever worked for a big company?

  374. All too often government spending is to buy votes or to appease influential special interests and donors. Regardless of whether there’s a net benefit to the spending or not.
    Some government spending is wasteful.
    Some corporate spending is wasteful. Ever worked for a big company?

  375. the government spends money on what the people want, and it’s “buying votes”.
    the government spends money on what the people don’t want, and that’s “wasteful”.
    i get the feeling what people really want is for the government to not spend money at all.

  376. the government spends money on what the people want, and it’s “buying votes”.
    the government spends money on what the people don’t want, and that’s “wasteful”.
    i get the feeling what people really want is for the government to not spend money at all.

  377. Still, if anarchists are not generally violent, then where’s the difference from libertarians?
    Well, um, there is this thing about the abolition of the capitalist system. I don’t know about you, but I should think that would be a major difference.
    This old anarcho-syndicalist (IWW) came across a good essay on the roots of the divide separating Marx and Bakunin. It’s the kind of intellectual history I used to lap up in my youth….offered for (some of you) your reading pleasure.

  378. Still, if anarchists are not generally violent, then where’s the difference from libertarians?
    Well, um, there is this thing about the abolition of the capitalist system. I don’t know about you, but I should think that would be a major difference.
    This old anarcho-syndicalist (IWW) came across a good essay on the roots of the divide separating Marx and Bakunin. It’s the kind of intellectual history I used to lap up in my youth….offered for (some of you) your reading pleasure.

  381. This old anarcho-syndicalist (IWW)
    yay, Wobblies!!
    and Happy New Year to everyone, if you have Netflix, check out Death to 2020.

  382. This old anarcho-syndicalist (IWW)
    yay, Wobblies!!
    and Happy New Year to everyone, if you have Netflix, check out Death to 2020.

  383. Here is an example of scientific theorizing which is borderline untestable—
    https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
    Koonin is a very highly respected biologist and he also has papers proposing more conventional origin of life scenarios, but in this one he takes the problem at face value— there is a huge gap between the simplest bacterium and the building blocks of life and it is possible that the various scenarios people have proposed to bridge that gap won’t work. In that case you could invoke God, which he doesn’t want to do, or you could say that the universe is infinite and anything that can happen will happen somewhere. Along those same lines you could also argue, as some have, that in an infinite universe there will be an infinite number of planets like earth, some with the exact same people on it doing the same things or slightly different things. I think you might run into problems with the different infinities that mathematicians have proposed. I would guess the number of earths is equal to the number of integers, but I am not sure if the number of possible histories would be a bigger infinity or not. This last part is me wondering about it— the rest is all stuff I have read.
    Anyway, Koonin’s idea seems untestable to me. There is observable cosmology and aspects of cosmological theory that can be tested, but once you go outside what we could observe, at least in principle, it is philosophy and not science.

  384. Here is an example of scientific theorizing which is borderline untestable—
    https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
    Koonin is a very highly respected biologist and he also has papers proposing more conventional origin of life scenarios, but in this one he takes the problem at face value— there is a huge gap between the simplest bacterium and the building blocks of life and it is possible that the various scenarios people have proposed to bridge that gap won’t work. In that case you could invoke God, which he doesn’t want to do, or you could say that the universe is infinite and anything that can happen will happen somewhere. Along those same lines you could also argue, as some have, that in an infinite universe there will be an infinite number of planets like earth, some with the exact same people on it doing the same things or slightly different things. I think you might run into problems with the different infinities that mathematicians have proposed. I would guess the number of earths is equal to the number of integers, but I am not sure if the number of possible histories would be a bigger infinity or not. This last part is me wondering about it— the rest is all stuff I have read.
    Anyway, Koonin’s idea seems untestable to me. There is observable cosmology and aspects of cosmological theory that can be tested, but once you go outside what we could observe, at least in principle, it is philosophy and not science.

  387. From a science fiction POV I don’t like the idea that life is extremely improbable, but it might explain why in so much science fiction people can eat alien food. Life started somewhere in the galaxy and via deliberate panspermia it is all through our galaxy and we all have essentially the same biochemistry. Via convergent evolution we intelligent species also often have a similar vaguely humanoid form
    I can’t explain the human- Vulcan mating, however. As someone pointed out, you should have a better chance mating an oak tree.

  388. From a science fiction POV I don’t like the idea that life is extremely improbable, but it might explain why in so much science fiction people can eat alien food. Life started somewhere in the galaxy and via deliberate panspermia it is all through our galaxy and we all have essentially the same biochemistry. Via convergent evolution we intelligent species also often have a similar vaguely humanoid form
    I can’t explain the human- Vulcan mating, however. As someone pointed out, you should have a better chance mating an oak tree.

  389. I can’t explain the human- Vulcan mating, however.
    according to Darwin, it all comes down to limited production budgets and wanting to be able to tell stories that don’t make the audience cringe too much.

  390. I can’t explain the human- Vulcan mating, however.
    according to Darwin, it all comes down to limited production budgets and wanting to be able to tell stories that don’t make the audience cringe too much.

  391. there is a huge gap between the simplest bacterium and the building blocks of life and it is possible that the various scenarios people have proposed to bridge that gap won’t work
    my feeling is that this is one thing we’re not going to have a definitive answer to this for a very long time because nothing involved in the creation of cellular life was preserved in a way that people can detect it – no visible fossils, no big structures we can detect.
    someday, though, we’re going to have the technology to examine ancient rocks and detect the physical and chemical traces that will fill in that gap.
    and then people will find a different place to put God.

  392. there is a huge gap between the simplest bacterium and the building blocks of life and it is possible that the various scenarios people have proposed to bridge that gap won’t work
    my feeling is that this is one thing we’re not going to have a definitive answer to this for a very long time because nothing involved in the creation of cellular life was preserved in a way that people can detect it – no visible fossils, no big structures we can detect.
    someday, though, we’re going to have the technology to examine ancient rocks and detect the physical and chemical traces that will fill in that gap.
    and then people will find a different place to put God.

  393. Talking of barely human lifeforms, who thinks it’s possible that Trump’s sudden “unscheduled” departure from Florida might be because a significant number of the usual Mar a Lago new year’s eve party attendees (or rats) may be deserting the sinking ship? I know our minds should be on higher things, but I have to admit that that which gives him pain gives me pleasure to contemplate. My new year’s resolution is to be a better person.

  394. Talking of barely human lifeforms, who thinks it’s possible that Trump’s sudden “unscheduled” departure from Florida might be because a significant number of the usual Mar a Lago new year’s eve party attendees (or rats) may be deserting the sinking ship? I know our minds should be on higher things, but I have to admit that that which gives him pain gives me pleasure to contemplate. My new year’s resolution is to be a better person.

  395. “This last part is me wondering about it— the rest is all stuff I have read.”
    As Harold Bloom (forgive me, Gary Farber) said about knight errant Don Quixote, the latter was “crazed by his reading” the tales of chivalry, and thus off to tilting at windmills and taking a sword to puppet shows.
    “I can’t explain the human.”
    Shakespeare came closest, perhaps.
    Science explains and what it can’t, myth and religion rush in like fools to penetrate the mysteries profound.
    Walker Percy, a Catholic convert (not to be confused with assholes like Buchanan/Barr/etc) but trained as a doctor/scientist, later turning his attention to the existential palpation of the human condition, mused about the astronaut who, by the work of exquisite human science, can be transported physically to a precise spot on the Moon, and back home, but whom, upon returning, find themselves later reclined in a lawn chair in his yard on any old Tuesday afternoon, one arm lazily hanging over the side within reach of his third drink, bereft and fruitlessly trying to locate him …. self in the univemultiverse.
    Russell can add requisite references.
    I worked for a group of weather scientists years ago who were trying to work out the physical mysteries of clouds and precipitation and their scientific conferences were academies of rigorous, at times rancorous, vituperation designed to get at fact/truth and even upon apprehending said facts and repeating by experimentation, NONE of them held what they reached as anything but provisional …. a form of knowing, for now, until further evidence.
    Some of them, I’m sure, attended church of one denomination or another. They did not raise their hands (like Benjamin Braddock in “The Graduate”), in the middle of the proceedings and “yeah, but ..” the unprovable, untestable proclamations set forth in those settings, and every few minutes prayed over, did they?
    Two ways of “knowing”, of “apprehending” existence not completely exclusive (is rainfall during a late afternoon rain shower on a Spring day any less miraculous because a scientist explained exactly how water vapor coalesces around a nuclei, as opposed to some Pope’s assertion and being sent to the rack because of expressed doubt regarding the assertion) but given the human condition, we’re stuck with both until further notice.
    Do Thomas Aquinas, (I haven’t read him yet) set out proofs of God’s …. whatever?
    Pascal, I think, took the realistic path. Place your bets.
    By the way, the scientists I worked with, despite their firmly held opinions, never came to blows, like Catholics and Protestants, Hindus and Muslims do over their ways of apprehending the mysteries, and I and some Falwell-type of get will as well someday when he has the unfortunate experience of meeting me.
    My late father-in-law was a professed atheist but if he hit his thumb with a hammer, he would lift his eyes to the sky, red faced, and tell God, between curses, what he was going to do to HIM the next time they met.
    To me, it was all part of “Well, whaddaya gonna do?”
    But I’m an agnostic regarding these questions.
    Here’s a case study in Libertarian Christian opinion and the reality principle of science:
    https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_87489d82-4a47-11eb-9583-f3e4fa6891c1.html
    Had he lived, he would have done well to stay the fuck away from me, including any attempt to govern me.
    ” ….you should have a better chance mating an oak tree.”
    On some days, I wish I was a tree. An elm, or a Japanese maple.

  396. “This last part is me wondering about it— the rest is all stuff I have read.”
    As Harold Bloom (forgive me, Gary Farber) said about knight errant Don Quixote, the latter was “crazed by his reading” the tales of chivalry, and thus off to tilting at windmills and taking a sword to puppet shows.
    “I can’t explain the human.”
    Shakespeare came closest, perhaps.
    Science explains and what it can’t, myth and religion rush in like fools to penetrate the mysteries profound.
    Walker Percy, a Catholic convert (not to be confused with assholes like Buchanan/Barr/etc) but trained as a doctor/scientist, later turning his attention to the existential palpation of the human condition, mused about the astronaut who, by the work of exquisite human science, can be transported physically to a precise spot on the Moon, and back home, but whom, upon returning, find themselves later reclined in a lawn chair in his yard on any old Tuesday afternoon, one arm lazily hanging over the side within reach of his third drink, bereft and fruitlessly trying to locate him …. self in the univemultiverse.
    Russell can add requisite references.
    I worked for a group of weather scientists years ago who were trying to work out the physical mysteries of clouds and precipitation and their scientific conferences were academies of rigorous, at times rancorous, vituperation designed to get at fact/truth and even upon apprehending said facts and repeating by experimentation, NONE of them held what they reached as anything but provisional …. a form of knowing, for now, until further evidence.
    Some of them, I’m sure, attended church of one denomination or another. They did not raise their hands (like Benjamin Braddock in “The Graduate”), in the middle of the proceedings and “yeah, but ..” the unprovable, untestable proclamations set forth in those settings, and every few minutes prayed over, did they?
    Two ways of “knowing”, of “apprehending” existence not completely exclusive (is rainfall during a late afternoon rain shower on a Spring day any less miraculous because a scientist explained exactly how water vapor coalesces around a nuclei, as opposed to some Pope’s assertion and being sent to the rack because of expressed doubt regarding the assertion) but given the human condition, we’re stuck with both until further notice.
    Do Thomas Aquinas, (I haven’t read him yet) set out proofs of God’s …. whatever?
    Pascal, I think, took the realistic path. Place your bets.
    By the way, the scientists I worked with, despite their firmly held opinions, never came to blows, like Catholics and Protestants, Hindus and Muslims do over their ways of apprehending the mysteries, and I and some Falwell-type of get will as well someday when he has the unfortunate experience of meeting me.
    My late father-in-law was a professed atheist but if he hit his thumb with a hammer, he would lift his eyes to the sky, red faced, and tell God, between curses, what he was going to do to HIM the next time they met.
    To me, it was all part of “Well, whaddaya gonna do?”
    But I’m an agnostic regarding these questions.
    Here’s a case study in Libertarian Christian opinion and the reality principle of science:
    https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_87489d82-4a47-11eb-9583-f3e4fa6891c1.html
    Had he lived, he would have done well to stay the fuck away from me, including any attempt to govern me.
    ” ….you should have a better chance mating an oak tree.”
    On some days, I wish I was a tree. An elm, or a Japanese maple.

  397. What I find interesting about origin-of-life theories is that they all seems to start with Earth as the default/baseline. But life on Earth has had a calamitous, tragedy-strewn history: five major extinctions, with at least one coming perilously close to extinguishing all life on the planet.
    What if life developed on other planets without the same history of extinctions?
    One can posit that the first extinction, where Earth traded its methane atmosphere for an oxygenated one, made it possible for more complex lifeforms to exist at all. I’m not a scientist, but my understanding is that methane is a limiting factor for species development in terms of how much energy a methane-breathing species has to work with.
    But the extinctions that came afterward – due to tectonic shifts leading to climate change; or the gaudy effects of meteors and asteroids hitting the planet – are in no way “default” or “inevitable.”
    Planets with fewer or smaller landmasses wouldn’t see such dramatic climate changes when/if the landmasses moved around.
    The lack of an asteroid or meteor could mean another planet’s then-dominant Order continued to evolve rather than getting wiped out almost entirely.
    If non-avian dinosaurs hadn’t been wiped out by an asteroid, would they have become sapient at some point?
    If sea-dwelling species hadn’t had competition from land-dwelling species – hadn’t been hunted by them, for example – would something like cetaceans or cephalopods have become the planet’s dominant sentient species?
    I often wonder if SETI and similar searches for extraterrestrial intelligent life have yet to find anything simply because… sentient/sapient life elsewhere may not have had the Asteroid Interregnum, which had put Earth’s evolutionary clock on “pause” for 75-odd million years.
    If all sentient/sapient species on all worlds are fated to be like humans, consuming and destroying everything around them, maybe they all hit their final extinction millions of years ago.
    And if they did take a different route than humans, maybe they never developed the level of industrialization needed to get into space – maybe they never developed industrialization at all, or even concentrated urbanization – and therefore wouldn’t know what SETI or Voyager or any of our calling cards even are.

  398. What I find interesting about origin-of-life theories is that they all seems to start with Earth as the default/baseline. But life on Earth has had a calamitous, tragedy-strewn history: five major extinctions, with at least one coming perilously close to extinguishing all life on the planet.
    What if life developed on other planets without the same history of extinctions?
    One can posit that the first extinction, where Earth traded its methane atmosphere for an oxygenated one, made it possible for more complex lifeforms to exist at all. I’m not a scientist, but my understanding is that methane is a limiting factor for species development in terms of how much energy a methane-breathing species has to work with.
    But the extinctions that came afterward – due to tectonic shifts leading to climate change; or the gaudy effects of meteors and asteroids hitting the planet – are in no way “default” or “inevitable.”
    Planets with fewer or smaller landmasses wouldn’t see such dramatic climate changes when/if the landmasses moved around.
    The lack of an asteroid or meteor could mean another planet’s then-dominant Order continued to evolve rather than getting wiped out almost entirely.
    If non-avian dinosaurs hadn’t been wiped out by an asteroid, would they have become sapient at some point?
    If sea-dwelling species hadn’t had competition from land-dwelling species – hadn’t been hunted by them, for example – would something like cetaceans or cephalopods have become the planet’s dominant sentient species?
    I often wonder if SETI and similar searches for extraterrestrial intelligent life have yet to find anything simply because… sentient/sapient life elsewhere may not have had the Asteroid Interregnum, which had put Earth’s evolutionary clock on “pause” for 75-odd million years.
    If all sentient/sapient species on all worlds are fated to be like humans, consuming and destroying everything around them, maybe they all hit their final extinction millions of years ago.
    And if they did take a different route than humans, maybe they never developed the level of industrialization needed to get into space – maybe they never developed industrialization at all, or even concentrated urbanization – and therefore wouldn’t know what SETI or Voyager or any of our calling cards even are.

