by JanieM
Seems like people might want to discuss the Congressional hearings and related topics. As a starting point and with GftNC’s permission, I’m copying her comment from downstairs as a starting point.
So, the hearings. I watched the whole thing (unlike the first one, which was in the middle of the night UK time). I don’t get Fox (who as you probably know were showing the hearing live), but a friend who was also watching (and we spoke during the recess) is able to, so I asked her to check what they were saying over there. Apparently, there was a lot of how one-sided it was, and how it lacked the necessary people or the ability to challenge or cross examine the witnesses. Wow, it’s almost like they don’t understand the process….
(I thought it was incredibly damaging for Trump. But as for how it would affect Republicans, at least reachable ones unlike MAGAts, I could not say. After all, if they don’t know about this stuff already, how reachable are they?) It will be very interesting to see the polls, which presumably will be plentiful and frequent. At least I hope so.
Posted by: Girl from the North Country | June 13, 2022 at 04:32 PM
*****
Also, open thread.
I’ve only watched snippets, work interferes.
But my (retired, very conservative and low-information, but not terribly tribal) mother was deeply effected by the hearings. She said she previously thought it was a bunch of random yahoos and Democrats were trying to tar everyone with them. She “had no idea” it was such a huge, organized affair. “It *was* an insurrection.” was her summary.
The medium is still the message, in other words.
How many others are like her, I have no idea.
I’ve only watched snippets, work interferes.
But my (retired, very conservative and low-information, but not terribly tribal) mother was deeply effected by the hearings. She said she previously thought it was a bunch of random yahoos and Democrats were trying to tar everyone with them. She “had no idea” it was such a huge, organized affair. “It *was* an insurrection.” was her summary.
The medium is still the message, in other words.
How many others are like her, I have no idea.
grumbles, let’s hope there are many, many more like her.
grumbles, let’s hope there are many, many more like her.
I thought the first night was incredibly damaging for Trump, and I think the Republicans are afraid. I think today was incredibly damaging to the Big Lie. I would feel optimistic –except…
Republicans thought the news about Trump giving money to a porn star and his recent adultery would sink his campaign and it didn’t.
None of the subsequent scandals changed his voters’ minds either.
Trump said his voters would forgive him for anything, including murder.
So I have reduced my hopes to this: I hope the hearings doom the current liars who are trying to use the Big Lie to get positions in government.
But Trumpers? Well, I’m not optimistic about them.
I thought the first night was incredibly damaging for Trump, and I think the Republicans are afraid. I think today was incredibly damaging to the Big Lie. I would feel optimistic –except…
Republicans thought the news about Trump giving money to a porn star and his recent adultery would sink his campaign and it didn’t.
None of the subsequent scandals changed his voters’ minds either.
Trump said his voters would forgive him for anything, including murder.
So I have reduced my hopes to this: I hope the hearings doom the current liars who are trying to use the Big Lie to get positions in government.
But Trumpers? Well, I’m not optimistic about them.
But I don’t think I’ve been optimistic about politics in decades. I’m pretty much gloom and doom.
But I don’t think I’ve been optimistic about politics in decades. I’m pretty much gloom and doom.
Trump said his voters would forgive him for anything, including murder.
No real question that’s true of all of his cultists. But of all of his voters?
Apparently the Republican establishment (such as it is any more) and Fox are terrified that it might not be. Otherwise they wouldn’t be trying so hard to trash the hearings. They’d jusy be ignoring them.
Trump said his voters would forgive him for anything, including murder.
No real question that’s true of all of his cultists. But of all of his voters?
Apparently the Republican establishment (such as it is any more) and Fox are terrified that it might not be. Otherwise they wouldn’t be trying so hard to trash the hearings. They’d jusy be ignoring them.
I always have to factor in the era of negative partisanship. It’s why cesspits like the site that rhymes with redhate can do nothing but feature clips about how incompetent Biden/Harris are and how everyone needs an AR to protect themselves from the left, which appears to be made up of China, Fauci, and the EU working through the Deep State under cover from Biden/Harris’ weakness.
So it’s really down to the swing voters and which side of the negative framing their intestinal flora are aligning with.
The message is getting through, but I don’t know that it will reach its action potential.
I always have to factor in the era of negative partisanship. It’s why cesspits like the site that rhymes with redhate can do nothing but feature clips about how incompetent Biden/Harris are and how everyone needs an AR to protect themselves from the left, which appears to be made up of China, Fauci, and the EU working through the Deep State under cover from Biden/Harris’ weakness.
So it’s really down to the swing voters and which side of the negative framing their intestinal flora are aligning with.
The message is getting through, but I don’t know that it will reach its action potential.
I will be interested to see if the committee produces the names of the Congressmen who talked to the White House about preemptive pardons.** Especially if they manage to dragooon some of them into testifying as to why they thought something like that would be a good idea. Because it pretty well shows that they knew damn well that not only was what they were saying was not true, they knew what they were doing was criminal, too.
** Not that Trump ever shows any loyalty to those who do his bidding, so probably a lost cause. Unless, maybe, they could make a case that they could hurt him more if he didn’t.
I will be interested to see if the committee produces the names of the Congressmen who talked to the White House about preemptive pardons.** Especially if they manage to dragooon some of them into testifying as to why they thought something like that would be a good idea. Because it pretty well shows that they knew damn well that not only was what they were saying was not true, they knew what they were doing was criminal, too.
** Not that Trump ever shows any loyalty to those who do his bidding, so probably a lost cause. Unless, maybe, they could make a case that they could hurt him more if he didn’t.
If there’s a saving grace from a non-crazy Republican perspective, it’s the witnesses, regardless of the composition of the committee. That and maybe being convinced that you parted with your money to support a nine-figure grift, though I imagine there’s a smaller population of persuadable people on that score.
If there’s a saving grace from a non-crazy Republican perspective, it’s the witnesses, regardless of the composition of the committee. That and maybe being convinced that you parted with your money to support a nine-figure grift, though I imagine there’s a smaller population of persuadable people on that score.
“I’ve been cheated!!!” can be a very motivating realization.
Finding that money you donated to challenge election fraud went to something else instead (that, in fact, the supposed fund never existed at all), could fall into that category.
“I’ve been cheated!!!” can be a very motivating realization.
Finding that money you donated to challenge election fraud went to something else instead (that, in fact, the supposed fund never existed at all), could fall into that category.
But people hate the feeling of having been cheated because that makes them look dumb (in their own eyes too). So they are highly likely to deny it. These days it’s of course cries of “fake news”.
But people hate the feeling of having been cheated because that makes them look dumb (in their own eyes too). So they are highly likely to deny it. These days it’s of course cries of “fake news”.
So they are highly likely to deny it.
Yes. The hope that remains in the denial cases, though, is that they are at least discouraged by doubt, even if they won’t admit it, and they become less politically motivated.
So they are highly likely to deny it.
Yes. The hope that remains in the denial cases, though, is that they are at least discouraged by doubt, even if they won’t admit it, and they become less politically motivated.
Trump’s appeal is to entitlement, the feeling some Americans have of being entitled to a position on a pedestal of their own making as the only real true Americans with real true American values. They love Trump because he is mean to everyone. He’s their weapon against the rest of America in defense of their assumption that the rest of us are not legitimately citizens in the way they are.
Where did they get this fairy tale? From the Republican party. It’s been their message for decades. Faux pumps the message out every day on their “news” and on their evening hater line up. THe “culture wars” is a narrative about good versus evil and the Trump base are people who have become infatuated with that narrative because they get to feel like their ordinary life is a heroic struggle. They get the ego thrill of participation in a heroic struggle without having to actually do any struggling.
It’s pretty hard to get people to come down off a pedestal and give up the role of hero/victim, especially faux hero/victimhood where they got all the ego jollies without having to take any risks or make any sacrifices.
So in my opinion the most that we can expect is for them to think “Maybe Trump went a bit too far but I AM STILL THE ONLY REAL TRUE AMERICAN AND THE REST OF YOU SUCK ANYWAY!!!!!” and go out and vote for any creepy con artist or neofascist or creepy con artist neo-fascist running for office as a Republican.
Trump’s appeal is to entitlement, the feeling some Americans have of being entitled to a position on a pedestal of their own making as the only real true Americans with real true American values. They love Trump because he is mean to everyone. He’s their weapon against the rest of America in defense of their assumption that the rest of us are not legitimately citizens in the way they are.
Where did they get this fairy tale? From the Republican party. It’s been their message for decades. Faux pumps the message out every day on their “news” and on their evening hater line up. THe “culture wars” is a narrative about good versus evil and the Trump base are people who have become infatuated with that narrative because they get to feel like their ordinary life is a heroic struggle. They get the ego thrill of participation in a heroic struggle without having to actually do any struggling.
It’s pretty hard to get people to come down off a pedestal and give up the role of hero/victim, especially faux hero/victimhood where they got all the ego jollies without having to take any risks or make any sacrifices.
So in my opinion the most that we can expect is for them to think “Maybe Trump went a bit too far but I AM STILL THE ONLY REAL TRUE AMERICAN AND THE REST OF YOU SUCK ANYWAY!!!!!” and go out and vote for any creepy con artist or neofascist or creepy con artist neo-fascist running for office as a Republican.
THe “culture wars” is a narrative about good versus evil and the Trump base are people who have become infatuated with that narrative because they get to feel like their ordinary life is a heroic struggle. They get the ego thrill of participation in a heroic struggle without having to actually do any struggling.
Gosh, wonkie, I have never seen this better explained or expressed. Your explanation for staying away from here is, if you will excuse me, nuts.
And, on a related subject (related by Trump – Brexit – Farage – Arron Banks – Cambridge Analytica etc etc) I am happy to tell anybody interested that Carole Cadwalladr triumphed yesterday in the case where Arron Banks sued her for libel for her tweet and TED talk. Anybody who wants to know more details can find them here, but it is (at least until or unless he appeals) a triumph for public interest journalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/13/the-guardian-view-on-carole-cadwalladrs-libel-case-a-victory-for-journalism
THe “culture wars” is a narrative about good versus evil and the Trump base are people who have become infatuated with that narrative because they get to feel like their ordinary life is a heroic struggle. They get the ego thrill of participation in a heroic struggle without having to actually do any struggling.
Gosh, wonkie, I have never seen this better explained or expressed. Your explanation for staying away from here is, if you will excuse me, nuts.
And, on a related subject (related by Trump – Brexit – Farage – Arron Banks – Cambridge Analytica etc etc) I am happy to tell anybody interested that Carole Cadwalladr triumphed yesterday in the case where Arron Banks sued her for libel for her tweet and TED talk. Anybody who wants to know more details can find them here, but it is (at least until or unless he appeals) a triumph for public interest journalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/13/the-guardian-view-on-carole-cadwalladrs-libel-case-a-victory-for-journalism
These culture wars make narrative sense to the fanatics because they long ago bought into the apocalyptic narrative:
https://www.vox.com/culture/23033782/frank-peretti-this-present-darkness-piercing-the-darkness-cultural-influence-moral-panic
As an ex-evangelical who played D&D, I remember the Satanic Panic vividly. I also remember that at the same time Peretti was writing his Avengers/Pilgrim’s Progress mashup, Mike Warnke was making a killing in the Christian media grifting hard on the coattails of the Panic with his lurid tales of having been a Satanic priest:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110629063019/http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/sellingsatan.htm
(This latest season of Stranger Things has been emotionally affecting for a lot of metanarrative reasons.)
Well, here we go again:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/14/roger-stone-michael-flynn-distorting-christianity-reawaken-america
Another round of tax-exempt Satanic Panic grift:
The ReAwaken tour’s pro-Trump political messages mixed with Christian nationalism was on display at a two-day gathering in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, in May that drew Flynn, Stone, Eric Trump and the rightwing pastor Mark Burns, who is running for a House seat in the state.
Stone revved up the crowd with at times bizarre conspiratorial claims. “There is a satanic portal above the White House, you can see day and night. It exists. It is real. And it must be closed. And it will be closed by prayer,” he said.
The “portal”, Stone told a rapt crowd, first appeared after Joe Biden “became president and it will be closed before he leaves”.
Here’s the statement about this latest flooding of shit into the zone from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty:
https://bjconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Christian_Nationalism_and_the_Jan6_Insurrection-2-9-22.pdf
We have absolutely seen the likes of this before in the religious wars of the late middle ages, and the authoritarian tensions and ties to Orthodoxy and to reform theology show that there is a very energized contingent trying to undo the hard-won liberalism, secularism, and religious toleration of the Westphalian order.
Here we go again.
These culture wars make narrative sense to the fanatics because they long ago bought into the apocalyptic narrative:
https://www.vox.com/culture/23033782/frank-peretti-this-present-darkness-piercing-the-darkness-cultural-influence-moral-panic
As an ex-evangelical who played D&D, I remember the Satanic Panic vividly. I also remember that at the same time Peretti was writing his Avengers/Pilgrim’s Progress mashup, Mike Warnke was making a killing in the Christian media grifting hard on the coattails of the Panic with his lurid tales of having been a Satanic priest:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110629063019/http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/sellingsatan.htm
(This latest season of Stranger Things has been emotionally affecting for a lot of metanarrative reasons.)
Well, here we go again:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/14/roger-stone-michael-flynn-distorting-christianity-reawaken-america
Another round of tax-exempt Satanic Panic grift:
The ReAwaken tour’s pro-Trump political messages mixed with Christian nationalism was on display at a two-day gathering in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, in May that drew Flynn, Stone, Eric Trump and the rightwing pastor Mark Burns, who is running for a House seat in the state.
Stone revved up the crowd with at times bizarre conspiratorial claims. “There is a satanic portal above the White House, you can see day and night. It exists. It is real. And it must be closed. And it will be closed by prayer,” he said.
The “portal”, Stone told a rapt crowd, first appeared after Joe Biden “became president and it will be closed before he leaves”.
Here’s the statement about this latest flooding of shit into the zone from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty:
https://bjconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Christian_Nationalism_and_the_Jan6_Insurrection-2-9-22.pdf
We have absolutely seen the likes of this before in the religious wars of the late middle ages, and the authoritarian tensions and ties to Orthodoxy and to reform theology show that there is a very energized contingent trying to undo the hard-won liberalism, secularism, and religious toleration of the Westphalian order.
Here we go again.
That Wayback Machine link to the Cornerstone Magazine article about Warnke should be:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110629063019/http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/sellingsatan.htm
Don’t know what happened to that URL during posting.
That Wayback Machine link to the Cornerstone Magazine article about Warnke should be:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110629063019/http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/sellingsatan.htm
Don’t know what happened to that URL during posting.
Sigh…
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/sellingsatan.htm
Is the URL to plug into the Wayback Machine at http://www.archive.org
::mumblegrumble::
Sigh…
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/sellingsatan.htm
Is the URL to plug into the Wayback Machine at http://www.archive.org
::mumblegrumble::
Is this the article you’re trying to link to?
“Known as “America’s Number One Christian Comedian,” Mike Warnke has sold in excess of one million records. June 29, 1988, was declared “Mike Warnke Day” by the governor of Tennessee. The Satan Seller has, according to its author, sold three million copies in twenty years. His 1991 Schemes of Satan quickly climbed the best-seller list. Mike Warnke’s press material includes credits for appearances on “The 700 Club,” “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” “Larry King Live,” “Focus on the Family,” and ABC’s “20/20.” Mike has won numerous awards from the recording industry, including the 1992 Grady Nutt Humor Award. He continues to perform two hundred live shows a year. He is truly a figure of national prominence.”
Selling Satan: The Tragic History of Mike Warnke
Is this the article you’re trying to link to?
“Known as “America’s Number One Christian Comedian,” Mike Warnke has sold in excess of one million records. June 29, 1988, was declared “Mike Warnke Day” by the governor of Tennessee. The Satan Seller has, according to its author, sold three million copies in twenty years. His 1991 Schemes of Satan quickly climbed the best-seller list. Mike Warnke’s press material includes credits for appearances on “The 700 Club,” “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” “Larry King Live,” “Focus on the Family,” and ABC’s “20/20.” Mike has won numerous awards from the recording industry, including the 1992 Grady Nutt Humor Award. He continues to perform two hundred live shows a year. He is truly a figure of national prominence.”
Selling Satan: The Tragic History of Mike Warnke
Yes. That’s the one. Thanks.
Never try to format a Wayback URL while in the middle of submitting final grades.
Yes. That’s the one. Thanks.
Never try to format a Wayback URL while in the middle of submitting final grades.
Here we go again.
Truth. I think if we could understand that they’re more accurate than “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” (sorry, but really), we might be able to plan better for reality.
Armchair theory, worth what you paid for it.
Here we go again.
Truth. I think if we could understand that they’re more accurate than “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” (sorry, but really), we might be able to plan better for reality.
Armchair theory, worth what you paid for it.
“they’re more accurate” -> those words are more accurate
“they’re more accurate” -> those words are more accurate
Trump should go to jail. I’d look forward to that.
Arguably, he is guilty of treason, and if so, could be sentenced to death. I would not look forward to that, because a lot of other people would end up dead as well.
In any case, none of that will happen. IMO.
The hearings may peel a small but significant percentage of Trump’s base. They’ll probably still be conservative (R)’s but I can live with that.
If they achieve that, I’ll call it a win and be happy. Or, you know, happy-ish.
Absolutely freaking amazing what we’ve come to. And I don’t mean that in a good way.
Trump should go to jail. I’d look forward to that.
Arguably, he is guilty of treason, and if so, could be sentenced to death. I would not look forward to that, because a lot of other people would end up dead as well.
In any case, none of that will happen. IMO.
The hearings may peel a small but significant percentage of Trump’s base. They’ll probably still be conservative (R)’s but I can live with that.
If they achieve that, I’ll call it a win and be happy. Or, you know, happy-ish.
Absolutely freaking amazing what we’ve come to. And I don’t mean that in a good way.
What I have a hard time understanding is the utter lack of sense of responsibility that man has, even after having been the POTUS. The forces he’s willing to unleash, or is just willing to risk unleashing, as the nation’s leader, with all the power that comes with that, is unfathomable. He’s missing some significant pieces as a human being.
What I have a hard time understanding is the utter lack of sense of responsibility that man has, even after having been the POTUS. The forces he’s willing to unleash, or is just willing to risk unleashing, as the nation’s leader, with all the power that comes with that, is unfathomable. He’s missing some significant pieces as a human being.
OK, this is going to be my go-to source for polling on public opinion as the hearings go on:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/can-the-january-6-hearings-change-public-opinion/
OK, this is going to be my go-to source for polling on public opinion as the hearings go on:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/can-the-january-6-hearings-change-public-opinion/
people hate the feeling of having been cheated because that makes them look dumb (in their own eyes too). So they are highly likely to deny it.
Deny it? Sure.
But still reluctant to fall for the same scam (the one that they won’t admit, even to themselves, they got taken by) again. It might be nice if they could admit they blew it. But if they just decline to do it again, that is, pragmatically, enough.
people hate the feeling of having been cheated because that makes them look dumb (in their own eyes too). So they are highly likely to deny it.
Deny it? Sure.
But still reluctant to fall for the same scam (the one that they won’t admit, even to themselves, they got taken by) again. It might be nice if they could admit they blew it. But if they just decline to do it again, that is, pragmatically, enough.
But if they just decline to do it again, that is, pragmatically, enough.
Gotta overcome the sunk cost and culpability factor first. They are going to hang on to their self image until the last possible moment, and continue to justify it and hedge for a good long time afterwards.
But if they just decline to do it again, that is, pragmatically, enough.
Gotta overcome the sunk cost and culpability factor first. They are going to hang on to their self image until the last possible moment, and continue to justify it and hedge for a good long time afterwards.
Trump should go to jail. I’d look forward to that.
Arguably, he is guilty of treason, and if so, could be sentenced to death. I would not look forward to that, because a lot of other people would end up dead as well.
Nope. What Trump did was sedition, not treason.
https://thelawdictionary.org/article/treason-vs-sedition/
Treason has a very narrow meaning, per the US Constitution:
The two are equally heinous, IMHO, but different as a matter of law.
/pedantic nit picking
Trump should go to jail. I’d look forward to that.
Arguably, he is guilty of treason, and if so, could be sentenced to death. I would not look forward to that, because a lot of other people would end up dead as well.
Nope. What Trump did was sedition, not treason.
https://thelawdictionary.org/article/treason-vs-sedition/
Treason has a very narrow meaning, per the US Constitution:
The two are equally heinous, IMHO, but different as a matter of law.
/pedantic nit picking
What I have a hard time understanding is the utter lack of sense of responsibility that man has, even after having been the POTUS
He had the title. But since he wasn’t doing the job** (not least because he’s incapable of the responsibility required), the extent to which he was President is debatable,
** Which is the danger of some Trump wannabe (DeSantis, Hawley, Abbott, etc.) getting the job. They can’t match his sheer incompetence, so they could do lots more damage.
What I have a hard time understanding is the utter lack of sense of responsibility that man has, even after having been the POTUS
He had the title. But since he wasn’t doing the job** (not least because he’s incapable of the responsibility required), the extent to which he was President is debatable,
** Which is the danger of some Trump wannabe (DeSantis, Hawley, Abbott, etc.) getting the job. They can’t match his sheer incompetence, so they could do lots more damage.
Treason has a very narrow meaning
And sedition has a rather broad meaning which puts it at risk of being used as a political weapon.
Treason has a very narrow meaning
And sedition has a rather broad meaning which puts it at risk of being used as a political weapon.
For some perspective, I just saw a post on a social media platform extolling the truth(iness) of “2000 Mules.” FFS…
For some perspective, I just saw a post on a social media platform extolling the truth(iness) of “2000 Mules.” FFS…
And sedition has a rather broad meaning which puts it at risk of being used as a political weapon.
Especially when someone *has attempted to use sedition as a political weapon*, along with pretty much everything else that can be weaponized for partisan advantage.
And sedition has a rather broad meaning which puts it at risk of being used as a political weapon.
Especially when someone *has attempted to use sedition as a political weapon*, along with pretty much everything else that can be weaponized for partisan advantage.
The other side prefers charges of treason to those of sedition to accuse their opponents of on a daily – strike that – hourly basis. They use ‘seditious’ for unruly children quoting from their favorite book they don’t actually read.
The other side prefers charges of treason to those of sedition to accuse their opponents of on a daily – strike that – hourly basis. They use ‘seditious’ for unruly children quoting from their favorite book they don’t actually read.
I’d be more worried about the possibility of sedition being used for political purposes if it had had much use in the past (exclusive of TFG’s administration, of course).
I’d be more worried about the possibility of sedition being used for political purposes if it had had much use in the past (exclusive of TFG’s administration, of course).
Sedition works for me.
Tax avoidance and fraud, likewise. If there were a way to jail someone for being a flagrant asshole, also fine with me.
Regarding treason, folks have been found guilty of treason in this country for mounting an armed resistance to what were arguably unfair tax regimes (Whiskey and Fries rebellions). IMO those events pale in comparison to the spectacle of Jan 6.
But jail time for sedition or seditious conspiracy (either one) would suit me just fine.
Sedition works for me.
Tax avoidance and fraud, likewise. If there were a way to jail someone for being a flagrant asshole, also fine with me.
Regarding treason, folks have been found guilty of treason in this country for mounting an armed resistance to what were arguably unfair tax regimes (Whiskey and Fries rebellions). IMO those events pale in comparison to the spectacle of Jan 6.
But jail time for sedition or seditious conspiracy (either one) would suit me just fine.
Since this is labeled an Open Thread, I was interested in this. (Perhaps Hartmut can comment further.)
https://www.dw.com/en/everything-you-need-to-know-about-germanys-9-euro-ticket/a-61978439
It seems that, as part of their effort to reduce their use of Russian oil, Germany is running cut price mass transit tickets all summer. Economic incentives aren’t a magic bullet, but they can definitely help.
Since this is labeled an Open Thread, I was interested in this. (Perhaps Hartmut can comment further.)
https://www.dw.com/en/everything-you-need-to-know-about-germanys-9-euro-ticket/a-61978439
It seems that, as part of their effort to reduce their use of Russian oil, Germany is running cut price mass transit tickets all summer. Economic incentives aren’t a magic bullet, but they can definitely help.
Germany is in a very tight spot vis-à-vis Russia. It’s paying Russia about €200,000,000 a day for natural gas. Things would really be grim if, in the middle of next winter, Russia just shut the gas off.
Germany is in a very tight spot vis-à-vis Russia. It’s paying Russia about €200,000,000 a day for natural gas. Things would really be grim if, in the middle of next winter, Russia just shut the gas off.
But jail time for sedition or seditious conspiracy (either one) would suit me just fine.
And so, I suspect, say all of us.
But jail time for sedition or seditious conspiracy (either one) would suit me just fine.
And so, I suspect, say all of us.
Things would really be grim if, in the middle of next winter, Russia just shut the gas off.
What they’re paying for in July is natural gas for industrial heat and as feedstock for the chemical industry. At least a couple of officials have said that if Russia just shut the gas off today, the recession would be deep and long as large chunks of industrial Germany would shut down. My understanding is such a recession would soon ripple across much of central Europe.
Things would really be grim if, in the middle of next winter, Russia just shut the gas off.
What they’re paying for in July is natural gas for industrial heat and as feedstock for the chemical industry. At least a couple of officials have said that if Russia just shut the gas off today, the recession would be deep and long as large chunks of industrial Germany would shut down. My understanding is such a recession would soon ripple across much of central Europe.
The scary thing for me right now is: (1) the 2024 presidential election will most likely be determined by narrow margins in a small number of states that swing the Electoral College; (2) the top election officials in most of those states are being chosen this year, 2022; (3) in some of those states the Republican candidate for top election official is a Big Lie believer; and (4) those candidates seem to be saying that they will cheat in 2024 if that’s what it takes to produce EC votes for the Republican.
Even worse, perhaps… In 2020, the SCOTUS declined to let states challenge election results in other states. I see no reason today to believe that the same will hold true in 2024.
The scary thing for me right now is: (1) the 2024 presidential election will most likely be determined by narrow margins in a small number of states that swing the Electoral College; (2) the top election officials in most of those states are being chosen this year, 2022; (3) in some of those states the Republican candidate for top election official is a Big Lie believer; and (4) those candidates seem to be saying that they will cheat in 2024 if that’s what it takes to produce EC votes for the Republican.
Even worse, perhaps… In 2020, the SCOTUS declined to let states challenge election results in other states. I see no reason today to believe that the same will hold true in 2024.
In 2020, the SCOTUS declined to let states challenge election results in other states. I see no reason today to believe that the same will hold true in 2024.
Unless, of course, it was other states challenging the refusal of those Big Lie believers to certify a Democratic win. They would naturally have no standing. Allowing Republican state officials to challenge other states, however, would not be a problem. Consistency not being a concern of political hacks.
In 2020, the SCOTUS declined to let states challenge election results in other states. I see no reason today to believe that the same will hold true in 2024.
Unless, of course, it was other states challenging the refusal of those Big Lie believers to certify a Democratic win. They would naturally have no standing. Allowing Republican state officials to challenge other states, however, would not be a problem. Consistency not being a concern of political hacks.
Since it’s an open thread… Today was one of the days when you say, “This is why I live in Colorado.” Left home about noon, bicycled nine miles along the river to one of the tourist places for their burger and a local beer out on the deck, then back home. Temperature was about 82 °F, humidity about 7%, deep blue sky, and bright sunshine. The river level was up from the end of the snow melt, so nicely noisy. Saw egrets, a fox, and paused at a safe distance while the skunk crossed the trail. Watched the kayakers and surfers in wet suits play in the whitewater park for a while. The water is actually still kind of a mess, what with ash still washing down from the burn scar from the big fire two years ago.
Since it’s an open thread… Today was one of the days when you say, “This is why I live in Colorado.” Left home about noon, bicycled nine miles along the river to one of the tourist places for their burger and a local beer out on the deck, then back home. Temperature was about 82 °F, humidity about 7%, deep blue sky, and bright sunshine. The river level was up from the end of the snow melt, so nicely noisy. Saw egrets, a fox, and paused at a safe distance while the skunk crossed the trail. Watched the kayakers and surfers in wet suits play in the whitewater park for a while. The water is actually still kind of a mess, what with ash still washing down from the burn scar from the big fire two years ago.
