by wj
We’re overdue for a new Open Thread, so this is it.
To lead us off, we have this fascinating article in the Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/19/gop-senate-rescue-midterms/
The teaser at the top:
A cash crunch at campaigns and the National Republican Senatorial Committee set off a panic as Republican candidates emerged from bruising primaries playing catch-up in polls and advertising.
It seems that the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, after months of touting record fundraising, topping $173 million. But the committee has burned through nearly all of it, with the NRSC’s cash on hand dwindling to $28.4 million by the end of June. So they burned thru some $145 million . . . of which only $23 million went to actual ads.
“If they were a corporation, the CEO would be fired and investigated,” said a national Republican consultant working on Senate races. “The way this money has been burned, there needs to be an audit or investigation because we’re not gonna take the Senate now and this money has been squandered. It’s a rip-off.”
A rip-off? In a party in thrall to an experienced conman? Who could ever have expected such a thing…? Given the expertise available, following the money may be a bit of a challenge. Especially for those who desperately need the funds, but dare not criticize the likely sinkhole for the funds.
No ROI on grift from the Smash & Grab party? Where my fainting couch be at?
No ROI on grift from the Smash & Grab party? Where my fainting couch be at?
I don’t know why the NRSC spends any money at all. The whole game is gerrymandering, voter suppression, and most importantly, tribalism. I’m not on top of all of the races and there are certainly some provincial issues at lower tiers where position makes a difference.
But in the big races? I can’t think of any position the Republican Party actually promotes. Negative advertising only goes so far. At some point you actually have to build something. It can’t all be tear-down. And they’ve douchebagged their way into a corner:
Support the troops – vote against the PACT Act.
Support the police – defund the FBI.
My body, my choice (masks/vax) – anti-choice legislation.
Mitch McConnell – ’nuff said.
etc, etc.
They can’t run on record or accomplishment or consistency or ethics. Or consistency of ethics, which is kind of a big part of the whole ethics thing*. They’re betting that the team jersey is more important than the quarterback. And it’s working to an unsettling degree.
*Ok, yeah, situational ethics and all that jazz, but that’s not my point here.
I don’t know why the NRSC spends any money at all. The whole game is gerrymandering, voter suppression, and most importantly, tribalism. I’m not on top of all of the races and there are certainly some provincial issues at lower tiers where position makes a difference.
But in the big races? I can’t think of any position the Republican Party actually promotes. Negative advertising only goes so far. At some point you actually have to build something. It can’t all be tear-down. And they’ve douchebagged their way into a corner:
Support the troops – vote against the PACT Act.
Support the police – defund the FBI.
My body, my choice (masks/vax) – anti-choice legislation.
Mitch McConnell – ’nuff said.
etc, etc.
They can’t run on record or accomplishment or consistency or ethics. Or consistency of ethics, which is kind of a big part of the whole ethics thing*. They’re betting that the team jersey is more important than the quarterback. And it’s working to an unsettling degree.
*Ok, yeah, situational ethics and all that jazz, but that’s not my point here.
I don’t know why the NRSC spends any money at all.
If you’re taking money in, you have to at least appear to be spending something for the supposed purpose. Just to keep the marks going.** Matters a bit more with the whales (big donors are the only kind the NRSC gets), but it’s worth investing a bit in order to keep the taps open. So you can pocket the rest.
Which is why stories like this are toxic. If they decide you aren’t giving them their money’s worth, they may shut down the donations. And then where are you? Trying to eke out a living on a US Senator’s salary, a lousy $175K (plus expenses)? Who can survive on that???
** We can’t all have Trump’s aptitude for giving nothing back but hot air.
I don’t know why the NRSC spends any money at all.
If you’re taking money in, you have to at least appear to be spending something for the supposed purpose. Just to keep the marks going.** Matters a bit more with the whales (big donors are the only kind the NRSC gets), but it’s worth investing a bit in order to keep the taps open. So you can pocket the rest.
Which is why stories like this are toxic. If they decide you aren’t giving them their money’s worth, they may shut down the donations. And then where are you? Trying to eke out a living on a US Senator’s salary, a lousy $175K (plus expenses)? Who can survive on that???
** We can’t all have Trump’s aptitude for giving nothing back but hot air.
Well, yeah, you do have to keep up appearances. Biden – from corporate unfriendly Delaware – just signed that thing that gets corporate tax up to 15% (where’s that damn fainting couch?). Remind me again what the tax rates were under those Maoists, Eisenhower & Reagan? So maybe that keeps the whale oil pipeline flush.
But the Republicans are running out of single-issue runway. And the whales need that energy to hide the bullshit they’re sneaking in the back door. Dobbs happened. Where are those voters going to pivot to now? Or will they even show up since the crusade is won? The party of “No” is gonna reap the whirlwind.*
*Yeah, no they’re not. We’re f*cked.
Well, yeah, you do have to keep up appearances. Biden – from corporate unfriendly Delaware – just signed that thing that gets corporate tax up to 15% (where’s that damn fainting couch?). Remind me again what the tax rates were under those Maoists, Eisenhower & Reagan? So maybe that keeps the whale oil pipeline flush.
But the Republicans are running out of single-issue runway. And the whales need that energy to hide the bullshit they’re sneaking in the back door. Dobbs happened. Where are those voters going to pivot to now? Or will they even show up since the crusade is won? The party of “No” is gonna reap the whirlwind.*
*Yeah, no they’re not. We’re f*cked.
The party of “No” is gonna reap the whirlwind.*
*Yeah, no they’re not. We’re f*cked.
Could have happened that way. Except. The radical libertarian/ultra-reactionary (Back. To the 1920s and beyond!) wing of the party has gotten greedy. Or maybe flushed with success.
So they have folks Sen Johnson (R-Wis) and Sen Scott (R-Fla) talking loudly about drastic changes to Social Security. Remember all those folks at Trump rallies with signs saying “Hands off my Social Security!”? They’re too old to worry personally about Dobbs. But attach SSI, and try to block making their prescriptions cheaper? Even if they’ll never abandon their cult leader himself, other Republicans don’t get a pass. No matter how much money is spent on ads.
So, yeah. A whirlwind is a distinct possibility.
The party of “No” is gonna reap the whirlwind.*
*Yeah, no they’re not. We’re f*cked.
Could have happened that way. Except. The radical libertarian/ultra-reactionary (Back. To the 1920s and beyond!) wing of the party has gotten greedy. Or maybe flushed with success.
So they have folks Sen Johnson (R-Wis) and Sen Scott (R-Fla) talking loudly about drastic changes to Social Security. Remember all those folks at Trump rallies with signs saying “Hands off my Social Security!”? They’re too old to worry personally about Dobbs. But attach SSI, and try to block making their prescriptions cheaper? Even if they’ll never abandon their cult leader himself, other Republicans don’t get a pass. No matter how much money is spent on ads.
So, yeah. A whirlwind is a distinct possibility.
So, yeah. A whirlwind is a distinct possibility.
Looking forward to proof of concept. So far it’s been vaporware.
So, yeah. A whirlwind is a distinct possibility.
Looking forward to proof of concept. So far it’s been vaporware.
Prediction is hard. Especially about the future.
Prediction is hard. Especially about the future.
Fundraising of all sorts is a huge topic in itself, whether political or otherwise. It seems to have a life and momentum of its own in a tail-wagging the dog sort of way. I realize that part of the reason for that is that *someone* is making money from direct mail, but I’m not convinced it’s always the organizations on behalf of which it’s being sent. Meanwhile, paper and/or time are wasted processing all of it, kinda like with health care. Don’t we humans have anything better to do? (Perhaps not…)
FCC just ordered block on scammers behind 8 billion auto warranty robocalls.
I’m so skeptical that I don’t believe either the headline or the subhead. First, I find it hard to believe that this outfit is responsible for all the auto warranty calls that plague us in the first place. By my anecdatal evidence, if there have only been 8 billion overall, I’ve gotten way more than my share.
As for the subhead — “Auto warranty robocolls will soon be a thing of the past” — I think that is “an incorrect prediction about the future” (h/t to wj), because I don’t see what’s to prevent the many-headed hydra of criminal nterprise to pop up in some other guise to use modern technology to abuse the rest of us.
What about the calls where they say I need to pay some taxes on the spot or I will be arrested? (That one scared my very aged mom when she first got it years ago.) Etc. Etc….
Fundraising of all sorts is a huge topic in itself, whether political or otherwise. It seems to have a life and momentum of its own in a tail-wagging the dog sort of way. I realize that part of the reason for that is that *someone* is making money from direct mail, but I’m not convinced it’s always the organizations on behalf of which it’s being sent. Meanwhile, paper and/or time are wasted processing all of it, kinda like with health care. Don’t we humans have anything better to do? (Perhaps not…)
FCC just ordered block on scammers behind 8 billion auto warranty robocalls.
I’m so skeptical that I don’t believe either the headline or the subhead. First, I find it hard to believe that this outfit is responsible for all the auto warranty calls that plague us in the first place. By my anecdatal evidence, if there have only been 8 billion overall, I’ve gotten way more than my share.
As for the subhead — “Auto warranty robocolls will soon be a thing of the past” — I think that is “an incorrect prediction about the future” (h/t to wj), because I don’t see what’s to prevent the many-headed hydra of criminal nterprise to pop up in some other guise to use modern technology to abuse the rest of us.
What about the calls where they say I need to pay some taxes on the spot or I will be arrested? (That one scared my very aged mom when she first got it years ago.) Etc. Etc….
PS — just as I finished writing that 9:37 comment, the mail came. One from Joe Biden, one from Stacy Abrams. No amount of “please remove from mailing list” stops the flow of this stuff. (Unsubscribing does usually work online, I have to admit, though it doesn’t stop the flow from all the outfits/candidates that got the email address from the first one before I could unsubscribe.)
Also, one for an imaginary person with my first name and my ex’s last name, this time from Doctors without Borders, although every charity in America has this phantom’s name.
“Second request.” Umpteenth request, actually. But that’s part of what bemuses me. Does ANYONE think such idiotic breathless messages make a difference? DO such idiotic breathless messages make a difference in the $ response, or are they just wanking on the part of some drudge in the direct mail company?
YOU have been chosen to complete this important survey! YOU are one of our most important members in [name of town]. Please return (with $) by August 31.
Etc.
PS — just as I finished writing that 9:37 comment, the mail came. One from Joe Biden, one from Stacy Abrams. No amount of “please remove from mailing list” stops the flow of this stuff. (Unsubscribing does usually work online, I have to admit, though it doesn’t stop the flow from all the outfits/candidates that got the email address from the first one before I could unsubscribe.)
Also, one for an imaginary person with my first name and my ex’s last name, this time from Doctors without Borders, although every charity in America has this phantom’s name.
“Second request.” Umpteenth request, actually. But that’s part of what bemuses me. Does ANYONE think such idiotic breathless messages make a difference? DO such idiotic breathless messages make a difference in the $ response, or are they just wanking on the part of some drudge in the direct mail company?
YOU have been chosen to complete this important survey! YOU are one of our most important members in [name of town]. Please return (with $) by August 31.
Etc.
Once upon a time when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I took an advertising class and, IIRC, a 2% return on direct mail was expected. 4% was fantastic and 5% was an out-of-the-park home run. Fast-forward to force-multiplier computing and do the math.
I still have a (718) number from my Brooklyn years and much like (212 – Manhattan) it’s something of a badge of honor, like low numbers on license plates in some countries (you Mainers with your “from away” gatekeeping know what I mean ;-)) . The thing is, nobody I know from Brooklyn still has that area code. So when I see an incoming call from 718, I know it’s spoofed number BS.
Anyway, adding to my election wish list, along with binning Citizens United, is something like the Australian model: Mandatory, and basically a 2-month election season. Cram all the ads and debates into that time frame, and that’s it. No more 24/7/365 fundraising/campaigning. Which, naïvely, might get the elected more time for actual governance.
Once upon a time when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I took an advertising class and, IIRC, a 2% return on direct mail was expected. 4% was fantastic and 5% was an out-of-the-park home run. Fast-forward to force-multiplier computing and do the math.
I still have a (718) number from my Brooklyn years and much like (212 – Manhattan) it’s something of a badge of honor, like low numbers on license plates in some countries (you Mainers with your “from away” gatekeeping know what I mean ;-)) . The thing is, nobody I know from Brooklyn still has that area code. So when I see an incoming call from 718, I know it’s spoofed number BS.
Anyway, adding to my election wish list, along with binning Citizens United, is something like the Australian model: Mandatory, and basically a 2-month election season. Cram all the ads and debates into that time frame, and that’s it. No more 24/7/365 fundraising/campaigning. Which, naïvely, might get the elected more time for actual governance.
1. I must defend my honor — it’s not *my* “from away” bullshit, I’m “from away” myself. I hate that formulation, with its blended arrogance, dissing of outsiders, and whiny inferiority complex-ish-ness.
2. I’d love a 2-month election season, but I don’t see how it could ever be squared with the first amendment. Sadly enough.
1. I must defend my honor — it’s not *my* “from away” bullshit, I’m “from away” myself. I hate that formulation, with its blended arrogance, dissing of outsiders, and whiny inferiority complex-ish-ness.
2. I’d love a 2-month election season, but I don’t see how it could ever be squared with the first amendment. Sadly enough.
1. Nice try, Ohioan. 😉
2. Agreed. I doubt that even an explicit amendment could get around that. I can dream, tho.
1. Nice try, Ohioan. 😉
2. Agreed. I doubt that even an explicit amendment could get around that. I can dream, tho.
adding to my election wish list, along with binning Citizens United, is something like the Australian model: Mandatory, and basically a 2-month election season. Cram all the ads and debates into that time frame, and that’s it. No more 24/7/365 fundraising/campaigning. Which, naïvely, might get the elected more time for actual governance.
Possibly more important, it might lead to more candidates who are actually interested in governance. Rather than flat out conmen and lovers of performance “art.” Some of the latter will remain, of course. But the conmen will mostly migrate to other scams.
FCC just ordered block on scammers behind 8 billion auto warranty robocalls
Like Janie, I doubt this will get rid of all of them. But even a 50% reduction would be a plus.
adding to my election wish list, along with binning Citizens United, is something like the Australian model: Mandatory, and basically a 2-month election season. Cram all the ads and debates into that time frame, and that’s it. No more 24/7/365 fundraising/campaigning. Which, naïvely, might get the elected more time for actual governance.
Possibly more important, it might lead to more candidates who are actually interested in governance. Rather than flat out conmen and lovers of performance “art.” Some of the latter will remain, of course. But the conmen will mostly migrate to other scams.
FCC just ordered block on scammers behind 8 billion auto warranty robocalls
Like Janie, I doubt this will get rid of all of them. But even a 50% reduction would be a plus.
What I find particularly irritating are the spam text messages. Not just from Trump scams, which claim to think I’m a long-time and fervent supporter. (In what universe???) It’s the one pushing some link including A2SO7D in the name — the rest of the domain name varies, but that’s constant. I haven’t managed to find out what it’s a scam for (no way I’m clicking on that link!). But I get several a week, sometimes more.
What I find particularly irritating are the spam text messages. Not just from Trump scams, which claim to think I’m a long-time and fervent supporter. (In what universe???) It’s the one pushing some link including A2SO7D in the name — the rest of the domain name varies, but that’s constant. I haven’t managed to find out what it’s a scam for (no way I’m clicking on that link!). But I get several a week, sometimes more.
When dealing with scams/spam/robocalls, I find the best course of action is actually none at all. As tempting as it is to hang up or block numbers, doing that is still telemetry for the scammers. Interaction tells them there’s something with a pulse on the other side and that’s what matters to them. A call that ends up in voicemail, especially a generic one, gives them nothing.
