by liberal japonicus
Wow, three posts within 7 days. Truly, the world is going to hell in a hand basket.
I earlier posted this, wondering about the current scandal de jour in the UK. If you aren’t up on it, that has “leveled up”, to quote a Conservative catchphrase. If you don’t know, previously, a practice press conference and a photo of a garden gathering had appeared, but Johnson seems to squirm out of that. However, an email party invite to 100 people at a time when gatherings were limited to a max of 1 other person outside your family bubble seems to have put the scandal on steroids.
A poem commemorating the event by Brian Bilston
A couple of links
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/11/met-police-no-10-lockdown-parties
On the other side of the world, the saga of No-vax Djokovic is summoning up similar anger.
Folks are welcome to discuss the particulars of each case, but I put the last link in there because what I wonder is how should the anger created by these two situations be harnessed. I mentioned in the earlier post about the UK that I found the invocation by MPs in the commons of people dying etc more performative and wondering if that is the only way to deal with someone who is a incompetent jerk. (i.e. Johnson). For the Australian case, I’ve read people using the Djokovic affair to highlight how Oz treats immigrants and refugees. In both cases, it feels like hooking on to a general revulsion to make one’s point, especially as I couldn’t give a s**t about No-vax and Bojo the clown. On the other hand, it seems like this is the only way to move public opinion.
Anyway, are the situations parallel? And how to they map to the States? Or failing that, if you want to have a mad rant, have at it.
There are definite parallels – high-profile people to whom the rules don’t seem to apply, being caught out being even worse bratty little shits than they first seemed.
Being PM and doing that seems worse to me, what with having political power and all. I don’t follow tennis, but strategic shitheadery seems to be part of the game from afar.
Here in Jesusland, the Republican Supreme Court is about to find that workplace vaccine mandates are void, because they see an opportunity to not just screw a (D) president, but also attack the administrative state, a tick on the FedSoc to-do list. So that, plus a thousand similar stories, is why we can’t have nice things here.
I’m unfortunately not great at messaging or group motivation, just not wired that way. But I do hope someone else has a good idea, this all makes me a bit depressed.
Happy new year.
Here in Jesusland, the Republican Supreme Court is about to find that workplace vaccine mandates are void, because they see an opportunity to not just screw a (D) president, but also attack the administrative state, a tick on the FedSoc to-do list.
What will be most telling is whether the Justices decide to drop their current regime of testing, masks, etc. After all, those are just aspects of the administrative state they claim to hate.
Oh wait, they’re just political hacks. So they don’t care about ideology, just about what helps their party. And keeps them, personally, safe of course. So all those rules will stay in place, no matter how inconvenient for parties appearing (virtually, if necessary) before them.
The point about both situations being people who think the rules don’t apply is interesting because it points to a different mind set in the states, it’s not that there are people flaunting the rules, because there aren’t really any ‘rules’ in place. So any act against the rules is spun as standing up for one’s independence and resisting control?
Not “flaunting”, “flouting”.
Sorry lj, this is one of my obsessive bugbears, along with uninterested v disinterested, refute v reject or contradict, etc etc. God knows where you’re concerned this was probably an instant’s inattention, but I’m standing up (pathetically) for use it or lose it.
In both cases, it feels like hooking on to a general revulsion to make one’s point, especially as I couldn’t give a s**t about No-vax and Bojo the clown.
I think the two cases entirely different. The obvious point is that Johnson is the one who imposed the rules which he broke. And they were not rules, but laws for which people were prosecuted at the time:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/2020-05-20
As far as Johnson is concerned, this has gone on for quite some time to the point where its very clear that our PM is lying to the public, knowing that everyone knows he is lying to them, and expecting them to accept it.
The obvious parallel is Trump – except that in this case even his own party no longer profess to believe Johnson’s lies.
Getting the public to acquiesce to blatant lies is the prerogative of a Xi or a Putin. Having a PM get away with that isn’t compatible with a healthy functional democracy.
Seconded.
Gftnc, well spotted. Though the number of times Johnson has avoided answering questions by saying ‘it’s subject to an investigation by sue gray’ he’s flaunting something…
I did realize what this resembles in the US, which is the varsity blue scandal. Which suggests to me that these are upper middle class reactions.
This might be why Johnson is flaunting Sue Gray
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/sue-gray-how-partygate-investigator-stonewalled-transparency-campaign/
I need to wait for Sue Gray to tell me if I’m a liar or not is a line which isn’t tenable.
He’s flaunting his (so far justified) sense of impunity, that’s for sure!
The satirists, as you might expect, are already on it:
https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1480932023929823244?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
I didn’t mean to skip Nigel’s comment. I do agree that the cases are different, but I think the outpouring of anger is similar.
I mentioned that I though that the Varsity Blues scandal and if one accepts that, you can see that the anger is primarily an upper middle class reaction. It’s not like the hoi polloi are impacted because they can’t get into Stanford and USC, and I think it is a similar thing for the people angry about No-vax and Bojo. I don’t say that to dismiss them, but it’s a very narrow set of circumstances that generates this kind of anger and thus makes it hard to imagine it causing the kinds of changes that are needed.
The anger against BoJo on this particular issue is not primarily an upper middle class reaction, because the public of all classes (in droves) is recalling how they followed the rules while e.g. their loved ones died unvisited in hospital. They are writing to their MPs, calling in to shows, and tweeting, in enraged grief. This is not performative on their part, although it might be when some of the public figures do it. And the issue about BoJo is not just that he is “an incompetent jerk”, it is that he is a corrupt, self-serving liar who does not believe (like Djokovich, you are right about this aspect) that the rules apply to him.
As for how to harness the anger to do something about it, ah, that is the question. I’ve just watched PMQs (Prime Minister’s Question Time) in the Commons, and Starmer and others had a good try. The commentariat on the program showing it gave examples of how other ministers who have been found out breaking the Covid rules have had to resign (BoJo admitted he had been there for 25 minutes, said the whole thing had been a mistake but did not admit it was a “party”), so we’ll see if this, finally, is enough to see off the lying liar who has made a career of lying (sacked from two previous jobs for doing so, lest we forget).
And that’s enough of me for you, as a delightful Texan I know says. Sorry for hogging the comments!
no worries, PMQs were interesting. I don’t doubt you are correct about it being a nationwide phenomenon, I guess what I mean is that this sort of anger seems to play out in a very middle class sort of way. Not that I’m wishing that they go postal and rush the other side of the chamber and start punching faces, or spend every night around No-vax’s hotel keeping him up.
It was pointed out in the Guardian that Johnson’s statement was very lawyerly (quelle surprise!) as Djokovich’s invocation that his agent incorrectly filled out the form has me say tough shit. Though I wish they would let him stay and then, just before he’s supposed to serve in the final, they take him off and deport his ass. But, of course, that is the problem. There is no way Djokovich will be treated like other immigrants.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/07/everyone-asks-about-novak-but-mehdi-has-languished-for-nine-years-in-australian-immigration-detention
Performative is a harsh word, and I just saw the PM who spoke of his mother in law passing during that time and him breaking down during the yeserday’s urgent question, so I’m regretting my characterization, though the speeches where they begin with some anecdote, the more heart-wrenching the better, I guess is a feature of the genre, and it is probably the American in me that gives it less than its due.
Here’s the link to the PMQ and the commentary
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/jan/12/boris-johnson-no-10-party-pmqs-keir-starmer-labour-coronavirus-latest-updates-covid-live
I read somewhere that the distance between the two sides of the house of commons was deliberately chosen to be slightly beyond two sword lengths. So, members have to get up at least to duel.
I need to wait for Sue Gray to tell me if I’m a liar or not is a line which isn’t tenable.
Oh, it’s tenable. It just means “I’m such a pathological liar that I no longer know what the truth is.” It’s a good explanation of Trump, so it might be for Boris as well.
I think the outpouring of anger is similar.
I mentioned that I though[t] that the Varsity Blues scandal…
And here when I read your comment, I thought that “varsity blue scandal” was a reference to prominent (i.e. varsity) blue state politicians ignoring masking and other social gathering rules. The kind of behavior which very nearly got my governor recalled from office.
Performative is a harsh word
As total aside:
It strikes me that public acts, especially by public actors such as (but not limited to) politicians, are inherently performative. They are done primarily for their demonstrative or rhetorical value, as opposed to being an expression of the actor’s personal thoughts or feelings.
And, that is perfectly fine. Or, at least, can be – the performative aspect of it seems neither here nor there, the more important question is whether it’s meant to mislead or not.
Even for private individuals, I’m not sure that I see much wrong with people doing things because they “seem virtuous”, even if the net effect of doing them is negligible.
Aspiring to virtue is not necessarily a bad thing.
shorter (and probably more cynical) me:
perfection is a high bar, which few attain.
As another bit of (perhaps inadvertent in some sense) hypocracy, there’s this. Some voters in North Carolina have brought action against Rep Cawthorn, arguing that he is an insurrectionist, and thus ineligible to hold office. One of Cawthorn’s defenses is that the events of Jan 6 were not an insurrection.
But there is a problem. (And, potentially a problem for Trump as well). When Congress voted to award medals to the Capitol police officers, the resolution referred to “a mob of insurrectionists” [emphasis added]. Among the overwhelming majority who voted in favor: Rep Cawthorn. Makes it hard to turn around and claim it wasn’t an insurrection after all.
On the subject of performativity, one of the faculty members in the med school here recently posted on the faculty listserv that cloth masks are ineffective against Omicron and that only N95s are useful enough filters.
But most of the people I know are continuing to use cloth masks in public, not because they believe them to be effective against Omicron, but because wearing one in public reassures the poeple around them that the person wearing the mask (properly) is probably also vaxed and taking the danger seriously and thinking about others around them. Unmasked people are russian roulette – could be vaxed, could be unable to mask due to some invisible condition, could be an unvaxed contrarian asshole.
Masks are a way of publicly acknowledging that our choices are not ours alone. It’s performative, yes, but every damn bit of human communication is.
Masks are epideictic.
What nous said. Although I would go a bit further:
Not wearing a mask (indoors or in crowded conditions) makes a statement
There may be a few people who, for some legitimate reason, cannot wear a mask. But their numbers are microscopic.
On the subject of performativity, cloth masks are ineffective against Omicron and that only N95s are useful enough filters.
Then people should stop forcing toddlers and young children to wear masks. Or any children for that matter. Children shouldn’t be made to bear the weight of adults’ desires to be performative.
Then people should stop forcing toddlers and young children to wear masks.
[K]N-95’s are effective against COVID.
cloth masks aren’t.
The obvious parallel is Trump – except that in this case even his own party no longer profess to believe Johnson’s lies.
Trump and Johnson have some things in common – they’re both populists with no respect for truth and no aptitude for governance, and they both want to feed the rich. But everything else is different. Johnson has not a trace of Trump’s malevolence.
Here are a few examples of the sociopathy of Trump and the Republicans:
– denying AGW, or refusing to act on it
– denying Covid, or refusing to prevent its spread
– suppressing democracy
– promoting gun ownership
None of these things has any support from Johnson and his party. Johnson may have written amusingly about some of them in his days as a journalist, but as Prime Minister he just says what he’s told to say. All he wants is to have his picture on the wall at 10 Downing Street, and for people to laugh at his jokes.
Incidentally, he’s odds on with the bookies to leave office this year.
All he wants is to have his picture on the wall at 10 Downing Street
I don’t think that’s all he wants. He wants money, which is why he wants to feed the rich – so they feed him. I’m not sure he cares too much about suppressing democracy either. His government, after all, is seeking to make judicial review much more difficult.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/25/judicial-review-peoples-right-fight-government-destroy-courts-undemocratic
Why, only today:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/12/use-of-vip-lane-to-award-covid-ppe-contracts-unlawful-high-court-rules
cloth masks are ineffective against Omicron and that only N95s are useful enough filters.
Is it that cloth masks are not effective at all? Or just that they are (substantially?) less effective? Because, be it noted, obtaining N95 (or other commercial) masks is both more expensive and, in some areas, a non-trivial exercise.
Is it that cloth masks are not effective at all? Or just that they are (substantially?) less effective?
My impression is that it makes a difference whether you’re talking about reducing the risk of getting infected, or reducing the risk of infecting others.
Cloth masks work quite well in cutting down the spread of exhaled droplets.
https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1478867026542219264
time to transmit C19:
neither of two people is wearing a mask: 15 min.
both wearing cloth masks: 27 min.
both wearing surgical masks: 1 hour.
both wearing N95 masks: 25 hours
That chart at cleek’s link is great. I’d like to see it updated for omicron (which it says it isn’t), not that it would make any difference to what I’m doing myself. But I noticed on today’s grocery run that *lots* more people had masks on than over the past few weeks. Maybe a blip, maybe closing the barn door after the horses have escaped, but I was glad to see it in any case.
I’m curious about that claim. The tweet attributes it to the WSJ. The WSJ attributes it to the ACGIH, and here it is. The ACGIH attributes it to the CDC, where I’ve failed to find it.
This sort of chain of vague citations leading to a dead end is usually found in junk science.
Around here FFP2 masks (equivalent of N95) cost about 45 cent per piece. A year ago a simple surgical mask was about 1 € per piece (while FFP2 ones were difficult to get), so prices dropped massively.
In many places (including public transport*) FFP2 masks are now mandatory, i.e., surgical masks are legally insufficient.
What usually is not done is changing masks every 20 minutes and either discarding them or having them air for a week before reuse (as were some recommendations last year). That would be rather expensive.
From my experience, it isn’t the kids that are complaining about the masks, least of all the little ones (and there are legal exceptions for kids below elementary school level to begin with).
*Penalties are rather high (at the moment roughly as much as would buy 111 FFP2 masks).
I don’t know if I saw this Scientific American article here or elsewhere, but even if here, it can’t hurt to repeat it. It mentions a guy who has been testing masks and has made all his results available on Google Drive. Between that, the YouTube video of him linked in the article, reports from friends, and the article itself, I bought 3 highly recommended types of masks and gave the whole family samples for Christmas.
1. Harley
— behind the head straps; i don’t like them as well as the over-the-ears ones, but some people prefer them
2. Powecom
— over the ears; strange little company sells them, but the masks are supposedly very good, and they fit me well
3. Bluna
— seem to be sold out right now, but I like those too
From my experience, it isn’t the kids that are complaining about the masks, least of all the little ones…
At the grocery today, I watched one of the employees sooth a 3-year-old on the verge of a tantrum because her mother had forgotten the little girl’s mask, pulling a surgical mask out of the box the store kept for employees, rigging it to mostly fit, along with constant chatter about how good the blue mask looked on the girl.
I made a point of waiting long enough that I could tell the clerk, “Well done!”
a 3-year-old on the verge of a tantrum because her mother had forgotten the little girl’s mask
Even if the parents are indifferent, or opposed, to masks, if all the other kids have masks…
Sometimes the urge to conform can have an upside.
here’s a U Michigan article about mask effectiveness, stating that the chart they presents (and which is the basis for the WSJ chart) is based on their update to an older CDC chart. it’s been bouncing around for a while, and has apparently lost its original attribution over time.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/10/commentary-what-can-masks-do-part-1-science-behind-covid-19-protection
Older kids may want a mask as a security blanket, play grownup or be like the other kids. But try keeping a mask on a two-year-old.
But try keeping a mask on a two-year-old.
Okay, Charles. You don’t have to wear one anymore. ;^)
here’s a U Michigan article about mask effectiveness…
Thanks cleek. What they’ve done is started from the CDC’s 15-minute guesstimate for unmasked transmission, and divided it by leakage rates for the two masks taken from the literature. So for the best mask in the table, the time is 15minutes/10%/10% = 1500 minutes = 25 hours.
I’m sure that actual transmission is more complicated than that.
Well, we know that masks were more effective for earlier variants and we know that Omicron is the same basic virus form, so it follows that masks are still going to have some effect, it’s just that Omicron doesn’t require as high a viral lode to be transmitted.
And if the masks are still effective against the other variants, then there is no reason why we should expose ourselves to more Delta etc. just because a mask is less protective against Omicron.
Also, there’s that whole flu thing.
As far as virtue signaling and children goes, I have not seen anyone get worked up in public over a young child with no mask, or one with a poorly worn mask, just appreciative glances from people when a young child *is* masked.
Outrage over mask mandates is also a form of performativity that exaggerates the burden, and the trauma of mask wearing, and the perceived ostracism suffered for not wanting to conform.
Mostly we all just think they are being dicks, but then we think that about them in general. It’s a holistic impression.
But try keeping a mask on a two-year-old.
Strangely enough, I never see that problem here in Japan. Admittedly, I’m not often out and about or conducting a huge sample, but I have never seen a kid over here throw a fit because they have to wear a mask.
It’s almost like the kids take their clues from the adults around them…
JP Morgan’s Jaime Dimon sees huge upward pressure on labor’s wages for the FIRST time in his life:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dimon-sees-huge-pressure-wages-141929969.html
He’s not complaining, mind you:
https://www.salary.com/tools/executive-compensation-calculator/james-dimon-salary-bonus-stock-options-for-jpmorgan-chase-and-co?year=2010
But try keeping a mask on a two-year-old.
Sometimes, keeping a diaper on a two-year-old is a challenge as well.
People have been kicked off planes because they couldn’t keep a mask on their two-year-old and similar ages.
In a decade or so, when hopefully COVID has receded into the background with colds and the flu, there’s going to be more than a few unhappy and neurotic kids and former kids who are pissed about what they were put through. They and the future may judge some of it as outright child abuse.
For people our ages, COVID is just another, though a substantial, event in our lives. For many of today’s children, it may be the defining event in their lives.
I usually don’t go into the Guardian comments, but this was interesting (from this article)
Today’s PMQs was a very disturbing affair, the atmosphere was electric and frankly, frightening. The Tories always mobilise when they are in electoral trouble and they made sure it was choreographed to the final detail.
They turned the HoC into the Dead Cat Society in their attempts to de divert and obfuscate, Tory members bringing along questions about the licence fee and even washing machines to fling on the table.
There was more in that chamber than I’ve witnessed before, MPs hyperventilating as they demanded Johnson’s resignation, the anxiety about overthrowing someone who is seen as a big beast does that to people. Not that Johnson is a big beast, he’s more of a painted balloon who the establishment conferred power upon.
The right-wing establishment is terrifying really, it creates monsters, fetes them and eventually chews on their bones. The average Tory is a sociopath for perpetuating such a system, what else could explain it?
I noticed Mogg chuckling behind his mask when some MPs were obviously panic-stricken, demonstrating that that good Christian gentleman is a brutal slavering wolf in lamb’s clothing behind the shtick.
It could be said that Starmer did according to his lights, but he’s too cerebral for me, to developed intellectually to really carry that fight. It was the mixture of emotion and sense from Ian Blackford which dismayed the Tories more, they shuffled and cowered like frightened kids when he chastised them.
Johnson won’t survive this but the establishment juggernaut will run down anyone who threatens the status quo, the establishment being the monarchy, the political system, most of the media and the culture of deference which the Tories have nurtured. It’s going to be a hell of a battle to change things.
Some interesting back and forth after that comment and the article itself is quite interesting.
I really hope that you are right CharlesWT. As someone who has taught research classes about children in armed conflicts and who is considering a similar class about climate refugees, I’d consider it an upgrade if the worst thing ever in this generation’s childhood were having to mask to avoid a virus.
There’s a lot more to it than just masks.
And all of those other things are going to be defining features regardless of mask policies. And will be mitigated by good public health policies. Making the mask the scapegoat for all the rest is an interesting choice.
The kids who grew up with polio and Spanish Flu and The Depression and WWII had a lot of trauma to deal with, too. Lives are complex.
We should strive to help them develop good coping mechanisms and healthy mindsets for dealing with unexpected circumstances. Lord knows they are going to need it with the mess we have made.
On a related note, I always take the results of studies that measure the effects of media violence on children with a grain of salt when they are done in suburban/rural American or Canadian communities with low baselines of local violence. There are a lot of assumptions built into the idea that these communities are a control group and not a very fragile experiment themselves.
We need to socially engineer humans that work in messy environments, not set factory standards that only work in good circumstances.
Another meditation on checking our privileges.
Making the mask the scapegoat for all the rest is an interesting choice.
It still cheeses me off when I think back to the beginning of the pandemic and the articles written about Japan and Asia and how their mask wearing was so quaint, like they were children pretending to do something while the real work was being done by more enlightened societies who of course knew that masks weren’t meaningful. Those articles seem to have gone down the memory hole, but here’s what Trump’s surgeon General tweeted
A tweet from Surgeon General Jerome Adams sums up the argument: “Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”
https://time.com/5799964/coronavirus-face-mask-asia-us/
nous said what I wanted to say, and more.
And I’d better stop there.
Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus,
One would think (hope!) that the Surgeon General, even Trump’s Surgeon General, would be aware that masks were never about preventing the wearer from catching the disease. (Unless they were the kind with goggles.) They are, and always have been, about protecting others. But perhaps ignoring that, and other inconvenient facts, was a condition of working for Trump.
Nope, not stopping.
There’s a lot more to it than just masks.
Yeah, like losing grandparents and parents and other adults who might have been significant in their lives. Just the first thing that pops into my head.
Think of the damage we have done to children by requiring them to be in child seats when they ride in cars.
Or buckle up when the buckle-up sign is on in the plane cabin.
Or, you know, not stick a fork in an electrical outlet.
I can think of about 100 things that libertarians get worked up about that I’m completely in agreement with. Intrusive policing and intelligence surveillance, for example.
Making kids wear a mask during a pandemic is not one of them. YMMV.
It’s not unlikely that young people today will be marked by the experience of living through the COVID pandemic. I’m doubtful that the memory of having to wear a mask is going to be the thing they experience as traumatic.
We require kids to wear masks so that they don’t get sick. An N-95 mask is better than a simple cloth mask. A simple cloth mask is better than no mask at all.
If you have an N-95 mask that fits your kid, make the kid wear that. If you don’t, make the kid wear a cloth mask.
How that is more traumatic than making a kid wear a raincoat on a rainy day escapes me.
Russell’s comment has me wonder about all these Facebook memes that pop up, kids on a jungle gym, or other shit with some wry comment about how it made us so much tougher. I’m now wondering how this kind of background noise affects folks. A steady diet of that and you tend to value your own experience over the experiences of others.
has me wonder about all these Facebook memes that pop up, kids on a jungle gym, or other shit with some wry comment about how it made us so much tougher. I’m now wondering how this kind of background noise affects folks. A steady diet of that and you tend to value your own experience over the experiences of others.
It was always possible to write diaries, and people did. For the last century, it was possible to compile photo albums, and people did that, too. What has changed with social media is that you can now do either (or both), and then rack up thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of Likes for the stuff you turn out.
All those people giving you positive feedback can give you an expanded sense of your own wisdom, importance, etc. And of the value, and accuracy/importance, of your experiences. Once, you would have been the boring relative that your family members tolerated. Now you see yourself with an enormous worldwide audience.
