by JanieM
Hearing commentary and open thread.
I got nothin’ at the moment, just sitting in front of a fan and playing with my granddaughter, which is consolation and compensation for a lot of things.
PS — Link to hearing.
392 thoughts on “January 6 hearing on July 21 2022”
Comments are closed.
Thanks Janie.
Thanks Janie.
One of my first cousins recently died at the lamentable age of 71. But she had three great-grandchildren. I thought that might be a little unusual. But Google tells me that the average age of becoming a great-grandparent is about 75.
One of my first cousins recently died at the lamentable age of 71. But she had three great-grandchildren. I thought that might be a little unusual. But Google tells me that the average age of becoming a great-grandparent is about 75.
@CharlesWT: I’d be curious to know how that’s changing, because my impression is that women are waiting longer to have babies than they used to. But that’s probably just anecdata, and a little bit of wistfulness around the fact that when I was born my mother’s mother was 48. When my first (and so far only) grandchild was born, I was 71.
I spend a lot of time with her, and it’s immensely wonderful, but I do wish I had the body, strength, and energy I had even ten years ago.
@CharlesWT: I’d be curious to know how that’s changing, because my impression is that women are waiting longer to have babies than they used to. But that’s probably just anecdata, and a little bit of wistfulness around the fact that when I was born my mother’s mother was 48. When my first (and so far only) grandchild was born, I was 71.
I spend a lot of time with her, and it’s immensely wonderful, but I do wish I had the body, strength, and energy I had even ten years ago.
My parents married when they were 38**, which, in the 1940s. was positively ancient. Mom having 4 kids in her 30 was anomalous, too — in school, all of my friends parents were a decade younger than mine. Not that some people didn’t marry late and have kids late, but the norm was shortly after graduation (either from high school or from college).
** My grandparents had long since resigned themselves to her never getting married.
My parents married when they were 38**, which, in the 1940s. was positively ancient. Mom having 4 kids in her 30 was anomalous, too — in school, all of my friends parents were a decade younger than mine. Not that some people didn’t marry late and have kids late, but the norm was shortly after graduation (either from high school or from college).
** My grandparents had long since resigned themselves to her never getting married.
my impression is that women are waiting longer to have babies than they used to
Certainly the availability of contraception that a woman could use without requiring cooperation from the male involved had a lot to do with that.
my impression is that women are waiting longer to have babies than they used to
Certainly the availability of contraception that a woman could use without requiring cooperation from the male involved had a lot to do with that.
As for stretching generations out, The last grandchild of President John Tyler, born in 1790, died in 2020.
As for stretching generations out, The last grandchild of President John Tyler, born in 1790, died in 2020.
My paternal grandmother first became a grandmother at 45 when my oldest first cousin on that side was born. I was born one day after her 48th birthday. She lived to see all nine of her great grandchildren before dying at 93, 26 years after first becoming a great grandmother at 67. My youngest was her last great grandchild, born 9 months before she died. She was the youngest of her parents’ kids and my youngest grandparent.
My paternal grandmother first became a grandmother at 45 when my oldest first cousin on that side was born. I was born one day after her 48th birthday. She lived to see all nine of her great grandchildren before dying at 93, 26 years after first becoming a great grandmother at 67. My youngest was her last great grandchild, born 9 months before she died. She was the youngest of her parents’ kids and my youngest grandparent.
From today’s WaPo about the hearings so far, and in general:
As Brian Beutler writes for the New York Times, Trump’s coup attempt exposed a profound truth: Trump and all the Republicans trying to erase the insurrection with propaganda are, at the most fundamental level, threatening “the American experiment in self-government” and are “unfit to hold public office in a democracy.”
The surprise in the Jan. 6 hearings has been how vividly this truth is crystallizing for the public. So there’s no sense for people who want to defend democracy — small-d and large-D Democrats alike — to run down rabbit holes to defuse bad-faith GOP claims about unfair processes. Nor is there any reason to let credulous punditry about GOP displays of phony outrage shape their approach.
The force of the revelations themselves has blown right through all that frivolous nonsense. There’s a pretty big lesson in that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/21/kevin-mccarthy-jan-6-hearings-hannity/
From today’s WaPo about the hearings so far, and in general:
As Brian Beutler writes for the New York Times, Trump’s coup attempt exposed a profound truth: Trump and all the Republicans trying to erase the insurrection with propaganda are, at the most fundamental level, threatening “the American experiment in self-government” and are “unfit to hold public office in a democracy.”
The surprise in the Jan. 6 hearings has been how vividly this truth is crystallizing for the public. So there’s no sense for people who want to defend democracy — small-d and large-D Democrats alike — to run down rabbit holes to defuse bad-faith GOP claims about unfair processes. Nor is there any reason to let credulous punditry about GOP displays of phony outrage shape their approach.
The force of the revelations themselves has blown right through all that frivolous nonsense. There’s a pretty big lesson in that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/21/kevin-mccarthy-jan-6-hearings-hannity/
Childbearing from another angle: I have genealogy books for two of my maternal family lines going back to the 1640s in Connecticut. They clearly illustrate what we all pretty much know, which is that families were bigger than now. None of this 1 or 2 kids nonsense.
My maternal line great-grandmother was married at 17 and had a baby every two years until she was 31. Then, a few weeks after her 7th child was born, she died. My grandma was the 2nd of those 7 children and the only girl. Her dad remarried about a year and a half later — a woman who already had 7 kids of her own. Together they had 4 more.
I’m pretty sure my grandma never got over the loss of her mother. For a while she helped raise her younger brothers, but eventually a comfortably situated relative footed the bill for her to go to boarding school for most of high school. She never forgave her father, who (acc’ to my mom) she believed caused her mother’s death because he wouldn’t keep the house warm enough. (She was a champion holder of grudges…)
Childbearing from another angle: I have genealogy books for two of my maternal family lines going back to the 1640s in Connecticut. They clearly illustrate what we all pretty much know, which is that families were bigger than now. None of this 1 or 2 kids nonsense.
My maternal line great-grandmother was married at 17 and had a baby every two years until she was 31. Then, a few weeks after her 7th child was born, she died. My grandma was the 2nd of those 7 children and the only girl. Her dad remarried about a year and a half later — a woman who already had 7 kids of her own. Together they had 4 more.
I’m pretty sure my grandma never got over the loss of her mother. For a while she helped raise her younger brothers, but eventually a comfortably situated relative footed the bill for her to go to boarding school for most of high school. She never forgave her father, who (acc’ to my mom) she believed caused her mother’s death because he wouldn’t keep the house warm enough. (She was a champion holder of grudges…)
My maternal grandmother was born in 1880 at the northern end of California’s Central Valley. She became a nurse, and met my grandfather while she was the nurse at a mining camp in northern Mexico (she was in her mid-20s, I believe). Her first child was born when she was 30, and my mother (the youngest of 3) was born when she was 38.
So definitely similar to current practice. But this was extremely atypical for the time.
My maternal grandmother was born in 1880 at the northern end of California’s Central Valley. She became a nurse, and met my grandfather while she was the nurse at a mining camp in northern Mexico (she was in her mid-20s, I believe). Her first child was born when she was 30, and my mother (the youngest of 3) was born when she was 38.
So definitely similar to current practice. But this was extremely atypical for the time.
wj, sounds like your grandmother was a woman who knew her own mind. Even to become a nurse in those days must have required some determination, never mind working in a mining camp.
My grandma was born in 1901. She married at 21 and bore two kids. Before the second one was a year old, my grandfather died at not quite 35 y.o. of ill health that was probably an aftermath of his having been gassed in WWI.
She never remarried — said she had had a stepparent and she wasn’t going to inflict one on her own children. Plus, from reading between the lines of old letters and cards, I think that just as she never really got over the death of her mother, she probably never even considered filling my grandfather’s place in her life with another man.
Just to ice the cake, her father committed suicide (reportedly he had ALS) at 45, not long before she and my grandfather got married. His last child was born on his birthday 12 days later. She committed suicide as well, in her mid-twenties I think.
So many stories — I’m sure every family, every person, has them. Billions of stories!
wj, sounds like your grandmother was a woman who knew her own mind. Even to become a nurse in those days must have required some determination, never mind working in a mining camp.
My grandma was born in 1901. She married at 21 and bore two kids. Before the second one was a year old, my grandfather died at not quite 35 y.o. of ill health that was probably an aftermath of his having been gassed in WWI.
She never remarried — said she had had a stepparent and she wasn’t going to inflict one on her own children. Plus, from reading between the lines of old letters and cards, I think that just as she never really got over the death of her mother, she probably never even considered filling my grandfather’s place in her life with another man.
Just to ice the cake, her father committed suicide (reportedly he had ALS) at 45, not long before she and my grandfather got married. His last child was born on his birthday 12 days later. She committed suicide as well, in her mid-twenties I think.
So many stories — I’m sure every family, every person, has them. Billions of stories!
I got nothin’ at the moment, just sitting in front of a fan and playing with my granddaughter, which is consolation and compensation for a lot of things.
Took granddaughter #1 bicycling this morning, always a pleasant chore. Should have started earlier to beat a little more of the heat. She lectured me about species that are going extinct. Granddaughter #3 is about to turn five months and is a very cheerful little person. Granddaughter #2 was wrapped up in something on TV and waved, called “Hi, Grandpa!”, and otherwise ignored me.
Upper 90s early this afternoon, but there’s enough monsoon moisture and instability to kick off little wanna-be thunderstorms. High based, so only virga, no rain actually reaching the ground, but enough to knock ten degrees off the temperature.
I got nothin’ at the moment, just sitting in front of a fan and playing with my granddaughter, which is consolation and compensation for a lot of things.
Took granddaughter #1 bicycling this morning, always a pleasant chore. Should have started earlier to beat a little more of the heat. She lectured me about species that are going extinct. Granddaughter #3 is about to turn five months and is a very cheerful little person. Granddaughter #2 was wrapped up in something on TV and waved, called “Hi, Grandpa!”, and otherwise ignored me.
Upper 90s early this afternoon, but there’s enough monsoon moisture and instability to kick off little wanna-be thunderstorms. High based, so only virga, no rain actually reaching the ground, but enough to knock ten degrees off the temperature.
first: lock them up.
then: my paternal grandfather was born in 1879, which boggles my mind every time I think about it.
first: lock them up.
then: my paternal grandfather was born in 1879, which boggles my mind every time I think about it.
Christ, Janie, what a story. But I loved(She was a champion holder of grudges…) It’s great that you get to spend time with your granddaughter, but did you spend time with your grandmother? She sounds as if she was quite something; she certainly had a helluva life story.
Christ, Janie, what a story. But I loved(She was a champion holder of grudges…) It’s great that you get to spend time with your granddaughter, but did you spend time with your grandmother? She sounds as if she was quite something; she certainly had a helluva life story.
first: lock them up.
Amen.
first: lock them up.
Amen.
My maternal grandmother was born in 1880 at the northern end of California’s Central Valley. She became a nurse, and met my grandfather while she was the nurse at a mining camp in northern Mexico
Amazing what people in those years did. My great-uncle ran away from a tiny Iowa town at age 16. He ended up as the cook at a lumber camp in Montana. If you were a lumber company and short on cash at the end of the month, the lumberjacks got paid first, then the mill operators, then everyone else. Many months they offered him stock in the company instead of cash. As he put it, as cook he had plenty to eat, and a bunk in the shed behind the cookhouse, so why not? Mergers and acquisitions later, those shares turned into a hefty pile of Georgia Pacific shares. The company created a title and small office job just for him because they said it was embarrassing to have someone who owned that many shares working in the field.
My maternal grandmother was born in 1880 at the northern end of California’s Central Valley. She became a nurse, and met my grandfather while she was the nurse at a mining camp in northern Mexico
Amazing what people in those years did. My great-uncle ran away from a tiny Iowa town at age 16. He ended up as the cook at a lumber camp in Montana. If you were a lumber company and short on cash at the end of the month, the lumberjacks got paid first, then the mill operators, then everyone else. Many months they offered him stock in the company instead of cash. As he put it, as cook he had plenty to eat, and a bunk in the shed behind the cookhouse, so why not? Mergers and acquisitions later, those shares turned into a hefty pile of Georgia Pacific shares. The company created a title and small office job just for him because they said it was embarrassing to have someone who owned that many shares working in the field.
did you spend time with your grandmother?
I spent a lot of time with her and I adored her. In fact, she took care of me during the week for my first three years, while my mom went back to work for the NY Central Railroad, as she had done through the war and afterwards. (“the” war — that was the next one)
My brother was born when I was not quite 3, and after that my grandma helped for a little while longer, but my mom never went back to work after that.
I’m sure she spent many many hours directly with me, and I attribute to her attention the fact (well she said it was, anyhow) that I could put a “My ‘Nited States” puzzle together before I was 2.
She worked as a helper in many homes in her rural area over the years. My mom and her brother grew up partly in the Baptist parsonage, because Grandma was the housekeeper — we are pretty sure that was done partly as a charity, to help the young widow during the Depression. The minister was a single woman … very rare in those days to have a female pastor. “Rev. Anna Eastwood,” a famous name in my childhood.
Some of the favorite times of my childhood were the handful of times when I got to spend a week with her in the country in the summer. You see where I landed — in her movie. Only it isn’t, really.
She was “Aunt Posie” to the whole village. I have stories about that, too, but enough is enough.
She had carroty red hair, as did one of my cousins. One of my sisters has a more auburn red — very striking in a family of dark Italians. 🙂
I have no memory of the red hair — she was gray by the time my memories start.
did you spend time with your grandmother?
I spent a lot of time with her and I adored her. In fact, she took care of me during the week for my first three years, while my mom went back to work for the NY Central Railroad, as she had done through the war and afterwards. (“the” war — that was the next one)
My brother was born when I was not quite 3, and after that my grandma helped for a little while longer, but my mom never went back to work after that.
I’m sure she spent many many hours directly with me, and I attribute to her attention the fact (well she said it was, anyhow) that I could put a “My ‘Nited States” puzzle together before I was 2.
She worked as a helper in many homes in her rural area over the years. My mom and her brother grew up partly in the Baptist parsonage, because Grandma was the housekeeper — we are pretty sure that was done partly as a charity, to help the young widow during the Depression. The minister was a single woman … very rare in those days to have a female pastor. “Rev. Anna Eastwood,” a famous name in my childhood.
Some of the favorite times of my childhood were the handful of times when I got to spend a week with her in the country in the summer. You see where I landed — in her movie. Only it isn’t, really.
She was “Aunt Posie” to the whole village. I have stories about that, too, but enough is enough.
She had carroty red hair, as did one of my cousins. One of my sisters has a more auburn red — very striking in a family of dark Italians. 🙂
I have no memory of the red hair — she was gray by the time my memories start.
but my mom never went back to work after that.
That’s not literally true. She did go back to work as an elementary school secretary when my youngest sibling was in eighth grade IIRC, and later as exec. secretary for the owner of a factory in our town.
but my mom never went back to work after that.
That’s not literally true. She did go back to work as an elementary school secretary when my youngest sibling was in eighth grade IIRC, and later as exec. secretary for the owner of a factory in our town.
but enough is enough.
Only if it is for you. Speaking personally, I could do with a whole lot more, and I bet I’m not alone. Maybe when you next have time, after this hearing (which they say is the last of the summer), we could have a thread for family stories?
but enough is enough.
Only if it is for you. Speaking personally, I could do with a whole lot more, and I bet I’m not alone. Maybe when you next have time, after this hearing (which they say is the last of the summer), we could have a thread for family stories?
I see that if I had a copy editor, a lot of my pronouns would have been clarified. But I hope they’re clear enough from context.
*****
Though I adored my grandma (and the other one was pretty special too), in later life I’ve had to come to terms with
1) how unpleasant I probably was when I rebelled against her when the time came, which surely pained her; and
2) the reasons she needed to be rebelled against: she was a serious Sunday-school-teaching Baptist, after all, with lots of rules and limits and judgments — alcohol was the very devil, for instance; it was a sin to touch a deck of cards in my mother’s growing up (though not in mine); etc. There was a lot of repression to be rebelled against.
I don’t think I’ve finished that process to this day, but that’s what life is, in part … “the path is under your feet.” (Zen teacher Tommy Dorsey.)