When dealing with scams/spam/robocalls, I find the best course of action is actually none at all. As tempting as it is to hang up or block numbers, doing that is still telemetry for the scammers. Interaction tells them there’s something with a pulse on the other side and that’s what matters to them. A call that ends up in voicemail, especially a generic one, gives them nothing.
1. Nice try, Ohioan. 😉
Heh. Busted.
As much as I feel like I don’t belong in Ohio, and consider Maine my beloeved home, to my knowledge the state doesn’t have a semi-pejorative nickname for people who weren’t born there.
1. Nice try, Ohioan. 😉
Heh. Busted.
As much as I feel like I don’t belong in Ohio, and consider Maine my beloeved home, to my knowledge the state doesn’t have a semi-pejorative nickname for people who weren’t born there.
Aiy…..”the state” without a nickname is Ohio.
Aiy…..”the state” without a nickname is Ohio.
Thanks to whoever it was that recommended The Fall of Ile-Rien. I’m partway through the second book and enjoying it. My only criticisms are (a) the author lets some of the story lines drop for long stretches, and (b) the bad guys with the zeppelin-style airships are simultaneously rolling up whole countries without problem, but have (so far) lost five of those to the small band of intrepid freedom fighters, at least as much due to happenstance as intent. I like my bad guys to be consistently competent or comically not, but not both.
Thanks to whoever it was that recommended The Fall of Ile-Rien. I’m partway through the second book and enjoying it. My only criticisms are (a) the author lets some of the story lines drop for long stretches, and (b) the bad guys with the zeppelin-style airships are simultaneously rolling up whole countries without problem, but have (so far) lost five of those to the small band of intrepid freedom fighters, at least as much due to happenstance as intent. I like my bad guys to be consistently competent or comically not, but not both.
Years ago in more innocent days, I tried to unsubscribe from all the spam emails I was getting. Afterward, I realized that I was telling the spammers two things: They had a valid email address and someone was paying attention to it.
Some of them may have honored the unsubscribe requests. But they had an email address they could use in other scams or sell to their fellow scammers. As a result, I started getting over 300 scam emails a day. Currently, I’m down to about 3 a day.
Years ago in more innocent days, I tried to unsubscribe from all the spam emails I was getting. Afterward, I realized that I was telling the spammers two things: They had a valid email address and someone was paying attention to it.
Some of them may have honored the unsubscribe requests. But they had an email address they could use in other scams or sell to their fellow scammers. As a result, I started getting over 300 scam emails a day. Currently, I’m down to about 3 a day.
the state doesn’t have a semi-pejorative nickname for people who weren’t born there.
Pretty sure it’s “Canadians”. Well, it is in OOB.
😉
the state doesn’t have a semi-pejorative nickname for people who weren’t born there.
Pretty sure it’s “Canadians”. Well, it is in OOB.
😉
Pretty sure it’s “Canadians”. Well, it is in OOB.
My haste is creating confusion. The nickname I meant was “from away.” “Canadians” is a whole other thing, but I don’t hear it around here, and confess to never having been to OOB. I like the wilderness better. 😉
Pretty sure it’s “Canadians”. Well, it is in OOB.
My haste is creating confusion. The nickname I meant was “from away.” “Canadians” is a whole other thing, but I don’t hear it around here, and confess to never having been to OOB. I like the wilderness better. 😉
Once upon a time I made the mistake of donating to a Democratic candidate using a method that included my email address. Clearly, the candidates pass their mailing lists around — I get requests for money from Democrats running for office in faraway states. Every one of them has honored the unsubscribe link in their message, but damn, folks. I do not need to hear from every Democratic House candidate running in the South.
Once upon a time I made the mistake of donating to a Democratic candidate using a method that included my email address. Clearly, the candidates pass their mailing lists around — I get requests for money from Democrats running for office in faraway states. Every one of them has honored the unsubscribe link in their message, but damn, folks. I do not need to hear from every Democratic House candidate running in the South.
You’ve never been to the Coney Island of the North???! Oh, it’s a scene, man. 😁
And it seems that Typepad honors emojis. Apologies for opening that can of worms.
You’ve never been to the Coney Island of the North???! Oh, it’s a scene, man. 😁
And it seems that Typepad honors emojis. Apologies for opening that can of worms.
Speaking of Coney Island, which nobody is but me but open thread so whatever, I made it a point to ride the Cyclone every year. My streak ended at 20, but I still do it every time I go back.
3 rules for the Cyclone:
1. Get rid of everything not nailed down. Hat, glasses, phone, wallet, pocket change… everything. You will lose it.
2. It’s tiny, compared to the modern-day adventure park coasters, but get ready, immediately. The big drop is a thing, but the first flat whiplash hairpin will tweak your neck for a week and is <20 meters from the start. You don't even see it coming.
3. Pray to your gods that yours isn't the run that leads the front page of the NY Post headline "Ancient Wooden Fossil Finally Collapses!"
Much like Times Square (thanks a lot, Rudy), Coney has undergone something of a makeover. It's still not polished, exactly, but part of the fun was remembering to not fall through the hole in the floor on the way to the bathroom at Ruby's ("safety codes" and so forth finally put an end to that). The Mermaid Parade is still going every year and I highly recommend it if you’re in the neighborhood on the closest Saturday to the Summer Solstice. The burlesque show is still there. Two blocks north of the Boardwalk it starts to get a little sketchy, but they renovated the subway station about 10 years ago and it’s about as nice a station as you’ll find in NY transit.
I miss the Met and MoNH, etc and the posh things that Manhattan has to offer. But there’s something about the low-brow, counter-culture Coney that I miss perhaps more. The B-52s played a free concert there years ago, in a park ringed by retirement apartments. I think I spent more time watching the older folks come out to see this weird band with blue beehive hairdos playing their kitchy rock than the actual band. It rained. No one cared. It was a blast!
Speaking of Coney Island, which nobody is but me but open thread so whatever, I made it a point to ride the Cyclone every year. My streak ended at 20, but I still do it every time I go back.
3 rules for the Cyclone:
1. Get rid of everything not nailed down. Hat, glasses, phone, wallet, pocket change… everything. You will lose it.
2. It’s tiny, compared to the modern-day adventure park coasters, but get ready, immediately. The big drop is a thing, but the first flat whiplash hairpin will tweak your neck for a week and is <20 meters from the start. You don't even see it coming.
3. Pray to your gods that yours isn't the run that leads the front page of the NY Post headline "Ancient Wooden Fossil Finally Collapses!"
Much like Times Square (thanks a lot, Rudy), Coney has undergone something of a makeover. It's still not polished, exactly, but part of the fun was remembering to not fall through the hole in the floor on the way to the bathroom at Ruby's ("safety codes" and so forth finally put an end to that). The Mermaid Parade is still going every year and I highly recommend it if you’re in the neighborhood on the closest Saturday to the Summer Solstice. The burlesque show is still there. Two blocks north of the Boardwalk it starts to get a little sketchy, but they renovated the subway station about 10 years ago and it’s about as nice a station as you’ll find in NY transit.
I miss the Met and MoNH, etc and the posh things that Manhattan has to offer. But there’s something about the low-brow, counter-culture Coney that I miss perhaps more. The B-52s played a free concert there years ago, in a park ringed by retirement apartments. I think I spent more time watching the older folks come out to see this weird band with blue beehive hairdos playing their kitchy rock than the actual band. It rained. No one cared. It was a blast!
Dropping this in because it’s in line with my running commentary here about the 2A not-so-fringe:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/20/us-political-violence-civil-war
Wintemute wanted answers and they stunned him. A survey for his California Firearm Violence Research Center released last month showed that half of Americans expect a civil war in the United States in the next few years. One in five thought political violence was justified in some circumstances. In addition, while almost everyone said it was important for the US to remain a democracy, about 40% said that having a strong leader was more important.
“Coupled with prior research, these findings suggest a continuing alienation from and mistrust of American democratic society and its institutions. Substantial minorities of the population endorse violence, including lethal violence, to obtain political objectives,” the report concluded.
Suddenly Wintemute didn’t think talk of a violent civil conflict was so crazy any more.
Aside: I do a double take every time Wintemute’s name gets used. Too many times reading Neuromancer.
Dropping this in because it’s in line with my running commentary here about the 2A not-so-fringe:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/20/us-political-violence-civil-war
Wintemute wanted answers and they stunned him. A survey for his California Firearm Violence Research Center released last month showed that half of Americans expect a civil war in the United States in the next few years. One in five thought political violence was justified in some circumstances. In addition, while almost everyone said it was important for the US to remain a democracy, about 40% said that having a strong leader was more important.
“Coupled with prior research, these findings suggest a continuing alienation from and mistrust of American democratic society and its institutions. Substantial minorities of the population endorse violence, including lethal violence, to obtain political objectives,” the report concluded.
Suddenly Wintemute didn’t think talk of a violent civil conflict was so crazy any more.
Aside: I do a double take every time Wintemute’s name gets used. Too many times reading Neuromancer.
Thanks to whoever it was that recommended The Fall of Ile-Rien.
I think it was Donald originally, but I (being a bit of a completist) made sure to read the two prequels first, and was glad I did so.
Thanks to whoever it was that recommended The Fall of Ile-Rien.
I think it was Donald originally, but I (being a bit of a completist) made sure to read the two prequels first, and was glad I did so.
This is somewhat flippant, cuz I don’t have the patience to read through the actual survey atm. At first blush it looks pretty legit, but I gotta read the actual phrasing of the questions asked.
But to the broader point, and I think most people here feel similarly, violence is the last all but unthinkable option.
That said, if it comes down to something like imprisoning a 16 yo for having an abortion (or the healthcare providers involved), should there be necessarily armed resistance? I kinda think “yes”. And I’m not tryna go all Thullen here. I am terrified by what that looks like. But I think that could be what it looks like.
OTOH, I’ve seen the Cliven Bundy types and I think they only understand righteousness through greater firepower. An acceptance rate of justifiable violence against duly elected officials and 40% who think a “strong leader” is paramount… wt actual f?
This is somewhat flippant, cuz I don’t have the patience to read through the actual survey atm. At first blush it looks pretty legit, but I gotta read the actual phrasing of the questions asked.
But to the broader point, and I think most people here feel similarly, violence is the last all but unthinkable option.
That said, if it comes down to something like imprisoning a 16 yo for having an abortion (or the healthcare providers involved), should there be necessarily armed resistance? I kinda think “yes”. And I’m not tryna go all Thullen here. I am terrified by what that looks like. But I think that could be what it looks like.
OTOH, I’ve seen the Cliven Bundy types and I think they only understand righteousness through greater firepower. An acceptance rate of justifiable violence against duly elected officials and 40% who think a “strong leader” is paramount… wt actual f?
I tend to get little flickers of hope when i see things like how the guy who went after FBI agents in Ohio had put out a call for the war to start, and no one showed up but him. And another one in DC (?) where no one showed up because word went around that it was a “trap.” (I just see these headlines, I rarely read the details. So obviously: get the saltshaker.)
But no doubt the real threat is not the social media hot air warriors, but the actual militias who have trained and take themselves very very seriously. THe fact that people are speaking openly of shooting duly elected officials is … terrifying.
Here in Maine I have felt relatively aside from all of it, but we’re heading into election season with LePage (“I was trump before there was trump”) running for governor again. He is already blathering about doubtful voting security in our “big” cities (where of course most of the immigrants and not-white people in Maine live). (But you know, he’s not a racist, he says so himself.)
I am not looking forward to the next 2.5 months of vileness right here on the home front.
I tend to get little flickers of hope when i see things like how the guy who went after FBI agents in Ohio had put out a call for the war to start, and no one showed up but him. And another one in DC (?) where no one showed up because word went around that it was a “trap.” (I just see these headlines, I rarely read the details. So obviously: get the saltshaker.)
But no doubt the real threat is not the social media hot air warriors, but the actual militias who have trained and take themselves very very seriously. THe fact that people are speaking openly of shooting duly elected officials is … terrifying.
Here in Maine I have felt relatively aside from all of it, but we’re heading into election season with LePage (“I was trump before there was trump”) running for governor again. He is already blathering about doubtful voting security in our “big” cities (where of course most of the immigrants and not-white people in Maine live). (But you know, he’s not a racist, he says so himself.)
I am not looking forward to the next 2.5 months of vileness right here on the home front.
Waitaminute! What???! LePage???! I thought he fucked off to Florida. Does he have a chance?
Waitaminute! What???! LePage???! I thought he fucked off to Florida. Does he have a chance?
At first blush it looks pretty legit, but I gotta read the actual phrasing of the questions asked.
In particular, I’d like to know if they just asked: “Civil war, yes or no?” Or did they give a range of possibilities?
Personally, I’d give a fairly high probability to some fringe (although less fringe that they used to be) militia group trying to start one. And getting blown away. Maybe even a couple of iterations via multiple groups; maybe significant casualties among non-combatants. But anything that I’d qualify as a civil war? No. Still, given a straight Yes/No question, how much nuance would be read into it by the typical survey respondent?
And note that I’m absolutely NOT advocating such a thing. Just evaluating what I’m seeing. So I think the “half of Americans expect a civil war in the United States in the next few years” finding needs to be evaluated on that basis, not as half of the population, or anywhere near it, hoping for it.
At first blush it looks pretty legit, but I gotta read the actual phrasing of the questions asked.
In particular, I’d like to know if they just asked: “Civil war, yes or no?” Or did they give a range of possibilities?
Personally, I’d give a fairly high probability to some fringe (although less fringe that they used to be) militia group trying to start one. And getting blown away. Maybe even a couple of iterations via multiple groups; maybe significant casualties among non-combatants. But anything that I’d qualify as a civil war? No. Still, given a straight Yes/No question, how much nuance would be read into it by the typical survey respondent?
And note that I’m absolutely NOT advocating such a thing. Just evaluating what I’m seeing. So I think the “half of Americans expect a civil war in the United States in the next few years” finding needs to be evaluated on that basis, not as half of the population, or anywhere near it, hoping for it.
I’ve seen the Cliven Bundy types and I think they only understand righteousness through greater firepower.
I’d modify that to “greater firepower and a willingness to use it.” Every time they get in an armed confrontation and don’t get shot, their view on the unwillingness/inability of the government to act (perhaps because of imaginary large numbers of supporters in law enforcement**) just grows. Not just among those involved, but across the whole militia movement.
** I accept that they do have supporters there. Probably even a greater percentage than among the general population. But still a far smaller number than they imagine.
I’ve seen the Cliven Bundy types and I think they only understand righteousness through greater firepower.
I’d modify that to “greater firepower and a willingness to use it.” Every time they get in an armed confrontation and don’t get shot, their view on the unwillingness/inability of the government to act (perhaps because of imaginary large numbers of supporters in law enforcement**) just grows. Not just among those involved, but across the whole militia movement.
** I accept that they do have supporters there. Probably even a greater percentage than among the general population. But still a far smaller number than they imagine.
Waitaminute! What???! LePage???! I thought he fucked off to Florida. Does he have a chance?
He did fuck off to Florida, smugly informing all of us that he didn’t have to pay as much in taxes there. What an asshole.
I think he actually did change his residency, but I suppose he has now changed it back, and I’m too lazy to look up either that or the residency requirements.
I’m sure he has a chance — people are just weird. Remember who our senators are….
After all, he won twice before, though the first one was with about 39% of the votes. I think that race was one of the big motivators for the push to use ranked choice voting, so it’s ironic that we now have RCV for federal elections but still not for state offices, because the state constitution says people can be elected by a “plurality.” (Again, I haven’t followed all the details but I think there was a push to get this changed, and it hasn’t been changed…yet.)