Sure, but if everyone makes claims about how much tougher they were than the current generation, it makes it easier to dismiss any complaints as kids not being tough enough. First I know of is Hesiod with his 5 Ages of Man, but I assume there was a Cromagnon man (to use the old term) or maybe even a Neaderthal bitching about kids these days. But when it gets the audience of hundreds of thousands of likes, it may change in what it does to people,
Kids these days! Strutting about on their hind legs and not even climbing trees!…
Why, when I was a kid …
I’m sure all of this is going to ruin Halloween for everyone.
Those oxygen masks dropping from the cabin ceiling and being forced on 2-year-olds are the main causes of trauma in plane crashes, a future conservative libertarian FAA (just before total defunding) will opine.
Why can’t the kids be left in peace in the three minutes it takes the plane to roll over and dive to Earth to obliterate and incinerate their parents and the kids and their teddy bears, while suffocating on the way down.
Are we aware of the many tens of thousands of kids in America who are never found every year after a game of hide and seek in their own basements?
Here kid, put this catcher’s mask on.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhing!
A single floor speech by a gruesome maskless Ron Paul grifting his lying libertarian grift on C-Span years ago traumatized an entire generation.
I’d like to know when we get those noise ordinances to combat the sound of gunfire daily in dumbass, sensitive-eared, school-shooter America?
That oughta cut the murder rate.
I’m not clear how it came to be that since Americans were brainwashed into picking up after their poopy dogs that now dog shit of the rhetorical variety in America is 12 fathoms deep everywhere we step.
Dogs run free, why not we, across the swooping plain.
Is it a fact that Ku Klux Klan club-goer’s kids have the lowest incidence of trauma resulting from being made to wear surgical masks on planes during a pandemic?
Yes, because they visit Grandma in the 4 by 4 on holidays, on account of the fact that the airlines won’t let ya stream a confederate flag from the plane’s wingtips.
Hell, it’s the fall alone that’ll kill ya!
Yever shoot a deer, kid, and then cuts her open and clean and gut the thing?
Well, no but I can’t wait to do it, daddy. Jus don’t make me wear a mask whiles I do it on account of I’ll be traumatized, like them big-city freudians sez’ll happen.
Speaking of which kid, it’s high time you was personally introduced to penis envy.
Now les go to the Trump rally.
…opening bananas at the wrong end, also, too!
(the subject of heated debate on Balloon Juice, and eerily reminiscent of a part of Gulliver’s Travels)
When fascist plutocrats fall in love:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/01/2022-philippines-election-duterte-marcos/621202/
Movie sequel: King Kong Marries Godzilla
It’s in the wind that Stalin’s spawn and Hitler’s kid are going to be soon joined in holy matrimony at the Mar-a-Lago Wedding Chapel.
The country is going to go over Niagara Falls in a flaming barrel on the honeymoon.
The anger mustn’t be harnessed:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-dems-dont-save-democracy-now-they-wont-get-another-shot
The conservative movement must be wiped off the face of the Earth with savage violence.
You can access that article by typing in the title on Google and clicking.
Bethaney Mandel is well beyond her life expectancy:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/01/innumeracy-and-covid
The zombie vermin subhuman Republican Party exceeded its die-by-date decades ago.
We’ll see if Mandel is right about Dreher’s life expectancy:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/vaxxed-boosted-and-covid-positive-omicron/
“if-dems-dont-save-democracy-now-they-wont-get-another-shot”
Merc’s Law rules.
But in all fairness, the Dems are the only party with any interest in saving democracy….
i agree.
what’s awesome, though, if you listen to Republicans, they’ll tell you the situation is exactly reversed, that Dems are trying to subvert things to make it easier for them to win.
Yes, in fact on past experience we could expect Marty to pop up right about now, to say exactly that. But I said “the only party” for a reason. While most of the GOP bends the knee to Trump, and the big lie, there is absolutely no credible argument about Republican interest in democracy. Even our own wj has given up. Where is there left to go for principled conservatives? If Manchin and Sinema continue as they are, do we think the likes of e.g. Romney or Cheney might step in on this limited issue of the filibuster for voting rights?
and we have a seditious conspiracy indictment in a Jan 6 case.
to my knowledge, this is the first indictment to use the word ‘sedition’. let’s hope it’s not the last.
And in a surprise to pretty much no one, the SCOTUS, by 6-3, has blocked the OSHA vaccine/test mandate for businesses with a hundred or more employees. By 5-4, they allowed the CMS vaccine mandate for health care workers, with religious and medical exemptions, at facilities that accept Medicare and Medicaid dollars. IIRC, the CMS mandate does not include a testing alternative to the vaccine.
liberty AND death!
to my knowledge, this is the first indictment to use the word ‘sedition’. let’s hope it’s not the last.
they’ll all, always, be seditious trash to me.
and we have a seditious conspiracy indictment in a Jan 6 case.
Note that Rhodes, in the best Trumpian tradition, did not himself enter the Capitol. He stayed outside and left the illegal entry (and heightened risk of getting arrested, or just injured) to others. Too bad for him that conspiracy charges still apply. May Trump find the same.
One of wj’s righteous (R)’s.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ohio-supreme-courts-gop-chief-justice-challenges-party-with-appeal-to-voters-on-redistricting
May there be more and more of them.
So long No-vax
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jan/14/novak-djokovic-visa-cancelled-tennis-2022-australian-open-immigration-minister-australia
Someone in my FB feed wondered what it would have been like if Naomi Osaka had shown the level of entitlement Djokovich has displayed.
I see Sinema has killed the voting rights legislation.
Chants of ‘my name is Boris’ and ‘this is a work event’ outside Downing Street as maybe a hundred bewigged Boris lookalikes jig around in the street. Utterly surreal
https://twitter.com/wizbates/status/1481979468138885121
I’m not sure where best to put this, I thought this article was interesting so I am now using cannabis to further protect myself from Covid.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.1c00946
I hope it helps Marty.
Thing is, I know a couple of users who are suffering from Covid-19 as we speak.
A suggestion: Leave your concealed carry license and the weapon in a safe while you are exercising your rights under your medical marijuana license.
Ya never know what’s going to happen while exercising all of these simultaneous licensed freedoms:
https://www.eschatonblog.com/2022/01/florida-man.html
One of the greatest sentences since:
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”
… but pithier, in terms of describing the end of a civilization:
“Prius driver puts one in his melon.”
I see Sinema helped vermin republicans kill America:
https://digbysblog.net/2022/01/13/so-where-are-we-with-voting-rights/
Go ahead, fascists, ban and burn the books:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/01/virginia-republicans-to-introduce-bill-banning-teaching-the-work-of-lani-guinier-and-then-disband-the-session
There won’t be any licenses issued for the violent national catastrophe that is our rancid, malignant conservative future.
It will be a truly free, non-government-approved action. Fully privatized, the way they like it.
A lethal case of Covid-19 saves nine bullets:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/01/i-would-do-anything-to-fight-the-virus-but-i-wont-do-that
I am a peaceful man:
https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/those-who-served/aboriginal-veterans/native-soldiers/peaceful
I am a peaceful man:
https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/local/sylvania-telephone/2011/09/15/alvin-york-tennessee-hero-wwi-believed-killing-was-wrong/14200763007/
It would seem a rational business decision to abandon the American “market” on account of murderous malignant decisions by unelected subhuman officaldom on death panels, and let America fucking die unfettered by attempts to prevent its national suicide:
https://finance.yahoo.com/m/42e47285-0f3c-35b1-8a25-d429fc2a80f7/moderna-novavax-and-other.html
I don’t actually carry it, except going to the range. It’s just better to have the license in case I want to take it somewhere.
Otherwise it’s in the safe. The cannabis I generally only partake in before bed. It reduces inflammation from RA and let’s me sleep 6 hours instead of 4. It’s a plus that it helps with Covid but I really couldn’t get from the article if I ever I got enough to help.
It was just one of those things my libertarian friend put up on FB.
My understanding is that there are two specific compounds in cannabis that appear to block COVID infection, working both as a preventative and treatment. I don’t know if smoking weed or eating gummies provides those compounds in sufficient amounts or in the right delivery method for them to be effective for those purposes, but I would be willing to take part in a trial, especially if it could be conducted at a Primus show or something along those lines.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35007072/
At this point, it seems everyone will get one form of Covid or another The statistics are pretty staggering on the spread of Omicron. In addition to the general stats, the percentage of people hospitalized with Covid that were initially admitted for something else is ranging from 20% to 50%. The incidence of people having it and not knowing is very, very high. It seems to have peaked locally at a 30% positivity rate with just over 40% of hospitalizations being fully vaccinated.
People here are good about staying home if they are symptomatic, or know they have been exposed, but that seems almost fruitless at the level of asymptomatic infections.
I see more experts talking about transitioning from pandemic to endemic with a different mindset about dealing with it.
My wife and I often speculate on the possibility that we (our kids included) may have been infected at some point without knowing it. My whole family is fully vaccinated and boosted, with the exception of our youngest who got his first two shots too recently to get a booster. (Not that they’ve approved boosters for kids that young. No need to yet, given how recently they were allowed to get their first round.)
I’m sure cases not requiring or coincidental with medical treatment are severely underreported.
we have two friends who, independently, had persistent, weeks-long, chest congestion. they tested negative multiple times, by tests taken at-home and given by doctors). but both eventually tested positive, after being sick for weeks.
so either this will happily piggyback on chest colds, or it can evade nasal swab detection while it sets up shop in your lungs.
The ongoing reaction to Partygate is merciless.
Even the Tory papers…
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1482042588886712324
The royal funeral story is particularly damning since even UK republicans respect the Queen, and her enforced solitary mourning will resonate with all those who experienced something similar.
While the metropolitan Police are taking a ‘nothing to see here’ line on the No.10 parties, the consequences for the little people breaking the rules were rather different.
Hackney woman fined £12,000 for holding party on day of Prince Philip funeral
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/prince-philip-downing-street-hackney-party-lockdown-covid-rules-b976690.html
…“Vianna being so blasé about organising such a large and illegal event for her 27th birthday party is totally unacceptable and disrespectful in light of everything that is going on in the world.”
McKenzie-Bramble faced police action after a complaint by a neighbour, when she had erected a marquee in the communal garden, hired a bouncy castle, and bought alcohol and food.
She was fined £12,000 plus £300 in costs and court fees at a hearing last September, with an order to pay the five-figure bill within 28 days….
I was scheduled for a colonoscopy which required a covid test, and tested positive. I then went and had another test, the same day, and tested negative, took another the next day also negative.
I didn’t do much for 5 days but still I’m not sure which tests were right.
It still cheeses me off when I think back to the beginning of the pandemic and the articles written about Japan and Asia and how their mask wearing was so quaint …
I expected “Western” arrogance of this sort, but it was a surprise to me that the WHO was not recommending masks earlier – and seemed to keep dragging their foot in general.
While the metropolitan Police are taking a ‘nothing to see here’ line on the No.10 parties, the consequences for the little people breaking the rules were rather different.
This is a major aspect undermining public trust, the police treating people differently according to status – and in this case they are now relying on the results of an “internal investigation” to inform their decision whether further investigation on their part is merited.
It’s completely absurd and I hope The Good Law Project will prevail in court:
https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject
Campaign group the Good Law Project has issued formal legal proceedings against the force over its failure to investigate the parties, accusing police of “deferring to the powerful”.
Yes. And visually, as Nigel implies, the image of the Queen sitting alone mourning in her pew, contrasted with the reports of parties at number 10 the night before, underlines that not everybody of exalted status thought the rules didn’t apply to them. I think this does, now, make it very difficult for BoJo to survive. But standards in public life have been degraded here to the point (admittedly not quite as much as the US under Trump) where he might do so. Nothing would surprise me at the moment.
Clay feet abound…
And at least the UK has someone in a very prominent position (the Queen) who doesn’t feel free to ignore the rules. Alas, the US doesn’t have someone equally widely well regarded to do so.
The US doesn’t have anyone equally widely well regarded, period. The “U” in “USA” has not meant what it’s supposed to mean for a long time.
Not for nothing did the progenitors of the current ethno-fascists replace “E Pluribus Unum” with “In God We Trust” on the currency. Unity is for commie pinko soshulists, who don’t know how to do it right anyhow. Want real unity? Let the MAGAts come to power.
–TP
By the way, I note that everyone has kindly ignored my question about whether people like Romney and Cheney might intervene to save the voting rights legislation, presumably because it is an obviously dumb question and you don’t want to underline how much of an idiot I am. But I’d still be grateful if someone could explain why. After all, McCain scuppered the effort to kill the ACA, and a few “principled” Republicans have criticised various appalling GOP actions. Is it because you think even people like that would never take the risk of making the GOP (and therefore themselves) unelectable? Or what? I already feel like an idiot, I can take it…
Let’s see… McCain was old, sick, knew he was increasingly out of touch with the typical Arizona voter, and voted to preserve his legacy. Cheney’s in the House, where the voting rights legislation has all passed. Romney will simply say, “It’s up to the states. Look at my state of Utah, where we Republicans have now finished installing a vote by mail system that accomplishes all of the goals the Democrats want, only simpler and cheaper.”
Utah has started showing up with the other western vote by mail states in the top several places for security, accuracy, and ease of use.
I think Romney and Cheney both rightly recognize that changing the voting rights would likely destroy the GOP as it stands for the near future. Cheney is willing to fight for the soul of the party, but she is not willing to so completely remove the party’s influence and value to stop the party agenda dead in its tracks and give the Democrats a moment like the Reagan Revolution where the party shapes the public dialogue for decades to come.
Romney, same, but with added personal cowardice. Same for all the other “principled conservatives” who are mostly holding on for personal power hoping to steer the party into less disastrous channels.
Too little, too late. That off ramp is well in the rear-view distance.
GftNC,
My two cents: Romney, not bloody likely.
By “Cheney” I suppose you mean Dick, not Liz. All Dick can do is try to persuade the likes of Romney, Collins, and Murkowski, but even if he had the will it’s unlikely he has the power.
Republicans know perfectly well that their voter base is shrinking, and that the only way to keep serving their donor base is to lie, cheat, and (try to) steal. A few of them might, possibly, tell themselves that it’s all in a good cause because sound “(Republican) policies” will make the GOP popular again. But most are just MAGAts. None of them, at any rate, see an upside to letting non-Republicans vote. Or count the votes. Or abide by the votes.
When wj says two parties are essential to democracy, he must be thinking of two other parties.
–TP
Ah yes, I forgot that Cheney was in the House, I do get confused. But on the Romney answer, I can’t see why he (or anyone else – I know there aren’t many – who has risked the wrath of Trump) wouldn’t act to change the math in the Senate on this issue. States’ rights? Surely anybody with any principle whatsoever can see that the franchise transcends (or should transcend) that? Doesn’t it? Isn’t this self-evident? Not to Republican voters, I guess, nor Republican senators. What an indictment.
If those votes were secret, chances would be significantly higher for some sane bills passing (though probably not voting rights).
Romney is a weathervane.
Cheney is herself far-right but imo of the opinion that certain rules still have to be obeyed. Imo she would not be opposed to a de facto one-party state but would prefer to get there by legal(ist) means, not by open insurrection. In the old-fashioned way via legal(ized) disenfranchisement etc.
Plus, it should not be in favor of an upstart like Jabbabonk but the ‘proper’ old Right. And her current course could be seen as primarily motivated by revenge against Jabbabonk and his allies while otherwise keeping to all her old Right positions.
Kinzinger seems (from my rather uninformed distant perspective) to be more of the ‘I still have some standards left and want to be able to look at myself in the mirror without getting embarrassed’ type.
Getting rid of meaningful democracy while still keeping the outer appearance intact is now the ‘moderate’ position in the GOP. And for that even the watered down version of the Voting Rights Act is a step too far, since the writing is on the wall that at least at the national level the GOP cannot get a majority by fair means anymore.
Cross posted (sort of) with nous and Tony P. Thanks all. But it’s so tremendously depressing. I can’t imagine how you all feel about it…
I note that everyone has kindly ignored my question about whether people like Romney and Cheney might intervene to save the voting rights legislation, presumably because it is an obviously dumb question and you don’t want to underline how much of an idiot I am. But I’d still be grateful if someone could explain why.
As Michael notes, Cheney isn’t in a position to do anything on the matter. As for Romney, I think he might be willing to — IF, like McCain on Obamacate, his one vote would be the difference. Say if Senator Manchin is persuaded to modify the filibuster rules to let it happen, but Sinema isn’t (and she seems much the harder case), he might provide to 50th vote. But if he would just be the 49th vote in a losing cause? Unlikely to waste political capital that way, even if he favors the changes.
When wj says two parties are essential to democracy, he must be thinking of two other parties.
Well, I am thinking of two parties which are both committed to democracy. Regardless of whether they win or lose a particular election. Which, as we all can see, isn’t the current situation.
I definitely think we need to get (back) there. Even though I don’t see a plausible path. If someone sees a viable way to return the GOP to a commitment to democracy, please please share. Or if anyone sees a way to create a new (presumably center-right, though that’s not a requirement) party which would be an ongoing alternative to the Democrats, please share that. But I’m afraid my inventiveness has failed.
The only source for a new center-right party would be the Dems. But if the Dems splitted now, it would create two parties weaker than the current GOP (even if calculating defectors to the new CR party). With a pure majority – winner takes all- voting system this would mean a time of total dominance for the GOP, enough to get rid of democracy even formally not just de facto.
Steps to restore a two-party system in the US:
1) Outlaw the GOP.
2) Split the Democratic Party in half.
3) Invite wj to join either half he likes.
OK, kidding. But just barely.
–TP
As if this conversation were not alarming enough, check this opinion from our closest neighbor:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-american-polity-is-cracked-and-might-collapse-canada-must-prepare/
Gotta say, the headline is delightful, if appalling: DeSantis ’24: Maybe Trump Was Too Honest and Sane on COVID
Says everything you need to know about DeSantis. And about today’s GOP as DeSantis sees it.
Tony, I don’t see a way to accomplish your Step 1. At least without sinking to their level. Or worse.
Tony, I don’t see a way to accomplish your Step 1. At least without sinking to their level. Or worse.
Absent some self-correction on the right, sinking to their level or worse will be a path chosen for what’s left of the left after the right stops pretending and looses their shock troops.
I keep waiting for the Oathkeepers to get convicted, only for the GOP to take back the presidency and pardon them all, then put them in positions of power.
I can’t be the only person thinking this a decided possibility of our timeline.
I can’t be the only person thinking this a decided possibility of our timeline.
You aren’t. Putting them in positions of power may (or may not) be a stretch, but otherwise, this is perfectly conceivable.
I keep waiting for the Oathkeepers to get convicted, only for the GOP to take back the presidency and pardon them all, then put them in positions of power.
One of several reasons that I hope a bunch of them get sent up on state charges. Won’t Trump be irritated to discover that Presidential pardon powers don’t apply to state laws? (Then again, Trump’s famous loyalty to his subordinates might mean he wouldn’t bother to try.)
It will be a small miracle to get them convicted in the first place given the US history of sedition trials.
At least concerning actual and rightwing sedition. Postulated* and leftwing sedition is a diffenent thing of course.
*speak: fabricated out of whole cloth claims of sedition by politicians and willing prosecutors.
Another point about harnessing anger that came up on FB: The PM’s former aide, James Slack, apologized for his leaving party
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/14/pms-ex-press-official-james-slack-apologises-for-downing-street-party-held-in-his-honour
Slack became the Sun’s (a Murdoch rag) deputy editor, and his party was the day before Prince Philip’s funeral. So Murdoch’s papers have known about the lockdown parties at No.10 for months.
Say if Senator Manchin is persuaded to modify the filibuster rules to let it happen, but Sinema isn’t (and she seems much the harder case), he [Romney] might provide to 50th vote.
If you gave me the task of convincing Romney to be the 50th vote on voting rights, I have one and only one suggestion: rewrite the bills to use Utah as the model. Vote by mail, with in-person strictly for special cases. All of the stuff in the current HR1/S1 that requires a complicated in-person voting system? Toss it. Not a chance in hell that you can get enough of the non-western members of Congress to back that, of course.
Full disclosure: I have written to my two Dem Senators asking that they oppose HR1/S1 until such time as there is language that says explicitly that our vote by mail state will not be required to add a parallel expensive more-error-prone in-person voting system.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1/14/2074744/-Parody-is-dead-Fox-News-put-out-a-cocktail-guide-for-urine
Murdoch and his vermin crew shit in the mouths of every American, Brit, and Aussie, so what’s new, except that more Americans seem to think it’s three squares a day.
When will they arrested and executed, or won’t the subhuman Republican Court permit the government to protect us from armed Christian subhumans?
I’m coming to realize that Neil Gorsuch is suffering from the long-term effects of fetal alcohol syndrome and lead poisoning as the evil subhuman spawn of his lush, alcoholic mother’s habit of eating leaded paint chips on behalf of paint manufacturers who paid her off to ignore the law while she decimated the EPA and murdered poor children across the country.
Or maybe she did it on principle, like Idi Amin.
By refusing to wear a mask, Gorsuch forced Judge Sotomayor, a diabetic, to remain home during the recent hearing wherein the Republican Party’s genocidal aspirations for dead pigfucking America were placed into higher gear.
Here’s what racist, cocksucking, murderous conservatives, who inform Gorsuch’s malignant worldview, think of Sotamayor:
https://www.mediamatters.org/ben-shapiro/ben-shapiro-calls-justice-sonia-sotomayor-low-iq-human-being-and-affirmative-action
Sotamayor needs to be armed at all times for her next encounter with the fascist c*nts among her “colleagues” on the Court and if Shapiro ever dares come near her again.
Why the fuck can’t I carry a loaded weapon into the hallowed bullshit Supreme Court premises to enforce the fucking laws of this Nation?
Am I not a free, goddamned stinking piece of shit American like Putin-loving death cult conservatives take themselves to be?
Shoot to kill.
Rapist wannabe Kavanaugh, who I believe got in the pants of Susan Collins during their tete a tete regarding lies about pigfucking settled law, is not quite yet up to wholesale murder in the service of conservative genocide, and the usual vermin aren’t having any of it:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/01/kavanaugh-not-anti-vaxx-or-lawless-enough-for-the-maga-industrial-complex
All future elections will be stolen by the fascist conservative movement.
Hope is dead.
Only violence on a scale never experienced by this ruthless country will out.
wj,
I am principled and mild-mannered, not to mention lazy and cowardly. But I suspect that if someone came at me with a knife, I’d summon up the courage and energy to overcome my principles and mildness and sink low enough to shoot him. Multiple times.
Alternatively, I could stand on principle and let him cut my throat, because some “moderates” might tsk, tsk at my sinking to the knife-wielding thug’s level “or worse”.
Tough choice, right?
–TP
https://digbysblog.net/2022/01/14/republicans-will-never-gracefully-concede-again/
America was nothing but a confection, a conceit from the getgo.
It will be a blood sink soon.