I see that if I had a copy editor, a lot of my pronouns would have been clarified. But I hope they’re clear enough from context.
*****
Though I adored my grandma (and the other one was pretty special too), in later life I’ve had to come to terms with
1) how unpleasant I probably was when I rebelled against her when the time came, which surely pained her; and
2) the reasons she needed to be rebelled against: she was a serious Sunday-school-teaching Baptist, after all, with lots of rules and limits and judgments — alcohol was the very devil, for instance; it was a sin to touch a deck of cards in my mother’s growing up (though not in mine); etc. There was a lot of repression to be rebelled against.
I don’t think I’ve finished that process to this day, but that’s what life is, in part … “the path is under your feet.” (Zen teacher Tommy Dorsey.)
Only if it is for you. Speaking personally, I could do with a whole lot more, and I bet I’m not alone. Maybe when you next have time, after this hearing (which they say is the last of the summer), we could have a thread for family stories?
That would be fun. Remind me if I forget…..
Only if it is for you. Speaking personally, I could do with a whole lot more, and I bet I’m not alone. Maybe when you next have time, after this hearing (which they say is the last of the summer), we could have a thread for family stories?
That would be fun. Remind me if I forget…..
They have known since February that the texts had been lost. But suddenly today, DHS has launched a criminal investigation. Which means that the Secret Service has to cease trying to recover the texts, lest they “interfere in a criminal investigation.”
Why is the first thought in my mind “Which guys in the office initiating the investigation are Trump appointees?” I feel like I’m falling down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. But I console myself with “It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.”
They have known since February that the texts had been lost. But suddenly today, DHS has launched a criminal investigation. Which means that the Secret Service has to cease trying to recover the texts, lest they “interfere in a criminal investigation.”
Why is the first thought in my mind “Which guys in the office initiating the investigation are Trump appointees?” I feel like I’m falling down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. But I console myself with “It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.”
Hearing link.
Hearing link.
Will do, Janie!
Will do, Janie!
Nice touch running a video of McConnell saying Trump was the only one who could call off the mob. Challenging to call that a partisan attack. For all that nobody thanks Moscow Mitch is, or ever has been, a Trump fan.
Nice touch running a video of McConnell saying Trump was the only one who could call off the mob. Challenging to call that a partisan attack. For all that nobody thanks Moscow Mitch is, or ever has been, a Trump fan.
Most unusually for me, I keep dropping off, so I will record the rest and watch tomorrow. Goodnight, all.
Most unusually for me, I keep dropping off, so I will record the rest and watch tomorrow. Goodnight, all.
Nighty night. I’m going to finish tomorrow too. Too many distractions here.
Nighty night. I’m going to finish tomorrow too. Too many distractions here.
Of course, as soon as I posted that I woke up properly. Just watching closing statements now – Kinsinger very powerful I thought.
Of course, as soon as I posted that I woke up properly. Just watching closing statements now – Kinsinger very powerful I thought.
Cheney’s final statement very impressive, too. If she doesn’t win reelection etc it will be the final proof that the Rs have descended into mass psychosis.
Night all.
Cheney’s final statement very impressive, too. If she doesn’t win reelection etc it will be the final proof that the Rs have descended into mass psychosis.
Night all.
I think the biggest takeaway from tonight was the comment from the Committee that “the dam is breaking” and there will be further public hearings in September. Considering what we have heard in these first hearings, something that warrants a “dam breaking” metaphor must be super explosive.
I think the biggest takeaway from tonight was the comment from the Committee that “the dam is breaking” and there will be further public hearings in September. Considering what we have heard in these first hearings, something that warrants a “dam breaking” metaphor must be super explosive.
I’m wondering if the “dam breaking” metaphor has to do not only with information about with people who were refusing to testify changing their minds. It’s very strange to remember watching the event on TV that day and thinking how bad it was at the time, and now realizing that my imagination on that day didn’t come close to the reality.
I’m wondering if the “dam breaking” metaphor has to do not only with information about with people who were refusing to testify changing their minds. It’s very strange to remember watching the event on TV that day and thinking how bad it was at the time, and now realizing that my imagination on that day didn’t come close to the reality.
sorry, garbled syntax
“not only with information but with people…”
sorry, garbled syntax
“not only with information but with people…”
Amusing, if slightly off topic, is the image(s) of Senator Josh Hawley on the day. I’d say that his Presidential prospects are pretty much toast. His reelection may be at risk, too, if he decides to go that way in 2024.
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.
Amusing, if slightly off topic, is the image(s) of Senator Josh Hawley on the day. I’d say that his Presidential prospects are pretty much toast. His reelection may be at risk, too, if he decides to go that way in 2024.
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.
My sister-in-law will look at a cute baby (which means all of them) and say, “She needs a squeeze!” Meaning a hug.
You look at Hawley’s substance-free posturing and think, “He needs a smack!” He looks like he imagines himself as Superman, or the Terminator, when actually he just looks like a twit.
Sadly, that does not preclude his doing a lot of damage.
Clearly it’s bedtime and then some here.
My sister-in-law will look at a cute baby (which means all of them) and say, “She needs a squeeze!” Meaning a hug.
You look at Hawley’s substance-free posturing and think, “He needs a smack!” He looks like he imagines himself as Superman, or the Terminator, when actually he just looks like a twit.
Sadly, that does not preclude his doing a lot of damage.
Clearly it’s bedtime and then some here.
Worse than a twit. Somehow, the word “twit” usually carries a very faint flavour of affection, despite the insult, at least to my mind. “He needs a smack” I couldn’t begin to argue with, however.
As for “the dam is breaking”, I only hope that this is the feeling that the American electorate is starting to get. Obsessives (like most of us on ObWi) are fully in it, but I just hope this is truly making waves outside the various bubbles. A very good, highly intelligent and well-informed retired friend (who went to college in the US) rang me at midday, not having got my email saying don’t call til after 2 because I’ve been up watching the hearing. He said “only you would be up til 5 in the morning watching this.” I have to admit, it gave me pause.
Worse than a twit. Somehow, the word “twit” usually carries a very faint flavour of affection, despite the insult, at least to my mind. “He needs a smack” I couldn’t begin to argue with, however.
As for “the dam is breaking”, I only hope that this is the feeling that the American electorate is starting to get. Obsessives (like most of us on ObWi) are fully in it, but I just hope this is truly making waves outside the various bubbles. A very good, highly intelligent and well-informed retired friend (who went to college in the US) rang me at midday, not having got my email saying don’t call til after 2 because I’ve been up watching the hearing. He said “only you would be up til 5 in the morning watching this.” I have to admit, it gave me pause.
Quickly — to me, “twit” doesn’t carry any connotation of affection. It’s disparaging and scornful.
From a BJ commenter, as background to a bit of further explanation on my part:
WTF is “traditional masculinity”? (Rhetorical question.) One of the big things I gradually realized as I came away from my small town midwestern American upbringing was that the John Wayne model of masculinity was not universal. European men could be smooth, seductive to women, not particularly broad-shouldered, etc. (I am oversimplifying! it’s impossible not to with this topic), without compromising their “masculinity.”
Also — between the time I was a child and the time my son was a child, the American ideal of masculinity did become very toxic, as witnessed by (30 years ago) concern about boys getting caught up in body image standards as exemplified by GI Joe dolls from one era vs another. (Google it, I don’t have time.)
Finally, as to Hawley, a little amateur psychologizing at a distance: my use of the word “twit” was partly, I think, a late-night reaction to my sense (quite possible wrong!) that he imagines himself to be the epitome of what he himself apparently calls “strong and healthy manhood” [seriously?] — but my disrespectful speculation is that he is actually terrified that he doesn’t meet that standard, and has to keep proving it again and again. The fist pump may have been pure political theatre, but I don’t think so. I think it had to do with signaling to the rioters that he was a real man too.
Also this: “‘traditional masculine virtues’ like courage, independence and assertiveness as “a danger to society.'”
I had an argument with an old friend once about lists of qualities and whether they could be defined as typically masculine or feminine. If ever there was a can of worms…. But the implication of Hawley’s words is that “courage” etc. are not “feminine” virtues.
Bullshit.
Also, take all this in the light of the fact that my all-time favorite book title is “Gender Outlaw: Men, Women, and the Rest of Us.” This isn’t as remarkable as it was when the book came out, but it still makes a statement that I think is important to make.
(Hurrying to a meeting….so this is hastier than I would like it to be.)
Quickly — to me, “twit” doesn’t carry any connotation of affection. It’s disparaging and scornful.
From a BJ commenter, as background to a bit of further explanation on my part:
WTF is “traditional masculinity”? (Rhetorical question.) One of the big things I gradually realized as I came away from my small town midwestern American upbringing was that the John Wayne model of masculinity was not universal. European men could be smooth, seductive to women, not particularly broad-shouldered, etc. (I am oversimplifying! it’s impossible not to with this topic), without compromising their “masculinity.”
Also — between the time I was a child and the time my son was a child, the American ideal of masculinity did become very toxic, as witnessed by (30 years ago) concern about boys getting caught up in body image standards as exemplified by GI Joe dolls from one era vs another. (Google it, I don’t have time.)
Finally, as to Hawley, a little amateur psychologizing at a distance: my use of the word “twit” was partly, I think, a late-night reaction to my sense (quite possible wrong!) that he imagines himself to be the epitome of what he himself apparently calls “strong and healthy manhood” [seriously?] — but my disrespectful speculation is that he is actually terrified that he doesn’t meet that standard, and has to keep proving it again and again. The fist pump may have been pure political theatre, but I don’t think so. I think it had to do with signaling to the rioters that he was a real man too.
Also this: “‘traditional masculine virtues’ like courage, independence and assertiveness as “a danger to society.'”
I had an argument with an old friend once about lists of qualities and whether they could be defined as typically masculine or feminine. If ever there was a can of worms…. But the implication of Hawley’s words is that “courage” etc. are not “feminine” virtues.
Bullshit.
Also, take all this in the light of the fact that my all-time favorite book title is “Gender Outlaw: Men, Women, and the Rest of Us.” This isn’t as remarkable as it was when the book came out, but it still makes a statement that I think is important to make.
(Hurrying to a meeting….so this is hastier than I would like it to be.)
signaling to the rioters
And even more, signaling to his constituency. I hope he’s wrong about what they want.
signaling to the rioters
And even more, signaling to his constituency. I hope he’s wrong about what they want.
Well, ‘virtue’ is by definition something only men can have.
Well, ‘virtue’ is by definition something only men can have.
Quickly — to me, “twit” doesn’t carry any connotation of affection. It’s disparaging and scornful.
Also a bit disparaging, in that the target isn’t consequential enough to warrant a harsher epithet.
between the time I was a child and the time my son was a child, the American ideal of masculinity did become very toxic, as witnessed by (30 years ago) concern about boys getting caught up in body image standards as exemplified by GI Joe dolls from one era vs another.
I seem to recall concern (at what feels, at this distance, like roughly the same time) about girls getting caught up in body image standards based on Barbie. Perhaps our toy manufacturers have issues. Then again, consider what some 19th century homemade dolls looked like. 🙂
I’d say that toxic masculinity arose more out of massive insecurity. Young (initially) men who felt that, if they weren’t physically scary, they would be scorned by their peers. (And, worse, unattractive to any women they encountered.) Drifting into social groups consisting almost entirely of similar young men (plus, typically, and older exploitive would-be megalomaniac), you’d get a toxic feedback loop going. Aided by the well deserved scorn of those with better standards.
A (somewhat) better, at least less harmful to the rest of us, reaction would have been to get seriously into bodybuilding, to end up like a WWE participant. But the lower effort approach involved waving guns around. Preferably in front of people, especially children, with no training or means to fight back.
Quickly — to me, “twit” doesn’t carry any connotation of affection. It’s disparaging and scornful.
Also a bit disparaging, in that the target isn’t consequential enough to warrant a harsher epithet.
between the time I was a child and the time my son was a child, the American ideal of masculinity did become very toxic, as witnessed by (30 years ago) concern about boys getting caught up in body image standards as exemplified by GI Joe dolls from one era vs another.
I seem to recall concern (at what feels, at this distance, like roughly the same time) about girls getting caught up in body image standards based on Barbie. Perhaps our toy manufacturers have issues. Then again, consider what some 19th century homemade dolls looked like. 🙂
I’d say that toxic masculinity arose more out of massive insecurity. Young (initially) men who felt that, if they weren’t physically scary, they would be scorned by their peers. (And, worse, unattractive to any women they encountered.) Drifting into social groups consisting almost entirely of similar young men (plus, typically, and older exploitive would-be megalomaniac), you’d get a toxic feedback loop going. Aided by the well deserved scorn of those with better standards.
A (somewhat) better, at least less harmful to the rest of us, reaction would have been to get seriously into bodybuilding, to end up like a WWE participant. But the lower effort approach involved waving guns around. Preferably in front of people, especially children, with no training or means to fight back.
signaling to the rioters
And even more, signaling to his constituency. I hope he’s wrong about what they want.
Or, failing that, that the sight of him running away makes them decide that he isn’t it. At least enough of them to boot him out of office.
signaling to the rioters
And even more, signaling to his constituency. I hope he’s wrong about what they want.
Or, failing that, that the sight of him running away makes them decide that he isn’t it. At least enough of them to boot him out of office.
While the cameras have been on the January 6th Committee hearings, your favorite senators are co-sponsoring a bill to make it much more difficult for a president to attempt to overturn election results.
“While a special House committee has been probing the scope of Trump’s plots and the role the former president played in the ugly events of January 6, a bipartisan group of senators led by Susan Collins (R–Maine) and Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) has been working on a fix for the procedural issues Trump’s team nearly exploited to overturn the election. This is less dramatic than what the January 6th Committee has been turning up, but it is probably the more important project for the future of American democracy.”
The Senate’s Election Reform Bill Is Surprisingly Logical and Bipartisan: Former President Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election relied on three potential pressure points. This bill addresses all three.
While the cameras have been on the January 6th Committee hearings, your favorite senators are co-sponsoring a bill to make it much more difficult for a president to attempt to overturn election results.
“While a special House committee has been probing the scope of Trump’s plots and the role the former president played in the ugly events of January 6, a bipartisan group of senators led by Susan Collins (R–Maine) and Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) has been working on a fix for the procedural issues Trump’s team nearly exploited to overturn the election. This is less dramatic than what the January 6th Committee has been turning up, but it is probably the more important project for the future of American democracy.”
The Senate’s Election Reform Bill Is Surprisingly Logical and Bipartisan: Former President Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election relied on three potential pressure points. This bill addresses all three.
Dan Rather weighs in:
Run Hawley Run
Elsewhere, Missouri Democrats are being urged to put on a Josh Hawley 5K as a fundraiser.
Dan Rather weighs in:
Run Hawley Run
Elsewhere, Missouri Democrats are being urged to put on a Josh Hawley 5K as a fundraiser.
I find that I’m losing interest in listening to the hearings. I haven’t heard anything that wasn’t already blatantly obvious, and I’m less than confident that they will change anything.
What’s a guy got to do to earn a criminal referral these days?
Apologies, but I’m feeling kind of jaded.
I find that I’m losing interest in listening to the hearings. I haven’t heard anything that wasn’t already blatantly obvious, and I’m less than confident that they will change anything.
What’s a guy got to do to earn a criminal referral these days?
Apologies, but I’m feeling kind of jaded.
Quickly — to me, “twit” doesn’t carry any connotation of affection. It’s disparaging and scornful.
Obvs, I deduced this from the fact that you called Hawley a twit! I don’t know if it’s just me, or if other English people would agree (because I think “twit” is primarily English?), but I would never use twit about somebody I truly wanted to insult with extreme prejudice. Maybe affection was a bit of an overstatement, but I meant to convey a certain gently mockable ineffectualness, as opposed to just useless, toxic ineffectualness. Anyway, I learnt my lesson in our past discussion about “charm” – I maintained (and still maintain) that no English person would ever say Donald Trump had charm, and then the whole thing degenerated into various people saying that if they were ideologically sympathetic to him, and he was intent on attracting them, people might find him “charming” (an entirely different thing, by the way, but even then….) So I guess it’s true, we are two people divided by a common language. And that’s without even mentioning personal, idiosyncratic usage, which possibility I can’t neglect.