Why I think he has a chance: though I have heard of very little actual violence in Maine during the pandemic, there was in fact a LOT of vehement resistance, from churches, restaurants, and random sociopaths. The restaurant across the street from my house had a marquee sign out for a while during the first winter: “Covid isn’t killing us, Gov. Mills is killing us.”
Not that I ever went there very often anyhow, because the food is mediocre (and not Asian, which I generally prefer). But I will never ever go there again after that.
There are lots of Clickbait signs, MAGA signs, thin blue line flags, etc., around the rural places where I drive regularly…. But I haven’t seen any polling yet and really don’t have a sense of what chance LePage has.
Waitaminute! What???! LePage???! I thought he fucked off to Florida. Does he have a chance?
He did fuck off to Florida, smugly informing all of us that he didn’t have to pay as much in taxes there. What an asshole.
I think he actually did change his residency, but I suppose he has now changed it back, and I’m too lazy to look up either that or the residency requirements.
I’m sure he has a chance — people are just weird. Remember who our senators are….
After all, he won twice before, though the first one was with about 39% of the votes. I think that race was one of the big motivators for the push to use ranked choice voting, so it’s ironic that we now have RCV for federal elections but still not for state offices, because the state constitution says people can be elected by a “plurality.” (Again, I haven’t followed all the details but I think there was a push to get this changed, and it hasn’t been changed…yet.)
Why I think he has a chance: though I have heard of very little actual violence in Maine during the pandemic, there was in fact a LOT of vehement resistance, from churches, restaurants, and random sociopaths. The restaurant across the street from my house had a marquee sign out for a while during the first winter: “Covid isn’t killing us, Gov. Mills is killing us.”
Not that I ever went there very often anyhow, because the food is mediocre (and not Asian, which I generally prefer). But I will never ever go there again after that.
There are lots of Clickbait signs, MAGA signs, thin blue line flags, etc., around the rural places where I drive regularly…. But I haven’t seen any polling yet and really don’t have a sense of what chance LePage has.
Ugh. I thought Governor was RCV. If he gets in again on a plurality…
As for your Senators, King is one of the best, imho. I’ve always found him to be thoughtful & measured – qualities I think serve you well. Susie, on the other hand…
Ugh. I thought Governor was RCV. If he gets in again on a plurality…
As for your Senators, King is one of the best, imho. I’ve always found him to be thoughtful & measured – qualities I think serve you well. Susie, on the other hand…
Yes, King is good. Interestingly, though, he’s an independent. And we’ve had Olympia Snowe, Bill Cohen, Susie forever — Maine is just hard to categorize or predict.
Yes, King is good. Interestingly, though, he’s an independent. And we’ve had Olympia Snowe, Bill Cohen, Susie forever — Maine is just hard to categorize or predict.
Also, the Thai place down the block from Rollie’s in Belfast is very good & not too hard on the wallet. But I know that’s a bit of a drive.
Also, the Thai place down the block from Rollie’s in Belfast is very good & not too hard on the wallet. But I know that’s a bit of a drive.
I always thought of Maine as not dissimilar from NY. There’s coastal Maine and… the rest of it. NY is big and a lot of it red. The cities win out on population, but we’ve had our share of Republican govs.
I always thought of Maine as not dissimilar from NY. There’s coastal Maine and… the rest of it. NY is big and a lot of it red. The cities win out on population, but we’ve had our share of Republican govs.
Personally, I’d give a fairly high probability to some fringe (although less fringe that they used to be) militia group trying to start one.
Wider-spread civil unrest, maybe, for a while. War? War implies trying to take or hold territory. After the first week, I want to talk to whoever’s in charge so I can ask, “How are your logistics holding up? Soldiers in the field well fed? Stocked with ammo? Injured getting medical care? How many deserters who have figured out their little business is going to fail if they’re not there?”
Personally, I’d give a fairly high probability to some fringe (although less fringe that they used to be) militia group trying to start one.
Wider-spread civil unrest, maybe, for a while. War? War implies trying to take or hold territory. After the first week, I want to talk to whoever’s in charge so I can ask, “How are your logistics holding up? Soldiers in the field well fed? Stocked with ammo? Injured getting medical care? How many deserters who have figured out their little business is going to fail if they’re not there?”
Cafe de Bangkok in Hallowell used to be my fave, but for sushi, not Thai. I think it’s run by different people now and isn’t as good, though I’ve completely stopped eating out since Covid came anyhow. There’s another Thai place up by the airport in Augusta that I’ve heard is good … someday I’ll try it. And I’ll keep the Belfast place in mind — I do trek on over to the coast now and then.
Cafe de Bangkok in Hallowell used to be my fave, but for sushi, not Thai. I think it’s run by different people now and isn’t as good, though I’ve completely stopped eating out since Covid came anyhow. There’s another Thai place up by the airport in Augusta that I’ve heard is good … someday I’ll try it. And I’ll keep the Belfast place in mind — I do trek on over to the coast now and then.
To answer the questions about the phrasing in the survey:
More than two-thirds of respondents (67.2%, 95% CI 66.1%-68.4%) perceived “a serious threat to our democracy,” and 88.8% believed it is very or extremely important “for the United States to remain a democracy” (Table 2). But at the same time, 42.4% agreed with the statement that “having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy”; 19.0% agreed strongly or very strongly.
Significant minorities of respondents agreed strongly or very strongly with each of 3 statements about potential conditions in the US might justify violence (Table 2): to “protect American democracy” if “elected leaders will not” (18.7%); to save “our American way of life,” which is “disappearing” (16.1%); and to “save our country” because “things have gotten so far off track” (8.1%). Half the respondents (50.1%) agreed at least somewhat that “in the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States.”
Further down:
More than two-thirds of respondents (67.2%, 95% CI 66.1%-68.4%) perceived “a serious threat to our democracy,” and 88.8% believed it is very or extremely important “for the United States to remain a democracy” (Table 2). But at the same time, 42.4% agreed with the statement that “having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy”; 19.0% agreed strongly or very strongly.
Significant minorities of respondents agreed strongly or very strongly with each of 3 statements about potential conditions in the US might justify violence (Table 2): to “protect American democracy” if “elected leaders will not” (18.7%); to save “our American way of life,” which is “disappearing” (16.1%); and to “save our country” because “things have gotten so far off track” (8.1%). Half the respondents (50.1%) agreed at least somewhat that “in the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States.”
The wording on these questions seems to be carefully and clearly constructed in ways that don’t create ambiguity or lead the respondent to a particular conclusion.
Michael Cain Wider-spread civil unrest, maybe, for a while. War? War implies trying to take or hold territory.
That’s a definition used for war between two nation states. Definitions of domestic armed conflict commonly lumped under the umbrella category of “civil war” has a much more nebulous quality. The article makes the comparison to The Troubles in Northern Ireland, and I think that is apt.
To answer the questions about the phrasing in the survey:
More than two-thirds of respondents (67.2%, 95% CI 66.1%-68.4%) perceived “a serious threat to our democracy,” and 88.8% believed it is very or extremely important “for the United States to remain a democracy” (Table 2). But at the same time, 42.4% agreed with the statement that “having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy”; 19.0% agreed strongly or very strongly.
Significant minorities of respondents agreed strongly or very strongly with each of 3 statements about potential conditions in the US might justify violence (Table 2): to “protect American democracy” if “elected leaders will not” (18.7%); to save “our American way of life,” which is “disappearing” (16.1%); and to “save our country” because “things have gotten so far off track” (8.1%). Half the respondents (50.1%) agreed at least somewhat that “in the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States.”
Further down:
More than two-thirds of respondents (67.2%, 95% CI 66.1%-68.4%) perceived “a serious threat to our democracy,” and 88.8% believed it is very or extremely important “for the United States to remain a democracy” (Table 2). But at the same time, 42.4% agreed with the statement that “having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy”; 19.0% agreed strongly or very strongly.
Significant minorities of respondents agreed strongly or very strongly with each of 3 statements about potential conditions in the US might justify violence (Table 2): to “protect American democracy” if “elected leaders will not” (18.7%); to save “our American way of life,” which is “disappearing” (16.1%); and to “save our country” because “things have gotten so far off track” (8.1%). Half the respondents (50.1%) agreed at least somewhat that “in the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States.”
The wording on these questions seems to be carefully and clearly constructed in ways that don’t create ambiguity or lead the respondent to a particular conclusion.
Michael Cain Wider-spread civil unrest, maybe, for a while. War? War implies trying to take or hold territory.
That’s a definition used for war between two nation states. Definitions of domestic armed conflict commonly lumped under the umbrella category of “civil war” has a much more nebulous quality. The article makes the comparison to The Troubles in Northern Ireland, and I think that is apt.
The article makes the comparison to The Troubles in Northern Ireland, and I think that is apt.
I suppose it’s apt in some ways, especially in the sense that I find it hard to believe that a true, overt civil war will break out (like the one in the 1860s), but rather it will be a thousand Bundy-like confrontations, with a lot of military and law enforcement switching sides. Or…attritional violence everywhere and unpredictably, like what we already have but on a much wider scale.
Then again, as to the NI comparison, the US has 175 times the population and (continental US only) 571 times the land area. NI was a neighborhood squabble compared to what could happen here.
I’m not saying it wasn’t awful and damaging to live in that atmosphere, and deadly for too many people, but I remember folks in the Republic of Ireland, where I spent a lot of time in the early nineties, rolling their eyes at the outsized notion Americans had of what was going on in NI. They would get on the train to go for a day’s outing in Belfast without a second thought.
Wikipedia defines a period of about thirty years (late sixties to 1998) with these statistics:
Civilians killed: 1,840
(1,935 including ex-combatants)
Total dead: 3,532
Total injured: 47,500+
All casualties: ~50,000
That’s fewer deaths in a year than the US has gun deaths every day without an overt civil war going on.
Plus, the US is so very different from state to state and region to region….
It’s depressing no matter how you look at it.
The article makes the comparison to The Troubles in Northern Ireland, and I think that is apt.
I suppose it’s apt in some ways, especially in the sense that I find it hard to believe that a true, overt civil war will break out (like the one in the 1860s), but rather it will be a thousand Bundy-like confrontations, with a lot of military and law enforcement switching sides. Or…attritional violence everywhere and unpredictably, like what we already have but on a much wider scale.
Then again, as to the NI comparison, the US has 175 times the population and (continental US only) 571 times the land area. NI was a neighborhood squabble compared to what could happen here.
I’m not saying it wasn’t awful and damaging to live in that atmosphere, and deadly for too many people, but I remember folks in the Republic of Ireland, where I spent a lot of time in the early nineties, rolling their eyes at the outsized notion Americans had of what was going on in NI. They would get on the train to go for a day’s outing in Belfast without a second thought.
Wikipedia defines a period of about thirty years (late sixties to 1998) with these statistics:
Civilians killed: 1,840
(1,935 including ex-combatants)
Total dead: 3,532
Total injured: 47,500+
All casualties: ~50,000
That’s fewer deaths in a year than the US has gun deaths every day without an overt civil war going on.
Plus, the US is so very different from state to state and region to region….
It’s depressing no matter how you look at it.
Thank you, nous. I just skimmed the paper and saw some of the quoted bits. I still feel like I wanna know exactly how the questions were put. Are they listed in the tables?
I missed this one first time around: 1 in 5 think a strong leader is more important than democracy. 1 in 5???!
—-
and a willingness to use it.
I don’t know where I land on this one. The FBI has trouble with the fringe for whom Ruby Ridge and Waco are rallying cries. Agent provocateur seems the role to rally the base to the voting booth.
There’s obviously been a civil cold war (cold civil war?) and the aggrieved silent majority side (for incorrect values of “majority” and “silent”, for that matter) who have found their voice via Trumpism are certainly animated. I can’t see a “war” in the conventional sense. But I can easily imagine something like The Troubles. I take no joy in saying it, but I think there’s gonna be another McVeigh thing coming. And I hate to rain on Janie’s parade, but I suspect the isolated incidents thus far are simply because the formulation isn’t there yet. The raison de guerre is. We’ve seen that Jan 6 wasn’t a spontaneous thing. The next big thing won’t be, either.
Thank you, nous. I just skimmed the paper and saw some of the quoted bits. I still feel like I wanna know exactly how the questions were put. Are they listed in the tables?
I missed this one first time around: 1 in 5 think a strong leader is more important than democracy. 1 in 5???!
—-
and a willingness to use it.
I don’t know where I land on this one. The FBI has trouble with the fringe for whom Ruby Ridge and Waco are rallying cries. Agent provocateur seems the role to rally the base to the voting booth.
There’s obviously been a civil cold war (cold civil war?) and the aggrieved silent majority side (for incorrect values of “majority” and “silent”, for that matter) who have found their voice via Trumpism are certainly animated. I can’t see a “war” in the conventional sense. But I can easily imagine something like The Troubles. I take no joy in saying it, but I think there’s gonna be another McVeigh thing coming. And I hate to rain on Janie’s parade, but I suspect the isolated incidents thus far are simply because the formulation isn’t there yet. The raison de guerre is. We’ve seen that Jan 6 wasn’t a spontaneous thing. The next big thing won’t be, either.
Pete — that’s my hopeful side you’re raining on. Otherwise I think (and fear) that you’re probably right. it would be nice — on the hopeful side — to imagine the militias as unable to cooperate with each other, but that’s probably wishful thinking.
Pete — that’s my hopeful side you’re raining on. Otherwise I think (and fear) that you’re probably right. it would be nice — on the hopeful side — to imagine the militias as unable to cooperate with each other, but that’s probably wishful thinking.
it would be nice — on the hopeful side — to imagine the militias as unable to cooperate with each other, but that’s probably wishful thinking.
Once upon a time, it would have been true about the lack of coordination. Too hard to even find each other (while hiding from the Feds). But now, you can just put up a website and communicate easily. Make it a .br or .in or even .bg domain name, and a cryptic one, because your cohorts are going to find you via a search anyway.
Now how much actual cooperation happens, rather than mere communication, is another story. Paranoia and egos can get in the way. Although Jan 6 suggests that at least some cooperation is possible.
Some rallying around the martyrs, sure. But also a bunch of attrition when the other guys start shooting back. It’s fun running around in the brush playing soldier (but without all that tedious PT). Fun shooting at stuff in ostensible target practice. But getting shot at? Not so fun.
it would be nice — on the hopeful side — to imagine the militias as unable to cooperate with each other, but that’s probably wishful thinking.
Once upon a time, it would have been true about the lack of coordination. Too hard to even find each other (while hiding from the Feds). But now, you can just put up a website and communicate easily. Make it a .br or .in or even .bg domain name, and a cryptic one, because your cohorts are going to find you via a search anyway.
Now how much actual cooperation happens, rather than mere communication, is another story. Paranoia and egos can get in the way. Although Jan 6 suggests that at least some cooperation is possible.
Some rallying around the martyrs, sure. But also a bunch of attrition when the other guys start shooting back. It’s fun running around in the brush playing soldier (but without all that tedious PT). Fun shooting at stuff in ostensible target practice. But getting shot at? Not so fun.
My bet is that we continue to muddle along for at least a few more decades. By then all this will have mostly dissipated and/or something else will be occupying everyone’s minds.
My bet is that we continue to muddle along for at least a few more decades. By then all this will have mostly dissipated and/or something else will be occupying everyone’s minds.
I should clarify re: The Troubles. The fight for Irish independence and the somewhat muted push for unification is a whole different animal than what we’re dealing with here in the States.
I meant it in terms of domestic terrorism & what that looks like.