Putin is showing the murderous American conservative movement how to set it up and knock it down in Ukraine.
False flags and then slaughter.
We’re just Jews checking the train schedules.
We’re near sided Cambodians making appointments with Pol Pots optometrist.
We’re headcheese for conservative operative cannibal serial killers.
We’re Ronnie Spector to Phil Spector’s gun-addled conservative unregulated perversions.
We’re sitting ducks with inadequate quacks.
Tough choice, right?
Ah, Tony, but is that the choice? Shoot someone who is attacking you with a deadly weapon? Not a problem, and not sinking to his level. Going out looking for someone to shoot? Whole different deal.
So in this case, making it impossible (or, more realistically, prohibitively difficult) to establish and maintain minority rule? Absolutely the right thing to do. Stop the morons and scum who disagree with you from voting? Not OK. Do you see the difference?
Stop the morons and scum who disagree with you
fromvoting?Isn’t that more the situation?
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/01/portland-police-training-on-protests-ends-with-slide-showing-mock-prayer-for-dirty-hippie-prompts-investigation.html
kind of makes one wonder about narratives…
If someone sees a viable way to return the GOP to a commitment to democracy, please please share.
wj,
You appear to have a serious case of ‘battered party syndrome’. In just about all instances, the right decision is this: leave.
Earnestly hoping for your recovery. Best wishes.
PS: Under our current almost impossible to change rules, there will ALWAYS be two major parties.
Abraham Lincoln knew, or learned, that sinking to the lowest level necessary, and even lower to get at them from underneath, to come face to face with the confederate (still a palpable, evil, ruthless presence) enemy, was the only alternative to save the Republic.
A saved Republic that could then rise even higher toward the rhetorical ideals of its better angels.
But even then it took another 100 years of backpedaling and fucking broken faith, which ruined tens of millions of human lives and potentialities, and more, to merely approach the surface, because the evil at the racist, Other-persecuting, murderous, self-blinded heart of America provided an inexhaustible, radically unbalanced ballast pulling the country lower.
Dive deep.
Rise later when the founder of the radical republican party that is killing us, John Wilkes Booth, and all 80 million of his contemporary scum are no longer gripping our legs and pulling us under.
Many of us will suffer from the bends.
A quote from an evil fucking conservative moron, elected no less by no-IQ cucks, who wants to tell us what history we must learn and what history must be burned:
“Section B3 of the bill, sponsored by Republican freshman Del. Wren Williams, defines what can be taught as “the founding documents,” like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, excerpts from the Federalist Papers, the writings of the Founding Fathers and Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic “Democracy in America.” Oh, and one more thing: “the first debate between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.”
I think Abraham Lincoln appeared on the Mike Douglas show too.
Lincoln was also passed over in favor of Burt Lancaster to star opposite Kirk Douglas in the blockbuster conservative movement hit movie and republican coup instructional documentary, “Seven Days in May”.
PS: Under our current almost impossible to change rules, there will ALWAYS be two major parties.
I know. But to work well, it needs two major parties, both committed to democracy. Which, at the moment, we increasingly lack. There are still enough Republicans committed to it to avert disaster (see Georgia Secretary of State, Maricopa County Supervisors, etc.), but there will be a bunch of those facing primary attacks this year from the cult members as a result..
Leaving is only useful if there is a second viable party to go to. Not seeing one, what’s left is trying to at least slow the deterioration of the GOP. Happily, I can try to do that with my primary votes, but not be committed to the party candidate if one of the crazies wins there.
wj: Stop the morons and scum who disagree with you
fromvoting?lj: Isn’t that more the situation?
But what was being proposed, and I was opposing, was doing the same from the other side.
Dumb dupe?
Or highly-placed embedded Russian agent?
Tom Cotton.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2022/01/15/saturday-morning-open-thread-new-type-of-affinity-fraud/
If we could return to the golden, segregated, high marginal tax rate 1950’s (or even the glowing slave economy of the 1850’s) the conservative movement pines for with every semi-automatic weapon they possess, think of all the mutinous, insurrectionist traitors beholden to foreign enemies we could hand over the McCarthy cabal to execute.
It’s working!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-voting-ballots-republicans/2022/01/14/97c3d2de-7580-11ec-b202-b9b92330d4fa_story.html
And there is, no doubt, much rejoicing in some quarters (but definitely not here). Note that the county clerks are saying both that around half of new registrations are being rejected under the new law AND that they cannot get information from the Texas Secretary of State’s office in what the would-be voters need to do to fix their applications.
There are still enough Republicans committed to it to avert disaster
nope. i don’t think that’s true. you don’t get within a hair’s width of re-electing Trump if there is any meaningful number of honorable Republicans out there.
and Raffensperger may not have had it in him to openly break the law for Trump, but he is as Republican as the next guy. he blames GA’s election troubles on … Stacey Abrams and the Steele Dossier. and the conservative cancel culture is probably going to replace him with a true modern Republican zombie, when he’s up for election again. so, i wouldn’t count on him for long.
the GOP is a cesspool. and it’s only getting deeper and darker.
“Happily, I can try to do that with my primary votes, but not be committed to the party candidate if one of the crazies wins there.”
As a registered republican for 25 years decades ago, I tried that.
Kavanaugh: not enough of a political hack for some people
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/14/conservative-knives-come-out-brett-kavanaugh/
There are still enough Republicans committed to it to avert disaster
nope. i don’t think that’s true. you don’t get within a hair’s width of re-electing Trump if there is any meaningful number of honorable Republicans out there.
But they did, in fact, refuse to break the law and keep Trump in office. Which, to my mind, would have been a disaster. Was it a narrow escape? Yes. But an escape nonetheless.
Another article not behind a paywall regarding wj’s 11:55am:
https://www.keranews.org/politics/2022-01-14/texas-election-officials-blame-new-voting-law-for-rise-in-rejected-mail-in-ballot-applications
This is precisely the time and place .. Texas .. when and where we shall learn whether a heavily-armed polis can and will use their God-given constitutional right to bear and use arms to exercise and enforce the democratic voting franchise with fully justified violence against evil fucking vermin who steal that franchise.
If these Texans will not use their weaponry to secure their and their fellow citizens right to vote, then the Second Amendment should be abolished and their weapons confiscated, because their Christian dumb-ass God did not give them military-grade weaponry to use as all-hat-and-no-cattle hatracks, mantle decor, and obscuring the view out the back window of pick-up truck cabs.
It doesn’t look good though, given the widespread pussification of rank and file Texans.
Thanks, noone.
Here’s the deal with the GOP enablers. They still support “their side” because they don’t want Dems to win any victories on the things that the GOP opposes *even if those things are actually supported by most of the populace.*
We could have exactly the sort of bipartisan progress that the GOP-leaning centrists claim to want, but that would require them to compromise on the wedge issues and let those go to get the other things. They are not willing to do that or to cede the power they get by siding with the ethno-nationalists and the plutocrats and the sadists. They are waiting for more concessions from the left and hoping that “their side” can somehow put the wedge issues out of reach of the left by whatever means are required.
When you talk about the left needing to remain principled, wj, it sounds to me like a diplomat who is saying that the defenders need to give up on the occupied territory that the invaders have broken international law to occupy because taking back that territory will lead to human rights violations. The concern is understandable, but the position makes a mockery of law and justice and only serves to further incentivize the other side.
There must be a reckoning and a rebalancing. The country must return to something like a true center, and the right must give ground and suffer a loss of power. The principles of democracy and liberalism can’t work any other way. Absent those, we are looking at alternative principles for governing our society.
Section B3 of the bill, sponsored by Republican freshman Del. Wren Williams, defines what can be taught as “the founding documents,” like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, excerpts from the Federalist Papers, the writings of the Founding Fathers and Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic “Democracy in America.
Which excerpts?
Was it a narrow escape? Yes. But an escape nonetheless.
They took notes, and will upping their game going forward.
Here’s the deal with the GOP enablers. They still support “their side” because they don’t want Dems to win any victories on the things that the GOP opposes *even if those things are actually supported by most of the populace.*
Actually, I think it’s worse than that. They don’t want the Democrats to win any victories, even on things that said enablers actually favor. It’s “team spirit” taken to a truly disgusting level.
When you talk about the left needing to remain principled, wj, it sounds to me like a diplomat who is saying that the defenders need to give up on the occupied territory that the invaders have broken international law to occupy because taking back that territory will lead to human rights violations. The concern is understandable, but the position makes a mockery of law and justice and only serves to further incentivize the other side.
I don’t think so. More like, just because the other side has invaded and conquered part of your territory, you don’t deny them the fruits of their victory by nuking the place.
I don’t know what “nuking the place” is meant to refer to in your analogy, wj. I can understand the attitude, but not what that would look like in practice.
Was Reconstruction “nuking the place?” Was the Marshall Plan?
The Good Friday Accords were more consociational in nature, but those also appear to be more of a postponement than a resolution of the underlying problems.
We cannot fix anything until both sides agree to play by the same rules and the people who have violated those rules make amends in good faith to restore relations.
We cannot fix anything until both sides agree to play by the same rules and the people who have violated those rules make amends in good faith to restore relations.
So the question becomes, How do we convince those who are violating the rules to agree to play by them? I submit that you don’t convince people to allow everybody to vote by depriving them of the right to vote. (Which, you will note, was the suggestion — possibly not serious — which started this discussion.)
wj,
What was “the suggestion … which started this discussion”? I could guess, but the proper etiquette is to ask.
I do quibble with the “started this discussion” bit. “This discussion” has been going for years. At least since that paragon of moderation, Sandra Day O’Connor, elected Dubya president.
To answer your “How do we convince those who are violating the rules to agree to play by them?” question:
First we figure out who the referee is.
Who do you think it is? or should be? The SCOTUS? The “white working class”? The Army? Who?
If we conclude there is no referee — since you like analogies, consider a pick-up sandlot baseball game — maybe we take our ball and go home. No need to nuke the field.
Or maybe we appeal to those on the other team to show they really do want the game to go on, by kicking out the cheaters on their side. If they can.
–TP
As long as the GOP continues to win elections with their current strategy they will continue using it.
The only solution is to defeat them at the ballot box. Their behavior will not change until that happens.
What was “the suggestion … which started this discussion”? I could guess, but the proper etiquette is to ask.
That would be your note above:
Specifically Item 1.
Yes, you weren’t serious. Quite. But still, that’s what set me off. And it appears that some of the others here are kidding less on the topic.
The only solution is to defeat them at the ballot box. Their behavior will not change until that happens.
I incline to the same view. It is unfairly hard on those attempting to win with the deck stacked against them. But the alternatives are 1) just concede the field, or 2) sink to the same level — which also happens to require winning under the stacked deck first. Or, I suppose, the noone approach.
When they go low we…mostly sit on our hands and hope that our virtue will shame the shameless, who only seem to care that they are getting what they want (especially when part of what they want is to make us sit here and watch them do this to us).
Our virtue reinforces their bad behavior.
The left needs a tactical and limited embrace of these states of exception. The sticky part is and will always be that “limited” part. But most of the left is at least committed to the limits implied in liberalism and pluralism.
There are no such limits on the right.
When they go low we…mostly sit on our hands and hope that our virtue will shame the shameless
Which is, indeed, not a path to success. Overcoming those who are enthusiastic about cheating if it will achieve their ends is goung to take work. Lots of work. The model isn’t someone sitting around writing “shame on you!” diatribes. The model is Stacy Abrams.
What Stacy Abrams does is admirable and important. It remains to be seen, however, if what she does is going to be enough to stop the GOP from achieving their goal of subverting the electoral system and the very principles of representative government.
What if it doesn’t work? What then?
Systems can be broken and vandalized and subverted, and systems can be abused to prevent any repair or reform from happening once the damage has been done.
That’s where we are right now. The damage has been done. The left is trying to repair our system of government and the right is trying to make sure that the parts of that system that would prevent them from having their way will never work properly again.
Hooray for Stacy Abrams. Now what is the plan for dealing with the vandals if they refuse to let anyone fix things and prevent people like Stacy Abrams from achieving enough to restore our electoral system?
We’ve hit the point where we need to diversify this portfolio.
What Stacy Abrams does is admirable and important. It remains to be seen, however, if what she does is going to be enough to stop the GOP from achieving their goal of subverting the electoral system and the very principles of representative government.
And yet, it has been enough. Witness the fact that, even with Republicans solidly in control of the state government (at least for the moment), Georgia has two Democrats in the US Senate.
Granted, Georgia Democrats got an assist from Republican voters who bought the whole “the election is rigged” scam, and so decided not to bother to turn out to vote. After all, why bother if it doesn’t matter? But there are signs that the same phenomena may happen elsewhere. Enough signs that a number of Republican politicians are agonizing about how to stop it. Not sure they can, at least for the midterms.
And yet, it has been enough.
For the last cycle. Barely. To prevent the assault from gaining further ground, not to restore balance.
The GOP has made things worse since then.
We cannot hope to survive by being just reactive enough to prevent further erosion.
The country is too fragile as it stands. That is what all of these people who study the fall of democracy have been telling us for the last five years. Things are not improving, they are getting worse.
The only solution is to defeat them at the ballot box. Their behavior will not change until that happens.
It is absolutely not in evidence that electoral losses will change the behavior of the (R) party, or of conservatives in this country in general.
We see the opposite. If you lose, break stuff until you prevail.
It turns out that Tucker Carlson shot Lincoln in the back of his head:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2022/01/15/saturday-evening-retro-open-thread-the-gangs-that-couldnt-seditiously-conspire-straight/
History! Whaddaya gonna do?
We cannot hope to survive by being just reactive enough to prevent further erosion.
Fine. What specific concrete steps do you propose we take?
Prepare our communities to deal with the violence that the right wing keeps insisting it is willing to perpetrate in order to get its own way, and prepare for local law enforcement to mostly be on their side.
Put logistics and capital behind extra-governmental organizations for mutual support that can help protect communities if and when the ethno-nationalists get back in power and actually do attempt to eliminate their enemies.
Keep working to preserve our existing systems in the hope that all these other plans are never needed, but take the bastards at their word that they will do this if they get the chance. Everyone who studies how and when these things happen are telling us that the conditions are right for this to be a possibility. We can prepare for both eventualities without breaking the system we have.
If things do topple, the other side has all of these things in place and will push forward with their plans. The rest of the people in this country cannot afford to take time to work out a response.
What specific concrete steps do you propose we take?
The people who are in a position to take steps are whatever (R)’s and conservatives haven’t drunk the Trumpist Koolaid. Whoever they may be.
I’m not a lifelong (R) voter or contributor. My interests and opinions carry no weight with the people whose beliefs and behavior present a risk to the nation.
We have some rather scary antisemitic violence occurring right now, but the reports say it isn’t a right winger doing it, but an Al Qaeda sympathizer.
So I am guessing we are going back to the sorts of discussions we had some years back. And the US hasn’t been really very good about reacting to terrorism. We tend to overreact. And we aren’t going to have a nice clean debate about how to react to right wing violence without also talking about how to react to the jihadist type. Whatever rules we have for investigating one form of possible terrorist threat will also have to apply to the other. Or in theory it should. I am not terribly optimistic about our ability to do any of this correctly.
This is the person the hostage taker wants released.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aafia_Siddiqui
Very confusing.
And here is a tweet thread from some who knows and. really admires the rabbi being held hostage, who also works ( peacefully) for the release of the alleged terrorist in prison.
https://twitter.com/aliarsalem/status/1482533721567903744
Super confusing.
I come at the discussion about democracy in the US from a sideways direction— I am somewhat used to reading about situations like this hostage case, where it isn’t always obvious what is going on. In this case the rabbi and others are clearly innocent and the hostage taker belongs in prison, but it is hard to know if the person he wants freed is guilty and I don’t particularly trust government officials in such cases.
I don’t like the American far right or Al Qaeda, but I am also not completely sure I trust our police or our government at any level to make distinctions between genuinely dangerous people and people who aren’t dangerous.
I am also not completely sure I trust our police or our government at any level to make distinctions between genuinely dangerous people and people who aren’t dangerous.
It seems like a distinction that somebody needs to be making. Got an alternative suggestion? Or a route to upgrading the ability of those currently responsible? (Gitmo being a pretty clear demonstration that there’s certainly room for improvement. No question there,)
No, I don’t have any great suggestions. But in theory our system should work. Innocent until proven guilty. Don’t have government informers egging people in into committing crimes they might not have committed on their own. That apparently happened with some Muslims. It doesn’t seem ridiculous to me that it could happen with far right types. I am not making claims here— I haven’t read deeply enough.
No torture, of course. Don’t spy on people unless you have really good reason to think they are dangerous.
I don’t think the far right will be treated as badly as we treated Muslims, especially when many in the police and intelligence agencies are on the right themselves, but it wouldn’t completely shock me if abuses occur. People in authority who are sure they are right can rationalize bending the rules.
And when the government makes mistakes and jails the wrong people, admit it. And when clear abuses of power occurred, hold people accountable.
This is all really obvious stuff, but in our War on Terror ( enthusiastically cheered on by people in both parties) we didn’t live up to our alleged principles.
Don’t have government informers egging people in into committing crimes they might not have committed on their own. That apparently happened with some Muslims. It doesn’t seem ridiculous to me that it could happen with far right types.
It does. Happened in Michigan just recently, though the extent to which the people involved were egged on and the extent to which they were just radicalized anti-government militants awaiting opportunity is always fuzzy. And Michigan has enough paramilitary types running and gunning in their woods that I don’t doubt those guys would have found an opportunity sooner or later, FBI informant or no.
So I’m conflicted and ambivalent.
“The only solution is to beat them at the ballot box”…
Agreed; anything else is a counsel of despair.
But even so.
https://www.salon.com/2022/01/14/florida-lost-special-by-59-points-files-and-refuses-to-concede/
Prepare our communities to deal with the violence that the right wing keeps insisting it is willing to perpetrate in order to get its own way, and prepare for local law enforcement to mostly be on their side.
and be prepared to be told that the right is only preparing itself against the antifa / BLM violence that it is .. .yadayadayada.
like it or not, a summer of violent left-leaning demonstrations did set a lot of the right on edge. and yes, many of those people are the type who have been itching for a fight for a long time. but then, lefty street violence wasn’t invented in 2020. so… we’re a couple of spins into one of them, whatchacallit, spirals. everyone is justifying their actions on the actions of the other.
something’s got to give.
Who is better at harnessing and whipping the anger:
https://jabberwocking.com/chart-of-the-day-anger-in-the-united-states/
Antifa sucks at it. Antifa is loser balaclava bullshit.
The radical right, now fully in harness to the conservative movement, with the bit in Trump’s teeth, are armed professionals.
The rancid conservative movement is as fully anti-PTA, for Christ’s loin cloth’s sake, as it is anti-Antifa.
The rancid conservative movement is as fully anti-vaccine as it is anti-Antifa.
Antifa breaks windows and damages and destroys property, for which law is adequate to punish, and should.
Insurance covers some of that damage.
Antifa, may of whom are loser vermin, is anti-authoritarian and anti-cop.
The stinking vermin in the armed conservative movement are thugishly authoritarian AND totally anti-government. What the fuck ARE cops if not the spear point of government?
The conservative movement is breaking the country. It’s breaking the voting franchise. It’s breaking the fucking government.
We have no insurance covering those items when they are gone.
From where I sit, there don’t seem to be any laws what that can be applied to punish that latter breakage, except the natural law of fuck you, now you are dead.
And it starts by executing Donald Trump for his capital crimes with the sorry-assed, ill-defined limp mechanisms of the rule of law, enforced by the fucking government that conservatives refuse to pay for.
FWIW – the number of people killed by self-described members of antifa is somewhere between zero and one, depending on how you view the Reinoehl case.
nobody here should think i’m saying antifa is equivalent to the 1/6 terrorists.
but a lot of Republicans think they’re worse and that they justify armed resistance. for example, Kyle Rittenhouse.
spiral.
It’s also clear that much of the violence ascribed to antifa and BLM was started by opportunistic right-wing provocateurs. More significantly, I think, much of the violence was instigated and/or escalated by police.
But I know that has no effect on the view of Republicans who consider Rittenhouse a hero.
cleek, my 9:26 AM was not aimed in your direction.
But ducking my rants is probably recommended.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1/15/2074902/-Trump-Openly-Explains-How-He-Plans-to-Steal-the-Next-Election-in-Video-Message-to-Republican-Group
The vote-counters were the first to be murdered by every fascist and communist dictator since time unfortunately started.
The people who are in a position to take steps are whatever (R)’s and conservatives haven’t drunk the Trumpist Koolaid.
There aren’t enough of them, and they’re not taking the steps anyway.
“The only solution is to beat them at the ballot box”…
Agreed; anything else is a counsel of despair.
But if they make it impossible to beat them at the ballot box, as they are trying to do, what then? This may indeed be a counsel of despair, but I find myself more on the nous side of this question @08.16 – a strategy is necessary for a worst-case scenario. I can’t myself envisage the plan, let alone the details, but I suppose (like almost everything else) it would start with raising a ton of money from democracy-minded billionaires. And then? What? (Apart from funding mass Stacy Abrams-type strategies to saturate the ad-sphere, register voters and get out the vote in every state – you couldn’t rely on a charismatic front person to inspire volunteers, there isn’t enough time).
Meanwhile, hot times (i.e. a major volcanic eruption) in Tonga. Resulting in tsunami warnings here. Now when we do get tsunami warnings here, they typically just say “stay off the ocean beaches.” But this time, we saw actual evacuation orders in San Francisco and other locations along the coast.
However, what really shocked me was this one
(Had a link to the local CBS station’s entry on the evacuations from the Berkeley marina. But I seem to have GftNC disease** — when I include it, nothing posts. perhaps this: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2022/01/15
and tsunami-alert-forces-daylong-evacuation-berkeley-marina … remove “and” and insert a / )
Just think for a moment about what it would take for a tsunami to get thru the Golden Gate and still have enough magnitude to flood places inside the Bay. In the event, it didn’t — so far, but there are multiple waves forecast.
** No offense intended
and be prepared to be told that the right is only preparing itself against the antifa / BLM violence that it is .. .yadayadayada.
like it or not, a summer of violent left-leaning demonstrations did set a lot of the right on edge. and yes, many of those people are the type who have been itching for a fight for a long time. but then, lefty street violence wasn’t invented in 2020. so… we’re a couple of spins into one of them, whatchacallit, spirals. everyone is justifying their actions on the actions of the other.
something’s got to give.
Yes. Spiral. Yes.
That is going to happen if the right wants it to happen. And a big chunk of the right, the part in the driver’s seat, has built an identity on that paranoia and belief in redemptive violence.
We saw the script in action already in Portland.
If the right comes in with authoritarianism and violence (which is the direction things are going) then marginal communities will suffer the brunt of that violence.
If there is no reaction, then the right goes on camera and preens and legitimizes their violence.
If the communities under the hammer react, then the right uses that as an excuse to escalate, and uses the footage as self-justification.