I’m probably still pretty underslept, so forgive my slightly incoherent meandering, but on the question of “masculine” characteristics, and courage in particular, it is noticeable to me that in these January 6th hearings, the bravery of e.g. Cassidy Hutchinson and Liz Cheney is considerable. And quite separate from whether or not one would approve of or agree with their political ideology.
Quickly — to me, “twit” doesn’t carry any connotation of affection. It’s disparaging and scornful.
Obvs, I deduced this from the fact that you called Hawley a twit! I don’t know if it’s just me, or if other English people would agree (because I think “twit” is primarily English?), but I would never use twit about somebody I truly wanted to insult with extreme prejudice. Maybe affection was a bit of an overstatement, but I meant to convey a certain gently mockable ineffectualness, as opposed to just useless, toxic ineffectualness. Anyway, I learnt my lesson in our past discussion about “charm” – I maintained (and still maintain) that no English person would ever say Donald Trump had charm, and then the whole thing degenerated into various people saying that if they were ideologically sympathetic to him, and he was intent on attracting them, people might find him “charming” (an entirely different thing, by the way, but even then….) So I guess it’s true, we are two people divided by a common language. And that’s without even mentioning personal, idiosyncratic usage, which possibility I can’t neglect.
I’m probably still pretty underslept, so forgive my slightly incoherent meandering, but on the question of “masculine” characteristics, and courage in particular, it is noticeable to me that in these January 6th hearings, the bravery of e.g. Cassidy Hutchinson and Liz Cheney is considerable. And quite separate from whether or not one would approve of or agree with their political ideology.
I haven’t heard anything that wasn’t already blatantly obvious, and I’m less than confident that they will change anything.
I’m certainly not confident. But the testimony that members of Pence’s Secret Service detail were calling home to say goodbye to their loved ones was quite dramatic, and the ridicule of Josh Hawley, the Running Man, will (with any luck) damage him. But yes, being jaded is certainly a very understandable reaction.
I haven’t heard anything that wasn’t already blatantly obvious, and I’m less than confident that they will change anything.
I’m certainly not confident. But the testimony that members of Pence’s Secret Service detail were calling home to say goodbye to their loved ones was quite dramatic, and the ridicule of Josh Hawley, the Running Man, will (with any luck) damage him. But yes, being jaded is certainly a very understandable reaction.
I haven’t heard anything that wasn’t already blatantly obvious, and I’m less than confident that they will change anything.
Obvious? Sure. But there’s some distance between what we are sure happened, and what there is eyewitness testimony to support it in court. Plus, some of the details say to me that things were worse than my (admittedly limited) imagination had conjured up.
All of which has the benefit of making it clear to AG Garland that there really is no viable alternative to, at minimum, taking Trump before a grand jury. He may feel (probably correctly) that it will inflame Trump’s cultists. But at this point, not doing so will inflame the rest of the population even more.
Granted, the Georgia AG will likely bring Trump to trial first. And arguably on more easily proven charges. But Trump still needs to be brought up on Federal charges as well. As a warning to others, in addition to it being what he richly deserves.
I haven’t heard anything that wasn’t already blatantly obvious, and I’m less than confident that they will change anything.
Obvious? Sure. But there’s some distance between what we are sure happened, and what there is eyewitness testimony to support it in court. Plus, some of the details say to me that things were worse than my (admittedly limited) imagination had conjured up.
All of which has the benefit of making it clear to AG Garland that there really is no viable alternative to, at minimum, taking Trump before a grand jury. He may feel (probably correctly) that it will inflame Trump’s cultists. But at this point, not doing so will inflame the rest of the population even more.
Granted, the Georgia AG will likely bring Trump to trial first. And arguably on more easily proven charges. But Trump still needs to be brought up on Federal charges as well. As a warning to others, in addition to it being what he richly deserves.
And…Steve Bannon convicted of contempt of Congress. Roll on the appeal, which is apparently what his lawyers have been focussing on.
And…Steve Bannon convicted of contempt of Congress. Roll on the appeal, which is apparently what his lawyers have been focussing on.
One of the books I read for my graduate lists. Has really stuck with me for how well it traces a lot of the changing cultural history around masculinity and war. Leo Braudy’s From Chivalry to Terrorism.
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-679-45035-1
After decades of reading and viewing texts that plumb this issue, I have to say that the people I keep coming back to as admirable representations of healthy masculinity are Maj. Dick Winters of Band of Brothers fame and E.B. Sledge (author of With the Old Breed both of whom served with distinction in some of the heaviest fighting of WWII, returned to civilian life, and wanted nothing more to do with violence. Both gave up hunting after the war and tried to lead quiet lives with their family.
That seems like a more healthy masculinity to me.
One of the books I read for my graduate lists. Has really stuck with me for how well it traces a lot of the changing cultural history around masculinity and war. Leo Braudy’s From Chivalry to Terrorism.
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-679-45035-1
After decades of reading and viewing texts that plumb this issue, I have to say that the people I keep coming back to as admirable representations of healthy masculinity are Maj. Dick Winters of Band of Brothers fame and E.B. Sledge (author of With the Old Breed both of whom served with distinction in some of the heaviest fighting of WWII, returned to civilian life, and wanted nothing more to do with violence. Both gave up hunting after the war and tried to lead quiet lives with their family.
That seems like a more healthy masculinity to me.
…I meant to convey a certain gently mockable ineffectualness, as opposed to just useless, toxic ineffectualness…
Yes. See, for example, Monty Python’s Upper Class Twit of the Year (youtube link).
…I meant to convey a certain gently mockable ineffectualness, as opposed to just useless, toxic ineffectualness…
Yes. See, for example, Monty Python’s Upper Class Twit of the Year (youtube link).
it will inflame Trump’s cultists.
Not to worry, they’re already inflamed.
it will inflame Trump’s cultists.
Not to worry, they’re already inflamed.
Not to worry, they’re already inflamed.
Hemorrhoids generally are.
Not to worry, they’re already inflamed.
Hemorrhoids generally are.
The Monty Python sketch is always the first that comes to mind when I hear the word ‘twit’.
I think it also influences how people understand the term. Looking at these caricatures they’re clearly unpleasant (given the disciplines they have to master) on the other hand they are clearly complete imbeciles one cannot take seriously and be it just for their moronic grin. Well-dressed village idiots. And people seem to have a weak spot for obvious idiots and (falsely) see them as harmless.
The Monty Python sketch is always the first that comes to mind when I hear the word ‘twit’.
I think it also influences how people understand the term. Looking at these caricatures they’re clearly unpleasant (given the disciplines they have to master) on the other hand they are clearly complete imbeciles one cannot take seriously and be it just for their moronic grin. Well-dressed village idiots. And people seem to have a weak spot for obvious idiots and (falsely) see them as harmless.
But actually, although the Upper Class Twits of the Year are an all-time great, I have to admit that I do sometimes call people I love, or even adore, twitfaces (much to their amusement – fuckface is generally used when actually annoyed), and I have often heard people affectionately calling e.g. their children “little twits”. When used in these contexts, it has never to my knowledge caused offense. The vagaries of English slang are rather hard to explain.
But actually, although the Upper Class Twits of the Year are an all-time great, I have to admit that I do sometimes call people I love, or even adore, twitfaces (much to their amusement – fuckface is generally used when actually annoyed), and I have often heard people affectionately calling e.g. their children “little twits”. When used in these contexts, it has never to my knowledge caused offense. The vagaries of English slang are rather hard to explain.
All of which has the benefit of making it clear to AG Garland that there really is no viable alternative to, at minimum, taking Trump before a grand jury.
If I recall the rules about federal grand juries, anyone who appears before the jury gets at least use and derivative use immunity. That is, neither their testimony nor any evidence subsequently uncovered because of that testimony can be used against the witness in court. Putting Trump in front of a grand jury is an admission that you lack the evidence to actually prosecute him.
All of which has the benefit of making it clear to AG Garland that there really is no viable alternative to, at minimum, taking Trump before a grand jury.
If I recall the rules about federal grand juries, anyone who appears before the jury gets at least use and derivative use immunity. That is, neither their testimony nor any evidence subsequently uncovered because of that testimony can be used against the witness in court. Putting Trump in front of a grand jury is an admission that you lack the evidence to actually prosecute him.
And…Steve Bannon convicted of contempt of Congress. Roll on the appeal, which is apparently what his lawyers have been focussing on.
At least five of the current SCOTUS members will support the executive privilege claim and overturn the conviction.
And…Steve Bannon convicted of contempt of Congress. Roll on the appeal, which is apparently what his lawyers have been focussing on.
At least five of the current SCOTUS members will support the executive privilege claim and overturn the conviction.
If I recall the rules about federal grand juries, anyone who appears before the jury gets at least use and derivative use immunity.
I was (mis)using “before” to mean “be the subject of hearings by”. Sloppy of me, I acknowledge.
If I recall the rules about federal grand juries, anyone who appears before the jury gets at least use and derivative use immunity.
I was (mis)using “before” to mean “be the subject of hearings by”. Sloppy of me, I acknowledge.
At least five of the current SCOTUS members will support the executive privilege claim and overturn the conviction.
The 3 political hacks, sure. And probably Alito (if only to “own the libs”).
But Thomas, however toxic his views (very), does have some principles beyond the straight political. I’d say that it is better than 50-50 that he would decide that executive privilege doesn’t extend to anybody and everybody the President happens to talk to. If nothing else, he (unlike the hacks) can see that tossing Bannon’s conviction could have fallout next time a Republican Congress wants to investigate some Republican.
And Roberts is enough of an institutionalist not to want to smash something as basic as the subpoena.
Not great odds, I’ll grant. But not the slam dunk that you (and, I suspect, Bannon) think it will be.
At least five of the current SCOTUS members will support the executive privilege claim and overturn the conviction.
The 3 political hacks, sure. And probably Alito (if only to “own the libs”).
But Thomas, however toxic his views (very), does have some principles beyond the straight political. I’d say that it is better than 50-50 that he would decide that executive privilege doesn’t extend to anybody and everybody the President happens to talk to. If nothing else, he (unlike the hacks) can see that tossing Bannon’s conviction could have fallout next time a Republican Congress wants to investigate some Republican.
And Roberts is enough of an institutionalist not to want to smash something as basic as the subpoena.
Not great odds, I’ll grant. But not the slam dunk that you (and, I suspect, Bannon) think it will be.
But Thomas, however toxic his views (very), does have some principles beyond the straight political.
wj, I am interested in this statement. His wife, for example, enthusiastically colluded in attempts to Stop the Steal, encouraging actions that appear to be bordering on (if not actually – and I’m not sure about that) illegal. Do you believe that he would have opposed this? I know that a person should not be blamed for the actions of a spouse, but given his views in general it does arouse the liveliest suspicions. I would need to hear (and would be interested to hear) why you say he has principles beyond the straight political. I’m not saying he doesn’t, but I would like to hear your rationale.
But Thomas, however toxic his views (very), does have some principles beyond the straight political.
wj, I am interested in this statement. His wife, for example, enthusiastically colluded in attempts to Stop the Steal, encouraging actions that appear to be bordering on (if not actually – and I’m not sure about that) illegal. Do you believe that he would have opposed this? I know that a person should not be blamed for the actions of a spouse, but given his views in general it does arouse the liveliest suspicions. I would need to hear (and would be interested to hear) why you say he has principles beyond the straight political. I’m not saying he doesn’t, but I would like to hear your rationale.
I would need to hear (and would be interested to hear) why you say he has principles beyond the straight political. I’m not saying he doesn’t, but I would like to hear your rationale.
One big indicator is actually the Dobbs decision. The majority opinion that Alito wrote tries to claim that the rationalization used there wouldn’t be applied to other past cases, which used exactly the same basis, i.e. a right to privacy. Which was pretty obviously an attempt to minimize the political fallout.
In his concurring opinion, however, Thomas was very clear that those other decisions (Griswold, etc.) were equally wrongly decided. And so should be overturned. Politically, that’s a disaster — which is why the political hacks tried so hard to deny it. For example, reversing Griswold and reinstating laws banning contraceptives would make the upset over reversing Roe look like a tempest in a teapot.
But Thomas obviously doesn’t care about that. (Or at least not much.) It’s a matter of principle, period. I think the principle he’s embraced is nonsense. But it is a principle, not just a political choice.
I would need to hear (and would be interested to hear) why you say he has principles beyond the straight political. I’m not saying he doesn’t, but I would like to hear your rationale.
One big indicator is actually the Dobbs decision. The majority opinion that Alito wrote tries to claim that the rationalization used there wouldn’t be applied to other past cases, which used exactly the same basis, i.e. a right to privacy. Which was pretty obviously an attempt to minimize the political fallout.
In his concurring opinion, however, Thomas was very clear that those other decisions (Griswold, etc.) were equally wrongly decided. And so should be overturned. Politically, that’s a disaster — which is why the political hacks tried so hard to deny it. For example, reversing Griswold and reinstating laws banning contraceptives would make the upset over reversing Roe look like a tempest in a teapot.
But Thomas obviously doesn’t care about that. (Or at least not much.) It’s a matter of principle, period. I think the principle he’s embraced is nonsense. But it is a principle, not just a political choice.
You think his “principle” has something to do with the law?
Ha ha.
You think his “principle” has something to do with the law?
Ha ha.
You think his “principle” has something to do with the law?
Ha ha.
Oh, I have no doubt that he is still bitter (at liberals) over his confirmation hearings. But specific opinions making liberals miserable is just frosting on the cake. Given his views, pretty much everything he writes will upset liberals; no special effort required.
Still, there was no obvious gain from pointing out explicitly what the implications of Dobbs are. If it got liberals worked up enough to vote in larger numbers, it would reduce the chances of maintaining control of the Court so as to win more anti-liberal decisions.
You think his “principle” has something to do with the law?
Ha ha.
Oh, I have no doubt that he is still bitter (at liberals) over his confirmation hearings. But specific opinions making liberals miserable is just frosting on the cake. Given his views, pretty much everything he writes will upset liberals; no special effort required.
Still, there was no obvious gain from pointing out explicitly what the implications of Dobbs are. If it got liberals worked up enough to vote in larger numbers, it would reduce the chances of maintaining control of the Court so as to win more anti-liberal decisions.
Thomas is a strange cat.
He’s a black SCOTUS justice married to a white woman who also believes the US is a profoundly and irredemiably racist society. He gained entry to Yale Law School at least partly through their affirmative action policies and now believes policies like that only weaken blacks by making them dependent on white largesse. He was a youthful acolyte of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers who left that all behind when he saw the capitalist light.
Hard to know where he would land on claims of executive privilege.
Thomas is a strange cat.
He’s a black SCOTUS justice married to a white woman who also believes the US is a profoundly and irredemiably racist society. He gained entry to Yale Law School at least partly through their affirmative action policies and now believes policies like that only weaken blacks by making them dependent on white largesse. He was a youthful acolyte of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers who left that all behind when he saw the capitalist light.
Hard to know where he would land on claims of executive privilege.
Thomas appears to be well on the way to having more impact on the law than any other SC justice of his era.
“To say the least, Greenhouse and the rest had no idea what they were talking about. In reality, it was Thomas who was quietly influencing Scalia in certain areas of the law, as Scalia himself repeatedly acknowledged. Thomas’ critics underestimated him at their own peril.
The Supreme Court’s recently concluded 2021–2022 term has driven that point home with a vengeance. On hot-button issue after hot-button issue, Thomas’ views are now in ascendance. Like it or not, the Thomas Court is here.
…
Thomas, by contrast, has shaped the law by playing the long game. Over the past three decades, he has repeatedly staked out lonely positions—often writing in dissent but sometimes penning a solo concurrence—only to see many of his “extreme” positions ultimately become enshrined in law. What is more, generations of conservative law students, who have gone on to be conservative lawyers, lawmakers, and judges, have embraced many of Thomas’ views as their own. Thomas’ influence on the broader conservative legal movement will be felt for years to come.”
The Clarence Thomas Court Is Good News for Gun Rights, Bad News for Criminal Justice Reform: Like it or not, the Thomas Court is here.
Thomas appears to be well on the way to having more impact on the law than any other SC justice of his era.