  399. There is observable cosmology and aspects of cosmological theory that can be tested, but once you go outside what we could observe, at least in principle, it is philosophy and not science.
    I find this more reasonable than the comparison to religion because there isn’t faith or certainty in the more speculative or hypothetical outer edges of science. (How certain are you about this, good scientist? Not very, or even much at all, but it’s the best we’ve got for now. )

  400. There is observable cosmology and aspects of cosmological theory that can be tested, but once you go outside what we could observe, at least in principle, it is philosophy and not science.
    I find this more reasonable than the comparison to religion because there isn’t faith or certainty in the more speculative or hypothetical outer edges of science. (How certain are you about this, good scientist? Not very, or even much at all, but it’s the best we’ve got for now. )

  401. Koonin’s idea seems untestable to me.
    Wouldn’t a test be filling in the gap between non-living organic compounds and something that is inarguably alive?
    there is a huge gap between the simplest bacterium and the building blocks of life
    For starters, right in the middle of that gap are viruses. Nothing like a bacterium’s cell wall. But they clearly reproduce themselves, and evolve over time to be more successful at doing so.
    I’m not a biologist (are a biochemist), so there may be more stuff in the gaps as well. For example, I have a vague recollection of teading something on work on the problem of the cell wall and when/how it arose. And there may well be more….

  402. Koonin’s idea seems untestable to me.
    Wouldn’t a test be filling in the gap between non-living organic compounds and something that is inarguably alive?
    there is a huge gap between the simplest bacterium and the building blocks of life
    For starters, right in the middle of that gap are viruses. Nothing like a bacterium’s cell wall. But they clearly reproduce themselves, and evolve over time to be more successful at doing so.
    I’m not a biologist (are a biochemist), so there may be more stuff in the gaps as well. For example, I have a vague recollection of teading something on work on the problem of the cell wall and when/how it arose. And there may well be more….

  403. One problem is that, even if we achieve abiogenesis in the lab, this would not be a proof that life originated that exact way since there are different proposals (and more than one way could be successful). The proof would just be that life CAN arise from non-life.
    Not that that would be nothing.

  404. One problem is that, even if we achieve abiogenesis in the lab, this would not be a proof that life originated that exact way since there are different proposals (and more than one way could be successful). The proof would just be that life CAN arise from non-life.
    Not that that would be nothing.

  405. wj – It’s long seemed to me that the evolutionary “purpose” of viruses is to transfer genetic material from one species to another. They’re essentially just globs of genetic material looking for a place to call home.

  406. wj – It’s long seemed to me that the evolutionary “purpose” of viruses is to transfer genetic material from one species to another. They’re essentially just globs of genetic material looking for a place to call home.

  407. Most abiogenesis ideas are testable, at least in principle, The claim that Koonin was making in the paper I linked is that abiogenesis is so unlikely that we need to invoke the idea that the universe is infinite to understand how it could have happened.
    And viruses don’t count. They are parasites that hijack the cellular machinery of much more complex organisms in order to replicate.

  408. Most abiogenesis ideas are testable, at least in principle, The claim that Koonin was making in the paper I linked is that abiogenesis is so unlikely that we need to invoke the idea that the universe is infinite to understand how it could have happened.
    And viruses don’t count. They are parasites that hijack the cellular machinery of much more complex organisms in order to replicate.

  409. “ The claim that Koonin was making in the paper I linked is that abiogenesis is so unlikely that we need to invoke the idea that the universe is infinite to understand how it could have happened.”
    I should finish my thought— if you have to invoke the idea that an infinite universe ( plus the observational self selection effect) explains the origin of life, then you are doing philosophy and not science. You might be right, but it is unsatisfying.
    Other theories about abiogenesis involve notions like self replicating RNA or clay minerals replicating or metabolic networks or whatever and it is possible that someday someone will produce one of these things in a lab.

  410. “ The claim that Koonin was making in the paper I linked is that abiogenesis is so unlikely that we need to invoke the idea that the universe is infinite to understand how it could have happened.”
    I should finish my thought— if you have to invoke the idea that an infinite universe ( plus the observational self selection effect) explains the origin of life, then you are doing philosophy and not science. You might be right, but it is unsatisfying.
    Other theories about abiogenesis involve notions like self replicating RNA or clay minerals replicating or metabolic networks or whatever and it is possible that someday someone will produce one of these things in a lab.

  411. Oh, you could disprove Koonin by finding a life form with a different biochemistry. If we find bacteria on Mars it wouldn’t necessarily disprove Koonin unless you could show it originated there independently of Earth life. But bacterial spores are tough and panspermia vis asteroid impact is possible within the solar system.

  412. Oh, you could disprove Koonin by finding a life form with a different biochemistry. If we find bacteria on Mars it wouldn’t necessarily disprove Koonin unless you could show it originated there independently of Earth life. But bacterial spores are tough and panspermia vis asteroid impact is possible within the solar system.

  413. Donald, there is a strong possibility of life on Europa and Titan. Both moons have liquid water oceans, and use heat generated by proximity to their gas giant planet in place of photosynthesis.
    Current theories strongly suggest multicellular life there similar to life on Earth in the abyssal sea, down by the heat vents.
    But we don’t know for sure till we go there; or, rather, send a Curiosity/Rover type robot there to take pictures and samples.

  414. Donald, there is a strong possibility of life on Europa and Titan. Both moons have liquid water oceans, and use heat generated by proximity to their gas giant planet in place of photosynthesis.
    Current theories strongly suggest multicellular life there similar to life on Earth in the abyssal sea, down by the heat vents.
    But we don’t know for sure till we go there; or, rather, send a Curiosity/Rover type robot there to take pictures and samples.

  415. Do Thomas Aquinas, (I haven’t read him yet) set out proofs of God’s …. whatever?
    I intensely disliked the guy even before I read him (in the original). And that (reading him) did not actually improve my opinion. Not just a misogynist and a ‘burn those that disagree with my theology’ guy but also a bore and waster of good parchment and ink. There are numerous authors of his era that are far more delectable to read (and more likable as persons too).

  416. Do Thomas Aquinas, (I haven’t read him yet) set out proofs of God’s …. whatever?
    I intensely disliked the guy even before I read him (in the original). And that (reading him) did not actually improve my opinion. Not just a misogynist and a ‘burn those that disagree with my theology’ guy but also a bore and waster of good parchment and ink. There are numerous authors of his era that are far more delectable to read (and more likable as persons too).

  417. Some recent speculation.
    “Chemists have made a discovery that supports a surprising new view of how life originated on our planet. They demonstrated that a simple compound called diamidophosphate (DAP), which was plausibly present on Earth before life arose, could have chemically knitted together tiny DNA building blocks called deoxynucleosides into strands of primordial DNA.”
    Discovery boosts theory that life on Earth arose from RNA-DNA mix: Newly described chemical reaction could have assembled DNA building blocks before life forms and their enzymes existed

  418. Some recent speculation.
    “Chemists have made a discovery that supports a surprising new view of how life originated on our planet. They demonstrated that a simple compound called diamidophosphate (DAP), which was plausibly present on Earth before life arose, could have chemically knitted together tiny DNA building blocks called deoxynucleosides into strands of primordial DNA.”
    Discovery boosts theory that life on Earth arose from RNA-DNA mix: Newly described chemical reaction could have assembled DNA building blocks before life forms and their enzymes existed

  419. Based on one data point (Earth), unicellular life appeared very quickly after it was possible for them to survive.
    Multicellular life took MUCH longer. Maybe 10Myr to get a bacterium, 4Gyr to get a jellyfish.
    So I expect the universe to be filled with bacterial slime, with a few notable exceptions.
    I guess we shouldn’t be surprised; I’ve heard that there are more bacterial cells in our gut/skin/etc than in our ‘body’ (not even counting the mitochondria), so bacteria still rule our world.
    You want an “improbable creation story”? Take a look at the amazing coincidence of energy levels that allows stars to produce carbon.

  420. Based on one data point (Earth), unicellular life appeared very quickly after it was possible for them to survive.
    Multicellular life took MUCH longer. Maybe 10Myr to get a bacterium, 4Gyr to get a jellyfish.
    So I expect the universe to be filled with bacterial slime, with a few notable exceptions.
    I guess we shouldn’t be surprised; I’ve heard that there are more bacterial cells in our gut/skin/etc than in our ‘body’ (not even counting the mitochondria), so bacteria still rule our world.
    You want an “improbable creation story”? Take a look at the amazing coincidence of energy levels that allows stars to produce carbon.

  421. viruses don’t count. They are parasites that hijack the cellular machinery of much more complex organisms in order to replicate.
    That’s how they replicate now. But did they always?
    Put another way, did something that complex devolve (if you will) from something with a cell wall? Or develop spontaneously, once there were cells to hijack? Or what? (As I said, I’m not a biologist.)

  422. viruses don’t count. They are parasites that hijack the cellular machinery of much more complex organisms in order to replicate.
    That’s how they replicate now. But did they always?
    Put another way, did something that complex devolve (if you will) from something with a cell wall? Or develop spontaneously, once there were cells to hijack? Or what? (As I said, I’m not a biologist.)

  423. since a virus can’t reproduce outside of a host cell, seems like viruses (as we know them now) would have to come after true cells. of course it’s possible that virus-like things that could reproduce died out once mobile, hungry bacteria evolved to eat them.

  424. since a virus can’t reproduce outside of a host cell, seems like viruses (as we know them now) would have to come after true cells. of course it’s possible that virus-like things that could reproduce died out once mobile, hungry bacteria evolved to eat them.

  427. We’re going to bomb Iran.
    Happy yet another fucked-up year brought to you by subhuman monsters and killers and we know their names.
    Can we fit a nuclear war in between now and the utterly hobbled new President’s Inauguration, not privy to the military movements?

  428. We’re going to bomb Iran.
    Happy yet another fucked-up year brought to you by subhuman monsters and killers and we know their names.
    Can we fit a nuclear war in between now and the utterly hobbled new President’s Inauguration, not privy to the military movements?

  431. They’re essentially just globs of genetic material looking for a place to call home.
    Aren’t we all?

  432. They’re essentially just globs of genetic material looking for a place to call home.
    Aren’t we all?

  433. lj, if you’re asking whether I consider humans to be a virus…. actually, at times, I do. Virus, invasive species, non-native species, etc.
    Sometimes I toy with the idea that Yaweh, however much It lied about everything else, might have been truthful about humanity springing up by an act of Its will. Because there is no way we act like we’re part of a planetary ecosystem.

  434. lj, if you’re asking whether I consider humans to be a virus…. actually, at times, I do. Virus, invasive species, non-native species, etc.
    Sometimes I toy with the idea that Yaweh, however much It lied about everything else, might have been truthful about humanity springing up by an act of Its will. Because there is no way we act like we’re part of a planetary ecosystem.

  435. Wj—
    Cleek already said this, but viruses aren’t relevant as an example of an intermediate stage between life and non life because they utilize the cellular machinery of more complex organisms in order to replicate.
    I’d suggest reading the link if you are interested. I am not a biochemist either, but the logic of his argument is easy to follow.
    https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
    Koonin isn’t certain of this. He is just suggesting that the simplest known life forms are rather complex and it might be the case that the simplest possible organisms capable of reproduction have to be fairly complicated. If that is so then most origin of life research is wrong and his theory is that maybe the origin of life is extremely unlikely and only happens because the universe might be infinite and so it happens by sheer accident in extremely widely scattered places.
    If we do find organisms on Mars or one of the more promising moons of Jupiter or Saturn mentioned by CaseyL and if those life forms can be shown not to have a common ancestor with earth life, then Koonin’s pessimism would be refuted.
    On a different note, Dreher and some of his fans think Franco was an effective opponent of the left. One way to look at it, I guess.
    I forgot the link, but it is his latest TAC piece.

  436. Wj—
    Cleek already said this, but viruses aren’t relevant as an example of an intermediate stage between life and non life because they utilize the cellular machinery of more complex organisms in order to replicate.
    I’d suggest reading the link if you are interested. I am not a biochemist either, but the logic of his argument is easy to follow.
    https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
    Koonin isn’t certain of this. He is just suggesting that the simplest known life forms are rather complex and it might be the case that the simplest possible organisms capable of reproduction have to be fairly complicated. If that is so then most origin of life research is wrong and his theory is that maybe the origin of life is extremely unlikely and only happens because the universe might be infinite and so it happens by sheer accident in extremely widely scattered places.
    If we do find organisms on Mars or one of the more promising moons of Jupiter or Saturn mentioned by CaseyL and if those life forms can be shown not to have a common ancestor with earth life, then Koonin’s pessimism would be refuted.
    On a different note, Dreher and some of his fans think Franco was an effective opponent of the left. One way to look at it, I guess.
    I forgot the link, but it is his latest TAC piece.

  441. Franco was an effective opponent of the left
    Long ago when the ground was still soft I had a back and forth with some folks on RedState about Pinochet. Not a nice guy, all agreed, but he got the job done.
    Fascist nostalgia has an audience.

  442. Franco was an effective opponent of the left
    Long ago when the ground was still soft I had a back and forth with some folks on RedState about Pinochet. Not a nice guy, all agreed, but he got the job done.
    Fascist nostalgia has an audience.

  443. Koonin isn’t certain of this. He is just suggesting that the simplest known life forms are rather complex and it might be the case that the simplest possible organisms capable of reproduction have to be fairly complicated.
    we have examples of self-replicating molecules not related to DNA.
    https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/self-replicating-molecules-show-signs-of-metabolism-for-the-first-time/4012152.article
    and we have examples of self-replicating nucleic acid soups:
    https://www.wired.com/2009/01/replicatingrna/

    The researchers began with pairs of enzymes they’ve been tweaking and designing for the past eight years. Each member of the pairs can only reproduce with the help of the other member.
    “We have two enzymes, a plus and a minus,” Joyce explains. “The plus assembles the pieces to make the minus enzyme, and the minus enzyme assembles the pieces to draw the plus. It’s kind of like biology, where there is a DNA strand with plus and minus strands.”
    From there, Joyce and his graduate student Tracey Lincoln, added the enzymes into a soup of building blocks, strings of nucleic bases that can be assembled into RNA, DNA or larger strings, and tweaked them to find pairs of enzymes that would reproduce. One day, some of the enzymes “went critical” and produced more RNA enzymes than the researchers had put in.

    given a cauldron the size of earth, a wealth of energy inputs and mind-bogglingly-large amounts of time, it shouldn’t be surprising that self-replicating molecules happened.
    and once you have a molecule that can self-replicate, enough iterations will get you molecules that are better at it than others. and then Darwin’s invisible hand takes over.

  444. Koonin isn’t certain of this. He is just suggesting that the simplest known life forms are rather complex and it might be the case that the simplest possible organisms capable of reproduction have to be fairly complicated.
    we have examples of self-replicating molecules not related to DNA.
    https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/self-replicating-molecules-show-signs-of-metabolism-for-the-first-time/4012152.article
    and we have examples of self-replicating nucleic acid soups:
    https://www.wired.com/2009/01/replicatingrna/

    The researchers began with pairs of enzymes they’ve been tweaking and designing for the past eight years. Each member of the pairs can only reproduce with the help of the other member.
    “We have two enzymes, a plus and a minus,” Joyce explains. “The plus assembles the pieces to make the minus enzyme, and the minus enzyme assembles the pieces to draw the plus. It’s kind of like biology, where there is a DNA strand with plus and minus strands.”
    From there, Joyce and his graduate student Tracey Lincoln, added the enzymes into a soup of building blocks, strings of nucleic bases that can be assembled into RNA, DNA or larger strings, and tweaked them to find pairs of enzymes that would reproduce. One day, some of the enzymes “went critical” and produced more RNA enzymes than the researchers had put in.

    given a cauldron the size of earth, a wealth of energy inputs and mind-bogglingly-large amounts of time, it shouldn’t be surprising that self-replicating molecules happened.
    and once you have a molecule that can self-replicate, enough iterations will get you molecules that are better at it than others. and then Darwin’s invisible hand takes over.