Gorgeous description, Michael Cain. I drove to and later home from my daughter’s so I could watch the grandkid for the day — I stick to back roads as much as I can, which let me to having to stop for 3 wild turkeys who weren’t in any hurry to decide which side of the road they wanted to be on; a deer that decided not to run out into my headlights a little while ago (thank goodness for that! I would definitely have hit it); and an osprey soaring high. June is a nice month here — for me it doesn’t pack the punch that April and May do, but it tends to have very nice weather preceding the heat of July and some of August.
Gorgeous description, Michael Cain. I drove to and later home from my daughter’s so I could watch the grandkid for the day — I stick to back roads as much as I can, which let me to having to stop for 3 wild turkeys who weren’t in any hurry to decide which side of the road they wanted to be on; a deer that decided not to run out into my headlights a little while ago (thank goodness for that! I would definitely have hit it); and an osprey soaring high. June is a nice month here — for me it doesn’t pack the punch that April and May do, but it tends to have very nice weather preceding the heat of July and some of August.
I don’t have a good sense for tone or presentation (as my contributions here can attest) but I haven’t been all that impressed with the Jan 6 hearings so far. Maybe it’s my northeastern ear, but Bennie Thompson – who I think is one of the good guys – has that languid southern accent with all the urgency of watching the world gone by. Very-disappointed-with-your-behavior Schoolmarm Cheney’s lecture tested my attention span – and I’ve had this on my calendar since it was announced. Then a break. Then the milling about and call back to order. Finally, after over an hour, previously unseen footage! And it was powerful. Depressingly and particularly, “White Power”-ful. But my shock & outrage meter asploded way back when I saw gallows erected in front of the Capitol.
Can’t wait for Day 2 of this completely sensible schedule:
Thursday, June 9, 8PM EDT
Monday, June 13, 10AM EDT
Wednesday, June 15, 10AM EDT (cancelled/postponed, for “logistical” reasons)
Thursday, June 16, 10AM EDT
Tuesday, June 21, 10AM EDT
Thursday, June 23 8PM EDT
So anyway, Monday was sober and methodical and matter-of-fact. After exhaustive investigation, no reasonable person could possibly believe that rampant election fraud was responsible for Biden’s victory, the retroactively self-proclaimed voices-of-reason-in-the-room told the guy who wants to nuke hurricanes.
And then we get this gem:
“The January 6th Select Committee has not issued a conclusion regarding potential criminal referrals. We will announce a decision on that at an appropriate time.”
Wat???!
Assuming there is indictable evidence (and I still don’t understand what part of the Raffensperger call alone is not that), I would’ve gone with:
“Here’s a list of who we found to have engaged in [whatever criminal activity]. The following presentations will demonstrate how and why we have reached these conclusions.”
This would have given Garland and DoJ a full 2 weeks notice to formulate a plan on how they would go about doing nothing.
Instead we’re getting a miniseries cliffhanger:
“Will they or won’t they make… a recommendation! Don’t miss (especially You, DoJ!) the must-see finalé to the Select Committee’s Insurrection PowerPoint! Tune in Thursday, June 23 at 8PM ET!”*
*(Unless we have trouble embedding the video again, in which case, TBD. How’s your Tuesday?)
I dunno. 20 million viewers is more than I expected. Maybe after 2 impeachments, this is the thing that moves the needle. Crammed in with inflation, Ukraine, mass shootings, your gas-informed 4th of July Staycation, and an imminent ruling to declare women** chattel from that building over there – the one past the gallows – I just don’t know.
It all feels like a slow burn to nowhere. Again. And I am burnt the fuck out.
**To be fair, this ruling applies equally to all people with a uterus.
I don’t have a good sense for tone or presentation (as my contributions here can attest) but I haven’t been all that impressed with the Jan 6 hearings so far. Maybe it’s my northeastern ear, but Bennie Thompson – who I think is one of the good guys – has that languid southern accent with all the urgency of watching the world gone by. Very-disappointed-with-your-behavior Schoolmarm Cheney’s lecture tested my attention span – and I’ve had this on my calendar since it was announced. Then a break. Then the milling about and call back to order. Finally, after over an hour, previously unseen footage! And it was powerful. Depressingly and particularly, “White Power”-ful. But my shock & outrage meter asploded way back when I saw gallows erected in front of the Capitol.
Can’t wait for Day 2 of this completely sensible schedule:
Thursday, June 9, 8PM EDT
Monday, June 13, 10AM EDT
Wednesday, June 15, 10AM EDT (cancelled/postponed, for “logistical” reasons)
Thursday, June 16, 10AM EDT
Tuesday, June 21, 10AM EDT
Thursday, June 23 8PM EDT
So anyway, Monday was sober and methodical and matter-of-fact. After exhaustive investigation, no reasonable person could possibly believe that rampant election fraud was responsible for Biden’s victory, the retroactively self-proclaimed voices-of-reason-in-the-room told the guy who wants to nuke hurricanes.
And then we get this gem:
“The January 6th Select Committee has not issued a conclusion regarding potential criminal referrals. We will announce a decision on that at an appropriate time.”
Wat???!
Assuming there is indictable evidence (and I still don’t understand what part of the Raffensperger call alone is not that), I would’ve gone with:
“Here’s a list of who we found to have engaged in [whatever criminal activity]. The following presentations will demonstrate how and why we have reached these conclusions.”
This would have given Garland and DoJ a full 2 weeks notice to formulate a plan on how they would go about doing nothing.
Instead we’re getting a miniseries cliffhanger:
“Will they or won’t they make… a recommendation! Don’t miss (especially You, DoJ!) the must-see finalé to the Select Committee’s Insurrection PowerPoint! Tune in Thursday, June 23 at 8PM ET!”*
*(Unless we have trouble embedding the video again, in which case, TBD. How’s your Tuesday?)
I dunno. 20 million viewers is more than I expected. Maybe after 2 impeachments, this is the thing that moves the needle. Crammed in with inflation, Ukraine, mass shootings, your gas-informed 4th of July Staycation, and an imminent ruling to declare women** chattel from that building over there – the one past the gallows – I just don’t know.
It all feels like a slow burn to nowhere. Again. And I am burnt the fuck out.
**To be fair, this ruling applies equally to all people with a uterus.
Today was one of the days when you say, “This is why I live in Colorado.” . . . Temperature was about 82 °F, humidity about 7%, deep blue sky, and bright sunshine.
I take it you’re being missed by the storm which has been flooding Yellowstone. (Although, if it had run south towards you, the Colorado River might be getting a much needed shot in the arm.)
Today was one of the days when you say, “This is why I live in Colorado.” . . . Temperature was about 82 °F, humidity about 7%, deep blue sky, and bright sunshine.
I take it you’re being missed by the storm which has been flooding Yellowstone. (Although, if it had run south towards you, the Colorado River might be getting a much needed shot in the arm.)
The new McCarthyism.
https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-dei-crt-schools-parents
Long and very depressing read.
The new McCarthyism.
https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-dei-crt-schools-parents
Long and very depressing read.
Long and very depressing read.
So much energy put into absurd directions. It baffles me. If you’re more concerned about CRT than, um … let’s say – just as a completely random example – Great Replacement Theory, you’ve lost it.
Long and very depressing read.
So much energy put into absurd directions. It baffles me. If you’re more concerned about CRT than, um … let’s say – just as a completely random example – Great Replacement Theory, you’ve lost it.
I take it you’re being missed by the storm which has been flooding Yellowstone. (Although, if it had run south towards you, the Colorado River might be getting a much needed shot in the arm.)
We had the same late spring snows and the recent rain, but on a smaller scale. None of this helps the Colorado, since the Poudre locally and the Yellowstone up in Wyoming both drain into the Missouri River eventually.
Colorado is signatory to nine interstate river compacts, and subject to two more involuntary decrees from the SCOTUS, some dating back as far as 1921. None of them are going to age well under climate change.
I take it you’re being missed by the storm which has been flooding Yellowstone. (Although, if it had run south towards you, the Colorado River might be getting a much needed shot in the arm.)
We had the same late spring snows and the recent rain, but on a smaller scale. None of this helps the Colorado, since the Poudre locally and the Yellowstone up in Wyoming both drain into the Missouri River eventually.
Colorado is signatory to nine interstate river compacts, and subject to two more involuntary decrees from the SCOTUS, some dating back as far as 1921. None of them are going to age well under climate change.
So much energy put into absurd directions. It baffles me.
The (multi-great) grandchildren of the Confederates are sometimes still fighting their ancestors’ battle. Lost Cause though it is — or, at least, that we thought it was. Probably still is, but they are demonstrating that they still have the capacity to do damage.
So much energy put into absurd directions. It baffles me.
The (multi-great) grandchildren of the Confederates are sometimes still fighting their ancestors’ battle. Lost Cause though it is — or, at least, that we thought it was. Probably still is, but they are demonstrating that they still have the capacity to do damage.
Makes me want to teach The Crucible again.
Makes me want to teach The Crucible again.
We’ve been noting the impact (or lack of it) of the Jan 6 hearings, specifically on the Faux News audience. Simply because people hate to admit that they’ve been conned. Even if the evidence is extensive.
That said, consider the dramatic and unusual weather we’re seeing this year (again).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/06/16/drought-west-california-mountains/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/16/cattle-dead-kansas-heat-wave/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/06/15/heatwave-midwest-east-record-highs/
When it’s impacting you personally, it ceases to be about rejecting experts who might inconvenience you. It’s all about what’s happening to you right now — which you’re reminded of first hand, day after day.
It occurs to me to wonder whether accepting that they’ve been lied to by climate change denialists might lower the threshold for accepting that those same people have been lying about other things. Like the 2020 election.
We’ve been noting the impact (or lack of it) of the Jan 6 hearings, specifically on the Faux News audience. Simply because people hate to admit that they’ve been conned. Even if the evidence is extensive.
That said, consider the dramatic and unusual weather we’re seeing this year (again).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/06/16/drought-west-california-mountains/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/16/cattle-dead-kansas-heat-wave/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/06/15/heatwave-midwest-east-record-highs/
When it’s impacting you personally, it ceases to be about rejecting experts who might inconvenience you. It’s all about what’s happening to you right now — which you’re reminded of first hand, day after day.
It occurs to me to wonder whether accepting that they’ve been lied to by climate change denialists might lower the threshold for accepting that those same people have been lying about other things. Like the 2020 election.
Day 3 of the hearings.
I am told by people deeper in the weeds than I am that Luttig is worshipped by the right in the US, which makes me very slightly hopeful that his opinion and testimony will have done Trump real harm. But then again, that would only be with the kind of people who are obsessed by all of this, as well as legal reputations, whereas most Rs, especially MAGAts of course, aren’t paying any attention anyway.
His (Luttig’s) delivery is hysterical – the pauses and circumlocutions are almost a parody of eminent judgeship. I’m guessing they may, just possibly, lead any Rs who were watching to speculate that he is going gaga, of which (when you finally heard his endless sentences out) there was no sign.
Day 3 of the hearings.
I am told by people deeper in the weeds than I am that Luttig is worshipped by the right in the US, which makes me very slightly hopeful that his opinion and testimony will have done Trump real harm. But then again, that would only be with the kind of people who are obsessed by all of this, as well as legal reputations, whereas most Rs, especially MAGAts of course, aren’t paying any attention anyway.
His (Luttig’s) delivery is hysterical – the pauses and circumlocutions are almost a parody of eminent judgeship. I’m guessing they may, just possibly, lead any Rs who were watching to speculate that he is going gaga, of which (when you finally heard his endless sentences out) there was no sign.
Well, they didn’t go there on the Ginni Thomas stuff, but we can hope for the future.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/16/michael-luttig-jan-6-hearing-trump-gop/
Much of the GOP, Luttig will suggest, is still wedded to the idea that reversing the 2020 election might in some sense have been a legitimate or at least understandable mission. Many Republicans, he will say, have adopted the principle that a future overturned election might be needed “to accomplish that which the previous revolt failed to accomplish.”
Luttig warns this portends an era of dangerous democratic instability. He says only Republicans can end this madness: “Only the party that instigated this war over our democracy can bring an end to that war.”
Well, they didn’t go there on the Ginni Thomas stuff, but we can hope for the future.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/16/michael-luttig-jan-6-hearing-trump-gop/
Much of the GOP, Luttig will suggest, is still wedded to the idea that reversing the 2020 election might in some sense have been a legitimate or at least understandable mission. Many Republicans, he will say, have adopted the principle that a future overturned election might be needed “to accomplish that which the previous revolt failed to accomplish.”
Luttig warns this portends an era of dangerous democratic instability. He says only Republicans can end this madness: “Only the party that instigated this war over our democracy can bring an end to that war.”
wj, cynic that I am I’d say the next step after denying one has been duped is to find someone else to blame for it (ideally not the conman).
In politics it is ‘the GOP maybe conned me but it’s the Dems’ fault, so I have no choice but to vote GOP again but not for the RINOs I got duped by* but someone more conservative like that nice lady Lucille Fooote Balle.’
In related news: baby formula shortage worsens because the plant that produces nearly all of it just got flooded by rogue weather event. What’s the bet that this will be blamed on Biden and illegal immigrants again while we speak?
MTG probably still looking for a way to connect the alleged tampon shortage (that she now attributes to trans people) to Biden and the Illegals also (what type of band name is that btw?)
*and who did all the evil behind the back of our beloved leader in order to harm him, another proof of Dem perfidy.
wj, cynic that I am I’d say the next step after denying one has been duped is to find someone else to blame for it (ideally not the conman).
In politics it is ‘the GOP maybe conned me but it’s the Dems’ fault, so I have no choice but to vote GOP again but not for the RINOs I got duped by* but someone more conservative like that nice lady Lucille Fooote Balle.’
In related news: baby formula shortage worsens because the plant that produces nearly all of it just got flooded by rogue weather event. What’s the bet that this will be blamed on Biden and illegal immigrants again while we speak?
MTG probably still looking for a way to connect the alleged tampon shortage (that she now attributes to trans people) to Biden and the Illegals also (what type of band name is that btw?)
*and who did all the evil behind the back of our beloved leader in order to harm him, another proof of Dem perfidy.
In related news: baby formula shortage worsens
Unless you’ve got some source that Google won’t find for me, this is incredibly misleading. Here’s the conclusion of an article from Ars Technica:
Okay, 24% out of stock is worse than 22% , but a month or so ago when I first heard about the problem, the shelves were 99% empty, if not worse. Maybe the Ars Technica article is getting it wrong somehow, but if not, then this new problem is a very small setback in a generally improving situation.
In related news: baby formula shortage worsens
Unless you’ve got some source that Google won’t find for me, this is incredibly misleading. Here’s the conclusion of an article from Ars Technica:
Okay, 24% out of stock is worse than 22% , but a month or so ago when I first heard about the problem, the shelves were 99% empty, if not worse. Maybe the Ars Technica article is getting it wrong somehow, but if not, then this new problem is a very small setback in a generally improving situation.
Given how much effort the administration seems to put into solving the problem (that they did not cause in any way), improvements are to be expected. But it will not stop the demagougery in any meaningful way. Same with ‘Biden deliberately shortens supply of fossil fuel to force Americans to buy electric cars’ while in reality the opposite is true (under Biden, to the chagrin of environmentalists, more drilling licences are issued than under Jabbabonk and production is up too) and Mr.Tesla is now shmoozing with Florida’s despicable, fascist-in-all-but-name governor.
Given how much effort the administration seems to put into solving the problem (that they did not cause in any way), improvements are to be expected. But it will not stop the demagougery in any meaningful way. Same with ‘Biden deliberately shortens supply of fossil fuel to force Americans to buy electric cars’ while in reality the opposite is true (under Biden, to the chagrin of environmentalists, more drilling licences are issued than under Jabbabonk and production is up too) and Mr.Tesla is now shmoozing with Florida’s despicable, fascist-in-all-but-name governor.
Of course they’ll demagogue it, they’ll demagogue *anything.”
But your comment seemed to be directly asserting, as from you, that the crisis is getting worse. Not only that, I couldn’t find any evidence via Google that anyone has even noticed the bit about the flooding. So the comment was confusing.
Of course they’ll demagogue it, they’ll demagogue *anything.”
But your comment seemed to be directly asserting, as from you, that the crisis is getting worse. Not only that, I couldn’t find any evidence via Google that anyone has even noticed the bit about the flooding. So the comment was confusing.
…that about 24 percent of infant formula products were out of stock…
This is one of those statements that I expect the writer used because the editor told them to be precise. It’s not very helpful.
The similar one is “1% of the population dies from disease X”. That’s true if the situation is “everyone catches the disease, but 99% survive” or if it’s “1% catch the disease, and they all die of it”.
…that about 24 percent of infant formula products were out of stock…
This is one of those statements that I expect the writer used because the editor told them to be precise. It’s not very helpful.
The similar one is “1% of the population dies from disease X”. That’s true if the situation is “everyone catches the disease, but 99% survive” or if it’s “1% catch the disease, and they all die of it”.
We’re not supposed to take politicians at their word?!
“I Guarantee You We’re Going To End Fossil Fuels” —Joe Biden.
We’re not supposed to take politicians at their word?!
“I Guarantee You We’re Going To End Fossil Fuels” —Joe Biden.
what I’m taking away from the hearings is that our process for electing the POTUS is FUBAR. it’s overly complex and offers a disturbing number of opportunities for malicious interference and general f****ery. it relies on all parties acting in relatively good faith, which is demonstrably not something we can rely on anymore.
my solution is this: get rid of the god-damned electoral college. establish uniform national standards for who can vote and how they can vote. on election day, count up the votes, and whoever gets the most votes wins.
full stop.
not gonna happen, naturally. but this is not a difficult problem to solve in principle.
facilitate people’s ability to vote. count the votes. the one who gets the most votes wins.
I’m listening to the hearings with great interest, but I’m also not at all confident that they are going to change much. At best, enough (R)’s will be sufficiently embarrassed by Trump and his minions that he’ll never win an election again. which would be great, but in context it’s incredibly small beer. It’s like applauding the inability of an arsonist to try to burn your house down a second time.
Throw the mf in jail, along with Rudy and Eastman and all of the lesser members of Trump’s insane clown posse. for years. crush the asshole fascist crews like the proud boys and the oath keepers like bugs. make it perfectly clear to them that their behavior is going to earn them years and years of jail time, so that all the wanna-be’s think twice about trying any of this crap on, ever again.
help them understand what “personal responsibility” and “consequences of your actions” mean.
and get rid of the bizarre, antiquated, anti-democratic electoral college.
what I’m taking away from the hearings is that our process for electing the POTUS is FUBAR. it’s overly complex and offers a disturbing number of opportunities for malicious interference and general f****ery. it relies on all parties acting in relatively good faith, which is demonstrably not something we can rely on anymore.
my solution is this: get rid of the god-damned electoral college. establish uniform national standards for who can vote and how they can vote. on election day, count up the votes, and whoever gets the most votes wins.
full stop.
not gonna happen, naturally. but this is not a difficult problem to solve in principle.
facilitate people’s ability to vote. count the votes. the one who gets the most votes wins.
I’m listening to the hearings with great interest, but I’m also not at all confident that they are going to change much. At best, enough (R)’s will be sufficiently embarrassed by Trump and his minions that he’ll never win an election again. which would be great, but in context it’s incredibly small beer. It’s like applauding the inability of an arsonist to try to burn your house down a second time.
Throw the mf in jail, along with Rudy and Eastman and all of the lesser members of Trump’s insane clown posse. for years. crush the asshole fascist crews like the proud boys and the oath keepers like bugs. make it perfectly clear to them that their behavior is going to earn them years and years of jail time, so that all the wanna-be’s think twice about trying any of this crap on, ever again.
help them understand what “personal responsibility” and “consequences of your actions” mean.
and get rid of the bizarre, antiquated, anti-democratic electoral college.
It’s like applauding the inability of an arsonist to try to burn your house down a second time.
Cannot be bettered as a comparison. And, obvs, the rest of wrs.
It’s like applauding the inability of an arsonist to try to burn your house down a second time.
Cannot be bettered as a comparison. And, obvs, the rest of wrs.
Speaking of arsonists trying to burn your house down, this Ginni Thomas stuff is pretty interesting. Assuming the committee comes up with a lot more implicating her in efforts towards a coup, it will be fascinating to see how this affects her husband, and his tenure on the court. If I had to put money on it, I’d say no effect whatsoever, given the ongoing trashing of norms in the US (and of course, courtesy of BoJo) in the UK too.
Speaking of arsonists trying to burn your house down, this Ginni Thomas stuff is pretty interesting. Assuming the committee comes up with a lot more implicating her in efforts towards a coup, it will be fascinating to see how this affects her husband, and his tenure on the court. If I had to put money on it, I’d say no effect whatsoever, given the ongoing trashing of norms in the US (and of course, courtesy of BoJo) in the UK too.
On how successful the Rs were with Benghazi and other “no smoke without fire” propaganda.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/17/opinion/ginni-thomas-john-eastman.html
Not only did Ginni Thomas try to make herself a part of the effort to overthrow the government, but Justice Thomas was the only member of the court to vote in favor of Donald Trump’s attempt to shield his communications from congressional investigators, communications that would have included the messages between Mark Meadows and Ginni Thomas.
There is something suspect happening with the Supreme Court, and other constitutional officers have every right to criticize it. Democratic leaders in Congress should begin an investigation into Ginni Thomas’s activities and announce that they intend to speak to her husband as well. President Biden should tell the press that he supports that investigation and hopes to see answers. Rank-and-file Democrats should make a stink about potential corruption on the court whenever they have the opportunity. Impeachment should be on the table.
This probably won’t win votes. It could, however, capture the attention of the media and even put Republicans on the defensive. It is true that politics are unpredictable and that there’s no way to say exactly how a given choice will play out in the real world. But if the much maligned (and politically successful) investigations into Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s emails are any indication, real pressure might turn additional revelations into genuine liabilities for the Republican Party.
The easiest thing for Democrats to do, of course, is nothing — to steer away from open conflict and leave the controversy (and the questions) to the select committee. But if Democrats choose instead to act like a political party should, they would do well to remember that if the tables were turned, their opponents would not hesitate to use every argument, and every tool, at their disposal.
On how successful the Rs were with Benghazi and other “no smoke without fire” propaganda.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/17/opinion/ginni-thomas-john-eastman.html
Not only did Ginni Thomas try to make herself a part of the effort to overthrow the government, but Justice Thomas was the only member of the court to vote in favor of Donald Trump’s attempt to shield his communications from congressional investigators, communications that would have included the messages between Mark Meadows and Ginni Thomas.
There is something suspect happening with the Supreme Court, and other constitutional officers have every right to criticize it. Democratic leaders in Congress should begin an investigation into Ginni Thomas’s activities and announce that they intend to speak to her husband as well. President Biden should tell the press that he supports that investigation and hopes to see answers. Rank-and-file Democrats should make a stink about potential corruption on the court whenever they have the opportunity. Impeachment should be on the table.
This probably won’t win votes. It could, however, capture the attention of the media and even put Republicans on the defensive. It is true that politics are unpredictable and that there’s no way to say exactly how a given choice will play out in the real world. But if the much maligned (and politically successful) investigations into Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s emails are any indication, real pressure might turn additional revelations into genuine liabilities for the Republican Party.
The easiest thing for Democrats to do, of course, is nothing — to steer away from open conflict and leave the controversy (and the questions) to the select committee. But if Democrats choose instead to act like a political party should, they would do well to remember that if the tables were turned, their opponents would not hesitate to use every argument, and every tool, at their disposal.
what I’m taking away from the hearings is that our process for electing the POTUS is FUBAR. it’s overly complex and offers a disturbing number of opportunities for malicious interference and general f****ery.
It’s actually an inventive way of dealing with national elections, back when high speed travel was on horseback. It’s just that we never updated the process. Not for trains (which are substantially faster over long distances). Not for planes. Certainly not for electronic communications.
Now, it’s going to be hard, probably impossible, to change significantly. Small states aren’t going to go for straight popular vote (which would cut their influence). States where the state government might want to put up fraudulent electors won’t go for straight popular vote. Etc., etc., etc. 100% political reasons; 0% technical reasons. Sigh.
what I’m taking away from the hearings is that our process for electing the POTUS is FUBAR. it’s overly complex and offers a disturbing number of opportunities for malicious interference and general f****ery.
It’s actually an inventive way of dealing with national elections, back when high speed travel was on horseback. It’s just that we never updated the process. Not for trains (which are substantially faster over long distances). Not for planes. Certainly not for electronic communications.
Now, it’s going to be hard, probably impossible, to change significantly. Small states aren’t going to go for straight popular vote (which would cut their influence). States where the state government might want to put up fraudulent electors won’t go for straight popular vote. Etc., etc., etc. 100% political reasons; 0% technical reasons. Sigh.
But if the much maligned (and politically successful) investigations into Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s emails are any indication, real pressure might turn additional revelations into genuine liabilities for the Republican Party.
and if the tables were turned, their opponents would not hesitate to use every argument, and every tool, at their disposal.
I think this ignores the fact that the 2 parties are *not* alike, nor are they treated in the same way by the media. What works for Rs may backfire badly for Ds.
I guess I’ve gotten very, very cynical about all these people who know what the Democrats *really* ought to be doing. Comment is free and all, and worth what you pay for it most of the time.
But if the much maligned (and politically successful) investigations into Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s emails are any indication, real pressure might turn additional revelations into genuine liabilities for the Republican Party.
and if the tables were turned, their opponents would not hesitate to use every argument, and every tool, at their disposal.
I think this ignores the fact that the 2 parties are *not* alike, nor are they treated in the same way by the media. What works for Rs may backfire badly for Ds.
I guess I’ve gotten very, very cynical about all these people who know what the Democrats *really* ought to be doing. Comment is free and all, and worth what you pay for it most of the time.
sorry to be so grumpy…..there was a lot of interesting stuff in the passage GftNC quoted. And maybe it would be good for the Ds to be seen as coming out fighting more often, I don’t have a clue.
sorry to be so grumpy…..there was a lot of interesting stuff in the passage GftNC quoted. And maybe it would be good for the Ds to be seen as coming out fighting more often, I don’t have a clue.
Your grumpiness is totally understandable. But God knows the Ds have got to do something, so personally I’m open to suggestions.
Your grumpiness is totally understandable. But God knows the Ds have got to do something, so personally I’m open to suggestions.
Small states aren’t going to go for straight popular vote
Is the POTUS the president of the people, or of the states?
I’m less concerned about the influence of RI and WY, and more concerned about the influence of the people who live in those states.
If you live in WY and want to vote for a (D) POTUS, you might as well stay home.
If you live in MA and want to vote for a (R) POTUS, you might as well stay home.
In both cases, your vote is of no practical consequence. None.
Small states aren’t going to go for straight popular vote
Is the POTUS the president of the people, or of the states?
I’m less concerned about the influence of RI and WY, and more concerned about the influence of the people who live in those states.
If you live in WY and want to vote for a (D) POTUS, you might as well stay home.
If you live in MA and want to vote for a (R) POTUS, you might as well stay home.
In both cases, your vote is of no practical consequence. None.
Is the POTUS the president of the people, or of the states?
The thing is, changing the Electoral College to a straight popular vote requires amending the Constitution. Which requires ratification by 3/4 of the states. Not the population, the state legislatures. That, for example, is where the Equal Rights Amendment died.
Is the POTUS the president of the people, or of the states?
The thing is, changing the Electoral College to a straight popular vote requires amending the Constitution. Which requires ratification by 3/4 of the states. Not the population, the state legislatures. That, for example, is where the Equal Rights Amendment died.
changing the Electoral College to a straight popular vote requires amending the Constitution.
yes, I understand that, and I have no expectation whatsoever that the EC will be eliminated or even changed in any substantive way. no expectation at all, full stop.
my comment was to challenge the idea that the interests of smaller population states should override those of the people as a whole. including the people who live in those smaller population states, whose interests are often overridden if they are not aligned with majority opinion in that state. even when they align with majority opinion nationally.
I recognize that it’s not going anywhere, and I also maintain that it’s a dysfunctional and actually harmful way to elect a POTUS. You can have a POTUS who *does not* have the support of the majority of the people in the country, and in fact that has happened twice so far in a generation.
changing the Electoral College to a straight popular vote requires amending the Constitution.
yes, I understand that, and I have no expectation whatsoever that the EC will be eliminated or even changed in any substantive way. no expectation at all, full stop.
my comment was to challenge the idea that the interests of smaller population states should override those of the people as a whole. including the people who live in those smaller population states, whose interests are often overridden if they are not aligned with majority opinion in that state. even when they align with majority opinion nationally.