“To say the least, Greenhouse and the rest had no idea what they were talking about. In reality, it was Thomas who was quietly influencing Scalia in certain areas of the law, as Scalia himself repeatedly acknowledged. Thomas’ critics underestimated him at their own peril.
The Supreme Court’s recently concluded 2021–2022 term has driven that point home with a vengeance. On hot-button issue after hot-button issue, Thomas’ views are now in ascendance. Like it or not, the Thomas Court is here.
…
Thomas, by contrast, has shaped the law by playing the long game. Over the past three decades, he has repeatedly staked out lonely positions—often writing in dissent but sometimes penning a solo concurrence—only to see many of his “extreme” positions ultimately become enshrined in law. What is more, generations of conservative law students, who have gone on to be conservative lawyers, lawmakers, and judges, have embraced many of Thomas’ views as their own. Thomas’ influence on the broader conservative legal movement will be felt for years to come.”
The Clarence Thomas Court Is Good News for Gun Rights, Bad News for Criminal Justice Reform: Like it or not, the Thomas Court is here.
Does this work better than “twit”? (It opens in a protected view, you have to click to view it.)
Does this work better than “twit”? (It opens in a protected view, you have to click to view it.)
Yup, the Lt. General’s description works much better. I’ve never heard that used with any warmth or affection at all. And I agree with his description of what should happen next, too.
Yup, the Lt. General’s description works much better. I’ve never heard that used with any warmth or affection at all. And I agree with his description of what should happen next, too.
wj, as for your explanation of why you think Thomas is principled, I am not convinced. Stupidity* could explain his disregard for the possible electoral consequences, or a certainty from within his bubble of impunity that no consequences would actually attach – and although we (at ObWi at the moment, anyway) all wish for them, the electoral consequences are far from a foregone conclusion.
*I know that the many opinions that he was stupid over the years could have stemmed from racism, and I am not in a position to judge their accuracy. Scalia’s explanation for why torture was not “cruel and unusual punishment” was not made by a stupid man, after all, so the heinousness of the views does not necessarily reflect on the intelligence of those who hold them.
wj, as for your explanation of why you think Thomas is principled, I am not convinced. Stupidity* could explain his disregard for the possible electoral consequences, or a certainty from within his bubble of impunity that no consequences would actually attach – and although we (at ObWi at the moment, anyway) all wish for them, the electoral consequences are far from a foregone conclusion.
*I know that the many opinions that he was stupid over the years could have stemmed from racism, and I am not in a position to judge their accuracy. Scalia’s explanation for why torture was not “cruel and unusual punishment” was not made by a stupid man, after all, so the heinousness of the views does not necessarily reflect on the intelligence of those who hold them.
Stupidity* could explain his [Thomas’s] disregard for the possible electoral consequences
The affirmative action he distains may have contributed to getting him into an Ivy League university, but idiots do not graduate from Yale Law School. Villains, sure (see Senator Hawley above). But no, not idiots.
I’m willing to entertain other alternative hypotheses for his embracing consistency when the political hacks do not, rather than principle. But not stupidity.
Stupidity* could explain his [Thomas’s] disregard for the possible electoral consequences
The affirmative action he distains may have contributed to getting him into an Ivy League university, but idiots do not graduate from Yale Law School. Villains, sure (see Senator Hawley above). But no, not idiots.
I’m willing to entertain other alternative hypotheses for his embracing consistency when the political hacks do not, rather than principle. But not stupidity.
Villains, sure (see Senator Hawley above).
See also J.D. Vance. But also both Clintons, and Stacey Abrams. It’s a mixed bag, just like Harvard Law School and most other human groupings. (Full disclosure, I have family members who went there, and through them have met some YLS grads who are lovely people. And for sure, none of them are stupid.)
Also, because it’s a pet peeve of mine, it’s “disdain,” not “distain.” 🙂
Villains, sure (see Senator Hawley above).
See also J.D. Vance. But also both Clintons, and Stacey Abrams. It’s a mixed bag, just like Harvard Law School and most other human groupings. (Full disclosure, I have family members who went there, and through them have met some YLS grads who are lovely people. And for sure, none of them are stupid.)
Also, because it’s a pet peeve of mine, it’s “disdain,” not “distain.” 🙂
Oh, let’s not forget Alito.
Oh, let’s not forget Alito.
but idiots do not graduate from Yale Law School. Villains, sure (see Senator Hawley above). But no, not idiots.
I must admit, this was what I had always thought. And the years of reading that internal SCOTUS gossip (and elsewhere) was that Thomas was stupid, was easy to dismiss as pure racism. And maybe it was. But evidence of principled behaviour, even when it diverges from his obvious ideological positions: MIA as far as I can tell. Happy (or at least grateful) to be contradicted with any evidence.
but idiots do not graduate from Yale Law School. Villains, sure (see Senator Hawley above). But no, not idiots.
I must admit, this was what I had always thought. And the years of reading that internal SCOTUS gossip (and elsewhere) was that Thomas was stupid, was easy to dismiss as pure racism. And maybe it was. But evidence of principled behaviour, even when it diverges from his obvious ideological positions: MIA as far as I can tell. Happy (or at least grateful) to be contradicted with any evidence.
it’s “disdain,” not “distain.” 🙂
Autocorrect strikes again!
(That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it!)
it’s “disdain,” not “distain.” 🙂
Autocorrect strikes again!
(That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it!)
…strong and healthy manhood…
The thing that strikes me about Josh Hawley’s infamous clenched-fist pose is how it emphasises the unmanly padding in the shoulder of his jacket.
…it’s “disdain,” not “distain”
I’ve read that the reason “deign” and “disdain” are spelt so differently (cf French “daigner” and “dédaigner”) is that Samuel Johnson put them in his dictionary like that.
…strong and healthy manhood…
The thing that strikes me about Josh Hawley’s infamous clenched-fist pose is how it emphasises the unmanly padding in the shoulder of his jacket.
…it’s “disdain,” not “distain”
I’ve read that the reason “deign” and “disdain” are spelt so differently (cf French “daigner” and “dédaigner”) is that Samuel Johnson put them in his dictionary like that.
I’ll tell you what, though. If the ability to make long plans, and ensure your intellectual and ideological influence spills down and deepens through the generations is a mark of high intelligence, he may be brilliant:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/clarence-thomas-trump/593596/
I’ll tell you what, though. If the ability to make long plans, and ensure your intellectual and ideological influence spills down and deepens through the generations is a mark of high intelligence, he may be brilliant:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/clarence-thomas-trump/593596/
Let’s also remember: there are lots of ways to be both stupid and smart; I have known a lot of VERY smart people (in the school / high LSAT sense) who were very stupid about some things, not excluding myself.
Let’s also remember: there are lots of ways to be both stupid and smart; I have known a lot of VERY smart people (in the school / high LSAT sense) who were very stupid about some things, not excluding myself.
If the ability to make long plans, and ensure your intellectual and ideological influence spills down and deepens through the generations is a mark of high intelligence, he may be brilliant
The challenge is to distinguish between long range planning and taking an initial position and just refusing to change it no matter what, i.e. straight out stubbornness. On that question, I got nuthin’.
If the ability to make long plans, and ensure your intellectual and ideological influence spills down and deepens through the generations is a mark of high intelligence, he may be brilliant
The challenge is to distinguish between long range planning and taking an initial position and just refusing to change it no matter what, i.e. straight out stubbornness. On that question, I got nuthin’.
There are famously errors only highly intelligent people make.
There is also the quote attributed* to Thomas Tredgold (1788-1829) that “The stability of a building is inversely proportional to the science of the builders”.
*likely paraphrasing and older common saying
There are famously errors only highly intelligent people make.
There is also the quote attributed* to Thomas Tredgold (1788-1829) that “The stability of a building is inversely proportional to the science of the builders”.
*likely paraphrasing and older common saying
Let’s also remember: there are lots of ways to be both stupid and smart; I have known a lot of VERY smart people (in the school / high LSAT sense) who were very stupid about some things
This part at least is so very true, and needs to be borne in mind at all times!
Let’s also remember: there are lots of ways to be both stupid and smart; I have known a lot of VERY smart people (in the school / high LSAT sense) who were very stupid about some things
This part at least is so very true, and needs to be borne in mind at all times!
I don’t think Thomas’s court behavior is based on principle, though he has probably learned the language of sociopathy from the Federalist Society. I think he is an emotional person, not given to reason, though occasionally able to rationalize.
I think that it is likely that the other Republicans are principled, though I don’t believe their principles are what they claim them to be. THey are pretty consistently pro-power and wealth, so that’s one principle. They use the Federalist SOciety rationalizations to justify not giving a fuck about anyone except themselves and other people who can use wealth to protect themselves from the consequences of their decisions. THis is a principle articulated by Barry Goldwater years ago. “Gee, that problem that you are experiencing (not me!) is so terrible and it is so sad that my principles about government don’t allow the federal government to intervene. (And too bad the state is the cause of the problem or unwilling to help. So sad!)
There’s a quote from someone about conservatism being a rationalization for selfishness and I think that is absolutely the truth. Conservatives see civil life through the screen of “What’s in it for me?” combined with the assumption that anything that benefits someone else has to be a loss for them.
I don’t think Thomas’s court behavior is based on principle, though he has probably learned the language of sociopathy from the Federalist Society. I think he is an emotional person, not given to reason, though occasionally able to rationalize.
I think that it is likely that the other Republicans are principled, though I don’t believe their principles are what they claim them to be. THey are pretty consistently pro-power and wealth, so that’s one principle. They use the Federalist SOciety rationalizations to justify not giving a fuck about anyone except themselves and other people who can use wealth to protect themselves from the consequences of their decisions. THis is a principle articulated by Barry Goldwater years ago. “Gee, that problem that you are experiencing (not me!) is so terrible and it is so sad that my principles about government don’t allow the federal government to intervene. (And too bad the state is the cause of the problem or unwilling to help. So sad!)
There’s a quote from someone about conservatism being a rationalization for selfishness and I think that is absolutely the truth. Conservatives see civil life through the screen of “What’s in it for me?” combined with the assumption that anything that benefits someone else has to be a loss for them.
THey are pretty consistently pro-power and wealth, so that’s one principle.
My impression is that above all for Alito (and probably some of the others, but him most of all), reigion is also a “principle” — i.e. he’s not using religion as a smokescreen to hide other motivations. He wants a patriarchal, misogynistic, medieval catholicism’s framework to run our lives.
THey are pretty consistently pro-power and wealth, so that’s one principle.
My impression is that above all for Alito (and probably some of the others, but him most of all), reigion is also a “principle” — i.e. he’s not using religion as a smokescreen to hide other motivations. He wants a patriarchal, misogynistic, medieval catholicism’s framework to run our lives.
I think that it is likely that the other Republicans are principled, though I don’t believe their principles are what they claim them to be.
Roberts: Principled
Thomas: Principled, IMHO YMMV
Barrett: Too soon to tell, But betting on political hack until contrary evidence surfaces
Alito: As you say, pro power and wealth (although calling that a principle seems like a stretch).
Gorsuch: I confess I haven’t been watching closely. But I haven’t seen anything to suggest principle.
Kavanaugh: No discernible principle beyond party loyalty
Just one man’s opinion, of course
I think that it is likely that the other Republicans are principled, though I don’t believe their principles are what they claim them to be.
Roberts: Principled
Thomas: Principled, IMHO YMMV
Barrett: Too soon to tell, But betting on political hack until contrary evidence surfaces
Alito: As you say, pro power and wealth (although calling that a principle seems like a stretch).
Gorsuch: I confess I haven’t been watching closely. But I haven’t seen anything to suggest principle.
Kavanaugh: No discernible principle beyond party loyalty
Just one man’s opinion, of course
At this point, I’m thinking that membership in the Federalist Society should be an automatic disqualification for any court, let alone the Supreme Court. I’m reluctant to extend automatic disqualification to mere endorsement by them, since you can’t choose who supports you.** But endorsement should trigger a second, very close look.
** I do note that a bunch of Trump appointees, all endorsed by the Federalist Society (because that was Trump’s standard source), ruled against him repeatedly. Hence the “not automatic”.
At this point, I’m thinking that membership in the Federalist Society should be an automatic disqualification for any court, let alone the Supreme Court. I’m reluctant to extend automatic disqualification to mere endorsement by them, since you can’t choose who supports you.** But endorsement should trigger a second, very close look.
** I do note that a bunch of Trump appointees, all endorsed by the Federalist Society (because that was Trump’s standard source), ruled against him repeatedly. Hence the “not automatic”.
But endorsement should trigger a second, very close look.
This is a pipe dream unless/until Congress is dominated by sane people.
But endorsement should trigger a second, very close look.
This is a pipe dream unless/until Congress is dominated by sane people.
Thomas: Principled, IMHO YMMV
Understood, but do you have any reason for thinking this other than one, i.e. what might be unfortunate electoral consequences for the GOP after his comments on the Dobbs decision?
He wants a patriarchal, misogynistic, medieval catholicism’s framework to run our lives.
This might be a (possibly subconscious) motivation for others of them, too. I think it is not uncommon in the general population for that framework to be seen as “normality”.
Thomas: Principled, IMHO YMMV
Understood, but do you have any reason for thinking this other than one, i.e. what might be unfortunate electoral consequences for the GOP after his comments on the Dobbs decision?
He wants a patriarchal, misogynistic, medieval catholicism’s framework to run our lives.
This might be a (possibly subconscious) motivation for others of them, too. I think it is not uncommon in the general population for that framework to be seen as “normality”.
do you have any reason for thinking this other than one, i.e. what might be unfortunate electoral consequences for the GOP after his comments on the Dobbs decision?
His comments on Dobbs are in line with what he has been arguing for across his career on the Court. The difference now is that a majority is willing to support some of them.
Also, unlike the majority opinion in Dobbs, he refused to claim 5hat the identical reasoning wouldn’t apply elsewhere. Which was blatantly political on their part. No way it wouldn’t definitely apply to Griswold, for example. Which would be equally in line with a patriarchal, misogynistic, medieval catholicism position. Just inconvenient politically at the moment to admit that. Figure them to go for it as soon as they get a case explicitly concerning contraception.
do you have any reason for thinking this other than one, i.e. what might be unfortunate electoral consequences for the GOP after his comments on the Dobbs decision?
His comments on Dobbs are in line with what he has been arguing for across his career on the Court. The difference now is that a majority is willing to support some of them.
Also, unlike the majority opinion in Dobbs, he refused to claim 5hat the identical reasoning wouldn’t apply elsewhere. Which was blatantly political on their part. No way it wouldn’t definitely apply to Griswold, for example. Which would be equally in line with a patriarchal, misogynistic, medieval catholicism position. Just inconvenient politically at the moment to admit that. Figure them to go for it as soon as they get a case explicitly concerning contraception.
OK, wj, I understood all of that already, and your second para particularly, and not just from what you said before! I wondered if there was anything apart from anything related to the Dobbs issue that you were basing your opinion on. Perhaps we’ve taken this as far as we can.
OK, wj, I understood all of that already, and your second para particularly, and not just from what you said before! I wondered if there was anything apart from anything related to the Dobbs issue that you were basing your opinion on. Perhaps we’ve taken this as far as we can.
Donald Trump has a degree from Wharton. Jared Kushner was undergrad Harvard & JD/MBA at NYU. Make of that what you will.
Donald Trump has a degree from Wharton. Jared Kushner was undergrad Harvard & JD/MBA at NYU. Make of that what you will.
Ben Carson is, by all accounts, an extraordinarily gifted surgeon. Dr Oz apparently has some measure of brilliance as a cardiologist.
I’m not convinced either one could find his way out of a phone booth with a map.
Ben Carson is, by all accounts, an extraordinarily gifted surgeon. Dr Oz apparently has some measure of brilliance as a cardiologist.
I’m not convinced either one could find his way out of a phone booth with a map.
I wondered if there was anything apart from anything related to the Dobbs issue
No specifics off the top of my head. But I had reached my view on Thomas years ago, i.e. per Dobbs, so I’d like to think I had some reason to do so. We’ll see if something surfaces as I think on it further.
I wondered if there was anything apart from anything related to the Dobbs issue
No specifics off the top of my head. But I had reached my view on Thomas years ago, i.e. per Dobbs, so I’d like to think I had some reason to do so. We’ll see if something surfaces as I think on it further.