  445. I am not a fan of Koonin’s cosmological theory or of creationism, but I think we still have a gap present. Joyce and his team designed the enzymes.
    But yeah, my guess is that eventually people will figure out a series of plausible steps from amino acids and/ or nucleotides to a self replicating system, at which point selection can begin to act.
    I find the “statistical miracles happen in infinite universes” distasteful as an explanation, though possibly true and though I am Christian, the God of the gaps explanation is also unappealing to me,

  446. I am not a fan of Koonin’s cosmological theory or of creationism, but I think we still have a gap present. Joyce and his team designed the enzymes.
    But yeah, my guess is that eventually people will figure out a series of plausible steps from amino acids and/ or nucleotides to a self replicating system, at which point selection can begin to act.
    I find the “statistical miracles happen in infinite universes” distasteful as an explanation, though possibly true and though I am Christian, the God of the gaps explanation is also unappealing to me,

  447. “God of the Gaps”
    The more I see Homo sapiens sapiens destroy everything – ecosystems, civilizations, species, you name it – the more all those SciFi stories about aliens coming to Earth to take our resources make sense.
    Maybe Battlestar Galactica’s series finale is very close to the truth.
    An alien, savage species that destroyed its own civilization multiple times until it ran out of habitable planets came here 150,000 years ago. It was humanoid, vastly intelligent, and had “the philosophy of a cancer cell.”
    The vast intelligence gave that species the ability to tweak its genetic structure enough so it could breed with the Neanderthals and Cro Magnons.
    The savagery and overpowering will-to-consume did the rest.

  448. “God of the Gaps”
    The more I see Homo sapiens sapiens destroy everything – ecosystems, civilizations, species, you name it – the more all those SciFi stories about aliens coming to Earth to take our resources make sense.
    Maybe Battlestar Galactica’s series finale is very close to the truth.
    An alien, savage species that destroyed its own civilization multiple times until it ran out of habitable planets came here 150,000 years ago. It was humanoid, vastly intelligent, and had “the philosophy of a cancer cell.”
    The vast intelligence gave that species the ability to tweak its genetic structure enough so it could breed with the Neanderthals and Cro Magnons.
    The savagery and overpowering will-to-consume did the rest.

  451. I find the “statistical miracles happen in infinite universes” distasteful as an explanation
    every other explanation is creationism of some sort: life on earth was created, seeded, engineered by something else. but that explanation requires an explanation for how the creator came about. and it can’t be creators all the way down. at some point, something has to arise from nothing.

  452. I find the “statistical miracles happen in infinite universes” distasteful as an explanation
    every other explanation is creationism of some sort: life on earth was created, seeded, engineered by something else. but that explanation requires an explanation for how the creator came about. and it can’t be creators all the way down. at some point, something has to arise from nothing.

  453. Hartmut – I had to look that up. Sorta kinda but not really, since Iron Sky posits a secret society of Nazis on the Moon. More like a galactic panspermia, but intentionally malevolent.

  454. Hartmut – I had to look that up. Sorta kinda but not really, since Iron Sky posits a secret society of Nazis on the Moon. More like a galactic panspermia, but intentionally malevolent.

  455. Donald, I find the “statistical miracles happen in infinite universes” more likely than anything else posited, since – as cleek points out – go back far enough, something has to arise from nothing at some point.
    The cosmos is very very large, and very very old. Our species on our planet represents less than a nanosec of time.

  456. Donald, I find the “statistical miracles happen in infinite universes” more likely than anything else posited, since – as cleek points out – go back far enough, something has to arise from nothing at some point.
    The cosmos is very very large, and very very old. Our species on our planet represents less than a nanosec of time.

  457. “ every other explanation is creationism of some sort: life on earth was created, seeded, engineered by something else. but that explanation requires an explanation for how the creator came abou”
    I was alluding to this a few posts back— you could accept the extreme improbability of life originating on any one planet and still hold out hopes for finding aliens. Life could originate in one planet, maybe intelligence evolves and once they figure out how unlikely this is, they start spreading bacteria around the galaxy. Wait a few billion years and you have various alien species with the same biochemistry.
    I am only suggesting this as a justification for SF novels, though panspermia within a solar system is possible via asteroid impacts. Bacteria are tough.

  458. “ every other explanation is creationism of some sort: life on earth was created, seeded, engineered by something else. but that explanation requires an explanation for how the creator came abou”
    I was alluding to this a few posts back— you could accept the extreme improbability of life originating on any one planet and still hold out hopes for finding aliens. Life could originate in one planet, maybe intelligence evolves and once they figure out how unlikely this is, they start spreading bacteria around the galaxy. Wait a few billion years and you have various alien species with the same biochemistry.
    I am only suggesting this as a justification for SF novels, though panspermia within a solar system is possible via asteroid impacts. Bacteria are tough.

  461. “ The cosmos is very very large, and very very old. ”
    There are different values for large and old. It’s not that old. 14 billion years. The observable universe is not that large. Tens of billions of light years ( More than 28 billion because of some technicalities I don’t understand about the expansion rate).
    If you think that the chance of life originating on a given planet is 10 to the minus 1000, you would expect that in our little teensy observable universe it wouldn’t hapoem, but if the unobservable universe is infinite then it was bound to happen. But everything is, including infinite copies of this planet with the same people having the same arguments.
    I don’t like theories that invoke unobservable infinities. Might be true, but it is philosophy and not science.

  462. “ The cosmos is very very large, and very very old. ”
    There are different values for large and old. It’s not that old. 14 billion years. The observable universe is not that large. Tens of billions of light years ( More than 28 billion because of some technicalities I don’t understand about the expansion rate).
    If you think that the chance of life originating on a given planet is 10 to the minus 1000, you would expect that in our little teensy observable universe it wouldn’t hapoem, but if the unobservable universe is infinite then it was bound to happen. But everything is, including infinite copies of this planet with the same people having the same arguments.
    I don’t like theories that invoke unobservable infinities. Might be true, but it is philosophy and not science.

  463. Well, there is philosophy and then there is philosophy.
    Some philosophies have grounding in observable fact and extrapolative probabilities. I’d put galactic panspermia in that category: we do know what organic materials are, we do have some grasp of how new elements/materials can be created, we do have theories how a bit of organic sludge becomes alive. Theories that can be tested/replicated under laboratory conditions.
    Other philosophies are entirely wishful thinking. I put all organized religions under that heading.

  464. Well, there is philosophy and then there is philosophy.
    Some philosophies have grounding in observable fact and extrapolative probabilities. I’d put galactic panspermia in that category: we do know what organic materials are, we do have some grasp of how new elements/materials can be created, we do have theories how a bit of organic sludge becomes alive. Theories that can be tested/replicated under laboratory conditions.
    Other philosophies are entirely wishful thinking. I put all organized religions under that heading.

  465. it can’t be creators all the way down
    cleek for the win!
    statistical miracles happen in infinite universes
    At this point, I’m not sure we can even be sure that we’re looking at a “statistical miracle” here. It might be that it only takes a million years or so, given a planet with liquid water, to get to self-replicating organics. And another million from there to a cell.
    Which may seem like a long time, but is way short of a miracle. So we’re waiting on more information. Not an uncommon position for science.

  466. it can’t be creators all the way down
    cleek for the win!
    statistical miracles happen in infinite universes
    At this point, I’m not sure we can even be sure that we’re looking at a “statistical miracle” here. It might be that it only takes a million years or so, given a planet with liquid water, to get to self-replicating organics. And another million from there to a cell.
    Which may seem like a long time, but is way short of a miracle. So we’re waiting on more information. Not an uncommon position for science.

  467. But everything is, including infinite copies of this planet with the same people having the same arguments.
    There are different levels of infinity. That would require an infinity so large that it would be impossible to occur even in an infinitely large universe. You would have to assume something like parallel universes resulting from splitting timelines.

  468. But everything is, including infinite copies of this planet with the same people having the same arguments.
    There are different levels of infinity. That would require an infinity so large that it would be impossible to occur even in an infinitely large universe. You would have to assume something like parallel universes resulting from splitting timelines.

  469. CaseyL, that’s why I said Iron Sky II, where we learn that Hitler and his ilk came originally from Space and founded all evil empires in human history, temporarily withdrawing into the hollow earth each time that one gets overthrown. The Moon nazis from part one where just fugitives from the 3rd Reich who were only later ret-conned.

  470. CaseyL, that’s why I said Iron Sky II, where we learn that Hitler and his ilk came originally from Space and founded all evil empires in human history, temporarily withdrawing into the hollow earth each time that one gets overthrown. The Moon nazis from part one where just fugitives from the 3rd Reich who were only later ret-conned.

  471. Which may seem like a long time, but is way short of a miracle. So we’re waiting on more information.
    You cannot imagine how hotly I am anticipating NASA (well, preferably NASA) to send an explorer robot to Jupiter’s and/or Saturn’s water-bearing moons.

  472. Which may seem like a long time, but is way short of a miracle. So we’re waiting on more information.
    You cannot imagine how hotly I am anticipating NASA (well, preferably NASA) to send an explorer robot to Jupiter’s and/or Saturn’s water-bearing moons.

  475. nooneithinkisinmytree – I saw that a few days ago. It’s a hoot. Looks like they’re all dancing to the same programming loop. Fun and all, but I shudder to think of their practical uses.

  476. nooneithinkisinmytree – I saw that a few days ago. It’s a hoot. Looks like they’re all dancing to the same programming loop. Fun and all, but I shudder to think of their practical uses.

  479. What is truly astonishing, specifically in the bipeds, it the balance on display. It’s easy to forget** how many tight feedback loops go into flexing muscles in the foot and ankle, and tiny shifts in position in the body above, to allow us to stand up. And even more to allow us to walk. Which dancing like this takes to a whole new level.
    There may not be practical uses for dancing robots. But the kind of programming that allows dancing to happen? I can see that having some serious benefits.
    ** Few if any of us remember when we were learning to walk. And even if you remember teaching your kids to walk, it’s easy to miss just how complex the whole thing is. After all, everybody you know learned it, no matter how intelligent they are or are not.

  480. What is truly astonishing, specifically in the bipeds, it the balance on display. It’s easy to forget** how many tight feedback loops go into flexing muscles in the foot and ankle, and tiny shifts in position in the body above, to allow us to stand up. And even more to allow us to walk. Which dancing like this takes to a whole new level.
    There may not be practical uses for dancing robots. But the kind of programming that allows dancing to happen? I can see that having some serious benefits.
    ** Few if any of us remember when we were learning to walk. And even if you remember teaching your kids to walk, it’s easy to miss just how complex the whole thing is. After all, everybody you know learned it, no matter how intelligent they are or are not.

  481. Fun and all, but I shudder to think of their practical uses.
    Robocops?…
    “Like millions of people, I watched the viral video of dancing Boston Dynamics robots that made its way around Twitter this week. But unlike many of those millions, I did not think, “Wow, the future is so cool.” I thought, “We gotta keep these away from the cops.”
    I admit that some of my aversion is a gut reaction to the uncanny valley. The dog-shaped ones creep me out the most. A predator, often headless, unfazed by rain or heat, without need for food or water or rest—that’s the stuff of science fiction nightmares. I know, objectively, these robots are an incredible technological achievement, yet I can’t erase that instinctive unease.”
    Bad Cop, No Robot: The case for legally constraining what police departments can do with robots.

  482. Fun and all, but I shudder to think of their practical uses.
    Robocops?…
    “Like millions of people, I watched the viral video of dancing Boston Dynamics robots that made its way around Twitter this week. But unlike many of those millions, I did not think, “Wow, the future is so cool.” I thought, “We gotta keep these away from the cops.”
    I admit that some of my aversion is a gut reaction to the uncanny valley. The dog-shaped ones creep me out the most. A predator, often headless, unfazed by rain or heat, without need for food or water or rest—that’s the stuff of science fiction nightmares. I know, objectively, these robots are an incredible technological achievement, yet I can’t erase that instinctive unease.”
    Bad Cop, No Robot: The case for legally constraining what police departments can do with robots.

  483. wj – You’re right,of course, and so is nooneithinkisinmytree if they were hinting that the dancing robots would make excellent planetary “rovers.” They could do things the rovers couldn’t: deal better with steep/tricky terrain, pick up items better, stuff like that.
    Maybe I just fell in love with the old 4-wheeled robots. They were the cutest things. The bipedal robots are too uncanny valley to be “cute.”

  484. wj – You’re right,of course, and so is nooneithinkisinmytree if they were hinting that the dancing robots would make excellent planetary “rovers.” They could do things the rovers couldn’t: deal better with steep/tricky terrain, pick up items better, stuff like that.
    Maybe I just fell in love with the old 4-wheeled robots. They were the cutest things. The bipedal robots are too uncanny valley to be “cute.”

  487. A predator, often headless, unfazed by rain or heat, without need for food or water or rest—that’s the stuff of science fiction nightmares.
    luckily Spot has a battery life of only about 90 minutes, and a top speed of 3mph.

  488. A predator, often headless, unfazed by rain or heat, without need for food or water or rest—that’s the stuff of science fiction nightmares.
    luckily Spot has a battery life of only about 90 minutes, and a top speed of 3mph.

  493. micronuclear reactors
    To the extent that they are currently feasible, tiny power outputs. The headless dogs powered by them might look scary, but a child could take one down.

  494. micronuclear reactors
    To the extent that they are currently feasible, tiny power outputs. The headless dogs powered by them might look scary, but a child could take one down.

  495. “ At this point, I’m not sure we can even be sure that we’re looking at a “statistical miracle” here. ”
    That is precisely what the argument is about. If you just have to sit around on a given planet or moon with life friendly conditions for a million or even 500 million years waiting for life to start, that’s nothing. Then life is common. Koonin is arguing that maybe you would have to wait much much longer— 10 to the 1000 years on a given planet, for instance. Then in any random collection of 10 to the 20 planetary systems with ten billion years to wait, the chance of life starting is infinitesimal. He goes on to argue that in an infinite universe anything that could happen does happen somewhere. Or it would not have to be infinite— some universe much much larger than what we observe might be good enough.
    Koonin is arguing that life might require a certain level of complexity to be capable of self replication, and if the complexity level is high enough, then the origin of life would be extremely rare.
    Mark Tegmark ( I linked to his site up thread) has pieces on the different types of multiverses. Unless someone can think of a way to test these ideas, it isn’t science. It is fun to read about.
    I am rooting for Koonin to be wrong. He might be right. And he also does more conventional origin of life theorizing, so he isn’t wedded to his infinite universe explains all theory.

  496. “ At this point, I’m not sure we can even be sure that we’re looking at a “statistical miracle” here. ”
    That is precisely what the argument is about. If you just have to sit around on a given planet or moon with life friendly conditions for a million or even 500 million years waiting for life to start, that’s nothing. Then life is common. Koonin is arguing that maybe you would have to wait much much longer— 10 to the 1000 years on a given planet, for instance. Then in any random collection of 10 to the 20 planetary systems with ten billion years to wait, the chance of life starting is infinitesimal. He goes on to argue that in an infinite universe anything that could happen does happen somewhere. Or it would not have to be infinite— some universe much much larger than what we observe might be good enough.
    Koonin is arguing that life might require a certain level of complexity to be capable of self replication, and if the complexity level is high enough, then the origin of life would be extremely rare.
    Mark Tegmark ( I linked to his site up thread) has pieces on the different types of multiverses. Unless someone can think of a way to test these ideas, it isn’t science. It is fun to read about.
    I am rooting for Koonin to be wrong. He might be right. And he also does more conventional origin of life theorizing, so he isn’t wedded to his infinite universe explains all theory.

  497. Koonin is arguing that maybe you would have to wait much much longer— 10 to the 1000 years on a given planet, for instance.
    OK, maybe that’s right. Then again, it looks to me like speculation in the complete absence of evidence one way or the other. Which is great if you’re writing science fiction. But pretty useless if you’re trying to do real science.

  498. Koonin is arguing that maybe you would have to wait much much longer— 10 to the 1000 years on a given planet, for instance.
    OK, maybe that’s right. Then again, it looks to me like speculation in the complete absence of evidence one way or the other. Which is great if you’re writing science fiction. But pretty useless if you’re trying to do real science.

  499. What’s a guy do when one of those robots cuts in on your girlfriend on the dance floor?
    And then dances better than you do.
    Maybe they will make female wallflower robots you can saunter over to and make small talk with in the meantime, maybe ask after the condition of her circuitry.
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/1/2/2005431/-Two-Trump-supporters-force-entire-plane-to-de-board-after-they-refuse-to-wear-masks-spew-N-word
    From now on, even when flying in the future, my emotional support borg-dog will be with me at all times as self defense against the f*ck-your-feelings Trump MAGA zombies:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM3GM299orc
    Pets gotta eat.
    Charles, I’m surprised you haven’t yet suggested equipping all citizens with armed defensive robots to counter all government, including police, force. 😉
    Black Robot Lives Matter.
    Woof!