I recognize that it’s not going anywhere, and I also maintain that it’s a dysfunctional and actually harmful way to elect a POTUS. You can have a POTUS who *does not* have the support of the majority of the people in the country, and in fact that has happened twice so far in a generation.
The idea that the interests of smaller population states should override those of the people as a whole is a close relative of the idea that the interests of some people should override the interests of others.
I give you the Senate.
A resident of Wyoming, the least populous state, has 3.7 times the weight in Congress (counting both houses) of a Californian.
In the Senate, which is worth considering separately given its power to bring legislation and judicial appointments to a standstill, a resident of Wyoming has 68 times the leverage of a Californian.
How is this not fucked up?
But yes, it’s not going to change without a reboot, a civil war, a miracle?
The idea that the interests of smaller population states should override those of the people as a whole is a close relative of the idea that the interests of some people should override the interests of others.
I give you the Senate.
A resident of Wyoming, the least populous state, has 3.7 times the weight in Congress (counting both houses) of a Californian.
In the Senate, which is worth considering separately given its power to bring legislation and judicial appointments to a standstill, a resident of Wyoming has 68 times the leverage of a Californian.
How is this not fucked up?
But yes, it’s not going to change without a reboot, a civil war, a miracle?
In the Senate, which is worth considering separately given its power to bring legislation and judicial appointments to a standstill, a resident of Wyoming has 68 times the leverage of a Californian.
Whereas, in 1789, a (free, white, male) resident of Delaware had merely 10 times the weight in the Senate as a resident of Pennsylvania or Virginia.
One other difference being that political parties, let alone voting a straight party ticket, were not part of the original plan.
One could almost suspect that the “wisdom of the founders” had some gaps.
In the Senate, which is worth considering separately given its power to bring legislation and judicial appointments to a standstill, a resident of Wyoming has 68 times the leverage of a Californian.
Whereas, in 1789, a (free, white, male) resident of Delaware had merely 10 times the weight in the Senate as a resident of Pennsylvania or Virginia.
One other difference being that political parties, let alone voting a straight party ticket, were not part of the original plan.
One could almost suspect that the “wisdom of the founders” had some gaps.
I don’t have time to hunt down more numbers right now, but the # of people represented by a house member originally was a small fraction of that # now. I don’t know what that suggests, except that a country this big is unwieldy to govern by any means.
But then again, so is my town of 2,500 people.
I don’t have time to hunt down more numbers right now, but the # of people represented by a house member originally was a small fraction of that # now. I don’t know what that suggests, except that a country this big is unwieldy to govern by any means.
But then again, so is my town of 2,500 people.
January 6 is a niche issue, almost as much as Yemen or Palestine. ( Btw, there is now a truce in Yemen— I give little credit to Biden and think it is because the Saudis couldn’t defend themselves from Houthi missiles. The Saudis are not just bullies, but incompetent bullies, even with our help.)
I am exaggerating quite a bit— there are many more people who care about Jan 6 than the issues I rant about. But most of those people are hardcore Democrats and of course the never Trump Republicans. Maybe Democrats could make political gains if they yelled more about Trump’s obvious criminality and Justice Thomas’s wife, but I doubt it.
The economy, as is normally the case, is what is likely to decide the elections and it is likely to be too late to avoid a disaster in 2022. I have no idea what to do about 2024. But Dean Baker thinks that, as usual, the press is slanting the coverage of the economy in ways that hurt the Democrats. I don’t know what to do about that either, but it probably is worth thinking about—
https://cepr.net/will-cnn-put-donald-trump-back-in-the-white-house/
January 6 is a niche issue, almost as much as Yemen or Palestine. ( Btw, there is now a truce in Yemen— I give little credit to Biden and think it is because the Saudis couldn’t defend themselves from Houthi missiles. The Saudis are not just bullies, but incompetent bullies, even with our help.)
I am exaggerating quite a bit— there are many more people who care about Jan 6 than the issues I rant about. But most of those people are hardcore Democrats and of course the never Trump Republicans. Maybe Democrats could make political gains if they yelled more about Trump’s obvious criminality and Justice Thomas’s wife, but I doubt it.
The economy, as is normally the case, is what is likely to decide the elections and it is likely to be too late to avoid a disaster in 2022. I have no idea what to do about 2024. But Dean Baker thinks that, as usual, the press is slanting the coverage of the economy in ways that hurt the Democrats. I don’t know what to do about that either, but it probably is worth thinking about—
https://cepr.net/will-cnn-put-donald-trump-back-in-the-white-house/
January 6 is a niche issue
I’m not following you on this.
A sitting president incited a mob to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, an even unprecedented in our history.
How is that niche?
The Saudis are not just bullies, but incompetent bullies
May all bullies be just so.
The economy, as is normally the case, is what is likely to decide the elections
Agreed.
January 6 is a niche issue
I’m not following you on this.
A sitting president incited a mob to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, an even unprecedented in our history.
How is that niche?
The Saudis are not just bullies, but incompetent bullies
May all bullies be just so.
The economy, as is normally the case, is what is likely to decide the elections
Agreed.
Niche in the sense that the people who care about it appear to be the people who were going to vote against Trump anyway.
How is a genocidal war a niche issue? Because the majority of people don’t care and it had little effect on Presidential elections in 2016 or 2020.
Hell, the most important issue of all ( except nuclear war) is climate change and it is way down on the list of what decides elections. Gas prices matter far more. ( I can’t blame people for this— if transportation costs are a big part of one’s household budget of course it will loom very large.)
Niche issues are often extremely important. It doesn’t mean they have much effect on who wins an election.
Niche in the sense that the people who care about it appear to be the people who were going to vote against Trump anyway.
How is a genocidal war a niche issue? Because the majority of people don’t care and it had little effect on Presidential elections in 2016 or 2020.
Hell, the most important issue of all ( except nuclear war) is climate change and it is way down on the list of what decides elections. Gas prices matter far more. ( I can’t blame people for this— if transportation costs are a big part of one’s household budget of course it will loom very large.)
Niche issues are often extremely important. It doesn’t mean they have much effect on who wins an election.
Republicans use niche issues to increase turn out. Actually, they often us nonexistent issues to increase turnout, but the principle is the same: get your voters riled up about something they care about (even if no one else does) and they will show up. It can make the difference in the outcome of an election, particularly in the off years.
Republicans use niche issues to increase turn out. Actually, they often us nonexistent issues to increase turnout, but the principle is the same: get your voters riled up about something they care about (even if no one else does) and they will show up. It can make the difference in the outcome of an election, particularly in the off years.
“But if Democrats choose instead to act like a political party should, they would do well to remember that if the tables were turned, their opponents would not hesitate to use every argument, and every tool, at their disposal.”
The problem with the “Democrats must be careful or they will trigger Republican spite and vengefulness” argument is that Congressional Republicans are always spiteful and vengeful no matter what. That’s how they please their base. THey only way to avoid their spite and vengefulness is to be a Republican and even that won’t work if you don’t toe the MAGGOT party line.
Part of the double standard in play in our culture is that Democrats are often assumed to be responsible or to blame for Republican behavior.
“But if Democrats choose instead to act like a political party should, they would do well to remember that if the tables were turned, their opponents would not hesitate to use every argument, and every tool, at their disposal.”
The problem with the “Democrats must be careful or they will trigger Republican spite and vengefulness” argument is that Congressional Republicans are always spiteful and vengeful no matter what. That’s how they please their base. THey only way to avoid their spite and vengefulness is to be a Republican and even that won’t work if you don’t toe the MAGGOT party line.
Part of the double standard in play in our culture is that Democrats are often assumed to be responsible or to blame for Republican behavior.
Niche issues are often extremely important. It doesn’t mean they have much effect on who wins an election.
cool, I follow what you’re saying now. and don’t disagree.
thanks Donald!
Niche issues are often extremely important. It doesn’t mean they have much effect on who wins an election.
cool, I follow what you’re saying now. and don’t disagree.
thanks Donald!
The problem with the “Democrats must be careful or they will trigger Republican spite and vengefulness” argument is that Congressional Republicans are always spiteful and vengeful no matter what. That’s how they please their base. THey only way to avoid their spite and vengefulness is to be a Republican and even that won’t work if you don’t toe the MAGGOT party line.
Say rather that the only way to avoid it is to beat the spiteful and vengeful at the polls. Early and often. If it stops working to win elections, they
willmay** move on to something else. But probably not otherwise.** I wrote this originally as “will”. Then I considered that the Republican Party in my state has stuck with an election-losing approach for over a quarter of a century now. But I really don’t see any other strategy which seems likely to work.
The problem with the “Democrats must be careful or they will trigger Republican spite and vengefulness” argument is that Congressional Republicans are always spiteful and vengeful no matter what. That’s how they please their base. THey only way to avoid their spite and vengefulness is to be a Republican and even that won’t work if you don’t toe the MAGGOT party line.
Say rather that the only way to avoid it is to beat the spiteful and vengeful at the polls. Early and often. If it stops working to win elections, they
willmay** move on to something else. But probably not otherwise.** I wrote this originally as “will”. Then I considered that the Republican Party in my state has stuck with an election-losing approach for over a quarter of a century now. But I really don’t see any other strategy which seems likely to work.
I hadn’t thought of the turnout effect. That might work.
But my other point was the one Baker was making— the economy is often or usually the deciding factor and if all that anyone talks about is the inflation problem and this is solved by creating a recession, the Democrats are doomed. Baker seems to be suggesting that people stress the positive side of Biden’s record— very low unemployment.
And try to avoid creating a recession. I have no idea if this is useful advice.
I hadn’t thought of the turnout effect. That might work.
But my other point was the one Baker was making— the economy is often or usually the deciding factor and if all that anyone talks about is the inflation problem and this is solved by creating a recession, the Democrats are doomed. Baker seems to be suggesting that people stress the positive side of Biden’s record— very low unemployment.
And try to avoid creating a recession. I have no idea if this is useful advice.
Shades of Ted Cruz!
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2022/06/17/montanas-governor-on-secret-vacation-as-floods-rage/
At least Gov. Gianforte left before the disaster hit. But you have to wonder why his staff refuses to reveal where he’s gone.** Other than that he’s left the country.
** Update: he’s been spotted in Tuscany.
Shades of Ted Cruz!
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2022/06/17/montanas-governor-on-secret-vacation-as-floods-rage/
At least Gov. Gianforte left before the disaster hit. But you have to wonder why his staff refuses to reveal where he’s gone.** Other than that he’s left the country.
** Update: he’s been spotted in Tuscany.
I agree that the economy probably motivates more people than anything else. Most of the time. Republican voters are motivated by their resentment and grievance over imaginary threats and slights. Some Republican voters are motivated by their desire to create an oligarchy, the permanent Republican majority De Lay talked about.
Democrats like me are motivated by issues that rarely affect me personally. I’m pretty oriented toward abstract principles. I think that people like me are a minority even among Democrats. Independents usually aren’t independent. THey usually vote predictably for one party or the other.
I’m not sure that elections have a whole lot to do with what conclusion voters have come to on an issue. I think it is more a matter of who shows up. Karl ROve understood this which is why he decided decades ago to use wedge issues and deliberately divisive us-versus-them rhetoric to create a base of voters who felt compelled to show and vote R regardless of all other factors.
I agree that the economy probably motivates more people than anything else. Most of the time. Republican voters are motivated by their resentment and grievance over imaginary threats and slights. Some Republican voters are motivated by their desire to create an oligarchy, the permanent Republican majority De Lay talked about.
Democrats like me are motivated by issues that rarely affect me personally. I’m pretty oriented toward abstract principles. I think that people like me are a minority even among Democrats. Independents usually aren’t independent. THey usually vote predictably for one party or the other.
I’m not sure that elections have a whole lot to do with what conclusion voters have come to on an issue. I think it is more a matter of who shows up. Karl ROve understood this which is why he decided decades ago to use wedge issues and deliberately divisive us-versus-them rhetoric to create a base of voters who felt compelled to show and vote R regardless of all other factors.
One other difference being that political parties, let alone voting a straight party ticket, were not part of the original plan.
But the electoral protocols established in the Constitution pretty much made a two party split a statistical likelihood. The founders were good at political philosophy, but bad at game theory.
That the US has lasted this long is a miracle, and a testament to sunk cost. And if it lasts out my expected lifetime, it will likely be because people decide *not* to follow the Constitution in order to preserve the Constitution.
Our fate entirely depends on who holds power in that moment of exception.
One other difference being that political parties, let alone voting a straight party ticket, were not part of the original plan.
But the electoral protocols established in the Constitution pretty much made a two party split a statistical likelihood. The founders were good at political philosophy, but bad at game theory.
That the US has lasted this long is a miracle, and a testament to sunk cost. And if it lasts out my expected lifetime, it will likely be because people decide *not* to follow the Constitution in order to preserve the Constitution.
Our fate entirely depends on who holds power in that moment of exception.
Baker seems to be suggesting that people stress the positive side of Biden’s record— very low unemployment.
It is nothing short of amazing that the Democrats are not blanketing the airwaves trumpeting the unemployment rate. Complete with comparisons to unemployment under Trump.
And wouldn’t it be amusing if they chose to run some of those ads on Fox? Especially on the shows of the twits like Carlson and Hannity. Get to the population which might care where they (for better or, mostly, worse) actually live.
Baker seems to be suggesting that people stress the positive side of Biden’s record— very low unemployment.
It is nothing short of amazing that the Democrats are not blanketing the airwaves trumpeting the unemployment rate. Complete with comparisons to unemployment under Trump.
And wouldn’t it be amusing if they chose to run some of those ads on Fox? Especially on the shows of the twits like Carlson and Hannity. Get to the population which might care where they (for better or, mostly, worse) actually live.
if it lasts out my expected lifetime, it will likely be because people decide *not* to follow the Constitution in order to preserve the Constitution.
Ditto if it fails to last. Which is why we are facing a critical moment.
if it lasts out my expected lifetime, it will likely be because people decide *not* to follow the Constitution in order to preserve the Constitution.
Ditto if it fails to last. Which is why we are facing a critical moment.
I just wish that Congress paid more attention to its Constitutional powers, and gave me a Letter of Marque to seize Russian Oligarch yachts.
I even have a Jolly Roger flag! Arrr!
I just wish that Congress paid more attention to its Constitutional powers, and gave me a Letter of Marque to seize Russian Oligarch yachts.
I even have a Jolly Roger flag! Arrr!
I’ll tell you one thing: Luttig might have sounded like a ridiculous parody of judicial pause and circumlocution, but the man can write. And write to the point. The opening paragraph (and sentence) of his written submission to the committee is as follows:
A stake was driven through the heart of American democracy on January 6, 2021, and our democracy today is on a knife’s edge.
I can’t remember where I got this, but if it was here, forgive me for reposting. It bears rereading.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22061497/jml-final.pdf
I’ll tell you one thing: Luttig might have sounded like a ridiculous parody of judicial pause and circumlocution, but the man can write. And write to the point. The opening paragraph (and sentence) of his written submission to the committee is as follows:
A stake was driven through the heart of American democracy on January 6, 2021, and our democracy today is on a knife’s edge.
I can’t remember where I got this, but if it was here, forgive me for reposting. It bears rereading.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22061497/jml-final.pdf
Oh great, Assange’s extradition approve by Patel – good times for investigative journalists and whistleblowers:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/17/britain-julian-assange-extradition-priti-patel-us
Oh great, Assange’s extradition approve by Patel – good times for investigative journalists and whistleblowers:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/17/britain-julian-assange-extradition-priti-patel-us
I agree with this piece (posted by Alan Rusbridger, retired editor of the Guardian) by Andrew Neil, (who whatever his ideological leanings is at least a responsible and respectable journalist). The headline (I haven’t read the piece yet, the Mail not being on my usual to-do list) is:
Assange is a reckless narcissist – but he exposed the truth and should NOT rot in an American jail
https://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/1538100980595798016/photo/1
I agree with this piece (posted by Alan Rusbridger, retired editor of the Guardian) by Andrew Neil, (who whatever his ideological leanings is at least a responsible and respectable journalist). The headline (I haven’t read the piece yet, the Mail not being on my usual to-do list) is:
Assange is a reckless narcissist – but he exposed the truth and should NOT rot in an American jail
https://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/1538100980595798016/photo/1
Another very well-known rightwing journalist on the Assange case:
Britain has approved Assange’s extradition – war criminals and murderers, rejoice – Priti Patel’s decision to hand over the WikiLeaks co-founder shows the price of investigative journalism anywhere the US holds sway
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/17/britain-julian-assange-extradition-priti-patel-us
Another very well-known rightwing journalist on the Assange case:
Britain has approved Assange’s extradition – war criminals and murderers, rejoice – Priti Patel’s decision to hand over the WikiLeaks co-founder shows the price of investigative journalism anywhere the US holds sway
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/17/britain-julian-assange-extradition-priti-patel-us
The point of the Jan 6 commission is to salvage the Republican Party, the only organization with a hope of reining in the planned nullification of elections, and blunting the threat of organized violence against (some) voting and vote counting. That’s the point of only Republican testimony.
If everyone from Trump to Coffee Boy Papadopalous is thrown in prison, you still have DeSantis and a dozen others standing by, only the Party as an institution can abandon sedition and violence, and stick to gerrymandering and ratfucking to steal elections. I suspect DOJ is focused on Proud Boys et al as a serious paramilitary threat outside any organization’s control, easily capable of disrupting state and local election processes.
The point of the Jan 6 commission is to salvage the Republican Party, the only organization with a hope of reining in the planned nullification of elections, and blunting the threat of organized violence against (some) voting and vote counting. That’s the point of only Republican testimony.
If everyone from Trump to Coffee Boy Papadopalous is thrown in prison, you still have DeSantis and a dozen others standing by, only the Party as an institution can abandon sedition and violence, and stick to gerrymandering and ratfucking to steal elections. I suspect DOJ is focused on Proud Boys et al as a serious paramilitary threat outside any organization’s control, easily capable of disrupting state and local election processes.
A completely different sort of question (strictly USAsian)… Geico Insurance has a series of commercials where people live in a wonderful home with a small problem. One of them has “an animal in the attic,” which is Animal the Muppet and his drum set. One of them has “a clogging problem,” which is a family of clog dancers that live upstairs. Today I saw one where the problem is that the Thors from Thor: Love and Thunder live next door. Electric lights flicker, the homeowners’ dog chases the flying hammer, etc. Last few seconds of the commercial has a quick flash with publicity shots of Hemsworth and Portman.
So, who pays whom for a joint ad like that? Who even thinks up a joint ad like that?
A completely different sort of question (strictly USAsian)… Geico Insurance has a series of commercials where people live in a wonderful home with a small problem. One of them has “an animal in the attic,” which is Animal the Muppet and his drum set. One of them has “a clogging problem,” which is a family of clog dancers that live upstairs. Today I saw one where the problem is that the Thors from Thor: Love and Thunder live next door. Electric lights flicker, the homeowners’ dog chases the flying hammer, etc. Last few seconds of the commercial has a quick flash with publicity shots of Hemsworth and Portman.
So, who pays whom for a joint ad like that? Who even thinks up a joint ad like that?
“Who even thinks up a joint ad like that?”
Sounds like the product of a late-night brainstorming session, when inhibitions are down and imaginations run wild.
Alcohol may have been involved.
“Who even thinks up a joint ad like that?”
Sounds like the product of a late-night brainstorming session, when inhibitions are down and imaginations run wild.
Alcohol may have been involved.
And further to RWNJ (or other) speculation as to the cause of Judge Luttig’s ponderous delivery, the judge himself speaks. And again, speaks well. He was replying to a Vanity Fair writer who said:
“I like how this guy treats every line of his testimony like he’s engraving it on a national monument. And frankly, he really *is* engraving it for history. And he seems to know it.
“I also respect, despite how halting he may sound, that Luttig is not setting himself up to be a mere soundbite maker. He’s speaking to history, not TV”. “His sobriety, his graveness, his hallowedness, is so foreign to our modern sensibilities – but that’s the point. That is the precise point.”
https://www.rawstory.com/michael-luttig-speaks/
And further to RWNJ (or other) speculation as to the cause of Judge Luttig’s ponderous delivery, the judge himself speaks. And again, speaks well. He was replying to a Vanity Fair writer who said:
“I like how this guy treats every line of his testimony like he’s engraving it on a national monument. And frankly, he really *is* engraving it for history. And he seems to know it.
“I also respect, despite how halting he may sound, that Luttig is not setting himself up to be a mere soundbite maker. He’s speaking to history, not TV”. “His sobriety, his graveness, his hallowedness, is so foreign to our modern sensibilities – but that’s the point. That is the precise point.”
https://www.rawstory.com/michael-luttig-speaks/
“If everyone from Trump to Coffee Boy Papadopalous is thrown in prison, you still have DeSantis and a dozen others standing by, only the Party as an institution can abandon sedition and violence, and stick to gerrymandering and ratfucking to steal elections. I suspect DOJ is focused on Proud Boys et al as a serious paramilitary threat outside any organization’s control, easily capable of disrupting state and local election processes.”
I agree in part, but with a degree or two more cynicism. The Republican party leaders decided decades ago to end representative government in the US> Tom De Lay spoke of a one -party state way back during the Bush admin. THey all are focused on ending democracy as we know it. They want a government like Russia’s: oligarchs in charge, fake elections, just enough shared prosperity to avoid revolution, total control over media.
The problem they have had with Trump all along has been their fear that he would throw a spanner in their works by making them lose elections. However, over and over Trump has shown that there is no low too low to go for Republican voters. The rank and file Republicans may not be pro-oligarchy, but they are completely fine with fascism.
The danger now faced by the Republican party leadership is that their dingbat hater based will nominate unelectable people and screw up local elections in an embarrassingly stupid way like the fiasco in Otero County New Mexico. They want to end democracy through the courts with tactics like this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justices-seem-poised-to-hear-elections-case-pressed-by-gop/ar-AAYCYqE?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=dbeacc2397284c4d9b42e84810f107aa&fbclid=IwAR0rGuAu0JyB2bmVRKauT_2Vs5-YOnVFt_13rHzt1DACZeLYDGOddUwfd2Y
We could probably save America if it wasn’t for Manchin and Semina. The Republicans will not save us. They are committed to killing the US. And I think they will succeed.
That hasn’t stopped me from trying. I am giving about two hundred and fifty dollars a month away to various candidates and GOTV campaigns. Through Vote Forward and other letter writing campaigns, I have written over five hundred letters and I do ten a day.
However, if I was young, I would emigrate to somewhere else.
“If everyone from Trump to Coffee Boy Papadopalous is thrown in prison, you still have DeSantis and a dozen others standing by, only the Party as an institution can abandon sedition and violence, and stick to gerrymandering and ratfucking to steal elections. I suspect DOJ is focused on Proud Boys et al as a serious paramilitary threat outside any organization’s control, easily capable of disrupting state and local election processes.”
I agree in part, but with a degree or two more cynicism. The Republican party leaders decided decades ago to end representative government in the US> Tom De Lay spoke of a one -party state way back during the Bush admin. THey all are focused on ending democracy as we know it. They want a government like Russia’s: oligarchs in charge, fake elections, just enough shared prosperity to avoid revolution, total control over media.
The problem they have had with Trump all along has been their fear that he would throw a spanner in their works by making them lose elections. However, over and over Trump has shown that there is no low too low to go for Republican voters. The rank and file Republicans may not be pro-oligarchy, but they are completely fine with fascism.
The danger now faced by the Republican party leadership is that their dingbat hater based will nominate unelectable people and screw up local elections in an embarrassingly stupid way like the fiasco in Otero County New Mexico. They want to end democracy through the courts with tactics like this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justices-seem-poised-to-hear-elections-case-pressed-by-gop/ar-AAYCYqE?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=dbeacc2397284c4d9b42e84810f107aa&fbclid=IwAR0rGuAu0JyB2bmVRKauT_2Vs5-YOnVFt_13rHzt1DACZeLYDGOddUwfd2Y
We could probably save America if it wasn’t for Manchin and Semina. The Republicans will not save us. They are committed to killing the US. And I think they will succeed.
That hasn’t stopped me from trying. I am giving about two hundred and fifty dollars a month away to various candidates and GOTV campaigns. Through Vote Forward and other letter writing campaigns, I have written over five hundred letters and I do ten a day.
However, if I was young, I would emigrate to somewhere else.
IS there a way to edit a post after it has been posted? It seems to be a rule for me that I can’t see typos until AFTER I hit post. Embarrassing.
IS there a way to edit a post after it has been posted? It seems to be a rule for me that I can’t see typos until AFTER I hit post. Embarrassing.
There’s no way to edit after the fact, sad to say. I’m the same way: even when I think I’ve proofread a comment, there are typos. Luckily, we aren’t being graded. Or rated! 😉
There’s no way to edit after the fact, sad to say. I’m the same way: even when I think I’ve proofread a comment, there are typos. Luckily, we aren’t being graded. Or rated! 😉
It generally takes me 3 passes thru Preview to catch most of my typos.
(Just watching a youtube video** where the slogan is “We do it right because we do it twice!” If only I was that good.)
** Actually, sort-of listening as my wife watchs it. Something like Fab Rats.
It generally takes me 3 passes thru Preview to catch most of my typos.
(Just watching a youtube video** where the slogan is “We do it right because we do it twice!” If only I was that good.)
** Actually, sort-of listening as my wife watchs it. Something like Fab Rats.
The danger now faced by the Republican party leadership is that their dingbat hater based will nominate unelectable people and screw up local elections in an embarrassingly stupid way
Assuming you meant “base” and not “based”: FYLTGE.
But alas, I think this is more likely true:
We could probably save America if it wasn’t for Manchin and Semina. The Republicans will not save us. They are committed to killing the US. And I think they will succeed.
If there was somewhere much better to emigrate to, I would encourage the ObWi commentariat to do so en masse.
But I am thinking more and more about political developments worldwide and anthropogenic climate change in the context of the Fermi paradox, and in particular about one of its hypothetical explanations: It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature_of_intelligent_life_to_destroy_itself
Sorry to be quite such a downer! Put it down to Sunday afternoon syndrome…
The danger now faced by the Republican party leadership is that their dingbat hater based will nominate unelectable people and screw up local elections in an embarrassingly stupid way
Assuming you meant “base” and not “based”: FYLTGE.
But alas, I think this is more likely true:
We could probably save America if it wasn’t for Manchin and Semina. The Republicans will not save us. They are committed to killing the US. And I think they will succeed.
If there was somewhere much better to emigrate to, I would encourage the ObWi commentariat to do so en masse.
But I am thinking more and more about political developments worldwide and anthropogenic climate change in the context of the Fermi paradox, and in particular about one of its hypothetical explanations: It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature_of_intelligent_life_to_destroy_itself
Sorry to be quite such a downer! Put it down to Sunday afternoon syndrome…
If there was somewhere much better to emigrate to, I would encourage the ObWi commentariat to do so en masse.
I confess that I’ve got Western Australia** tucked away in the back of my mind. Hoping and praying (and working to make sure) that it doesn’t come to that.
** In part because its climate is like what I’m used to,
If there was somewhere much better to emigrate to, I would encourage the ObWi commentariat to do so en masse.
I confess that I’ve got Western Australia** tucked away in the back of my mind. Hoping and praying (and working to make sure) that it doesn’t come to that.
** In part because its climate is like what I’m used to,
Isn’t Australia the most western province of China?…
Isn’t Australia the most western province of China?…
Isn’t Australia the most western province of China?…
Um…eastern, perhaps? (Unless China has become a world-circling empire…)
Or, more likely, southern.
(On current trends, the western-most province of China will be Russia. Not real soon, but before the middle of the century.)
Isn’t Australia the most western province of China?…
Um…eastern, perhaps? (Unless China has become a world-circling empire…)
Or, more likely, southern.
(On current trends, the western-most province of China will be Russia. Not real soon, but before the middle of the century.)
You’re right. For some reason, I had it in my head that they were on different sides of the International Date Line.
You’re right. For some reason, I had it in my head that they were on different sides of the International Date Line.
Though China spans the width of at least three time zones in the abstract, I believe the whole country is on the same time setting. Interesting to wonder how they could have worked that if the country had spanned the International Date Line. (Not that it’s even close, I’m just idling here.)
Though China spans the width of at least three time zones in the abstract, I believe the whole country is on the same time setting. Interesting to wonder how they could have worked that if the country had spanned the International Date Line. (Not that it’s even close, I’m just idling here.)
One of the fascinating bits of chance in our world is that, 180 degrees from Greenwich (which got established as the longitude zero for passing historical reasons) is basically nothing but the open Pacific Ocean, with no significant chuncks of land to be inconvenienced by the International Date Line.