Donald Trump has a degree from Wharton. Jared Kushner was undergrad Harvard & JD/MBA at NYU. Make of that what you will.
Trump’s father bought his admission to U Penn. After that, it’s just a matter of taking the same courses that guys who only got in on athletic scholarships take to stay in school.
Ditto Kushner and Harvard. And, as it happens, NYU has gotten pots of money from the Kushners over the years as well.
Make of that what you will.
Donald Trump has a degree from Wharton. Jared Kushner was undergrad Harvard & JD/MBA at NYU. Make of that what you will.
Trump’s father bought his admission to U Penn. After that, it’s just a matter of taking the same courses that guys who only got in on athletic scholarships take to stay in school.
Ditto Kushner and Harvard. And, as it happens, NYU has gotten pots of money from the Kushners over the years as well.
Make of that what you will.
Donald Trump has a degree from Wharton.
Mm, yes. He transferred there from Fordham. And his father went with him to his interview. And US universities still accept significant donations when prospective students apply (I know this from HK friends). And he has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent his academic records getting out.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-who-often-boasts-of-his-wharton-degree-says-he-was-admitted-to-the-hardest-school-to-get-into-the-college-official-who-reviewed-his-application-recalls-it-differently/2019/07/08/0a4eb414-977a-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html
Donald Trump has a degree from Wharton.
Mm, yes. He transferred there from Fordham. And his father went with him to his interview. And US universities still accept significant donations when prospective students apply (I know this from HK friends). And he has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent his academic records getting out.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-who-often-boasts-of-his-wharton-degree-says-he-was-admitted-to-the-hardest-school-to-get-into-the-college-official-who-reviewed-his-application-recalls-it-differently/2019/07/08/0a4eb414-977a-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html
Pretty much where I was going, wj, which I’m pretty sure you know. The Carson types are a bit more difficult to figure.
Pretty much where I was going, wj, which I’m pretty sure you know. The Carson types are a bit more difficult to figure.
his father went with him to his interview.
Not to mention that the interviewer was high school best friends with his older brother, and had spent significant time hanging out at the Trump home. Handy to have connections.
his father went with him to his interview.
Not to mention that the interviewer was high school best friends with his older brother, and had spent significant time hanging out at the Trump home. Handy to have connections.
But… Hot take! Jared did figure out peace in the Middle East, the complete reformation of the Federal Gov’t and… whatever else he was tasked with, so… cold fusion? Much like the burned library at Alexandria, it will be centuries before we understand the magnitude of our loss. Tragic it is, that his brilliance was conveyed only in texts to the Secret Service.
The Carson types are a bit more difficult to figure.
Rand Paul is an MD as well.
I think the takeaway is that you can become a physician without knowing much about anything else. Perhaps because the curriculum requires so much time that there’s little or nothing left over for breadth.
But… Hot take! Jared did figure out peace in the Middle East, the complete reformation of the Federal Gov’t and… whatever else he was tasked with, so… cold fusion? Much like the burned library at Alexandria, it will be centuries before we understand the magnitude of our loss. Tragic it is, that his brilliance was conveyed only in texts to the Secret Service.
The Carson types are a bit more difficult to figure.
Rand Paul is an MD as well.
I think the takeaway is that you can become a physician without knowing much about anything else. Perhaps because the curriculum requires so much time that there’s little or nothing left over for breadth.
Bashar al-Assad is also a physician.
“First, do no harm.”
Bashar al-Assad is also a physician.
“First, do no harm.”
Tangent: Bashar is maybe a tin-foil hat thing for me. He seemed to have no interest in rule, leaving it to his brother. Then he got stuck with it. & he was a good guy for the US, and then he was suddenly a bad guy. Shades of Saddam Hussein, to my conspiratorial eye. But maybe he did just embrace the dark side.
Tangent: Bashar is maybe a tin-foil hat thing for me. He seemed to have no interest in rule, leaving it to his brother. Then he got stuck with it. & he was a good guy for the US, and then he was suddenly a bad guy. Shades of Saddam Hussein, to my conspiratorial eye. But maybe he did just embrace the dark side.
Wrong-headed versus stupid. Smart wrong-headed people can come up with good-enough reasoning to at least make stupid people think they’re right. Smart people who agree with them won’t bother to be critical of their reasoning. Why would they, the fellow wrong-headed?
I suppose that’s a different thing from people who are brilliant in a narrow specialty but otherwise a bit dopey. I mean, Ben Carson has put some real doozies out there on non-surgical subjects – things that would strike people of below-average intelligence as sounding dopey.
Trust me, I would know!
Wrong-headed versus stupid. Smart wrong-headed people can come up with good-enough reasoning to at least make stupid people think they’re right. Smart people who agree with them won’t bother to be critical of their reasoning. Why would they, the fellow wrong-headed?
I suppose that’s a different thing from people who are brilliant in a narrow specialty but otherwise a bit dopey. I mean, Ben Carson has put some real doozies out there on non-surgical subjects – things that would strike people of below-average intelligence as sounding dopey.
Trust me, I would know!
@Pete — I don’t know if you mean to imply that Saddam was a good guy and then painted as a bad guy when the US needed him to look that way. Or vice versa? But I saw video once of the events described in the beginning of this article, and if one side or the other of the way the US painted him was fake, i’d say it was the good guy side. I haven’t found the video, but he sat there smoking a cigarette with a smirk on his face while his (alleged?) enemies were taken out to be shot.
@Pete — I don’t know if you mean to imply that Saddam was a good guy and then painted as a bad guy when the US needed him to look that way. Or vice versa? But I saw video once of the events described in the beginning of this article, and if one side or the other of the way the US painted him was fake, i’d say it was the good guy side. I haven’t found the video, but he sat there smoking a cigarette with a smirk on his face while his (alleged?) enemies were taken out to be shot.
Much like the burned library at Alexandria, it will be centuries before we understand the magnitude of our loss.
Really, nothing else need be said.
Much like the burned library at Alexandria, it will be centuries before we understand the magnitude of our loss.
Really, nothing else need be said.
I don’t know if you mean to imply that Saddam was a good guy and then painted as a bad guy when the US needed him to look that way.
@Janie
No, no! Saddam (and his sons from what I understand) were monsters and I do not mourn their fates. I was loosely alluding to the US meddling in Iran and then when the revolution happened – suddenly we liked Hussein and… well, you know the story. Similarly, mujahideen.
I haven’t taken a deep dive, but Bashar al-Assad has always seemed an unlikely dictator to me. Secular, educated, westernized… I dunno. Something just doesn’t smell right to me about our dealings with that part of the world. Maybe he is a monster, but that’s not how he was described before being called back after the death of his brother. Syria is a shitshow. We fucked over the Kurds. I dunno what’s going on over there, with all of the factions in play. I feel like there’s more to the story – or we’re not getting the whole story – especially since he’s allied with Putin.
Maybe I’ve been watching too many spy movies.
I don’t know if you mean to imply that Saddam was a good guy and then painted as a bad guy when the US needed him to look that way.
@Janie
No, no! Saddam (and his sons from what I understand) were monsters and I do not mourn their fates. I was loosely alluding to the US meddling in Iran and then when the revolution happened – suddenly we liked Hussein and… well, you know the story. Similarly, mujahideen.
I haven’t taken a deep dive, but Bashar al-Assad has always seemed an unlikely dictator to me. Secular, educated, westernized… I dunno. Something just doesn’t smell right to me about our dealings with that part of the world. Maybe he is a monster, but that’s not how he was described before being called back after the death of his brother. Syria is a shitshow. We fucked over the Kurds. I dunno what’s going on over there, with all of the factions in play. I feel like there’s more to the story – or we’re not getting the whole story – especially since he’s allied with Putin.
Maybe I’ve been watching too many spy movies.
Then again, Kim Jong-un was described as a normal, shy guy who liked basketball at school in der Schweiz.
Hey, man. It’s not like I went to Harvard.
Then again, Kim Jong-un was described as a normal, shy guy who liked basketball at school in der Schweiz.
Hey, man. It’s not like I went to Harvard.
I’m not saying this TPM piece I got from hilzoy’s twitter isn’t interesting, but I have a semantic question. This is the second time in about a week that I have seen the word “guttural” used to mean something like “gut-feeling-based” – I can’t remember where the last one was. Now, my understanding is that this is not the meaning of “guttural”. Have any of you seen it used this way before? Is it becoming an alternative meaning, like “refute” for “reject” or “deny”? Tell me it isn’t so….
What hides from most almost in plain sight is that Trump now rarely discusses any political agenda – even in the broadest, most guttural and least policy-oriented sense of the term. There is no agenda other than revenge and payback for the injustices and injuries he personally suffered in his first term: the Democrats, the RINOs, Mueller, the impeachments, the “fake news”, what he memorably calls “Russia, Russia, Russia“, “Big Tech”. Remember that “fake news” wasn’t part of Trump’s 2016 campaign argot.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-and-the-trajectory-of-the-trump-presidency
I’m not saying this TPM piece I got from hilzoy’s twitter isn’t interesting, but I have a semantic question. This is the second time in about a week that I have seen the word “guttural” used to mean something like “gut-feeling-based” – I can’t remember where the last one was. Now, my understanding is that this is not the meaning of “guttural”. Have any of you seen it used this way before? Is it becoming an alternative meaning, like “refute” for “reject” or “deny”? Tell me it isn’t so….
What hides from most almost in plain sight is that Trump now rarely discusses any political agenda – even in the broadest, most guttural and least policy-oriented sense of the term. There is no agenda other than revenge and payback for the injustices and injuries he personally suffered in his first term: the Democrats, the RINOs, Mueller, the impeachments, the “fake news”, what he memorably calls “Russia, Russia, Russia“, “Big Tech”. Remember that “fake news” wasn’t part of Trump’s 2016 campaign argot.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-and-the-trajectory-of-the-trump-presidency
I thought of guttural as deep deep base, like a growl. For a gut-feeling thing, I’d probably go with “visceral”. Janie & nous are the ones to ask, tho.
Hey, man. It’s not like I went to Yalevard. 😉
I thought of guttural as deep deep base, like a growl. For a gut-feeling thing, I’d probably go with “visceral”. Janie & nous are the ones to ask, tho.
Hey, man. It’s not like I went to Yalevard. 😉
Maybe I’ve been watching too many spy movies.
And the trouble with those is they miss all the times that the guys in the field get messed over because the folks in charge have trouble adjusting their preconceptions, or their unrelated experience, to reality on the ground.** Plus, the ability to gather intel doesn’t necessarily correlate with expertise in taking effective acton in the field.
My sense is that our CIA is pretty good at info gathering. Less good at analysis, especially when the situation is fluid. And pretty poor at taking action successfully, especially at the macro level.
** And that doesn’t count cases where morons (like Trump) endanger them in an effort to seem knowledgeable when they are nothing of the kind.
Maybe I’ve been watching too many spy movies.
And the trouble with those is they miss all the times that the guys in the field get messed over because the folks in charge have trouble adjusting their preconceptions, or their unrelated experience, to reality on the ground.** Plus, the ability to gather intel doesn’t necessarily correlate with expertise in taking effective acton in the field.
My sense is that our CIA is pretty good at info gathering. Less good at analysis, especially when the situation is fluid. And pretty poor at taking action successfully, especially at the macro level.
** And that doesn’t count cases where morons (like Trump) endanger them in an effort to seem knowledgeable when they are nothing of the kind.
I thought of guttural as deep deep base, like a growl.
I thought it was more about being spoken in the back of the throat. But not anything related to gutters.
I thought of guttural as deep deep base, like a growl.
I thought it was more about being spoken in the back of the throat. But not anything related to gutters.
Janie & nous are the ones to ask, tho.
Calling our language consultants….
Janie & nous are the ones to ask, tho.
Calling our language consultants….
My sense is that our CIA is pretty good at info gathering. Less good at analysis
Agreed. I think the WMDs in Iraq, or lack thereof, was probably pretty solid. The politically-enhanced analysis, however…
My sense is that our CIA is pretty good at info gathering. Less good at analysis
Agreed. I think the WMDs in Iraq, or lack thereof, was probably pretty solid. The politically-enhanced analysis, however…
I was going to say people are dumb, but that’s mean and it’s not what makes a bright guy (I think he’s pretty smart) like Josh Marshall make a dumb usage mistake.
But sheesh. Don’t use big pretentious words unless you know what the hell they mean.
(Same phenomenon as over-correction for who/whom, IMHO.)
There are dozens of these floating around — distain, for instance, is very common, and I don’t believe for an instant (smiling at wj) that spell-check put it there, because it’s archaic. … Pause … Then again, Microsoft Word’s spell-check doesn’t flag it, so go figure.
But the way this stuff works, in 10 years “distain” will probably have displaced “disdain” and “guttural” will have added a meaning, because (as I’ve said before, and this is my theory and i’m sticking to it) language change happens because people want to do what the cool kids do. And to a lot of people, Josh Marshall is pretty cool. Widely read, at least….
Oh, and “who” and its variations will have disappeared from the language.
“Silly” once meant “holy”…..
Enough blathering for now. It’s too hot for thinking.
I was going to say people are dumb, but that’s mean and it’s not what makes a bright guy (I think he’s pretty smart) like Josh Marshall make a dumb usage mistake.
But sheesh. Don’t use big pretentious words unless you know what the hell they mean.
(Same phenomenon as over-correction for who/whom, IMHO.)
There are dozens of these floating around — distain, for instance, is very common, and I don’t believe for an instant (smiling at wj) that spell-check put it there, because it’s archaic. … Pause … Then again, Microsoft Word’s spell-check doesn’t flag it, so go figure.
But the way this stuff works, in 10 years “distain” will probably have displaced “disdain” and “guttural” will have added a meaning, because (as I’ve said before, and this is my theory and i’m sticking to it) language change happens because people want to do what the cool kids do. And to a lot of people, Josh Marshall is pretty cool. Widely read, at least….
Oh, and “who” and its variations will have disappeared from the language.
“Silly” once meant “holy”…..
Enough blathering for now. It’s too hot for thinking.
Fingernails on a blackboard:
May I help who’s next?
Your call will be taken in the order it was received.
From the blurb on the water machine in my grocery store: Among other wonderful qualities, the water is “high in purity”. !!
Subject line from an email I just got from one of the biggest investment outfits in the world: “How likely are the odds of a recession?”
I’ve probably got hundreds of these squirreled away. But I’ve got an engagement, so off I go.
Fingernails on a blackboard:
May I help who’s next?
Your call will be taken in the order it was received.
From the blurb on the water machine in my grocery store: Among other wonderful qualities, the water is “high in purity”. !!
Subject line from an email I just got from one of the biggest investment outfits in the world: “How likely are the odds of a recession?”
I’ve probably got hundreds of these squirreled away. But I’ve got an engagement, so off I go.
Thanks, Janie. I think twice in a week is a sign it’s already happening with “guttural”. It’s not in the online dictionaries yet, unlike say “refute”, but I wonder how long it will take to get there.
“Silly” once meant “holy”…..
I don’t think I knew that.
And “nice” apparently once meant wanton or dissolute, and (much later of course, and probably encountered by some of us) exact, or scrupulous, or precise, or fussy.
Thanks, Janie. I think twice in a week is a sign it’s already happening with “guttural”. It’s not in the online dictionaries yet, unlike say “refute”, but I wonder how long it will take to get there.
“Silly” once meant “holy”…..
I don’t think I knew that.
And “nice” apparently once meant wanton or dissolute, and (much later of course, and probably encountered by some of us) exact, or scrupulous, or precise, or fussy.
“Please pre-pay ahead of time”
“Please pre-pay ahead of time”
“Silly” as “holy” I think is maybe as far back as Chaucer, or maybe Shakespeare.
“Silly” as “holy” I think is maybe as far back as Chaucer, or maybe Shakespeare.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/silliness
https://www.etymonline.com/word/silliness
I don’t think I knew that.
Yeah, but ya kinda did, tho.
😉
I don’t think I knew that.
Yeah, but ya kinda did, tho.
😉
“Please pre-pay ahead of time”
At the ATM machine.
“Please pre-pay ahead of time”
At the ATM machine.
Only if it was the other way round, Pete.
Only if it was the other way round, Pete.