Either way, the right pushes on. The only way it stops is if a sizable enough faction of the right actively resists the authoritarians.
There will always be a faction on the left that is going to react to the right’s provocations. There probably needs to be one, otherwise that authoritarianism appears to be a solution.
This is not a counsel of despair. This is history. This is humanity. This is a sober assessment of the archive.
Organizations of mutual aid aren’t antifa. Antifa are punks and children. God bless ’em. They serve a purpose. Someone needs to draw the jackals off of the more vulnerable who show up to bear witness to the violence of the right. But antifa are pretty much useless for anything else. The organizations of mutual aid we need are unions and churches and networks of nurses and EMTs and former service members – people who know organizing and logistics and who have practical skills. People who can help those in need and give them shelter when the authoritarians declare a curfew and send in the paramilitary contractors to sweep the streets.
Not a paranoid imagining. This is recent history. It was Minneapolis. It was Portland.
If the authoritarians are in charge and the police are on their side, then people need other avenues for community security and for shelter and medical care.
I totally get not wanting to contemplate any of this. I totally get wanting to preserve the moral high ground. The alternative is horrible.
But the moderate left needs to accept that they can’t keep their hands entirely clean and only go high and not prepare for their own hands to be forced.
When you are the plumber you can’t be afraid of getting in the shit.
That is where we are.
“That is where we are.”
Then we are way behind.
https://digbysblog.net/2022/01/16/they-were-all-in-on-it/
https://digbysblog.net/2022/01/16/extremists-for-god-and-country/
Is antifa recruiting among murderous, subhuman, armed rightwing veterans of the US military?
Not bloody likely.
I don’t believe that dead suicidal fascists leads to fewer fascist voters for one single second:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1/15/2074895/-Journalist-states-the-obvious-COVID-is-killing-Trump-supporters-by-the-hundreds-each-day?pm_source=story_sidebar&pm_medium=web&pm_campaign=recommended
I cheer it on, and not without the full mindfucking realization of the psychotic, sick tragedy these suicides are playing out for our political and religious edification, but I don’t believe it.
If mass death lanced Evil, then why does the Mideast dive deeper into blood lust every year?
I watch enough zombie and body snatcher movies to know that for every zombie and body-snatcher obliterated by head shots, they’ve already face-chewed and infected six formerly normal humans, or distributed the seed pods into their basements to transform them into fascist filth as they sleep.
noone, the author of your article is correct that the anti-vaxx disinformation machine is killing off more Trump voters. But his math is lousy. If 3/4 of the 1,800 dying every day are Trump voters, that does mean 1,350 fewer Trump voters. But the actual change in Trump margins is only 900 votes.
Still a loss. But if you want to figure out how the balance will change (more precisely, how covid deaths will impact the margin), you have to use the right numbers.
Alex Jones and Donald Trump are bottling their own urine for sale to the thirsty American public:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-alex-jones-pal-behind-the-anti-vaccine-rights-urine-drinking-covid-cure
It’s not in the Kool-Aid section at your local grocery, it’s one of them new seltzer refreshments.
Swish and gargle for full efficacy.
For a hefty extra fee, Trump or Jones will pay you a personal in-home visit and piss directly down your gullible gullet.
Next up. Piss Bars … without bathrooms.
Also sold in ointment form as a skin unguent.
Rand Paul is contemplating his own highly valued Number Twos as a breath freshener and joint compound. He’s done a lifelong marketing survey, multi-level, natch, along with his Dad, which indicates that when either of them speak, their listeners don’t seem to mind eating shit directly from the source and recommending the shit to their friends and families and patients.
DeSantis is not quite on board with this cure, since death by pandemic has been such a money maker for him. He’s keeping his own urine and freezing it because his wife is one thirsty girl for the latest in cancer cures.
All of this economic and marketing activity is guaranteed by the Bullshit Clause embedded in the Constitution.
As Benjamin Franklin quipped when asked what he and his fellow geniuses had wrought: Hey, lady, piss up a rope! I get a nickel a shot.
If one wonders what Reason Magazine thinks of this, I have a feeling we’re going to find out momentarily.
The organizations of mutual aid we need are unions and churches and networks of nurses and EMTs and former service members – people who know organizing and logistics and who have practical skills.
OK, sounds good. But how are these organisations to be recruited into a network? So that they can then start to recruit members? If, as you suggest (and I agree) plans need to be laid now for a worst-case outcome, how is this to come together?
I remember after the Trump election I posted a link to The Indivisible Guide. I see from this that they are already working on it:
https://indivisible.org/about
In a sane world, the remedy for where we are at right now would be for people to talk to and *listen to* each other.
What do you want, why is that good, what things are non-negotiable, where is the wiggle room.
That doesn’t appear to be available right now.
The (R) appears to be intent on prevailing regardless of what damage it does in the process. That’s not hypothetical and it’s not a prediction, those things are happening now and have been happening for some time. They will undoubtedly continue.
(D)’s appear to be committed to working within the institutions as they exist and have existed. This is proving to be a liability.
Personally, I’m assuming the kinds of extra-governmental agencies nous cites in his 1:25 are going to be necessary, and I’ll be looking for opportunities to engage at that level beginning basically now.
Relying on getting the vote out and prevailing electorally is good as far as it goes, but it doesn’t address the animosity that is shredding our ability to govern ourselves as a nation.
The way it looks to me is that it’s going to be messed up for a while and a lot of people are going to be harmed. I don’t see this as a “both sides” thing, there is nothing in the left-of-American-center world that compares to the will to power of folks in the (R) leadership, or to the radical departure from reality that is common in conservative voters.
It’s going to be heads down and make the best of it, probably for years.
It’s very discouraging, but a remarkably large portion of the nation has lost its mind. I mean that literally. I don’t know how to fix that, or if there is even a way to fix it. I have no idea what things are gonna look like in a year, or five years, or 20 years. No idea whatsoever.
It’s a crazy time. IMO it’s a total coin toss where it will land.
our democracy was rigged from the start in favor of the white and wealthy.
Not exactly. Typically, states had a property ownership requirement (although some did not). So yes, the wealthy had an edge. But for much of the country, there was no race requirement. Slaves couldn’t vote. And most blacks couldn’t meet the property requirement; but then, lots of whites couldn’t meet the property requirement either.
The South was another matter, of course. But in the North? Usually property. Mostly gender (although unmarried or widowed women could own property in some places, so they could potentially vote as well). But not race per se.
re: the tsunami was apparentlycaused by a massive change in barometric pressure rather than the usual mechanisms. The Japanese agency got caught offguard, said that nothing was going to happen, and then had to issue (rather late) warnings.
https://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0008184468
Indivisible seems like the sort of thing that could become much more effective over time. It’s built on the same principles that labor groups use to expand reach and develop solidarity. The most effective way to scale it up would probably be to use existing groups as the nucleus for an Indivisible group.
The social overlaps between group membership become the lines of communication.
For indivisible to work, though, everyone opposed to the authoritarian right needs to start turning out for solidarity even when they are not 100% aligned, and the center *really needs to hold the line* and not ghost on their more marginal members, and they need to show up to support those marginal groups when they mobilize (at least to send a visible contingent to demonstrate solidarity). No leaving your margins exposed.
The tricky disconnect for Indivisible will be between groups dedicated to non-violence and those who are not opposed to it.
This means that the non-violent need to provide humanitarian aid to individuals who need it without asking too many questions, and that the more militant need to respect their pacifist allies commitment to their principles and not entangle them in anything that violates these principles.
“The tricky disconnect for Indivisible will be between groups dedicated to non-violence and those who are not opposed to it.
This means that the non-violent need to provide humanitarian aid to individuals who need it without asking too many questions, and that the more militant need to respect their pacifist allies commitment to their principles and not entangle them in anything that violates these principles.”
I’ve no objection to any of that multi-level strategy … five years ago.
But the malignant conservative movement has already shown the indivisible united hands of the fascist vermin suits in the White House and Congress and state houses bureaucratically by sleight-of-hand overthrowing a free election and their violent enforcement hands breaking into and entering the US Capitol …. the first time since the British set fire to in the War of 1812 … with the full-throated intention of murdering their enemies in the Democratic Party to secure the coup.
The threats against Pence was Hitler merely intimidating his puppet show Mussolinis for the benefit of newsreels in America, which of course subhuman American conservative and southern Democrat racists ate up like their own vomit.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2022/01/16/open-thread-a-theory-of-recapturing-the-white-house/
Hartmut writes:
> I read somewhere that the distance between the two sides of the house of commons was deliberately chosen to be slightly beyond two sword lengths. So, members have to get up at least to duel.
Ooh, I wonder where that was. There’s frequent anecdotal reference to a statue of Elisabeth I’s time that limited rapier length to a yard and a quarter, but then all sumptuary laws were struck off the books in 1604, and most of the relevant parts of Westminster were rebuilt in the 19th century, even if some arrangement about parliament had survived the whole Civil War / Restoration thing.
Numerous references on the net as I found out looking after posting. But the relevance ceased in any case very long ago when weapons were banned on the premises.
..compares to the will to power of folks in the (R) leadership, or to the radical departure from reality that is common in conservative voters.
or that functions like a cheerleading section / message coordinator / disciplinarian that Fox News does for the right.
There’s frequent anecdotal reference to a statue of Elisabeth I’s time that limited rapier length to a yard and a quarter…
I once had the opportunity to handle a period rapier with a 43″ blade (special gloves required to avoid getting any body oils on it). It was both lighter than I guessed from just looking at it and very difficult to use. The balance was horrible. If its original owners were effective with it, they had much stronger wrists than I did. Also handled a smallsword from a few decades later with a 33″ blade (couple inches shorter than a standard modern epee). That one felt good.
For indivisible to work, though, everyone opposed to the authoritarian right needs to start turning out for solidarity even when they are not 100% aligned, and the center *really needs to hold the line* and not ghost on their more marginal members, and they need to show up to support those marginal groups when they mobilize (at least to send a visible contingent to demonstrate solidarity). No leaving your margins exposed.
I can’t help thinking that this refers (no doubt among other things) to our previous discussion about trans-activists and the characterisation of gender-critical feminists as transphobic TERFs. For my own part, I believe human attitudes are various and complicated, and I would be happy to support allies or stay neutral about issues on which I don’t feel strongly (e.g. pro or anti hunting). But I am afraid that my affiliation as a woman, let alone my absolute opposition to being told that certain subjects are not up for discussion, or that my wish to discuss and analyse them automatically puts me in a category in which I do not belong, triumphs over the need to support political allies. I feel similarly about abortion rights: which is to say that if my political allies all suddenly (or gradually) became pro-life, I would not compromise on this either. I would never, however, seek to ban discussion of it, or analysis of the attitudes which inform my view, let alone try to get people sacked for taking the contrary view.
I increasingly believe that the movement to deny the reality of biological sex and bulldoze people into believing that any thought to the contrary is transphobic, will eventually be seen for the counterfactual ideological brainwashing that it is. It is perfectly possible to respect trans people, and guarantee their rights to safety and respect, without disadvantaging women.
But for much of the country, there was no race requirement.
I’m curious to know what time period we’re talking about here. I don’t think this is true, as stated.
Absolutely no wish to threadjack to a discussion of the trans issue, by the way, completely the opposite!
As you were: swords and sorcery.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States
But for much of the country, there was no race requirement
I have to admit, I thought the same as russell when I first read this, wj. But then I assumed you were nitpicking via the letter of the law, rather than the intent and the effect of it.
Which leads me to tell you all, if I haven’t already, that the Dutch for pedantry, or nitpicking, translates as “ant-fucking”.
I increasingly believe that the movement to deny the reality of biological sex and bulldoze people into believing that any thought to the contrary is transphobic, will eventually be seen for the counterfactual ideological brainwashing that it is. It is perfectly possible to respect trans people, and guarantee their rights to safety and respect, without disadvantaging women.
Amen. To my mind, the absolutist position (especially with respect to athletics) is a major impediment to trans individuals being accepted overall. That is, people reject the obvious denial of physiological differences and extend that to objecting to any other kind of acceptance of trans people.
I have to admit, I thought the same as russell when I first read this, wj. But then I assumed you were nitpicking via the letter of the law, rather than the intent and the effect of it.
If the intent was white privilege, there was nothing to stop the states outside the South from restricting the franchise to whites. But they didn’t. So not really seeing this as nitpicking.
This is quite a good attempt to address that controversy.
https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/a-fool-rushes-in-a-suggested-way-of-approaching-trans-rights-ccae2554fe31
“let alone my absolute opposition to being told that certain subjects are not up for discussion, or that my wish to discuss and analyse them automatically puts me in a category in which I do not belong, triumphs over the need to support political allies. I feel similarly about abortion rights: which is to say that if my political allies all suddenly (or gradually) became pro-life, I would not compromise on this either. I would never, however, seek to ban discussion of it, or analysis of the attitudes which inform my view, let alone try to get people sacked for taking the contrary view.”
This.
See
“>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States
Yes, I saw that, and came away with a different conclusion.
As of 1789, we have this:
But for much of the country, there was no race requirement
But the next paragraph begins:
Beginning around 1790, individual states began to reassess property ownership as a qualification for enfranchisement in favor of gender and race, with most states disenfranchising women and non-white men.
My bold.
The reason I asked about the time period is that the right of blacks to vote was generally either taken away or significantly restricted in most states over the first half of the 18th C. This wasn’t just a southern thing, many / most northern states limited the franchise for blacks (and others).
The 15th A restored that de jure, but de facto access to the ballot took almost another 100 years in many places.
Interesting piece, Nigel, and I agree with most of it. My only real quibble is that when he says:
But how about those who have a gender recognition certificate but who have not yet physically transitioned (and yes, this is possible)?
I too, used to assume this was rare (it certainly did not apply to the trans women I knew). But no: I have been told about low rates that astounded me, but a cursory search now turned this up
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626314/
which suggests that only 5-13% of trans women in this study have had “bottom” surgery, as it is euphemistically called, and only 45-54% desire it in the future.
It seems that the current generations of trans women (unlike those I knew decades ago) do not necessarily see the removal of their male genitals to be necessary to their gender transition.
Whether this might cause discomfort or worse to the natal women with whom they might share spaces seems to me to be a necessary consideration, and the suggestion that their wishes or feelings be paramount in that situation seems to show extraordinary ignorance of the lived experience of many women.
That’s an interesting piece, Nigel, and I agree with most of it.
But when he says
But how about those who have a gender recognition certificate but who have not yet physically transitioned (and yes, this is possible)?
I too used to think this was very rare, but no. I have been anecdotally given stats which astounded me, but a cursory search now turned this up:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626314/
which shows that in this study only 5-10% of trans women have had genital surgery, and only 45-54% desire it in the future.
So it appears that unlike the trans women I knew a few decades ago, very many trans women do not now consider it necessary or important to their gender identity to remove their male genitals.
That this might cause discomfort or worse to the natal females (many of whom may have experienced harassment or worse at the hands of people with male genitals) with whom they desire to share women-only spaces does not seem to be considered as important as their own feelings or desires, either by them (or at least trans-activists) or many of the people who are contributing to the debate. I do not share this attitude, and I believe it is at root misogynistic, as is the description of its denial as transphobic (although I accept that many of the people convinced by the current orthodoxy have not followed the argument so far as to be aware of this).
A more detailed history:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2139853
My understanding, FWIW, is that voting (and other) rights for blacks basically went backwards from the beginning of the US in 1789, through the first half of the 19th C, until the passage of the Civil war amendments, And then faced profound practical challenges until 1965.
And are once again under threat, as a practical matter.
And, as we know, women weren’t guaranteed the right to vote until 1920.
There are similar histories around naturalization and access to citizenship, not just for blacks. From 1882 until 1943, Chinese were not allowed to become citizens. For example.
I don’t mean to get all “1619 project” about this stuff, but the country has issues about ethnicity. And gender. It’s a common human problem, but we’re not immune.
the right of blacks to vote was generally either taken away or significantly restricted in most states over the first half of the 18th C. This wasn’t just a southern thing, many / most northern states limited the franchise for blacks (and others).
My exception was to the statement that “our democracy was rigged from the start in favor of the white and wealthy.” [emphasis added]
To be clear, I take “the start” to be the implementation of the Constitution.
My exception was to the statement that “our democracy was rigged from the start in favor of the white and wealthy.”
All good, wj.
I was not actually singling out any of the things that you were feeling the need to defend there, GftNC. The RadFems are similar to the pacifists in that tricky calculus thing. Which is to say that I don’t expect the RadFem contingent to give up their opposition to many things for which the Trans Rights people are campaigning (even if I think the RadFems are wrong on those issues). I would, however, expect them to show up to protest police brutality against trans people, and to welcome help from trans activists when it is freely given.
When I wrote that bit I was actually thinking about the difficulty that minority activists have in getting suburban whites to show up for any public action for farm workers or for protests against ICE detentions and the like. Or the people who balk at trying to help the homeless because the camps or shelters are being put into their own neighborhood and they are worried about crime, drugs, and property values.
Limousine liberals make horrible allies – all take and no give.
Limousine liberals make horrible allies – all take and no give.
Still, better horrible allies than active opponents. Enough better that it’s probably worth a bit of (psychological) effort to avoid gratuitously offending them. No matter how frustrating (very!) they can be.
Sometimes the vote counter is more important than the candidate.
Trump said this in AZ this weekend.
Limousine liberals make horrible allies – all take and no give.
but they make such a nice scapegoat.
(sorry, PA, not AZ)
Still, better horrible allies than active opponents. Enough better that it’s probably worth a bit of (psychological) effort to avoid gratuitously offending them. No matter how frustrating (very!) they can be.
Always the attitude taken by the people in the middle with the least at stake, with absolutely no compassion or empathy for what it is like to live on the margin and be told that you have to defer to the ones with privilege.
It’s another form of supremacy, wielded with uncaring, deadly effect. And I’ve done it myself and have to work to not do it. Listening is hard, and it requires active and voluntary restraint with no room for resentment or ego.
Always the attitude taken by the people in the middle with the least at stake, with absolutely no compassion or empathy for what it is like to live on the margin and be told that you have to defer to the ones with privilege.
But also the attitude, as in this case, of those who think it is important to win for those on the margin. Rather than enjoy this kind of gratuitous insulting of those who might help that win happen.
Or, if you insist on insulting them, decide to pitch in to defeat you. And that is, whether you quite realize it or not, exactly how your comment comes across.
Candor wins against political strategy when commenting on an obscure blog.
Candor wins against political strategy when commenting on an obscure blog.
Certainly, if it stays there. But all too often, it surfaces in far more public venues.
It may be wise to practice restraint even here, just to build habits against the next foray out in public. Although I can see the merit of having someplace to let off steam in relative privacy.
Huh. I guess just mentioning limousine liberals counts as a personal insult, even when it’s not aimed at anyone specific.
I can’t prevent anyone from seizing hold of a complaint about a class of behavior and owning it as a personal rebuke. But that sensitivity too is wielded tactically, and again with a complete lack of empathy for the position of the other who is being asked to forebear and continue to suffer long so as not to discomfit.
Huh. I guess just mentioning limousine liberals counts as a personal insult, even when it’s not aimed at anyone specific.
Well, there was the part about “horrible allies”….
Note also that “limousine liberal” is routinely used as a personal insult. You never hear the term applied to, for example, FDR. Even though, given his combination of wealth and liberalism, it would seem to fit.
(sorry, PA, not AZ)
I was wondering if Trump had somehow overcome his aversion to the western 75% of the country.
They are, for the very reason I mentioned. And your own follow up about them abandoning the field if they feel slighted reinforces why they are horrible allies.
It is indeed fortunate when they choose to lend support. But they cannot be relied upon.
wj – you fixate on the strangest and most peripheral things sometimes when you choose to object to characterizations. We have two such in this thread with the objection to suffrage being historically skewed towards the interests of white male property owners and now to wealth being the defining trait of the limousine liberal (rather than the refusal to sacrifice privilege).
I’m never quite sure what you intend to help tease out with these objections, or how you think they distort the arguments being made. It is a mystery.
And your own follow up about them abandoning the field if they feel slighted reinforces why they are horrible allies.
cast your memory back to the early summer days of 2016 and 2020 when it seems like every other self-descried “progressive” on the web (including, IIRC?, some here) was threatening to sit out the election because Sanders didn’t get the nomination.
how they refused to be held “hostage” by the possibility of a Republican takeover of SCOTUS.
how, since Sanders didn’t win, both parties were really the same and the only thing that mattered was the leftmost edge of American politics.
how Clinton had to fight not only the GOP, but endless torrents of bullshit from the left.
such great allies! much supporting. so worth courting.
Candor wins against political strategy when commenting on an obscure blog.
Agreed.
nous @12.41:
I understand. And speaking as a definite limousine liberal (although far from suburban, and definitely not about to abandon the field if I feel slighted), I understand and sympathise with your frustration, and hope I am a better ally than those you describe.
I would, however, expect them [a] to show up to protest police brutality against trans people, and [b] to welcome help from trans activists when it is freely given.
I absolutely agree with you on [a], and regarding [b] the decision would depend on the specific help, the specific circumstances, and the specific trans-activists.
I call myself a limousine liberal because of growing up privileged in most ways, not because of wealth. I wish.
cast your memory back to the early summer days of 2016 and 2020 when it seems like every other self-descried “progressive” on the web (including, IIRC?, some here) was threatening to sit out the election because Sanders didn’t get the nomination.
Yep. The Jacobin purists are horrible allies too, and they don’t show up to help any of those other groups either. They always find an excuse to ghost if it’s not their personal hobby horse in the queue at the glue factory.
I don’t count on them for solidarity any more than I do on the NIMBYs.
We need good faith, and a commitment to fairness that goes both ways, and to courage. The rest can be worked through.
I’m never quite sure what you intend to help tease out with these objections, or how you think they distort the arguments being made. It is a mystery.
Part of it, no doubt, is all the time I spend proof reading and editing at work. It gets to be a habit to spot, and call out, the kind of errors which will undercut the point that is trying to be made. (Especially when said point is a sale.)
But another part is that I keep seeing statements which seem outright self-destructive. See cleek’s at 3:48. It’s not so much that they distort anything as that they are totally unnecessary to support it — and cause some listeners to close their minds to that argument. Frankly, you appear to be among those who do it most often here. (Albeit nowhere near the worst offender in the wider world.)
My view, confirmed by a lot of experience, is that words matter. Clinton’s “deplorables” comment, for example, did her campaign more damage than any dirt that Trump came up with. Not because she was wrong about the people she intended to speak of, but because it was done in a way which offended a bunch of folks who might well have supported her otherwise.
Let me try to lay it out this way.
nous, you are perfectly capable of making solid arguments for your positions. Sometimes, you even persuade me; sometimes not. But even when I don’t find the arguments persuasive, I can see some reason for where you’re coming from.
But while you can, more often than not** you lard your arguments with negative comments about moderates, not to mention moderate conservatives. Comments which contribute nothing to the case you are making. Not always flat out insulting, but certainly disrespecting them and all their works.