  500. What’s a guy do when one of those robots cuts in on your girlfriend on the dance floor?
    And then dances better than you do.
    Maybe they will make female wallflower robots you can saunter over to and make small talk with in the meantime, maybe ask after the condition of her circuitry.
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/1/2/2005431/-Two-Trump-supporters-force-entire-plane-to-de-board-after-they-refuse-to-wear-masks-spew-N-word
    From now on, even when flying in the future, my emotional support borg-dog will be with me at all times as self defense against the f*ck-your-feelings Trump MAGA zombies:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM3GM299orc
    Pets gotta eat.
    Charles, I’m surprised you haven’t yet suggested equipping all citizens with armed defensive robots to counter all government, including police, force. 😉
    Black Robot Lives Matter.
    Woof!

  503. Zinc-air or aluminum-air fuel cells. Eight times the energy density of lithium-ion. Not rechargeable while installed, but have been shown in fast-swap mechanical forms, and can be recharged in an appropriate facility.

  504. Zinc-air or aluminum-air fuel cells. Eight times the energy density of lithium-ion. Not rechargeable while installed, but have been shown in fast-swap mechanical forms, and can be recharged in an appropriate facility.

  505. “Alexa, please order some anti-robot bazookas”
    “I’m sorry, russell, I can’t do that”

  506. “Alexa, please order some anti-robot bazookas”
    “I’m sorry, russell, I can’t do that”

  507. “Alexa, please order some anti-robot bazookas”
    We are the emergency granddaughter keepers, so we have them for a couple hours from time to time despite the virus. I needed to divert the seven-year-old for a while and introduced her to the Amazon Dot we have on the kitchen counter. When that group were here for lunch on Christmas for the (rapidly becoming traditional) pizza, she dashed past me to tell it, “Alexa, play ‘The Wheels on the Bus’.”
    Over the years I have been building a self-contained bedside appliance. Given granddaughters, I may have to change this year’s plan on voice recognition, at least enough to keep it from responding to the “Hey, stupid!” that I was thinking.

  508. “Alexa, please order some anti-robot bazookas”
    We are the emergency granddaughter keepers, so we have them for a couple hours from time to time despite the virus. I needed to divert the seven-year-old for a while and introduced her to the Amazon Dot we have on the kitchen counter. When that group were here for lunch on Christmas for the (rapidly becoming traditional) pizza, she dashed past me to tell it, “Alexa, play ‘The Wheels on the Bus’.”
    Over the years I have been building a self-contained bedside appliance. Given granddaughters, I may have to change this year’s plan on voice recognition, at least enough to keep it from responding to the “Hey, stupid!” that I was thinking.

  509. Robots like that scare the crap out of me because those things make for all too probable a future of war where the material cost of war is almost entirely divorced from the informational and human cost of war. This was Rumsfeld’s dream back during his Revolution in Military Affairs days. A war fought from behind a screen has no loss of veteran experience and it mediates the operator from the act of taking a life.
    And you know that an armed robotic response unit would be useless for de-escalation.
    Published a chapter about this stuff back in my grad school days and it is looking more feasible than ever.

  510. Robots like that scare the crap out of me because those things make for all too probable a future of war where the material cost of war is almost entirely divorced from the informational and human cost of war. This was Rumsfeld’s dream back during his Revolution in Military Affairs days. A war fought from behind a screen has no loss of veteran experience and it mediates the operator from the act of taking a life.
    And you know that an armed robotic response unit would be useless for de-escalation.
    Published a chapter about this stuff back in my grad school days and it is looking more feasible than ever.

  511. Wj—
    People who do origin of life research are doing real science. It just isn’t at all clear which theory is right and to me, this particular theory is overly pessimistic. I would wait another generation or so and see if any further progress is made before invoking the infinite universe deus ex machina.
    Anyway, you can read his paper in the link up thread . He also has more conventional papers online. And here is a blog I sometimes read on evolution which highly recommends a paper on evolution ( not origin of life research). Koonin is not a nut.
    https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/01/you-must-read-this-paper-if-you-are.html#more
    I have pretty much said all I have to say on this. The subject is sort of a hobby for me.

  512. Wj—
    People who do origin of life research are doing real science. It just isn’t at all clear which theory is right and to me, this particular theory is overly pessimistic. I would wait another generation or so and see if any further progress is made before invoking the infinite universe deus ex machina.
    Anyway, you can read his paper in the link up thread . He also has more conventional papers online. And here is a blog I sometimes read on evolution which highly recommends a paper on evolution ( not origin of life research). Koonin is not a nut.
    https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/01/you-must-read-this-paper-if-you-are.html#more
    I have pretty much said all I have to say on this. The subject is sort of a hobby for me.

  513. The upsides of war robots.
    “But can killer robots be expected to obey fundamental legal and ethical principles as well as human soldiers do? The Georgia Tech roboticist Ronald Arkin turns this issue on its head, arguing that lethal autonomous weapon systems “will potentially be capable of performing more ethically on the battlefield than are human soldiers.” While human soldiers are moral agents possessed of consciences, they are also flawed people engaged in the most intense and unforgiving forms of aggression. Under the pressure of battle, fear, panic, rage, and vengeance can overwhelm the moral sensibilities of soldiers; the result, all too often, is an atrocity.
    Now consider warbots. Since self-preservation would not be their foremost drive, they would refrain from firing in uncertain situations. Not burdened with emotions, autonomous weapons would avoid the moral snares of anger and frustration. They could objectively weigh information and avoid confirmation bias when making targeting and firing decisions. They could also evaluate information much faster and from more sources than human soldiers before responding with lethal force. And battlefield robots could impartially monitor and report the ethical behavior of all parties on the battlefield.”
    Let Slip the Robots of War: Lethal autonomous weapon systems might be more moral than human soldiers.

  514. The upsides of war robots.
    “But can killer robots be expected to obey fundamental legal and ethical principles as well as human soldiers do? The Georgia Tech roboticist Ronald Arkin turns this issue on its head, arguing that lethal autonomous weapon systems “will potentially be capable of performing more ethically on the battlefield than are human soldiers.” While human soldiers are moral agents possessed of consciences, they are also flawed people engaged in the most intense and unforgiving forms of aggression. Under the pressure of battle, fear, panic, rage, and vengeance can overwhelm the moral sensibilities of soldiers; the result, all too often, is an atrocity.
    Now consider warbots. Since self-preservation would not be their foremost drive, they would refrain from firing in uncertain situations. Not burdened with emotions, autonomous weapons would avoid the moral snares of anger and frustration. They could objectively weigh information and avoid confirmation bias when making targeting and firing decisions. They could also evaluate information much faster and from more sources than human soldiers before responding with lethal force. And battlefield robots could impartially monitor and report the ethical behavior of all parties on the battlefield.”
    Let Slip the Robots of War: Lethal autonomous weapon systems might be more moral than human soldiers.

  517. A war fought from behind a screen has no loss of veteran experience and it mediates the operator from the act of taking a life.
    Some in the military have experienced a great deal of stress from engaging in military operations even though they’re thousands of miles from the action.
    “As the U.S. military shifts to more of this kind of warfare, Brown says it’s important to acknowledge the psychological impact of the work. He says the Air Force is trying to ease that burden by treating the trauma of remote warfare a little more like the effects of traditional combat.
    ‘In the 21st century, in the information age, warfighting is no longer a matter of geography; it’s a mentality,” Brown said. “And these airmen no doubt are warfighters; they have the burden of life and death on their shoulders every day, every time they walk into that facility.'”
    The Warfare May Be Remote But The Trauma Is Real

  518. A war fought from behind a screen has no loss of veteran experience and it mediates the operator from the act of taking a life.
    Some in the military have experienced a great deal of stress from engaging in military operations even though they’re thousands of miles from the action.
    “As the U.S. military shifts to more of this kind of warfare, Brown says it’s important to acknowledge the psychological impact of the work. He says the Air Force is trying to ease that burden by treating the trauma of remote warfare a little more like the effects of traditional combat.
    ‘In the 21st century, in the information age, warfighting is no longer a matter of geography; it’s a mentality,” Brown said. “And these airmen no doubt are warfighters; they have the burden of life and death on their shoulders every day, every time they walk into that facility.'”
    The Warfare May Be Remote But The Trauma Is Real

  519. Nice thought, CharlesWT, but there is no way that any military anywhere would ever deploy autonomous weapon systems capable of making independent judgments (unless those systems accelerated the tempo of war to the point that they render a human operator ineffective strictly in terms of reaction speed). They will insist that a human make the moral judgment.

  520. Nice thought, CharlesWT, but there is no way that any military anywhere would ever deploy autonomous weapon systems capable of making independent judgments (unless those systems accelerated the tempo of war to the point that they render a human operator ineffective strictly in terms of reaction speed). They will insist that a human make the moral judgment.

  521. there is no way that any military anywhere would ever deploy autonomous weapon systems capable of making independent judgments . . . . They will insist that a human make the moral judgment.
    Always assuming that it’s a military that cares about moral judgements. History suggests that’s far from a certainty.

  522. there is no way that any military anywhere would ever deploy autonomous weapon systems capable of making independent judgments . . . . They will insist that a human make the moral judgment.
    Always assuming that it’s a military that cares about moral judgements. History suggests that’s far from a certainty.

  523. Hey “conservatives “, ,any chance you’re going to stop this ridiculous clown show of pretending that Trump won any time soon? It’s pretty goddanmed tiresome now, and I think we’ve all been more than patient with your embarrassing tantrum up until now.

  524. Hey “conservatives “, ,any chance you’re going to stop this ridiculous clown show of pretending that Trump won any time soon? It’s pretty goddanmed tiresome now, and I think we’ve all been more than patient with your embarrassing tantrum up until now.

  525. Oh, c’mon,cleek; you know the answer to that question.
    This is the best chance “conservatives” have had to destroy this country utterly since they fuzzied up to the Nazis before the attack on Pearl Harbor dragged them kicking and screaming into WWII.
    Their best chance to finish rolling back 100 years of jurisprudence that limits the power of wealth.
    Their best chance to return to a pre-Civil Rights Act America; hell, maybe to a pre-Civil War America.
    Their best chance to make sure the future, such as it is, belongs to White Christian Men who have Guns, Money, or Both.
    They are gonna stay on this ride until it crashes… or doesn’t.

  526. Oh, c’mon,cleek; you know the answer to that question.
    This is the best chance “conservatives” have had to destroy this country utterly since they fuzzied up to the Nazis before the attack on Pearl Harbor dragged them kicking and screaming into WWII.
    Their best chance to finish rolling back 100 years of jurisprudence that limits the power of wealth.
    Their best chance to return to a pre-Civil Rights Act America; hell, maybe to a pre-Civil War America.
    Their best chance to make sure the future, such as it is, belongs to White Christian Men who have Guns, Money, or Both.
    They are gonna stay on this ride until it crashes… or doesn’t.

  527. 120-some conservative movement subhumans and a dozen of their kindred subhuman filth in the Senate reaching deep down into the conservative confederate America’s filthy racist legacy to commit insurrection against a democratically elected government:
    https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2021/01/ted-cruz-is-a-big-fan-of-the-compromise-of-1877/
    This doesn’t end here.
    But it will end, and no one is going to f*cking like the shape and stench of it when the smoke clears.
    Between their maskless subhuman Covid-19 suicides (two more republican scum abandoning their families to prove their death cult principle: freedom equals death) and this electoral coup and insurrection, this is like Jonestown.
    We are the children being handed the poison and forced to drink.
    They are killing themselves, but not fast enough to save America.
    They need help in the endeavor.
    Time to help them.
    Take their guns from them.
    And then ….

  528. 120-some conservative movement subhumans and a dozen of their kindred subhuman filth in the Senate reaching deep down into the conservative confederate America’s filthy racist legacy to commit insurrection against a democratically elected government:
    https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2021/01/ted-cruz-is-a-big-fan-of-the-compromise-of-1877/
    This doesn’t end here.
    But it will end, and no one is going to f*cking like the shape and stench of it when the smoke clears.
    Between their maskless subhuman Covid-19 suicides (two more republican scum abandoning their families to prove their death cult principle: freedom equals death) and this electoral coup and insurrection, this is like Jonestown.
    We are the children being handed the poison and forced to drink.
    They are killing themselves, but not fast enough to save America.
    They need help in the endeavor.
    Time to help them.
    Take their guns from them.
    And then ….

  529. CharlesWT – I read that article when it came out and I’ve done a lot of reading on moral injury and the like for drone operators as well. I don’t doubt that there is an effect, but the effect happens differently than it does for someone fighting in a very contingent body that is unmediated. And the question is not about the aftereffects, but about the judgment in the moment. We know from years of study that the damage of moral injury is greater the closer and less mediated the perpetrator is.
    wj – it’s not about the morality of the judgment, it’s about controlling that moment. Those in charge want the ability to control that decision. They would never accept the idea of an autonomous decision making machine that can choose to defy an order based on an ethical logic loop. And they would want the ability to override that for exactly the reason that you suggest.
    (All this is pretty much the exact set of questions I was grappling with during my years of Ph.D. research, so it’s good to be able to make use of all that for a bit.)

  530. CharlesWT – I read that article when it came out and I’ve done a lot of reading on moral injury and the like for drone operators as well. I don’t doubt that there is an effect, but the effect happens differently than it does for someone fighting in a very contingent body that is unmediated. And the question is not about the aftereffects, but about the judgment in the moment. We know from years of study that the damage of moral injury is greater the closer and less mediated the perpetrator is.
    wj – it’s not about the morality of the judgment, it’s about controlling that moment. Those in charge want the ability to control that decision. They would never accept the idea of an autonomous decision making machine that can choose to defy an order based on an ethical logic loop. And they would want the ability to override that for exactly the reason that you suggest.
    (All this is pretty much the exact set of questions I was grappling with during my years of Ph.D. research, so it’s good to be able to make use of all that for a bit.)

  531. They are gonna stay on this ride until it crashes… or doesn’t.
    you’re right.
    but, honestly, enough is enough already.
    in the country they seem to want to take us to, they’d all have been up against the wall weeks ago.

  532. They are gonna stay on this ride until it crashes… or doesn’t.
    you’re right.
    but, honestly, enough is enough already.
    in the country they seem to want to take us to, they’d all have been up against the wall weeks ago.

  533. i mean, FFS,

    From where I sit, the single-most telling fact is that there a giant gulf between what President Trump and his allies say in public – for example, on social media, or at press conferences outside Philadelphia landscaping companies and adult bookstores – and what President Trump’s lawyers actually say in courts of law. And that’s not a surprise. Because there are no penalties for misleading the public. But there are serious penalties for misleading a judge, and the president’s lawyers know that – and thus they have repeated almost none of the claims of grand voter fraud that the campaign spokespeople are screaming at their most zealous supporters. So, here’s the heart of this whole thing: this isn’t really a legal strategy – it’s a fundraising strategy.

    and that’s from a Republican Senator!
    WTF is wrong with the GOP base that it’s so happy to be lied to and manipulated and bilked, day after day, month and month, year after year?

  534. i mean, FFS,

    From where I sit, the single-most telling fact is that there a giant gulf between what President Trump and his allies say in public – for example, on social media, or at press conferences outside Philadelphia landscaping companies and adult bookstores – and what President Trump’s lawyers actually say in courts of law. And that’s not a surprise. Because there are no penalties for misleading the public. But there are serious penalties for misleading a judge, and the president’s lawyers know that – and thus they have repeated almost none of the claims of grand voter fraud that the campaign spokespeople are screaming at their most zealous supporters. So, here’s the heart of this whole thing: this isn’t really a legal strategy – it’s a fundraising strategy.

    and that’s from a Republican Senator!
    WTF is wrong with the GOP base that it’s so happy to be lied to and manipulated and bilked, day after day, month and month, year after year?

  535. WTF is wrong with the GOP base that it’s so happy to be lied to and manipulated and bilked, day after day, month and month, year after year?
    But PLEASE don’t condescend!

  536. WTF is wrong with the GOP base that it’s so happy to be lied to and manipulated and bilked, day after day, month and month, year after year?
    But PLEASE don’t condescend!