And “nice” apparently once meant wanton or dissolute, and (much later of course, and probably encountered by some of us) exact, or scrupulous, or precise, or fussy.
I’m aware that ‘nice’ is related to Latin ‘nescio’. If I use it in writing I mean “precise”. In speech, it’s a term of general approbation.
And “nice” apparently once meant wanton or dissolute, and (much later of course, and probably encountered by some of us) exact, or scrupulous, or precise, or fussy.
I’m aware that ‘nice’ is related to Latin ‘nescio’. If I use it in writing I mean “precise”. In speech, it’s a term of general approbation.
I’m aware that ‘nice’ is related to Latin ‘nescio’. If I use it in writing I mean “precise”.
I’ve only ever encountered “nice” to mean anything like “precise” in the context of various kids of (physical) construction. As in, “a nice fit”
I’m aware that ‘nice’ is related to Latin ‘nescio’. If I use it in writing I mean “precise”.
I’ve only ever encountered “nice” to mean anything like “precise” in the context of various kids of (physical) construction. As in, “a nice fit”
Only if it was the other way round
Imma go commutative property on this one.
Only if it was the other way round
Imma go commutative property on this one.
FYI – “guttural” is from the Latin “guttur” = “throat.’ It’s properly used as an adjective describe sounds made in the throat (as in various German and Yiddish spirants).
If people are looking for a Latin term for coming from the gut, why not just “visceral”?
FYI – “guttural” is from the Latin “guttur” = “throat.’ It’s properly used as an adjective describe sounds made in the throat (as in various German and Yiddish spirants).
If people are looking for a Latin term for coming from the gut, why not just “visceral”?
why not just “visceral”?
Because it’s not pretentious or edgy enough?
*****
Substituting the fancier word for the simpler one gets you here:
Hundreds of crews from U.S. states and Canada are assisting the company fix damage from the storm.
(http://www.centralmaine.com/2016/12/30/storm-dumps-nearly-2-feet-in-parts-of-maine-causes-widespread-power-outages/)
My theory on that one is that the reporter used the nice, totally valid word “help,” and the copy editor wanted the fancier word and substituted “assist,” but forgot to check the rest of the sentence to see if it fit.
This is my theory because this has happened to me…..
And how long will it be before the word “use” goes out of “use” in the sense in which people are almost 100% of the time substituting “utilize” these days, apparently because it sounds so much more sophisticated?
why not just “visceral”?
Because it’s not pretentious or edgy enough?
*****
Substituting the fancier word for the simpler one gets you here:
Hundreds of crews from U.S. states and Canada are assisting the company fix damage from the storm.
(http://www.centralmaine.com/2016/12/30/storm-dumps-nearly-2-feet-in-parts-of-maine-causes-widespread-power-outages/)
My theory on that one is that the reporter used the nice, totally valid word “help,” and the copy editor wanted the fancier word and substituted “assist,” but forgot to check the rest of the sentence to see if it fit.
This is my theory because this has happened to me…..
And how long will it be before the word “use” goes out of “use” in the sense in which people are almost 100% of the time substituting “utilize” these days, apparently because it sounds so much more sophisticated?
Why not go all the way and make that ‘utiliarize’?
Why not go all the way and make that ‘utiliarize’?
Someone agrees with me!
Someone agrees with me!
Someone agrees with me!
I’d have two go with #5:
Utilize means to get a result effectively; use doesn’t carry the “effective” connotation.
For example, you can (sometimes) use a claw hammer as a wrench. But you can’t possibly utilize it as one.
Someone agrees with me!
I’d have two go with #5:
Utilize means to get a result effectively; use doesn’t carry the “effective” connotation.
For example, you can (sometimes) use a claw hammer as a wrench. But you can’t possibly utilize it as one.
I see this sort of use of portmanteau a lot in my first-year writing classes. It’s a product of the timed writing exams and a fairly limited vocabulary, and the need – driven into them from middle school on – to not be repetitive or to use too simple words.
So they go with faux amis based upon the language that they hear on streaming media in order to stretch their vocab. They really are becoming more of an oral culture than a literary culture. But they are also not like the pre-modern orality because they have less need of memorization thanks to the repeatability of recorded media.
I see this sort of use of portmanteau a lot in my first-year writing classes. It’s a product of the timed writing exams and a fairly limited vocabulary, and the need – driven into them from middle school on – to not be repetitive or to use too simple words.
So they go with faux amis based upon the language that they hear on streaming media in order to stretch their vocab. They really are becoming more of an oral culture than a literary culture. But they are also not like the pre-modern orality because they have less need of memorization thanks to the repeatability of recorded media.
why not just “visceral”?
Because it’s not pretentious or edgy enough?
Visceral would be more precise (because guts etc=viscera), but I think it has a somewhat different feel. And I don’t think guttural is being used to sound edgy or cool (although I could easily be wrong), and it’s not longer or more sophisticated-sounding or more latinate, I think it’s because it sounds like it’s to do with a gut-feeling. So, one of the faux amis nous talks about (I’d never heard this in French, my Italian teacher years ago just used to say “false friends”), in a time of more of an oral culture than a literary culture. I hadn’t thought about it that way because, as Janie notes, Josh Marshall is clearly a smart guy, but it’s an explanation that makes sense to me.
why not just “visceral”?
Because it’s not pretentious or edgy enough?
Visceral would be more precise (because guts etc=viscera), but I think it has a somewhat different feel. And I don’t think guttural is being used to sound edgy or cool (although I could easily be wrong), and it’s not longer or more sophisticated-sounding or more latinate, I think it’s because it sounds like it’s to do with a gut-feeling. So, one of the faux amis nous talks about (I’d never heard this in French, my Italian teacher years ago just used to say “false friends”), in a time of more of an oral culture than a literary culture. I hadn’t thought about it that way because, as Janie notes, Josh Marshall is clearly a smart guy, but it’s an explanation that makes sense to me.
Visceral would be more precise (because guts etc=viscera), but I think it has a somewhat different feel.
My sense is the common usage is, if you will, more superficial. “I have a visceral objection” being pretty much interchangeable with “It makes my skin crawl.”
Visceral would be more precise (because guts etc=viscera), but I think it has a somewhat different feel.
My sense is the common usage is, if you will, more superficial. “I have a visceral objection” being pretty much interchangeable with “It makes my skin crawl.”
On the intersection of food, class, language, and the darn French.
“With regards to government, business or cultural authorities, on the other hand, we’ve come to our distrust of Orwell’s longer words honestly. We’ve learned that, just like those turncoats of a thousand years ago, too often sugar-coated words and fancy diction are a means of hiding intentions or even outright lying to us.
So the next time you get a corporate email about “a solution-oriented approach to empowering our brand positioning” or hear a government flunkie cynically state that “inflation has risen, largely reflecting transitory factors, overall financial conditions remain accommodative,” you have history, learning, and a thousand years of experience on your side if you find yourself asking, “Where’s the beef?””
Where’s the beef?: Why we’re suspicious of fancy language
On the intersection of food, class, language, and the darn French.
“With regards to government, business or cultural authorities, on the other hand, we’ve come to our distrust of Orwell’s longer words honestly. We’ve learned that, just like those turncoats of a thousand years ago, too often sugar-coated words and fancy diction are a means of hiding intentions or even outright lying to us.
So the next time you get a corporate email about “a solution-oriented approach to empowering our brand positioning” or hear a government flunkie cynically state that “inflation has risen, largely reflecting transitory factors, overall financial conditions remain accommodative,” you have history, learning, and a thousand years of experience on your side if you find yourself asking, “Where’s the beef?””
Where’s the beef?: Why we’re suspicious of fancy language
Business-speak: who wouldn’t want to be a “thought leader”?
Business-speak: who wouldn’t want to be a “thought leader”?
who wouldn’t want to be a “thought leader”?
Someone disinterested in being a leader, period. (Raises hand.)
I had various opportunities, over my career, to go into management and lead. Always preferred to stay technical and actually do things. Usually solo.
My sense is that the folks in management frequently have trouble grasping that others might not share their passion for rising thru the ranks. They see some (most?) employees as incapable of doing so, for one reason or another. But disinterested seems to be hard to wrap their heads around.
who wouldn’t want to be a “thought leader”?
Someone disinterested in being a leader, period. (Raises hand.)
I had various opportunities, over my career, to go into management and lead. Always preferred to stay technical and actually do things. Usually solo.
My sense is that the folks in management frequently have trouble grasping that others might not share their passion for rising thru the ranks. They see some (most?) employees as incapable of doing so, for one reason or another. But disinterested seems to be hard to wrap their heads around.
wj — I totally get that. One of my best MIT friends would have said the same thing — he eventually quit working for a company and just freelanced on some fascinating projects. Management types who don’t get that are blinkered about a number of things, including 1) not everyone is like them; and 2) not everyone has the same skillset (which is just a subset of #1).
My brother was a maintenance guy at a small college campus. He could fix anything — plumbing, electrical, the plows he cleared the snow with … They tried to put him in charge of maintenance, but he wanted nothing to do with it. As a fun side note, he rewired the campus for computers and internet access five times in the 30 or so years he worked there.
wj — I totally get that. One of my best MIT friends would have said the same thing — he eventually quit working for a company and just freelanced on some fascinating projects. Management types who don’t get that are blinkered about a number of things, including 1) not everyone is like them; and 2) not everyone has the same skillset (which is just a subset of #1).
My brother was a maintenance guy at a small college campus. He could fix anything — plumbing, electrical, the plows he cleared the snow with … They tried to put him in charge of maintenance, but he wanted nothing to do with it. As a fun side note, he rewired the campus for computers and internet access five times in the 30 or so years he worked there.
Someone disinterested in being a leader, period.
Uninterested! Janie recently posted her bugbears, this is an absolutely major one of mine. We really lose something when we lose the true meaning of disinterested. Impartial is not exactly the same, it seems to me.
Someone disinterested in being a leader, period.
Uninterested! Janie recently posted her bugbears, this is an absolutely major one of mine. We really lose something when we lose the true meaning of disinterested. Impartial is not exactly the same, it seems to me.
Per Oxford dictionary:
disinterested: 2. having or feeling no interest in something.
So, not the primary meaning, but not incorrect either.
Also, Merriam Webster notes:
So perhaps I am merely living in the past.
Per Oxford dictionary:
disinterested: 2. having or feeling no interest in something.
So, not the primary meaning, but not incorrect either.
Also, Merriam Webster notes:
So perhaps I am merely living in the past.
It seems to have undergone a complete flip from the (very) original meaning. But there’s no question that, until very recently (i.e. last 20/30 years) its settled meaning in educated usage was “without an interest to declare, unbiased”. I had to look it up to confirm this to someone in about 1997, an occasion branded on my memory for various reasons! But now, and if as you say even in the Oxford dictionary, it seems to have gone the way of refute and the dodo. Damn. I know language changes, but these things are a loss. We have words for deny, and reject, but I can’t think of a one-word equivalent for refute (disprove by logic). And uninterested was good enough for your meaning, but we have to lose the concept of the disinterested arbiter, e.g.
https://www.academia.edu/12323713/A_critical_discussion_of_the_law_as_a_disinterested_arbiter_with_reference_to_the_work_of_feminist_legal_theorists
Hell and damnation.
It seems to have undergone a complete flip from the (very) original meaning. But there’s no question that, until very recently (i.e. last 20/30 years) its settled meaning in educated usage was “without an interest to declare, unbiased”. I had to look it up to confirm this to someone in about 1997, an occasion branded on my memory for various reasons! But now, and if as you say even in the Oxford dictionary, it seems to have gone the way of refute and the dodo. Damn. I know language changes, but these things are a loss. We have words for deny, and reject, but I can’t think of a one-word equivalent for refute (disprove by logic). And uninterested was good enough for your meaning, but we have to lose the concept of the disinterested arbiter, e.g.
https://www.academia.edu/12323713/A_critical_discussion_of_the_law_as_a_disinterested_arbiter_with_reference_to_the_work_of_feminist_legal_theorists
Hell and damnation.
It’s not clear to me that the “without an interest to declare” meaning is lost, even if the word is now used to mean “uninterested” a lot of the time. Without thinking too hard about it, I suspect that in a lot of cases, context will make clear which meaning is intended.
I was going to cite Bryan Garner, who is very long-winded about it if I start chasing down all his related commentary. And I don’t have time for that today. (Or probably ever.)
But GftNC, Garner’s usage book is an extensive, meticulous, and entertaining resource for someone who loves words and is interested in usage.
This is the edition I have — I searched Abe for UK sellers. There’s a newer version called “Modern English Usage,” with an even newer edition coming out soon, but I haven’t been paying attention since I lost the opportunity to go look at books in Harvard Square when I retired, and present purposes I’m content to relly on the 2009 edition.
But for one thing, Garner’s assessments of the progress of words toward standard usage status would obviously have changed since 2009, so if you want the latest info, then a used and old copy might not be for you. In that case, here’s Amazon’s page for the pre-order of the upcoming edition.
It’s not clear to me that the “without an interest to declare” meaning is lost, even if the word is now used to mean “uninterested” a lot of the time. Without thinking too hard about it, I suspect that in a lot of cases, context will make clear which meaning is intended.
I was going to cite Bryan Garner, who is very long-winded about it if I start chasing down all his related commentary. And I don’t have time for that today. (Or probably ever.)
But GftNC, Garner’s usage book is an extensive, meticulous, and entertaining resource for someone who loves words and is interested in usage.
This is the edition I have — I searched Abe for UK sellers. There’s a newer version called “Modern English Usage,” with an even newer edition coming out soon, but I haven’t been paying attention since I lost the opportunity to go look at books in Harvard Square when I retired, and present purposes I’m content to relly on the 2009 edition.
But for one thing, Garner’s assessments of the progress of words toward standard usage status would obviously have changed since 2009, so if you want the latest info, then a used and old copy might not be for you. In that case, here’s Amazon’s page for the pre-order of the upcoming edition.
typos, sorry……
typos, sorry……
Amazon UK page.
Amazon UK page.
Janie, great (if expensive) resource! Thank you for the recommendation.
Janie, great (if expensive) resource! Thank you for the recommendation.
Have just looked at the 2016 edition online. On my current bugbear:
disinterested; uninterested. Given the overlapping nouns (see disinterest), writers have found it difficult to keep the past-participial adjectives entirely separate, and many have given up the fight to preserve the distinction between them.
But the distinction is still best recognized and followed because disinterested captures a nuance that no other word quite does. Many influential writers have urged the preservation of its traditional sense. The typically understated A.R. Orage rhapsodized over the word: “No word in the English language is more difficult [than disinterestedness] to define or better worth attempting to define. Somewhere or other in its capacious folds it contains all the ideas of ethics even, I should say, of religion . . . . I venture to say that whoever has understood the meaning of ‘disinterestedness’ is not far off understanding the goal of human culture.” Readers and Writers (1917–1921) 29 (1922;
repr. 1969).
Even I wouldn’t have gone that far! Although I like it.
A disinterested observer is not merely “impartial” but has nothing to gain from taking a stand on the issue in question.
Have just looked at the 2016 edition online. On my current bugbear:
disinterested; uninterested. Given the overlapping nouns (see disinterest), writers have found it difficult to keep the past-participial adjectives entirely separate, and many have given up the fight to preserve the distinction between them.
But the distinction is still best recognized and followed because disinterested captures a nuance that no other word quite does. Many influential writers have urged the preservation of its traditional sense. The typically understated A.R. Orage rhapsodized over the word: “No word in the English language is more difficult [than disinterestedness] to define or better worth attempting to define. Somewhere or other in its capacious folds it contains all the ideas of ethics even, I should say, of religion . . . . I venture to say that whoever has understood the meaning of ‘disinterestedness’ is not far off understanding the goal of human culture.” Readers and Writers (1917–1921) 29 (1922;
repr. 1969).
Even I wouldn’t have gone that far! Although I like it.
A disinterested observer is not merely “impartial” but has nothing to gain from taking a stand on the issue in question.
Who wants to lament “comprise” being used for “compose”?
Who wants to lament “comprise” being used for “compose”?
It’s a mute point by now.
It’s a mute point by now.
Note that “moot” has gone from “something for discussion at a mass gathering” to “no longer needing any discussion because the situation has changed.”