One of the fascinating bits of chance in our world is that, 180 degrees from Greenwich (which got established as the longitude zero for passing historical reasons) is basically nothing but the open Pacific Ocean, with no significant chuncks of land to be inconvenienced by the International Date Line.
Speaking of the International Date Line, think of this when someone hypes the potential of self-driving cars. The software still has to be written by humans, including the ones who don’t know the difference between “may” and “might”:
Wall Street Journal sidebar 35 years ago or so, in a feature on computers: “The world is full of surprises, and the programmer will never think of them all.”
Speaking of the International Date Line, think of this when someone hypes the potential of self-driving cars. The software still has to be written by humans, including the ones who don’t know the difference between “may” and “might”:
Wall Street Journal sidebar 35 years ago or so, in a feature on computers: “The world is full of surprises, and the programmer will never think of them all.”
including the ones who don’t know the difference between “may” and “might”
Would/Could you be so kind to give a concise explanation for a non-native speaker of English? I know that there is a difference but I am not always sure which applies in a specific context.
including the ones who don’t know the difference between “may” and “might”
Would/Could you be so kind to give a concise explanation for a non-native speaker of English? I know that there is a difference but I am not always sure which applies in a specific context.
Time zone map. I never looked at this color-coded one before. There are lots of interesting facets to it.
Time zone map. I never looked at this color-coded one before. There are lots of interesting facets to it.
Hartmut, the last paragraph of this explanation touches on the error I’m referring to, but I don’t think it actually covers all the nuances. I’ll try to think of a more nitpicky example, but in the meantime I’ll hope for someone to come along and explain it better than I can.
However, it’s a losing battle. The substitution of may for might where past tense is called for is so common now that I think it has to count as an example of ongoing language change.
Just like the use of whom(ever) for who(ever). Grrrr.
Hartmut, the last paragraph of this explanation touches on the error I’m referring to, but I don’t think it actually covers all the nuances. I’ll try to think of a more nitpicky example, but in the meantime I’ll hope for someone to come along and explain it better than I can.
However, it’s a losing battle. The substitution of may for might where past tense is called for is so common now that I think it has to count as an example of ongoing language change.
Just like the use of whom(ever) for who(ever). Grrrr.
Time zone map. I never looked at this color-coded one before. There are lots of interesting facets to it.
Huh. Continental US and Canada are pretty much the sanest places in the world.
Time zone map. I never looked at this color-coded one before. There are lots of interesting facets to it.
Huh. Continental US and Canada are pretty much the sanest places in the world.
Michael Cain — yes, I thought that too.
One aspect of time zones that I never thought about until later in life is how my sense of sunrise and sunset are affected by which part of the time zone I live in. Maine is on Eastern Time, and so are my relatives in Ohio, 500+ miles west. The difference between our sunset times is in the range of 40 minutes. Imagine eastern and western China!
Michael Cain — yes, I thought that too.
One aspect of time zones that I never thought about until later in life is how my sense of sunrise and sunset are affected by which part of the time zone I live in. Maine is on Eastern Time, and so are my relatives in Ohio, 500+ miles west. The difference between our sunset times is in the range of 40 minutes. Imagine eastern and western China!
“The world is full of surprises, and the programmer will never think of them all.”
Programmers are selected for aptitude/knowledge in the field of programming. Which, inevitably, means reduced expertise in some other fields.
Most places put some effort into getting them up to speed on whatever field the company employing them is in. For example, even though I was a systems guy (i.e. not writing programs which did business functions), while I was at Charles Schwab I learned a lot about stocks and what brokerages and exchanges do.
But apparently the company writing the nav software was a bit weak on that. It’s one thing to have a bug because you miscoded something. Hey, sh*t happens. But a bug because you just didn’t know something basic to the field? That shouldn’t happen.
“The world is full of surprises, and the programmer will never think of them all.”
Programmers are selected for aptitude/knowledge in the field of programming. Which, inevitably, means reduced expertise in some other fields.
Most places put some effort into getting them up to speed on whatever field the company employing them is in. For example, even though I was a systems guy (i.e. not writing programs which did business functions), while I was at Charles Schwab I learned a lot about stocks and what brokerages and exchanges do.
But apparently the company writing the nav software was a bit weak on that. It’s one thing to have a bug because you miscoded something. Hey, sh*t happens. But a bug because you just didn’t know something basic to the field? That shouldn’t happen.
Hartmut, as a native English speaker, and having read Janie’s link, I realised I might have been using may and might wrongly quite often!
As for whomever and whoever – I’m quite prepared to learn I don’t always do them right either. I have sort of assumed that “whoever” is the subject of a verb (“whoever did this had better be ready to explain themselves”) whereas “whomever” is the object (“Dave insulted whomever was in the room, without fear or favour”). I await the verdict of Janie, recognised as the grammar police by popular acclaim! (I tried to come up with a version of that last sentence where Janie became a whom, but it got too convoluted.)
Hartmut, as a native English speaker, and having read Janie’s link, I realised I might have been using may and might wrongly quite often!
As for whomever and whoever – I’m quite prepared to learn I don’t always do them right either. I have sort of assumed that “whoever” is the subject of a verb (“whoever did this had better be ready to explain themselves”) whereas “whomever” is the object (“Dave insulted whomever was in the room, without fear or favour”). I await the verdict of Janie, recognised as the grammar police by popular acclaim! (I tried to come up with a version of that last sentence where Janie became a whom, but it got too convoluted.)
When I teach this to Japanese students, I start with teaching them to make the connection between the present and the past forms (may/might, can/could, shall/should, will/would) They have usually learned it haphazardly, so I tell them to keep the pres/past link and if they are writing about something in the past, making sure that they get the past form is a way to deal with it without a lot of mental gymnastics. Of course, because modality is involved, the past meaning can be overridden/obscured, (“I could do that if you gave me 10 dollars”, both verbs are actually subjunctive rather than past) but the rule of thumb allows them to avoid any big clunkers.
When I teach this to Japanese students, I start with teaching them to make the connection between the present and the past forms (may/might, can/could, shall/should, will/would) They have usually learned it haphazardly, so I tell them to keep the pres/past link and if they are writing about something in the past, making sure that they get the past form is a way to deal with it without a lot of mental gymnastics. Of course, because modality is involved, the past meaning can be overridden/obscured, (“I could do that if you gave me 10 dollars”, both verbs are actually subjunctive rather than past) but the rule of thumb allows them to avoid any big clunkers.
When you are a writing instructor you tend either to be the copy editor from hell or you develop a hierarchy of battles like a strategic commander and fight the battles that gain the most ground. I’m the latter (which you can probably tell by my tendency towards precise vocabulary with sketchy grammar).
May/might, who/whom, less/fewer tend not to rise too high in the order of battle because they seldom cause confusion over what is actually being said, and they aren’t in group/out group markers the way that inapt or incorrect idiomatic phrases tend to be. If it doesn’t hamper understanding or create potential prejudice, then I’m likely to let it go.
Good, lively writing tends to be a gentleperson’s agreement between the poet and the copy editor that leaves both a bit vexed, but ultimately satisfied. And the writing that gets most celebrated for its verve and composition often leaves me feeling like I have visited an overmanicured garden. I prefer a bit of nature run riot in my reading.
When you are a writing instructor you tend either to be the copy editor from hell or you develop a hierarchy of battles like a strategic commander and fight the battles that gain the most ground. I’m the latter (which you can probably tell by my tendency towards precise vocabulary with sketchy grammar).
May/might, who/whom, less/fewer tend not to rise too high in the order of battle because they seldom cause confusion over what is actually being said, and they aren’t in group/out group markers the way that inapt or incorrect idiomatic phrases tend to be. If it doesn’t hamper understanding or create potential prejudice, then I’m likely to let it go.
Good, lively writing tends to be a gentleperson’s agreement between the poet and the copy editor that leaves both a bit vexed, but ultimately satisfied. And the writing that gets most celebrated for its verve and composition often leaves me feeling like I have visited an overmanicured garden. I prefer a bit of nature run riot in my reading.
Well, I’m going to thank lj and for one rare moment pretend nous didn’t show up, because trying to respond to his 7:24 would take me all night.
GftNC, you picked a juicy example:
“Dave insulted whomever was in the room, without fear or favour”.
It’s true that “whomever” is used for a direct object (or the object of a preposition). But in that sentence, “whomever” is not the direct object; the direct object is in effect the entire clause — “whomever was in the room” — and the case of whoever/whomever is chosen based on the word’s function within the clause. Within the clause it’s the subject, so … “whoever was in the room.”
I have a collection of more examples of this kind of thing than I’m going to confess with nous in the room.
But here’s one example from an a not particularly fly-by-night website:
Most of the who/whom errors I see (and collect) look like anxiety-based over-correction to me. One of the BJ front-pagers uses “Whomever” as the subject of sentences on a regular basis but gets tetchy if you nitpick, so I never do. Given that the archives are lost over there, I’m not even going to bother looking for examples.
Going to stop, or I’ll go on all night with nuances and edge cases and any number of other beasts….
Well, I’m going to thank lj and for one rare moment pretend nous didn’t show up, because trying to respond to his 7:24 would take me all night.
GftNC, you picked a juicy example:
“Dave insulted whomever was in the room, without fear or favour”.
It’s true that “whomever” is used for a direct object (or the object of a preposition). But in that sentence, “whomever” is not the direct object; the direct object is in effect the entire clause — “whomever was in the room” — and the case of whoever/whomever is chosen based on the word’s function within the clause. Within the clause it’s the subject, so … “whoever was in the room.”
I have a collection of more examples of this kind of thing than I’m going to confess with nous in the room.
But here’s one example from an a not particularly fly-by-night website:
Most of the who/whom errors I see (and collect) look like anxiety-based over-correction to me. One of the BJ front-pagers uses “Whomever” as the subject of sentences on a regular basis but gets tetchy if you nitpick, so I never do. Given that the archives are lost over there, I’m not even going to bother looking for examples.
Going to stop, or I’ll go on all night with nuances and edge cases and any number of other beasts….
I’m delighted to be put right! I may even remember this for a few weeks or months. Thanks, Janie.
I’m delighted to be put right! I may even remember this for a few weeks or months. Thanks, Janie.
Dave insulted whomever was in the room, without fear or favour
If you find yourself wondering whether that should be “whomever was” or “whoever was”, change it to “everyone”.
Dave insulted whomever was in the room, without fear or favour
If you find yourself wondering whether that should be “whomever was” or “whoever was”, change it to “everyone”.
I think the thing that makes me notice the whom/ever for who/ever usage the most is that even as a grammar nerd, I would, and so, happily use “who” for “whom” in a lot of situations where technically “whom” is called for, because “whom” often sounds pretentious.
Which is all the more reason for it to grate when it isn’t even the right choice. I would have thought that if one of the sets of forms started to disappear, it would be “whom/ever,” precisely because it’s so often hard to figure out whether it’s the form to use. The fact that the opposite seems to be happening bemuses me.
I think the thing that makes me notice the whom/ever for who/ever usage the most is that even as a grammar nerd, I would, and so, happily use “who” for “whom” in a lot of situations where technically “whom” is called for, because “whom” often sounds pretentious.
Which is all the more reason for it to grate when it isn’t even the right choice. I would have thought that if one of the sets of forms started to disappear, it would be “whom/ever,” precisely because it’s so often hard to figure out whether it’s the form to use. The fact that the opposite seems to be happening bemuses me.
Just to entertain GftNC, an entry from my who/whom collection. This is verbatim from my Word doc — the top bit is copied from the Boston Globe website, the bottom is the colonial peanut gallery (me) summing it up:
*****
Perhaps it has always been true that people who write do it because they like gossip and not because they care about language. But either way, we’re seeing the effects of no time or $ being spent on copy editing in this era.
I wonder if nous thinks the prose of Dickens and GBS was “overmanicured….”
Just to entertain GftNC, an entry from my who/whom collection. This is verbatim from my Word doc — the top bit is copied from the Boston Globe website, the bottom is the colonial peanut gallery (me) summing it up:
*****
Perhaps it has always been true that people who write do it because they like gossip and not because they care about language. But either way, we’re seeing the effects of no time or $ being spent on copy editing in this era.
I wonder if nous thinks the prose of Dickens and GBS was “overmanicured….”
I meant to say that *some* people who write do it because they like gossip — certainly not alleging that about all writers.
I meant to say that *some* people who write do it because they like gossip — certainly not alleging that about all writers.
you tend either to be the copy editor from hell or you develop a hierarchy of battles like a strategic commander and fight the battles that gain the most ground.
This is true, but what I like about pointing out the past tense of the modal verbs is that Japanese student compositions tend to wander between past and present. I have a sense that Japanese verbs are based on modality while English is really a tense-based system with modality as a side car and if you can make students more aware of the past/present distinction, it improves their writing.
I also spend a lot of time on definite/indefinite articles and plurals. I tell students that they shouldn’t beat themselves up when they make mistakes, they aren’t in Japanese, so they shouldn’t be surprised that it is hard, but understanding why they are being used can help them to get to producing more understandable English. There are others who don’t feel like this is a worth the effort, but there are a lot of people who teach English over here and are quite proud that they don’t know any grammar. I don’t think you need it to be a good teacher, but when you denigrate that knowledge, it doesn’t really give me a good vibe.
you tend either to be the copy editor from hell or you develop a hierarchy of battles like a strategic commander and fight the battles that gain the most ground.
This is true, but what I like about pointing out the past tense of the modal verbs is that Japanese student compositions tend to wander between past and present. I have a sense that Japanese verbs are based on modality while English is really a tense-based system with modality as a side car and if you can make students more aware of the past/present distinction, it improves their writing.
I also spend a lot of time on definite/indefinite articles and plurals. I tell students that they shouldn’t beat themselves up when they make mistakes, they aren’t in Japanese, so they shouldn’t be surprised that it is hard, but understanding why they are being used can help them to get to producing more understandable English. There are others who don’t feel like this is a worth the effort, but there are a lot of people who teach English over here and are quite proud that they don’t know any grammar. I don’t think you need it to be a good teacher, but when you denigrate that knowledge, it doesn’t really give me a good vibe.
lj:
1. Thank you for this: I don’t think you need it to be a good teacher, but when you denigrate that knowledge, it doesn’t really give me a good vibe.
2. When I was in grad school I copyedited and then typed the dissertation of a friend from Japan. Articles were her biggest challenge. (My biggest challenge was that it was in the days when there were only typewriters, no word processors, and the typing had to be perfect: no white-out……. )
lj:
1. Thank you for this: I don’t think you need it to be a good teacher, but when you denigrate that knowledge, it doesn’t really give me a good vibe.
2. When I was in grad school I copyedited and then typed the dissertation of a friend from Japan. Articles were her biggest challenge. (My biggest challenge was that it was in the days when there were only typewriters, no word processors, and the typing had to be perfect: no white-out……. )
But either way, we’re seeing the effects of no time or $ being spent on copy editing in this era.
Grammar checkers would catch most of the grammar errors I see in articles. And that’s not a high bar.
But either way, we’re seeing the effects of no time or $ being spent on copy editing in this era.
Grammar checkers would catch most of the grammar errors I see in articles. And that’s not a high bar.
One aspect of time zones that I never thought about until later in life is how my sense of sunrise and sunset are affected by which part of the time zone I live in. Maine is on Eastern Time, and so are my relatives in Ohio, 500+ miles west. The difference between our sunset times is in the range of 40 minutes.
I always found the north-south differences affected me much more. Minneapolis and Houston are at almost the same longitude. On the longest day, sunrise to sunset in Minneapolis is a bit more than 90 minutes longer than in Houston. That is, sunrise 45 minutes earlier, sunset 45 minutes later. The other way around at the end of December, of course.
One aspect of time zones that I never thought about until later in life is how my sense of sunrise and sunset are affected by which part of the time zone I live in. Maine is on Eastern Time, and so are my relatives in Ohio, 500+ miles west. The difference between our sunset times is in the range of 40 minutes.
I always found the north-south differences affected me much more. Minneapolis and Houston are at almost the same longitude. On the longest day, sunrise to sunset in Minneapolis is a bit more than 90 minutes longer than in Houston. That is, sunrise 45 minutes earlier, sunset 45 minutes later. The other way around at the end of December, of course.
I turn grammar and spell-checkers off in most of my apps. I can see the use of spell-checkers for some purposes, but grammar-checking software? Eh.
I just turned the Word grammar checker on and it accepted the following:
Whom are you calling?
Whom is it?
Who are you calling?
Who is it?
He didn’t know whom had called.
He didn’t know who had called.
So it doesn’t know anything about who/whom either. 😉
I turn grammar and spell-checkers off in most of my apps. I can see the use of spell-checkers for some purposes, but grammar-checking software? Eh.
I just turned the Word grammar checker on and it accepted the following:
Whom are you calling?
Whom is it?
Who are you calling?
Who is it?
He didn’t know whom had called.
He didn’t know who had called.
So it doesn’t know anything about who/whom either. 😉
During the year I spent in Iceland, I spent some time on the color guard. The command at that time wanted sunrise/sunset to be strictly observed. Which changed every day. In the middle of summer, we would take the flags down, sit around a few minutes and then run them up again. In the middle of winter, we would run the flags up, sit around a few minutes and then take them down again.
During the year I spent in Iceland, I spent some time on the color guard. The command at that time wanted sunrise/sunset to be strictly observed. Which changed every day. In the middle of summer, we would take the flags down, sit around a few minutes and then run them up again. In the middle of winter, we would run the flags up, sit around a few minutes and then take them down again.
The browser-based checker I use caught “Whom is it?” and “He didn’t know whom had called.”
Most of the grammar errors I see are simpleminded ones that the authors know better than to make but were overlooked in the process of tweaking the text. A grammar checker would catch most of those.
The browser-based checker I use caught “Whom is it?” and “He didn’t know whom had called.”
Most of the grammar errors I see are simpleminded ones that the authors know better than to make but were overlooked in the process of tweaking the text. A grammar checker would catch most of those.
The command at that time wanted sunrise/sunset to be strictly observed.
My father worked for the railroad long ago when a schedule still meant something to them. Then he was a senior petty officer in the Navy, which lives by the clock. He “trained” me when I was young. When I was an undergraduate, and Dad a field safety engineer for an insurance company, his schedule occasionally had him in Lincoln at lunchtime. He always arranged to buy me lunch. My mother said she would have paid money for a seat where she could watch as Dad and I approached the designated meeting intersection from different directions, plus-or-minus 30 seconds from the agreed upon time.
Probably part of why I was always comfortable writing real-time software.
The command at that time wanted sunrise/sunset to be strictly observed.
My father worked for the railroad long ago when a schedule still meant something to them. Then he was a senior petty officer in the Navy, which lives by the clock. He “trained” me when I was young. When I was an undergraduate, and Dad a field safety engineer for an insurance company, his schedule occasionally had him in Lincoln at lunchtime. He always arranged to buy me lunch. My mother said she would have paid money for a seat where she could watch as Dad and I approached the designated meeting intersection from different directions, plus-or-minus 30 seconds from the agreed upon time.
Probably part of why I was always comfortable writing real-time software.
During the year I spent in Iceland, I spent some time on the color guard. The command at that time wanted sunrise/sunset to be strictly observed. Which changed every day. In the middle of summer, we would take the flags down, sit around a few minutes and then run them up again. In the middle of winter, we would run the flags up, sit around a few minutes and then take them down again.
I believe that strict Muslims have similar challenges when they live at high latitudes. For example, when Ramadan occurs during winter, they may have only a very brief time when they are allowed to eat. For a month.
Apparently one solution to being in the land of the midnight sun is to ignore the local sunrise/sunset and use that of Mecca.
During the year I spent in Iceland, I spent some time on the color guard. The command at that time wanted sunrise/sunset to be strictly observed. Which changed every day. In the middle of summer, we would take the flags down, sit around a few minutes and then run them up again. In the middle of winter, we would run the flags up, sit around a few minutes and then take them down again.
I believe that strict Muslims have similar challenges when they live at high latitudes. For example, when Ramadan occurs during winter, they may have only a very brief time when they are allowed to eat. For a month.
Apparently one solution to being in the land of the midnight sun is to ignore the local sunrise/sunset and use that of Mecca.
I wonder if nous thinks the prose of Dickens and GBS was “overmanicured….”
I enjoy GBS moreso than Dickens, and for the more mannered style I really enjoy Wilde. Overall, though, I really don’t much go for the 19th C. literature.
But I was actually thinking of the Cult of Didion when I wrote that. A lot of the people I went through grad school with who were also in the US-Lit-post-’45 classes adored Didion, and I thought her prose style was too present in her writing and became too much of an object of attention in itself. At that point you might as well just become a poet.
I don’t think you need it to be a good teacher, but when you denigrate that knowledge, it doesn’t really give me a good vibe.
Agree. What I tell my students is that they should not take my lack of commenting on their grammar as a sign that there is nothing to work on. My experience is that if I spend too much time focusing on grammar and syntax, their response is to try to simplify their sentence structures in order to feel like they are “winning” by getting fewer corrections, and in doing so, they strip a lot of the power and complexity from the arguments they are making, avoiding subordinating clauses and the like. I want them to stretch for the right logical order, so I have to downplay the control-of-language side. This is especially true with internationals who have just gotten out of their L2 classes and are more worried about how they are saying things than they are about what they are trying to say. I have to get them pushing their envelope or they won’t be able to mainstream successfully before they hit their upper division classwork.
Likewise, I have colleagues that overcomment on papers and bury the students in formative comments while going over every paragraph’s language in an attempt to give the student their thorough attention. It makes the instructor feel good and generous and it helps move the needle up for assessment work because the papers produced are easier to read. Win/win.
But I find that when presented with an exhaustive commentary, students start with the easy work (fixing grammar and syntax) and spend less time on the formative comments because those require full revision and reorganization and more research to plug the holes. I’d rather they tackle the formative comments because those are the ones that will get them out of the “well written, but inconsequential” pile and into the “worth taking seriously” pile.
I wonder if nous thinks the prose of Dickens and GBS was “overmanicured….”
I enjoy GBS moreso than Dickens, and for the more mannered style I really enjoy Wilde. Overall, though, I really don’t much go for the 19th C. literature.
But I was actually thinking of the Cult of Didion when I wrote that. A lot of the people I went through grad school with who were also in the US-Lit-post-’45 classes adored Didion, and I thought her prose style was too present in her writing and became too much of an object of attention in itself. At that point you might as well just become a poet.
I don’t think you need it to be a good teacher, but when you denigrate that knowledge, it doesn’t really give me a good vibe.
Agree. What I tell my students is that they should not take my lack of commenting on their grammar as a sign that there is nothing to work on. My experience is that if I spend too much time focusing on grammar and syntax, their response is to try to simplify their sentence structures in order to feel like they are “winning” by getting fewer corrections, and in doing so, they strip a lot of the power and complexity from the arguments they are making, avoiding subordinating clauses and the like. I want them to stretch for the right logical order, so I have to downplay the control-of-language side. This is especially true with internationals who have just gotten out of their L2 classes and are more worried about how they are saying things than they are about what they are trying to say. I have to get them pushing their envelope or they won’t be able to mainstream successfully before they hit their upper division classwork.
Likewise, I have colleagues that overcomment on papers and bury the students in formative comments while going over every paragraph’s language in an attempt to give the student their thorough attention. It makes the instructor feel good and generous and it helps move the needle up for assessment work because the papers produced are easier to read. Win/win.
But I find that when presented with an exhaustive commentary, students start with the easy work (fixing grammar and syntax) and spend less time on the formative comments because those require full revision and reorganization and more research to plug the holes. I’d rather they tackle the formative comments because those are the ones that will get them out of the “well written, but inconsequential” pile and into the “worth taking seriously” pile.
Thanks, nous, that’s helpful.
19th c. literature is the best. 😉 (Tastes differ….)
I’m probably enough older than you are so that there was no cult of Didion yet when I was in grad school. Whatever I read of hers long ago, I disliked it deeply — I can’t even remember whether it was more the story or the writing — but I never picked up another book of hers again.
Thanks, nous, that’s helpful.
19th c. literature is the best. 😉 (Tastes differ….)
I’m probably enough older than you are so that there was no cult of Didion yet when I was in grad school. Whatever I read of hers long ago, I disliked it deeply — I can’t even remember whether it was more the story or the writing — but I never picked up another book of hers again.
(fixing grammar and syntax) and spend less time on the formative comments because those require full revision and reorganization and more research to plug the holes.
I have done a fair bit of editing stuff written by folks for whom English is, apparently, a second language. Second to code. I find that doing the first (several) passes focused on substance and organization is the way to go for just that reason. The closest I get to grammar and syntax is occasionally commenting that a particular paragraph (in a few cases, chapter) is “incoherent”.
Spelling and such can be done last. Worst case (since we aren’t in an academic setting), I can just do those corrections myself. But the substance has to be addressed by the author.
(fixing grammar and syntax) and spend less time on the formative comments because those require full revision and reorganization and more research to plug the holes.
I have done a fair bit of editing stuff written by folks for whom English is, apparently, a second language. Second to code. I find that doing the first (several) passes focused on substance and organization is the way to go for just that reason. The closest I get to grammar and syntax is occasionally commenting that a particular paragraph (in a few cases, chapter) is “incoherent”.
Spelling and such can be done last. Worst case (since we aren’t in an academic setting), I can just do those corrections myself. But the substance has to be addressed by the author.
There’s this from Texas:
“Hang on to your Confederate money, boys, the South will rise again!” Took a bit longer than anticipated, but it looks like they’re getting close.
There’s this from Texas:
“Hang on to your Confederate money, boys, the South will rise again!” Took a bit longer than anticipated, but it looks like they’re getting close.
How much further do they have to go to be repeating Fort Sumter?
How much further do they have to go to be repeating Fort Sumter?
The TX GOP platform has been calling for that repeal since 2012.
The TX GOP platform has been calling for that repeal since 2012.
How much further do they have to go to be repeating Fort Sumter?
They’d have to say fairly explicitly that, if the rest of us won’t do things their way, they’re taking their marbles and going away. And then try to arrest any Federal law enforcement folks who try to enforce the law.
In that regard, the incident a few years back (2014), when some hoodlums had an armed standoff with Federal (BLM) authorities, and didn’t even get criminally charged, was a bad sign. As is the fact that to this day they have neither paid their fines nor ceased and desisted.
How much further do they have to go to be repeating Fort Sumter?
They’d have to say fairly explicitly that, if the rest of us won’t do things their way, they’re taking their marbles and going away. And then try to arrest any Federal law enforcement folks who try to enforce the law.
In that regard, the incident a few years back (2014), when some hoodlums had an armed standoff with Federal (BLM) authorities, and didn’t even get criminally charged, was a bad sign. As is the fact that to this day they have neither paid their fines nor ceased and desisted.
Have we not maybe lost the forest for the trees here? I mean, what’s up with Dave? Is it that room in particular, or does he insult whoever is in whateverm room he’s in? If the latter, I think we should investigate what’s driving this antisocial behavior. Maybe he just needs someone to listen. If the former, well that’s just spooky!
Have we not maybe lost the forest for the trees here? I mean, what’s up with Dave? Is it that room in particular, or does he insult whoever is in whateverm room he’s in? If the latter, I think we should investigate what’s driving this antisocial behavior. Maybe he just needs someone to listen. If the former, well that’s just spooky!
You can thank North American transcontinental railroads, and their desire to have trains run on schedule, for the invention of time “zones”, and their relative sanity in North America.
You can thank North American transcontinental railroads, and their desire to have trains run on schedule, for the invention of time “zones”, and their relative sanity in North America.
How much further do they have to go to be repeating Fort Sumter?
Speaking from my lectern over here on the lunatic fringe…
20 years? 25? In the “history doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes” category, I assert things have reached roughly the equivalent of the 1830s, with nullification crises. The Fugitive Slave Act, when the federal government effectively enforced Southern state laws didn’t happen until 1850. Dred Scott, when the Supreme Court held Blacks couldn’t be citizens ever, was 1857. Then Fort Sumter in 1861, after the Southern state legislature’s decided they couldn’t actually win the national political battle.
Of course, I also claim that the initial move for real partition will come out of the West, not the South. Water, fire, perceived mishandling of federal lands, blockage of any quick change to low- or no-carbon power generation, other environmental concerns, etc. The South/Midwest state legislatures still think they can win their issues nationally because of the rules. The West knows it can’t.
How much further do they have to go to be repeating Fort Sumter?