I should clarify re: The Troubles. The fight for Irish independence and the somewhat muted push for unification is a whole different animal than what we’re dealing with here in the States.
I meant it in terms of domestic terrorism & what that looks like.
Pete – yes, the questions asked are listed in the tables along with the response tallies.
As far as shooting and shooting back is concerned, we already know what the political violence in the US is going to look like, and I suspect that while McVeigh is one model, Breivik is another very likely one, either alone or in a small group, organized through cells.
The FBI will foil a few (perhaps most if we are lucky). The usual suspects will cry entrapment and use it as a sign of federal persecution. Rinse and repeat.
Take the NI numbers, adjust for population and for the sheer prevalence of firearms. It’s enough to disrupt a lot.
Pete – yes, the questions asked are listed in the tables along with the response tallies.
As far as shooting and shooting back is concerned, we already know what the political violence in the US is going to look like, and I suspect that while McVeigh is one model, Breivik is another very likely one, either alone or in a small group, organized through cells.
The FBI will foil a few (perhaps most if we are lucky). The usual suspects will cry entrapment and use it as a sign of federal persecution. Rinse and repeat.
Take the NI numbers, adjust for population and for the sheer prevalence of firearms. It’s enough to disrupt a lot.
As a companion piece to the civil war survey, this is interesting
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/16/asian-americans-gun-ownership
What was most interesting to me was that the same data was taken in two different ways. The first
Some gun rights activists, though, see the current surge as the dismantling of historical barriers, since Asians on the west coast were not always allowed to practice their second amendment rights. In 1923, California passed a law denying non-citizens the right to possess concealable firearms. That ruled out Chinese immigrants, a majority of whom were barred from naturalizing by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
and the second (emphasis mine)
Nathan Tiep, 42, and his wife are in the process of buying their first gun after seeing news coverage of home invasions near their neighborhood of Boyle Heights. Tiep, the son of Cambodian refugees, grew up in Long Beach in the 1990s, where deadly clashes between Asian and Latino gangs made him numb to gun violence. “We knew what guns can do but weren’t afraid of it,” he said.
More so than the surge in attacks against Asians, Tiep said his decision to buy a gun was shaped by the Black Lives Matter protests during the pandemic, which have shattered his trust in law enforcement.
“The past few years have brought to light how the police are with people,” he said. “You’ve seen people get shot and killed by police. Do you really trust that they will serve and protect us?”
As a companion piece to the civil war survey, this is interesting
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/16/asian-americans-gun-ownership
What was most interesting to me was that the same data was taken in two different ways. The first
Some gun rights activists, though, see the current surge as the dismantling of historical barriers, since Asians on the west coast were not always allowed to practice their second amendment rights. In 1923, California passed a law denying non-citizens the right to possess concealable firearms. That ruled out Chinese immigrants, a majority of whom were barred from naturalizing by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
and the second (emphasis mine)
Nathan Tiep, 42, and his wife are in the process of buying their first gun after seeing news coverage of home invasions near their neighborhood of Boyle Heights. Tiep, the son of Cambodian refugees, grew up in Long Beach in the 1990s, where deadly clashes between Asian and Latino gangs made him numb to gun violence. “We knew what guns can do but weren’t afraid of it,” he said.
More so than the surge in attacks against Asians, Tiep said his decision to buy a gun was shaped by the Black Lives Matter protests during the pandemic, which have shattered his trust in law enforcement.
“The past few years have brought to light how the police are with people,” he said. “You’ve seen people get shot and killed by police. Do you really trust that they will serve and protect us?”
lj – yes. The liberal gun boards are full of people who are scared that if one of the GOP noise machines wins in 2024 that racism, misogyny, and homophobia will lead to increased violence against minorities and women, and that the police will be on the side of the oppressors. Most of them, though, are talking less about militias and insurrection, and more about mutual aid and self-protection. The rhetoric is very different. There are no fantasies of overthrowing an authoritarian leader, it’s much more furtive than that and there is no sense of it being redemptive violence, just of it being a tragic necessity.
lj – yes. The liberal gun boards are full of people who are scared that if one of the GOP noise machines wins in 2024 that racism, misogyny, and homophobia will lead to increased violence against minorities and women, and that the police will be on the side of the oppressors. Most of them, though, are talking less about militias and insurrection, and more about mutual aid and self-protection. The rhetoric is very different. There are no fantasies of overthrowing an authoritarian leader, it’s much more furtive than that and there is no sense of it being redemptive violence, just of it being a tragic necessity.
nous, thanks for that take. There is an interesting feedback loop here, we see increased purchases of guns driven by a number of factors, which is then posited as representing the increased possibilities of militia and insurrection, which then feeds into people wanting to stave off such possibilities and buying guns, which then gets processed again and again. Sucks to be us.
nous, thanks for that take. There is an interesting feedback loop here, we see increased purchases of guns driven by a number of factors, which is then posited as representing the increased possibilities of militia and insurrection, which then feeds into people wanting to stave off such possibilities and buying guns, which then gets processed again and again. Sucks to be us.
There is an interesting feedback loop here,
. . .
Sucks to be us.
But if you’re a gun manufacturer, it’s wonderful.
There is an interesting feedback loop here,
. . .
Sucks to be us.
But if you’re a gun manufacturer, it’s wonderful.
Rinse and repeat.
I really wish I didn’t completely agree with that.
Rinse and repeat.
I really wish I didn’t completely agree with that.
I should probably add that I’m not claiming that liberals don’t have any problematic views regarding firearms and the Second Amendment. There are quite a few democratic types over at the Liberal Gun Club who are fanboys of the AR and of carry, etc. The main difference between them and the NRA types is that they worry about an actual police state and worry that the laws will be used to prevent minorities from having access to firearms through selective enforcement á la drug charges and black youth. Same with red flag laws and mental health screening. But a lot of them recycle the usual 2a talking points as common sense.
I should probably add that I’m not claiming that liberals don’t have any problematic views regarding firearms and the Second Amendment. There are quite a few democratic types over at the Liberal Gun Club who are fanboys of the AR and of carry, etc. The main difference between them and the NRA types is that they worry about an actual police state and worry that the laws will be used to prevent minorities from having access to firearms through selective enforcement á la drug charges and black youth. Same with red flag laws and mental health screening. But a lot of them recycle the usual 2a talking points as common sense.
I am giving away 175 dollars a month mostly to Democratic get out the vote organizations but also to a few campaigns. I have written over one thousand GOTV post cards and I have to buy the stamps myself. We can win but it will take a lot of effort.
I am giving away 175 dollars a month mostly to Democratic get out the vote organizations but also to a few campaigns. I have written over one thousand GOTV post cards and I have to buy the stamps myself. We can win but it will take a lot of effort.
Wondering what the UKers here think about Charlie Stross’ blog entry today? Charlie has become more and more depressed about things in general over the last few years. His parents’ deaths seem to have accelerated that.
Wondering what the UKers here think about Charlie Stross’ blog entry today? Charlie has become more and more depressed about things in general over the last few years. His parents’ deaths seem to have accelerated that.
I couldn’t read it in great detail because I am already depressed enough about the situation, not helped by the fact that I have builders in for a couple of weeks, which always makes me crazy at the best of times, and these are far from the best of times.
(On another subject, re your note on Ile Rien, there is a reason for the plot problem you identify, you just haven’t got there yet.)
I couldn’t read it in great detail because I am already depressed enough about the situation, not helped by the fact that I have builders in for a couple of weeks, which always makes me crazy at the best of times, and these are far from the best of times.
(On another subject, re your note on Ile Rien, there is a reason for the plot problem you identify, you just haven’t got there yet.)
The Charlie Stross piece actually feels familiar to me because I just finished The Ministry for the Future last week and those paragraphs that Stross has feel like chapter starters for Robinson’s book.
I do recommend The Ministry for the Future. Like a lot of Kim Stanley Robinson’s novels it sometimes feels more like a scrapbook than a narrative structure, and the dramatic arc wanders around to accommodate ideas and exposition, but it held my interest until the end.
It could feel a bit bleak getting started, but it is ultimately a hopeful book – an anti-dystopia rather than a utopia.
The Charlie Stross piece actually feels familiar to me because I just finished The Ministry for the Future last week and those paragraphs that Stross has feel like chapter starters for Robinson’s book.
I do recommend The Ministry for the Future. Like a lot of Kim Stanley Robinson’s novels it sometimes feels more like a scrapbook than a narrative structure, and the dramatic arc wanders around to accommodate ideas and exposition, but it held my interest until the end.
It could feel a bit bleak getting started, but it is ultimately a hopeful book – an anti-dystopia rather than a utopia.
It’s hard to disagree with anything Stross says.
The most depressing part is that the next Prime Minister will be chosen by Tory party members, who apparently prefer the candidate who was more loyal to Boris, and more fair-skinned. (They would prefer to keep Boris if they could.)
Democracy, let’s try it.
It’s hard to disagree with anything Stross says.
The most depressing part is that the next Prime Minister will be chosen by Tory party members, who apparently prefer the candidate who was more loyal to Boris, and more fair-skinned. (They would prefer to keep Boris if they could.)
Democracy, let’s try it.
It’s startling (and depressing) how much you make the Tories sound like the Republicans here. Although I have to say that, given a choice between (God forbid!) Trump and Boris, I would take Boris in a heartbeat.
It’s startling (and depressing) how much you make the Tories sound like the Republicans here. Although I have to say that, given a choice between (God forbid!) Trump and Boris, I would take Boris in a heartbeat.
Although I have to say that, given a choice between (God forbid!) Trump and Boris, I would take Boris in a heartbeat.
Whatever Johnson’s failings, he came into the Prime Ministership having held multiple elective offices before and having previous experience as top administrator in a fairly large political entity (there are countries smaller than London). Trump made the jump straight from television personality to President of the United States, and it was clear from day one that he had no idea how things worked.
Although I have to say that, given a choice between (God forbid!) Trump and Boris, I would take Boris in a heartbeat.
Whatever Johnson’s failings, he came into the Prime Ministership having held multiple elective offices before and having previous experience as top administrator in a fairly large political entity (there are countries smaller than London). Trump made the jump straight from television personality to President of the United States, and it was clear from day one that he had no idea how things worked.
Yes, but in a way that makes BoJo’s dereliction worse: he knew perfectly well there was a proper way to do things (even if he didn’t know what it was), and plenty of people to help him and advise, and he ignored it all and stumbled along relying on his charm (it pains me to say it, but he actually does have charm) and popularity to pull him through, which it did for an amazingly long time. He is a clever man, despite appearances, so his egocentricism and amorality are more reprehensible. What a fucking fiasco it is…
Yes, but in a way that makes BoJo’s dereliction worse: he knew perfectly well there was a proper way to do things (even if he didn’t know what it was), and plenty of people to help him and advise, and he ignored it all and stumbled along relying on his charm (it pains me to say it, but he actually does have charm) and popularity to pull him through, which it did for an amazingly long time. He is a clever man, despite appearances, so his egocentricism and amorality are more reprehensible. What a fucking fiasco it is…
Wow. I read part of Stross’s blog and gave up–too depressing. I loved the Laundry Files series up until the second to last book, which I gave up as too depressing.
I was thinking about going to London but realize now that I only want to go to the London of my imagination.
Wow. I read part of Stross’s blog and gave up–too depressing. I loved the Laundry Files series up until the second to last book, which I gave up as too depressing.
I was thinking about going to London but realize now that I only want to go to the London of my imagination.
wonkie — i have been to London twice, for all too short a time on both trips. The last time was for a week in the spring of 2019, with my daughter and her fiance. It was utterly wonderful!
I have wished since my first visit (2009) that I could go live there for six months or a year — but it would never work unless I could afford a driver, which I can’t, LOL. And that’s to say nothing of rent and the cost of living in general. Oh well, maybe in my next lifetime. (That list is long!)
As for the London of your imagination — it’s funny you should put it that way, because I’ve thought about that a lot.
The London of my imagination was formed by my reading, including going to grad school in English. My head is filled with, among other versions, the London of Dickens, the London of Conan Doyle, and the London of George Bernard Shaw. Far from being disappointed that those versions don’t exist anymore, when I actually visited I just superimposed the current London in another layer in my imagination, and enjoyed it immensely.
Our resident Brits can perhaps say whether it has completely deteriorated since 2019 as a place to visit for a week or two. But if it hasn’t, and you’ve wanted to go, then I’d say do it.
wonkie — i have been to London twice, for all too short a time on both trips. The last time was for a week in the spring of 2019, with my daughter and her fiance. It was utterly wonderful!
I have wished since my first visit (2009) that I could go live there for six months or a year — but it would never work unless I could afford a driver, which I can’t, LOL. And that’s to say nothing of rent and the cost of living in general. Oh well, maybe in my next lifetime. (That list is long!)
As for the London of your imagination — it’s funny you should put it that way, because I’ve thought about that a lot.
The London of my imagination was formed by my reading, including going to grad school in English. My head is filled with, among other versions, the London of Dickens, the London of Conan Doyle, and the London of George Bernard Shaw. Far from being disappointed that those versions don’t exist anymore, when I actually visited I just superimposed the current London in another layer in my imagination, and enjoyed it immensely.
Our resident Brits can perhaps say whether it has completely deteriorated since 2019 as a place to visit for a week or two. But if it hasn’t, and you’ve wanted to go, then I’d say do it.
I don’t think it’s deteriorated noticeably since 2019, apart from the fact that we have (and maybe had even then) lots of roadworks. But Janie, I’m curious, why would you need a driver?
I don’t think it’s deteriorated noticeably since 2019, apart from the fact that we have (and maybe had even then) lots of roadworks. But Janie, I’m curious, why would you need a driver?
But Janie, I’m curious, why would you need a driver?
I’m guessing because you Brits drive the wrong way on both sides of the road.
But Janie, I’m curious, why would you need a driver?
I’m guessing because you Brits drive the wrong way on both sides of the road.
The driver thing is partly a joke and partly serious. I’m very out of practice at driving in cities, and the pandemic has made it worse, because I don’t go anywhere. I’ve already refused to drive into Boston twice when family members had surgery down there.
I’m old, I’m hot-tempered, my reactions aren’t as quick as they used to be, and in Boston in particular, the other drivers are malevolent and relentless. (Ask anyone.)
If I were only going to stay in the city, I wouldn’t need a driver; I’m happy enough taking the Tube and walking (and glad that I’m still fit enough to do it). But one of the points of an extended stay would be to make short trips to other parts of England — maybe make sure I’m there in the spring and see some of the great gardens. Also … just in general, to see places that I know the names of from stories.
Take Shaw’s Corner — one of my places of pilgrimage, which I should have tried to get to in 2009, because I did rent a car on that trip. (But that trip was curtailed by an airline strike, among other things.)
Look at the directions! You basically can’t get there from here! In 2019 I thought of getting myself as far as I could on the Tube and just springing for whatever a cab would cost, but I sobered up. My budget doesn’t run to extravagances like that. (My son and I did that in China to see a less touristy access point to the Great Wall. But London prices aren’t China prices.)
And speaking of places of pilgrimage…. but I’ll save that for a separate comment.
The driver thing is partly a joke and partly serious. I’m very out of practice at driving in cities, and the pandemic has made it worse, because I don’t go anywhere. I’ve already refused to drive into Boston twice when family members had surgery down there.
I’m old, I’m hot-tempered, my reactions aren’t as quick as they used to be, and in Boston in particular, the other drivers are malevolent and relentless. (Ask anyone.)
If I were only going to stay in the city, I wouldn’t need a driver; I’m happy enough taking the Tube and walking (and glad that I’m still fit enough to do it). But one of the points of an extended stay would be to make short trips to other parts of England — maybe make sure I’m there in the spring and see some of the great gardens. Also … just in general, to see places that I know the names of from stories.