  537. WTF is wrong with the GOP base that it’s so happy to be lied to and manipulated and bilked, day after day, month and month, year after year?
    Remember, the average IQ is said to be 100. That means half the population has an IQ of less than 100.
    The ability to think rationally, to think critically, to think analytically; to “think through” Step A to B all the way to a logical conclusion … you need at least an average IQ to do those things.
    That means half the population is incapable of thinking rationally, critically, and analytically. Incapable of thinking things through.
    They’re like children, IOW, who still believe in Santa.
    They’re not all on the Right by any means (Purity Progressives, BernieBros, leftish anti-vaxers) but I would say 90% of them are on the Right.
    And since human predators and parasites, like their counterparts in the natural world, look for the most and the easiest prey… they’ve spent more than half a century preparing the best, most enticing watering hole for the Under 100s to congregate at.
    That would be the televangelical movement,first. Then Ralph Reed/Richard Viguerie, harvesting the televangelical mailing lists for their own purposes. And, finally, Fox News and its offshoots.
    Honestly. The past 50+years have been devoted to finding and nurturing a vast pool of credulous idiots who can regularly be roused to incoherent fury and then harvested (for money,votes, whatever).
    Undo that?
    Not in our lifetime.

  538. WTF is wrong with the GOP base that it’s so happy to be lied to and manipulated and bilked, day after day, month and month, year after year?
    Remember, the average IQ is said to be 100. That means half the population has an IQ of less than 100.
    The ability to think rationally, to think critically, to think analytically; to “think through” Step A to B all the way to a logical conclusion … you need at least an average IQ to do those things.
    That means half the population is incapable of thinking rationally, critically, and analytically. Incapable of thinking things through.
    They’re like children, IOW, who still believe in Santa.
    They’re not all on the Right by any means (Purity Progressives, BernieBros, leftish anti-vaxers) but I would say 90% of them are on the Right.
    And since human predators and parasites, like their counterparts in the natural world, look for the most and the easiest prey… they’ve spent more than half a century preparing the best, most enticing watering hole for the Under 100s to congregate at.
    That would be the televangelical movement,first. Then Ralph Reed/Richard Viguerie, harvesting the televangelical mailing lists for their own purposes. And, finally, Fox News and its offshoots.
    Honestly. The past 50+years have been devoted to finding and nurturing a vast pool of credulous idiots who can regularly be roused to incoherent fury and then harvested (for money,votes, whatever).
    Undo that?
    Not in our lifetime.

  541. WaPo: (from noitiimt’s link):

    President Trump urged fellow Republican Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to “find” enough votes to overturn his defeat in an extraordinary one-hour phone call Saturday that election experts said raised legal questions.
    The Washington Post obtained a recording of the conversation in which Trump alternately berated Raffensperger, tried to flatter him, begged him to act and threatened him with vague criminal consequences if the secretary of state refused to pursue his false claims, at one point warning that Raffensperger was taking “a big risk.”
    Throughout the call, Raffensperger and his office’s general counsel rejected Trump’s assertions, explaining that the president is relying on debunked conspiracy theories and that President-elect Joe Biden’s 11,779-vote victory in Georgia was fair and accurate.

    this is what the GOP supports, adores, worships.

  542. WaPo: (from noitiimt’s link):

    President Trump urged fellow Republican Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to “find” enough votes to overturn his defeat in an extraordinary one-hour phone call Saturday that election experts said raised legal questions.
    The Washington Post obtained a recording of the conversation in which Trump alternately berated Raffensperger, tried to flatter him, begged him to act and threatened him with vague criminal consequences if the secretary of state refused to pursue his false claims, at one point warning that Raffensperger was taking “a big risk.”
    Throughout the call, Raffensperger and his office’s general counsel rejected Trump’s assertions, explaining that the president is relying on debunked conspiracy theories and that President-elect Joe Biden’s 11,779-vote victory in Georgia was fair and accurate.

    this is what the GOP supports, adores, worships.

  545. What’s astounding is that a recording was made of the call. Makes Trump an exceptionally stupid criminal — most of them at least realize that phone calls can be tapped and recorded. And take precautions.
    Once it was recorded, a leak was probably inevitable.

  546. What’s astounding is that a recording was made of the call. Makes Trump an exceptionally stupid criminal — most of them at least realize that phone calls can be tapped and recorded. And take precautions.
    Once it was recorded, a leak was probably inevitable.

  547. This tape of the Trump phone call is amazing. Unless you’re drunk on the Kool Aid, it’s glaringly obvious they just want to cheat. That’s it. Nothing clever. Nothing about patriotism or some higher calling. They’re just trying to cheat.

    and that’s… Jonah Goldberg.

  548. This tape of the Trump phone call is amazing. Unless you’re drunk on the Kool Aid, it’s glaringly obvious they just want to cheat. That’s it. Nothing clever. Nothing about patriotism or some higher calling. They’re just trying to cheat.

    and that’s… Jonah Goldberg.

  549. wj – I assume Raffensperger’s office did the recording. I can’t imagine anyone speaking to Trump without recording every word; it’s the minimum of prudence.

  550. wj – I assume Raffensperger’s office did the recording. I can’t imagine anyone speaking to Trump without recording every word; it’s the minimum of prudence.

  551. Let’s not be lulled into thinking Raffensperger and Kemp, who held a weapon pointed at his son as a f&cking political ad during his racist run for Governor of Georgia, are in any way on our side or friends.
    They are the enemy as much as Trump is. Like Mussolini, however, they finally see that colluding with evil could cost them, but only in the narrow conservative movement sense of their personal self-interest, which is their only human trait that might, in this particular instance, be in any way for the good of this country.
    But policy-wise and in the habit of limiting voters rights, they are scum.
    Orcs in fearful thrall of Sauron.*
    *I engage in this type of mock-heroic posturing and referencing of great moments in literary and historical sources only because it’s a favorite bullshit tactic of conservatives falsely elevating themselves in their crabbed little ideologies and hatreds.
    Read TAC for a while, and you’d get the impression they were all Hobbits, or at least Aeneas.
    Or Solzhenitsyn, for pity’s sake.

  552. Let’s not be lulled into thinking Raffensperger and Kemp, who held a weapon pointed at his son as a f&cking political ad during his racist run for Governor of Georgia, are in any way on our side or friends.
    They are the enemy as much as Trump is. Like Mussolini, however, they finally see that colluding with evil could cost them, but only in the narrow conservative movement sense of their personal self-interest, which is their only human trait that might, in this particular instance, be in any way for the good of this country.
    But policy-wise and in the habit of limiting voters rights, they are scum.
    Orcs in fearful thrall of Sauron.*
    *I engage in this type of mock-heroic posturing and referencing of great moments in literary and historical sources only because it’s a favorite bullshit tactic of conservatives falsely elevating themselves in their crabbed little ideologies and hatreds.
    Read TAC for a while, and you’d get the impression they were all Hobbits, or at least Aeneas.
    Or Solzhenitsyn, for pity’s sake.

  553. CaseyL – Probably. I mean, they knew the call was coming far enough ahead to get the Secretary of State’s General Counsel on the line as well.
    However, I believe it is also routine for the White House to record all calls in and out. Has been for years. So it could have been a recording from there as well.

  554. CaseyL – Probably. I mean, they knew the call was coming far enough ahead to get the Secretary of State’s General Counsel on the line as well.
    However, I believe it is also routine for the White House to record all calls in and out. Has been for years. So it could have been a recording from there as well.

  557. Goldberg:
    “Nothing about patriotism or some higher calling.”
    Sez a lot about movement conservatives like Goldberg (is his Mom still procuring hookers for Nixon’s plumbers in Hell? I suspect the hookers are in Heaven so someone is out of luck, unless the two imaginary afterlives have exchange visas) that there are ends for which any means would be just fine and dandy.
    F&ck him.
    He condescends to mere theft of an election, the elitist prig.

  558. Goldberg:
    “Nothing about patriotism or some higher calling.”
    Sez a lot about movement conservatives like Goldberg (is his Mom still procuring hookers for Nixon’s plumbers in Hell? I suspect the hookers are in Heaven so someone is out of luck, unless the two imaginary afterlives have exchange visas) that there are ends for which any means would be just fine and dandy.
    F&ck him.
    He condescends to mere theft of an election, the elitist prig.

  559. The NSA must have transcripts of every phone call Trump has made on his unsecured private cellphone, and those of his thousands, tens of thousands traitorous co-conspirators.
    The citizenry gets to see every word, and prosecute, or we take that agency out and shoot it.

  560. The NSA must have transcripts of every phone call Trump has made on his unsecured private cellphone, and those of his thousands, tens of thousands traitorous co-conspirators.
    The citizenry gets to see every word, and prosecute, or we take that agency out and shoot it.

  561. Could GA start criminal proceedings against Trump for his attempted election interference?
    They *wouldn’t*, if Kemp had anything to say about it, but an Atlanta prosecutor might not be under Kemp’s thumb.
    Get Trump in front of a Grand Jury, and there’ll be a tidal wave of indictments.

  562. Could GA start criminal proceedings against Trump for his attempted election interference?
    They *wouldn’t*, if Kemp had anything to say about it, but an Atlanta prosecutor might not be under Kemp’s thumb.
    Get Trump in front of a Grand Jury, and there’ll be a tidal wave of indictments.

  565. You know it’s serious when that noted squishy (not!), bipartisan (double not!), Dick Cheney is willing to sign on to a statement like this.
    Here’s hoping that if/when Trump’s scum try to resort to the military, the military just says No. This may help stiffen the spines of any who might have waivered — which I expect is a very small number, but even 1 is too many.

  566. You know it’s serious when that noted squishy (not!), bipartisan (double not!), Dick Cheney is willing to sign on to a statement like this.
    Here’s hoping that if/when Trump’s scum try to resort to the military, the military just says No. This may help stiffen the spines of any who might have waivered — which I expect is a very small number, but even 1 is too many.

  567. They *wouldn’t*, if Kemp had anything to say about it
    I wouldn’t be so sure. The way Trump has been ripping into Kemp lately, Kemp might just stand and watch.

  568. They *wouldn’t*, if Kemp had anything to say about it
    I wouldn’t be so sure. The way Trump has been ripping into Kemp lately, Kemp might just stand and watch.

  571. I’m just trying to figure out what a guy’s gotta do to earn some jail time around here.
    Having a permanent (not out of a bottle!) suntan will give you a head start….

  572. I’m just trying to figure out what a guy’s gotta do to earn some jail time around here.
    Having a permanent (not out of a bottle!) suntan will give you a head start….

  577. And now, a member of Georgia’s Elections Board has is weighing in on the call.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/03/investigation-law-trump-georgia-phone-call/
    He says that

    a transcript of the hour-long call, a recording of which was obtained by The Washington Post, amounted to “probable cause” to believe that Trump had violated Georgia election code.
    “It’s a crime to solicit election fraud, and asking the secretary to change the votes is a textbook definition of election fraud,”

    Perhaps nothing will come of it, of course. But Trump keeps making it harder for his crimes to be ignored. Hopefully, the flocks of chickens will start coming home to roost.

  578. And now, a member of Georgia’s Elections Board has is weighing in on the call.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/03/investigation-law-trump-georgia-phone-call/
    He says that

    a transcript of the hour-long call, a recording of which was obtained by The Washington Post, amounted to “probable cause” to believe that Trump had violated Georgia election code.
    “It’s a crime to solicit election fraud, and asking the secretary to change the votes is a textbook definition of election fraud,”

    Perhaps nothing will come of it, of course. But Trump keeps making it harder for his crimes to be ignored. Hopefully, the flocks of chickens will start coming home to roost.

  579. wj – A lot of chickens better come home to roost on the GOP, not just Trump.
    That’s the problem,see.It isn’t just Trump, and Trump isn’t some anomaly that makes the GOP look bad.
    Practically the whole Party is backing Trump’s attempted coup. Practically all GOP voters are, too.
    The problem staring us in the face is that 45% of the electorate supports Trumpism and/or the Trumpist GOP.
    What can be done about that?

  580. wj – A lot of chickens better come home to roost on the GOP, not just Trump.
    That’s the problem,see.It isn’t just Trump, and Trump isn’t some anomaly that makes the GOP look bad.
    Practically the whole Party is backing Trump’s attempted coup. Practically all GOP voters are, too.
    The problem staring us in the face is that 45% of the electorate supports Trumpism and/or the Trumpist GOP.
    What can be done about that?

  581. CaseyL – As I see it, Trump is a catalyst. Before he came on the scene, there were problems in the GOP. Highly visible since Gingrich — who highlighted what the “southern strategy” was going to mean for the party long term, for any who hadn’t seen it coming. But Trump made the situation substantially worse.
    Yes, most Republican voters are supporting Trump and his delusions. But, why are they doing that? Because they are in an information bubble, built by media chasing ratings and politicians with no principles beyond getting elected. So doing anything about that support will have to involve addressing that cause.
    For the media bubble, I don’t have lots of great ideas. For the politicians interested only in exploiting the gullible? What I expect to see is those with even a modicum of honesty to get primaried by ever more extreme nut cases. In some areas, they’ll get elected anyway. (See the QAnon fan newly elected to the house.) But in others, there will be enough folks for whom they are a bridge too far.
    The result of that is fewer, albeit mmore daft, members in Congress. Something that we’ve seen in the legislature here in California. Which means less ability to influence what actually happens. Another result: less chance of a Republican winning the presidency.
    Which, in turn, means fewer ambitious above all else politicians choosing to run as Republicans. (Hey, if you have no principles, you can mouth liberal talking points just as easily.) And, eventually, a new center-right party and possibly a merger of the Republicans and the American Independent Party.

  582. CaseyL – As I see it, Trump is a catalyst. Before he came on the scene, there were problems in the GOP. Highly visible since Gingrich — who highlighted what the “southern strategy” was going to mean for the party long term, for any who hadn’t seen it coming. But Trump made the situation substantially worse.
    Yes, most Republican voters are supporting Trump and his delusions. But, why are they doing that? Because they are in an information bubble, built by media chasing ratings and politicians with no principles beyond getting elected. So doing anything about that support will have to involve addressing that cause.
    For the media bubble, I don’t have lots of great ideas. For the politicians interested only in exploiting the gullible? What I expect to see is those with even a modicum of honesty to get primaried by ever more extreme nut cases. In some areas, they’ll get elected anyway. (See the QAnon fan newly elected to the house.) But in others, there will be enough folks for whom they are a bridge too far.
    The result of that is fewer, albeit mmore daft, members in Congress. Something that we’ve seen in the legislature here in California. Which means less ability to influence what actually happens. Another result: less chance of a Republican winning the presidency.
    Which, in turn, means fewer ambitious above all else politicians choosing to run as Republicans. (Hey, if you have no principles, you can mouth liberal talking points just as easily.) And, eventually, a new center-right party and possibly a merger of the Republicans and the American Independent Party.

  583. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-to-award-medal-of-freedom-to-hardcore-loyalist-rep-nunes
    Biden and the US Government must demand, at gunpoint, the immediate return of US taxpayer property, these cheesy, worthless doodads (now that the words “medal” “of”, and “freedom” have been utterly evacuated of recognizable meaning by the toxic emetic of Trump’s bestowal of his rancid beneficence on anti-American subhuman filth like Limbaugh, Nunes and probably Jordan), on pain of prosecution and violent punishment to these unworthy, deplorable scum recipients.
    Send armed Secret Service agents to their homes and Congressional offices to confiscate the medals. Tolerate no resistance.
    Either that or I want one too having done NOTHING to deserve one, which is more than these vermin Republican swine have accomplished in their kneepadded insurrectionist pig lives.
    Then discontinue the awarding of these medals and melt down the remaining inventory.
    America is now nothing but a meaningless geographic presence on a map printed on hoarded toilet paper.
    “Another result: less chance of a Republican winning the presidency.”
    I keep hearing this.
    Not good enough. Only no chance … ever again … will do.

  584. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-to-award-medal-of-freedom-to-hardcore-loyalist-rep-nunes
    Biden and the US Government must demand, at gunpoint, the immediate return of US taxpayer property, these cheesy, worthless doodads (now that the words “medal” “of”, and “freedom” have been utterly evacuated of recognizable meaning by the toxic emetic of Trump’s bestowal of his rancid beneficence on anti-American subhuman filth like Limbaugh, Nunes and probably Jordan), on pain of prosecution and violent punishment to these unworthy, deplorable scum recipients.
    Send armed Secret Service agents to their homes and Congressional offices to confiscate the medals. Tolerate no resistance.
    Either that or I want one too having done NOTHING to deserve one, which is more than these vermin Republican swine have accomplished in their kneepadded insurrectionist pig lives.
    Then discontinue the awarding of these medals and melt down the remaining inventory.
    America is now nothing but a meaningless geographic presence on a map printed on hoarded toilet paper.
    “Another result: less chance of a Republican winning the presidency.”
    I keep hearing this.
    Not good enough. Only no chance … ever again … will do.