Speaking from my lectern over here on the lunatic fringe…
20 years? 25? In the “history doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes” category, I assert things have reached roughly the equivalent of the 1830s, with nullification crises. The Fugitive Slave Act, when the federal government effectively enforced Southern state laws didn’t happen until 1850. Dred Scott, when the Supreme Court held Blacks couldn’t be citizens ever, was 1857. Then Fort Sumter in 1861, after the Southern state legislature’s decided they couldn’t actually win the national political battle.
Of course, I also claim that the initial move for real partition will come out of the West, not the South. Water, fire, perceived mishandling of federal lands, blockage of any quick change to low- or no-carbon power generation, other environmental concerns, etc. The South/Midwest state legislatures still think they can win their issues nationally because of the rules. The West knows it can’t.
If there was somewhere much better to emigrate to, I would encourage the ObWi commentariat to do so en masse.
Some of us are ineligible for the most commonly named places: too old, not rich enough, lack the right ancestry. I live in a state where the proper people are winning, in a region where that’s becoming more common. If I can’t win nationally, I’ll settle for regionally in some fashion. Devolution? Partition?
The subject comes up regularly these days on another blog I frequent (note that ten years ago there, it was uniformly laughed down; no longer). From the shouting matches there, it appears one of the key things to watch for is an emerging attitude that people who refuse to accept the pain of moving will be abandoned.
If there was somewhere much better to emigrate to, I would encourage the ObWi commentariat to do so en masse.
Some of us are ineligible for the most commonly named places: too old, not rich enough, lack the right ancestry. I live in a state where the proper people are winning, in a region where that’s becoming more common. If I can’t win nationally, I’ll settle for regionally in some fashion. Devolution? Partition?
The subject comes up regularly these days on another blog I frequent (note that ten years ago there, it was uniformly laughed down; no longer). From the shouting matches there, it appears one of the key things to watch for is an emerging attitude that people who refuse to accept the pain of moving will be abandoned.
So Michael — New York? New England? Not the Midwest, not the South…..
So Michael — New York? New England? Not the Midwest, not the South…..
Some of us are ineligible for the most commonly named places: too old, not rich enough, lack the right ancestry.
That’s me.
From the shouting matches there, it appears one of the key things to watch for is an emerging attitude that people who refuse to accept the pain of moving will be abandoned.
No doubt you’re condensing something more complex, but this seems like an odd framing. Does it mean: “I’m going to work for my state/region to be independent, and I don’t care what the dissolution of the Federal government means for the people in less fortunate regions”?
If not that, what? Doesit also mean “move now or fuggedabout it, we won’t take you later”?
Some of us are ineligible for the most commonly named places: too old, not rich enough, lack the right ancestry.
That’s me.
From the shouting matches there, it appears one of the key things to watch for is an emerging attitude that people who refuse to accept the pain of moving will be abandoned.
No doubt you’re condensing something more complex, but this seems like an odd framing. Does it mean: “I’m going to work for my state/region to be independent, and I don’t care what the dissolution of the Federal government means for the people in less fortunate regions”?
If not that, what? Doesit also mean “move now or fuggedabout it, we won’t take you later”?
Have we not maybe lost the forest for the trees here? I mean, what’s up with Dave? Is it that room in particular, or does he insult whoever is in whateverm room he’s in? If the latter, I think we should investigate what’s driving this antisocial behavior. Maybe he just needs someone to listen.
Pete, this actually made me laugh out loud. Don’t think I was unaware of the possible Freudian nature of my examples! I think Dave came from the fact I was just watching a show with native New Yorkers in the 50s, and there was a fair amount of insulting going on.
Have we not maybe lost the forest for the trees here? I mean, what’s up with Dave? Is it that room in particular, or does he insult whoever is in whateverm room he’s in? If the latter, I think we should investigate what’s driving this antisocial behavior. Maybe he just needs someone to listen.
Pete, this actually made me laugh out loud. Don’t think I was unaware of the possible Freudian nature of my examples! I think Dave came from the fact I was just watching a show with native New Yorkers in the 50s, and there was a fair amount of insulting going on.
As a native New Yorker in his 50s, I feel somehow triggered. 😉
As a native New Yorker in his 50s, I feel somehow triggered. 😉
I believe that strict Muslims have similar challenges when they live at high latitudes. For example, when Ramadan occurs during winter, they may have only a very brief time when they are allowed to eat. For a month.
Apparently one solution to being in the land of the midnight sun is to ignore the local sunrise/sunset and use that of Mecca.
There is somewhat of a schism in Norway between Muslims living more in the South and those that live in Tromsø or North of that (iirc there is a mosque in Hammerfest now). Both called on different authorities to solve the problem and the Northerners got a more pragnmatic solution leading to the Southern guys accusing them of being lax.
Can’t remember what the exact solution was (it was not the usual “this no Muslim country so all Muslims here are just travellers who do not have to obey the srict rules provided they fast at a later more convenient time).
I believe that strict Muslims have similar challenges when they live at high latitudes. For example, when Ramadan occurs during winter, they may have only a very brief time when they are allowed to eat. For a month.
Apparently one solution to being in the land of the midnight sun is to ignore the local sunrise/sunset and use that of Mecca.
There is somewhat of a schism in Norway between Muslims living more in the South and those that live in Tromsø or North of that (iirc there is a mosque in Hammerfest now). Both called on different authorities to solve the problem and the Northerners got a more pragnmatic solution leading to the Southern guys accusing them of being lax.
Can’t remember what the exact solution was (it was not the usual “this no Muslim country so all Muslims here are just travellers who do not have to obey the srict rules provided they fast at a later more convenient time).
Does it mean: “I’m going to work for my state/region to be independent, and I don’t care what the dissolution of the Federal government means for the people in less fortunate regions”?
That’s a not inaccurate summary of one group’s position. There are lots of positions. Lots of standard exchanges, as well. Someone eventually says, “A million Democrats from California and New York need to make the sacrifice to move to Wyoming, turning it solid blue.” The inevitable answer is, “You first.”
Does it mean: “I’m going to work for my state/region to be independent, and I don’t care what the dissolution of the Federal government means for the people in less fortunate regions”?
That’s a not inaccurate summary of one group’s position. There are lots of positions. Lots of standard exchanges, as well. Someone eventually says, “A million Democrats from California and New York need to make the sacrifice to move to Wyoming, turning it solid blue.” The inevitable answer is, “You first.”
“A million Democrats from California and New York need to make the sacrifice to move to Wyoming, turning it solid blue.”
I’ve seen this idea elsewhere. Nice to solve all our problems by getting millions of *other* people to carry out some impossible fantasy concocted in some armchair deity’s head. I’m sure they’ve thought of all the interesting consequences of tripling Wyoming’s population as well….
“A million Democrats from California and New York need to make the sacrifice to move to Wyoming, turning it solid blue.”
I’ve seen this idea elsewhere. Nice to solve all our problems by getting millions of *other* people to carry out some impossible fantasy concocted in some armchair deity’s head. I’m sure they’ve thought of all the interesting consequences of tripling Wyoming’s population as well….
“A million Democrats from California and New York need to make the sacrifice to move to Wyoming, turning it solid blue.” The inevitable answer is, “You first.”
My wife and I have good friends, a gay couple, who moved from MA to Iowa a few years ago for work reasons. They are not coastal elitists, both of them grew up in rural TX and both maintain close connections to friends and family there, of all kinds of political persuasions.
There were good and bad things about the move. They made friends, work was good, their neighbors were very neighborly.
After a while they moved back to MA. In a nutshell, they got sick of dealing with people who were very nice to them, but who loudly and enthusiastically supported policies and politicians who would have reduced them to second class status. I.e., not recognize their marriage, make it possible for them to be discriminated against at work and in housing, etc etc etc.
The folks they lived among seemed either to not make the connection between the gay neighbors they liked and were friendly with and the policies that would destroy their lives, or else they didn’t care.
So after a few years they decided Iowa was not the place for them.
Regarding TX (R)’s, I have two thoughts.
The first thought is that the TX (R) platform is an exercise in performative assholery.
The second thought is that if they want to leave the union, they should go. There would be a lot of details to work out, but so be it.
The origin of this country is based on the premise that, if a body of people are not well served by their political association with some other body of people, they are entitled to sunder that association. And I think that premise is sound.
It’s entirely unclear to me what I, as a basically liberal resident of MA, have in common, politically speaking, with a TX (R). I don’t see common ground. Different history, different culture, different values. We’re different. The words we might appeal to in an attempt to find common ground – self-governance, political liberty, rule of law – most likely don’t mean the same things to myself and them.
If they want to leave, it’s fine with me. It will make it easier for those of us who do not share the values of the TX (R) party to focus on the things that are actually important to us, and will make it easier to actually get useful things done.
I’m sure many of them are lovely people in their own way, but I see no common bond that would make it important to me for them to remain in the US.
The union is only worth defending if it’s actually a union. By my lights, we are not. And the whole thing about this country being some precious beacon of freedom – the “last best hope of earth” – isn’t really so anymore. Might have been so, at least arguably so, when Lincoln said it, but that was 160 years ago, more or less. Other folks have gotten on board with the whole self-governance, rule of law, open society thing. If the US doesn’t stay together as a single political entity, the world will go on.
It always does.
I understand that there are many people in TX who would be horrified at the prospect of TX leaving the US. Those folks need to vote (R)’s out of statewide office. I can’t make that happen, they can. I can help through contributions etc., and am happy to do that, but ultimately the character of political life in TX is up to the citizens of TX.
If you don’t like it here, go. If you want to stay, accept that you will not be able to impose whatever batsh*t insanity tickles your fancy on the rest of us.
In particular, if you can’t accept the outcome of an election that didn’t go your way, it’s probably time for you to leave. If you can’t endorse the idea that everyone should be able to vote, probably time for you to leave. In general, it might be time for you to leave.
Go make up your own country, do things however you like. Go with god and with my blessing. But go.
As far as emigration, there are probably places my wife and I could go that would be more than pleasant. But we’re American, we’ve built a life here, there are people we are quite attached to here. My wife finally has the garden looking the way she likes it. All of that took more than a little time to make happen, and we’re too freaking old to start it all over again.
If folks think they can provoke us into leaving with their threats and hostility and insane resentments and general assholery, they can kiss my behind.
“A million Democrats from California and New York need to make the sacrifice to move to Wyoming, turning it solid blue.” The inevitable answer is, “You first.”
My wife and I have good friends, a gay couple, who moved from MA to Iowa a few years ago for work reasons. They are not coastal elitists, both of them grew up in rural TX and both maintain close connections to friends and family there, of all kinds of political persuasions.
There were good and bad things about the move. They made friends, work was good, their neighbors were very neighborly.
After a while they moved back to MA. In a nutshell, they got sick of dealing with people who were very nice to them, but who loudly and enthusiastically supported policies and politicians who would have reduced them to second class status. I.e., not recognize their marriage, make it possible for them to be discriminated against at work and in housing, etc etc etc.
The folks they lived among seemed either to not make the connection between the gay neighbors they liked and were friendly with and the policies that would destroy their lives, or else they didn’t care.
So after a few years they decided Iowa was not the place for them.
Regarding TX (R)’s, I have two thoughts.
The first thought is that the TX (R) platform is an exercise in performative assholery.
The second thought is that if they want to leave the union, they should go. There would be a lot of details to work out, but so be it.
The origin of this country is based on the premise that, if a body of people are not well served by their political association with some other body of people, they are entitled to sunder that association. And I think that premise is sound.
It’s entirely unclear to me what I, as a basically liberal resident of MA, have in common, politically speaking, with a TX (R). I don’t see common ground. Different history, different culture, different values. We’re different. The words we might appeal to in an attempt to find common ground – self-governance, political liberty, rule of law – most likely don’t mean the same things to myself and them.
If they want to leave, it’s fine with me. It will make it easier for those of us who do not share the values of the TX (R) party to focus on the things that are actually important to us, and will make it easier to actually get useful things done.
I’m sure many of them are lovely people in their own way, but I see no common bond that would make it important to me for them to remain in the US.
The union is only worth defending if it’s actually a union. By my lights, we are not. And the whole thing about this country being some precious beacon of freedom – the “last best hope of earth” – isn’t really so anymore. Might have been so, at least arguably so, when Lincoln said it, but that was 160 years ago, more or less. Other folks have gotten on board with the whole self-governance, rule of law, open society thing. If the US doesn’t stay together as a single political entity, the world will go on.
It always does.
I understand that there are many people in TX who would be horrified at the prospect of TX leaving the US. Those folks need to vote (R)’s out of statewide office. I can’t make that happen, they can. I can help through contributions etc., and am happy to do that, but ultimately the character of political life in TX is up to the citizens of TX.
If you don’t like it here, go. If you want to stay, accept that you will not be able to impose whatever batsh*t insanity tickles your fancy on the rest of us.
In particular, if you can’t accept the outcome of an election that didn’t go your way, it’s probably time for you to leave. If you can’t endorse the idea that everyone should be able to vote, probably time for you to leave. In general, it might be time for you to leave.
Go make up your own country, do things however you like. Go with god and with my blessing. But go.
As far as emigration, there are probably places my wife and I could go that would be more than pleasant. But we’re American, we’ve built a life here, there are people we are quite attached to here. My wife finally has the garden looking the way she likes it. All of that took more than a little time to make happen, and we’re too freaking old to start it all over again.
If folks think they can provoke us into leaving with their threats and hostility and insane resentments and general assholery, they can kiss my behind.
WY alrady has a bit of that dynamic going, with Teton County being one of two blue counties in the state, and the county with the most extreme economic inequality in the US.
As for the scale of migration needed, by 2020 standards they only need about 80k blue voters for the state to become a toss up. MT would take 100k.
WY alrady has a bit of that dynamic going, with Teton County being one of two blue counties in the state, and the county with the most extreme economic inequality in the US.
As for the scale of migration needed, by 2020 standards they only need about 80k blue voters for the state to become a toss up. MT would take 100k.
As for the scale of migration needed, by 2020 standards they only need about 80k blue voters for the state to become a toss up. MT would take 100k.
With the Internet, lots of jobs can be done from anywhere. (If you can have employees of your coastal elite company who are half way around the world in India, there’s no reason you couldn’t have others in Wyoming or Montana.) And housing costs, for example, are way way lower in a lot of those low-population red states.
So, not as insane a possibility as it would have been a couple of decades back.
As for the scale of migration needed, by 2020 standards they only need about 80k blue voters for the state to become a toss up. MT would take 100k.
With the Internet, lots of jobs can be done from anywhere. (If you can have employees of your coastal elite company who are half way around the world in India, there’s no reason you couldn’t have others in Wyoming or Montana.) And housing costs, for example, are way way lower in a lot of those low-population red states.
So, not as insane a possibility as it would have been a couple of decades back.
And housing costs, for example, are way way lower in a lot of those low-population red states.
Do you think employers aren’t going to notice that when they set salaries? I think there’s going to be a lot of shifting and questioning going on as employees who do similar work but have wildly different living expenses start to be reshuffled.
And housing costs, for example, are way way lower in a lot of those low-population red states.
Do you think employers aren’t going to notice that when they set salaries? I think there’s going to be a lot of shifting and questioning going on as employees who do similar work but have wildly different living expenses start to be reshuffled.
You’d think that a blue-leaning IT company could leverage that cost of living windfall into a bonus of sorts and probably more efficient than lobbying in terms of effect.
You’d think that a blue-leaning IT company could leverage that cost of living windfall into a bonus of sorts and probably more efficient than lobbying in terms of effect.
Do you think employers aren’t going to notice that when they set salaries?
A bit challenging when you have a highly mobile population, and varying costs not only between states but within states (certainly within the larger ones). At some point, the cost of tracking ever finer distinctions will get excessive.
Personally, if my employer tried it, I would arrange a PO Box in, maybe, San Francisco (Manhattan would work, too), set up automatic forwarding, and pull in the high-cost-of-living pay while living elsewhere.
Do you think employers aren’t going to notice that when they set salaries?
A bit challenging when you have a highly mobile population, and varying costs not only between states but within states (certainly within the larger ones). At some point, the cost of tracking ever finer distinctions will get excessive.
Personally, if my employer tried it, I would arrange a PO Box in, maybe, San Francisco (Manhattan would work, too), set up automatic forwarding, and pull in the high-cost-of-living pay while living elsewhere.
That’s a good point, nous. Another wrinkle in the complexity of the situation, it seems to me.
Also, a lot of companies that employ IT people aren’t IT companies as such, and if some of them are blue and some of them are red, that also sets up another wrinkle: competition amongst employers for employees in various locations.
(I worked in international compensation for 35 years. Not all the myriad complexities of that dynamic are present intra-country, but more of them will be if workers aren’t tied to specific locations.)
That’s a good point, nous. Another wrinkle in the complexity of the situation, it seems to me.
Also, a lot of companies that employ IT people aren’t IT companies as such, and if some of them are blue and some of them are red, that also sets up another wrinkle: competition amongst employers for employees in various locations.
(I worked in international compensation for 35 years. Not all the myriad complexities of that dynamic are present intra-country, but more of them will be if workers aren’t tied to specific locations.)
Personally, if my employer tried it, I would arrange a PO Box in, maybe, San Francisco (Manhattan would work, too), set up automatic forwarding, and pull in the high-cost-of-living pay while living elsewhere.
Very clever ploy, but it wouldn’t be as easy to pull off as you make it sound. You might get away with it if you lived in the same state where your PO Box was located, or if you were self-employed, but your company has to know your state (and country) of residence in order to withold state taxes. (Yes, I know that not all states have state income tax.)
the cost of tracking ever finer distinctions will get excessive.
This is exactly what my company did for the entire world, by city (several hundred cities), not by country. It can be done within the US as well, though not many companies wanted that data when we actually tried it out as a product. Times change, though…. So — companies wouldn’t have to do it themselves, one by one, they’d buy data from someone like the company I worked for and use it to inform their payroll practices.
Personally, if my employer tried it, I would arrange a PO Box in, maybe, San Francisco (Manhattan would work, too), set up automatic forwarding, and pull in the high-cost-of-living pay while living elsewhere.
Very clever ploy, but it wouldn’t be as easy to pull off as you make it sound. You might get away with it if you lived in the same state where your PO Box was located, or if you were self-employed, but your company has to know your state (and country) of residence in order to withold state taxes. (Yes, I know that not all states have state income tax.)
the cost of tracking ever finer distinctions will get excessive.
This is exactly what my company did for the entire world, by city (several hundred cities), not by country. It can be done within the US as well, though not many companies wanted that data when we actually tried it out as a product. Times change, though…. So — companies wouldn’t have to do it themselves, one by one, they’d buy data from someone like the company I worked for and use it to inform their payroll practices.
I looked in to getting a P.O. Box in Atlanta 15 years ago, none available at location closest to my house, went to another nearby location that had boxes but according to the employee I was talking to I would have had to contact the postmaster personally to get them to order/authorize new keyholes being drilled/keys made. Sounded like BS inspired by laziness to me, but since getting a box was not a necessity I gave up on it.
I looked in to getting a P.O. Box in Atlanta 15 years ago, none available at location closest to my house, went to another nearby location that had boxes but according to the employee I was talking to I would have had to contact the postmaster personally to get them to order/authorize new keyholes being drilled/keys made. Sounded like BS inspired by laziness to me, but since getting a box was not a necessity I gave up on it.
If you don’t like it here, go. If you want to stay, accept that you will not be able to impose whatever batsh*t insanity tickles your fancy on the rest of us.
I know you were aiming this at the Texas Republicans’ platform statement. But if I were to bet on an actual departure — some years down the road — I’d bet on a group of blue states leaving first. I’m generally depressed about politics today. Perhaps because the SCOTUS has scheduled two opinion days this week, it’s nearing the end of June, and they’re about out of harmless decisions to release. I fear they’re going to rule that government(s) can’t regulate guns; that women are second-class citizens; that voting can be systematically limited; that regulation of the environment is unconstitutional. That the Republicans will be able to impose whatever insanity they’ve settled on, whenever they hit the legislative and executive trifecta.
If you don’t like it here, go. If you want to stay, accept that you will not be able to impose whatever batsh*t insanity tickles your fancy on the rest of us.
I know you were aiming this at the Texas Republicans’ platform statement. But if I were to bet on an actual departure — some years down the road — I’d bet on a group of blue states leaving first. I’m generally depressed about politics today. Perhaps because the SCOTUS has scheduled two opinion days this week, it’s nearing the end of June, and they’re about out of harmless decisions to release. I fear they’re going to rule that government(s) can’t regulate guns; that women are second-class citizens; that voting can be systematically limited; that regulation of the environment is unconstitutional. That the Republicans will be able to impose whatever insanity they’ve settled on, whenever they hit the legislative and executive trifecta.
company has to know your state (and country) of residence in order to withold state taxes
Sometimes it’s not where you live; it’s where the company is based. One time I was living in Calufornia and doing some consulting at a company also in California. But doing it via a company based in New Jersey. So I had to pay New Jersey income tax on that income.
(Similarly, I own a couple of percent of my current employer, so I get a 1099 from them. One of our clients is based in NYC. So I have to file income tax there as well. Even though neither I nor my company are located in New York.)
In short, the situation is already so complex that details can easily get lost in the shuffle. That is, I might well be able to say to my employer: I’ll pay estimated taxes at the state level, so don’t worry about anything but the IRS. Especially if I suggest that I’ll be moving multiple times during the year. 😁
Tax law seriously resembles a full employment for CPAs set up.
company has to know your state (and country) of residence in order to withold state taxes
Sometimes it’s not where you live; it’s where the company is based. One time I was living in Calufornia and doing some consulting at a company also in California. But doing it via a company based in New Jersey. So I had to pay New Jersey income tax on that income.
(Similarly, I own a couple of percent of my current employer, so I get a 1099 from them. One of our clients is based in NYC. So I have to file income tax there as well. Even though neither I nor my company are located in New York.)
In short, the situation is already so complex that details can easily get lost in the shuffle. That is, I might well be able to say to my employer: I’ll pay estimated taxes at the state level, so don’t worry about anything but the IRS. Especially if I suggest that I’ll be moving multiple times during the year. 😁
Tax law seriously resembles a full employment for CPAs set up.
if I were to bet on an actual departure — some years down the road — I’d bet on a group of blue states leaving first.
Why am I suspecting that the RWNJs would decide that they wouldn’t allow any states to leave, lest we legalize abortion or blacks voting or something else that they are downright religious about stopping. But for once they really would have precedence on their side.
if I were to bet on an actual departure — some years down the road — I’d bet on a group of blue states leaving first.
Why am I suspecting that the RWNJs would decide that they wouldn’t allow any states to leave, lest we legalize abortion or blacks voting or something else that they are downright religious about stopping. But for once they really would have precedence on their side.
Hi all, can’t comment much on things going on in the US, the distance between there and here seems further and further every day. But one observation, my FB feed seems filled with father’s day tributes, much more than in previous years. I imagine that they were muted during COVID, but it seems like this flood is linked to a sense that everything is going to hell. Has anyone else noticed this or is this just observer bias?
Hi all, can’t comment much on things going on in the US, the distance between there and here seems further and further every day. But one observation, my FB feed seems filled with father’s day tributes, much more than in previous years. I imagine that they were muted during COVID, but it seems like this flood is linked to a sense that everything is going to hell. Has anyone else noticed this or is this just observer bias?
I do have the sense that I’m seeing more than usual. But then, I play so little attention to holidays these days that I’m probably not an ideal indicator.
I do have the sense that I’m seeing more than usual. But then, I play so little attention to holidays these days that I’m probably not an ideal indicator.
I wish the whole frickin’ South would go. We’d save a lot of tax dollars, too, since we wouldn’t have to subsidize their economies anymore.
I wish the whole frickin’ South would go. We’d save a lot of tax dollars, too, since we wouldn’t have to subsidize their economies anymore.
I’d bet on a group of blue states leaving first
The Essex Junto rides again!
I have no idea how it’s all gonna play out. I’m just tired of having to factor sheer insanity into every matter of public concern.
And I mean insanity literally. We can’t get anything done in this country, because something like a third of the population thinks white people are being replaced and the woke mob is coming for them and their guns.
I’ve given up on having conversations with people who subscribe to this stuff. Millions of people fill their heads full of paranoid lies each and every day. I’m not sure they’re reachable anymore. They’ve lost their minds. Maybe that seems overly judge-y, but I don’t know how else to describe it. They believe things that are plainly not so.
Not sure where you go with that. No place good, that’s for sure.
This country has always been an extremely mixed bag, but at least we used to be able to get some stuff done. I’m not naive about How Things Used To Be, but we used to be able to address concrete, tangible problems – things that should not be a matter of partisan bias. Air and water quality, roads and bridges, public education, energy infrastructure. Basic stuff. Things that governments do, and are uniquely able to do effectively.
The paranoid style has invaded the brains of approximately half the voting public. We’re screwed, for the foreseeable future, it seems to me.
I’d bet on a group of blue states leaving first
The Essex Junto rides again!
I have no idea how it’s all gonna play out. I’m just tired of having to factor sheer insanity into every matter of public concern.
And I mean insanity literally. We can’t get anything done in this country, because something like a third of the population thinks white people are being replaced and the woke mob is coming for them and their guns.
I’ve given up on having conversations with people who subscribe to this stuff. Millions of people fill their heads full of paranoid lies each and every day. I’m not sure they’re reachable anymore. They’ve lost their minds. Maybe that seems overly judge-y, but I don’t know how else to describe it. They believe things that are plainly not so.
Not sure where you go with that. No place good, that’s for sure.
This country has always been an extremely mixed bag, but at least we used to be able to get some stuff done. I’m not naive about How Things Used To Be, but we used to be able to address concrete, tangible problems – things that should not be a matter of partisan bias. Air and water quality, roads and bridges, public education, energy infrastructure. Basic stuff. Things that governments do, and are uniquely able to do effectively.
The paranoid style has invaded the brains of approximately half the voting public. We’re screwed, for the foreseeable future, it seems to me.
It appears that we are not the only ones thinking this way:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/20/texas-gop-platform-secession-theocracy/
And note that just getting rid of Texas would be enough to assure that the MAGAts wouldn’t elect another President.
It appears that we are not the only ones thinking this way:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/20/texas-gop-platform-secession-theocracy/
And note that just getting rid of Texas would be enough to assure that the MAGAts wouldn’t elect another President.
Trump can be president of the free and independent nation of Texas.
Best of luck to them.
Trump can be president of the free and independent nation of Texas.
Best of luck to them.
Trump can be president of the free and independent nation of Texas.
Would be worth it just to see the pained, patently fake smiles on Abbott and Cruz at having to be Tyrannosaurus Rump’s cup bearers instead of taking the crown themselves.
Cucked. By a La Victoria eating yankee.
Trump can be president of the free and independent nation of Texas.
Would be worth it just to see the pained, patently fake smiles on Abbott and Cruz at having to be Tyrannosaurus Rump’s cup bearers instead of taking the crown themselves.
Cucked. By a La Victoria eating yankee.
we used to be able to get some stuff done. I’m not naive about How Things Used To Be, but we used to be able to address concrete, tangible problems – things that should not be a matter of partisan bias. Air and water quality, roads and bridges, public education, energy infrastructure. Basic stuff. Things that governments do, and are uniquely able to do effectively.
The paranoid style has invaded the brains of approximately half the voting public.
In most of those cases (as opposed to abortion, guns, etc.) what has invaded their brains is the rabid libertarian view that government is never the answer. To anything. They’re apparently OK with using government for theological purposes. Just not for anything practical and useful.
we used to be able to get some stuff done. I’m not naive about How Things Used To Be, but we used to be able to address concrete, tangible problems – things that should not be a matter of partisan bias. Air and water quality, roads and bridges, public education, energy infrastructure. Basic stuff. Things that governments do, and are uniquely able to do effectively.
The paranoid style has invaded the brains of approximately half the voting public.
In most of those cases (as opposed to abortion, guns, etc.) what has invaded their brains is the rabid libertarian view that government is never the answer. To anything. They’re apparently OK with using government for theological purposes. Just not for anything practical and useful.
I wish the whole frickin’ South would go. We’d save a lot of tax dollars, too, since we wouldn’t have to subsidize their economies anymore.
Everyone says that. No one thinks about higher prices for the oil and natural gas they produce, transit fees for those products and grain exports from the Midwest, etc. Even in 1860, one of Lincoln’s motivations for keeping the Union together was a fear of the Confederacy charging high prices for grain transits on the Mississippi.