Take Shaw’s Corner — one of my places of pilgrimage, which I should have tried to get to in 2009, because I did rent a car on that trip. (But that trip was curtailed by an airline strike, among other things.)
Look at the directions! You basically can’t get there from here! In 2019 I thought of getting myself as far as I could on the Tube and just springing for whatever a cab would cost, but I sobered up. My budget doesn’t run to extravagances like that. (My son and I did that in China to see a less touristy access point to the Great Wall. But London prices aren’t China prices.)
And speaking of places of pilgrimage…. but I’ll save that for a separate comment.
I realize, on reflection, that the driver comment is also related to how complicated everything seems to be these days. Either it’s more so than it used to be, or I dislike it more as I age, or both. Finding out how to get to places, lugging luggage, changing trains, coping with delays and mistakes — it all wears me out more than it did when I was young. “Driver” is my mythical-brained answer to that.
I drive an hour and a quarter one way, once a week, to hang out with my granddaughter. Mostly quiet roads, 10 or so miles on interstate highway. Completely innocuous trip. I don’t mind it. But last week my daughter drove me, and it was amazing how much difference that made. We chatted, I daydreamed, I didn’t worry about that guy going 90 to the left of me….
Spoiled, that’s what I am. And I know it’s first-world problems. But it *is* an explanation of the driver notion.
I realize, on reflection, that the driver comment is also related to how complicated everything seems to be these days. Either it’s more so than it used to be, or I dislike it more as I age, or both. Finding out how to get to places, lugging luggage, changing trains, coping with delays and mistakes — it all wears me out more than it did when I was young. “Driver” is my mythical-brained answer to that.
I drive an hour and a quarter one way, once a week, to hang out with my granddaughter. Mostly quiet roads, 10 or so miles on interstate highway. Completely innocuous trip. I don’t mind it. But last week my daughter drove me, and it was amazing how much difference that made. We chatted, I daydreamed, I didn’t worry about that guy going 90 to the left of me….
Spoiled, that’s what I am. And I know it’s first-world problems. But it *is* an explanation of the driver notion.
Places of pilgrimage: in 2008 (I mistyped the year earlier), the absolute top of the list place I wanted to see, which should have been easy as pie, was the Reading Room of the British Museum, where Shaw hung out as a young man, reading and writing.
Among other people, like “Virginia Woolf, Oscar Wilde, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, H.G.Wells, George Orwell, Arthur Rimbaud, George Bernard Shaw, Bram Stoker, Charles Dickens, Rudyard Kipling, Mahatma Gandhi and, yes, Lenin and Karl Marx” — to borrow the list from Google’s 1st search result.
Well, the Reading Room was “closed for repairs” in 2008, and I didn’t get to see it.
So when I went back in 2019 it was once again at the top of the list. And what could be easier to get to than the British Museum, right?
Well, the Reading Room was still closed. The people behind the info desk sympathized and/but had no idea if it would ever be open to the public again, rather than just occasionally for special events.
Maybe tourists were ruining it, or maybe people actually wanting to use it were fighting over it, or…. who knows.
Places of pilgrimage: in 2008 (I mistyped the year earlier), the absolute top of the list place I wanted to see, which should have been easy as pie, was the Reading Room of the British Museum, where Shaw hung out as a young man, reading and writing.
Among other people, like “Virginia Woolf, Oscar Wilde, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, H.G.Wells, George Orwell, Arthur Rimbaud, George Bernard Shaw, Bram Stoker, Charles Dickens, Rudyard Kipling, Mahatma Gandhi and, yes, Lenin and Karl Marx” — to borrow the list from Google’s 1st search result.
Well, the Reading Room was “closed for repairs” in 2008, and I didn’t get to see it.
So when I went back in 2019 it was once again at the top of the list. And what could be easier to get to than the British Museum, right?
Well, the Reading Room was still closed. The people behind the info desk sympathized and/but had no idea if it would ever be open to the public again, rather than just occasionally for special events.
Maybe tourists were ruining it, or maybe people actually wanting to use it were fighting over it, or…. who knows.
And that’s to say nothing of rent and the cost of living in general.
Reading about the impending energy price increases, if I haven’t slipped a decimal point — well, decimal comma — by January an average household in England will be spending nearly five times what my wife and I pay.
And that’s to say nothing of rent and the cost of living in general.
Reading about the impending energy price increases, if I haven’t slipped a decimal point — well, decimal comma — by January an average household in England will be spending nearly five times what my wife and I pay.
HSH: “I’m guessing because you Brits drive the wrong way on both sides of the road.”
So, like New Jersey?
(I’m here all week, try the veal!)
HSH: “I’m guessing because you Brits drive the wrong way on both sides of the road.”
So, like New Jersey?
(I’m here all week, try the veal!)
in Boston in particular, the other drivers are malevolent and relentless. (Ask anyone.)
Truth.
in Boston in particular, the other drivers are malevolent and relentless. (Ask anyone.)
Truth.
And who knows what disasters would ensue if they were allowed to pump their own gas?
And who knows what disasters would ensue if they were allowed to pump their own gas?
So, like New Jersey?
We only do it some of the time.
And who knows what disasters would ensue if they were allowed to pump their own gas?
I worked at a gas station pumping gas as a youngster. At the time, I pumped my own gas. It was more satisfying than pumping other people’s gas, but less satisfying than having someone else pump my gas.
So, like New Jersey?
We only do it some of the time.
And who knows what disasters would ensue if they were allowed to pump their own gas?
I worked at a gas station pumping gas as a youngster. At the time, I pumped my own gas. It was more satisfying than pumping other people’s gas, but less satisfying than having someone else pump my gas.
I’m guessing because you Brits drive the wrong way on both sides of the road.
In London, or other large city, is where it isn’t a problem. You’ve got all those other cars to remind you constantly. But get out in the countryside, and things can get a bit more challenging.
I’m guessing because you Brits drive the wrong way on both sides of the road.
In London, or other large city, is where it isn’t a problem. You’ve got all those other cars to remind you constantly. But get out in the countryside, and things can get a bit more challenging.
by January an average household in England will be spending nearly five times what my wife and I pay.
But you aren’t importing a big chunk of your energy from Russia.** Merely from Texas — arguably also rather hostile territory, but with less freedom to choke off supply.
** More accurately, from places which do, and are competing with the UK for replacement sources.
by January an average household in England will be spending nearly five times what my wife and I pay.
But you aren’t importing a big chunk of your energy from Russia.** Merely from Texas — arguably also rather hostile territory, but with less freedom to choke off supply.
** More accurately, from places which do, and are competing with the UK for replacement sources.
In London, or other large city, is where it isn’t a problem. You’ve got all those other cars to remind you constantly.
Based on my one experience of driving in Dublin for a few days, even in the city it’s daunting until you’ve formed new unconscious habits. You may have other drivers all around you, but you also have to make snap decisions constantly and consciously, whereas at home they’re largely unconscious.
This is especially dicey at, let’s say, an intersection where there doesn’t happen to be anyone on the cross street to imitate at the moment when you’re turning.
There’s also the rearranging of the habit of where you look first before you pull out to turn. My kids happened to be with me in Ireland on that trip, and we had a chant: “Drive to the left, look to the right.”
Goes for crossing the street, too. I really appreciated the crossings in London that had big reminders painted on the sidewalk!
In Dublin I had a phase where I had to make every decision consciously (unlike at home, where it’s all basically unconscious and instant), to do it the opposite of home.
Then I went through a blessedly brief phase where I was double correcting — correcting once consciously, as I had been for a couple of days, and then correcting the correction because “correcting” had become a half-unconscious habit already.
Then came the phase where I was a Dublin driver. 😉
In London, or other large city, is where it isn’t a problem. You’ve got all those other cars to remind you constantly.
Based on my one experience of driving in Dublin for a few days, even in the city it’s daunting until you’ve formed new unconscious habits. You may have other drivers all around you, but you also have to make snap decisions constantly and consciously, whereas at home they’re largely unconscious.
This is especially dicey at, let’s say, an intersection where there doesn’t happen to be anyone on the cross street to imitate at the moment when you’re turning.
There’s also the rearranging of the habit of where you look first before you pull out to turn. My kids happened to be with me in Ireland on that trip, and we had a chant: “Drive to the left, look to the right.”
Goes for crossing the street, too. I really appreciated the crossings in London that had big reminders painted on the sidewalk!
In Dublin I had a phase where I had to make every decision consciously (unlike at home, where it’s all basically unconscious and instant), to do it the opposite of home.
Then I went through a blessedly brief phase where I was double correcting — correcting once consciously, as I had been for a couple of days, and then correcting the correction because “correcting” had become a half-unconscious habit already.
Then came the phase where I was a Dublin driver. 😉
This is especially dicey at, let’s say, an intersection where there doesn’t happen to be anyone on the cross street to imitate at the moment when you’re turning.
And most especially, in my experience, when turning from a one way street onto a two way street with no cross traffic to use for reference.
This is especially dicey at, let’s say, an intersection where there doesn’t happen to be anyone on the cross street to imitate at the moment when you’re turning.
And most especially, in my experience, when turning from a one way street onto a two way street with no cross traffic to use for reference.
In London, or other large city, is where it isn’t a problem.
Perhaps it’s less of a problem in some ways. In the countryside, there are fewer cars to collide with, and sheep don’t care which side of the road you’re on when you’re going in a particular direction.
In London, or other large city, is where it isn’t a problem.
Perhaps it’s less of a problem in some ways. In the countryside, there are fewer cars to collide with, and sheep don’t care which side of the road you’re on when you’re going in a particular direction.
I found myself looking the wrong way when starting to cross the street as a pedestrian in London even when there were arrows painted at the curb to remind the tourists. A few pints in me didn’t help matters.
I found myself looking the wrong way when starting to cross the street as a pedestrian in London even when there were arrows painted at the curb to remind the tourists. A few pints in me didn’t help matters.
A few pints in me didn’t help matters.
Sounds to me like you’d actually gone native.
A few pints in me didn’t help matters.
Sounds to me like you’d actually gone native.
The restaurants were inconsistent and there were fewer of them, but the pubs were everywhere and very reliable if you just wanted some good beer. I used beer to stave off hunger while finding a good place to eat.
The restaurants were inconsistent and there were fewer of them, but the pubs were everywhere and very reliable if you just wanted some good beer. I used beer to stave off hunger while finding a good place to eat.
I used beer to stave off hunger while finding a good place to eat.
That made me laugh, as did the earlier comment about driving the wrong way on *both* sides of the road. 😉
I used beer to stave off hunger while finding a good place to eat.
That made me laugh, as did the earlier comment about driving the wrong way on *both* sides of the road. 😉
It was drilled into me from pre-school days to always look into both directions before crossing a road and constantly changing the direction of view all the way across. Oh, and never trust that people will not drive in both directions in one way streets.
In Austria, before Hitler came home to set things in order, each region made its own decisions on which side of the road one was supposed to drive and occasionally changed the rule. I wonder, if that is the reason why many Austrian cars before the 1930ies had the driver not sit on one side but in the middle.
It was drilled into me from pre-school days to always look into both directions before crossing a road and constantly changing the direction of view all the way across. Oh, and never trust that people will not drive in both directions in one way streets.
In Austria, before Hitler came home to set things in order, each region made its own decisions on which side of the road one was supposed to drive and occasionally changed the rule. I wonder, if that is the reason why many Austrian cars before the 1930ies had the driver not sit on one side but in the middle.
My biggest regret about being in London is that I hadn’t yet discovered my love of Indian food. I probably wouldn’t have drunk as much beer otherwise.
My biggest regret about being in London is that I hadn’t yet discovered my love of Indian food. I probably wouldn’t have drunk as much beer otherwise.
It was drilled into me from pre-school days to always look into both directions before crossing a road
Yes, but there’s still a habitual first side. I mean, you can’t look both ways at once, you have to pick one to look in first, and it’s more efficient to look first in the direction from which the cars are on the side nearest to where you’re standing. That unconscious habit is why walking in London can be so dangerous for American pedestrians with or without a few pints in their bellies.
Plus, in a place like Harvard Square, where I spent a lot of time (constant heavy traffic, not moving fast), you often start across when there’s a break in the near lane(s) and you expect to hit one in the far lane(s) by the time you get there.
It’s often a bit of a game of chicken, to be honest, and I had my own mental rules about how much I would challenge cars to make them honor crosswalks (Boston-area drivers, remember) depending on how deep into the Square I was. The further in, the more I thought pedestrians should own it. Farther away, I gave way to cars more readily.
And don’t get me started on bicyclists, the most sanctimious group, on average, I have ever run across (at least Boston area riders). They tend to get furious if a car doesn’t follow all the rules, but don’t follow the rules themselves and tend to be as discourteous to pedestrians as cars are to bikes. Bah. One of my most fun small-minded satisfactions was to see a bicyclist stopped by a Cambridge cop for running a red light. Lol.
It was drilled into me from pre-school days to always look into both directions before crossing a road
Yes, but there’s still a habitual first side. I mean, you can’t look both ways at once, you have to pick one to look in first, and it’s more efficient to look first in the direction from which the cars are on the side nearest to where you’re standing. That unconscious habit is why walking in London can be so dangerous for American pedestrians with or without a few pints in their bellies.
Plus, in a place like Harvard Square, where I spent a lot of time (constant heavy traffic, not moving fast), you often start across when there’s a break in the near lane(s) and you expect to hit one in the far lane(s) by the time you get there.
It’s often a bit of a game of chicken, to be honest, and I had my own mental rules about how much I would challenge cars to make them honor crosswalks (Boston-area drivers, remember) depending on how deep into the Square I was. The further in, the more I thought pedestrians should own it. Farther away, I gave way to cars more readily.
And don’t get me started on bicyclists, the most sanctimious group, on average, I have ever run across (at least Boston area riders). They tend to get furious if a car doesn’t follow all the rules, but don’t follow the rules themselves and tend to be as discourteous to pedestrians as cars are to bikes. Bah. One of my most fun small-minded satisfactions was to see a bicyclist stopped by a Cambridge cop for running a red light. Lol.
Merely from Texas — arguably also rather hostile territory, but with less freedom to choke off supply.
Nope. The comparison is for residential electricity and natural gas, essentially all of which is home-grown here in Colorado. My own electricity situation is unusual — four municipal utilities own the non-profit power authority that generates and/or otherwise acquires electricity. The target to be carbon-free is 2030. I don’t think they’ll make it, but they’re checking off all the boxes I would if I were in charge, so maybe they’ll surprise me.
Merely from Texas — arguably also rather hostile territory, but with less freedom to choke off supply.
Nope. The comparison is for residential electricity and natural gas, essentially all of which is home-grown here in Colorado. My own electricity situation is unusual — four municipal utilities own the non-profit power authority that generates and/or otherwise acquires electricity. The target to be carbon-free is 2030. I don’t think they’ll make it, but they’re checking off all the boxes I would if I were in charge, so maybe they’ll surprise me.
The first time I was in Boston, I was told that when the crossing light said “Don’t Walk” what that meant was “Run!” Years later on a business trip there, I asked about the car I had seen careening through one of those ghastly five-way intersections with the driver reaching high outside the window waving a fistful of pink and yellow paper. “Rental car forms,” I was told. “He was signaling ‘I paid for the insurance and don’t care if you hit me.'”
The first time I was in Boston, I was told that when the crossing light said “Don’t Walk” what that meant was “Run!” Years later on a business trip there, I asked about the car I had seen careening through one of those ghastly five-way intersections with the driver reaching high outside the window waving a fistful of pink and yellow paper. “Rental car forms,” I was told. “He was signaling ‘I paid for the insurance and don’t care if you hit me.'”