The result of that is a huge inclination to go counter to the position you are supporting, without even considering its merits. I make an effort to stay focused to the substance, but it’s hard. And most people, reading it, will just stop listening. Which is counterproductive. Not damaging to the substance of the argument, but definitely damaging to the (presumed) persuasive intention of the argument.
** No, I haven’t run a study. 😉
I understand the reaction that you speak of, wj. That reaction is the subject of most of my criticisms. That reaction is the heart of what LJ was pointing to when he wrote about centrist as a worldview and an identity.
The lesson at hand is that offense is something that progressives and minorities cannot afford because they need moderates and centrists on their side or else we end up with monsters in power.
To what extent do the moderates and the centrists need those on their left? To what extend do they need to try to avoid offending them? To what extent do they need to try to empathize with their concerns?
It is as if moderates believe that there is a sufficient supply of potential, non-monstrous allies just to the right of the moderates who can keep us from evil so long as the people on the left don’t scare them or offend them, and that the key to avoiding evil is figuring out how many on the left can be ignored to get n+1 swing voters on the side of not being monstrous.
The last five years have shown me that those swing voters that have taken offense at the left are perfectly willing to support monstrousness. I don’t think that should be a controversial position to take after Jan. 6.
Is the lesson we are supposed to take from this that, sorry, the center needs monsters more than they need the marginalized on the left so the marginalized need to stay quiet?
That seems an abusive dynamic. And I see no evidence that the monstrousness-enablers are willing to be soothed out of their support for monsters.
Are we certain that there are no more votes on the margins of the Democratic party that could counter the part-time-monstrous? I don’t think we’ve tried hard enough to find out, and I don’t see any concern for how the search for center swing votes reinforces the marginalization of the groups that are being told to stay quiet.
It sucks.
I probably just offended a bunch of people by calling out the monstrousness of our current political climate and pointing out their complicity in that monstrousness.
I guess I should be more politically correct.
Note also that I did not call any moderates and centrists who are not supporting The Orange Menace “monstrous,” just the people that they appear to hope to win over.
Clinton’s “deplorables” comment, for example…
Tone deaf? certainly. Cost her a good number of votes? I tend to doubt it. It does not strike me that folks will suddenly switch from being for Hillary and then go vote for a fucking racist fascist thug like D.Trump simply because they thought she was referring to them. They were most likely predisposed to vote for him anyway.
I am a self confessed lefty/socialist loon deeply critical of the capitalist system, and all forms of hierarchy. But I must admit that I get a bit disappointed at my good liberal friends who get all wrought about “defund the police” denser zoning regulations, or “good schools”…or “how are you going to pay for it?” trotted out as what they think is a serious critique of my public policy preferences…but whatever. Despite that, I have voted straight Dem in all local, state, and national elections since 1972*, and most likely shall continue to do so in the few remaining elections I shall be around to participate in.
Because right now, in these times, there is no effective decent alternative. I shall vote for Dems because Republicans, as a group, are orders of magnitude worse (despite there being “nice” ones here and there).
However, I do reserve the right to criticize moderates as much and as heatedly as they criticize folks such as myself.
I think that’s just the way it is, and will continue to be.
*yes. even when my candidate did not win the primary.
how Clinton had to fight not only the GOP, but endless torrents of bullshit from the left.
Much as George McGovern and Jeremy Corbin had to put up with endless torrents of bullshit from the center, the center that gave us Richard Nixon’s second term and Boris Johnson.
It goes both ways.
Note also that I did not call any moderates and centrists who are not supporting The Orange Menace “monstrous,” just the people that they appear to hope to win over.
Gotta admit, when I first read your 4:09, it certainly read like you were saying that ALL centerists/moderates were, if not monsterous themselves, at least enthusiastically embracing monsters. Not, you say, what you intended to convey, but definately how it came across.
The thing is, my sense is that most moderates are as repulsed by the monsters as you are. (Not, mind, those who are not moderates so much as without principles beyond a will to power for themselves. But real moderates.) That said, if they get the sense that the left is trashing them, their willingness to believe that they can control the monsters goes up. There were a lot of those in 2016. Many learned better; that’s part of why Trump lost this time. But there were others who found that they would rather tolerate Trump than accept being equated to him — which is how they would read you.
Is it unfair that you have to accomodate the moderates more than they have to accomodate you? Sure. But the question isn’t fairness here. It’s how do we maximize the chances to taking down the monsters. As cleek notes, there were a lot of progressives threatening to sit out in the last two elections, just because their preferred candidate didn’t get nominated. Fortunately, they mostly didn’t. But there was never a chance that they would feel so upset that they would support Trump. Whereas the chances of losing the center to Trump was far larger.
Simply put, reality isn’t symmetrical. And since it’s not, progressives will end up having to do more, and give more.
It goes both ways.
yes, it does.
and the fact needed pointing out.
so long as the people on the left don’t scare them or offend them
“defund” really did scare them! like, it totally fucking freaked them out. and not just our horrible limousine liberal moderate centrist oppressors, either:
if the shit you’re pushing turns people off, it’s not necessarily their fault.
It does not strike me that folks will suddenly switch from being for Hillary and then go vote for a fucking racist fascist thug like D.Trump simply because they thought she was referring to them. They were most likely predisposed to vote for him anyway.
Not, I think, predisposed to vote for Trump. But open both to the idea of voting for him and the idea of voting for Clinton. It wasn’t them switching who they would vote for. It was them deciding, where they were previously undecided.
Like you, I have trouble understanding how anyone could even consider voting for that despicable conman. But I recognize that there were quite a number who, while not particularly racist fascists themselves, were willing to consider him. Their votes weren’t certain, but even keeping half of them away from Trump would have flipped a couple of close states. States which, in 2020, did flip.
Not, you say, what you intended to convey, but definately how it came across.
Not what I said, intent or no. It was how you read it. So if you wish to fault my rhetoric, then perhaps you should also take care for your own reading of things as well?
I find it hard to believe that a meaningful number of people who were even the least bit open to voting for Clinton were pushed over the edge to vote for Rump over the “deplorables” nontroversy. It got plenty of press, sure, but it was BS being preached to an already-converted choir, another grievance on the pile for the oh-so aggrieved. And many of them were just playing along. It was half joke and half source of pride for them, but they put on their offended faces for the cameras. Meh…
No Jacobins, no limousine liberals, no centrists or moderates. It’s getting kinda lonely in progressive land.
I say take your allies where you find them.
It needs repeating: Hitler had a lot of Jewish supporters in 1932/3 too. They were conservative (and often hyperpatriotic) law-and-order types that saw Hitler as the man to wield the iron broom to get rid of that dysfunctional democratic republic (and did not take his antisemitic rhetorics seriously).
I find it hard to believe that a meaningful number of people who were even the least bit open to voting for Clinton were pushed over the edge to vote for Rump over the “deplorables” nontroversy.
Could be.
Also could be that a number of folks who found Trump clownish and might have just sat it out found Clinton’s comment offensive and decided to show up and vote against her.
I’m pretty sure it didn’t help her, at all.
Not what I said, intent or no. It was how you read it. So if you wish to fault my rhetoric, then perhaps you should also take care for your own reading of things as well?
It is sad but true that most people read rapidly by not super carefully. A luxury which, as a teacher, you don’t have. If you hope to be persuasive, you have to couch your rhetoric accordingly.
Not fair, of course. But as noted, the goal is to persuade. Which will have to be done on the terrain as it is, not as it should be or as we wish it was.
The idea that an endless torrent of bullshit rained on Jeremy Corbin by the centre gave us Boris Johnson is absolutely enraging. All the moderate to centrist lefties I know begged the more far left not to make JC leader, that he was unelectable and that it would inevitably lead to prolonged Tory rule. And so it did. And not just because he was (or was perceived to be) extreme. He was a dim, ineffectual, ideological apparatchik who could barely put a foot right on anything.
And this has been rewritten three times, to avoid showering you all with a torrent of expletives.
It needs repeating: Hitler had a lot of Jewish supporters in 1932/3 too. They were conservative (and often hyperpatriotic) law-and-order types that saw Hitler as the man to wield the iron broom to get rid of that dysfunctional democratic republic (and did not take his antisemitic rhetorics seriously).
A rather similar phenomena is seen in the level of support for Trump among Hispanics — definitely a minority, but a much bigger one than one might expect. Apparently his anti-Hispanic words are outweighed by his conservative, law-and-order rhetoric.
Indeed, the GOP could probably run up big majorities among Hispanic voters,** if they ever got over their racism. (Of course, that would be a very different party. But still a conservative one.)
** Black voters, too. But apparently actual conservative positions are less important than the racism of the Dixiecrats.
How many undecideds, moderates, middleoftheroaders, and pragmatics who were called limosine-liberal, latte-drinking, Sandinista, camel jockey, pinko socialist, gay-leaning, immigrant-sympathizising, four-eyed, coastal elites by the malignant conservative movement and their fascist killer-cop-loving deplorable, armed candidates decided to vote for Hillary Clinton and Democrats down ticket to show the filth on the right a little lesson in courtesy.
Hell, the so-called moderate middle, including more than one both-sides-do-it characters here quoted nearly verbatim from Putin disinformation farms in Eastern Europe and Russia regarding Hillary being near death during the campaign and other horseshit.
Oh really, they thought they were quoting from the Drudge Report?
What happened to Drudge anyway? Did the conservative movement shoot his dumb hat off for becoming …. a deplorable MODERATE on Trump.
None, in answer to whatever the question was leading off this screed.
OK, one. wj.
Case closed.
Clinton was a dumb politician. Calls for defunding the police, even though a cursory look beneath the rhetoric revealed a modest moving around of funds were dumb politics.
But so was the hapless von Hindenburg and his alternative desperate ticket of moderate anti-Semites who he thought might staunch .. soothe.. the delicate feeling of the fence sitters to ward off utter fucking monstrous murderous evil.
I don’t give a fuck who runs the Democratic Party nor do a care one shit any longer about the relative moderation or radicalism of their proposed policies, which exclude, unlike the c*nts on the side of evil, burning the entire fucking place down.
I want the Trump republican party and the conservative movement wiped off the face of the Earth by every and all means necessary.
You may have America or you may have the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
There’s never been a clearer political choice in America since April 12, 1861.
It is sad but true that most people read rapidly by not super carefully. A luxury which, as a teacher, you don’t have. If you hope to be persuasive, you have to couch your rhetoric accordingly.
I think I might have kinda noticed this as a teacher of first year college students, and a former tech writer, but thanks for pointing it out.
Not fair, of course. But as noted, the goal is to persuade. Which will have to be done on the terrain as it is, not as it should be or as we wish it was.
And I’ll keep that in mind when I decide to write an op-ed. Here I’m exchanging ideas with others who are here to discuss issues and try to come to some understanding. If I do not write here as if I am communicating with the average USA Today reader that’s because I have faith in my audience’s ability to read what is actually written, and in their willingness to engage and not just be appealed to.
This is a discussion forum with a well educated and well read commentariat, not a news outlet or a webpage with wide public viewership.
GFTNC,
You may be totally correct about Corbin (I respectfully disagree in part), but that is not what we are trying to discuss here. The left is being tasked with fealty to the ‘team’ no matter who the party coughs up as the candidate (Take warmonger Tony Blair, please).
If I were in your shoes, I would have voted for both Blair and Corbin when the time came, because the Tories are an abomination.
Everybody wants to build a coalition until they decide it is their ox that is getting gored.
Don’t bother with the shower….I’ve heard all those words. Many times. 🙂
I agree with GftNC about Corbyn, except that we may as well spell his name right.
I’ve got a story about him which I’ve kept to myself every since he became leader, for fear of giving succour to the other side…
Oops…my error on the spelling.
Boy…that must be some juicy story! Something along the lines that in private he claims to have been abducted by aliens?
All the best.
The left is being tasked with fealty to the ‘team’ no matter who the party coughs up as the candidate
There is frequent annoyance here when the left is told that their messaging is offputting, or that they should be more careful in their strategy or tactics so as not to empower the monstrous right. Claims have been made that it is the responsibility of the right to see off the monstrous right, not the responsibility of the left.
But the terrible, unfair truth is this. When the right fails to see off the monstrous right, as is now always the case, and the left have not made themselves attractive enough to win elections outright, the consequences for everyone (bar the top 1%) are catastrophic.
We seem to have established that the right in the US no longer has a concept of the common good. (The UK is not as far along the same road, though it has started.) But there is a common good, and if the left are the only people with that concept, and the will to act in its interest, then the left must do everything they can to avoid the triumph of the monstrous right. And that means it must eschew purity politics, and appeal to the greatest number of potential allies.
I long for a return to a reasonable right and a left which can again afford the luxury of infighting. But first, we must try to avoid a descent into a post-democratic world.
Oops…my error on the spelling.
Mine too. I kind of half knew it, but didn’t care enough to check.
Pro Bono, you tease. I think you should spill.
I long for a return to a reasonable right and a left which can again afford the luxury of infighting. But first, we must try to avoid a descent into a post-democratic world.
True, dat.
From Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech:
But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”
I am so very tired of hearing about whose fault it’s going to have been if/when the fascists take over. Practically everyone who can string a coherent sentence together seems to know how other people need to behave in order to stop them. I’m sure that if I, as a gay person, am loaded onto a box car one of these days (I had a dream about that once), someone will be running alongside the train wagging a finger and telling me that if only I had moderated my rhetoric and hot temper on the blogs, none of this would have happened.
Fie. I’m trying to keep my spirits up by taking pictures.
On the subject of Democratic messaging (which is not, as I see it, a grassroots organizing concern), I don’t see a single example of poor messaging that should, in and of itself, have had any impact on the outcome of any major election.
“Deplorables” was a problem because Clinton had two decades of anti-Clinton propaganda to fight. Biden would likely have survived such a gaffe with a tiny blip in support for one news cycle.
“Defund the Police” was never a Democratic party issue. It was a sign being waved by angry African-Americans in the background at protests that was picked out and elevated by the RW propaganda machine to be used as a cudgel. Which is to be expected. But it never should have become a Democrat issue because it was entirely peripheral to the central narrative. The Dems failed to assert control over the media narrative and the mainstream media allowed itself to be used as an essential cog in the RW propaganda machine when it treated that propaganda as a worthy news subject, rather than a cynical bit of propaganda being tossed out by bad-faith opportunists to distract from the glaring problems on their own side. Our mainstream media is busy chasing the RW narrative rather than making the actual news into a compelling counter narrative.
The Dems need a functioning propaganda arm themselves, and they need to grasp that their propaganda has to play by different rules than the RW propaganda machine to achieve their ends, but they still need to be relentless with message and dismissive of the other side’s narratives (without being dismissive of their audience’s concerns – that’s the hard bit).
The left needs to stop apologizing and start hitting the economic fairness propaganda and the standing-up-to-bullies propaganda and the sí, se puede attitudes. If that is going strong then there is less opportunity to force them onto the back foot with tone policing.
It’s not on the blogs the battle can be won or lost, so you won’t have to put up with that accusation in your boxcar. Candor (or even candour) online is why so many of us are here.
It’s going to be the fascists’ fault when the fruits of their taking over are catastrophic for so many of us. But the fault for their being able to take over, while mostly the right’s, may be spread a little bit more widely.
I say take your allies where you find them.
Recent by election results in the UK suggest that the electorate at least have begun to work this out. Where Labour have been in second place, they have won; where the much smaller LibDem party has had the cleanest prospects, they have done so – with the non Tory votes splitting disproportionally to the winner compared with the last election.
In both cases with the tacit acceptance of the other party that they wouldn’t campaign too hard.
I don’t see a single example of poor messaging that should, in and of itself, have had any impact on the outcome of any major election.
“should”? I quite agree.
“did,” however? Not so sure.
Also, I would suggest not focusing on “major” elections. A focus on, for example, state legislatures would pay huge dividends down the road. More recently, it appears that little things like county elections commissioners are becoming important as well. They damn well shouldn’t be, since those are properly nonpartisan positions — and that has been the practice for a long time in most places. But the world seems to be changing for the worse there as well.
Agreed on the media/propaganda issue, nous.
“I’m pretty sure it didn’t help her, at all.”
Undoubtedly. In a closely divided polity, such matters may perhaps be given undue consideration as to their importance (Corbyn can’t tie his shoes, some street demonstrators shouted ‘defund the police’-a call taken up by, um, nobody, and on and on).
what’s most important is that nearly half voters in this country are perfectly OK with an authoritarian narcissistic nihilistic racist psychopath running things, giving the rubes a good show and shoveling all our wealth to the already wealthy.
I would wager that what changed a lot of good republican minds in 1932 was the fact that folks were unemployed and starving while the GOP blathered on about preserving the gold standard, and “liquidate, liquidate, liquidate”.
Roosevelt convinced them that their voice was being heard. Trump similarly, but under circumstances that are entirely different (relative prosperity and stability).
Perhaps we should look further into the nature of that appeal and its apparent success.
As Crane Brinton offered in his well known book, The Anatomy of Revolution, if desperation was the main driver of revolution, India would have seen a revolution many decades ago.
what’s most important is that nearly half voters in this country are perfectly OK with an authoritarian narcissistic nihilistic racist psychopath running things, giving the rubes a good show and shoveling all our wealth to the already wealthy.
I’m not sure that it’s nearly half, although admittedly the number is horribly high. Rather, I think that nearly half of the voters are willing to tolerate, however reluctantly, an authoritarian narcissistic nihilistic racist psychopath running things because they have been convinced that the alternative is worse. The good news is, that means they can potentially be unconvinced.
Also, I would suggest not focusing on “major” elections. A focus on, for example, state legislatures would pay huge dividends down the road. More recently, it appears that little things like county elections commissioners are becoming important as well. They damn well shouldn’t be, since those are properly nonpartisan positions — and that has been the practice for a long time in most places. But the world seems to be changing for the worse there as well.
Agree, and this is where the grassroots become more important than the party propaganda campaign.
Get the folks of good will together – as much together as the issues will allow – and get them working together on the shared goals and committed to the big-picture success of their side. Where ideological clashes occur, agree on a middle party that can act as a bridge between the groups, which both groups can support.
The process of working together on those non-divisive issues will do a great deal for compassion and empathy.
Simply put, reality isn’t symmetrical. And since it’s not, progressives will end up having to do more, and give more.
At this time, in this place, I could not agree more. You will notice that is what actually mostly takes place when the political heat subsides and the dust settles. I get it. But you have to admit it is a bit grating to hear all the complaining while winning. Whining while losing, well now, that is just human nature!
If the shoe were on the other foot, what would you do?
If the shoe were on the other foot, what would you do?
In a way, the shoe is on the other foot right now. I know that getting the crazies back to the fringes will require pretty much everybody to my left. So I try to make what I innocently hope are constructive suggestions. No matter how disconnected from reality I find some of your or nous’ policy positions, I try to stay away from that discussion. Except to point out when I think downplaying one of them will help keep voters on my end of the spectrum on board.
I concede that I may fail in this from time to time. But that is my aim. Someday, God willung, we can get back to the point where we can dispute actual policies. For now, we all need each other. Otherwise we get nothing, and less than nothing, for a long time to come.
I am so very tired of hearing about whose fault it’s going to have been if/when the fascists take over.
Seconded, emphatically.
The people responsible for Trump having a political career at all are the people who support and vote for him. The people responsible for the bankrupt state of the (R) party and American conservatism in general are the people who support it.
They need to change.
If I had a meaningful lever to change their point of view, believe me when I say I would use it. I have no such thing.
Want to be the party of personal responsibility? Take personal responsibility.
I’m not sure that it’s nearly half
2020 POTUS popular vote results:
Biden: 51.3%
Trump: 46.9%
Maybe we can quibble about the meaning of “nearly”. But it looks like nearly half, to me.
they have been convinced that the alternative is worse
People are responsible for what they believe.
The situation we are in at the moment will not change until the people who support the (R) party at large require that party to change its behavior. And by “the (R) party at large” I include Trump, but it goes far beyond Trump.
The (R) party is a rogue actor at the moment. I can’t change that. I doubt that utter political defeat would change it very much, and that’s not gonna happen anyway, there are too many people who are on board with the (R) agenda.
The people who can turn that around are conservatives. Not me, there is not one (R) voter or Trump supporter I know who has any particular interest in what I say.
Conservatives of good conscience and good faith need to stand up and visibly speak against the direction of their party. Clearly and unequivocally.
2020 POTUS popular vote results:
Biden: 51.3%
Trump: 46.9%
And that was after seeing the guy in action as POTUS for 4 years. There’s no “just giving the guy a shot” defense the second time around.
Russia is evacuating it’s embassy personnel … wives, and families in Kyiv, the Ukraine Capitol.
All of this is coordinated with Trump’s and the traitorous Republican Party’s kickoff this month of the 2022 stolen elections and the 2024 stolen Presidential election.
Tucker Carlson and FOX News are cheering Putin’s invasion on behalf of their fascist subhuman conservative movement candidates.
If not now, when?
Meanwhile, here’s a character sketch of the 80 million republican Trump conservatives in fucking America who will kill all of us:
“Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, his deputy and three of Roger Stone?s bodyguards exchanged calls during Capitol riot. “Tasha Adams (estranged wife of arrested Oath Keeper, Stewart Rhodes): “He is very dangerous. He lives very much in his own head. He sees himself as a great leader… He’s a complete sociopath, he does not feel empathy for anyone around him at all.””
People are responsible for what they believe.
Yes. I have a big issue in relation to who’s being framed as having agency and who isn’t in this discussion. Lefties have agency but the people who voted for Clickbait are a bunch of passive dupes? The more rightward you go, the less agency anyone has, and the more it’s incumbent on people to the left to walk on eggs to placate their tender sensibilities.
Greasing the skids of the Overton window as it slides ever rightward…
There are liberals, there are conservatives, and they both supposedly have to appeal to “the center” to prevail.
To do this center-appealing thing, liberals have to be politic in their speech, modest in their demands, and deferential to traditional norms.
Conservatives, not so much.
The inference is inescapable: “the center” is a bunch of people who will vote Republican given the slightest excuse to do so. Any failure by liberals to muzzle their own “extremists” is an adequate excuse, for instance.
“The center” will deserve what’s coming to it. Sadly, “the center” will probably like it.
–TP
I have a big issue in relation to who’s being framed as having agency and who isn’t in this discussion. Lefties have agency but the people who voted for Clickbait are a bunch of passive dupes?
Obviously the people who voted for Trump are responsible. They had all the agency they needed, and made the choice they made.
However, it seems to me that the question for the rest of us is: How do we turn around as many of them as possible? Establishing that they are at fault for electing Trump is fine from a historical perspective. History will not be kind to them.
But right now, I think it’s more important to focus on winning early and often. That’s all I’m saying. Not to excuse what they have done (or still might do); just to win.
The inference is inescapable: “the center” is a bunch of people who will vote Republican given the slightest excuse to do so.