I wish the whole frickin’ South would go. We’d save a lot of tax dollars, too, since we wouldn’t have to subsidize their economies anymore.
Everyone says that. No one thinks about higher prices for the oil and natural gas they produce, transit fees for those products and grain exports from the Midwest, etc. Even in 1860, one of Lincoln’s motivations for keeping the Union together was a fear of the Confederacy charging high prices for grain transits on the Mississippi.
I wish the whole frickin’ South would get over the Civil War.
I wish the whole frickin’ South would get over the Civil War.
a fear of the Confederacy charging high prices for grain transits on the Mississippi.
First, that was pre-St Lawrence Seaway. Which rather reduces the impact.
Second, there’s no particular reason that the exit terms couldn’t include free passage. Much like with Turkey with the Bosphorus — no transit fees there.
Likely a bigger hassle would be relocating various NASA facilities. A bunch of which got located in the South to placate various Dixiecrat Senators. Still, Hawaii might welcome them. And, being closer to the equator than the Cape, it’s actually a better spot…
a fear of the Confederacy charging high prices for grain transits on the Mississippi.
First, that was pre-St Lawrence Seaway. Which rather reduces the impact.
Second, there’s no particular reason that the exit terms couldn’t include free passage. Much like with Turkey with the Bosphorus — no transit fees there.
Likely a bigger hassle would be relocating various NASA facilities. A bunch of which got located in the South to placate various Dixiecrat Senators. Still, Hawaii might welcome them. And, being closer to the equator than the Cape, it’s actually a better spot…
I wish the whole frickin’ South would get over the Civil War.
I venture to predict that, 150 years from now, they won’t have gotten over the fact that Trump lost either. Some people just gotta have a Lost Cause to cling to.
I wish the whole frickin’ South would get over the Civil War.
I venture to predict that, 150 years from now, they won’t have gotten over the fact that Trump lost either. Some people just gotta have a Lost Cause to cling to.
@wj — Plus, it seems to me that trade is a two-way affair. Or are we to assume that the “US-Rebooted” would want or need things from the “Neo-Confederacy,” but the latter would need nothing from the former?
@wj — Plus, it seems to me that trade is a two-way affair. Or are we to assume that the “US-Rebooted” would want or need things from the “Neo-Confederacy,” but the latter would need nothing from the former?
Or are we to assume that the “US-Rebooted” would want or need things from the “Neo-Confederacy,” but the latter would need nothing from the former?
You mean like corn, wheat, cheese, steel, etc.?** Actually, the number one thing they get from the rest of the country is . . . money. From what we’d save there, we could probably afford to pay the transit fees and then some. (And leave them to internal fights about how to distribute it.)
** For that matter, we could charge them for the water that they import via the Mississippi River. 🙂
Or are we to assume that the “US-Rebooted” would want or need things from the “Neo-Confederacy,” but the latter would need nothing from the former?
You mean like corn, wheat, cheese, steel, etc.?** Actually, the number one thing they get from the rest of the country is . . . money. From what we’d save there, we could probably afford to pay the transit fees and then some. (And leave them to internal fights about how to distribute it.)
** For that matter, we could charge them for the water that they import via the Mississippi River. 🙂
Or are we to assume that the “US-Rebooted” would want or need things from the “Neo-Confederacy,” but the latter would need nothing from the former?
All too often, people’s needs are, at best, secondary considerations for politicians and governments. Otherwise just about everything would be cheaper and more plentiful than they are.
Or are we to assume that the “US-Rebooted” would want or need things from the “Neo-Confederacy,” but the latter would need nothing from the former?
All too often, people’s needs are, at best, secondary considerations for politicians and governments. Otherwise just about everything would be cheaper and more plentiful than they are.
If it’s left to the states to a much greater degree than now to decide what sorts of laws to have, I wonder if the result, short of splitting the nation in two (or whatever number), will be that people in certain states come to realize what little hells the Christianists and gun-fetishists and radical deregulators have created for them. What would complicate that even further than it would already be complicated is whether those people could do anything about it (other than leave for saner states, assuming that was an even an option).
If it’s left to the states to a much greater degree than now to decide what sorts of laws to have, I wonder if the result, short of splitting the nation in two (or whatever number), will be that people in certain states come to realize what little hells the Christianists and gun-fetishists and radical deregulators have created for them. What would complicate that even further than it would already be complicated is whether those people could do anything about it (other than leave for saner states, assuming that was an even an option).
All too often, people’s needs are, at best, secondary considerations for politicians and governments.
Are you just randomly tossing spit? Because I didn’t say anything about “people” — I was making the point that trade between *nations* would go both ways, not just one way, as Michael Cain’s comment seemed to imply.
Plus, while you’re demonizing government as usual, are you asserting by implication corporations and CEOs care for nothing more than “the people’s” needs?
Heh.
All too often, people’s needs are, at best, secondary considerations for politicians and governments.
Are you just randomly tossing spit? Because I didn’t say anything about “people” — I was making the point that trade between *nations* would go both ways, not just one way, as Michael Cain’s comment seemed to imply.
Plus, while you’re demonizing government as usual, are you asserting by implication corporations and CEOs care for nothing more than “the people’s” needs?
Heh.
Plus, it seems to me that trade is a two-way affair. Or are we to assume that the “US-Rebooted” would want or need things from the “Neo-Confederacy,” but the latter would need nothing from the former?
There’s trade, then there’s trade.
The authors of the Constitution worried enough about things equivalent to transit fees that they specifically banned states from imposing them on each other. In the case of a full separation, transit fees become a matter for negotiation between the countries. One of the things I learned since Russia invaded Ukraine is that most of the motivation for the Nordstream 2 natural gas pipeline was so Russia and Germany could avoid paying the transit fees charged by Ukraine and Belarus. In the case of Ukraine, transit fees made up about 4% of their GDP.
I do think it’s easier to find “national” facilities in the South that the Rest would have to reproduce than vice versa. The Rest is much more dependent on the bulk-handling Gulf ports than the South is dependent on, say, the Port of New York/New Jersey. Another example is the whole Kennedy Space Complex. Not just the capital cost to reproduce that. There is a substantial value in terms of the rotational energy obtained by being farther south. When the Soviet Union broke up, their main launch facility was in Kazakhstan. The lease fees are high enough that Russia has been building a whole new complex in a very inconvenient location to avoid paying them, and to not give up the southern latitude benefit.
Gaming out a peaceful partition is hard and requires making a whole bunch of assumptions/predictions about future roles of the parties. The US dollar losing its status as the world’s reserve currency makes things easier. The US losing its position as a non-nuclear global military superpower makes things easier.
Plus, it seems to me that trade is a two-way affair. Or are we to assume that the “US-Rebooted” would want or need things from the “Neo-Confederacy,” but the latter would need nothing from the former?
There’s trade, then there’s trade.
The authors of the Constitution worried enough about things equivalent to transit fees that they specifically banned states from imposing them on each other. In the case of a full separation, transit fees become a matter for negotiation between the countries. One of the things I learned since Russia invaded Ukraine is that most of the motivation for the Nordstream 2 natural gas pipeline was so Russia and Germany could avoid paying the transit fees charged by Ukraine and Belarus. In the case of Ukraine, transit fees made up about 4% of their GDP.
I do think it’s easier to find “national” facilities in the South that the Rest would have to reproduce than vice versa. The Rest is much more dependent on the bulk-handling Gulf ports than the South is dependent on, say, the Port of New York/New Jersey. Another example is the whole Kennedy Space Complex. Not just the capital cost to reproduce that. There is a substantial value in terms of the rotational energy obtained by being farther south. When the Soviet Union broke up, their main launch facility was in Kazakhstan. The lease fees are high enough that Russia has been building a whole new complex in a very inconvenient location to avoid paying them, and to not give up the southern latitude benefit.
Gaming out a peaceful partition is hard and requires making a whole bunch of assumptions/predictions about future roles of the parties. The US dollar losing its status as the world’s reserve currency makes things easier. The US losing its position as a non-nuclear global military superpower makes things easier.
@JanieM, I think Charles was alluding more to the case that in the American Revolution about one-third of the population were Revolutionaries, about one-third Royalists, and the other third weren’t committed. The colonial governments, though, were all committed to the Revolution. Similar split of white people in the South during the run-up to the American Civil War. But the Southern state legislatures were all gung-ho secessionist. I have regularly said that if I’m going to conspire to partition the US, my plot will involve convincing 38 state legislatures that partition is in their interest. And their interests don’t have to coincide, just each one believing that it will be better off under a different arrangement for its own reasons.
@JanieM, I think Charles was alluding more to the case that in the American Revolution about one-third of the population were Revolutionaries, about one-third Royalists, and the other third weren’t committed. The colonial governments, though, were all committed to the Revolution. Similar split of white people in the South during the run-up to the American Civil War. But the Southern state legislatures were all gung-ho secessionist. I have regularly said that if I’m going to conspire to partition the US, my plot will involve convincing 38 state legislatures that partition is in their interest. And their interests don’t have to coincide, just each one believing that it will be better off under a different arrangement for its own reasons.
Assuming that some sort of partition happens to the US government, how do any of you see this playing out with states remaining intact for anything but the short term?
How do Colorado and New Mexico survive as purple islands in a sea of red? How do Texas cities carve out their own sovereignty in the face of surrounding pressure? (And, really, the issue is much the same for Denver/Boulder/Ft. Collins.)
If there is a partition, then there is also a severe destabilization of federal authority. What keeps the CA government functioning when all of the federal structure crumbles?
I don’t think that the urban/rural divide is going to be any more solvable after a partition than it was before, and I don’t know how the cities are going to project their political power across their metropolitan territory, let alone the surrounding areas.
If the order and continuity we have dissolves, I don’t know what will follow, but I cannot see it looking anything like the system to which we cling tenuously.
I think most of the Southwest and California will end up looking more like present-day Mexico than like the US post-WWII.
Assuming that some sort of partition happens to the US government, how do any of you see this playing out with states remaining intact for anything but the short term?
How do Colorado and New Mexico survive as purple islands in a sea of red? How do Texas cities carve out their own sovereignty in the face of surrounding pressure? (And, really, the issue is much the same for Denver/Boulder/Ft. Collins.)
If there is a partition, then there is also a severe destabilization of federal authority. What keeps the CA government functioning when all of the federal structure crumbles?
I don’t think that the urban/rural divide is going to be any more solvable after a partition than it was before, and I don’t know how the cities are going to project their political power across their metropolitan territory, let alone the surrounding areas.
If the order and continuity we have dissolves, I don’t know what will follow, but I cannot see it looking anything like the system to which we cling tenuously.
I think most of the Southwest and California will end up looking more like present-day Mexico than like the US post-WWII.
@JanieM, I think Charles was alluding more to the case that in the American Revolution about one-third of the population were Revolutionaries, about one-third Royalists, and the other third weren’t committed. The colonial governments, though, were all committed to the Revolution.
Thanks for your responses in general, Michael, they’re helpful and enlightening (and depressing).
But Charles seemed to be responding to a comment of mine about trade, riffing off a comment of yours about trade…..so if his reference was what you say, it was pretty obscure.
@JanieM, I think Charles was alluding more to the case that in the American Revolution about one-third of the population were Revolutionaries, about one-third Royalists, and the other third weren’t committed. The colonial governments, though, were all committed to the Revolution.
Thanks for your responses in general, Michael, they’re helpful and enlightening (and depressing).
But Charles seemed to be responding to a comment of mine about trade, riffing off a comment of yours about trade…..so if his reference was what you say, it was pretty obscure.
The one thing that politicians and governments need more than anything else is people.
The one thing that politicians and governments need more than anything else is people.
Plus, while you’re demonizing government as usual, are you asserting by implication corporations and CEOs care for nothing more than “the people’s” needs?
Regardless of whether corporations and CEOs care anything at all about people’s needs, to get what they want, people’s money, they generally have to provide goods and services people are willing to pay for.
Unlike governments and politicians who can take your money regardless of whether they provide anything of value to you in return.
Plus, while you’re demonizing government as usual, are you asserting by implication corporations and CEOs care for nothing more than “the people’s” needs?
Regardless of whether corporations and CEOs care anything at all about people’s needs, to get what they want, people’s money, they generally have to provide goods and services people are willing to pay for.
Unlike governments and politicians who can take your money regardless of whether they provide anything of value to you in return.
Regardless of whether corporations and CEOs care anything at all about people’s needs, to get what they want, people’s money, they generally have to provide goods and services people are willing to pay for.
Unless, of course, they are providing necessities, and conspiring together to set prices as a de facto, if not de jure, monopoly. (That would be the “trust” in anti-trust legislation.) Sounds familiar, somehow….
Regardless of whether corporations and CEOs care anything at all about people’s needs, to get what they want, people’s money, they generally have to provide goods and services people are willing to pay for.
Unless, of course, they are providing necessities, and conspiring together to set prices as a de facto, if not de jure, monopoly. (That would be the “trust” in anti-trust legislation.) Sounds familiar, somehow….
How do Colorado and New Mexico survive as purple islands in a sea of red?
I’m thinking that, by the time something like this could be negotiated, Arizona would have turned blue. It’s already trending in that direction — hence the frantic efforts by Republicans there to rig the system. Efforts that look increasingly futile in the short to medium term.
How do Colorado and New Mexico survive as purple islands in a sea of red?
I’m thinking that, by the time something like this could be negotiated, Arizona would have turned blue. It’s already trending in that direction — hence the frantic efforts by Republicans there to rig the system. Efforts that look increasingly futile in the short to medium term.
Gaming out a peaceful partition is hard
tru dat
I don’t think that the urban/rural divide is going to be any more solvable after a partition than it was before
also tru dat
my best guess is that nobody is going anywhere anytime soon, mostly because it would be a colossal, world-historical PITA. it would take years, maybe a generation, to figure out how to do it in way that would avoid bloodshed.
and so it’s unlikely to actually happen.
basically I think the TX (R)’s are full of crap. it’s performative yahoo nonsense.
but I actually wouldn’t mind if they’d leave the country. it would make life a lot simpler for the rest of us.
Gaming out a peaceful partition is hard
tru dat
I don’t think that the urban/rural divide is going to be any more solvable after a partition than it was before
also tru dat
my best guess is that nobody is going anywhere anytime soon, mostly because it would be a colossal, world-historical PITA. it would take years, maybe a generation, to figure out how to do it in way that would avoid bloodshed.
and so it’s unlikely to actually happen.
basically I think the TX (R)’s are full of crap. it’s performative yahoo nonsense.
but I actually wouldn’t mind if they’d leave the country. it would make life a lot simpler for the rest of us.
I would have thought that attempting a coup without the support of the majority of the populace or the military would also be a world-historical PITA.
But here we are.
The Rat(ional) Choice school has an abysmal record of prediction.
Government has ceased to be a matter of making non-catastrophic public choices and has instead become the process of mitigating the worst choices that have already been made for bad reasons.
I just ordered Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Ministry for the Future. It does seem on-target.
I would have thought that attempting a coup without the support of the majority of the populace or the military would also be a world-historical PITA.
But here we are.
The Rat(ional) Choice school has an abysmal record of prediction.
Government has ceased to be a matter of making non-catastrophic public choices and has instead become the process of mitigating the worst choices that have already been made for bad reasons.
I just ordered Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Ministry for the Future. It does seem on-target.
Government has ceased to be a matter of making non-catastrophic public choices and has instead become the process of mitigating the worst choices that have already been made for bad reasons.
In many cases, it has become nothing but an opportunity for performance for those whose (lack of) acting talent means they would never make it, let alone star, on screen or stage or TV.
Government has ceased to be a matter of making non-catastrophic public choices and has instead become the process of mitigating the worst choices that have already been made for bad reasons.
In many cases, it has become nothing but an opportunity for performance for those whose (lack of) acting talent means they would never make it, let alone star, on screen or stage or TV.
Tuesday hearing over. As you might expect, utterly shocking testimony from R officials from Georgia, including impressive numbers from Raffensperger who testified for example that 4 dead people voted, as opposed to the 5 thousand and then 10 thousand claimed by Trump and Giuliani. Also, harrowing testimony from one of the election workers and her mother, who were defamed by name by Trump, and whose entire life has been turned upside down, as well as others who were majorly targeted and threatened on social media and in person at their homes. Fox News, covering, immediately pivoted (on this last point) to the SCOTUS justices who are currently being targeted. What a bunch of bastards, if you will forgive the lack of sophisticated analysis. Where is Dave when you need him?
Tuesday hearing over. As you might expect, utterly shocking testimony from R officials from Georgia, including impressive numbers from Raffensperger who testified for example that 4 dead people voted, as opposed to the 5 thousand and then 10 thousand claimed by Trump and Giuliani. Also, harrowing testimony from one of the election workers and her mother, who were defamed by name by Trump, and whose entire life has been turned upside down, as well as others who were majorly targeted and threatened on social media and in person at their homes. Fox News, covering, immediately pivoted (on this last point) to the SCOTUS justices who are currently being targeted. What a bunch of bastards, if you will forgive the lack of sophisticated analysis. Where is Dave when you need him?
More fun: it seems that someone was doing a documentary on Trump’s reelection campaign. And had enormous access to what was happening. The Jan 6 Committee has subpoenaed the raw footage. Which may well show exactly what conversations Trump and those around him had, both before the voting and between then and Jan 6.
No need to rely on what people say they remember of what Trump said and did. (Which Trump, surprise surprise, claims are all lies.) We may get to see him saying and doing with our own eyes. For those willing to believe their lying eyes, naturally.
More fun: it seems that someone was doing a documentary on Trump’s reelection campaign. And had enormous access to what was happening. The Jan 6 Committee has subpoenaed the raw footage. Which may well show exactly what conversations Trump and those around him had, both before the voting and between then and Jan 6.
No need to rely on what people say they remember of what Trump said and did. (Which Trump, surprise surprise, claims are all lies.) We may get to see him saying and doing with our own eyes. For those willing to believe their lying eyes, naturally.
I don’t think that the urban/rural divide is going to be any more solvable after a partition than it was before, and I don’t know how the cities are going to project their political power across their metropolitan territory, let alone the surrounding areas.
In one sense I agree. OTOH, my own take on partition, and I’ve written about it here so no one has an excuse for not knowing (just kidding), is that it will be based on different regions wanting radically different responses to climate change problems. Rural Utah will discover they have much more in common with SLC on those critical issues than they do with rural Mississippi or rural Ohio. Managing water and fire, for example, will be existential for both rural and urban Utah. Gaining managerial control of the public lands held by the federal government in order to deal with water and fire will be something the entire region agrees on.
I don’t think that the urban/rural divide is going to be any more solvable after a partition than it was before, and I don’t know how the cities are going to project their political power across their metropolitan territory, let alone the surrounding areas.
In one sense I agree. OTOH, my own take on partition, and I’ve written about it here so no one has an excuse for not knowing (just kidding), is that it will be based on different regions wanting radically different responses to climate change problems. Rural Utah will discover they have much more in common with SLC on those critical issues than they do with rural Mississippi or rural Ohio. Managing water and fire, for example, will be existential for both rural and urban Utah. Gaining managerial control of the public lands held by the federal government in order to deal with water and fire will be something the entire region agrees on.
Michael Cain – I agree with your reasoning and expect that would hold for any orderly partition that happened as a result of a long, slow failure of federal oversight. I’m not sure that an orderly devolution of power will be the order of the day, though. Are we dealing with Brad Little or Janice McGeachin in charge of how ID jumps? What about Gianforte? What about Noem? They don’t seem like the sort of people who are taking in the long view. They seem like the type to want to monkey wrench federal power as much as possible, and who would resist any attempt to put limits on their power as Governor in the case of a failure of federalism.
And if the feds are crippled, then the federal lands are up for grabs on the state level, and they will be serving up a feast of natural resources to anyone with cash.
Michael Cain – I agree with your reasoning and expect that would hold for any orderly partition that happened as a result of a long, slow failure of federal oversight. I’m not sure that an orderly devolution of power will be the order of the day, though. Are we dealing with Brad Little or Janice McGeachin in charge of how ID jumps? What about Gianforte? What about Noem? They don’t seem like the sort of people who are taking in the long view. They seem like the type to want to monkey wrench federal power as much as possible, and who would resist any attempt to put limits on their power as Governor in the case of a failure of federalism.
And if the feds are crippled, then the federal lands are up for grabs on the state level, and they will be serving up a feast of natural resources to anyone with cash.
This is from a piece in today’s Times by Daniel Finkelstein, a rightwing but reasonable commentator. (Which description reminds me of 1066 and All That‘s characterisation of the Cavaliers and the Roundheads in our civil war: the former were “wrong but romantic”, the latter were “right but repulsive”).
His piece is about whether Ford was right to pardon Nixon (he thinks he wasn’t), and why not prosecuting Trump would be a serious mistake. It may be behind a paywall, so FYI this is how he ends:
Nixon’s crimes were incredibly serious. The more carefully one studies Watergate, the more startling they become. So it’s saying something to argue that the challenge Trump poses to liberal democratic order is more serious even than that posed by Nixon.
The central advantage of democracy is that it allows for the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another. Undermine that and the whole basis of law-making by consent is undermined. If the justice department concludes that Trump broke the law to try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power then almost any political risk is worth taking to assert the primacy of the law. The fact that Trump’s followers would be infuriated cannot stand in the way, nor can concern that this infuriation may lead to violence.
The re-election of Trump would be a calamity. But it would be a far greater calamity if it occurred after he had learnt that the law doesn’t apply to him. If he concluded that his political support, the extent of its delusion and its violent intensity, insured him against prosecution then his obvious move would be to deepen their delusion and increase their violent intensity.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-needs-to-know-he-is-not-above-the-law-lqqpz3czw
This is from a piece in today’s Times by Daniel Finkelstein, a rightwing but reasonable commentator. (Which description reminds me of 1066 and All That‘s characterisation of the Cavaliers and the Roundheads in our civil war: the former were “wrong but romantic”, the latter were “right but repulsive”).
His piece is about whether Ford was right to pardon Nixon (he thinks he wasn’t), and why not prosecuting Trump would be a serious mistake. It may be behind a paywall, so FYI this is how he ends:
Nixon’s crimes were incredibly serious. The more carefully one studies Watergate, the more startling they become. So it’s saying something to argue that the challenge Trump poses to liberal democratic order is more serious even than that posed by Nixon.
The central advantage of democracy is that it allows for the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another. Undermine that and the whole basis of law-making by consent is undermined. If the justice department concludes that Trump broke the law to try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power then almost any political risk is worth taking to assert the primacy of the law. The fact that Trump’s followers would be infuriated cannot stand in the way, nor can concern that this infuriation may lead to violence.
The re-election of Trump would be a calamity. But it would be a far greater calamity if it occurred after he had learnt that the law doesn’t apply to him. If he concluded that his political support, the extent of its delusion and its violent intensity, insured him against prosecution then his obvious move would be to deepen their delusion and increase their violent intensity.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-needs-to-know-he-is-not-above-the-law-lqqpz3czw
Gotta say, the man has a point. In fact, I would go further.
Yes, the US Attorney General should charge him with various Federal crimes. (Perhaps not the entire list, but at least the Greatest Hits version.) But in addition, the Georgia Attorney General should charge him with the various violations of state law during his attempt to overturn the election there. The Arizona Attorney General should do likewise, for his election-related crimes there. (But probably won’t, Arizona politics being how they are these days.)
Then, the New York Attorney General should go after his various financial crimes there — already a work in progress. Not election related, perhaps. But long overdue.
The phrase “Throw the book at him!” comes to mind. Give DeSantis, and any other Trump wannabes, a reason to think about what skeletons there may be in their closet. From what we’ve been seeing regarding various Republican moralizers, it wouldn’t be surprising if they have some. The cultists may not care, but that needs to clearly NOT be a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Gotta say, the man has a point. In fact, I would go further.
Yes, the US Attorney General should charge him with various Federal crimes. (Perhaps not the entire list, but at least the Greatest Hits version.) But in addition, the Georgia Attorney General should charge him with the various violations of state law during his attempt to overturn the election there. The Arizona Attorney General should do likewise, for his election-related crimes there. (But probably won’t, Arizona politics being how they are these days.)
Then, the New York Attorney General should go after his various financial crimes there — already a work in progress. Not election related, perhaps. But long overdue.
The phrase “Throw the book at him!” comes to mind. Give DeSantis, and any other Trump wannabes, a reason to think about what skeletons there may be in their closet. From what we’ve been seeing regarding various Republican moralizers, it wouldn’t be surprising if they have some. The cultists may not care, but that needs to clearly NOT be a get-out-of-jail-free card.
this ^^^^. every single word.
if Trump walks away from this, rule of law is utterly undermined.
if Trump walks away from this and manages a second term as POTUS, this country is basically done. really done.
I have no idea what happens then, except that it won’t be good.
this ^^^^. every single word.
if Trump walks away from this, rule of law is utterly undermined.
if Trump walks away from this and manages a second term as POTUS, this country is basically done. really done.
I have no idea what happens then, except that it won’t be good.
This in particular:
The fact that Trump’s followers would be infuriated cannot stand in the way, nor can concern that this infuriation may lead to violence.
The infuriation *would* lead to violence. Not “may”, but *would*.
So we can either deal with that, or live in a nation where a bunch of violent bastards decide the direction of public life.
This in particular:
The fact that Trump’s followers would be infuriated cannot stand in the way, nor can concern that this infuriation may lead to violence.
The infuriation *would* lead to violence. Not “may”, but *would*.
So we can either deal with that, or live in a nation where a bunch of violent bastards decide the direction of public life.
The infuriation *would* lead to violence. Not “may”, but *would*.
No question there. And, as we saw last year, an enormous flood of threats of violence** which merely traumatize people, even though they aren’t acted upon.
** Not only against those involved in him being charged (and, please God, convicted). But against their families, neighbors, etc., too.
The infuriation *would* lead to violence. Not “may”, but *would*.
No question there. And, as we saw last year, an enormous flood of threats of violence** which merely traumatize people, even though they aren’t acted upon.
** Not only against those involved in him being charged (and, please God, convicted). But against their families, neighbors, etc., too.
And if the feds are crippled, then the federal lands are up for grabs on the state level, and they will be serving up a feast of natural resources to anyone with cash.
50 years ago, or even 25 years ago, I would probably have agreed with you. The recent rise of the “sovereign sheriff” concept has coincided with the claim that the public lands belong to counties, not the federal government or the states. They’ve had to go with that claim because the explosive growth in the West has been almost exclusively urban/suburban and includes tons of at least informal environmentalists. The people who would sell off the extractive rights pell-mell are outnumbered and no longer control that decision in most western states.
And if the feds are crippled, then the federal lands are up for grabs on the state level, and they will be serving up a feast of natural resources to anyone with cash.
50 years ago, or even 25 years ago, I would probably have agreed with you. The recent rise of the “sovereign sheriff” concept has coincided with the claim that the public lands belong to counties, not the federal government or the states. They’ve had to go with that claim because the explosive growth in the West has been almost exclusively urban/suburban and includes tons of at least informal environmentalists. The people who would sell off the extractive rights pell-mell are outnumbered and no longer control that decision in most western states.
I’m thinking that, by the time something like this could be negotiated, Arizona would have turned blue. It’s already trending in that direction…
The two great geographic political changes of the last 30 years are the Midwest going red and the West going blue. As of today, the 8-state Mountain West has more Democrats in the US Senate than the 12-state Midwest. The Midwest shift is occasionally noted by East Coast media. Eg, as the “failure of the blue wall” in the 2016 Presidential election. What they seemingly failed to notice about that election was the West producing almost as many Clinton votes in the EC as the NE urban corridor.
I’m thinking that, by the time something like this could be negotiated, Arizona would have turned blue. It’s already trending in that direction…
The two great geographic political changes of the last 30 years are the Midwest going red and the West going blue. As of today, the 8-state Mountain West has more Democrats in the US Senate than the 12-state Midwest. The Midwest shift is occasionally noted by East Coast media. Eg, as the “failure of the blue wall” in the 2016 Presidential election. What they seemingly failed to notice about that election was the West producing almost as many Clinton votes in the EC as the NE urban corridor.
The two great geographic political changes of the last 30 years are the Midwest going red and the West going blue. As of today, the 8-state Mountain West has more Democrats in the US Senate than the 12-state Midwest.
I had noticed that the media (at least the bits I frequent) persists in treating those Democrats who keep winning in Montana as anomalies, rather than a trend. I wonder how much of that is a result of the pervasiveness of the urban/rural image of today’s political divisions. Certainly it would be challenging to characterize Montana as predominant urban….