The restaurants were inconsistent and there were fewer of them, but the pubs were everywhere and very reliable if you just wanted some good beer.
It’s not just beer. “Pub grub” is d*mn good, too.
The restaurants were inconsistent and there were fewer of them, but the pubs were everywhere and very reliable if you just wanted some good beer.
It’s not just beer. “Pub grub” is d*mn good, too.
Michael–i never heard the rental car thing, that’s funny.
I was surprised on my 2 or 3 brief trips to NYC (wish I’d had more time there, too)–the traffic was much more orderly and predictable than in Boston, both cars and foot traffic, not to mention the interaction of the two. Tourists get in the way on the sidewalk in the same way in both places. 😉
Another pet peeve in Boston, which I see in Maine, too (at least in towns big enough to have walk lights with buttons) — pedestrians who push the button for the walk light but never break stride as they march across the street they just pushed the walk light for. Then 8 or 16 or however many lanes of car traffic have to stop for nothing. I’m all for walk lights for those of us who need them. But if you have no intention of waiting for it, then don’t push the damned button.
Michael–i never heard the rental car thing, that’s funny.
I was surprised on my 2 or 3 brief trips to NYC (wish I’d had more time there, too)–the traffic was much more orderly and predictable than in Boston, both cars and foot traffic, not to mention the interaction of the two. Tourists get in the way on the sidewalk in the same way in both places. 😉
Another pet peeve in Boston, which I see in Maine, too (at least in towns big enough to have walk lights with buttons) — pedestrians who push the button for the walk light but never break stride as they march across the street they just pushed the walk light for. Then 8 or 16 or however many lanes of car traffic have to stop for nothing. I’m all for walk lights for those of us who need them. But if you have no intention of waiting for it, then don’t push the damned button.
It’s pet peeve day I guess!
Bombs are not falling on my neighborhood, so I’ll stop complaining.
It’s pet peeve day I guess!
Bombs are not falling on my neighborhood, so I’ll stop complaining.
“Pub grub” is d*mn good, too.
Crikey, if damn has to be asterisked, I’m now much too profane for this blog!!!
wj, a lot depends on when you’re talking about. If pre-90s, I do not hesitate to say (with affection) you must be nuts! If in the last 20/25 years, there is good food to be had in gastropubs and even traditional pubs which care about provenance etc. I wouldn’t want anyone to be misled!
“Pub grub” is d*mn good, too.
Crikey, if damn has to be asterisked, I’m now much too profane for this blog!!!
wj, a lot depends on when you’re talking about. If pre-90s, I do not hesitate to say (with affection) you must be nuts! If in the last 20/25 years, there is good food to be had in gastropubs and even traditional pubs which care about provenance etc. I wouldn’t want anyone to be misled!
Some of us mix damn and d*mn without rhyme or reason. 😉
My experience with pub grub is actually from the 1970s. But perhaps I was just lucky in the places I happened upon.
Some of us mix damn and d*mn without rhyme or reason. 😉
My experience with pub grub is actually from the 1970s. But perhaps I was just lucky in the places I happened upon.
Crikey, if damn has to be asterisked, I’m now much too profane for this blog!!!
Might just be finger memory. I do some of the support work at another blog. The editors there have a list of substrings that will get a comment dumped straight into moderation. All of those were added for good reason at particular times, but nobody does maintenance on the list. My fingers have learned to type f*ck, b*tch, N*zi and others with one of the vowels replaced. Not that I swear much. As I say, when granddaughter #1 tells granddaughter #2 “Leave the f*cking snake alone!” someday, she won’t have the excuse of “But that’s what Grandpa says.”
Crikey, if damn has to be asterisked, I’m now much too profane for this blog!!!
Might just be finger memory. I do some of the support work at another blog. The editors there have a list of substrings that will get a comment dumped straight into moderation. All of those were added for good reason at particular times, but nobody does maintenance on the list. My fingers have learned to type f*ck, b*tch, N*zi and others with one of the vowels replaced. Not that I swear much. As I say, when granddaughter #1 tells granddaughter #2 “Leave the f*cking snake alone!” someday, she won’t have the excuse of “But that’s what Grandpa says.”
An American driving in London
An American driving in London
Where I am the walk light buttons are a psychological device to give you the sense that you have more control over your life than you actually do.
Where I am the walk light buttons are a psychological device to give you the sense that you have more control over your life than you actually do.
I lived close to Shaw’s Corner as a child. If you’d like a native guide, get in touch.
I lived close to Shaw’s Corner as a child. If you’d like a native guide, get in touch.
Pro Bono — That would be wonderful! I will take you up on it if I ever get over there again.
I thought of trying to arrange a meet-up in 2019, but it really wasn’t my trip, I was invited along on my daughter’s adventure, so I didn’t want to introduce that complication. Plus it was so very short, and I ended up being sick for a day and a half anyhow….
Maybe there will be a next time. Fingers crossed!
Pro Bono — That would be wonderful! I will take you up on it if I ever get over there again.
I thought of trying to arrange a meet-up in 2019, but it really wasn’t my trip, I was invited along on my daughter’s adventure, so I didn’t want to introduce that complication. Plus it was so very short, and I ended up being sick for a day and a half anyhow….
Maybe there will be a next time. Fingers crossed!
Well, Janie, in planning your next trip, I see that the Reading Room is still closed! I have been in to see some of the special exhibitions, and it is wonderful. But (although it lacks the historical associations you long for) I am told that the new British Library on the Euston Road is wonderful too. I haven’t been there, but I have often admired the huge Paolozzi sculpture of Newton (after Blake) as I drive by:
https://www.bl.uk/about-us/our-story/explore-the-building/isaac-newton-sculpture
Well, Janie, in planning your next trip, I see that the Reading Room is still closed! I have been in to see some of the special exhibitions, and it is wonderful. But (although it lacks the historical associations you long for) I am told that the new British Library on the Euston Road is wonderful too. I haven’t been there, but I have often admired the huge Paolozzi sculpture of Newton (after Blake) as I drive by:
https://www.bl.uk/about-us/our-story/explore-the-building/isaac-newton-sculpture
I was surprised on my 2 or 3 brief trips to NYC (wish I’d had more time there, too)–the traffic was much more orderly and predictable than in Boston
NYC drivers drive fast and extremely close to each other, but they generally keep it between the lines.
Boston drivers are chaos monkeys.
I was surprised on my 2 or 3 brief trips to NYC (wish I’d had more time there, too)–the traffic was much more orderly and predictable than in Boston
NYC drivers drive fast and extremely close to each other, but they generally keep it between the lines.
Boston drivers are chaos monkeys.
We went to the British Library on Euston Road. Saw a copy of the Magna Carta, among other fascinating things. In fact, I think that was our first stop on my first full day there. We made a long day of it…..
We went to the British Library on Euston Road. Saw a copy of the Magna Carta, among other fascinating things. In fact, I think that was our first stop on my first full day there. We made a long day of it…..
Ha! I should have known.
Ha! I should have known.
Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign.
Who could ever have guessed how long it would be an object of such interest and inspiration?
Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign.
Who could ever have guessed how long it would be an object of such interest and inspiration?
Living in a state with the nickname “Vacationland” (it says that on our license plates), I’m well aware that tourists do all the things that the locals keep putting off. 😉
Living in a state with the nickname “Vacationland” (it says that on our license plates), I’m well aware that tourists do all the things that the locals keep putting off. 😉
NYC drivers drive fast and extremely close to each other, but they generally keep it between the lines.
Boston drivers are chaos monkeys.
In some places, lane markings, crosswalks, etc. are carefully observed. In other places, they are apparently considered discretionary.
But for real chaos, try driving Riyadh. Lane markings, etc. there — purely decorative. No indication that the drivers have ever even considered that they might be meaningful.
NYC drivers drive fast and extremely close to each other, but they generally keep it between the lines.
Boston drivers are chaos monkeys.
In some places, lane markings, crosswalks, etc. are carefully observed. In other places, they are apparently considered discretionary.
But for real chaos, try driving Riyadh. Lane markings, etc. there — purely decorative. No indication that the drivers have ever even considered that they might be meaningful.
I used to read that traffic was so bad in Kuala Lumpur there was no place where you could take a car to get the oil changed. The car was going to be totaled by cumulative collision damage before the engine would fail from running on old oil.
No idea if that is still true, or ever was. Do remember hearing from my sister when she was living in South Korea before the Olympics there, when the national legislature realized, “The world is coming to visit. Most of them probably expect that we have actual traffic laws.”
I used to read that traffic was so bad in Kuala Lumpur there was no place where you could take a car to get the oil changed. The car was going to be totaled by cumulative collision damage before the engine would fail from running on old oil.
No idea if that is still true, or ever was. Do remember hearing from my sister when she was living in South Korea before the Olympics there, when the national legislature realized, “The world is coming to visit. Most of them probably expect that we have actual traffic laws.”
I used to read that traffic was so bad in Kuala Lumpur there was no place where you could take a car to get the oil changed. The car was going to be totaled by cumulative collision damage before the engine would fail from running on old oil.
I’ll be there next month (conference). Will report back on current conditions.
I used to read that traffic was so bad in Kuala Lumpur there was no place where you could take a car to get the oil changed. The car was going to be totaled by cumulative collision damage before the engine would fail from running on old oil.
I’ll be there next month (conference). Will report back on current conditions.
I used to think Israeli drivers were the worst (“they only overtake on blind corners”), so much so that I never drove there, but they were as nothing compared to North Vietnam, particularly Hanoi. That corresponded more to wj’s description of Riyadh.
I used to think Israeli drivers were the worst (“they only overtake on blind corners”), so much so that I never drove there, but they were as nothing compared to North Vietnam, particularly Hanoi. That corresponded more to wj’s description of Riyadh.
Wow, gftnc, when did you visit Hanoi? I think North Vietnam’s driving problems are lessened because everyone is on a scooter. I did travel have trips there both before and after the helmet law, which was a trip. And I have some photos of the most improbable loads being carried on scooter, as well as whole families with 3 or 4 kids all on one scooter. I shudder to think what they would be like if they were all in cars…
Wow, gftnc, when did you visit Hanoi? I think North Vietnam’s driving problems are lessened because everyone is on a scooter. I did travel have trips there both before and after the helmet law, which was a trip. And I have some photos of the most improbable loads being carried on scooter, as well as whole families with 3 or 4 kids all on one scooter. I shudder to think what they would be like if they were all in cars…
It was 1995, during the re-establishment of diplomatic relations by the US. I was there about 10 days, all in Hanoi except when I took a side-trip to Ha Long Bay. My hosts had said “come now, before the tourists start coming”, so I did.
It was 1995, during the re-establishment of diplomatic relations by the US. I was there about 10 days, all in Hanoi except when I took a side-trip to Ha Long Bay. My hosts had said “come now, before the tourists start coming”, so I did.
I should have said “during the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with the US”.
I should have said “during the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with the US”.
On a different subject: Daniel Finkelstein (twitter handle @Dannythefink) is a conservative of a more-than-bearable type whose book of collected columns is called Everything in Moderation (which makes him particularly suitable to quote on ObWi), recently wrote a very entertaining column about trying dope for the first time which started like this
If you poured all the alcoholic drinks I have consumed in my life into a single pint glass, the liquid wouldn’t reach the rim. I don’t smoke. I don’t even drink coffee. And I have never had a joint. Until now. I’m 59. None of this is because I treat my body as a temple. I treat it more like an all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet. I don’t drink either alcohol or coffee for the same reason that I don’t eat celery. I don’t like the taste very much. I’m not afraid of losing control, because that would overestimate the amount of control I have in the first place.
He said he’d never done it before, although he’d always quite fancied it, because he tries never to do anything illegal, and concluded (very amusingly indeed, if you have any concept of how he looks):
Listen, I liked it well enough. It was fun. I’m glad I did it. But I’m not going to become Cheech or Chong.
All this, by way of introduction, because he has now written a column dealing with Liz Cheney’s loss, and his experiences in Wyoming, with a meta-theme about the dangers to democracy. I am also copying the whole thing because I think it is important, and some of you might not have access:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/americas-wild-west-duel-holds-lessons-for-us-too-v005n32bd
It was my first rodeo. And very entertaining and illuminating it was too. Why someone would wish to put their ten-year-old daughter on the back of a bucking animal continues to elude my understanding. But it did help me comprehend one of the most consequential and depressing election results of recent times.
On arriving in Wyoming this summer, the signs were everywhere. In front yards all over the state were posters promoting the candidacy of Liz Cheney, running to be, once again, the Republican Party’s congressional candidate. The signs spoke of a well organised and well financed campaign. Yet, as it turned out, also a desperately unsuccessful one. She lost by more than two to one.
Liz Cheney is an articulate and capable person with a strong conservative pedigree, and had the public support of her father Dick, the former vice-president. None of this was enough to compensate for her decision to support the impeachment of Donald Trump and her leadership during the congressional investigation of the January 6 riots. These positions doomed her. She’d been heading for landslide defeat ever since.
There wasn’t an argument she could make, or an advert she could run, or a yard sign she could put up, that made the slightest difference.
That so many people would choose to accept Trump’s entirely evidence-free allegations about election stealing, and would punish rigorous investigation of the Capitol incursion, is deeply concerning. Not just for Americans, but also for the country’s allies. It makes me fear for the future of democracy and the rule of law. But I did, on my visit, at least gain a little insight into why it happened.
The rodeo in Cody was fascinating politically. It was homogeneous in the same way an alternative comedy night in Islington might be homogeneous. On such a night you can reliably get laughs from disparaging the Tories and Brexit. At the rodeo it was the same, with the targets being New York, California and Joe Biden. There was an assumption (“Is there anyone here from California? Welcome to America”, hahaha) that these places and people were alien and hilarious.
Before the bucking horses and the angry bulls we stood for the national anthem. And applauded America’s servicemen. But before both of those things the stadium results board played a fairly lengthy video entitled “Why We Stand”, essentially an argument against taking the knee.
We encountered the politics of the rodeo repeatedly in Wyoming. Such as at the gun shop and firing range where it took nearly half an hour to explain the safety rules, yet the assistant (who himself possessed 47 guns) saw nothing wrong in allowing people to walk out with a weapon without any instruction at all. Or at the T-shirt shop which sold “Miss Me Yet” garments featuring a picture of Donald Trump. What we were witnessing were not reasoned arguments for conservative positions, or even unreasoned ones. These were statements of culture and identity. Repeatedly, public statements at entertainment events, restroom signs, knick-knacks in shops, spoke of America as a beacon of freedom, a unique place, exceptional. The inhabitants saw themselves as defenders of these exceptional qualities. To doubt the qualities, to question the country, was to question them — and they weren’t having any of it.
They define themselves, at the rodeo, and in the gun store, and on the campaign trail, as the last line of defence against New York, California and Joe Biden. To say something in favour of this other America is like trying to put in a good word for Boris Johnson at a dinner party of human rights lawyers.
And this, perverse though it might seem, is how Liz Cheney’s conduct — brave and correct though it seems to me — was regarded by her constituents. She was siding with “them”, and “us” didn’t like it. No argument of hers was going to make any difference.
Disturbing though the drift of our ally might be — there will eventually be a Republican presidency, maybe soon — there was one part of what I saw that I found reassuring. For all that I worry about right-wing populism’s influence on the British Conservative Party, Wyoming makes it obvious how distinctively American Trumpism is.