That works . . . as long as you carefully define “the center” in order to make it fit. On the other hand, some of us manage to be center, or even center-right, without acting that way. I’m center right, and the last time I voted Republican for President in a general election was a quarter of a century ago. Sounds like it takes more than a slight excuse.
Well, that just means you’re not part of ‘the center’ as understood currently.
And this should increasingly be considered a badge of honour given that such terms have been completely warped.
However, it seems to me that the question for the rest of us is: How do we turn around as many of them as possible?
apologies if I’m misreading this, but it seems like you are assuming that the total vote is all eligible voters, which has you argue that those who voted for Trump have to be ‘turned around’. However, Republicans have been successful by harnessing a range of emotive issues which has them vote for a Republican candidate. A perfect example of this is the Evangelical vote.
Also, while getting voters mad enough to vote for their guy, they work to tamp down the Democratic voters. Not simply through various schemes of voter id, opposing simpler voter registration, etc., but simply by making the debate so toxic that less committed don’t want to vote.
67% of eligible voters voted in the presidential election, add another 6% to get the total number of registered voters.
Perhaps my pessimism is showing, but if someone positively cast a ballot for Trump, I’m thinking that to ‘turn [them] around’ is one of those panglossian suggestions. It seems that what needs to be done is to get the remaining 27% registered and voting. Perhaps some of these may need to be ‘turned around’ , but I’d rather take my chances with them rather than trying to take someone who made the affirmative decision to vote for Trump. Buyer’s remorse is a thing, but I don’t really see it happening much, nor do I see anyone giving Biden any benefit of the doubt.
If cages on the border and separating kids from their parents, followed by a pandemic response that was totally inept and an actual attempt to overthrow the government doesn’t do the trick, I’m not really sure what could be done to ‘turn around’ those voters. This is why the question of fighting fire with fire comes up. It seems to me that Dems have to get their side as angry as Trump voters have been, but they are under the bind of not being able to make up things from the whole cloth. I’m not sure it can be done, given the SNS and media landscape.
I do think we are (or at least I am) reaching a point of Macron’s invocation of ‘pissing off the anti-vaxxers’ starts to make sense.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/macron-declares-his-covid-strategy-is-to-piss-off-the-unvaccinated
(as a side note, the whole linguistic aspect of what Macron said is fascinating
https://theconversation.com/piss-off-annoy-shit-on-why-macrons-use-of-the-french-swear-word-emmerder-is-so-hard-to-translate-174627
Here, focusing on the word itself instead of considering the whole utterance leads us to miss an important feature of Macron’s statement: he not only wants to have the unvaccinated eat shit, he also wants to tell them to do so and go to hell, in his capacity as head of state.
Everything here is linked to the choice of a deliberately transgressive word by a very powerful person – the breaking of ordinary language rules by a head of state is already a signal that a demonstration of strength is underway.
What makes this statement remarkable from the point of view of language is that, as a speech act, it forms a highly consistent whole. All of the loose meaning features associated with the use of emmerder are tightly linked with and support one another: hassling, swearing and the capacity to enforce are shown to be one and the same thing. Some would call this power.
And it seems to me that this is the point we have to reach, where we emmerder the Trump supporters and not really care that anyone else is offended.
“the center” is the 200K or so people scattered in a few purple states who can be persuaded to vote one way or another.
nobody else actually matters.
Some riffing on Balloon Juice/Twitter content:
Seems chicken wing lovers stuffing their gobs down at the Wing Depot are up in arms regarding the rationed wing count in the wheelbarrow of wings all you can eat special.
There have been shortages of wings off and on for years since the fowl appendage became a thing, but now obese conservatives blame Biden:
LethalityJane is always good:
https://twitter.com/LethalityJane/status/1482786810711314432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1482786810711314432%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=htt
pps%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
We’d better invade China. Maybe set some fascist Texas hairdressers on the chink physics doctoral candidates
at Texas universities.
Arizona. We’ll take the Grand Canyon, thank you, and the rest of em can go fuck themselves:
https://twitter.com/Devilstower/status/1482397099413184519?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1482397099413184519%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
OMFG, a pandemic! Let’s not break up the maskless, vax-less death-spreading Trump festivo with goddamned national guard gunfire.
April has been designated BYOB Smallpox month in Phoenix.
They want John Wayne to play MLK in this time around’s sequel, but not even in blackface:
Also isolated from LethalityJane’s feed:
The sweetly sentimental DeSantis wannabe:
https://twitter.com/michaelgwaltz/status/1483154845364367366
Sample dialogue from the new Regnery film “Green Beret II: Shaft, He Do The Police In Different Voices”.*
General Martin Luther “Rooster” Cogburn:
“We’re gonna kill us some gooks, you gooks, and who you callin boy, Boy? I’ll turn you over my knee like Maureen O’Hara and give you a whoopin. She liked it and so will you, but that hussy had some content to her character. Now, get me Colonel Malcolm X on the blower so’s I can get some everlovin air support.
Now, get out there and spread the love.
*The original title of T.S. Eliot’s Poem, The Waste Land.
Those damned socialist gummint giveaway programs:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/up-to-three-quarters-of-the-800-billion-ppp-flowed-to-business-owners-instead-of-workers-study-finds-11642418448?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
They just givin it all away to the niggers and the wetbacks, aren’t they?
Never fails.
Now, where’s my Obamacare subsidy? I spose the gummint’s taking that over too.
Unfortunately, the monstrous right have tons of agency. Behold what they have wrought with it. And, as russell noted, around half of the voting public seemed just fine with that last time, whether they are monstrous right with agency or passive dupes, or some hybrid.
I don’t know about the reasonable right, and why they can’t push back more. Maybe they are too few, maybe they are paralysed with horror. Apart from ones like wj who can bring themselves to vote D (and I think the fact that he does qualifies him to talk about what would stop him or people like him from doing so), I suppose one has to hope the rest of them sit it out.
So that leaves the left, and maybe, as lj says
to get the remaining 27% registered and voting. Perhaps some of these may need to be ‘turned around’ , but I’d rather take my chances with them rather than trying to take someone who made the affirmative decision to vote for Trump.
But relying on the right to wake up and turn things around seems like a hopeless strategy to me.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/01/cdc-guidelines-give-unvaccinated-preference-over-vaccinated-for-lifesaving-treatments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bI8n13IQfU
Done for the day, and if we’re lucky, the week too.
Shorter lj: Dems need to GOTV!
Yes.
right now, I think it’s more important to focus on winning early and often
I don’t disagree.
As a practical matter, I don’t see “don’t offend conservatives” as a high-value strategy to make that happen.
High-value strategies would be:
1. fight all attempts to restrict access to the ballot
2. fight all gerrymandering efforts
3. fight all attempts to replace election officials with partisan actors
4. get out the vote, everywhere, all the time
So – lawyers, money, and making the case for all of the above loudly in public.
And if the (D)’s come out of the 2022 cycle with enough clout to make it happen, get rid of the filibuster in its current form, if not altogether. Whatever purpose it might once have served has been lost.
Shorter me: forget about trying to win over people who are, at best, marginally inclined to support you. Focus on getting your actual supporters to the polls, and make sure their votes get counted.
It would also help a lot if the (D)’s threw all available resources at running everywhere, for everything, all the time.
Support your existing supporters, and don’t waste time worrying about offending folks who don’t support you. They’re gonna be offended no matter what you do, or even if you don’t do anything at all. Indignation is their steady state, I don’t think there’s anything the (D)’s can do about that.
Re. Macron’s choice of language. It’s hard for a non-native speaker to be sure about this, but it seems to be the case that transgressive words can be used much for freely in French than in English. One can sing “Je me fous du passé” in polite company.
I think the fact that he does qualifies him to talk about what would stop him or people like him from doing so
FWIW, agreed.
via BJ, a discussion about the importance of local political races.
Run for everything, everywhere, all the time.
(R)’s are able to dominate beyond what is justified by their numbers because they’ve been building from the bottom up, for 50 years or more.
Build from the bottom up.
What hsh said.
GOTV will be critical. (Pangloss say: At least the folks who do voter suppression are simultaneously, albeit inadvertently, discouraging their own supporters from bothering to turn up. Every little bit helps.)
… but they inspire their opponents to turn out, which gives them cover to try even more suppression!
“how can we be suppressing the vote? look at these numbers!”
As a practical matter, I don’t see “don’t offend conservatives” as a high-value strategy to make that happen.
You will note that what I said was “don’t gratuitously offend moderates”. Not saying you shouldn’t voice your views. Just refrain from being deliberately obnoxious when doing so. (The challenge, sadly, is that I’m less and less sure progressives have a clue what that means.)
It would seem to be a no-cost strategy. Maybe not a huge return. But we’re in an environment at the moment where every little bit helps.
You will note that what I said was “don’t gratuitously offend moderates”.
fair enough.
overall I think people on “my side” spend way too much time thinking about what the people on the “other side” think and say. they’re gonna do whatever they’re gonna do, and I actually don’t think they pay all that much attention to what “people like me” say or do.
IMO we should just take a page from their book and focus on the long game of building infrastructure from the ground up.
focus on what you want, not what you don’t want.
FYI, you can now get four free COVID tests delivered by USPS (4 per household) :
https://special.usps.com/testkits
Gay characters in mainstream films – gratuitously offensive SJW crap.
Female main POV character for franchise that previously had male POV character – gratuitously offensive SJW crap.
Adding unisex bathrooms – gratuitously offensive SJW crap.
Kneeling at a football game – gratuitously offensive SJW crap.
Teaching about racism – gratuitously offensive.
“Black Lives Matter” – gratuitously offensive.
Yes, there have been gaffes and missteps, but the strategy on the right is to take any critical statement made by women and POC and portray it as a gratuitous attack. *The RW operatives talk about this openly.* So it’s okay for the left to voice their views, just not where anyone can hear them.
“Fuck your feelings!” – voicing their views.
“SJW Crap” – voicing their views.
It’s just the frustration talking.
We should just keep our heads down and make sure that dinner is perfect so they don’t take offense and lash out.
Abusers get voices. Survivors have to keep quiet. We need the abusers’ votes, and the poor dears are dealing with trauma.
Thanks, nous.
Reminds me of a story from a writing group I was in one summer (maybe 2006?) when I was working in Cambridge.
There was a young guy in the group who became a pal of mine — we walked the mile or so back to Harvard Square together every week after the group meeting. He was a serious Christian but not a proselytizer, at least in that context; had spent a year living and working in a homeless shelter in Boston; maybe was studying for the ministry? (I forget that part.) He was a nice guy and made pleasant company for those late-night walks.
I wrote a snippet of a story that involved coming out to a high school friend — fictionalized autobiography. When we discussed my story, he took me aside during the break and said, “I don’t think it’s a great idea to put homosexuality in a story, especially right now, when everyone’s doing it.”
I am not quick on the draw in conversation, especially when I’m knocked off balance a bit. But as I thought about it over the next few days I wished I had said, “Philip, I didn’t put homosexuality in the story. God did.”
Like, okay, now we’re sort of allowed, a little bit, to start coming out of the closet, but heaven forbid that we should want to tell *our* stories, though we’re swimming in an ocean of romantic stories about heterosexuals.
And this was obviously the very, very mind version of what nous summarized in his 1:11. But it’s completely automatic and accepted that a male half my age could lecture me in that way, and in that vein.
We need the abusers’ votes
No, we don’t.
We would benefit from, and should welcome, people like wj’s votes.
People wearing a “f your feelings” shirt or reacting in the other ways you list are probably not going to be persuadable. So be it.
Focus on what you want, not what you don’t want.
Meanwhile:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/18/politics/trump-administration-officials-against-former-boss-2022/index.html
More of this, please.
IMO we should just take a page from their book and focus on the long game of building infrastructure from the ground up.
Totally agree.
Types of swing voters (according to sociologists):
-People who want praise and attention for not being sheep. Wait until they know what their social group believes and then follows the trend while announcing their decision.
-People who are actual followers who are caught between closely split social groups. Motivated by fear. Usually land on the side of authoritarian appeals.
-Contrarians with security and a sadistic streak. Go against the prevailing winds to demonstrate their autonomy and feel superior.
-Actual critical thinkers. Pay attention. Decide early. Stick with their choices.
The last group has already resigned itself to having no real choice starting in 2016 and aren’t actually swing voters, but they still see themselves in those terms because they do not feel at home on the left.
GOTV, secure voting rights, worry about LW morale. The swing voters are sorting themselves, and most of it has nothing to do with candidate messaging. It’s all responding to existing social networks.
“SJW Crap” – voicing their views.
Absolutely none of those qualify as gratuitously offensive. I would hope that you know that, but perhaps not. (See “I’m less and less sure progressives have a clue what that means” above.)
“Black Lives Matter” may offend some. But it’s not gratuitously offensive. Gratuitously offensive would be proclaiming something like “Only racist fascist scum would fail to turn out in support of BLM!”
One could go similarly on any of your other examples.
We should just keep our heads down and make sure that dinner is perfect so they don’t take offense and lash out.
is your goal to persuade them or not? if it is, you have to consider their reaction.
i assume you know how rhetoric works.
“Black Lives Matter” may offend some. But it’s not gratuitously offensive. Gratuitously offensive would be proclaiming something like “Only racist fascist scum would fail to turn out in support of BLM!”
The RW media goes out of its way to portray any statement linking support for BLM as a claim that the elitist left thinks the right is a bunch of racist fascists, and they go out of their way to find obscure voices on social media that do say such things and broadcast them everywhere as representing the whole of the left.
There is no way to prevent this from happening in a networked social media world.
Given this, the answer needs to be finding communication strategies to counterbalance these tactics and to break the anger cycle with your own messaging.
is your goal to persuade them or not?
I don’t think it is. It’s to convince other people, who actually might be persuadable, not to stay home on election day. Invite some non-abusers to dinner.
…and they go out of their way to find obscure voices on social media that do say such things and broadcast them everywhere as representing the whole of the left.
Even if you can find them, you can always pay people to play-act as cartoonish lefty loons. Some people might do it just for the laughs.
I don’t think it is. It’s to convince other people, who actually might be persuadable, not to stay home on election day.
then you have to consider their reaction.
Sure, but it’s a different consideration, depending on who “they” are. Motivating people who might otherwise sit home is a very different effort from getting MAGAts not to be MAGAts.
is your goal to persuade them or not? if it is, you have to consider their reaction.
i assume you know how rhetoric works.
I do. I also try to understand how abuse cycles work and the steps needed to break those cycles.
I also try to understand cult psychology and the ways that people can win back cult members to our shared reality.
Neither of those things happen in media cycles or on social media. Both of them only happen through personal networks and take years of patient work and communication. And you have to wait for them to seek and find voices outside their bubble that draw them back.
So do that with your loved ones if you can, and be prepared for it to take far longer than four years for it to bear any fruit.
But all this social media tone policing does squat about any of that. The only venue where we have any sway is in actual personal contact.
I encourage everyone to go and read more about these two subjects yourselves.
wj,
Are you quoting, paraphrasing, or imagining the gratuitously offensive “Only racist fascist scum would fail to turn out in support of BLM!”
I’m sure you can cite real examples of “progressives” being gratuitously offensive, just as sure as I can cite “conservatives” doing the same.
What matters, I think, is how willing “the center” is to either condemn or rationalize gratuitously offensive slogans or comments. If “the center” reacted to “Defund the police!” with “I know what you mean, but you’re saying it wrong”, that would show something different about “the center” than if the reaction were “How dare you disparage the cops?” If “the center” hears “Let’s go Brandon!” and shrugs, dare I hope that its reaction to chants of “Truck Fump!” would be equally blase?
When “the center” talks amongst themselves about what counts as gratuitously offensive, how does the conversation go?
–TP
The swing voters are sorting themselves, and most of it has nothing to do with candidate messaging.
And the sort goes on…
“WASHINGTON, D.C. — On average, Americans’ political party preferences in 2021 looked similar to prior years, with slightly more U.S. adults identifying as Democrats or leaning Democratic (46%) than identified as Republicans or leaned Republican (43%).
However, the general stability for the full-year average obscures a dramatic shift over the course of 2021, from a nine-percentage-point Democratic advantage in the first quarter to a rare five-point Republican edge in the fourth quarter.
Story Highlights
• Preferences shifted from nine-point Democratic advantage to five-point GOP edge
• Average party preferences for all of 2021 similar to past years
• Largest percentage of U.S. adults identify as political independents”
U.S. Political Party Preferences Shifted Greatly During 2021
There is no way to prevent this from happening in a networked social media world.
exactly.
Given this, the answer needs to be finding communication strategies to counterbalance these tactics and to break the anger cycle with your own messaging.
exactly, again.
what strikes me lately is the enormous amount of time and energy I’ve spent being offended / exasperated / royally pissed off by the things that Trump supporters say and do. They’ve taken up entirely too much of my mental real estate.
I, personally, need to let go of that. People are gonna do whatever they want to do. How I respond to that is up to me.
There are lots and lots and lots of folks who are never going to be on board with my understanding of what public life is supposed to be about. So be it.
There are lots and lots of folks who would vote for folks I support, if they actually voted or were even able to vote. There are lots and lots of folks who would vote for folks I support, if someone like that ran for office where they live. There are lots of folks who are skeptical of folks I support, but not irretrievably so.
I’m gonna focus on those people.
Want to wear a rude shirt and chant “Fuck Joe Biden” en masse? Live it up. I’ll direct my attention and effort elsewhere.
Are you quoting, paraphrasing, or imagining the gratuitously offensive “Only racist fascist scum would fail to turn out in support of BLM!”
Self-generated example. I could, I expect, spend time to find actual quotes. But I don’t see that it would particularly help explain the point I was trying to make no nous.
There are lots of folks who are skeptical of folks I support, but not irretrievably so.
I’m gonna focus on those people.
\Exactly.
I also try to understand how abuse cycles work and the steps needed to break those cycles.
this is not a domestic abuse situation. this is electoral politics.
But all this social media tone policing does squat about any of that. The only venue where we have any sway is in actual personal contact.
speaking for myself, i can say with 100% certainty that that’s not true at all. on-line discussions have had far more effect on my own personal political outlook than IRL discussion have.
Questions I ask myself:
If helping people break themselves out of abusive or cult situations take time, and patience, and personal effort, then which of my relationships are important enough to me to put that work in *even if that work will not pay off in time to save the country, the climate, and the other people I love (and may not ever pay off at all)?
What are the things that are within my power to do to save the country, the climate, and the other people that I love that don’t depend on convincing the people in abusive situations to act against their conditioning?
Then I try to distribute my spoons accordingly.
What I will not do is submit to an abusive situation myself in hopes of changing the abuser’s behavior.
speaking for myself, i can say with 100% certainty that that’s not true at all. on-line discussions have had far more effect on my own personal political outlook than IRL discussion have.
Yes, but none of us are the norm.
If you were a swing voter, cleek, you would be one of the sort who has done the critical thinking and made the choice – like wj has.
What evidence is there that there are any of those sorts left after Jan. 6 and Trump’s consolidation of power that followed?
Studies say that there are certainly still swing voters out there who do believe this of themselves and who would claim this in public, but the data on their behavior says otherwise.
What I will not do is submit to an abusive situation myself in hopes of changing the abuser’s behavior.
As well you shouldn’t. Even if it might work. Which it won’t.
What evidence is there that there are any of those sorts left after Jan. 6 and Trump’s consolidation of power that followed?
there are plenty of polls out there.
here’s one:
https://americanindependent.com/swing-district-voters-gop-republicans-2020-election-undermine-overturn-jody-hice-marjorie-taylor-greene-scott-perry-votes-january-6/
Motivating people who might otherwise sit home is a very different effort from getting MAGAts not to be MAGAts.
Agreed. I think real, actual MAGAts are unreachable, at least for now.
there are plenty of polls out there.
here’s one:
https://americanindependent.com/swing-district-voters-gop-republicans-2020-election-undermine-overturn-jody-hice-marjorie-taylor-greene-scott-perry-votes-january-6/
Apples and oranges. Those are swing districts, not swing voters. The referendum on that for the GOP voters will happen in the primaries. The shape of that primary will determine where those voters go in the general. And if the incumbent loses and the challenger just avoids the topic of the last presidential election and of Trump, then the voters can always tell themselves that they are only sending that challenger to DC to oppose the crap that Biden is doing.
That whole process is what I mean when I say that the Rs need to right their own ship and we have no leverage. In a midterm election it’s all easy to compartmentalize and treat as a local problem unconnected to the state of the GOP nationally. I watched my relatives do this already in 2018.
And this pattern of making the midterm into a referendum on the current president is feeding into the numbers that CharlesWT posted as well. Trump is a problem for 2023. Now is the time for them to complain to management about the lousy service right now.
That doesn’t make any of those people into actual swing voters.
Those are swing districts, not swing voters.
districts don’t swing independent of voters.
That whole process is what I mean when I say that the Rs need to right their own ship and we have no leverage.
Rs aren’t going to do that. they like their crazy freaky ship just fine.
it’s going to come down to tiny slivers of voters in places where they are allowed to matter by gerrymandering and the EC.
districts don’t swing independent of voters
And raw poll numbers don’t equate to voters either.
How many of those polled are independent voters (or disaffected Rs) who did not already vote D last election?
How many of that number are, despite that, actually considering voting D this time?
Your guess is worth as much as mine. As is any guess about how resilient that resolve is.
Sounds like a problem for the local party and some canvassing.
We should do something to strengthen our organization on the ground there and GOTV.
this pattern of making the midterm into a referendum on the current president is feeding into the numbers that CharlesWT posted as well. Trump is a problem for 2023.
But will Trump (more accurately, Trump’s ego) tolerate NOT being center stage this year?
It’s true that midterm elections are typically understandable as referenda on the incumbent President. But I’m guessing Trump will inject himself into as many contests as possible. And that’s exclusive of the primaries seeing lots of who-is-more-fanatically-pro-Trump? competitions.
“That whole process is what I mean when I say that the Rs need to right their own ship and we have no leverage.
Rs aren’t going to do that. they like their crazy freaky ship just fine.”
If D’s started voting en masse in R primaries, I bet it would have a large effect.
Assuming there were any non-insane candidates to vote for.
Otherwise just write in “Kill M All”.
A short piece on the Latino vote.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/18/opinion/democratic-party-latino-voters.html
I want to coin a rule, based on Russell’s observation that ‘Trump is an epiphenomenon’ that would be something like
For any explication of the current US political scene, if it relies in any substantial part on what Trump does, it should be ignored.
candidates for a name for the rule?
I am all for this approach.
bobbyp: I don’t blame you. She sounds great, and it’s an excellent approach.
It never fucking stops:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2022/01/18/late-night-reminders-open-thread-the-national-promissory-note/
Biden must activate federal troops, heavily armed, to oversee the 2022 and 2024 elections in Florida. Line up the Seventh Airborne to face off with weapons drawn DeSantis’ racist subhuman Castle Guards, his Winkies, and keep the polls open and enforce mail-in voting.