  585. Any Medal of freedom from Trump should be recorded with an asterisk. Lest it be confused with the real thing.

  586. Any Medal of freedom from Trump should be recorded with an asterisk. Lest it be confused with the real thing.

  587. Asterisks are for worthies like Roger Maris, who, thru no fault of their own, gained an edge because the rules of the game were changed.
    Besides, the corrupt Trump family receives a sizable royalty for every cornered market asterisk applied worldwide.
    Thus, their proliferation in every category.
    The worldwide conservative movement:
    https://crookedtimber.org/2021/01/04/the-stock-obe/
    Kill it.
    None of my words here should be construed as partisan support for the Democratic Party or any particular policies.
    This is a much more elemental Comanche vengeance.
    I want my gravestone to have a single asterisk carved into it as an epitaph.
    “But … for what?” mourners (all two of them) and solitary walkers thru graveyards will ask for the rest of time.

  588. Asterisks are for worthies like Roger Maris, who, thru no fault of their own, gained an edge because the rules of the game were changed.
    Besides, the corrupt Trump family receives a sizable royalty for every cornered market asterisk applied worldwide.
    Thus, their proliferation in every category.
    The worldwide conservative movement:
    https://crookedtimber.org/2021/01/04/the-stock-obe/
    Kill it.
    None of my words here should be construed as partisan support for the Democratic Party or any particular policies.
    This is a much more elemental Comanche vengeance.
    I want my gravestone to have a single asterisk carved into it as an epitaph.
    “But … for what?” mourners (all two of them) and solitary walkers thru graveyards will ask for the rest of time.

  589. Any Medal of freedom from Trump should be recorded with an asterisk.
    or a crude laughing-face GIF from 1997.

  590. Any Medal of freedom from Trump should be recorded with an asterisk.
    or a crude laughing-face GIF from 1997.

  591. There is no process for revoking a Medak of Freedom. On the other hand, some Medal of Honor recipients subsequently had their medals revoked. So perhaps a process should be created, and criteria established (e.g. those given for political reasons).

  592. There is no process for revoking a Medak of Freedom. On the other hand, some Medal of Honor recipients subsequently had their medals revoked. So perhaps a process should be created, and criteria established (e.g. those given for political reasons).

  593. could someone kill my 8:25? i now know what that shirt is referring to, and… well, i wouldn’t have posted it if i knew before.
    Done – wj

  594. could someone kill my 8:25? i now know what that shirt is referring to, and… well, i wouldn’t have posted it if i knew before.
    Done – wj

  597. Thanks, nooneithinkisinmytree, for your 10:30. That’s a my district! The article says it better than the way I’ve been trying to tell y’all.
    What the article leaves out is what a formidable, admirable person Webb is. He was treating Covid patients as his R opponent was cheering Covid on. Also, he has a law degree. Dual law/medicine people are fairly rare, particularly in politics. But probably too much school for the rubes.

  598. Thanks, nooneithinkisinmytree, for your 10:30. That’s a my district! The article says it better than the way I’ve been trying to tell y’all.
    What the article leaves out is what a formidable, admirable person Webb is. He was treating Covid patients as his R opponent was cheering Covid on. Also, he has a law degree. Dual law/medicine people are fairly rare, particularly in politics. But probably too much school for the rubes.

  609. Deleting Trump from the presidency? Already in progress.
    Deleting him from this mortal coil? No sign of that. But then, once he’s out, a confirmed LOSER, perhaps the longer he has to live with the label the better. (Especially if he has to live with it while doing hard time.)

  610. Deleting Trump from the presidency? Already in progress.
    Deleting him from this mortal coil? No sign of that. But then, once he’s out, a confirmed LOSER, perhaps the longer he has to live with the label the better. (Especially if he has to live with it while doing hard time.)

  611. Cancel, not delete. “Cancel culture” has to be good for something.
    “Delete” implies erasure — making it look like the thing never existed. That’s being too nice to the MAGAts. “Cancel” is better — we don’t forget, we merely deplore, despise, and shun.
    –TP

  612. Cancel, not delete. “Cancel culture” has to be good for something.
    “Delete” implies erasure — making it look like the thing never existed. That’s being too nice to the MAGAts. “Cancel” is better — we don’t forget, we merely deplore, despise, and shun.
    –TP

  613. Raffensperger is conservative movement scum and filth:
    https://www.bing.com/search?q=Brad+Raffensperger+Trump+call&efirst=2&filters=tnTID%3a%2262A8E563-B08D-4e08-9355-D3896A8E7111%22+tnVersion%3a%223862691%22+Segment%3a%22popularnow.carousel%22+tnCol%3a%222%22+tnOrder%3a%225dc5a417-1ee6-4049-9658-c4576618b8ab%22&form=HPNN01
    Please, conservatives, tell us again, lie your asses off one more time, about your party of personal responsibility.
    If government will not protect us and carry out the law, what is left but the horror of savage vigilante justice?

  614. Raffensperger is conservative movement scum and filth:
    https://www.bing.com/search?q=Brad+Raffensperger+Trump+call&efirst=2&filters=tnTID%3a%2262A8E563-B08D-4e08-9355-D3896A8E7111%22+tnVersion%3a%223862691%22+Segment%3a%22popularnow.carousel%22+tnCol%3a%222%22+tnOrder%3a%225dc5a417-1ee6-4049-9658-c4576618b8ab%22&form=HPNN01
    Please, conservatives, tell us again, lie your asses off one more time, about your party of personal responsibility.
    If government will not protect us and carry out the law, what is left but the horror of savage vigilante justice?

  615. JDT, sometimes you just have to be satisfied with getting half a loaf. Having him resolutely refuse to agree to Trumps pleas/demands for election fraud is such a half loaf. Actually, bigger than half.
    More would be better, of course. But don’t distain getting as much as he has been willing to give. There are far too many Trump toadies out there who wouldn’t have refused.

  616. JDT, sometimes you just have to be satisfied with getting half a loaf. Having him resolutely refuse to agree to Trumps pleas/demands for election fraud is such a half loaf. Actually, bigger than half.
    More would be better, of course. But don’t distain getting as much as he has been willing to give. There are far too many Trump toadies out there who wouldn’t have refused.

  617. For whoever mentioned the possibility that Trump might be getting ready to go to Scotland to avoid the Biden inauguration, Scotland has just gone into total lockdown until at least the end of January. As well as making it illegal to leave home unless you belong to certain groups (careworkers etc), the Scottish Government statement ended with these words:
    And it remains the case – and let me stress this point – that no-one is allowed to travel into or out of Scotland unless it is for an essential purpose.

  618. For whoever mentioned the possibility that Trump might be getting ready to go to Scotland to avoid the Biden inauguration, Scotland has just gone into total lockdown until at least the end of January. As well as making it illegal to leave home unless you belong to certain groups (careworkers etc), the Scottish Government statement ended with these words:
    And it remains the case – and let me stress this point – that no-one is allowed to travel into or out of Scotland unless it is for an essential purpose.

  619. And BoJo is making a statement in about a half hour, presumably putting London and the Southeast or even the whole of England into lockdown as well. He should; Scotland is about four weeks behind London in the new surge.

  620. And BoJo is making a statement in about a half hour, presumably putting London and the Southeast or even the whole of England into lockdown as well. He should; Scotland is about four weeks behind London in the new surge.

  621. I wonder, though, if Scotland would be willing to turn the President’s plane away on the day before he ceases to be the president? And once he is there, then would they be willing to kick him out a day later?
    Interesting questions.

  622. I wonder, though, if Scotland would be willing to turn the President’s plane away on the day before he ceases to be the president? And once he is there, then would they be willing to kick him out a day later?
    Interesting questions.

  623. Having seen the flights of creative profanity that the Scots showered upon Trump on previous occasions, I can’t imagine Scotland being a congenial destination for Trump-in-exile.
    Plus, I’m pretty sure Scotland has an extradition treaty with the US, or at least is covered by the UK’s.
    There’s always the Saudis.

  624. Having seen the flights of creative profanity that the Scots showered upon Trump on previous occasions, I can’t imagine Scotland being a congenial destination for Trump-in-exile.
    Plus, I’m pretty sure Scotland has an extradition treaty with the US, or at least is covered by the UK’s.
    There’s always the Saudis.

  627. Russia. He could be their disinformation mouthpiece, keeping our democracy under the constant strain of his influence over his cult members.

  628. Russia. He could be their disinformation mouthpiece, keeping our democracy under the constant strain of his influence over his cult members.

  629. I almost suggested Russia. But Putin’s interest in someone who once did something for him is minimal, and I couldn’t think of what use Trump would have going forward.
    But you’re right, fomenting disruption would be worthwhile for him. Comes to that, China might have the same inclination.

  630. I almost suggested Russia. But Putin’s interest in someone who once did something for him is minimal, and I couldn’t think of what use Trump would have going forward.
    But you’re right, fomenting disruption would be worthwhile for him. Comes to that, China might have the same inclination.

  631. He, Trump has had access to all sorts of classified information during the past 4 years. I’m hardly the first to point out that He is not likely to safeguard any of it that His stable genius brain may have retained. Aside from selling it for money, He is also prone to spilling it out of carelessness or even spite.
    In light of such clear and soon-to-be-present danger, I won’t suggest “lock him up” because I’m a wimpy librul. I will merely ask our conservative friends for suggestions.
    –TP

  632. He, Trump has had access to all sorts of classified information during the past 4 years. I’m hardly the first to point out that He is not likely to safeguard any of it that His stable genius brain may have retained. Aside from selling it for money, He is also prone to spilling it out of carelessness or even spite.
    In light of such clear and soon-to-be-present danger, I won’t suggest “lock him up” because I’m a wimpy librul. I will merely ask our conservative friends for suggestions.
    –TP

  633. Trump has had access to all sorts of classified information during the past 4 years. I’m hardly the first to point out that He is not likely to safeguard any of it that His stable genius brain may have retained.
    Fortunately, he doesn’t pay attention during briefings, when he deigns to attend them at all. And given that he can’t tell fact from fiction, he’d be a pretty chancy source. Although he might be useful as a disinformation channel, after he’s out, if we played to his ego by telling him he was getting classified briefings as a courtesy to his position….

  634. Trump has had access to all sorts of classified information during the past 4 years. I’m hardly the first to point out that He is not likely to safeguard any of it that His stable genius brain may have retained.
    Fortunately, he doesn’t pay attention during briefings, when he deigns to attend them at all. And given that he can’t tell fact from fiction, he’d be a pretty chancy source. Although he might be useful as a disinformation channel, after he’s out, if we played to his ego by telling him he was getting classified briefings as a courtesy to his position….

  635. I will merely ask our conservative friends for suggestions.
    I’m not a conservative, but as a suggestion, there is the whole ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’ approach…

  636. I will merely ask our conservative friends for suggestions.
    I’m not a conservative, but as a suggestion, there is the whole ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’ approach…

  637. Boris Badenuff, expert veteran waterboarder in the basement suites of the Lubyanka questioning traitor Trump between dunkings:
    “My dear comrade Donald, you promised your Daddy Vlad with that very mouth of yours that you would, shall we say … convey …. all that we must know about American state security secrets. You told us many times of these, and I quote, ‘the very, very biggest, most beautiful, most secret and juicy intelligence, secrets even Abraham Lincoln, America’s second greatest President, would not have been trusted with’ and NOW is the day you must tell us.
    Trump, spitting his broken lower bridge across the room, while pissing his drawers, sputtering: “I tell you, I wasn’t listening in those security briefings, my God, they were so boring, half the time I stalked out of the meetings, while feigning intestinal cramps, and …. ” ….the sound of water splashing across his betoweled face interrupts the moron’s pleadings, and then his interlocutors let up for a moment .. and he chokes and spits … “and you promised ME you would rename this building the IVANKA if I did your bidding for four years … well … and by the way, these are not the kind of water sports I’m accustomed to from my great ally, Vladimir Putin, after all I’ve done for him…
    … further dunking. Trump’s right foot kicks over a tray of gleaming dental instruments as he thrashes.
    Boris, on his cell to Putin: “He’s not cracking, sir, but then again, he’s not exactly Riley, Ace of Spies either, is he? Yes, I agree, sir, we should have turned a higher class of undercover agent, but it’s a little late in the day to cry over spilled borscht now, is it not. Yes, a bullet to the back of the neck seems the only course at this point, but you should know that our subject, trump, keeps screaming over and over that the whole thing has been a hoax and we should contact someone named Marty to confirm the hoaxicity of this entire caper and our man’s essential innocence.
    A moment of silence from the cell phone and then the Russian leader can be overhead ordering Boris to “bring me this …. how do you say … Marty? We shall learn what he knows.”

  638. Boris Badenuff, expert veteran waterboarder in the basement suites of the Lubyanka questioning traitor Trump between dunkings:
    “My dear comrade Donald, you promised your Daddy Vlad with that very mouth of yours that you would, shall we say … convey …. all that we must know about American state security secrets. You told us many times of these, and I quote, ‘the very, very biggest, most beautiful, most secret and juicy intelligence, secrets even Abraham Lincoln, America’s second greatest President, would not have been trusted with’ and NOW is the day you must tell us.
    Trump, spitting his broken lower bridge across the room, while pissing his drawers, sputtering: “I tell you, I wasn’t listening in those security briefings, my God, they were so boring, half the time I stalked out of the meetings, while feigning intestinal cramps, and …. ” ….the sound of water splashing across his betoweled face interrupts the moron’s pleadings, and then his interlocutors let up for a moment .. and he chokes and spits … “and you promised ME you would rename this building the IVANKA if I did your bidding for four years … well … and by the way, these are not the kind of water sports I’m accustomed to from my great ally, Vladimir Putin, after all I’ve done for him…
    … further dunking. Trump’s right foot kicks over a tray of gleaming dental instruments as he thrashes.
    Boris, on his cell to Putin: “He’s not cracking, sir, but then again, he’s not exactly Riley, Ace of Spies either, is he? Yes, I agree, sir, we should have turned a higher class of undercover agent, but it’s a little late in the day to cry over spilled borscht now, is it not. Yes, a bullet to the back of the neck seems the only course at this point, but you should know that our subject, trump, keeps screaming over and over that the whole thing has been a hoax and we should contact someone named Marty to confirm the hoaxicity of this entire caper and our man’s essential innocence.
    A moment of silence from the cell phone and then the Russian leader can be overhead ordering Boris to “bring me this …. how do you say … Marty? We shall learn what he knows.”

  639. Georgia Senate run-offs tomorrow. Fingers crossed for Warnock and Ossoff.
    Electoral College vote count on Wednesday. Hope nobody gets shot.
    Onward and upward.

  640. Georgia Senate run-offs tomorrow. Fingers crossed for Warnock and Ossoff.
    Electoral College vote count on Wednesday. Hope nobody gets shot.
    Onward and upward.

  645. Georgia Senate run-offs tomorrow. Fingers crossed for Warnock and Ossoff.
    Electoral College vote count on Wednesday. Hope nobody gets shot.
    Amen, amen, amen.

  646. Georgia Senate run-offs tomorrow. Fingers crossed for Warnock and Ossoff.
    Electoral College vote count on Wednesday. Hope nobody gets shot.
    Amen, amen, amen.

  647. Hope nobody gets shot:
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/1/4/2005825/-GOP-Rep-Lauren-Boebert-appears-to-strut-around-Washington-D-C-with-Glock-in-bizarre-Twitter-video
    Perhaps the armed jackass should hope the D.C. Chief of Police doesn’t mistake her for a black kid as she turns her back on him.
    I apologize for this Colorado vermin getting loose in the Nation’s Capitol. I know where her Shooters Bar and Grill is in Rifle, Colorado and I should have taken things into my own patriotic hands in the Nation’s self-defense, natch.
    Nancy Pelosi should make it a rule that all House Democrats must carry a weapon at all times when this piece of dirt is present and point their guns at her at all times with the safeties off, because you never know when good people with guns might have to take down subhuman republican refuse.

  648. Hope nobody gets shot:
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/1/4/2005825/-GOP-Rep-Lauren-Boebert-appears-to-strut-around-Washington-D-C-with-Glock-in-bizarre-Twitter-video
    Perhaps the armed jackass should hope the D.C. Chief of Police doesn’t mistake her for a black kid as she turns her back on him.
    I apologize for this Colorado vermin getting loose in the Nation’s Capitol. I know where her Shooters Bar and Grill is in Rifle, Colorado and I should have taken things into my own patriotic hands in the Nation’s self-defense, natch.
    Nancy Pelosi should make it a rule that all House Democrats must carry a weapon at all times when this piece of dirt is present and point their guns at her at all times with the safeties off, because you never know when good people with guns might have to take down subhuman republican refuse.