The political forces that have expelled Liz Cheney from Congress come from a state in which many people live in tiny hamlets, often quite ramshackle with only a gas station enlivening the gloom. They are separated by miles from neighbours and by even more miles from towns. Many spend their whole lives in a vast wilderness, different in scale from almost anything we have. It breeds a tough individualism, and a suspicion of fancy city ways.
And America’s vision of itself as uniquely free and a beacon to others comes in part from revolutionary rhetoric and principles we don’t have. It is also fighting a political battle over the legacy of slavery and the reality of racism of an intensity that is simply not present in British politics.
There was a time when the idea that Britain should become constitutionally and politically more like America — as argued by Jonathan Freedland in his brilliant book Bring Home the Revolution — was very fashionable. It is, correctly, less fashionable now, as the flaws in America’s revolution and its political settlement have become more apparent.
But it would be complacent to believe that none of the lessons, and none of the dangers, of Cheney’s defeat are relevant here. In any democratic election the victory of fantasy and lies is sobering. The lesson Wyoming teaches about how people can adopt untruth as part of their personal and political identity, and become impervious to reason, is applicable anywhere. It is the reason why truth, and rules, and character have to be defended against the slightest transgression, because later it may be too late.
The other warning from Wyoming is the danger of allowing people to define themselves through their resentment of others. This is most certainly not a tendency solely of Conservatives. It is very much present on the left too. But the right needs to guard against adopting the false idea that it is a beleaguered minority, desperately holding on to the last vestiges of a national identity in mortal peril. If it does not take care it will start to feel sorry for itself, and see enemies everywhere, and define itself against the future, against change and adaptation. It will abandon the optimism that should be its most attractive characteristic.
America is a wonderful country, and it has been an invaluable ally, but what happened to Liz Cheney in Wyoming is a revolution I do not want to bring home. They can keep it.
On a different subject: Daniel Finkelstein (twitter handle @Dannythefink) is a conservative of a more-than-bearable type whose book of collected columns is called Everything in Moderation (which makes him particularly suitable to quote on ObWi), recently wrote a very entertaining column about trying dope for the first time which started like this
If you poured all the alcoholic drinks I have consumed in my life into a single pint glass, the liquid wouldn’t reach the rim. I don’t smoke. I don’t even drink coffee. And I have never had a joint. Until now. I’m 59. None of this is because I treat my body as a temple. I treat it more like an all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet. I don’t drink either alcohol or coffee for the same reason that I don’t eat celery. I don’t like the taste very much. I’m not afraid of losing control, because that would overestimate the amount of control I have in the first place.
He said he’d never done it before, although he’d always quite fancied it, because he tries never to do anything illegal, and concluded (very amusingly indeed, if you have any concept of how he looks):
Listen, I liked it well enough. It was fun. I’m glad I did it. But I’m not going to become Cheech or Chong.
All this, by way of introduction, because he has now written a column dealing with Liz Cheney’s loss, and his experiences in Wyoming, with a meta-theme about the dangers to democracy. I am also copying the whole thing because I think it is important, and some of you might not have access:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/americas-wild-west-duel-holds-lessons-for-us-too-v005n32bd
It was my first rodeo. And very entertaining and illuminating it was too. Why someone would wish to put their ten-year-old daughter on the back of a bucking animal continues to elude my understanding. But it did help me comprehend one of the most consequential and depressing election results of recent times.
On arriving in Wyoming this summer, the signs were everywhere. In front yards all over the state were posters promoting the candidacy of Liz Cheney, running to be, once again, the Republican Party’s congressional candidate. The signs spoke of a well organised and well financed campaign. Yet, as it turned out, also a desperately unsuccessful one. She lost by more than two to one.
Liz Cheney is an articulate and capable person with a strong conservative pedigree, and had the public support of her father Dick, the former vice-president. None of this was enough to compensate for her decision to support the impeachment of Donald Trump and her leadership during the congressional investigation of the January 6 riots. These positions doomed her. She’d been heading for landslide defeat ever since.
There wasn’t an argument she could make, or an advert she could run, or a yard sign she could put up, that made the slightest difference.
That so many people would choose to accept Trump’s entirely evidence-free allegations about election stealing, and would punish rigorous investigation of the Capitol incursion, is deeply concerning. Not just for Americans, but also for the country’s allies. It makes me fear for the future of democracy and the rule of law. But I did, on my visit, at least gain a little insight into why it happened.
The rodeo in Cody was fascinating politically. It was homogeneous in the same way an alternative comedy night in Islington might be homogeneous. On such a night you can reliably get laughs from disparaging the Tories and Brexit. At the rodeo it was the same, with the targets being New York, California and Joe Biden. There was an assumption (“Is there anyone here from California? Welcome to America”, hahaha) that these places and people were alien and hilarious.
Before the bucking horses and the angry bulls we stood for the national anthem. And applauded America’s servicemen. But before both of those things the stadium results board played a fairly lengthy video entitled “Why We Stand”, essentially an argument against taking the knee.
We encountered the politics of the rodeo repeatedly in Wyoming. Such as at the gun shop and firing range where it took nearly half an hour to explain the safety rules, yet the assistant (who himself possessed 47 guns) saw nothing wrong in allowing people to walk out with a weapon without any instruction at all. Or at the T-shirt shop which sold “Miss Me Yet” garments featuring a picture of Donald Trump. What we were witnessing were not reasoned arguments for conservative positions, or even unreasoned ones. These were statements of culture and identity. Repeatedly, public statements at entertainment events, restroom signs, knick-knacks in shops, spoke of America as a beacon of freedom, a unique place, exceptional. The inhabitants saw themselves as defenders of these exceptional qualities. To doubt the qualities, to question the country, was to question them — and they weren’t having any of it.
They define themselves, at the rodeo, and in the gun store, and on the campaign trail, as the last line of defence against New York, California and Joe Biden. To say something in favour of this other America is like trying to put in a good word for Boris Johnson at a dinner party of human rights lawyers.
And this, perverse though it might seem, is how Liz Cheney’s conduct — brave and correct though it seems to me — was regarded by her constituents. She was siding with “them”, and “us” didn’t like it. No argument of hers was going to make any difference.
Disturbing though the drift of our ally might be — there will eventually be a Republican presidency, maybe soon — there was one part of what I saw that I found reassuring. For all that I worry about right-wing populism’s influence on the British Conservative Party, Wyoming makes it obvious how distinctively American Trumpism is.
The political forces that have expelled Liz Cheney from Congress come from a state in which many people live in tiny hamlets, often quite ramshackle with only a gas station enlivening the gloom. They are separated by miles from neighbours and by even more miles from towns. Many spend their whole lives in a vast wilderness, different in scale from almost anything we have. It breeds a tough individualism, and a suspicion of fancy city ways.
And America’s vision of itself as uniquely free and a beacon to others comes in part from revolutionary rhetoric and principles we don’t have. It is also fighting a political battle over the legacy of slavery and the reality of racism of an intensity that is simply not present in British politics.
There was a time when the idea that Britain should become constitutionally and politically more like America — as argued by Jonathan Freedland in his brilliant book Bring Home the Revolution — was very fashionable. It is, correctly, less fashionable now, as the flaws in America’s revolution and its political settlement have become more apparent.
But it would be complacent to believe that none of the lessons, and none of the dangers, of Cheney’s defeat are relevant here. In any democratic election the victory of fantasy and lies is sobering. The lesson Wyoming teaches about how people can adopt untruth as part of their personal and political identity, and become impervious to reason, is applicable anywhere. It is the reason why truth, and rules, and character have to be defended against the slightest transgression, because later it may be too late.
The other warning from Wyoming is the danger of allowing people to define themselves through their resentment of others. This is most certainly not a tendency solely of Conservatives. It is very much present on the left too. But the right needs to guard against adopting the false idea that it is a beleaguered minority, desperately holding on to the last vestiges of a national identity in mortal peril. If it does not take care it will start to feel sorry for itself, and see enemies everywhere, and define itself against the future, against change and adaptation. It will abandon the optimism that should be its most attractive characteristic.
America is a wonderful country, and it has been an invaluable ally, but what happened to Liz Cheney in Wyoming is a revolution I do not want to bring home. They can keep it.
Great column, though I have a small quibble. As I understand it, Cheney has limited her appearances in her home state because there have been threats to her life. This then plugged into Hegeman’s campaign to paint Cheney as beholden to Washington elitists and not actually representing the state.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/07/12/hageman-debuts-first-tv-ad-in-wyoming-house-campaign/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/liz-cheneys-kamikaze-campaign
She now travels with an armed Capitol Police guard, because of threats against her. The atmosphere at the Reagan Library was tense enough that an official with the organization felt compelled to mention, while introducing Cheney, that he’d received word that some of her opponents had been planning to disrupt the event.
This is not to suggest that Cheney should have ignored the threats, it is just that I think that part of the margin of victory was because Cheney was prevented by those threats from campaigning and when faced with that landscape, made the conscious decision not to campaign. Would it have made a difference? Don’t know, but it seems to me that Cheney made this decision much earlier (and more power to her) Another quote from the New Yorker article
At the dais, where she is often enlisted to deliver opening and closing remarks, sometimes speaking directly to Republicans about the deterioration of her own party, she has evoked what the political writer Katherine Miller has called a “granite singularity”—a presentation so emotionally neutral that it invites viewers to see her less as a political actor than as a tool of law.
My take is that her choices were considered ones, not random. I believe she knew what she was doing.
Great column, though I have a small quibble. As I understand it, Cheney has limited her appearances in her home state because there have been threats to her life. This then plugged into Hegeman’s campaign to paint Cheney as beholden to Washington elitists and not actually representing the state.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/07/12/hageman-debuts-first-tv-ad-in-wyoming-house-campaign/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/liz-cheneys-kamikaze-campaign
She now travels with an armed Capitol Police guard, because of threats against her. The atmosphere at the Reagan Library was tense enough that an official with the organization felt compelled to mention, while introducing Cheney, that he’d received word that some of her opponents had been planning to disrupt the event.
This is not to suggest that Cheney should have ignored the threats, it is just that I think that part of the margin of victory was because Cheney was prevented by those threats from campaigning and when faced with that landscape, made the conscious decision not to campaign. Would it have made a difference? Don’t know, but it seems to me that Cheney made this decision much earlier (and more power to her) Another quote from the New Yorker article
At the dais, where she is often enlisted to deliver opening and closing remarks, sometimes speaking directly to Republicans about the deterioration of her own party, she has evoked what the political writer Katherine Miller has called a “granite singularity”—a presentation so emotionally neutral that it invites viewers to see her less as a political actor than as a tool of law.
My take is that her choices were considered ones, not random. I believe she knew what she was doing.
This Politico article is probably the one I had in my head
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/16/trump-world-campaign-liz-cheney-wyoming-00052299
None of this meant Hageman had an easy road ahead. Cheney had more than $2.8 million in her campaign account — with more coming in. The head start offered the incumbent an opportunity to disqualify Hageman in the eyes of voters just as she was just getting off the ground. But, to the bafflement of top Republicans, Cheney would remain off the TV airwaves until December, when she aired a holiday-themed ad that made no mention of her opponent.
Over the course of the race, Cheney would air only one television commercial that invoked Hageman.
Further confusing Republicans was Cheney’s apparent decision not to air commercials elevating Bouchard, which could have cut into Hageman’s share of the anti-incumbent vote. A December polling memo from the pro-Hageman super PAC had warned that Bouchard was taking a “big bite” out of Hageman’s potential support, describing him as “currently the real problem for Hageman.”
Cheney’s absence from the campaign trail would also weaken her. Her team attributed the decision to the congresswoman’s need to be in Washington, where she was serving as vice chair of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. The Cheney campaign also said that physical threats against the congresswoman impeded her ability to hold public campaign events, forcing her to organize more private gatherings in the state instead.
Hageman rushed to fill the void. She held a raft of campaign events where she made the case that Cheney had failed to represent Wyoming’s interests, an allusion to the congresswoman’s attacks on Trump, who won the state with nearly 70 percent of the vote in 2020.
This Politico article is probably the one I had in my head
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/16/trump-world-campaign-liz-cheney-wyoming-00052299
None of this meant Hageman had an easy road ahead. Cheney had more than $2.8 million in her campaign account — with more coming in. The head start offered the incumbent an opportunity to disqualify Hageman in the eyes of voters just as she was just getting off the ground. But, to the bafflement of top Republicans, Cheney would remain off the TV airwaves until December, when she aired a holiday-themed ad that made no mention of her opponent.
Over the course of the race, Cheney would air only one television commercial that invoked Hageman.
Further confusing Republicans was Cheney’s apparent decision not to air commercials elevating Bouchard, which could have cut into Hageman’s share of the anti-incumbent vote. A December polling memo from the pro-Hageman super PAC had warned that Bouchard was taking a “big bite” out of Hageman’s potential support, describing him as “currently the real problem for Hageman.”
Cheney’s absence from the campaign trail would also weaken her. Her team attributed the decision to the congresswoman’s need to be in Washington, where she was serving as vice chair of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. The Cheney campaign also said that physical threats against the congresswoman impeded her ability to hold public campaign events, forcing her to organize more private gatherings in the state instead.
Hageman rushed to fill the void. She held a raft of campaign events where she made the case that Cheney had failed to represent Wyoming’s interests, an allusion to the congresswoman’s attacks on Trump, who won the state with nearly 70 percent of the vote in 2020.
Interesting stuff, lj, thank you. It adds to, rather than contradicts, the Finkelstein piece, as far as I can see.
she has evoked what the political writer Katherine Miller has called a “granite singularity”—a presentation so emotionally neutral that it invites viewers to see her less as a political actor than as a tool of law.
I think this is exactly right, and whether it is a calculation to aid her further political ambitions or not, it is right and proper for what she is doing for America in the hearings.
Interesting stuff, lj, thank you. It adds to, rather than contradicts, the Finkelstein piece, as far as I can see.
she has evoked what the political writer Katherine Miller has called a “granite singularity”—a presentation so emotionally neutral that it invites viewers to see her less as a political actor than as a tool of law.
I think this is exactly right, and whether it is a calculation to aid her further political ambitions or not, it is right and proper for what she is doing for America in the hearings.
The Finkelstein piece reminds me that the worst Republican presidents of the last 50 or so years all had an unusual relationship with alcohol:
– Nixon: drunk
– GW Bush: drunk turned abstainer
– Trump: abstainer
Which makes me think that it might be a bad idea to elect a president with so little self control that they can’t handle a drink or three.
The Finkelstein piece reminds me that the worst Republican presidents of the last 50 or so years all had an unusual relationship with alcohol:
– Nixon: drunk
– GW Bush: drunk turned abstainer
– Trump: abstainer
Which makes me think that it might be a bad idea to elect a president with so little self control that they can’t handle a drink or three.
About as on-topic as one can get for a “follow the money” thread:
https://www.propublica.org/article/dark-money-leonard-leo-barre-seid
An elderly, ultra-secretive Chicago businessman has given the largest known donation to a political advocacy group in U.S. history — worth $1.6 billion — and the recipient is one of the prime architects of conservatives’ efforts to reshape the American judicial system, including the Supreme Court.
Through a series of opaque transactions over the past two years, Barre Seid, a 90-year-old manufacturing magnate, gave the massive sum to a nonprofit run by Leonard Leo, who co-chairs the conservative legal group the Federalist Society.
This is why we remain f*cked as a country.
About as on-topic as one can get for a “follow the money” thread:
https://www.propublica.org/article/dark-money-leonard-leo-barre-seid
An elderly, ultra-secretive Chicago businessman has given the largest known donation to a political advocacy group in U.S. history — worth $1.6 billion — and the recipient is one of the prime architects of conservatives’ efforts to reshape the American judicial system, including the Supreme Court.