With orders to shoot to kill should any irregularities or harassment of voters occur.
https://digbysblog.net/2022/01/18/election-gestapo/
I think Texas is a place to try out the Navy Seals to secure the voting franchise. They fight dirty like subhuman Texas conservatives do.
Bring lots of paper to print up ballots on the go to hand out to disenfranchised American citizenry attempting to vote on election day.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/texas-secretary-state-paper-shortage-voter-registration-forms
Georgia could serve as war games practice for the Marines, unless of course Putin redirects them to Ukraine.
Maybe the fascist Secretaries of State in those “territories” (time to downgrade their status from “states” on account of it voting rights are violated and stolen, there are no states’ rights to niggle our legalistic minds over, will try to bring the Supreme Court into the matter.
Big deal. The fucking mealy-mouthed Chief Justice can’t even enforce his own fucking mask rules in the relatively small quarters of the hallowed Court, so as Joseph Stalin mused in another context; “How many divisions has the Dope?”
History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes.
Ignore all Supreme Court rulings, no matter whether we agree with them or not, fuck ’em, until the Court is reconstituted to reflect basic humane values, not Dagny Taggart’s fashion sense.
https://twitter.com/AmeliaEarhart1/status/1483648965086113794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1483648965086113794%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
And note, all, this:
They really do exist. 🙂
oof
thanks, media. you and your narratives are the best.
Alternatively, of course, we can await the cloning of a thousand ungerrymandered Chloe Maxmins who escape assassination by conservative movement thugs.
I am all for this approach.
If you show up, you might win or you might lose.
If you don’t show up, you will lose.
Show up, listen, listen some more, then explain why your ideas are better. But you can’t do any of that stuff if you don’t at least show up.
Epiphenomenon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenon
“The problem of epiphenomena is often a counterexample to theories of causation and is identified with situations in which an event E is caused by (or, is said to be caused by) an event C, which also causes (or, is said to cause) an event F. For example, take a simplified Lewisian counterfactual analysis of causation that the meaning of propositions about causal relationships between two events A and B can be explained in terms of counterfactual conditionals of the form “if A had not occurred then B would not have occurred”. Suppose that C causes E and that C has an epiphenomenon F. We then have that if E had not occurred, then F would not have occurred, either. But then according to the counterfactual analysis of causation, the proposition that there is a causal dependence of F on E is true; that is, on this view, E caused F. Since this is not in line with how we ordinarily speak about causation (we would not say that E caused F), a counterfactual analysis seems to be insufficient.”
OK, I’m on board with that accurate description of Trump.
Problem is, the “fuck your feelings” crowd tom cottons to a pithier message, since the conservative movement has worked overtime and succeeded for 40 years to destroy the better angels of our natures.
Let Frank Capra illustrate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcB4XXGr1us
If you watch to the end:
Joe Biden, debating Trump: “Sir, you are an epiphenomenonic blight on the country!”
Trump: “Get me, I’m an epi … epiwatchchamacallit ovah heah!”
Ka-ching!
“If you show up, you might win or you might lose.”
Those once were the only two possible outcomes.
The terms of “engagement” with the armed conservative movement are an utterly different calculus.
Or be murdered by the conservative movement is now on the table, on orders from Trump’s republican elite:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/oath-keeper-edward-vallejo-returned-to-capitol-after-riot-to-probe-defense-line-prosecutors-say
They really do exist. 🙂
He said he would vote for her. That’s great. It took personal contact.
This is also how AOC defeated the incumbent she was running against.
But Maxmin is not tacking to center. She’s listening. She’s taking time to make herself a real person and not just a non-threatening policy stance.
Local. Personal. Actually engaged. Genuine. Not triangulating or pandering. Holding to her principles.
Probably won’t turn into a vote for Biden, though. Biden is not at the trailer.
He could come around, though, with enough contact to make him feel like the Ds are listening and he matters.
Data science can’t do that.
He said he would vote for her. That’s great. It took personal contact.
…
Probably won’t turn into a vote for Biden, though. Biden is not at the trailer.
Which is why local, grassroots, eforts are critical.
Also, I would suggest Biden might benefit more than you think. Even if he’s not there personally, once you break the “I’ll never vote for a Democrat” barrier, a lot of impossible things become possible.
The Supreme Court, even in its maleficent genocidal stupidity, did NOT rule that it is unconstitutional for employers to impose their own private requirements on their employees for Covid-19 vaccination.
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-01-19/starbucks-nixes-vaccine-mandate-after-supreme-court-ruling
Who the fuck is their legal counsel?
Was he or she the second dumbest undergrad at Wharton?
Covid-19 and its variants are applying for US citizenship, citing its freedoms.
I suppose once Christian murderer Amy Coney Barrett decides this case ….
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/us/supreme-court-gun.html
… we can count on Starbucks to serve faggot coastal elite lattes to openly armed citizens trading military grade weaponry and ammo in their shops.
‘Scuse me, could you pass the napkins, please, … or else?
Every murder and suicide by gun on America is a notch on freedom’s gun belt.
Pandemic induced shifts in politics worldwide.
“Support for populist parties and politicians, and agreement with populist sentiment, has diminished during the pandemic, according to a “mega-dataset” taking in attitudes of over half a million people across 109 countries since 2020.
A University of Cambridge team say there are clear signs of a turning tide for the “populist wave”, as the mishandling of coronavirus by populist leaders – along with a desire for stability and a decline in “polarising” attitudes resulting from the pandemic – starts to move public opinion.”
Support for populist politics ‘collapsed’ during the pandemic – global report: New report shows support for populist politics ‘collapsed’ during the pandemic but satisfaction with democracy also continued to falter. (The Great Reset: Public Opinion, Populism, and
the Pandemic (.pdf))
Yet another hilariously and aptly named conservative movement Texas jackass: Mr. Self.
https://juanitajean.com/collin-county-gop-candidate-opposes-lgbtq-friendly-donors/
From one of the few hairdressers in Texas who doesn’t advocate deporting everyone no them, by which I mean white mongrels.
So many guns, so little time.
Show up, listen, listen some more, then explain why your ideas are better. But you can’t do any of that stuff if you don’t at least show up.
Well, in the olden days free sandwiches and beer would do the trick, but I guess that, too, would qualify as a ‘personal’ touch. Unlike today when all you get is a dumb yard sign and endless gauzy commercials.
And also-don’t shade your principles. Just sayin’.
New report shows support for populist politics ‘collapsed’ during the pandemic
And yet support for Trump, whose politics definitely qualify as populist, not only has not collapsed, it doesn’t even seem (yet) to have experienced a substantial decrease.
because nobody supports Trump for his policies. they support him for his attitude.
the GOP is a cult, not a think tank.
https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1483930284781408256
Making things worse for innocent people in Yemen. Bipartisanship lives.
nobody supports Trump for his policies. they support him for his attitude.
Certainly the core of the MAGA cult is about attitudes and feelings, not policies. But another big chunk consists of people whose support is based on his (presumed) policies towards various “elites.” You can argue that that’s just another attitude; but only to the extent that populism generally is an attitude.
The cultists are Trump’s forever. But the populists should be detachable.
This afternoon the SCOTUS denied TFG’s application to block the Jan 6 Commission’s access to his presidential records on the grounds of some residual executive privilege. Justice Thomas would have accepted the application. Justice Kavanaugh wrote something accepting the Appeals Court’s ruling but only for this case, not as a precedent for future cases.
Prediction: somewhere, six or so months down the road, there will be sufficient evidence that Sinema and Manchin will have to agree to relax the filibuster enough to allow some version of HR1/S1 to pass. Sufficient state legislative seasons will have finished that the SCOTUS will not allow the extensive new rules to apply before 2024. No anti-gerrymander restrictions will apply before the 2030 census.
I like Michael Cain’s predictions better than mine.
This afternoon the SCOTUS denied TFG’s application to block the Jan 6 Commission’s access to his presidential records on the grounds of some residual executive privilege.
It speaks to just how non-existent his grounds were that even the three political hacks that he appointed wouldn’t support him on this. If he can’t even get them on board….
It will probably depend on whether Roberts can persuade one of his colleagues to go for the stealth kill. If he can’t, it will be ‘the feds are not allowed to have any role in the conduct of federal elections’, simply declaring any and all federal legislation on that matter unconstitutional until further notice (i.e. until a GOP trifecta passes federal anti-voting laws* that will pass SCOTUS with flying colours).
Btw, it looks like SCOTUS is soon going to decide in favor of Ted Cruz on the matter of campaign financing.
*some that force blue states to do what the red states are doing to make voting harder.
They harnassed the anger by putting a girdle on it and diapering it.
https://thegailygrind.com/2020/11/27/former-apprentice-staffer-claims-trump-soiled-himself-on-set-required-diapers/
He is a deeply devout piece of shit Christian however.
“He is a deeply devout piece of shit Christian however.”
Christian? More like Trumpian, preferring messiahs that didn’t get crucified.
As for the diaper, would it be irresponsible to speculate that horse-paste was involved?
burn it down.
The NYT interviews some independents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/20/opinion/biden-independent-voters.html
They hate both parties but they seem confused more than anything else.
Defund the police is unpopular with this group. When I have read policy proposals associated with the Defund slogan they make sense to me. But as a political slogan it seems designed to be a marketing disaster for Democrats. We have had this discussion before. But you can’t win with a marketing disaster.
Personally I think the “ word “ moderate” is used most of the time to excuse really stupid ideas or policies and sometimes it has no meaning at all except as a weird form of identity politics. But politically it is a word that has great appeal to many Americans, so I think people who advocate for social democratic policies, a nonracist criminal justice system and a less genocidal foreign policy should couch all of our ideas using terms like “ moderate” and stop flaunting how radical and revolutionary we are except when it might be unavoidable. And it shouldn’t be hard anyway. There is nothing especially Maoist about family leave or guaranteed health care that won’t bankrupt you or cops that don’t beat the crap out of people or not supporting mass murder overseas.
We might have to do something genuinely radical to deal with climate change but I hope not, because Americans aren’t good at being told our lifestyles might have to change. The Green New Deal approach is actually the optimistic view.
burn it down.
Perhaps the enthusiasm of these reactionaries is not, as often suggested (including by me), for the 1950s. Maybe it’s for the mid-1960s: ‘Burn, baby, burn!”
Doesn’t happen that often, but I find myself totally in agreement with Donald here.
I think people who advocate for social democratic policies, a nonracist criminal justice system and a less genocidal foreign policy should couch all of our ideas using terms like “ moderate” and stop flaunting how radical and revolutionary we are
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Not least because those policies *are not* radical and revolutionary. They are, in fact, moderate.
w D,wj,r s
Not least because those policies *are not* radical and revolutionary. They are, in fact, moderate
But there do seem to be some for whom being “progressive” or “radical” or “liberal”** are very important. Regardless of whether the policies really are.
** To be fair, the same phenomena occurs with self-described conservatives.
Once again, as in many other cases, “defund the police” gets hung around the necks of Democrats in general, even though it’s only been endorsed by a minority of them, even if only as a descriptor of a set of policies rather than the policies themselves. Not that I disagree with Donald’s point. I’d say that I’m reinforcing his point. It’s as though it was designed to be a marketing disaster for Democrats … by Republicans. You have to admit, they (Republicans) know a good thing when they see it.
There is nothing especially Maoist about family leave or guaranteed health care that won’t bankrupt you or cops that don’t beat the crap out of people or not supporting mass murder overseas.
Seconded. Thirded, even (H/T Snagglepuss)
Or, w D,wj,r,c s
Of course that g was me!
I agree that the Right takes slogans proposed by a minority and runs with them, but in this case, unlike 95 percent of the time, I am partly blaming the far left rather than the center left for why we can’t have nice things. ( Ultimately Republicans are most to blame, but people left of center can sometimes be, um, not helpful sometimes.)
For a brief period of time some parts of the left succeeded in making police brutality and racist policing a central issue, but unfortunately coupled that success with a slogan “ Defund the Police” which might represent some good policy ideas but was almost perfectly designed to scare people once crime rates started to rise. And they have risen and it is now widely believed that it is because we defunded the police. You can’t really win once you are in this position. I have seen arguments that the rise in crime has nothing at all to do with any alleged cutback in police funding, but it doesn’t matter. Emotions matter more than arguments.
“stop flaunting how radical and revolutionary we are”
Who’s flaunting?
What, maybe we shouldn’t wear a beret when we (for whatever value of “we” applies here) advocate for these utterly moderate policies, because asshole scum conservatives, for whom “disrupting” every fucking institution in America is a daily profession, and who are scared shitless of european haberdashery occasionally worn by utterly moderate citizens who hold utterly moderate policies to be a fulfillment of various half-hearted, moderately-phrased founding documents held behind glass so they can’t breath any air that hasn’t circulated since 1787.
Take a look at this:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2022/01/20/desantis-admin-cancels-public-health-official/
To do what this genocidal republican pig just did, he must know in his own single-celled brain that he has future elections utterly rigged and stolen and in the bag for subhuman conservatives while moderates gasp to themselves, that, well maybe we shouldn’t have been so “radical” and so “revolutionary” as to expect, as a matter of daily common sense and basic human decency, that the goddamned fucking health department might adopt not only the utterly moderate goal of vaccinating the public which entrusted that agency in that dickless, heartless conservative state government with protecting us from fucking sickness and death during a national pandemic emergency, but might EVEN require that agency’s employees to take the personal responsibility to get themselves vaccinated and follow other proven protocols to protect themselves and the fucking moderate public from the pandemic’s scourge.
Because it’s the stinking, fucking radical conservative movement America that is “flouting” their refusal to adhere to even barely moderate measures to protect it’s citizens in the name of some bag of shit worldview that has somehow contrived to make itself believe, against all human decency, that the fates of millions of citizens, folks we don’t know and it looks like in Florida also their very own so-called family members and friends of state employees, are considered mere “secondary” effects which can be ignored, even encouraged all the way to the fucking grave, perhaps even with bulletholes which they believe moderation deserves in order to keep conservative “Order”.
The malignant conservative movement holds all citizens to be the “Other”.
Here’s what is going to be radical and revolutionary to genocidal vermin like DeSantis and his murderers who populate government agencies and also steal elections (fair elections being a radical, revolutionary concept that won’t be tolerated by racist pigfucking conservatives) to further their genocidal murderous behavior in perpetuity: the blood-red tidal wave of unharnessed indiscriminate savage killing violence that will engulf them and send them to dead bloody fucking Hell.
When what must be done is done, it will be looked back on in the history books as a merely responsible, necessary, and moderate measure to protect America and the American people from genocide by our legions of domestic conservative enemies, like incinerating Hiroshima and Nagasaki and firebombing Dresden.
Americans can put lipstick on any whitewashed pig history throws at us.
maybe we shouldn’t wear a beret
well, I’m screwed….
The dumbasses in law enforcement never seem to bridle under radical conservative movement demands that their unions be abolished, and their healthcare benefits and pensions cut.
Because they are full of shit.
Because only armed authoritarians, like ICE, who kill and ruin other people’s lives, are the only lucky duckies the conservative movment keeps in their fascist pockets by permitting them unions and decent benefits, while the rest of America is cut to the bone.
“ but it doesn’t matter. Emotions matter more than arguments.”
That’s too pessimistic, but once a slogan is out there and the right gets its propaganda machine going it is very difficult to overcome it. I generally side with the far left over the center left on mostmissues, but sometimes our rhetoric is not ideal.
maybe we shouldn’t wear a beret
well, I’m screwed….
Made me LOL.
McConnell:
“African-American voters are voting in just as high a percentage as Americans.”
Subhuman conservatives are voting in just as high a percentage as human Americans.
The trick is to make sure the votecounters are subhuman conservatives, too.
Gosh, I guess I’m not helping much in the moderation effort.
But I didn’t make the rules, did I?
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
“well, I’m screwed….”
We’ve been begging you to switch to many-galloned cowboy hats so conservatives find themselves saying WRS, without really knowing why.
For a brief period of time some parts of the left succeeded in making police brutality and racist policing a central issue, but unfortunately coupled that success with a slogan “ Defund the Police” which might represent some good policy ideas but was almost perfectly designed to scare people once crime rates started to rise. And they have risen and it is now widely believed that it is because we defunded the police. You can’t really win once you are in this position. I have seen arguments that the rise in crime has nothing at all to do with any alleged cutback in police funding, but it doesn’t matter. Emotions matter more than arguments.
I’ve been going back through the “Defund the Police” moment to try to understand the dynamics. What I see is that most of the outrage is aimed at The Squad for tweeting about Defund the Police. Except that the tweets I’ve found from AOC aren’t pushing that slogan at all. All she says is that it was used by protesters after their previous attempts to raise the issue were ignored. She doesn’t do anything but say what the activists meant and advocate herself for redirecting budgets to mental health and social work and ending qualified immunity. She said that no one can prevent non-politicians from using slogans that are problematic and that politicians should find ways to listen and to turn those concerns into good policy and messaging.
And then Fox says that she and the squad are saying “Defund the Police.”
So what Donald said is what AOC was saying, too. Defund the Police and Abolish and the rest are not anyone’s idea of a popular slogan to be used for a policy. She’s not introducing that language at all, she’s answering questions directed to her that use that language and attempting to refocus the conversation on policy solutions.
What the right has done – what it did with CRT as well – is to take any actual policy about policing or about race, and framed it with the hot button trigger phrases Defund or CRT in order to start an amygdala hijack.
This is their explicit strategy on the right. Its aim is to put the left in a bind, where all the good things they do and say are reframed as unpopular things, and the choice is either demonization or silence.
So I say again, the answer is not to cycle into second guessing everything, but to push forward with a different comms strategy and drive the conversation into RW weaknesses instead.
We all agree that the framing was counterproductive, but the circumstances that created it are always with us and this will keep happening until the comms strategies are actually changed to combat the Fox reframing and not to try to prevent anything off-message from making it into the news. The latter is a King Canute proposition.
Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Roberts respond to the news stories on mask-wearing, or not, by the justices.
“WASHINGTON — In an unusual joint statement on Wednesday, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil M. Gorsuch sought to rebut reports that Justice Gorsuch’s refusal to wear a mask at Supreme Court arguments has created tensions between them.
“Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us,” the statement said. “It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.”
A few hours later, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued his own statement. “I did not request Justice Gorsuch or any other justice to wear a mask on the bench,” he said.”
Roberts, Sotomayor and Gorsuch Address Reports of Conflicts Over Masks: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has diabetes, has been participating in Supreme Court arguments remotely. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, her seatmate, is the only member of the court who does not wear a mask.
We’ve been begging you to switch to many-galloned cowboy hats so conservatives find themselves saying WRS, without really knowing why.
I could give it a try, but I think my outdated hipster lingo and penchant for hacking knots would be giveaways.
Plus, whenever I stop for a meat and three and they ask what sides I want, I’m always asking for rapini, potatoes dauphinoise, and kale sauteed in truffle oil with a little grated artisanal parmesan.
So neither Sotomayor nor Roberts asked Gorsuch to wear a mask. Did anyone else ask on behalf of Sotomayor?
I wonder if Sotomayor would attend in person if Gorsuch would agree to wear a mask? Seems like that would be a good question to ask her. If she would answer it would tell us a lot about the situation that remains ambiguous even after the SC statements.
It is the debate over who should be isolated an who should have access in microcosm.
I wonder if Sotomayor would attend in person if Gorsuch would agree to wear a mask?
Or, perhaps, Gorsuch wasn’t wearing a mask because Sotomayor wasn’t attending in person.
Or, perhaps, Gorsuch wasn’t wearing a mask because Sotomayor wasn’t attending in person.
Because, after all, nobody else could possible catch covid….
One does have to wonder why it should be necessary to ask one of the Justices to do something that the Court has required of everybody appearing before them.
It’s as though it was designed to be a marketing disaster for Democrats … by Republicans.
it definitely was.
but the D’s were trapped and unable to say “no, actually defunding the police is a stupid idea” because they didn’t want to piss off their lefty base, a lot of whom who suddenly felt the need to defend the idea.
Plus, whenever I stop for a meat and three and they ask what sides I want, I’m always asking for rapini, potatoes dauphinoise, and kale sauteed in truffle oil with a little grated artisanal parmesan.
I can’t believe I used to like you.
…suddenly felt the need to defend the idea.
Part of the problem is figuring what “the idea” even is in a given person’s mind.
If by “lefty base” you mean the people protesting police murder. They came pre-pissed for reasons we can all grasp.
The idea they were defending was “something must be done to stop the legally authorized slaughter of black people.”
Black activists feel their problems are being ignored and marginalized and that, along with the actual violence being perpetrated against them, is the source of the anger.
But black anger is inconvenient for Democratic messaging because it scares everyone else (except the American Indians, who are shaking their heads knowingly). And that is the same as it was since Baldwin and Ellison tried to give words to what it feels like to have to live in that skin.
Same as it ever was.
I see a lot of desire to soothe the fears of those who are terrified of black anger, but I don’t see much effort to try to do it in a way that acknowledges the righteousness of that anger. That is a problem.
If I have “lefty anger” it’s on behalf of the kids in my class who are scared of being murdered by society’s sanctioned enforcers because the color of their skin scares people.
We will not be able to actually fix our problem until we can make their story the center of the conversation and get the people who are scared to stop listening to their fear and actually imagine themselves in the position my kids are in and feel *that* fear for a while.
Keeping it off camera won’t ever get us there.
Circling back to Baldwin and Ellison for a moment. The right is fully attacking CRT at the moment because they live in fear of kids reading Baldwin and Ellison and actually feeling what it’s like to live in that skin for a moment. The “my kids shouldn’t be made to feel guilty for being white” thing *is* “we should not be asked to listen to what it is like to be black.”
If by “lefty base” you mean the people protesting police murder. They came pre-pissed for reasons we can all grasp.
The idea they were defending was “something must be done to stop the legally authorized slaughter of black people.”
As everybody seemed to be making clear, the problem was NOT that they were defending that idea. The problem was that they felt impelled to defend the LABEL of “defund the police.”
Nobody *defended the label.* What they did was try to say what policies were entailed in that and have a discussion about those policies as responses to the problems that led to those murders.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Same thing.
If by “lefty base” you mean the people protesting police murder. They came pre-pissed for reasons we can all grasp.
i mean people who literally started defending the literal phrase “defund the police”, for whatever reason, pretending it doesn’t mean what the words literally meant, thus giving the GOP’s attacks meat and putting Dem pols in a bind.
Nobody *defended the label.*
it happened right here, several times.
and you’re doing it here right now by pretending the argument is about police behavior. it wasn’t. the argument the GOP started was about the literal phrase. and because some people wouldn’t just roll their eyes every time they brought it up, but had to get all “but actuallllllly….”, the GOP was able to say “See! We told you!”
if you’re explaining, you’re losing.
the GOP didn’t make Dems start explaining. but Dems did it anyway.
Echoes.