  649. Trump knew everything before he became President, so actual briefings were just opportunities to correct the briefer.
    Barring availability of an electro bio-mechanical neural transmitting zero synapse repositioner I suspect we can let his dementia take its course.

  650. Trump knew everything before he became President, so actual briefings were just opportunities to correct the briefer.
    Barring availability of an electro bio-mechanical neural transmitting zero synapse repositioner I suspect we can let his dementia take its course.

  651. Here we have a truly astonishing document from Republican Congressmen Thomas Massie (Ky.), Kelly Armstrong (N.D.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Mike Gallagher (Wis.), Nancy Mace (S.C.), Tom McClintock (Calif.) and Chip Roy (Tex.). Money quote:

    From a purely partisan perspective, Republican presidential candidates have won the national popular vote only once in the last 32 years. They have therefore depended on the electoral college for nearly all presidential victories in the last generation. If we perpetuate the notion that Congress may disregard certified electoral votes — based solely on its own assessment that one or more states mishandled the presidential election — we will be delegitimizing the very system that led Donald Trump to victory in 2016, and that could provide the only path to victory in 2024.

    Got that? These guys are arguing that Congress shouldn’t be able to reject states’ electoral votes because the existing system is the only way Republicans can win! That’s one remarkable admission. Not least because it implicitly assumes that not only are Republicans unable to win a majority of the votes, but they won’t be able to do so in the future either.

  652. Here we have a truly astonishing document from Republican Congressmen Thomas Massie (Ky.), Kelly Armstrong (N.D.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Mike Gallagher (Wis.), Nancy Mace (S.C.), Tom McClintock (Calif.) and Chip Roy (Tex.). Money quote:

    From a purely partisan perspective, Republican presidential candidates have won the national popular vote only once in the last 32 years. They have therefore depended on the electoral college for nearly all presidential victories in the last generation. If we perpetuate the notion that Congress may disregard certified electoral votes — based solely on its own assessment that one or more states mishandled the presidential election — we will be delegitimizing the very system that led Donald Trump to victory in 2016, and that could provide the only path to victory in 2024.

    Got that? These guys are arguing that Congress shouldn’t be able to reject states’ electoral votes because the existing system is the only way Republicans can win! That’s one remarkable admission. Not least because it implicitly assumes that not only are Republicans unable to win a majority of the votes, but they won’t be able to do so in the future either.

  653. Meanwhile, Gingrich is running around saying that the future of the Republican party is a multicultural coalition of the working class who will fight against the liberal elites. It’s all still anger and grievance 24/7, he’s just hoping he can find new buyers with the same short attention span but better electoral demographics.
    I think it’s pretty much a race to the next big myth. I hope it’s not warring nationalisms for both right and left to get swept up in.

  654. Meanwhile, Gingrich is running around saying that the future of the Republican party is a multicultural coalition of the working class who will fight against the liberal elites. It’s all still anger and grievance 24/7, he’s just hoping he can find new buyers with the same short attention span but better electoral demographics.
    I think it’s pretty much a race to the next big myth. I hope it’s not warring nationalisms for both right and left to get swept up in.

  655. I hope it’s not warring nationalisms for both right and left to get swept up in.
    What’s the evidence for that? And what do you mean by it?

  656. I hope it’s not warring nationalisms for both right and left to get swept up in.
    What’s the evidence for that? And what do you mean by it?

  657. I was just wondering because I don’t see “nationalism” as a driving force for the left, so maybe I am confused as to what you meant by “nationalism.”

  658. I was just wondering because I don’t see “nationalism” as a driving force for the left, so maybe I am confused as to what you meant by “nationalism.”

  659. Not to answer for nous. But his statement would make sense (and apply to both left and right) if “nationalism” were to mean something like
    “a vision of what the nation should be like.”
    Or, perhaps,
    “would be like, were it not for malign forces.”
    Just speculation on my part, of course.

  660. Not to answer for nous. But his statement would make sense (and apply to both left and right) if “nationalism” were to mean something like
    “a vision of what the nation should be like.”
    Or, perhaps,
    “would be like, were it not for malign forces.”
    Just speculation on my part, of course.

  661. Something like what wj said, but specifically I was thinking about Yugoslavia and the way that the Serbians had, for the longest time been supporters of a multicultural Yugoslavism and had fought against the competing exclusionary narratives of Croat nationalism. When the Croats pushed the narrative to the point of regime cleavage, though, the Yugoslavian unity dissolved into many identitarian groups.
    It would be a shame if the racial tensions in the Democratic party that have been visible within the last few elections took hold at the same time that communities of color grew tired of the perpetual white freakout and the resulting electoral scramble to appease rural whites.
    If both major parties were to find themselves in schism at the same time, I could see a lot of odd factions forming, including some odd pan-ethnic Christian nationalisms that solidify around opposition to abortion and gay rights.
    So not a clean right/left split, but rather a reshuffling of constituencies that had historically been R or D under new pressures.

  662. Something like what wj said, but specifically I was thinking about Yugoslavia and the way that the Serbians had, for the longest time been supporters of a multicultural Yugoslavism and had fought against the competing exclusionary narratives of Croat nationalism. When the Croats pushed the narrative to the point of regime cleavage, though, the Yugoslavian unity dissolved into many identitarian groups.
    It would be a shame if the racial tensions in the Democratic party that have been visible within the last few elections took hold at the same time that communities of color grew tired of the perpetual white freakout and the resulting electoral scramble to appease rural whites.
    If both major parties were to find themselves in schism at the same time, I could see a lot of odd factions forming, including some odd pan-ethnic Christian nationalisms that solidify around opposition to abortion and gay rights.
    So not a clean right/left split, but rather a reshuffling of constituencies that had historically been R or D under new pressures.

  663. So not a clean right/left split, but rather a reshuffling of constituencies that had historically been R or D under new pressures.
    Not unlike the reshuffling of constituencies that we saw in the late 60s and 70s. Which laid the foundation for the current configuration.

  664. So not a clean right/left split, but rather a reshuffling of constituencies that had historically been R or D under new pressures.
    Not unlike the reshuffling of constituencies that we saw in the late 60s and 70s. Which laid the foundation for the current configuration.

  665. nous – I think we’ve been seeing the beginning of that with the rise of the Purity Progressives.
    They claim to be left-wing, but advocate so badly for their pet causes I believe that advocacy is a lie. They’re more interested in sabotaging Democratic candidates while claiming to be allies of the demographics that are or were historically Democratic. They hit particularly hard at women and POCs.
    I’m pretty sure their real target demographic is well-off white people, particularly men, who want to sound “enlightened” for the social cachet but actually have more in common with the RW fringe.
    I can definitely see them joining forces with Trumpism for the giggles and the grift.

  666. nous – I think we’ve been seeing the beginning of that with the rise of the Purity Progressives.
    They claim to be left-wing, but advocate so badly for their pet causes I believe that advocacy is a lie. They’re more interested in sabotaging Democratic candidates while claiming to be allies of the demographics that are or were historically Democratic. They hit particularly hard at women and POCs.
    I’m pretty sure their real target demographic is well-off white people, particularly men, who want to sound “enlightened” for the social cachet but actually have more in common with the RW fringe.
    I can definitely see them joining forces with Trumpism for the giggles and the grift.

  667. I’m pretty sure their real target demographic is well-off white people, particularly men, who want to sound “enlightened” for the social cachet but actually have more in common with the RW fringe.
    a-yup.
    remember how Trump used to be a nominal Democrat?

  668. I’m pretty sure their real target demographic is well-off white people, particularly men, who want to sound “enlightened” for the social cachet but actually have more in common with the RW fringe.
    a-yup.
    remember how Trump used to be a nominal Democrat?

  669. nous, I don’t see what’s happening here as “nationalist” in any way similar to the Yugoslav wars (and I can’t say that I agree with your distillation of those either).
    What’s happening in this country is a fight between people who would like to find ways to get along, respecting each other’s differences, and finding ways to use the country’s wealth (including intellectual wealth) for common prosperity (not pure economic equality necessarily), and people who want to strengthen established social hierarchies, including the oligarchy. Obviously there are subgroups in both categories, but those are the two competing visions for the country. I’m not seeing either of those as “nationalism.”
    Maybe this is a nitpick, because I agree with what CaseyL and cleek took from your comment.

  670. nous, I don’t see what’s happening here as “nationalist” in any way similar to the Yugoslav wars (and I can’t say that I agree with your distillation of those either).
    What’s happening in this country is a fight between people who would like to find ways to get along, respecting each other’s differences, and finding ways to use the country’s wealth (including intellectual wealth) for common prosperity (not pure economic equality necessarily), and people who want to strengthen established social hierarchies, including the oligarchy. Obviously there are subgroups in both categories, but those are the two competing visions for the country. I’m not seeing either of those as “nationalism.”
    Maybe this is a nitpick, because I agree with what CaseyL and cleek took from your comment.

  675. i’m starting to feel like my wish might come true and we might actually get to see Trump, kick and screaming, dragged out of the White House by armed men.

  676. i’m starting to feel like my wish might come true and we might actually get to see Trump, kick and screaming, dragged out of the White House by armed men.

  677. Trump is such a total physical coward that just one man, armed or not, who threatened to put him in an arm lock would be able to walk him out. He’d rant and rave later about how brutally he was treated.

  678. Trump is such a total physical coward that just one man, armed or not, who threatened to put him in an arm lock would be able to walk him out. He’d rant and rave later about how brutally he was treated.

  679. sapient – for what it’s worth, I’d never call that a distillation of the conflict. At best that was a sketch one thread of the bigger picture.
    I’ve got a dozen academic articles and chapters about the fall of Yugoslavia saved on my hard drive for reading and no time for reading it. But even if I did, you can bet that a proper distillation would take more than 20 pages. Anything worth saying takes at least that much, and even then it is maddeningly oversimplified.
    Everything here is just spitballing.

  680. sapient – for what it’s worth, I’d never call that a distillation of the conflict. At best that was a sketch one thread of the bigger picture.
    I’ve got a dozen academic articles and chapters about the fall of Yugoslavia saved on my hard drive for reading and no time for reading it. But even if I did, you can bet that a proper distillation would take more than 20 pages. Anything worth saying takes at least that much, and even then it is maddeningly oversimplified.
    Everything here is just spitballing.

  681. I too would love to see He, Trump frogmarched out of the White House. But even if He handcuffs Himself to the Truman Balcony railing and His loyalists in the Secret Service threaten to shoot anybody who comes near Him, Joe Biden will be POTUS after noon on 20 January whether or not He, Trump is still squatting in the building.
    The real question is whether the employees of The Government, armed and unarmed, will honor the fact that Biden becomes their boss at that moment. If any of them do not, they’d better be prepared for the consequences. Getting fired will be the least of those, if Biden’s team has any brains.
    –TP

  682. I too would love to see He, Trump frogmarched out of the White House. But even if He handcuffs Himself to the Truman Balcony railing and His loyalists in the Secret Service threaten to shoot anybody who comes near Him, Joe Biden will be POTUS after noon on 20 January whether or not He, Trump is still squatting in the building.
    The real question is whether the employees of The Government, armed and unarmed, will honor the fact that Biden becomes their boss at that moment. If any of them do not, they’d better be prepared for the consequences. Getting fired will be the least of those, if Biden’s team has any brains.
    –TP

  683. His loyalists in the Secret Service
    Consider how Trump routinely treats those who work for him (as he sees it). And especially that a bunch of Secret Service folks came down with covid as a result of how Trump does stuff. I wouldn’t be surprised if that isn’t a null set by this point.
    The real question is whether the employees of The Government, armed and unarmed, will honor the fact that Biden becomes their boss at that moment.
    Most of them, including the military, the FBI, etc. will honor their oaths to the Constitution. There may be a few, say in the Border Patrol, who will not. But I expect they are so outnumbered that they won’t be a major issue.

  684. His loyalists in the Secret Service
    Consider how Trump routinely treats those who work for him (as he sees it). And especially that a bunch of Secret Service folks came down with covid as a result of how Trump does stuff. I wouldn’t be surprised if that isn’t a null set by this point.
    The real question is whether the employees of The Government, armed and unarmed, will honor the fact that Biden becomes their boss at that moment.
    Most of them, including the military, the FBI, etc. will honor their oaths to the Constitution. There may be a few, say in the Border Patrol, who will not. But I expect they are so outnumbered that they won’t be a major issue.

  685. Meanwhile, just for the lulz (if in fact I am using that correctly): the First Minister of Scotland was just shown on C4 News being asked if Donald Trump would be allowed in to Scotland to avoid Biden’s inauguration, and she said
    No-one is allowed to travel into or out of Scotland unless it is for an essential purpose, and I do not consider playing golf an essential purpose.”

  686. Meanwhile, just for the lulz (if in fact I am using that correctly): the First Minister of Scotland was just shown on C4 News being asked if Donald Trump would be allowed in to Scotland to avoid Biden’s inauguration, and she said
    No-one is allowed to travel into or out of Scotland unless it is for an essential purpose, and I do not consider playing golf an essential purpose.”

  691. Trump is such a total physical coward that just one man, armed or not, who threatened to put him in an arm lock would be able to walk him out.
    i think it’s best if we try it, to find out for sure.

  692. Trump is such a total physical coward that just one man, armed or not, who threatened to put him in an arm lock would be able to walk him out.
    i think it’s best if we try it, to find out for sure.

  693. Be hard to try. Heel spurs or not, if Trump sees something like that coming he will flee and outrun the guy.

  694. Be hard to try. Heel spurs or not, if Trump sees something like that coming he will flee and outrun the guy.

  701. blush! If only becoming a real hero was so easy.
    (Now if I could return the Republican party collectively to sanity, that would be worthy of a hero. 😉

  702. blush! If only becoming a real hero was so easy.
    (Now if I could return the Republican party collectively to sanity, that would be worthy of a hero. 😉

  707. You betcha!
    In other news, I see that the Kentucky GOP is preparing to remove the emergency powers from the D governor who has been trying to mandate masks, limit gatherings etc, and whose actions were deemed lawful by the Kentucky Supreme Court in November. Those would be the same emergency powers the (presumably GOP?) legislature had previously granted to (presumably GOP) governors, I assume. Another perfect example of IOKIYAR

  708. You betcha!
    In other news, I see that the Kentucky GOP is preparing to remove the emergency powers from the D governor who has been trying to mandate masks, limit gatherings etc, and whose actions were deemed lawful by the Kentucky Supreme Court in November. Those would be the same emergency powers the (presumably GOP?) legislature had previously granted to (presumably GOP) governors, I assume. Another perfect example of IOKIYAR

  709. i like how the last week or so has neatly dispatched the notion that the GOP’s problem was Trump.
    now they’ve made it clear that the whole fucking party is boldly and proudly stupid and anti-democratic.
    burn. it. down.

  710. i like how the last week or so has neatly dispatched the notion that the GOP’s problem was Trump.
    now they’ve made it clear that the whole fucking party is boldly and proudly stupid and anti-democratic.
    burn. it. down.

  711. hey look, election theft has consequences!
    at least for some.

    Republican lawyer Cleta Mitchell, who advised President Trump during his Saturday phone call with Georgia’s secretary of state in an effort to overturn the election, resigned on Tuesday as a partner in the Washington office of the law firm Foley & Lardner.
    Mitchell’s resignation came after the law firm on Monday issued a statement saying it was “concerned by” her role in the call. The firm noted that as a matter of policy, its attorneys do not represent “any parties seeking to contest the results of the election.”

  712. hey look, election theft has consequences!
    at least for some.

    Republican lawyer Cleta Mitchell, who advised President Trump during his Saturday phone call with Georgia’s secretary of state in an effort to overturn the election, resigned on Tuesday as a partner in the Washington office of the law firm Foley & Lardner.
    Mitchell’s resignation came after the law firm on Monday issued a statement saying it was “concerned by” her role in the call. The firm noted that as a matter of policy, its attorneys do not represent “any parties seeking to contest the results of the election.”