The two great geographic political changes of the last 30 years are the Midwest going red and the West going blue. As of today, the 8-state Mountain West has more Democrats in the US Senate than the 12-state Midwest.
I had noticed that the media (at least the bits I frequent) persists in treating those Democrats who keep winning in Montana as anomalies, rather than a trend. I wonder how much of that is a result of the pervasiveness of the urban/rural image of today’s political divisions. Certainly it would be challenging to characterize Montana as predominant urban….
Montana is 55.9% urbanized. But only four other states are less urbanized.
Urbanization in the United States
Montana is 55.9% urbanized. But only four other states are less urbanized.
Urbanization in the United States
Michael Cain – that sets up a confrontation between local law enforcement and corporate supported security, with that conflict spilling out into the local populace as they choose economic sides. It’s basically Medieval Norway or Iceland – a breeding ground for feud.
Whatever the case, it seems more prone to fragmentation and destabilization than to an orderly compact between policy- aligned states.
Or we are just worldbuilding different dystopias.
Michael Cain – that sets up a confrontation between local law enforcement and corporate supported security, with that conflict spilling out into the local populace as they choose economic sides. It’s basically Medieval Norway or Iceland – a breeding ground for feud.
Whatever the case, it seems more prone to fragmentation and destabilization than to an orderly compact between policy- aligned states.
Or we are just worldbuilding different dystopias.
I had noticed that the media (at least the bits I frequent) persists in treating those Democrats who keep winning in Montana as anomalies, rather than a trend.
They do seem to have quit referring to AZ as “deep red”. All it took was the AZ Democrats winning 5-of-9 US House seats, both US Senate seats, the Secretary of State, and narrowing the Republican majorities in the state legislature to a single seat each. And the voters approving initiatives over the years for a redistricting commission, increased minimum wage, guaranteed sick leave, and recreational marijuana.
I have a bet with an “East Coast pundit” type on the AZ outcomes. Chances are neither of us win — each of us picked a proposition that (a) we thought possible and (b) the other would think outlandish. I’m betting on flipping to a blue trifecta (governor and both chambers). He’s betting on the Dems get absolutely crushed (lose every statewide race and two of the US House seats they hold).
I had noticed that the media (at least the bits I frequent) persists in treating those Democrats who keep winning in Montana as anomalies, rather than a trend.
They do seem to have quit referring to AZ as “deep red”. All it took was the AZ Democrats winning 5-of-9 US House seats, both US Senate seats, the Secretary of State, and narrowing the Republican majorities in the state legislature to a single seat each. And the voters approving initiatives over the years for a redistricting commission, increased minimum wage, guaranteed sick leave, and recreational marijuana.
I have a bet with an “East Coast pundit” type on the AZ outcomes. Chances are neither of us win — each of us picked a proposition that (a) we thought possible and (b) the other would think outlandish. I’m betting on flipping to a blue trifecta (governor and both chambers). He’s betting on the Dems get absolutely crushed (lose every statewide race and two of the US House seats they hold).
Or we are just worldbuilding different dystopias.
I don’t think I’m worldbuilding a dystopia, though. I’m worldbuilding a new country with a population of 75-80M, the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world, living with a stable electric grid based on renewables and storage, and technology that provides most of a contemporary society. You’re worldbuilding the pre-1890 West.
Or we are just worldbuilding different dystopias.
I don’t think I’m worldbuilding a dystopia, though. I’m worldbuilding a new country with a population of 75-80M, the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world, living with a stable electric grid based on renewables and storage, and technology that provides most of a contemporary society. You’re worldbuilding the pre-1890 West.
I’m worldbuilding a new country with a population of 75-80M, the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world,
…
You’re worldbuilding the pre-1890 West.
And others are trying, desperately, to worldbuild the Confederacy. Although, as they are very clearly aware, time is not on their side.
I’m worldbuilding a new country with a population of 75-80M, the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world,
…
You’re worldbuilding the pre-1890 West.
And others are trying, desperately, to worldbuild the Confederacy. Although, as they are very clearly aware, time is not on their side.
I wrote this comment yesterday:
Today I remembered hearing about this:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32748998/
I guess it’s not enough for people to notice … yet.
I wrote this comment yesterday:
Today I remembered hearing about this:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32748998/
I guess it’s not enough for people to notice … yet.
Almost before Biden finished speaking about suspending gas taxes, my state’s governor and one of the legislators that runs the joint budget committee announced we wouldn’t be suspending our state gas tax. Basically, the balanced budget requirement means a $165M cut in revenue — roughly what a three-month suspension would do — has to be matched by a $165M cut in spending. Given the tortuous path revenue takes under our constitution and statutes, the cut would almost certainly come out of funding for local road repairs. No legislator wants to be the one who tells some city in his district, “You know that money you thought you had to realign the part of that street that’s been a problem forever? Not so fast…”
Almost before Biden finished speaking about suspending gas taxes, my state’s governor and one of the legislators that runs the joint budget committee announced we wouldn’t be suspending our state gas tax. Basically, the balanced budget requirement means a $165M cut in revenue — roughly what a three-month suspension would do — has to be matched by a $165M cut in spending. Given the tortuous path revenue takes under our constitution and statutes, the cut would almost certainly come out of funding for local road repairs. No legislator wants to be the one who tells some city in his district, “You know that money you thought you had to realign the part of that street that’s been a problem forever? Not so fast…”
Suspending the gas tax is also getting pushback from federal Democratic congress critters.
Suspending the gas tax is also getting pushback from federal Democratic congress critters.
But only four other states are less urbanized.
Apropos of nothing much, this is one of a number of Maine “superlatives” that I have collected (though I tend to see it stated the other way around, that Maine is the “most rural” state). From CharlesWT’s link:
But only four other states are less urbanized.
Apropos of nothing much, this is one of a number of Maine “superlatives” that I have collected (though I tend to see it stated the other way around, that Maine is the “most rural” state). From CharlesWT’s link:
though I tend to see it stated the other way around, that Maine is the “most rural” state
Many people are surprised to learn that five of the ten “least rural” states — including two of the top three — are in the Census Bureau’s western region. Four if you want to say that Hawaii is a special case and shouldn’t count.
Now that the CB is enabling the use of “built area” as the denominator in density calculations, rather than just county area, there have been some surprising results. One of the larger ones is that suburban areas in the western region average nearly twice as dense as suburbs in the rest of the country. Or perhaps not surprising. When I moved from New Jersey to Colorado 34 years ago, and was looking for a house, one of my first observations was that the suburbs were packed much more tightly in Colorado than in New Jersey.
though I tend to see it stated the other way around, that Maine is the “most rural” state
Many people are surprised to learn that five of the ten “least rural” states — including two of the top three — are in the Census Bureau’s western region. Four if you want to say that Hawaii is a special case and shouldn’t count.
Now that the CB is enabling the use of “built area” as the denominator in density calculations, rather than just county area, there have been some surprising results. One of the larger ones is that suburban areas in the western region average nearly twice as dense as suburbs in the rest of the country. Or perhaps not surprising. When I moved from New Jersey to Colorado 34 years ago, and was looking for a house, one of my first observations was that the suburbs were packed much more tightly in Colorado than in New Jersey.
On news further to the hearings, I read yesterday that some of the Rs (like Rusty Bowers himself) who have testified about Trump’s attempts to illegally suborn election officials have said that if he were to run again they would still vote for him. And apparently Raffensperger refused to be drawn on the question.
If true, this is the real danger to American democracy. Or, as the commentator here at MSNBC more properly says “a mortal threat to our democracy”. The relevant part of what Bowers said after the hearing on Tuesday starts at approximately 7.00 in the following clip:
https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/arizona-s-rusty-bowers-says-he-would-vote-for-trump-again-despite-coup-plot-142644805654
On news further to the hearings, I read yesterday that some of the Rs (like Rusty Bowers himself) who have testified about Trump’s attempts to illegally suborn election officials have said that if he were to run again they would still vote for him. And apparently Raffensperger refused to be drawn on the question.
If true, this is the real danger to American democracy. Or, as the commentator here at MSNBC more properly says “a mortal threat to our democracy”. The relevant part of what Bowers said after the hearing on Tuesday starts at approximately 7.00 in the following clip:
https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/arizona-s-rusty-bowers-says-he-would-vote-for-trump-again-despite-coup-plot-142644805654
Michael — yes, some of these rankings are quite surprising. Also, I have to sit and think a bit about what’s being measure. When I first saw that Maine was most rural, my immediate thought was “Wait, what about … Wyoming?”
But what they’re measuring doesn’t have anything to do with land area, right? It’s a measure of the ratio of one kind of population to another: people who live in built up areas vs people who don’t, regardless of how the people who don’t are spread out.
One of my Maine superlatives, which I heard or read many years ago and have never been able to find repeated, is that Maine has the highest # of miles of paved road per capita of any state. Which I guess isn’t that surprising given how scattered the population is.
Michael — yes, some of these rankings are quite surprising. Also, I have to sit and think a bit about what’s being measure. When I first saw that Maine was most rural, my immediate thought was “Wait, what about … Wyoming?”
But what they’re measuring doesn’t have anything to do with land area, right? It’s a measure of the ratio of one kind of population to another: people who live in built up areas vs people who don’t, regardless of how the people who don’t are spread out.
One of my Maine superlatives, which I heard or read many years ago and have never been able to find repeated, is that Maine has the highest # of miles of paved road per capita of any state. Which I guess isn’t that surprising given how scattered the population is.
And in fact, Wyoming kills it on population density, beaten out only bu Alaska.
And in fact, Wyoming kills it on population density, beaten out only bu Alaska.
Typos! Sorry. I need breakfast and caffeine.
Typos! Sorry. I need breakfast and caffeine.
I read yesterday that some of the Rs (like Rusty Bowers himself) who have testified about Trump’s attempts to illegally suborn election officials have said that if he were to run again they would still vote for him.
I’m thinking that this may be merely an exercise in self-preservation. Given the level of threats of violence against witnesses, any little thing which reduces the chances of threats moving to actions could well seem like a good idea.
I read yesterday that some of the Rs (like Rusty Bowers himself) who have testified about Trump’s attempts to illegally suborn election officials have said that if he were to run again they would still vote for him.
I’m thinking that this may be merely an exercise in self-preservation. Given the level of threats of violence against witnesses, any little thing which reduces the chances of threats moving to actions could well seem like a good idea.
wj, I can’t believe it is that. After all, given what they had been through already in terms of being targeted, they had to have known how much worse it would get after testifying. And they still did it. It seems to me there is something else at work here, although I’m damned if I know what it is. Attachment to R priorities like tax cuts, SCOTUS noms etc could explain it, but making that fit in with the willingness to testify despite the risks, which argues an understanding of constitutional responsibilities and some integrity, is a really hard thing to square.
wj, I can’t believe it is that. After all, given what they had been through already in terms of being targeted, they had to have known how much worse it would get after testifying. And they still did it. It seems to me there is something else at work here, although I’m damned if I know what it is. Attachment to R priorities like tax cuts, SCOTUS noms etc could explain it, but making that fit in with the willingness to testify despite the risks, which argues an understanding of constitutional responsibilities and some integrity, is a really hard thing to square.
GftNC, I agree that it’s hard to understand. I merely toss out a possible explanation for what is otherwise inexplicable. I’m completely open to alternative explanations.
GftNC, I agree that it’s hard to understand. I merely toss out a possible explanation for what is otherwise inexplicable. I’m completely open to alternative explanations.
It seems that Trump, at least, is paying close attention to the hearings. Since he cannot acknowledge that they are revealing his criminal activity, he is furious with Kevin McCarthy for refusing to put some Republicans on the committee (even if he couldn’t engage in his preferred level of sabotogue).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/trump-fumes-republicans-ignore-jan-6-panel-rcna34843
It would be vastly amusing if his fury reaches the point of doing as he has done in Georgia with Kemp. Tell his followers that it would be better to elect a Democrat than to reelect McCarthy. Not sure how likely that is. But wouldn’t it be grand if it happened?
It seems that Trump, at least, is paying close attention to the hearings. Since he cannot acknowledge that they are revealing his criminal activity, he is furious with Kevin McCarthy for refusing to put some Republicans on the committee (even if he couldn’t engage in his preferred level of sabotogue).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/trump-fumes-republicans-ignore-jan-6-panel-rcna34843
It would be vastly amusing if his fury reaches the point of doing as he has done in Georgia with Kemp. Tell his followers that it would be better to elect a Democrat than to reelect McCarthy. Not sure how likely that is. But wouldn’t it be grand if it happened?
Look at what Bowers said in his testimony:
“It is a tenet of my faith that the Constitution is divinely inspired, of my most basic foundational beliefs. And so, for me to do that because somebody just asked me to is foreign to my very being. I—I will not do it.”
Bowers refuses to vote for the Democratic candidate because for him the GOP is not a political party, it’s one side of a divine war and the Democrats are enemy forces. We can laugh all we want at Guns, Babies, Jesus, but that really is the rallying cry. Those are the three points on which their absolutist view of the world rests.
I remember quite clearly a conversation that I had with my sister-in-law a couple decades ago when she was struggling with some LGBTQ+ question and she was worked up about how hard it was to follow God’s word and know what to do with gays when the Bible was so clear about the immorality of all that. My position was that she was required to love and that if she erred on the side of love then it was up to God to show her how to square the circle. But she could not get out from under the idea of the law and her obligation to obey long enough to consider what it means to be living in an age of grace.
Her worldview, not mine, but those were the grounds for the discussion.
She’s retreated into conservative evangelicalism and continues to support the GOP just as Bowers does.
It’s political theology, and they are fundamentalists, and their god is a god of fear and jealousy who demands obedience.
The rest of us are just a difficult test of their faith.
Look at what Bowers said in his testimony:
“It is a tenet of my faith that the Constitution is divinely inspired, of my most basic foundational beliefs. And so, for me to do that because somebody just asked me to is foreign to my very being. I—I will not do it.”
Bowers refuses to vote for the Democratic candidate because for him the GOP is not a political party, it’s one side of a divine war and the Democrats are enemy forces. We can laugh all we want at Guns, Babies, Jesus, but that really is the rallying cry. Those are the three points on which their absolutist view of the world rests.
I remember quite clearly a conversation that I had with my sister-in-law a couple decades ago when she was struggling with some LGBTQ+ question and she was worked up about how hard it was to follow God’s word and know what to do with gays when the Bible was so clear about the immorality of all that. My position was that she was required to love and that if she erred on the side of love then it was up to God to show her how to square the circle. But she could not get out from under the idea of the law and her obligation to obey long enough to consider what it means to be living in an age of grace.
Her worldview, not mine, but those were the grounds for the discussion.
She’s retreated into conservative evangelicalism and continues to support the GOP just as Bowers does.
It’s political theology, and they are fundamentalists, and their god is a god of fear and jealousy who demands obedience.
The rest of us are just a difficult test of their faith.
The rest of us are just a difficult test of their faith.
I’m not so sure. I think that it’s reality which is the difficult test of their faith. Because facts, even facts that they can personally confirm, cannot sway them.
The rest of us are just a difficult test of their faith.
I’m not so sure. I think that it’s reality which is the difficult test of their faith. Because facts, even facts that they can personally confirm, cannot sway them.
That’s helpful, nous, but only to a point. If a man tries to strongarm you to break your covenant with God on a divinely inspired constitution in his favour, but you’re still prepared to vote for him, there seems to me an inbuilt disconnect which your SIL did not face: she was facing contradictory divine imperatives. You’re facing a choice of having to actually empower a representative of the anti-divine covenant tendency, when you could just, for example, not vote. Something does not hang together, even on its own terms.
That’s helpful, nous, but only to a point. If a man tries to strongarm you to break your covenant with God on a divinely inspired constitution in his favour, but you’re still prepared to vote for him, there seems to me an inbuilt disconnect which your SIL did not face: she was facing contradictory divine imperatives. You’re facing a choice of having to actually empower a representative of the anti-divine covenant tendency, when you could just, for example, not vote. Something does not hang together, even on its own terms.
No one can ever see who you voted for. In this, at least, you can have it both ways: say you’re keeping the faith, and privately vote for someone else.
Anyhow, strict logical consistency is not a hallmark of our species, to put it gently.
No one can ever see who you voted for. In this, at least, you can have it both ways: say you’re keeping the faith, and privately vote for someone else.
Anyhow, strict logical consistency is not a hallmark of our species, to put it gently.
Guns, Babies, Jesus.
The Democrats are waging a war against Christianity, trying to limit gatherings of the faithful through public health regulations. They are also trying to disarm the faithful. The US government has no authority over a pastor in the conduct of his church.
All true Christians are firmly against abortion under any circumstance.
Anti-LGBTQ+ stances all arise out of the logic of the anti-abortion stance, which is based on strict gender roles and patriarchy as divine law. Both abortion and homosexuality etc. are attacks on the Great Commission as the blueprint for society.
Because the Dems are wholly fallen, it’s okay to vote for Tyrannosaurus Rump and trust that providence will see things through. Trump is merely a tool to be used. The judges will rule.
This is literally what many on the evangelical right believe.
Guns, Babies, Jesus.
The Democrats are waging a war against Christianity, trying to limit gatherings of the faithful through public health regulations. They are also trying to disarm the faithful. The US government has no authority over a pastor in the conduct of his church.
All true Christians are firmly against abortion under any circumstance.
Anti-LGBTQ+ stances all arise out of the logic of the anti-abortion stance, which is based on strict gender roles and patriarchy as divine law. Both abortion and homosexuality etc. are attacks on the Great Commission as the blueprint for society.
Because the Dems are wholly fallen, it’s okay to vote for Tyrannosaurus Rump and trust that providence will see things through. Trump is merely a tool to be used. The judges will rule.
This is literally what many on the evangelical right believe.
Inconsistencies abound, but they don’t matter so long as abortion and the second amendment exist as the ultimate disambiguators for deciding who to support.
Inconsistencies abound, but they don’t matter so long as abortion and the second amendment exist as the ultimate disambiguators for deciding who to support.
Note that Bowers claims that the Constitution is “divinely inspired.” It’s been subsumed into their canon, and it is there to be rightly interpreted only by a man of faith who can reconcile it with the rest of the Word of God.
Note that Bowers claims that the Constitution is “divinely inspired.” It’s been subsumed into their canon, and it is there to be rightly interpreted only by a man of faith who can reconcile it with the rest of the Word of God.
it is there to be rightly interpreted only by a man of faith who can reconcile it with the rest of the Word of God
One of the most bemusing things about this for me is that there are so many interpreters and interpretations, so ultimately the believer has to choose one to follow. And yet they never seem to be aware that that’s the mechanism, or to be moved to query their own psychology and decision-making in choosing one over another.
it is there to be rightly interpreted only by a man of faith who can reconcile it with the rest of the Word of God
One of the most bemusing things about this for me is that there are so many interpreters and interpretations, so ultimately the believer has to choose one to follow. And yet they never seem to be aware that that’s the mechanism, or to be moved to query their own psychology and decision-making in choosing one over another.
Also, of course “man of faith…”
My mother was deeply conforming, worrying incessantly about what the relatives and neighbors would think about anything we did. And yet she was something of a practical feminist, far before that was common in the world I grew up in. I never thought about it at the time, but I wonder if that was in part because she grew up in a Free Will Baptist congregation where the minister was a woman — in an era where there were hardly any of those anywhere. My widowed grandmother, in fact, was the preacher’s housekeeper, and her little family lived in the parsonage for a long stretch of my mother’s childhood.
Also, of course “man of faith…”
My mother was deeply conforming, worrying incessantly about what the relatives and neighbors would think about anything we did. And yet she was something of a practical feminist, far before that was common in the world I grew up in. I never thought about it at the time, but I wonder if that was in part because she grew up in a Free Will Baptist congregation where the minister was a woman — in an era where there were hardly any of those anywhere. My widowed grandmother, in fact, was the preacher’s housekeeper, and her little family lived in the parsonage for a long stretch of my mother’s childhood.
“This is literally what many on the evangelical right believe.”
Yes, plus they are the victims. The real true victims of persecution. The very existence of the rest of us just living our lives by our rules (not their rules) means they are being persecuted.
“This is literally what many on the evangelical right believe.”
Yes, plus they are the victims. The real true victims of persecution. The very existence of the rest of us just living our lives by our rules (not their rules) means they are being persecuted.
Anyhow, strict logical consistency is not a hallmark of our species, to put it gently.
This is very true, and something I need to be reminded of on a regular basis. Not to mention the possibility that someone would say one thing, then do another in the privacy of the voting booth. (Although in that case, you’d think that Bowers for example would have agreed to testify because he understood the need to display integrity to set an example, and that revealing he would still vote for Trump clearly undercut that. But there I go again, expecting logic.)
Anyhow, strict logical consistency is not a hallmark of our species, to put it gently.
This is very true, and something I need to be reminded of on a regular basis. Not to mention the possibility that someone would say one thing, then do another in the privacy of the voting booth. (Although in that case, you’d think that Bowers for example would have agreed to testify because he understood the need to display integrity to set an example, and that revealing he would still vote for Trump clearly undercut that. But there I go again, expecting logic.)
because he understood the need to display integrity to set an example
Following nous’s comments, it’s easy enough to imagine that he doesn’t give a flying banana about “displaying” anything, or setting an example. He is setting himself right with his own conscience according to his own yardsticks.
From this angle, it’s not that he isn’t being logical, it’s that he’s following a different logic from yours or mine.
Quoted for probably the zillionth time:
because he understood the need to display integrity to set an example
Following nous’s comments, it’s easy enough to imagine that he doesn’t give a flying banana about “displaying” anything, or setting an example. He is setting himself right with his own conscience according to his own yardsticks.
From this angle, it’s not that he isn’t being logical, it’s that he’s following a different logic from yours or mine.
Quoted for probably the zillionth time:
From Finite and Infinite Games, by James Carse.
From Finite and Infinite Games, by James Carse.
I’m thinking that this may be merely an exercise in self-preservation.
I’m thinking this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Mr. Bowers on your part.
The LGM take is found here.
I’m thinking that this may be merely an exercise in self-preservation.
I’m thinking this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Mr. Bowers on your part.
The LGM take is found here.
There was a bit of a split between evangelicals that saw Jabbabobk as a mere tool of G*d (the same way G*d used wicked peoples to punish Israel and destroyed them later when Isreal returned to the covenant) and those that preached that Jabbabonk was a flawless, divinly inspired, even Christ-like, paragon of virtue and the first group was blaspheming by denying that.
The pastors pushing the latter line were – what a surprise – for the most part the usual megagrifters and masters of hypocrisy that would sell their souls to the highest bidder, if anyone would be the least bit interested [as the Devil I’d not pay anything for that since those souls would be irredeemably forfeit anyway.].
Ironically (actually not) those same religious fanatics used to consider a republican government to be of the Devil by definition (only democracy being even worse). The very idea that the US Constitution could be ‘divinely inspired’ would have been totally absurd.
There was a bit of a split between evangelicals that saw Jabbabobk as a mere tool of G*d (the same way G*d used wicked peoples to punish Israel and destroyed them later when Isreal returned to the covenant) and those that preached that Jabbabonk was a flawless, divinly inspired, even Christ-like, paragon of virtue and the first group was blaspheming by denying that.
The pastors pushing the latter line were – what a surprise – for the most part the usual megagrifters and masters of hypocrisy that would sell their souls to the highest bidder, if anyone would be the least bit interested [as the Devil I’d not pay anything for that since those souls would be irredeemably forfeit anyway.].
Ironically (actually not) those same religious fanatics used to consider a republican government to be of the Devil by definition (only democracy being even worse). The very idea that the US Constitution could be ‘divinely inspired’ would have been totally absurd.
JanieM — Correct. They’re comparing the number of people they categorize as rural to the total. Unfortunately, they change the definition pretty much every census. The oldest definition I’ve seen was “at least 25 miles from any town/city with at least 25,000 people”. In 2010 it was “not in any of the defined metropolitan or micropolitan areas”. I don’t know what they’re using with the 2020 data. Nevertheless, a very large majority of the population in “the West” lives in cities. That’s actually been true for a long time.
An extreme example of the “built area” change is San Bernardino County in California. The large majority of the two million people who live in the county live in a tiny corner that’s part of Greater LA. The county extends east all the way to the Nevada and Arizona borders. The county encompasses multiple national parks and preserves, most of two different mountain ranges, and large expanses of desert. Using the traditional density measure based on county area, it’s about 100 people per square mile. The corner where people live averages about 3,500 people per square mile. That’s not only above the threshold used for “suburban” in most academic work, it’s above the threshold commonly used for “urban”.
JanieM — Correct. They’re comparing the number of people they categorize as rural to the total. Unfortunately, they change the definition pretty much every census. The oldest definition I’ve seen was “at least 25 miles from any town/city with at least 25,000 people”. In 2010 it was “not in any of the defined metropolitan or micropolitan areas”. I don’t know what they’re using with the 2020 data. Nevertheless, a very large majority of the population in “the West” lives in cities. That’s actually been true for a long time.
An extreme example of the “built area” change is San Bernardino County in California. The large majority of the two million people who live in the county live in a tiny corner that’s part of Greater LA. The county extends east all the way to the Nevada and Arizona borders. The county encompasses multiple national parks and preserves, most of two different mountain ranges, and large expanses of desert. Using the traditional density measure based on county area, it’s about 100 people per square mile. The corner where people live averages about 3,500 people per square mile. That’s not only above the threshold used for “suburban” in most academic work, it’s above the threshold commonly used for “urban”.
I’m thinking this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Mr. Bowers on your part.
Quite possibly. But I have yet to hear an alternative explanation which makes any real sense to me. Perhaps that reflects an inability on my part to wrap my head around the essence of religious fundamentalism. Or the fact that I found Trump a complete no-go from day one. (If not before….)
I’m thinking this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Mr. Bowers on your part.
Quite possibly. But I have yet to hear an alternative explanation which makes any real sense to me. Perhaps that reflects an inability on my part to wrap my head around the essence of religious fundamentalism. Or the fact that I found Trump a complete no-go from day one. (If not before….)
I guess the justification runs along this famous Chruchill quote: “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
The Dems are so evil that Jabbabonk seems appealing in comparision. Plus of course ‘I will not break the law’ leaves out the tacit part of ‘I leave that to some expendable useful idiot, so my hands remain clean.’
I guess the justification runs along this famous Chruchill quote: “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
The Dems are so evil that Jabbabonk seems appealing in comparision. Plus of course ‘I will not break the law’ leaves out the tacit part of ‘I leave that to some expendable useful idiot, so my hands remain clean.’
An amusing segment (near the end) on the way Ukraine is using music for morale.
https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2022/06/16/it-will-be-the-sharpest-tightening-in-a-calendar-year-since-1981-the-feds-rate-raise
Some of the comments on the lyrics gave me to think that Ukraine is seeing a revival of “the word that won the war.”
An amusing segment (near the end) on the way Ukraine is using music for morale.
https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2022/06/16/it-will-be-the-sharpest-tightening-in-a-calendar-year-since-1981-the-feds-rate-raise
Some of the comments on the lyrics gave me to think that Ukraine is seeing a revival of “the word that won the war.”
bobbyp, it’s possible that my brain isn’t working properly since I’m just in the recess of the hearing so rushing, but I didn’t understand what LGM’s take was, unless you mean the Simpsons quote at the top. For example, this:
One thing worth noting here is that, for the right, the ideological stakes of the 2024 presidential election are exceedingly modest. They have a stranglehold on the federal courts and are almost certain to have a large Senate majority starting in 2025. A Democratic president wouldn’t be able to get much of their cabinet or any appellate judges confirmed, let alone sign any kind of ambitious agenda into law or be able to enforce existing laws in any way that the typical Republican judge disapproves of.
Wouldn’t this mean they (people like Bowers) would be safe in saying they wouldn’t support Trump in the future, since it wouldn’t endanger their majorities, or their ability to stymie a Dem POTUS?
Whoops, gotta go.
bobbyp, it’s possible that my brain isn’t working properly since I’m just in the recess of the hearing so rushing, but I didn’t understand what LGM’s take was, unless you mean the Simpsons quote at the top. For example, this:
One thing worth noting here is that, for the right, the ideological stakes of the 2024 presidential election are exceedingly modest. They have a stranglehold on the federal courts and are almost certain to have a large Senate majority starting in 2025. A Democratic president wouldn’t be able to get much of their cabinet or any appellate judges confirmed, let alone sign any kind of ambitious agenda into law or be able to enforce existing laws in any way that the typical Republican judge disapproves of.