Note that “moot” has gone from “something for discussion at a mass gathering” to “no longer needing any discussion because the situation has changed.”
Wait, I thought it was a gathering of Ents.
Wait, I thought it was a gathering of Ents.
An instructor in grad school used the phrase “mooted about” in a memo in reference to matters that had been discussed at a grad student meeting.
As in, “XXX had been mooted about at a ZZZ meeting.”
That was over 30 years ago now.
An instructor in grad school used the phrase “mooted about” in a memo in reference to matters that had been discussed at a grad student meeting.
As in, “XXX had been mooted about at a ZZZ meeting.”
That was over 30 years ago now.
I thought it was a gathering of Ents.
Well, sure. Ents. Or Anglo Saxons.** Etc. Basically any polity’s mass meeting to hash out the question of the day.
** Tolkien, after all, being a Professor of Anglo Saxon before he was a novelist. Used a lot of bits from that expertise in his writings.
I thought it was a gathering of Ents.
Well, sure. Ents. Or Anglo Saxons.** Etc. Basically any polity’s mass meeting to hash out the question of the day.
** Tolkien, after all, being a Professor of Anglo Saxon before he was a novelist. Used a lot of bits from that expertise in his writings.
It was a joke….
It was a joke….
I did get that it was a joke. Honest!
I did get that it was a joke. Honest!
I wasn’t sure 🙂
My daughter’s college, which isn’t too far from where I live, did a whole weekend of Tolkien stuff once, and I went to a couple of the talks. One was by a professor who taught at both (?) the places Tolkien had taught — joked about having followed him (though he was of a younger generation) — and in the same department. He also studied Tolkien. He was fun.
I wasn’t sure 🙂
My daughter’s college, which isn’t too far from where I live, did a whole weekend of Tolkien stuff once, and I went to a couple of the talks. One was by a professor who taught at both (?) the places Tolkien had taught — joked about having followed him (though he was of a younger generation) — and in the same department. He also studied Tolkien. He was fun.
Speaking of fun…
https://www.vox.com/2022/7/25/23277211/supreme-court-gavin-newsom-sb-8-abortion-guns-california-assault-rifle-law
Well played, sir.
Speaking of fun…
https://www.vox.com/2022/7/25/23277211/supreme-court-gavin-newsom-sb-8-abortion-guns-california-assault-rifle-law
Well played, sir.
I’m glad Gov Newsom is publicizing this.
But he’s such an empty suit that I can’t help but suspect that someone else (probably in the legislature, rather than around Newsom) came up with the idea initially and got the bill written. Good that Newsom got on the bandwagon. Just don’t mistake him for the composer of the march or the band director.
I’m glad Gov Newsom is publicizing this.
But he’s such an empty suit that I can’t help but suspect that someone else (probably in the legislature, rather than around Newsom) came up with the idea initially and got the bill written. Good that Newsom got on the bandwagon. Just don’t mistake him for the composer of the march or the band director.
Crap, on reflection it was “bruited about” not mooted about.
Crap, on reflection it was “bruited about” not mooted about.
On another topic, I’m in my last day of isolation after having tested positive for COVID this past Thursday. My wife tested positive the Monday prior, a week ago yesterday. We both had our second boosters in mid May, but still contracted COVID just over 2 months later.
So, …be careful!
We’re both fine, so no need for well wishes or prayers to the FSM.
We expect that she got it one of the days she worked at the local library because of the timing and because one of the people she worked with tested positive at almost exactly the same time thereafter.
The timing for exposure, becoming infectious, and showing symptoms was very much in line with everything I’ve read from the CDC. She worked on a Tuesday, started feeling a little sick on Sunday (5 days later – average incubation 5.6 days), and tested positive on Monday as symptoms worsened. They say you’re most infectious 1 to 2 days before symptoms arise. I started feeling sick on Thursday, 4 days after she did, which would be in line with exposure on the prior Friday or Saturday (5 or 6 days earlier), her most infectious days before she knew she had it or started isolating.
Hers was a bit worse than mine. She had an online appointment with a doctor who prescribed her albuterol and recommended decongestant and expectorant. I only took expectorant. I might have taken decongestant if it weren’t for hypertension, but it wasn’t that bad for me without it.
We both had 101-point-something fevers that didn’t last very long, passing on their own without fever-reducers. Neither of us was all that achy or fatigued once the very short fevers passed. Coughing was mostly voluntary to expel congestion, not in the kind of fits I’ve heard people have experienced where they can’t catch a breath for a bit.
For us, it was mostly an inconvenience, something I chalk up to being fully vaccinated. Thank you, mRNA technology! I’m sorry so many people have been distrustful of you….
Anyhow, it ain’t over ’til it’s over. It might not be as deadly as it once was, but it’s still spreading, and some people are still dying because of it. Stay safe.
On another topic, I’m in my last day of isolation after having tested positive for COVID this past Thursday. My wife tested positive the Monday prior, a week ago yesterday. We both had our second boosters in mid May, but still contracted COVID just over 2 months later.
So, …be careful!
We’re both fine, so no need for well wishes or prayers to the FSM.
We expect that she got it one of the days she worked at the local library because of the timing and because one of the people she worked with tested positive at almost exactly the same time thereafter.
The timing for exposure, becoming infectious, and showing symptoms was very much in line with everything I’ve read from the CDC. She worked on a Tuesday, started feeling a little sick on Sunday (5 days later – average incubation 5.6 days), and tested positive on Monday as symptoms worsened. They say you’re most infectious 1 to 2 days before symptoms arise. I started feeling sick on Thursday, 4 days after she did, which would be in line with exposure on the prior Friday or Saturday (5 or 6 days earlier), her most infectious days before she knew she had it or started isolating.
Hers was a bit worse than mine. She had an online appointment with a doctor who prescribed her albuterol and recommended decongestant and expectorant. I only took expectorant. I might have taken decongestant if it weren’t for hypertension, but it wasn’t that bad for me without it.
We both had 101-point-something fevers that didn’t last very long, passing on their own without fever-reducers. Neither of us was all that achy or fatigued once the very short fevers passed. Coughing was mostly voluntary to expel congestion, not in the kind of fits I’ve heard people have experienced where they can’t catch a breath for a bit.
For us, it was mostly an inconvenience, something I chalk up to being fully vaccinated. Thank you, mRNA technology! I’m sorry so many people have been distrustful of you….
Anyhow, it ain’t over ’til it’s over. It might not be as deadly as it once was, but it’s still spreading, and some people are still dying because of it. Stay safe.
Thanks for the report, hsh. I’m glad you and your wife didn’t get it too badly and that you’re recovering.
What you say about the timing is interesting — I didn’t realize 5 days was the average incubation, I thought it was a little shorter than that. Good to know, although I hope I never have to find out.
This article has some interesting speculation about susceptibility. No conclusions, but a reminder of how complicated things are. I’m in no way relying on tenuous preliminary possibilities, but it would be funny to find out that my perpetual lifelong stuffiness from various mild allergies has a silver lining.
Thanks for the report, hsh. I’m glad you and your wife didn’t get it too badly and that you’re recovering.
What you say about the timing is interesting — I didn’t realize 5 days was the average incubation, I thought it was a little shorter than that. Good to know, although I hope I never have to find out.
This article has some interesting speculation about susceptibility. No conclusions, but a reminder of how complicated things are. I’m in no way relying on tenuous preliminary possibilities, but it would be funny to find out that my perpetual lifelong stuffiness from various mild allergies has a silver lining.
For us, it was mostly an inconvenience, something I chalk up to being fully vaccinated. Thank you, mRNA technology! I’m sorry so many people have been distrustful of you….
Your experience sounds very much like ours, back at the beginning of May. Very mild symptoms (we also had both boosters), mostly an inconvenience while isolating.
But I note that apparently neither vaccination nor having had covid are proof against the “omicron variant” currently spreading across the country — although they do reduce the severity of the symptoms. Tough on the enthusiasts for “herd immunity” as the right/best solution.
And people generally appear to have decided that covid is basically over, so they can drop all the stuff we had been doing to curtail the spread. I’m therefore expecting another big uptick in cases, especially among the antivaxxers. I hope I may be forgiven for hoping that, if one of them gets hit, it will be before they vote this fall.
For us, it was mostly an inconvenience, something I chalk up to being fully vaccinated. Thank you, mRNA technology! I’m sorry so many people have been distrustful of you….
Your experience sounds very much like ours, back at the beginning of May. Very mild symptoms (we also had both boosters), mostly an inconvenience while isolating.
But I note that apparently neither vaccination nor having had covid are proof against the “omicron variant” currently spreading across the country — although they do reduce the severity of the symptoms. Tough on the enthusiasts for “herd immunity” as the right/best solution.
And people generally appear to have decided that covid is basically over, so they can drop all the stuff we had been doing to curtail the spread. I’m therefore expecting another big uptick in cases, especially among the antivaxxers. I hope I may be forgiven for hoping that, if one of them gets hit, it will be before they vote this fall.
I’m therefore expecting another big uptick in cases
There’s already a big uptick in cases.
I quit tracking numbers, or even looking at them, in the spring — not because I thought it was over but because I decided it was never going to be over, at some level, and my energy would be better spent elsewhere.
Off to town today, well masked even if no one else is. 🙁
I’m therefore expecting another big uptick in cases
There’s already a big uptick in cases.
I quit tracking numbers, or even looking at them, in the spring — not because I thought it was over but because I decided it was never going to be over, at some level, and my energy would be better spent elsewhere.
Off to town today, well masked even if no one else is. 🙁
My recent COVID experience was about the same. Light fever for a few days, feeling slightly dizzy, dry cough. My father started coughing a bit earlier and my mother went completely without. Not clear who of us brought it home (me from school, he from hospital, she from church?). I got a one-sided colourfully sliming sinusitis afterwards as a bonus but that’s something that very often occurs when I get sick with anything. Rinsing the nose with saline solution is usally all that’s needed to deal with that.
My father died (at age 81) one week ago but not in connection with COVID. He was already negative again before he went to hospital for the last time. Old age and numerous other ailments were completely sufficient and it seems he simply and peacefully stopped living between two routine visits by the nurse in the morning (20 minutes before my mother arrived for her daily visit).
My recent COVID experience was about the same. Light fever for a few days, feeling slightly dizzy, dry cough. My father started coughing a bit earlier and my mother went completely without. Not clear who of us brought it home (me from school, he from hospital, she from church?). I got a one-sided colourfully sliming sinusitis afterwards as a bonus but that’s something that very often occurs when I get sick with anything. Rinsing the nose with saline solution is usally all that’s needed to deal with that.
My father died (at age 81) one week ago but not in connection with COVID. He was already negative again before he went to hospital for the last time. Old age and numerous other ailments were completely sufficient and it seems he simply and peacefully stopped living between two routine visits by the nurse in the morning (20 minutes before my mother arrived for her daily visit).
Condolences, Hartmut, but it sounds as if it was as OK as it can possibly be. I wish you a long life.
Condolences, Hartmut, but it sounds as if it was as OK as it can possibly be. I wish you a long life.
I’m sorry to hear that, Hartmut. My dad would be 81 if he were still living, so our fathers were contemporaries.
I’m sorry to hear that, Hartmut. My dad would be 81 if he were still living, so our fathers were contemporaries.
Sorry about your dad, Hartmut. And yes, “peacefully stopped living” sounds like a good way to go, when the time comes. We always wished that for my mom, and though she did more or less go that way, it was only after she’d spent 6 months in a nursing home that she had desperately not wanted to go to.
Ah well.
Sorry about your dad, Hartmut. And yes, “peacefully stopped living” sounds like a good way to go, when the time comes. We always wished that for my mom, and though she did more or less go that way, it was only after she’d spent 6 months in a nursing home that she had desperately not wanted to go to.
Ah well.
Thank you, everyone!
Thank you, everyone!
just chiming in for a minute to add my condolences to Hartmut on the passing of his father. no matter how long a life they live, or how peaceful their passing, they leave a big hole when they go.
glad, however, that it was a peaceful passing.
also wishing speedy recoveries to everyone dealing with That Damned Virus. stay safe everybody!
just chiming in for a minute to add my condolences to Hartmut on the passing of his father. no matter how long a life they live, or how peaceful their passing, they leave a big hole when they go.
glad, however, that it was a peaceful passing.
also wishing speedy recoveries to everyone dealing with That Damned Virus. stay safe everybody!
Woah – J D Vance. It shows how little he knows about the effects of domestic violence on children, among much else he knows little about.
Vance told a crowd at Pacifica Christian High School in Southern California that he believes that “one of the great tricks” that “the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace” is the idea that ending marriages that are “unhappy” or “maybe even violent” is sometimes best for the long term.
“And maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, though I’m skeptical. But it really didn’t work out for the kids of those marriages,” Vance said. “And that’s what I think all of us should be honest about, is we’ve run this experiment in real time. And what we have is a lot of very, very real family dysfunction that’s making our kids unhappy.”
“I think it’s easy but also probably true to blame the sexual revolution of the 1960s. My grandparents had an incredibly chaotic marriage in a lot of ways, but they never got divorced, right?” Vance told the Pacifica Christian audience. “They were together to the end, till death do us part. That was a really important thing to my grandmother and my grandfather. That was clearly not true by the 70s or 80s,” he said.
Vance said that when people stopped thinking of marriage as “sacred,” and as just a basic contract, “a lot of kids suffered.”
Here’s the video:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/93abve/jd-vance-suggests-people-in-violent-marriages-shouldnt-get-divorced
Woah – J D Vance. It shows how little he knows about the effects of domestic violence on children, among much else he knows little about.
Vance told a crowd at Pacifica Christian High School in Southern California that he believes that “one of the great tricks” that “the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace” is the idea that ending marriages that are “unhappy” or “maybe even violent” is sometimes best for the long term.
“And maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, though I’m skeptical. But it really didn’t work out for the kids of those marriages,” Vance said. “And that’s what I think all of us should be honest about, is we’ve run this experiment in real time. And what we have is a lot of very, very real family dysfunction that’s making our kids unhappy.”
“I think it’s easy but also probably true to blame the sexual revolution of the 1960s. My grandparents had an incredibly chaotic marriage in a lot of ways, but they never got divorced, right?” Vance told the Pacifica Christian audience. “They were together to the end, till death do us part. That was a really important thing to my grandmother and my grandfather. That was clearly not true by the 70s or 80s,” he said.
Vance said that when people stopped thinking of marriage as “sacred,” and as just a basic contract, “a lot of kids suffered.”
Here’s the video:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/93abve/jd-vance-suggests-people-in-violent-marriages-shouldnt-get-divorced
J D Vance. It shows how little he knows about the effects of domestic violence on children, among much else he knows little about
Actually, the way I read this is that he objects to divorce, period. Not just for couples with children, but for anyone and under any circumstances. How that could fail to be a big vote winner, on can only guess….
J D Vance. It shows how little he knows about the effects of domestic violence on children, among much else he knows little about
Actually, the way I read this is that he objects to divorce, period. Not just for couples with children, but for anyone and under any circumstances. How that could fail to be a big vote winner, on can only guess….
Yes, he objects to divorce, period. Even including in violent marriages. It’s a bit like laws against abortion even in cases of rape and incest – so extreme as to alienate otherwise sympathetic people.
Yes, he objects to divorce, period. Even including in violent marriages. It’s a bit like laws against abortion even in cases of rape and incest – so extreme as to alienate otherwise sympathetic people.
Whether it’s straight-out manipulative dishonesty or complete siloed blinkered-ness, the notion that not dissolving a violent marriage doesn’t end up with “a lot of kids suffer[ing]” is obviously preposterous.
With Vance I’m guessing dishonesty and complete cynicism, but I do wonder whether he’s so siloed that he doesn’t know how this is going to come across to a lot of people. (At least, how I HOPE it is going to come across to (I hope) a lot of people.)
Whether it’s straight-out manipulative dishonesty or complete siloed blinkered-ness, the notion that not dissolving a violent marriage doesn’t end up with “a lot of kids suffer[ing]” is obviously preposterous.
With Vance I’m guessing dishonesty and complete cynicism, but I do wonder whether he’s so siloed that he doesn’t know how this is going to come across to a lot of people. (At least, how I HOPE it is going to come across to (I hope) a lot of people.)