  713. I’ve stayed out of this for a lot of reasons, but mostly because heads are exploding all over the place and for those who think DT openly solicited ballot-box stuffing, not without justification.
    That said, the Dem/Lefties may meet themselves coming on a couple of issues. The widespread groundswell on the left to ditch the filibuster went dark on Nov. 4 when it became clear the Dems would not sweep the senate. I suspect the Dems’ enthusiasm for the filibuster will be entirely dependent on how things fare in GA. If so, this is opportunism, not principle. Similarly, the super close house election in Iowa raises the specter of the Dems refusing to seat the certified Repub winner–will the Dems take the high road or not?
    Trying to have it both ways is bad business regardless, but it’s even worse when trying to claim the high moral ground against a criminal like DT.
    Happy New Year Wokesters, Commies, Pinko’s and Fellow-Travelers!

  714. I’ve stayed out of this for a lot of reasons, but mostly because heads are exploding all over the place and for those who think DT openly solicited ballot-box stuffing, not without justification.
    That said, the Dem/Lefties may meet themselves coming on a couple of issues. The widespread groundswell on the left to ditch the filibuster went dark on Nov. 4 when it became clear the Dems would not sweep the senate. I suspect the Dems’ enthusiasm for the filibuster will be entirely dependent on how things fare in GA. If so, this is opportunism, not principle. Similarly, the super close house election in Iowa raises the specter of the Dems refusing to seat the certified Repub winner–will the Dems take the high road or not?
    Trying to have it both ways is bad business regardless, but it’s even worse when trying to claim the high moral ground against a criminal like DT.
    Happy New Year Wokesters, Commies, Pinko’s and Fellow-Travelers!

  715. Similarly, the super close house election in Iowa raises the specter of the Dems refusing to seat the certified Repub winner–will the Dems take the high road or not?
    oh no… a specter.
    go look at PA right now and get back to us.

  716. Similarly, the super close house election in Iowa raises the specter of the Dems refusing to seat the certified Repub winner–will the Dems take the high road or not?
    oh no… a specter.
    go look at PA right now and get back to us.

  717. oh no… a specter.
    go look at PA right now and get back to us.
    I’m just interested in knowing whether y’all will practice what you preach. The Repubs are not my circus and haven’t been for several decades.

  718. oh no… a specter.
    go look at PA right now and get back to us.
    I’m just interested in knowing whether y’all will practice what you preach. The Repubs are not my circus and haven’t been for several decades.

  719. It does seem like “decades”, McKinney, but I’m pretty sure that just 4 years ago you told us you voted straight Republican (except for president) in 2016. Am I wrong? Or does “not my circus” mean something different to you than to people who are not you?
    –TP

  720. It does seem like “decades”, McKinney, but I’m pretty sure that just 4 years ago you told us you voted straight Republican (except for president) in 2016. Am I wrong? Or does “not my circus” mean something different to you than to people who are not you?
    –TP

  721. will the Dems take the high road or not?
    There’s usually a lot of nuance lost when we do the Republicans/Democrats same/same game.

  722. will the Dems take the high road or not?
    There’s usually a lot of nuance lost when we do the Republicans/Democrats same/same game.

  725. Happy New Year Wokesters, Commies, Pinko’s and Fellow-Travelers!
    Happy New Year and take care, McKinney. The UK more-contagious variant is confirmed in Colorado, California, and Florida. The Colorado case(s) suggest that it’s loose on the interstate highway system, so it’s just a matter of time before it’s everywhere.
    All of the numbers today suggest that the county where I live, having earned some reopening by being strict on masks and such, is about to lose all of that because the neighboring county that will barely do squat is filling our hospital and ICU beds.

  726. Happy New Year Wokesters, Commies, Pinko’s and Fellow-Travelers!
    Happy New Year and take care, McKinney. The UK more-contagious variant is confirmed in Colorado, California, and Florida. The Colorado case(s) suggest that it’s loose on the interstate highway system, so it’s just a matter of time before it’s everywhere.
    All of the numbers today suggest that the county where I live, having earned some reopening by being strict on masks and such, is about to lose all of that because the neighboring county that will barely do squat is filling our hospital and ICU beds.

  727. I’m just interested in knowing whether y’all will practice what you preach.
    Hey, man, like, I’ve never even been to Iowa, man!

  728. I’m just interested in knowing whether y’all will practice what you preach.
    Hey, man, like, I’ve never even been to Iowa, man!

  729. I’d be fine keeping the filibuster with the proviso that a party need to represent at least half of the population of the U.S. in order to employ it — assigning half of each states population to each of its senators.

  730. I’d be fine keeping the filibuster with the proviso that a party need to represent at least half of the population of the U.S. in order to employ it — assigning half of each states population to each of its senators.

  731. Similarly, the super close house election in Iowa raises the specter of the Dems refusing to seat the certified Repub winner–will the Dems take the high road or not?
    Representative Miller-Meeks was seated on January 3 along with the rest of the House of Representatives.

  732. Similarly, the super close house election in Iowa raises the specter of the Dems refusing to seat the certified Repub winner–will the Dems take the high road or not?
    Representative Miller-Meeks was seated on January 3 along with the rest of the House of Representatives.

  733. For what it’s worth, I favor abolition of the filibuster regardless of the current election outcomes. A party that wins the Presidency and majorities in both houses should have working control to pass measures desired/agreeable to all or most of their members. At the subsequent election voters would have the opportunity to hold the ruling party to account. There would be no room for claims of obstructionism and the like.

  734. For what it’s worth, I favor abolition of the filibuster regardless of the current election outcomes. A party that wins the Presidency and majorities in both houses should have working control to pass measures desired/agreeable to all or most of their members. At the subsequent election voters would have the opportunity to hold the ruling party to account. There would be no room for claims of obstructionism and the like.

  735. I’m just interested in knowing whether y’all will practice what you preach.
    of course.
    The GOP in PA is literally refusing to seat elected representatives, right now And you’re here to see if anyone.cares about what Dems are grumbling about?
    If you want to be above it all , you can’t just always piss to one side.

  736. I’m just interested in knowing whether y’all will practice what you preach.
    of course.
    The GOP in PA is literally refusing to seat elected representatives, right now And you’re here to see if anyone.cares about what Dems are grumbling about?
    If you want to be above it all , you can’t just always piss to one side.

  737. Also, too, cleek, I’m guessing you and know I wouldn’t support negating a legitimate election either way (via our powerful blog comments).

  738. Also, too, cleek, I’m guessing you and know I wouldn’t support negating a legitimate election either way (via our powerful blog comments).

  739. I suspect the Dems’ enthusiasm for the filibuster will be entirely dependent on how things fare in GA. If so, this is opportunism, not principle.
    A fair point, IMO.
    In general I make the more radical initiatives from the (D)’s – whether real or rhetorical – to be an expression of frustration with (R), and specifically McConnell’s, intransigence.
    I would also not be surprised to see the (D)’s tailor their rhetoric to suit the facts on the ground, whatever they turn out to be.
    So yes, they are not flawless paragons of principle.
    These are strange times, perhaps you’ve noticed.
    Similarly, the super close house election in Iowa raises the specter of the Dems refusing to seat the certified Repub winner–will the Dems take the high road or not?
    I think it depends on the case.
    Miller-Meeks won by 6 votes. Out of something like 400K. Her (D) opponent is challenging that, but in the meantime she’s been seated.
    I guess there have been recounts, and the result has been certified by state officials. It might be more gracious for (D) Hart to concede and let all parties move on.
    But, in the meantime, Miller-Meeks holds her seat.

  740. I suspect the Dems’ enthusiasm for the filibuster will be entirely dependent on how things fare in GA. If so, this is opportunism, not principle.
    A fair point, IMO.
    In general I make the more radical initiatives from the (D)’s – whether real or rhetorical – to be an expression of frustration with (R), and specifically McConnell’s, intransigence.
    I would also not be surprised to see the (D)’s tailor their rhetoric to suit the facts on the ground, whatever they turn out to be.
    So yes, they are not flawless paragons of principle.
    These are strange times, perhaps you’ve noticed.
    Similarly, the super close house election in Iowa raises the specter of the Dems refusing to seat the certified Repub winner–will the Dems take the high road or not?
    I think it depends on the case.
    Miller-Meeks won by 6 votes. Out of something like 400K. Her (D) opponent is challenging that, but in the meantime she’s been seated.
    I guess there have been recounts, and the result has been certified by state officials. It might be more gracious for (D) Hart to concede and let all parties move on.
    But, in the meantime, Miller-Meeks holds her seat.

  741. I guess I also want to say that I personally find it outstanding that not one, but two, Senate seats from freaking GA are in play. Not just in play, but in down to the wire, we might not know the result for days, in play.
    That’s a significant shift, no matter how this particular pair of races turns out. GA’s turning blue.

  742. I guess I also want to say that I personally find it outstanding that not one, but two, Senate seats from freaking GA are in play. Not just in play, but in down to the wire, we might not know the result for days, in play.
    That’s a significant shift, no matter how this particular pair of races turns out. GA’s turning blue.

  743. They say that politics is the art of the possible. Thus, anyone with even the slightest grasp of reality would understand that abolishing the filibuster is not possible give the make up of the Senate, which we don’t even know. However, points for taking that observation and inferring a lack of principles to the opposite side. No wonder this country is so screwed.

  744. They say that politics is the art of the possible. Thus, anyone with even the slightest grasp of reality would understand that abolishing the filibuster is not possible give the make up of the Senate, which we don’t even know. However, points for taking that observation and inferring a lack of principles to the opposite side. No wonder this country is so screwed.

  745. I seriously doubt, filibuster or not, that the incoming administration will be able to get anything even vaguely ‘left’ (by US standards) through*. If the Dems don’t get both seats from Georgia, McTurtle will killy anything, and if they do, the likes of Manchin will.
    As for the filibuster: either attach a weight condition to it (must represent both a given number of senators AND a minimum part of the US population) or drop it completely. And no ‘for life’ appointments without a majority in both.
    It will not happen, though. McKT is imo correct that for nearly all politicians in question this is a matter of concvenience not principle.
    *assuming it has any intention to which many doubt (Biden is even less inclined to anything ‘radical’ than Obama).

  746. I seriously doubt, filibuster or not, that the incoming administration will be able to get anything even vaguely ‘left’ (by US standards) through*. If the Dems don’t get both seats from Georgia, McTurtle will killy anything, and if they do, the likes of Manchin will.
    As for the filibuster: either attach a weight condition to it (must represent both a given number of senators AND a minimum part of the US population) or drop it completely. And no ‘for life’ appointments without a majority in both.
    It will not happen, though. McKT is imo correct that for nearly all politicians in question this is a matter of concvenience not principle.
    *assuming it has any intention to which many doubt (Biden is even less inclined to anything ‘radical’ than Obama).

  747. When we consider what should he happening right now in this country, were ANYONE fully subscribing to principle, even the drive-by variety, we may want to THANK hypocrisy for at least forestalling an inevitable and horrible fate.
    Watch this for a preview of how hypocrites, fed up with merely hypocritical posturing, while doing nothing to defeat evil, finally assert principled and horrific resistance against principled subhuman conservative sadism.
    https://www.wionews.com/world/brazilian-president-jair-bolsonaro-says-his-country-is-broke-and-he-cant-do-anything-354727
    Trump is not a hypocrite, despite nearly everyone ascribing his actions to mere performance.
    I am a hypocrite.
    That cannot stand, but in the meantime, two cheers for hypocrisy.

  748. When we consider what should he happening right now in this country, were ANYONE fully subscribing to principle, even the drive-by variety, we may want to THANK hypocrisy for at least forestalling an inevitable and horrible fate.
    Watch this for a preview of how hypocrites, fed up with merely hypocritical posturing, while doing nothing to defeat evil, finally assert principled and horrific resistance against principled subhuman conservative sadism.
    https://www.wionews.com/world/brazilian-president-jair-bolsonaro-says-his-country-is-broke-and-he-cant-do-anything-354727
    Trump is not a hypocrite, despite nearly everyone ascribing his actions to mere performance.
    I am a hypocrite.
    That cannot stand, but in the meantime, two cheers for hypocrisy.

  749. That’s a significant shift, no matter how this particular pair of races turns out. GA’s turning blue.
    indeed.
    and Stacey Abrams should be put in charge of everything.

  750. That’s a significant shift, no matter how this particular pair of races turns out. GA’s turning blue.
    indeed.
    and Stacey Abrams should be put in charge of everything.

  751. Stacey Abrams should be put in charge of everything.
    Yes. And her Georgia project duplicated (mutatis mutandis) in every state of the union.

  752. Stacey Abrams should be put in charge of everything.
    Yes. And her Georgia project duplicated (mutatis mutandis) in every state of the union.

  755. Joe Biden should detail his loyal Secret Service agents to surround, accompany, and protect Stacy Abrams every minute of her schedule.
    You never know when a red state conservative and his or her weapons will tire of the hypocrisy of merely threatening her life.
    I’m surprised more has not been made of Biden’s decision to bring aboard Secret Service agents loyal to him and willing to take a bullet.
    When did the Secret Service become a partisan bullet-ducking protection racket depending on the party affiliation of the President.
    Oh, yeah, November, 2016.
    Positively Shakespearian in their diabolical jettisoning of bipartisan hypocrisy, the conservative Trump vermin are.
    Et tu?

  756. Joe Biden should detail his loyal Secret Service agents to surround, accompany, and protect Stacy Abrams every minute of her schedule.
    You never know when a red state conservative and his or her weapons will tire of the hypocrisy of merely threatening her life.
    I’m surprised more has not been made of Biden’s decision to bring aboard Secret Service agents loyal to him and willing to take a bullet.
    When did the Secret Service become a partisan bullet-ducking protection racket depending on the party affiliation of the President.
    Oh, yeah, November, 2016.
    Positively Shakespearian in their diabolical jettisoning of bipartisan hypocrisy, the conservative Trump vermin are.
    Et tu?

  757. …and if they do, the likes of Manchin will.
    Manchin is the pundits’ favorite in the “Senate Democrats will have to appease” category. None of them seem to have noticed that for the last two years, Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona has been significantly farther right then Manchin by all the measures I’ve seen.

  758. …and if they do, the likes of Manchin will.
    Manchin is the pundits’ favorite in the “Senate Democrats will have to appease” category. None of them seem to have noticed that for the last two years, Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona has been significantly farther right then Manchin by all the measures I’ve seen.

  761. I’ve not been paying enough attention, so could someone please explain why the majority of Republican Representatives voted against democracy on Wednesday, but only a smallish minority of the party’s Senators? Thank you.

  762. I’ve not been paying enough attention, so could someone please explain why the majority of Republican Representatives voted against democracy on Wednesday, but only a smallish minority of the party’s Senators? Thank you.

  765. I’ve not been paying enough attention, so could someone please explain why the majority of Republican Representatives voted against democracy on Wednesday, but only a smallish minority of the party’s Senators?
    Gerrymandering.

  766. I’ve not been paying enough attention, so could someone please explain why the majority of Republican Representatives voted against democracy on Wednesday, but only a smallish minority of the party’s Senators?
    Gerrymandering.

  767. Gerrymandering
    Pretty much. To get elected to the Senate, even in a red state, you have to answer to the whole electorate.
    In a “safe” House seat, all you have to worry about is the primary. Where the most hysterical/ideological voters in your party are more likely to show up to vote. That’s why even pretty extreme Representatives can get primaried by even more extreme candidates. In good years, that means they reach the point where they lose the general election, unfortunately not always or even usually.

  768. Gerrymandering
    Pretty much. To get elected to the Senate, even in a red state, you have to answer to the whole electorate.
    In a “safe” House seat, all you have to worry about is the primary. Where the most hysterical/ideological voters in your party are more likely to show up to vote. That’s why even pretty extreme Representatives can get primaried by even more extreme candidates. In good years, that means they reach the point where they lose the general election, unfortunately not always or even usually.

  769. Gerrymandering
    Thank you for answering my question, but I’m unconvinced. The point of partisan gerrymandering is to need fewer votes per seat, so you create as many districts as possible with the smallest possible just-about safe majorities for your side, and as few as possible with overwhelming majorities for the other side.
    However, it may nevertheless be the case that House seats typically have larger majorities than Senate seats, since they represent smaller and hence less diverse districts.

  770. Gerrymandering
    Thank you for answering my question, but I’m unconvinced. The point of partisan gerrymandering is to need fewer votes per seat, so you create as many districts as possible with the smallest possible just-about safe majorities for your side, and as few as possible with overwhelming majorities for the other side.
    However, it may nevertheless be the case that House seats typically have larger majorities than Senate seats, since they represent smaller and hence less diverse districts.

Comments are closed.