Late May, 2020. I posted a snippet of video that so captured the anguish of black people that I couldn’t even talk about it without crying. Less than two hours later cleek was writing about the violence of the protestors. He and I got in a spat. I.e. just as nous described above, we couldn’t possibly focus on black anguish without changing the subject.
Around that same tim lj posted the thread on White Fragility. I left the scene for three months out of total frustration.
nous — I admire you more than I can say.
Many black communities are in a quandary. They fear the police. And they fear not having the police.
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee approved antitrust legislation sponsored by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that would require Apple, Meta (Facebook), Amazon, and Alphabet (Google) to effectively separate the platform and application portions of their businesses. I will be fascinated to see how far up the software stack they try to push “platform”. Eg, is Facebook a platform, or only the very large compute and storage farms it runs on?
Less than two hours later cleek was writing about the violence of the protestors.
don’t give me that “white fragility” bullshit. an acquaintance of mine had her fucking store destroyed by that violence and was in anguish about it. and she’s an actual person, not some cardboard cutout for you to assign feelings to in order to bolster some academic model you’re trying to model reality around.
and with that….
imma take a break.
you know where to find me if you need to.
I don’t think it’s about discounting your friend’s feelings. I think it’s about her feelings not being relevant to the anguish Black people were feeling, which was the topic of Janie’s post.
Why change the subject to that, especially right out of the box? I could see it if there was a long discussion that naturally meandered it’s way to people being victimized by rioters and looters, but it hadn’t remotely gone there.
Oh, well. I guess it doesn’t matter now.
don’t give me that “white fragility” bullshit. an acquaintance of mine had her fucking store destroyed by that violence and was in anguish about it. and she’s an actual person, not some cardboard cutout for you to assign feelings to in order to bolster some academic model you’re trying to model reality around.
Who gets to count as people and who gets written off as noise is precisely the point we have been trying to talk about. This appears to be the answer.
The amygdala hijack is continuing to do its work, and the blame continues to be shifted.
My understanding is that defund the police isn’t that popular a slogan with much of the Black community, but the majority support reallocating funds. Which is what the slogan was meant to convey, I think. But it doesn’t convey that meaning to many people.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/07/usa-today-ipsos-poll-just-18-support-defund-police-movement/4599232001/
I understand what nous is saying in part because it applies to the issues I rant about too. I write a few paragraphs and deleted them. Too much of a threadjack. Some other time.
I wrote a few paragraphs, not I write a few paragraphs. Kind of anal for me to type a correction, but it grated on me.
I wrote a few paragraphs, not I write a few paragraphs. Kind of anal for me to type a correction, but it grated on me.
I feel seen.
the argument the GOP started was about the literal phrase.
Wrote a long response to this, but it boils down to this:
No, it wasn’t. It wasn’t about the literal phrase, it was about whose lives matter, and about where, in the conflicts that arise between cops and the communities they are supposed to serve, your interests and sympathies lie.
Were we to decide to redirect resources currently given to cops to other kinds of first responders, that would most likely reduce the resources allocated to cops. It would defund the police, literally. And there are good arguments for doing that, especially in certain contexts.
It is what it is. And how people respond to that tells a lot about them, and is also kind of on them.
We live, these days, in an atmosphere of the most toxic public language imaginable. “Defund the police” as a formulation seems almost innocuous in comparison. I’m fine with choosing language that isn’t deliberately and unnecessarily provocative, but there’s only so far you can go without totally neutralizing the substance of what you mean to say.
The phrase “black lives matter” – just the phrase – outrages no small number of people. Think about the actual content of that phrase and tell me a more anodyne way to say it.
Some folks are just going to take offense, no matter what you say.
Many black communities are in a quandary. They fear the police. And they fear not having the police.
Luckily for all of us, there is a solution to that. And it doesn’t require eliminating police forces.
Think we could get there without anybody losing their freaking minds?
Also –
Hey Michael Cain, would be up for a front page post about your 4:30?
I think it would be of interest. It would to me, anyway.
Thank you!
“defund the police”
Is this where I can bring up Goodwin’s Law?
Take a deep breath, folks. Concentrate on the enemy: The American right wing*.
*I used that term instead of ‘conservatives’ just to nudge/persuade wj into the radical left fold.
Funny enough, my juxtaposing the link to my post that day with lj’s white fragility post had the opposite valence from the one cleek assigns to it.
I wanted nothing to do with the white fragility discussion and stayed out of it. Not least because I didn’t want to spend an hour and a half listening to a white woman talk about white people. Which to me is just another way to approach not talking about black pain and anguish. I realize it’s more complicated than that, but that was where i was at the time.
I’m reading Caste this month because it’s our book group choice and I’m the facilitator. I found it slow at the start, now fascinating in a horribly depressing way. I’ll finish it, unlike some other books along the same lines.
And I never intended, then or now, to minimize the anguish of cleek’s friend, nor did I make any attempt to assign feelings to her. Hsh made the point that has been on my mind ever since: we can’t talk about what black people have endured in this country for five minutes without someone changing the subject. When the thing it gets immediately changed to involves black misbehavior and white people’s pain, all the better.
Police, like everyone else, respond to incentives. They tend to focus on crimes with the greatest rewards financially and in positive publicity. They’re even knocking over armored trucks now. This while in many jurisdictions the clearance rate for homicides is abysmally low.
So I say again, the answer is not to cycle into second guessing everything, but to push forward with a different comms strategy and drive the conversation into RW weaknesses instead.
We all agree that the framing was counterproductive, but the circumstances that created it are always with us and this will keep happening until the comms strategies are actually changed to combat the Fox reframing and not to try to prevent anything off-message from making it into the news.
I just want to say that this of nous’s, plus something else he said earlier, is IMO the best thing that the Dems (we) could do. Rapid pushback on all propaganda twisting Dem messaging on Fox and elsewhere, hammered again and again, plus immediate concentration on R weaknesses.
Nobody *defended the label.*
it happened right here, several times.
I’m not sure where the line is being drawn between defending a label and explaining what it means and why it came about. My take is essentially the same as nous and if my comments were taken as ‘defending the label’, that’s a misreading.
All this is largely academic for me, I’m on the other side of the world, so pretty much all I got is trying to explain what things mean. But, as JanieM notes
we can’t talk about what black people have endured in this country for five minutes without someone changing the subject. When the thing it gets immediately changed to involves black misbehavior and white people’s pain, all the better.
If there is an alternate way to get into discussing this, I’m all ears. To me, looking at it from a distance, it is what really screws up any national discourse. This isn’t to say that other countries don’t have problems, but we primarily talk about the US here.
Perhaps ‘white fragility’, ‘defund the police’ and ‘allyship’ are just mottos that people with privilege use performatively. If so, what ideas should liberals get behind in order to create change. It’s pretty clear that quoting MLK isn’t going to do it.
the comms strategies are actually changed to combat the Fox reframing and not to try to prevent anything off-message from making it into the news.
Fox reframing has an advantage, in that they aren’t tied to the truth. But even if the same truth free attitude were adopted by the left, I’ve noted before, it is not simply the Fox reframing, it is the way the media landscape has evolved. There are people who say, and I don’t think that they are lying, that they never watch Fox, yet come out with stuff that seems packaged by them. It seems to me that the facebook algorithms are driving a lot of this and we are screaming about it here cause we are in that demographic. There’s been a spate of articles about Gen-Z that you can get if you google and there will be an article in there to support your own conclusions, whatever they may be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Generation_Z
Related to that is this
https://prospect.org/power/democratic-dilemma-on-dark-money/
One challenge of hiding donors is that it makes it more difficult for the public to assess which organizations authentically speak for the communities they purport to, and which are just pet projects of the rich or schemes by companies.
Beginning in 2017, tens of millions of dollars were poured into a generic-sounding social welfare group called Generation Now, which funded TV ads, mailers, and flyers in Ohio to pass a bill that would subsidize an energy company’s power plants. It was only after an FBI wiretap and federal indictment of state lawmakers for bribery and corruption that the public learned the ads had been funded by affiliates of the energy company itself. Or take Patients for Affordable Drugs, which sounds grassroots, but is really a highly controlled lobbying entity backed by millions from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
When you don’t know why someone is saying something, it’s really hard to evalutate it.
There is a way to square that circle, but I don’t think anyone would like it a lot.
https://www.dw.com/en/china-surveillance-state-or-way-of-the-future/a-59137022
Take a deep breath, folks. Concentrate on the enemy: The American right wing*.
Amen.
I don’t know how any strategy other than pushback and counter could work. As hairshirthedonist said earlier:
Even if you can find them, you can always pay people to play-act as cartoonish lefty loons. Some people might do it just for the laughs.
All it takes is for one person on line to post or do something that can be co-opted as a threat for RW propaganda purposes and the creation of a hashtag. Doesn’t matter the content or the identity of the “people” using the hashtag. Get it to trend enough to seem viral and the threat seems imminent.
Then the YouTubers and Tik Tokers who brand themselves as “free thinkers who used to be liberals before they became totalitarians.” Get to come in and say how this latest viral trend is just more evidence of how bad things have gotten to reinforce the sense that everyone reasonable has abandoned the far left (by which they mean Biden and anyone else left of Manchin).
Have we not all borne witness to this as it happened?
Comms need to just flow around these astroturf outrages and push into territory that the RW will feel compelled to defend.
That’s what BoJo is facing right now. Do more of that.
If so, what ideas should liberals get behind in order to create change.
I’ve said before that Black Lives Matter is an excellent slogan, and idea.
Also:
A fair deal for workers.
Also:
The right thinks there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
We say the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Italiexo!
I’ve said before that Black Lives Matter is an excellent slogan, and idea.
You’d think, but even that got spun. (cf: All lives/Blue lives)
When you get to that level of denial, the problem doesn’t seem to be in selecting the right slogans….
I saw a bumper sticker just the other day that said “Blue lives matter.”
Remember in 2008 when the RW weaponized “community organizer” to be some sort of marxist stalking horse?
America responds to the experience of black Americans:
“Yeah, but what about [insert some other demographic here]?!?”.
It’s like we need to have some kind of equal time rule for communities in distress.
I’m actually not sure “Black Lives Matter” is a great slogan. “Stop Killing Us” seems more on point, and avoids the comparison to every other demographic on the planet who feel, somehow, slighted by the idea of someone else’s life mattering as much as theirs.
The reason I think it’s a good slogan is because, when people reply that all lives matter one can say that they do, but that it’s black people being disproportionately killed by the police, or by white people when they are e.g. out jogging. And if they continue to argue it, you can safely assume they are racists, or at any rate unreachable. And my impression is that with these latest cases, it may be beginning to cut through. But I won’t be dogmatic, if you all think its a bad slogan, I can accept that. But as lj suggests, the real issue is not exactly slogans. It is priorities, and principles, and the ability to get them across.
It’s a perfectly fine slogan. People’s response to it just makes me shake my freaking head.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/where-things-stand-desantis-campaigns-on-ensuring-white-floridians-dont-feel-discomfort-about-systemic-racism
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10424557/Oath-Keepers-set-weapons-ammunition-hotel-outside-Washington-DC-ahead-Jan-6-riot.html
Comfort, discomfort .. butcher and slaughter every conservative movement republican on the face of the Earth, including, Putin, on every continent.
Never stop killing vermin EVIL.
“Stop Killing Us” seems more on point
What makes you think you are included in ‘us’?
https://www.wlky.com/article/mitch-mcconnell-african-americans-voting-just-as-much-as-americans/38829280#
I’ve said before that Black Lives Matter is an excellent slogan, and idea.
You’d think, but even that got spun. (cf: All lives/Blue lives)
It got spun. But my perception is that the spin was way less successful than the attacks on “Defund the police.”
Just because you know that anything you say will get spun doesn’t mean it isn’t worth being careful about what you say. No reason to make it easy for them.
McConnell: “… if you look at the statistics, African American voters are voting in just as high a percentage as Americans.”
Note the comparison to Americans. Not other Americans, just Americans. I suppose nobody should be surprised that, for McConnell, non-whites aren’t really included in “Americans.” But sloppy of him to make it so explicit.
Stumbled across this tonight:
https://www.al.com/news/2022/01/police-in-this-tiny-alabama-town-suck-drivers-into-legal-black-hole.html?fbclid=IwAR0clbhWNPrD7NyQn1ULiuCyg_wIv5aMQd_2pQenHGY2twUdGEHyI6Qp74Y
Plan your trips through northern Alabama accordingly.
My son was on a plane recently when a passenger decided to fuck with everyone .. an airplane cabin is basically a military situation and the pilot may fucking kill you, conservatives, if he or she pleases .. and hold up takeoff while she was hauled screaming like subhuman conservative Lindsay Graham off the goddamned plane.
This happens many minutes into a flight on which I am a passenger and a conservative zombie subhuman decides to fuck things up, and I will commandeer the drinks cart (well, I’ll have to grab a handful of miniture pretzel packages in lieu) and do a Flight 93, causing the plane to flip upside down, and in the mayhem I will cut the throat of the dumbshit maskless conservative criminal and we can dump the body at our ultimate destination after the pilot has restored flight control and any other conservatives on board who might be too busy retrieving their small testicles from the compartment ceiling can fuck with me when we disembark into the terminal.
Please do.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1/20/2075889/-International-flight-forced-to-return-to-U-S-500-miles-into-trip-thanks-to-anti-masker
I found this quite interesting
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/17/tory-party-boris-johnson-polls-britain
To such voters, No 10’s parties can be infuriating but, at the same time, irrelevant. In the list of offerings that Johnson and his party made to the country, his uprightness did not feature in the brochure: moral fibre isn’t really what he and the government were elected for.
In that sense, Johnson is a contracted private service provider – as long as he delivers, then as clients, his supporters don’t really care what he gets up to outside of the tasks he has been hired for. Those tasks are broadly Brexit and a shiny, prosperous country where jobs and funds have been cut or confiscated from those less deserving.
The phrase two countries separated by a common language comes to mind
noone, if a flight I am on gets turned around due to an anti-mask nutcase, I’m filing suit for big bucks — against the nutcase, just to be clear. Compensatory damages. Exemplary damages. Treble damages. Anything else I can think of.
Take ’em for every penny they have, or will ever earn. A few of them reduced to living on the streets, without even enough to fill a shopping cart, might concentrary some (supposed) minds.
wj, do you think you could even find out the passenger’s name, in order to bring suit? Not that I think it’s a bad idea, just that I bet it wouldn’t be as easy as we might think.
Maybe you’d have to sue the airlines and try to force them to pass it on. So to speak.
This happens….
Could we dial that down several notches? Thanks.
Janie, I rather suspect the name would end up in the public record. Maybe not an arrest record, but boasting by the perp seems likely.
It might be possible for them, with work, to keep their name hidden. But I think it’s unlikely things would play out that way.
From Caste:
Empowering the citizenry to harm or destroy other citizens: must be where Texas got the template for its abortion law.
Masks may be unnecessary or have little benefit in an environment where the air is exchanged every three minutes or so through high-efficiency filters. But, if anyone doesn’t agree with the requirements for being on board the plane, they should stay off the damn plane. Otherwise, they should get whatever is coming to them.
“The FAA initiated a “zero tolerance” policy at the beginning of the year in response to what it described as a rapid rise in the number of passengers disrupting flights with threatening — or, in many cases, violent — behavior. Previously, unruly passengers would receive a warning or training for their misconduct. They could also be hit with a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per incident. Now, all incidents are subject to a fine of up to $37,000 for each federal violation.
The FAA reported 5,033 incidents of unruly passengers as of November during this year, 3,642 of which were related to mask-wearing. From the total number of incidents, the FAA initiated 950 investigations, a sixfold increase from last year.”
FBI to weigh prosecuting 37 unruly passengers amid uptick of incidents on planes
While I’m pleased to see Charles note that people should get what they deserve, that first part sticks in my craw a bit. It the temperature in a coffee shop is appropriate, why do I have to wear a shirt and shoes?
While there’s a word in Japanese for reasonable (goriteki) in Englis, there’s this strange blend of ‘reason’ (I did it because of the voices in my head) and reasonable (be reasonable!) The language blurs the notion of having reasons with logical thinking. I’ve tried to use this when I have colleagues or other japanese ask me what tf is wrong with Americans (politely mind you) It’s my substitute for They are f__king idiots..…
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1/20/2075875/-Florida-bill-wants-to-ban-elementary-schools-from-talking-about-LGBTQ-people-in-the-classroom
https://www.mediamatters.org/mark-levin/fox-news-mark-levin-compares-black-lives-matter-nazi-architects-final-solution-holocaust
Should the sub-American conservative movement convene its own Wannsee Conference (they have smaller ones weekly throughout the country, using government buildings to host them), I’m sure Levin will be invited to unveil his plan to shut the mouths of all of them pointy-headed academics with advanced degrees, many of them Jewish, who dare speak truth in public.
At the original Wannsee confab, Eichmann, in a fit of futuristic daydreaming and fellow fascist inclusion, raised his hand and asked Heydrich why Mark Levin was not present to outline his procedures to silence his fellow Jews, many of them Commies, and Gypsies, gays and lesbians, school teachers, and academic four-eyed types with martial jackbooted dispatch.
But yer Honor, I am but a sad clown:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2022/01/21/clown-car-on-fire/
Cool defense (legally speaking, your Honor, my clients plead the funny Amendment, which protects all fascist inside jokes), if they pull it off, and since the country has transformed itself into a veritable legal floppy-shoed Bozomerica, the murderous, election-stealing vermin will get off to live another day to show up in different uniforms, which they are donning as we speak.
I always preferred the jugglers myself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwHlko8X-uw
Hey Michael Cain, would be up for a front page post about your 4:30?… I think it would be of interest. It would to me, anyway.
I’ll see if I can manage anything interesting. I seem to find writing anything interesting more and more difficult these days.
I know, I know. It’s just Erik Loomis. But I found it a worthwhile read nonetheless. You might like it, too.
I’ll see if I can manage anything interesting.
you could just cut n paste your comment as a front page post. or you could give any of us the go-ahead to do so on your behalf.
Thanks Michael!
I don’t think we’ve got an open thread at the moment. If we do, I failed to find it, so if I’m wrong, sorry!
I thought russell, and any others interested, might like this:
https://harmonyholiday.substack.com/p/the-year-of-duke-ellington
By the way, that link was pretty much all Greek to me (worse, because I do actually have an ancient Greek O-level), so I have no idea if it is any good! I hope so…
I generally don’t like the LGM blog but read it anyway. But the Loomis piece bobbyp linked was good. I think he is probably right and it also connects with what nous has been saying.
I generally don’t like the LGM blog but read it anyway. But the Loomis piece bobbyp linked was good.
After some years, I’m down to reading Campos, Farley’s national security pieces, and Loomis on the environment. The last one because he frequently has a western states angle that the MSM ignore. The commentariate has become an echo chamber. Based on both you and bobbyp recommending it, I’ll give this Loomis piece a try.
I won’t be having what Meatloaf ordered.
He would stick to publicly masturbating on Zoom while conducting the Nation’ s business, but alas, he remains a low-functioning rapist below the belt on account of being crippled inside:
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1/20/2075856/-Rep-Madison-Cawthorn-uses-important-veteran-affairs-committee-hearing-to-clean-a-gun
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1/21/2075990/-Ever-wonder-about-the-Blacks-for-Trump-guy-He-s-a-devoted-follower-of-a-violent-anti-semitic-cult
The big Republican tent finds the finest quality subhumans of all races, creeds, gender, and sexual orientation.
Everybody kills somebody sometime in conservative movement world.
Just made an open thread,
Quick thoughts on the Loomis piece.
His argument resonates with me in large part because of my recent union experience. In 2018 the Janus vs AFSCME decision dealt my union a body blow in the budget, our contract lapsed, and COVID injected a huge amount of uncertainty into our ongoing contract negotiations (and upended our teaching, and added workload).
On a local level the majority of the work of the union was being done by one paid union employee (completely overworked) and fewer than two dozen union members doing all of the organizing and contract enforcement and contract negotiations with no compensation (all while also teaching).
That whole time I and the paid rep have been fighting with the campus over a decade’s worth of violations of the contract in the School of Business, where we represented dozens of lecturers, but where only one of those lecturers was paying dues. Those lecturers saw themselves as management, not as labor. The union fought for the contract anyway, representing the non-paying members in grievances filed on their behalf.
Meanwhile, the other handful of volunteers continued to organize and to network with the other local unions and with students and with the senate faculty, finding common ground and supporting those groups whenever we could in their actions.
Two years of persistent grievance work at the School of Business netted a victory that won the lecturers there a large enough settlement that we now have about a dozen of them on the side of the union, several of them as members, and three of them coming to actions and negotiations.
And the organizers built enough strength to threaten a strike that would have shut down a third of the classes on all campuses for two days as a demonstration of our resolve.
Because a dozen members had voluntarily spent time working for the goals of other organizations in solidarity. Other organizations where there were maybe a dozen workers that would show up for us at little things. We marched with groundskeepers and housekeepers, with food workers, with medical assistants. They came out to march for us.
Others couldn’t come out, but supported us in other ways. We could not support them in some of their actions, but supported them with statements of solidarity and whatever we could do.
We won big victories, and those victories have netted us a big windfall in new members and a few more people who can be relied upon to shoulder a bit of the work.
None of it was money. None of it was top-down. It was all hustle and grit and wearing down Goliath.
And none of that is ivory tower research.
I thought russell, and any others interested, might like this
The piece opens this way:
Which is Ellington, precisely and to a T. Perfectly expressed. He loved us madly, all of us.
The story of Ellington firing Mingus, alluded to in the article, has been told a few ways. In essence, Cuban trombonist Juan Tizol had disparaging things to say about Mingus’ sight-reading, and expressed it in racial terms. Mingus came after him with a fire axe, which was completely in character for Mingus. Ellington was obliged to let him go.
Mingus’ own telling of getting canned ends this way:
The most elegant, graceful, charming man ever to walk the planet.
Melodically and harmonically, Ellington (and Strayhorn!) are all about chromatic voice leading. It gives their music a gliding, slip-sliding flow that distinguishes them from their peers, then and now.
There are a handful of composer / songwriter pairs that are so good that they basically transcend their own time and place. Lennon / McCartney, the Gershwin’s.
And Ellington and Strayhorn.
Thanks for sharing this, GFTNC.
I realize that Loomis can be rather dyspeptic, though I do wonder how much of it is a stance he adopts when he writes on the blog and how much is actually him. He definitely has axes to grind, but I think that he’s definitely got his reasons.
about labor unions and such, I’m pretty much with nous. The problem in Japan is that organizing foreigners ends up with the foreigners as seeing themselves as special, so anyone having problems has only themselves to blame. Unfortunately, it is easy enough to provoke people to make a response and then look shocked when they actually get angry.
Further to our discussion about the GOP now showing complete disdain for everything conservatives said they cared about, this to show how similar our (or at any rate the current, BoJo, Tory party’s) position is:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/21/partygate-conservatism-corrupted-boris-johnson-brexit-monarchy-union-bbc