Wouldn’t this mean they (people like Bowers) would be safe in saying they wouldn’t support Trump in the future, since it wouldn’t endanger their majorities, or their ability to stymie a Dem POTUS?
Whoops, gotta go.
OK, I’ve now had a chance to read the Atlantic piece linked in that LGM post from bobbyp. I still don’t really understand the Bowers phenomenon, but I can’t disagree with the following. It is profoundly, profoundly depressing.
As another of my colleagues, Juliette Kayyem, wrote recently, the January 6 hearings offer an off-ramp to Trump-ambivalent Republicans. But not enough of them are taking it. Many Republican leaders have talked themselves into the position that the policy views of Democrats are so dangerous, or Trump’s policies are so good, that it is more important to support him than it is to defend the basic process of democracy.
This is partly a product of an era when the parties are further and further apart on policy; partly a product of an era of affective polarization, in which partisans are driven as much by hatred of their political adversaries as affinity for any cause; and partly a result of diminished attachment to democratic ideals among voters around the world.
Once you’ve decided that your specific policy planks are more important than ensuring that the fundamental system survives, however, the result sooner or later is a government that has no interest in the will of the people. Imagining this doesn’t take much creativity: After the 2020 election, Trump tried to ignore the will of the people and remain in power. He was stopped only by the courage of people such as Rusty Bowers. If even Bowers is willing to back Trump again, despite his eloquent condemnations, the outlook for popular democracy is very bleak.
OK, I’ve now had a chance to read the Atlantic piece linked in that LGM post from bobbyp. I still don’t really understand the Bowers phenomenon, but I can’t disagree with the following. It is profoundly, profoundly depressing.
As another of my colleagues, Juliette Kayyem, wrote recently, the January 6 hearings offer an off-ramp to Trump-ambivalent Republicans. But not enough of them are taking it. Many Republican leaders have talked themselves into the position that the policy views of Democrats are so dangerous, or Trump’s policies are so good, that it is more important to support him than it is to defend the basic process of democracy.
This is partly a product of an era when the parties are further and further apart on policy; partly a product of an era of affective polarization, in which partisans are driven as much by hatred of their political adversaries as affinity for any cause; and partly a result of diminished attachment to democratic ideals among voters around the world.
Once you’ve decided that your specific policy planks are more important than ensuring that the fundamental system survives, however, the result sooner or later is a government that has no interest in the will of the people. Imagining this doesn’t take much creativity: After the 2020 election, Trump tried to ignore the will of the people and remain in power. He was stopped only by the courage of people such as Rusty Bowers. If even Bowers is willing to back Trump again, despite his eloquent condemnations, the outlook for popular democracy is very bleak.
Cogent question from the hearings today: Why would you ask for a (preemptive) pardon unless you knew you had done something criminal? Yet at least 5 Republican Congressmen apparently did so.
Cogent question from the hearings today: Why would you ask for a (preemptive) pardon unless you knew you had done something criminal? Yet at least 5 Republican Congressmen apparently did so.
Why would you ask for a (preemptive) pardon unless you knew you had done something criminal?
Because I’m a politician, so have been skating close to the edge on campaign finances. None of it is across the line, but if the DOJ decides to accept the FEC’s referral to prosecute a criminal charge, it will cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars to win in court.
This is, IMO, an actual problem. If I’m a small guy, and the DOJ prosecutes me on the referral of some other agency, my practical choices are plea-bargain, or go bankrupt. I have no idea what to do about this. Some of it is the government, but some of it is the legal guild helping create a system where only the wealthy can actually defend themselves.
Why would you ask for a (preemptive) pardon unless you knew you had done something criminal?
Because I’m a politician, so have been skating close to the edge on campaign finances. None of it is across the line, but if the DOJ decides to accept the FEC’s referral to prosecute a criminal charge, it will cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars to win in court.
This is, IMO, an actual problem. If I’m a small guy, and the DOJ prosecutes me on the referral of some other agency, my practical choices are plea-bargain, or go bankrupt. I have no idea what to do about this. Some of it is the government, but some of it is the legal guild helping create a system where only the wealthy can actually defend themselves.
“Many Republican leaders have talked themselves into the position that the policy views of Democrats are so dangerous, or Trump’s policies are so good, that it is more important to support him than it is to defend the basic process of democracy.”
THe excerpt from the Atlantic article provides some mealy-mouthed “reasons” for this and comes close to both sides do it. But this state of things within the Republican party is the result of a decision about tactics made years ago. Republican party leaders chose to polarize issues and chose to delegitimize everyone who isn’t a Republican deliberately because they wanted voters who would vote Republican no matter what. And it’s not a matter of those voters seeing Republican party policies as essential. Most have no idea what Republican party policies are. Republican voters will vote Republican no matter what because they believe that Republicans are the only ones defending real true American values (which they don’t define) and everyone else is an existential threat to those values. AN admission of error is a threat to the egotism and entitlement of those self-proclaimed defenders of real true values.
The only thing that will get a Republican voter to decide to vote D is some kind of direct threat to their immediate well being that causes them to temporarily see a benefit to themselves in a D vote. But as long as climate change is and abstraction, as long as someone else’s kid gets shot, as long as the federal gravy train keep delivering goodies to them, as long as they have some kind of health care, etc they are incapable of seeing politics from any other perspective than “Me good, you bad.” IF personally screwed and someone sits them down and connects the dots for them they might vote D to get their problem addressed.
IN other words they can sometimes shift from voting out of godawful snobbery to voting for “I want for me, me, me”, but very few are capable of voting to serve someone else’s needs or out of a concern for abstract principles.
“Many Republican leaders have talked themselves into the position that the policy views of Democrats are so dangerous, or Trump’s policies are so good, that it is more important to support him than it is to defend the basic process of democracy.”
THe excerpt from the Atlantic article provides some mealy-mouthed “reasons” for this and comes close to both sides do it. But this state of things within the Republican party is the result of a decision about tactics made years ago. Republican party leaders chose to polarize issues and chose to delegitimize everyone who isn’t a Republican deliberately because they wanted voters who would vote Republican no matter what. And it’s not a matter of those voters seeing Republican party policies as essential. Most have no idea what Republican party policies are. Republican voters will vote Republican no matter what because they believe that Republicans are the only ones defending real true American values (which they don’t define) and everyone else is an existential threat to those values. AN admission of error is a threat to the egotism and entitlement of those self-proclaimed defenders of real true values.
The only thing that will get a Republican voter to decide to vote D is some kind of direct threat to their immediate well being that causes them to temporarily see a benefit to themselves in a D vote. But as long as climate change is and abstraction, as long as someone else’s kid gets shot, as long as the federal gravy train keep delivering goodies to them, as long as they have some kind of health care, etc they are incapable of seeing politics from any other perspective than “Me good, you bad.” IF personally screwed and someone sits them down and connects the dots for them they might vote D to get their problem addressed.
IN other words they can sometimes shift from voting out of godawful snobbery to voting for “I want for me, me, me”, but very few are capable of voting to serve someone else’s needs or out of a concern for abstract principles.
as long as climate change is and abstraction, as long as someone else’s kid gets shot, as long as the federal gravy train keep delivering goodies to them, as long as they have some kind of health care, etc they are incapable of seeing politics from any other perspective than “Me good, you bad.” IF personally screwed and someone sits them down and connects the dots for them they might vote D to get their problem addressed.
I’m getting the feeling, looking at the weather reports from around the country, that climate change may be approaching the “I’m getting personally screwed” threshold.
Way too late to make fixing the problem feasible in the short, or even medium, term, of course. Which means that, when the Democrats fail on instant gratification while in office, they will revert.
But possibly there will be a window of opportunity to get some sane voting laws in place. Which could be sufficient to get the victimhood voters into irrelevance. (Yeah, I know. Compulsively optimistic. But there you are.)
as long as climate change is and abstraction, as long as someone else’s kid gets shot, as long as the federal gravy train keep delivering goodies to them, as long as they have some kind of health care, etc they are incapable of seeing politics from any other perspective than “Me good, you bad.” IF personally screwed and someone sits them down and connects the dots for them they might vote D to get their problem addressed.
I’m getting the feeling, looking at the weather reports from around the country, that climate change may be approaching the “I’m getting personally screwed” threshold.
Way too late to make fixing the problem feasible in the short, or even medium, term, of course. Which means that, when the Democrats fail on instant gratification while in office, they will revert.
But possibly there will be a window of opportunity to get some sane voting laws in place. Which could be sufficient to get the victimhood voters into irrelevance. (Yeah, I know. Compulsively optimistic. But there you are.)
If people can’t wear masks to keep their grandmothers or even themselves from dying, they aren’t going to do a damned thing that mitigating climate change would require.
If people can’t wear masks to keep their grandmothers or even themselves from dying, they aren’t going to do a damned thing that mitigating climate change would require.
Before I went to bed last night, I emailed an friend of mine in the US who has had a lot more contact with the political world there than I have. I explained my extreme puzzlement, using the Bowers case as the example, and asked their opinion. Briefly, their reply boiled down to:
1. Political polarisation now so great that one’s own side has become the only measure of right action. And wrong action has more or less ceased to have any meaning, other than a partisan one.
2. A widespread but absurd respect for the very rich and their opinions or judgement.
3. The mix of religion and morality with politics, enabling one to literally demonise one’s opponents.
This friend is probably considerably less liberal than I am, but is a clever and experienced person, so I give their opinion weight, and notice that a lot of what they say supports the rationale put forward here by nous, among others. I also find it hard to disagree with a lot of what wonkie says.
Overnight, I came to the conclusion that there is also a kind of mass psychosis in play. Constant repetition (including by people like Bowers) of the “radical left Democrats” and their disastrous agenda for America has hypnotised people into forgetting that 8 years of Clinton and 8 of Obama did not leave America in a demonstrably more disastrous state, and that no crazed agenda was enacted. (This latter point, of course, is the purpose of the current and increasingly hysterical culture wars – the craziness is coming for you!).
Needless to say, my theory as refined overnight has not made my view of the situation any more sanguine. If half of America has gone or is going mad, and if the UK is on the same trajectory (norms-trashing lying PM etc) then it’s hard to know which way to turn.
Before I went to bed last night, I emailed an friend of mine in the US who has had a lot more contact with the political world there than I have. I explained my extreme puzzlement, using the Bowers case as the example, and asked their opinion. Briefly, their reply boiled down to:
1. Political polarisation now so great that one’s own side has become the only measure of right action. And wrong action has more or less ceased to have any meaning, other than a partisan one.
2. A widespread but absurd respect for the very rich and their opinions or judgement.
3. The mix of religion and morality with politics, enabling one to literally demonise one’s opponents.
This friend is probably considerably less liberal than I am, but is a clever and experienced person, so I give their opinion weight, and notice that a lot of what they say supports the rationale put forward here by nous, among others. I also find it hard to disagree with a lot of what wonkie says.
Overnight, I came to the conclusion that there is also a kind of mass psychosis in play. Constant repetition (including by people like Bowers) of the “radical left Democrats” and their disastrous agenda for America has hypnotised people into forgetting that 8 years of Clinton and 8 of Obama did not leave America in a demonstrably more disastrous state, and that no crazed agenda was enacted. (This latter point, of course, is the purpose of the current and increasingly hysterical culture wars – the craziness is coming for you!).
Needless to say, my theory as refined overnight has not made my view of the situation any more sanguine. If half of America has gone or is going mad, and if the UK is on the same trajectory (norms-trashing lying PM etc) then it’s hard to know which way to turn.
However, it’s good to be reminded that one can still take a grim kind of pleasure in certain things. For example, Marina Hyde’s piece in today’s Guardian, ostensibly about the Murdoch marriage break-up, but really of course about the disastrous Murdochian agenda for America and the world wide media, inter alia. How she gets three good jokes into the first para, quoted here, can only engender admiration:
Like all true romantics, I can’t believe Jerry has split with the Pacemaker. News that Rupert Murdoch and his wife, Jerry Hall, are to divorce contradicts the lyrics of their most famous hit, confirming that the News Corp boss does, in fact, walk alone. Or at least, alone but for the aid of state-of-the-art tissue engineering, the plasma of emerging-market teens, and the cloven orthopaedic brogues that mark out the real big shots at every barefoot billionaires’ retreat.
Her headline is Murdoch’s divorce will leave a hole in his life. Could a new prime minister fill it?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/24/rupert-murdoch-divorce-jerry-hall-boris-johnson
However, it’s good to be reminded that one can still take a grim kind of pleasure in certain things. For example, Marina Hyde’s piece in today’s Guardian, ostensibly about the Murdoch marriage break-up, but really of course about the disastrous Murdochian agenda for America and the world wide media, inter alia. How she gets three good jokes into the first para, quoted here, can only engender admiration:
Like all true romantics, I can’t believe Jerry has split with the Pacemaker. News that Rupert Murdoch and his wife, Jerry Hall, are to divorce contradicts the lyrics of their most famous hit, confirming that the News Corp boss does, in fact, walk alone. Or at least, alone but for the aid of state-of-the-art tissue engineering, the plasma of emerging-market teens, and the cloven orthopaedic brogues that mark out the real big shots at every barefoot billionaires’ retreat.
Her headline is Murdoch’s divorce will leave a hole in his life. Could a new prime minister fill it?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/24/rupert-murdoch-divorce-jerry-hall-boris-johnson
Overnight, I came to the conclusion that there is also a kind of mass psychosis in play. Constant repetition (including by people like Bowers) of the “radical left Democrats” and their disastrous agenda for America has hypnotised people into forgetting that 8 years of Clinton and 8 of Obama did not leave America in a demonstrably more disastrous state, and that no crazed agenda was enacted.
I’m off babysitting for a couple of days, so I don’t have time to give this comment a really proper reply, but I want to at least offer the headlines. I agree about the mass psychosis, and I’m afraid it’s not going to be defused or deflected or reshaped without disastrous violence.
But I think your “demonstrably” is back to that “whose logic are we talking about here” question.
Go to the picture at the top of the current top post at BJ. That picture is incontrovertible evidence, to the Bowerses of the world, that the “crazed agenda” WAS in fact enacted. Calling the culture wars “hysterical” does not do a thing to defuse the seriousness and dangerousness with which they are being waged.
Comments from friends of mine — friends! pretty nice people overall! — in the late 80s and early 90s, when gay people were just starting, in my area, to push hard for ordinary visibility and take-for-grantedness for their lives:
From a guy in the neighborhood whose kids played with mine for years (wife’s name is made up): Jennifer and I are fine with gay people, but we don’t need to see them holding hands in the park.
From a very nice woman at the UU church I went to for a while, about a couple of gay guys who attended that church and were for a long time the only out gays there: I like them fine, and it’s okay that they’re gay, but every time I see them I think of gay sex, and it’s unpleasant.
Never mind that she didn’t think about sex every time she saw a heterosexual couple (I asked her), and never mind that all kinds of people enjoy all kinds of sex (oral, anal, S&M, who knows) regardless of gender mix. Out gay people made her feel squicky, and she wasn’t entirely sure that public policy shouldn’t take that into account.
And if this was the attitude of relatively good-hearted people thirty-odd years ago, what do you think the attitudes of the Bowerses of the world were?
Their world is gone, and they’re in a lunatic rage about it. And it was their world, not mine, not black people’s, not brown people’s, not trans people’s, and that’s the point. They’re by god going to take it back or destroy it in the process, because (in the old saying), better dead than red, even if the metaphor is all wrong nowadays.
*****
A few days ago I came across something I thought I had lost: a column in the WSJ from a bunch of religious scholars and bigshots from 1992, about the threat the “gay and lesbian agenda” posed to “our common humanity.” I will try to figure out a way to make it available to be read. Not today. It is utterly chilling in its annihilation of the common humanity of … people like me.
Overnight, I came to the conclusion that there is also a kind of mass psychosis in play. Constant repetition (including by people like Bowers) of the “radical left Democrats” and their disastrous agenda for America has hypnotised people into forgetting that 8 years of Clinton and 8 of Obama did not leave America in a demonstrably more disastrous state, and that no crazed agenda was enacted.
I’m off babysitting for a couple of days, so I don’t have time to give this comment a really proper reply, but I want to at least offer the headlines. I agree about the mass psychosis, and I’m afraid it’s not going to be defused or deflected or reshaped without disastrous violence.
But I think your “demonstrably” is back to that “whose logic are we talking about here” question.
Go to the picture at the top of the current top post at BJ. That picture is incontrovertible evidence, to the Bowerses of the world, that the “crazed agenda” WAS in fact enacted. Calling the culture wars “hysterical” does not do a thing to defuse the seriousness and dangerousness with which they are being waged.
Comments from friends of mine — friends! pretty nice people overall! — in the late 80s and early 90s, when gay people were just starting, in my area, to push hard for ordinary visibility and take-for-grantedness for their lives:
From a guy in the neighborhood whose kids played with mine for years (wife’s name is made up): Jennifer and I are fine with gay people, but we don’t need to see them holding hands in the park.
From a very nice woman at the UU church I went to for a while, about a couple of gay guys who attended that church and were for a long time the only out gays there: I like them fine, and it’s okay that they’re gay, but every time I see them I think of gay sex, and it’s unpleasant.
Never mind that she didn’t think about sex every time she saw a heterosexual couple (I asked her), and never mind that all kinds of people enjoy all kinds of sex (oral, anal, S&M, who knows) regardless of gender mix. Out gay people made her feel squicky, and she wasn’t entirely sure that public policy shouldn’t take that into account.
And if this was the attitude of relatively good-hearted people thirty-odd years ago, what do you think the attitudes of the Bowerses of the world were?
Their world is gone, and they’re in a lunatic rage about it. And it was their world, not mine, not black people’s, not brown people’s, not trans people’s, and that’s the point. They’re by god going to take it back or destroy it in the process, because (in the old saying), better dead than red, even if the metaphor is all wrong nowadays.
*****
A few days ago I came across something I thought I had lost: a column in the WSJ from a bunch of religious scholars and bigshots from 1992, about the threat the “gay and lesbian agenda” posed to “our common humanity.” I will try to figure out a way to make it available to be read. Not today. It is utterly chilling in its annihilation of the common humanity of … people like me.
And Roe is struck down. Welcome to America!
And Roe is struck down. Welcome to America!
Hmm, good point about the “demonstrably” Janie, yet again.
But as for
Calling the culture wars “hysterical” does not do a thing to defuse the seriousness and dangerousness with which they are being waged.
just to clarify (you probably understood this) I did not mean hysterical as in “hysterically funny”, I meant hysterical as in “increasingly a product of hysteria”. And I regard that as a factual description, not an attempt let alone a way to defuse the the seriousness and dangerousness with which they are being waged, which I hope everybody here understands I regard with the utmost gravity.
Hmm, good point about the “demonstrably” Janie, yet again.
But as for
Calling the culture wars “hysterical” does not do a thing to defuse the seriousness and dangerousness with which they are being waged.
just to clarify (you probably understood this) I did not mean hysterical as in “hysterically funny”, I meant hysterical as in “increasingly a product of hysteria”. And I regard that as a factual description, not an attempt let alone a way to defuse the the seriousness and dangerousness with which they are being waged, which I hope everybody here understands I regard with the utmost gravity.
I understood which “hysterical” you meant. I just meant that hysteria, like logic, is in the eyes of the beholder. Which you already know. 😉
I understood which “hysterical” you meant. I just meant that hysteria, like logic, is in the eyes of the beholder. Which you already know. 😉
And TaMara has pulled her post at BJ, the one I linked to, in order to put up a Roe post instead. It was a picture of a drag queen, a woman in a rainbow shirt, stuff like that, at a Pride festival.
For the record.
And TaMara has pulled her post at BJ, the one I linked to, in order to put up a Roe post instead. It was a picture of a drag queen, a woman in a rainbow shirt, stuff like that, at a Pride festival.
For the record.
Thanks, Janie.
And I had just gone off looking for that BJ post, and found that out. FWIW, and you will know I am the opposite of wj’s incorrigible optimism, I do think that gay rights themselves are now so firmly established everywhere in the first world that they will be impossible to row back. But then, I thought that about abortion rights….
Goddamit. Soon, it will be the barricades.
Aux armes, citoyens!
Thanks, Janie.
And I had just gone off looking for that BJ post, and found that out. FWIW, and you will know I am the opposite of wj’s incorrigible optimism, I do think that gay rights themselves are now so firmly established everywhere in the first world that they will be impossible to row back. But then, I thought that about abortion rights….
Goddamit. Soon, it will be the barricades.
Aux armes, citoyens!
I do think that gay rights themselves are now so firmly established everywhere in the first world that they will be impossible to row back
Maybe in the same parts of the first world that, e.g., don’t worship machine guns as ordinary streetwear.
In this country, SCOTUS decisions reversing Lawrence and Obergefell will allow anyone who wishes to to start pushing gay visibility out of public spaces. I’m not going to elaborate. And I’m not saying there won’t be a huge fight — which maybe we will figure out a way to win … until next time.
And of course this applies to everything relating to “race,” as well.
I do think that gay rights themselves are now so firmly established everywhere in the first world that they will be impossible to row back
Maybe in the same parts of the first world that, e.g., don’t worship machine guns as ordinary streetwear.
In this country, SCOTUS decisions reversing Lawrence and Obergefell will allow anyone who wishes to to start pushing gay visibility out of public spaces. I’m not going to elaborate. And I’m not saying there won’t be a huge fight — which maybe we will figure out a way to win … until next time.
And of course this applies to everything relating to “race,” as well.
Bam. Third world shithole status achieved.
Prediction: we have not yet hit bottom.
Bam. Third world shithole status achieved.
Prediction: we have not yet hit bottom.
Prediction: we have not yet hit bottom.
Yup. As I have mentioned before, this has long been my favourite limerick:
A lady born under a curse
Would drive forth each day in a hearse.
From the back she would wail
Through a thickness of veil:
Things do not get better, but worse.
Prediction: we have not yet hit bottom.
Yup. As I have mentioned before, this has long been my favourite limerick:
A lady born under a curse
Would drive forth each day in a hearse.
From the back she would wail
Through a thickness of veil:
Things do not get better, but worse.
If people can’t wear masks to keep their grandmothers or even themselves from dying, they aren’t going to do a damned thing that mitigating climate change would require.
I would say the difference is that mask wearing is mostly about protecting others. From something that you may not have noticed that much — might seem like just a bad cold, rather than something serious. Whereas terrible weather impacts, visibly and seriously, you. And, especially in rural areas, your livelihood.
Plus, a covid case, even a modrately serious one, only lasts a couple of weeks. And then memories fade. Whereas the crazy weather just goes on and on and on. On top of which, everybody is impacted at the same time, so you end up talking about it. A lot.
For some, even that won’t be enough. But we don’t have to persuade everybody. Just enough to swing elections, and thus influence politicians.
If people can’t wear masks to keep their grandmothers or even themselves from dying, they aren’t going to do a damned thing that mitigating climate change would require.
I would say the difference is that mask wearing is mostly about protecting others. From something that you may not have noticed that much — might seem like just a bad cold, rather than something serious. Whereas terrible weather impacts, visibly and seriously, you. And, especially in rural areas, your livelihood.
Plus, a covid case, even a modrately serious one, only lasts a couple of weeks. And then memories fade. Whereas the crazy weather just goes on and on and on. On top of which, everybody is impacted at the same time, so you end up talking about it. A lot.
For some, even that won’t be enough. But we don’t have to persuade everybody. Just enough to swing elections, and thus influence politicians.
Prediction: we have not yet hit bottom.
Not even close. Quoted by someone at BJ:
Prediction: we have not yet hit bottom.
Not even close. Quoted by someone at BJ:
I do think that gay rights themselves are now so firmly established everywhere in the first world that they will be impossible to row back. But then, I thought that about abortion rights….
I would say that the difference is that, if someone is gay (and out, of course), that fact is ongoingly obvious. And most people know at least one gay person. It makes getting hardened, if you will, to the reality more likely.
Whereas an abortion happens, and then it’s over — at least from the perspective of others. The fact that someone has had an abortion is not particularly obvious well after the fact, if you didn’t know them at the time. So it’s entirely possible to reject abortion in the abstract, without inconvenient reality intruding. Let along intruding constantly.
That may not be enough to secure gay marriage permanently. But its position is already more secure than abortion’s ever was.
I do think that gay rights themselves are now so firmly established everywhere in the first world that they will be impossible to row back. But then, I thought that about abortion rights….
I would say that the difference is that, if someone is gay (and out, of course), that fact is ongoingly obvious. And most people know at least one gay person. It makes getting hardened, if you will, to the reality more likely.
Whereas an abortion happens, and then it’s over — at least from the perspective of others. The fact that someone has had an abortion is not particularly obvious well after the fact, if you didn’t know them at the time. So it’s entirely possible to reject abortion in the abstract, without inconvenient reality intruding. Let along intruding constantly.
That may not be enough to secure gay marriage permanently. But its position is already more secure than abortion’s ever was.
In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive . . . precedents, . . . because any substantive . . . decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’
I’d say that this is likely true. IF by “this Court” you mean the one in place since Trump’s appointments. Which Thomas didn’t, but….
In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive . . . precedents, . . . because any substantive . . . decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’
I’d say that this is likely true. IF by “this Court” you mean the one in place since Trump’s appointments. Which Thomas didn’t, but….
That may not be enough to secure gay marriage permanently. But its position is already more secure than abortion’s ever was.
And LGBTQ+ people, by that very visibility, are more at-risk of violence.
We already know what the US looks like where these things are concerned, and the USSC wants to make sure that all of the people upset by federal protection for things they find immoral have unrestricted access to firearms so that they can proactively exercise insurrectionary theory in support of their religious liberty.
I’m betting that the most popular subject for this Sunday’s sermons at mainline fundamentalist churches is going to be the Book of Judges (wiki):
The Book of Judges (ספר שופטים, Sefer Shoftim) is the seventh book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament. In the narrative of the Hebrew Bible, it covers the time between the conquest described in the Book of Joshua and the establishment of a kingdom in the Books of Samuel, during which biblical judges served as temporary leaders.[1] The stories follow a consistent pattern: the people are unfaithful to Yahweh; he therefore delivers them into the hands of their enemies; the people repent and entreat Yahweh for mercy, which he sends in the form of a leader or champion (a “judge”; see shophet); the judge delivers the Israelites from oppression and they prosper, but soon they fall again into unfaithfulness and the cycle is repeated.
Which would probably put Tyrannosaurus Rump in the role of King Saul – popular, but prone to fits, and leave the role of King David tantalizingly open for all the hungry Christian nationalist types waiting in the wings.
Not a prediction of what is to come, just a description of the Fundamentalist Evangelical imaginary at this point in time.
That may not be enough to secure gay marriage permanently. But its position is already more secure than abortion’s ever was.
And LGBTQ+ people, by that very visibility, are more at-risk of violence.
We already know what the US looks like where these things are concerned, and the USSC wants to make sure that all of the people upset by federal protection for things they find immoral have unrestricted access to firearms so that they can proactively exercise insurrectionary theory in support of their religious liberty.
I’m betting that the most popular subject for this Sunday’s sermons at mainline fundamentalist churches is going to be the Book of Judges (wiki):
The Book of Judges (ספר שופטים, Sefer Shoftim) is the seventh book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament. In the narrative of the Hebrew Bible, it covers the time between the conquest described in the Book of Joshua and the establishment of a kingdom in the Books of Samuel, during which biblical judges served as temporary leaders.[1] The stories follow a consistent pattern: the people are unfaithful to Yahweh; he therefore delivers them into the hands of their enemies; the people repent and entreat Yahweh for mercy, which he sends in the form of a leader or champion (a “judge”; see shophet); the judge delivers the Israelites from oppression and they prosper, but soon they fall again into unfaithfulness and the cycle is repeated.
Which would probably put Tyrannosaurus Rump in the role of King Saul – popular, but prone to fits, and leave the role of King David tantalizingly open for all the hungry Christian nationalist types waiting in the wings.
Not a prediction of what is to come, just a description of the Fundamentalist Evangelical imaginary at this point in time.
Gotta love this headline, for a column by the Washington Post’s TV critic, of all people:
The Jan. 6 hearings and the spectacle of competence
What Congress could be, if it hadn’t descended to “performance art”. (And piss-poor art at that,)
Gotta love this headline, for a column by the Washington Post’s TV critic, of all people:
The Jan. 6 hearings and the spectacle of competence
What Congress could be, if it hadn’t descended to “performance art”. (And piss-poor art at that,)