It’s easy to figure out what Vance thought he was doing. This is, after all, Pacifica Christian High School – an elite, private, Great Books, Christian high school. Don’t know that he was thinking about a wider audience when he made those comments.
It’s easy to figure out what Vance thought he was doing. This is, after all, Pacifica Christian High School – an elite, private, Great Books, Christian high school. Don’t know that he was thinking about a wider audience when he made those comments.
Don’t know that he was thinking about a wider audience when he made those comments.
He made those comments in September 2021. He had declared himself a candidate for the Senate on the first of July. He’s an attention whore, as I suppose you more or less have to be to run for the Senate. I decline to believe he didn’t think a wider audience would hear them, or want a wider audience to hear them.
Don’t know that he was thinking about a wider audience when he made those comments.
He made those comments in September 2021. He had declared himself a candidate for the Senate on the first of July. He’s an attention whore, as I suppose you more or less have to be to run for the Senate. I decline to believe he didn’t think a wider audience would hear them, or want a wider audience to hear them.
Like wj and Janie, though, I can’t help thinking if this sort of thing is properly publicised by the Dems it will do them a lot of good. Under extreme threat: abortion, contraception, gay rights and divorce. That’s a lot of people to scare or piss off.
Like wj and Janie, though, I can’t help thinking if this sort of thing is properly publicised by the Dems it will do them a lot of good. Under extreme threat: abortion, contraception, gay rights and divorce. That’s a lot of people to scare or piss off.
Yes. I’m sure that Vance wanted that soundbite to get out to the right people. I don’t think he thought about how it could be weaponized against him. I think he believes he is more clever, and his voters are not clever enough to see how this is a problem.
I hope it is weaponized against him.
I hope the cynical shallowness of it and the lack of empathy it shows both get put front and center to show how little he thinks of the actual people he seeks to represent.
Yes. I’m sure that Vance wanted that soundbite to get out to the right people. I don’t think he thought about how it could be weaponized against him. I think he believes he is more clever, and his voters are not clever enough to see how this is a problem.
I hope it is weaponized against him.
I hope the cynical shallowness of it and the lack of empathy it shows both get put front and center to show how little he thinks of the actual people he seeks to represent.
I hope it is weaponized against him.
Kind of reminds me of a Missouri Senate candidate a few years back, who claimed that victims of “legitimate rape” very rarely get pregnant. (How rape is ever legitimate rather boggles the mind, even now.)
I hope it is weaponized against him.
Kind of reminds me of a Missouri Senate candidate a few years back, who claimed that victims of “legitimate rape” very rarely get pregnant. (How rape is ever legitimate rather boggles the mind, even now.)
(How rape is ever legitimate rather boggles the mind, even now.)
He’s just implying that women who claim to get pregnant after rape were not actually raped, but are just looking for an excuse to abort the child after a bad case of sexual buyers remorse. It’s the Old Testament standard whereby a woman who was raped in a city was put to death because she didn’t make enough noise to reveal the crime as it was happening and thereby stop it.
In their mind if a woman gets pregnant she is always the one to blame because it wouldn’t have happened if she was not in some way complicit.
Sick puppies. So full of hate and disdain for women.
(How rape is ever legitimate rather boggles the mind, even now.)
He’s just implying that women who claim to get pregnant after rape were not actually raped, but are just looking for an excuse to abort the child after a bad case of sexual buyers remorse. It’s the Old Testament standard whereby a woman who was raped in a city was put to death because she didn’t make enough noise to reveal the crime as it was happening and thereby stop it.
In their mind if a woman gets pregnant she is always the one to blame because it wouldn’t have happened if she was not in some way complicit.
Sick puppies. So full of hate and disdain for women.
nous, I get all that. But it boggles my mind anyway.
nous, I get all that. But it boggles my mind anyway.
Yeah, that legit boggles, but that was about what the “legitimate” there was meant to signify.
They are legitimate bastards.
Yeah, that legit boggles, but that was about what the “legitimate” there was meant to signify.
They are legitimate bastards.
After a brief but necessary mourning period, I’m back, much to your chagrin, to regain my lofty swale and make all y’all smartypantses dumber.
First off, it’s not “would have”, Janie. It’s “would of” here in the lower 47.
I understand “disinterest” to be somewhat negative, dismissive almost.”Impartial” connotes recognition but dispassion. But I don’t really care.
I haven’t come across it in the wild, but “utilarize” hit me right in the visceral.
After a brief but necessary mourning period, I’m back, much to your chagrin, to regain my lofty swale and make all y’all smartypantses dumber.
First off, it’s not “would have”, Janie. It’s “would of” here in the lower 47.
I understand “disinterest” to be somewhat negative, dismissive almost.”Impartial” connotes recognition but dispassion. But I don’t really care.
I haven’t come across it in the wild, but “utilarize” hit me right in the visceral.
I posted before reading all the way through.
I am so sorry, Hartmut. My deepest condolences.
I posted before reading all the way through.
I am so sorry, Hartmut. My deepest condolences.
Was going to reply to nous’s comment about sick puppies, but decided to make a post of it instead. See front page.
Was going to reply to nous’s comment about sick puppies, but decided to make a post of it instead. See front page.
So let me walk thru this.
(Includes climate change and drug price controls.)
From here, it looks like McConnell got played. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.
So let me walk thru this.
(Includes climate change and drug price controls.)
From here, it looks like McConnell got played. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.
This isn’t a very sexy story, so I didn’t want to put it in the active thread.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/meet-neo-confederate-9-11-183225958.html
I guess the good news is that this clown will very likely lose in the general election. The bad news is that one of the major parties is batsh*t (if that’s news at all).
This isn’t a very sexy story, so I didn’t want to put it in the active thread.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/meet-neo-confederate-9-11-183225958.html
I guess the good news is that this clown will very likely lose in the general election. The bad news is that one of the major parties is batsh*t (if that’s news at all).
The bad news is that one of the major parties is batsh*t (if that’s news at all).
It might be a bit more accurate to say that a plurality** of one of the major parties is crazy. And that sufficient numbers of the other members are willing, for whatever reason, to indulge that insanity to get crazy nominees.
** It might be a majority, of course. But the data is not sufficient to prove that.
The bad news is that one of the major parties is batsh*t (if that’s news at all).
It might be a bit more accurate to say that a plurality** of one of the major parties is crazy. And that sufficient numbers of the other members are willing, for whatever reason, to indulge that insanity to get crazy nominees.
** It might be a majority, of course. But the data is not sufficient to prove that.
Well, Rusty Bowers seems to have changed his tune. After his devastating testimony to the Committee he still said if Trump was the R nominee he would vote for him. No longer, apparently. I wonder what took him so long?
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1553760104792690689
Well, Rusty Bowers seems to have changed his tune. After his devastating testimony to the Committee he still said if Trump was the R nominee he would vote for him. No longer, apparently. I wonder what took him so long?
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1553760104792690689
Ooops, there’s a second part:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1553760379066634241
Ooops, there’s a second part:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1553760379066634241
It might be a bit more accurate to say that a plurality** of one of the major parties is crazy. And that sufficient numbers of the other members are willing, for whatever reason, to indulge that insanity to get crazy nominees.
It doesn’t matter what percentage of Republicans, whether office-holders or voters, are crazy. The results define the party as a whole. The party, as a whole, is batsh*t because it all too frequently barfs up these yahoos as candidates.
It might be a bit more accurate to say that a plurality** of one of the major parties is crazy. And that sufficient numbers of the other members are willing, for whatever reason, to indulge that insanity to get crazy nominees.
It doesn’t matter what percentage of Republicans, whether office-holders or voters, are crazy. The results define the party as a whole. The party, as a whole, is batsh*t because it all too frequently barfs up these yahoos as candidates.
Crazy/not crazy — one is in the majority and one isn’t, unless they’re split 50-50. “Plurality” has no meaning here.
Crazy/not crazy — one is in the majority and one isn’t, unless they’re split 50-50. “Plurality” has no meaning here.
It doesn’t matter what percentage of Republicans, whether office-holders or voters, are crazy.
Actually, it does matter. The bigger fraction of the party that are actually crazy, the smaller the prospects for saving the nation. If the whole party is crazy (as stated), then the prospects are dire. If it’s merely a very motivated 20% (i.e. maybe 10% of the total population), then it’s quite possible to kick them to the curb.
Granted, it would require the bulk of Republican politician to grow a spine — which might be problematic, especially in the short run. But at least there’s a chance.
This is what comes from being an optimist: one tries to find a possibility for a good, or at minimum least bad outcome. Which, currently, are better than they were under the previous administration, but still nothing to write home about.
It doesn’t matter what percentage of Republicans, whether office-holders or voters, are crazy.
Actually, it does matter. The bigger fraction of the party that are actually crazy, the smaller the prospects for saving the nation. If the whole party is crazy (as stated), then the prospects are dire. If it’s merely a very motivated 20% (i.e. maybe 10% of the total population), then it’s quite possible to kick them to the curb.
Granted, it would require the bulk of Republican politician to grow a spine — which might be problematic, especially in the short run. But at least there’s a chance.
This is what comes from being an optimist: one tries to find a possibility for a good, or at minimum least bad outcome. Which, currently, are better than they were under the previous administration, but still nothing to write home about.
“Plurality” has no meaning here.
Sure it does. A plurality can determine who wins a primary, whenever (as is hardly uncommon) there are more than two candidates. That’s how you end up with Republican majorities in state legislatures who appear determined to pass bills which a majority (not just a majority of the total population, but a majority of their own party members) oppose.
“Plurality” has no meaning here.
Sure it does. A plurality can determine who wins a primary, whenever (as is hardly uncommon) there are more than two candidates. That’s how you end up with Republican majorities in state legislatures who appear determined to pass bills which a majority (not just a majority of the total population, but a majority of their own party members) oppose.
That’s not what hsh was talking about. He made a specific statement about the party as a whole, which I think is an important consideration separate from any specific election. If you want to change the subject to particular elections, fine. But that’s a different topic.
Regardless of specific elections, to have half of one of the two major parties in this country batshit crazy is a disaster.
That’s not what hsh was talking about. He made a specific statement about the party as a whole, which I think is an important consideration separate from any specific election. If you want to change the subject to particular elections, fine. But that’s a different topic.
Regardless of specific elections, to have half of one of the two major parties in this country batshit crazy is a disaster.
to have half of one of the two major parties in this country batshit crazy is a disaster.
Totally agree. But that disaster is already here. To my mind, the question is what, if anything, can we do going forward in order to retrieve the situation?
to have half of one of the two major parties in this country batshit crazy is a disaster.
Totally agree. But that disaster is already here. To my mind, the question is what, if anything, can we do going forward in order to retrieve the situation?
What we can do going forward to retrieve the situation is, unfortunately for all involved, currently being shaped by the demands of the prisoner’s dilemma. Both parties are forced to respond to the situation as if the batshit party is empowered to carry through on its batshit because it will, if given the chance, carry through.
Either your secret plurality steps up on its own to stop the batshit or we continue on our merry way, because we cannot afford not to treat the threat as real any longer. These last four years have shown this.
What we can do going forward to retrieve the situation is, unfortunately for all involved, currently being shaped by the demands of the prisoner’s dilemma. Both parties are forced to respond to the situation as if the batshit party is empowered to carry through on its batshit because it will, if given the chance, carry through.
Either your secret plurality steps up on its own to stop the batshit or we continue on our merry way, because we cannot afford not to treat the threat as real any longer. These last four years have shown this.
what, if anything, can we do going forward in order to retrieve the situation?
lock the mf’er up, along with his enablers and minions.
and it would help if news sources gave up on the whole “both sides” BS.
what, if anything, can we do going forward in order to retrieve the situation?
lock the mf’er up, along with his enablers and minions.
and it would help if news sources gave up on the whole “both sides” BS.
it would help if news sources gave up on the whole “both sides” BS.
Amen. Although, sadly, the one “news” source which has done so is just a propaganda arm for the crazies.
it would help if news sources gave up on the whole “both sides” BS.
Amen. Although, sadly, the one “news” source which has done so is just a propaganda arm for the crazies.
If you remember that “audit” of the 2020 election returns, you may recall that it found that an estimate that 282 dead people submitted ballots. Way, way too few to change the election results, of course, but the report recommended that “the Attorney General further investigate this finding to confirm the validity of this finding.”
Well the Arizona Attorney General dutifully did so. His finding: of the 282 supposedly deceased voters, exactly 1 (one!) was actually dead. All the rest were surprised to hear that they were considered dead by anybody.
Gotta love those auditors. Even more massively incompetent than we thought. It’s so . . . Trumpian.
If you remember that “audit” of the 2020 election returns, you may recall that it found that an estimate that 282 dead people submitted ballots. Way, way too few to change the election results, of course, but the report recommended that “the Attorney General further investigate this finding to confirm the validity of this finding.”
Well the Arizona Attorney General dutifully did so. His finding: of the 282 supposedly deceased voters, exactly 1 (one!) was actually dead. All the rest were surprised to hear that they were considered dead by anybody.
Gotta love those auditors. Even more massively incompetent than we thought. It’s so . . . Trumpian.
Pretty sure that Hawley is some manner of toadshit here, but the specific motivation is probably grist for interesting speculation:
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-i-won%E2%80%99t-vote-add-sweden-and-finland-nato-203925
U.S. resources are not unlimited. Already we spend the better part of a trillion dollars a year on defense. And our manpower is already stretched thin across the globe. The United States must prioritize the defense resources we have for the China effort, while there is still time. Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.
(His logic for why adding Sweden and Finland weakens NATO rather than strengthening it smells particularly dubious.)
Pretty sure that Hawley is some manner of toadshit here, but the specific motivation is probably grist for interesting speculation:
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-i-won%E2%80%99t-vote-add-sweden-and-finland-nato-203925
U.S. resources are not unlimited. Already we spend the better part of a trillion dollars a year on defense. And our manpower is already stretched thin across the globe. The United States must prioritize the defense resources we have for the China effort, while there is still time. Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.
(His logic for why adding Sweden and Finland weakens NATO rather than strengthening it smells particularly dubious.)
What is (a) toadshit? Google does not elucidate.
What is (a) toadshit? Google does not elucidate.
His logic for why adding Sweden and Finland weakens NATO rather than strengthening it smells particularly dubious.
It smells of massive ignorance.
– Item, Finland will be the first NATO member which has fought the Russians (technically, the USSR) to a standstill.
– Item, Sweden not only has a kickass military, they have a military infrastructure better than most existing NATO members. (They make first class SAMs, anti-tank missiles, ships (including subs), and combat air craft.)
And that’s not to mention the improvement in NATO’s geographic position vis-à-vis Russia. Which is why Russia was so upset at them joining. From Putin’s perspective, them joining NATO is the biggest disaster of the whole Ukrainian invasion. (Troops, after all, can be replaced. As, eventually, can military hardware. But geography, not so much.)
His logic for why adding Sweden and Finland weakens NATO rather than strengthening it smells particularly dubious.
It smells of massive ignorance.
– Item, Finland will be the first NATO member which has fought the Russians (technically, the USSR) to a standstill.
– Item, Sweden not only has a kickass military, they have a military infrastructure better than most existing NATO members. (They make first class SAMs, anti-tank missiles, ships (including subs), and combat air craft.)
And that’s not to mention the improvement in NATO’s geographic position vis-à-vis Russia. Which is why Russia was so upset at them joining. From Putin’s perspective, them joining NATO is the biggest disaster of the whole Ukrainian invasion. (Troops, after all, can be replaced. As, eventually, can military hardware. But geography, not so much.)
“Toadshit” is pretty much just a variant on ‘dogshit,” “bullshit,” or the like as a descriptor – from one of my wife’s novels (where the people in question who used it were subterranean and dealt with cave toads as a nuisance species). Common usage as in “I don’t know what sort of motherless toadshit you are trying to pull here, but…”
“Toadshit” is pretty much just a variant on ‘dogshit,” “bullshit,” or the like as a descriptor – from one of my wife’s novels (where the people in question who used it were subterranean and dealt with cave toads as a nuisance species). Common usage as in “I don’t know what sort of motherless toadshit you are trying to pull here, but…”
Thanks, nous!
Thanks, nous!