Through a series of opaque transactions over the past two years, Barre Seid, a 90-year-old manufacturing magnate, gave the massive sum to a nonprofit run by Leonard Leo, who co-chairs the conservative legal group the Federalist Society.
This is why we remain f*cked as a country.
I don’t drink either alcohol or coffee for the same reason that I don’t eat celery. I don’t like the taste very much
And here I’d thought that I was the only one who didn’t like the taste of ethanol. (Even vodka, supposedly tasteless, tastes of ethanol to me.) That’s why, when the social situation calls for having a drink, I go with a screwdriver — the orange juice hides the taste of the ethanol.
I don’t drink either alcohol or coffee for the same reason that I don’t eat celery. I don’t like the taste very much
And here I’d thought that I was the only one who didn’t like the taste of ethanol. (Even vodka, supposedly tasteless, tastes of ethanol to me.) That’s why, when the social situation calls for having a drink, I go with a screwdriver — the orange juice hides the taste of the ethanol.
“The London of my imagination was formed by my reading, including going to grad school in English. My head is filled with, among other versions, the London of Dickens, the London of Conan Doyle, and the London of George Bernard Shaw.”
Me, too. Plus the London of Ben Aaronovitch, Neil Gaiman, and Kate Griffin. And the London of Georgette Heyer. And, of course, the London of the Rolling Stones, Rod Stewart and the Beatles.
And the London of Amy Winehouse and Alabama 3.
I would love to be able to live in London for long enough to feel like I’d lived there. But, as I said, I’m not sure it’s the real London I am yearning for. I might just yearn for that feeling of delight and wonder disconnected from reality that comes from being a tourist.
“The London of my imagination was formed by my reading, including going to grad school in English. My head is filled with, among other versions, the London of Dickens, the London of Conan Doyle, and the London of George Bernard Shaw.”
Me, too. Plus the London of Ben Aaronovitch, Neil Gaiman, and Kate Griffin. And the London of Georgette Heyer. And, of course, the London of the Rolling Stones, Rod Stewart and the Beatles.
And the London of Amy Winehouse and Alabama 3.
I would love to be able to live in London for long enough to feel like I’d lived there. But, as I said, I’m not sure it’s the real London I am yearning for. I might just yearn for that feeling of delight and wonder disconnected from reality that comes from being a tourist.
a president with so little self control that they can’t handle a drink or three.
I really take exception to this. Simply because there are people whose physiology means they can’t “handle a drink.” Self control not a factor.
For example I recall my mother, somebody with no lack of self control, saying, “I get drunk just from sniffing the cork from a champagne bottle” — not even close to “a drink,” let alone three. Not just tipsy but flat out drunk. The self control manifested by declining to drink, regardless of the social pressure to do so.
a president with so little self control that they can’t handle a drink or three.
I really take exception to this. Simply because there are people whose physiology means they can’t “handle a drink.” Self control not a factor.
For example I recall my mother, somebody with no lack of self control, saying, “I get drunk just from sniffing the cork from a champagne bottle” — not even close to “a drink,” let alone three. Not just tipsy but flat out drunk. The self control manifested by declining to drink, regardless of the social pressure to do so.
I really take exception to this
I probably shouldn’t speak for Pro Bono, but I’m pretty sure his comment was at least half a joke. And actually, very suitable for a blog which calls itself “the Voice of Moderation”. I think (PB correct me if I’m wrong) that he was talking about over-indulgers, and people who don’t indulge because they were over-indulgers, or have been spooked by over-indulgers (Trump, about his brother). So in those cases, lack of self-control (or fear of the lack) would constitute the “unusual relationship with alcohol”. None of this would apply to people who don’t like the taste, or don’t care either way (which sounds like your mother). The ability to drink moderately, for those who do like the taste and/or the effects, is what one would wish for in one’s leader.
I really take exception to this
I probably shouldn’t speak for Pro Bono, but I’m pretty sure his comment was at least half a joke. And actually, very suitable for a blog which calls itself “the Voice of Moderation”. I think (PB correct me if I’m wrong) that he was talking about over-indulgers, and people who don’t indulge because they were over-indulgers, or have been spooked by over-indulgers (Trump, about his brother). So in those cases, lack of self-control (or fear of the lack) would constitute the “unusual relationship with alcohol”. None of this would apply to people who don’t like the taste, or don’t care either way (which sounds like your mother). The ability to drink moderately, for those who do like the taste and/or the effects, is what one would wish for in one’s leader.
GftNC puts it better than I could.
There are people with ALDH2 deficiency for whom self control means keeping away from alcohol entirely. I apologise for appearing to suggest otherwise.
GftNC puts it better than I could.
There are people with ALDH2 deficiency for whom self control means keeping away from alcohol entirely. I apologise for appearing to suggest otherwise.
The ability to drink moderately, for those who do like the taste and/or the effects, is what one would wish for in one’s leader.
I’m on board with that.
It says something about how bad Trump’s brother must have been that even a guy with a notorious lack of impulse control would stay away.
The ability to drink moderately, for those who do like the taste and/or the effects, is what one would wish for in one’s leader.
I’m on board with that.
It says something about how bad Trump’s brother must have been that even a guy with a notorious lack of impulse control would stay away.
An interesting situation here in the Golden State. At the moment, polls show Gov Newsom an overwhelming favorite over his practically unknown Republican opponent (52% vs 30%). At the same time, something like 52% of those polled say that the state is “on the wrong track.”
I doubt it will happen, but I could see a lot of those wrong track voters deciding to vote for a Republican that they don’t much care for. Just to send a message.
It’s a safe enough option. Democrats hold a veto-proof majority in the legislature, and that’s not going to change. And a smack upside the head might produce a bit of rethink among the Democrats.
An interesting situation here in the Golden State. At the moment, polls show Gov Newsom an overwhelming favorite over his practically unknown Republican opponent (52% vs 30%). At the same time, something like 52% of those polled say that the state is “on the wrong track.”
I doubt it will happen, but I could see a lot of those wrong track voters deciding to vote for a Republican that they don’t much care for. Just to send a message.
It’s a safe enough option. Democrats hold a veto-proof majority in the legislature, and that’s not going to change. And a smack upside the head might produce a bit of rethink among the Democrats.
NYC drivers drive fast and extremely close to each other, but they generally keep it between the lines.
Boston drivers are chaos monkeys
Driving in NYC is tense. Driving in Boston is insane.
Also, in NYC, cars are a known quantity. Cyclists, often delivery but plus the Citi-bike people, are the ones that get you. Bikers in NYC know no rules & come from all sides.
NYC drivers drive fast and extremely close to each other, but they generally keep it between the lines.
Boston drivers are chaos monkeys
Driving in NYC is tense. Driving in Boston is insane.
Also, in NYC, cars are a known quantity. Cyclists, often delivery but plus the Citi-bike people, are the ones that get you. Bikers in NYC know no rules & come from all sides.
I can’t imagine how obnoxious and stupid a drunk Donald Trump would be. Or maybe I can. And maybe he can. I think it goes beyond his brother’s alcoholism. I think he’s afraid of what he might say or do. The idea of Trump having any self-awareness sounds strange, I know, but I’d wager that that’s at least part of it.
I can’t imagine how obnoxious and stupid a drunk Donald Trump would be. Or maybe I can. And maybe he can. I think it goes beyond his brother’s alcoholism. I think he’s afraid of what he might say or do. The idea of Trump having any self-awareness sounds strange, I know, but I’d wager that that’s at least part of it.
I think he’s afraid of what he might say or do
My relationship with alcohol is complicated , so I’m resisting the temptation to write at length.
But as largely a non-drinker, I’m not sure people who take drinking for granted can necessarily understand why some people don’t.
I don’t think you even have to postulate that he’s afraid in the way I think you mean. People very often act like assholes and idiots when they’ve drunk more than they can handle, and you don’t have to be afraid of what you yourself will do to look at that and be uninterested in doing it yourself.
Plus, Clickbait is narcissistic and selfish beyond belief, in a way that I suspect makes him quite impervious to the kind of social pressure that leads a lot of people to drink, and then drink too much, and then behave badly. Unless it’s someone like Putin whose ass he wants to lick, he doesn’t give a flying banana what anyone else thinks, he has his own agenda to pursue at all times. Other people are there to be manipulated for his purposes, not to be emulated or joined with convivially.
I guess it probably sounds like I’m agreeing with hsh while purporting to disagree. Maybe it’s because I interpret “I think he’s afraid…” as having something to do with not wanting to feel shame or regret later, and I don’t think it’s that at all. I just think it doesn’t serve his ends, so he doesn’t do it.
This interpretation removes the strange notion of Clickbait having any self-awareness. He acts instinctively at all times to satisfy his greed and narcissism, and refraining from alcohol is no exception. He does it instinctively because he knows instinctively that it would undermine his agenda….
I think he’s afraid of what he might say or do
My relationship with alcohol is complicated , so I’m resisting the temptation to write at length.
But as largely a non-drinker, I’m not sure people who take drinking for granted can necessarily understand why some people don’t.
I don’t think you even have to postulate that he’s afraid in the way I think you mean. People very often act like assholes and idiots when they’ve drunk more than they can handle, and you don’t have to be afraid of what you yourself will do to look at that and be uninterested in doing it yourself.
Plus, Clickbait is narcissistic and selfish beyond belief, in a way that I suspect makes him quite impervious to the kind of social pressure that leads a lot of people to drink, and then drink too much, and then behave badly. Unless it’s someone like Putin whose ass he wants to lick, he doesn’t give a flying banana what anyone else thinks, he has his own agenda to pursue at all times. Other people are there to be manipulated for his purposes, not to be emulated or joined with convivially.
I guess it probably sounds like I’m agreeing with hsh while purporting to disagree. Maybe it’s because I interpret “I think he’s afraid…” as having something to do with not wanting to feel shame or regret later, and I don’t think it’s that at all. I just think it doesn’t serve his ends, so he doesn’t do it.
This interpretation removes the strange notion of Clickbait having any self-awareness. He acts instinctively at all times to satisfy his greed and narcissism, and refraining from alcohol is no exception. He does it instinctively because he knows instinctively that it would undermine his agenda….
In contrast. I interpret “I think he’s afraid…” as him not wanting to say something which would compromise the plausible deniability that, like any mob boss, he tries to maintain. It’s a matter of not wanting to take a chance on giving anyone else power over him — which he would find intolerable.
In contrast. I interpret “I think he’s afraid…” as him not wanting to say something which would compromise the plausible deniability that, like any mob boss, he tries to maintain. It’s a matter of not wanting to take a chance on giving anyone else power over him — which he would find intolerable.
Yes to what wj wrote and parts of what Janie wrote. He’s not afraid of simply being an a**hole. He’s afraid he would compromise himself.
It also wouldn’t surprise me if he had tried a bit of hooch at some point in his youth and realized the attendant loss of control was not good for him, operating the fringes of legality and acceptability as he does.
Maybe that doesn’t fit the bill of self-awareness in the normal sense, but it’s Trump we’re talking about here.
Yes to what wj wrote and parts of what Janie wrote. He’s not afraid of simply being an a**hole. He’s afraid he would compromise himself.
It also wouldn’t surprise me if he had tried a bit of hooch at some point in his youth and realized the attendant loss of control was not good for him, operating the fringes of legality and acceptability as he does.
Maybe that doesn’t fit the bill of self-awareness in the normal sense, but it’s Trump we’re talking about here.
Re: Fred jr, I got the impression he drank because he couldn’t stand his family. Didn’t want to be part of the family business and was ridiculed by his family for it. He was a commercial air pilot. No small feat. His dumbass brother, who couldn’t be trusted with a shopping cart, called him a “bus driver”.
Re: Fred jr, I got the impression he drank because he couldn’t stand his family. Didn’t want to be part of the family business and was ridiculed by his family for it. He was a commercial air pilot. No small feat. His dumbass brother, who couldn’t be trusted with a shopping cart, called him a “bus driver”.
He was a commercial air pilot. No small feat. His dumbass brother, who couldn’t be trusted with a shopping cart, called him a “bus driver”.
Donald and his father both believed/believe that you are working below your potential if you aren’t in a business that needs a large set of interlocking LLCs to hide the details from your partners on a particular project, the tax people, and the loan officers.
There are people who are very good at that. When I worked in the cable television business, John Malone was the grand master of that approach in that industry. John was brilliant, earning assorted degrees up through a PhD in operations research (hey, my first masters!). In the cable business, he built incredibly complicated financial arrangements and would sell you a piece. Conventional wisdom was that if John offered you a deal, the correct response was, “Cash. Nothing bigger than a twenty.” He found lots of people who thought they were smarter and learned they weren’t the hard way.
He was a commercial air pilot. No small feat. His dumbass brother, who couldn’t be trusted with a shopping cart, called him a “bus driver”.
Donald and his father both believed/believe that you are working below your potential if you aren’t in a business that needs a large set of interlocking LLCs to hide the details from your partners on a particular project, the tax people, and the loan officers.
There are people who are very good at that. When I worked in the cable television business, John Malone was the grand master of that approach in that industry. John was brilliant, earning assorted degrees up through a PhD in operations research (hey, my first masters!). In the cable business, he built incredibly complicated financial arrangements and would sell you a piece. Conventional wisdom was that if John offered you a deal, the correct response was, “Cash. Nothing bigger than a twenty.” He found lots of people who thought they were smarter and learned they weren’t the hard way.
I should have added about Malone that he has given large sums — well over $100M that I know of — to academic and medical research facilities. When his wife developed some sort of long-term medical problem, he sold off and simplified most of his complex business arrangements so that he could spend most of his time supporting her.
I should have added about Malone that he has given large sums — well over $100M that I know of — to academic and medical research facilities. When his wife developed some sort of long-term medical problem, he sold off and simplified most of his complex business arrangements so that he could spend most of his time supporting her.
For the last several decades**, California has had a waiver which allows us to set stricter clean air standards for automobiles than those set by the EPA. California’s car market is big enough that manufacturers routinely complied . . . and reduced their costs by making all vehicles to those standards. In effect, California replaced the EPA on the subject.
Now, California is writing new standards which require that, by 2035, all new vehicles sold in the state must be zero emissions (effectively, electric), with a small, limited, number of exceptions for some hybrid vehicles. And transition standards, setting increasing standards, kick in as early as 2026.
Car manufacturers, able to see which way the wind was blowing (sorry!), have already been working to tool up for more electric vehicles. But this significantly speeds up their timetable. It seems likely that, for the same reasons that have applied previously, cars available in the country will mostly be built to the same standards. (With, perhaps, some exceptions of imports which have their biggest markets outside the US.)
** Minus a brief hiatus during the Trump administration.
For the last several decades**, California has had a waiver which allows us to set stricter clean air standards for automobiles than those set by the EPA. California’s car market is big enough that manufacturers routinely complied . . . and reduced their costs by making all vehicles to those standards. In effect, California replaced the EPA on the subject.
Now, California is writing new standards which require that, by 2035, all new vehicles sold in the state must be zero emissions (effectively, electric), with a small, limited, number of exceptions for some hybrid vehicles. And transition standards, setting increasing standards, kick in as early as 2026.
Car manufacturers, able to see which way the wind was blowing (sorry!), have already been working to tool up for more electric vehicles. But this significantly speeds up their timetable. It seems likely that, for the same reasons that have applied previously, cars available in the country will mostly be built to the same standards. (With, perhaps, some exceptions of imports which have their biggest markets outside the US.)
** Minus a brief hiatus during the Trump administration.
California is becoming like France: A great place to visit but you wouldn’t want to live there. And you may not want to visit if you face using hotel rooms that, when vacant, the hotel is required by law to put homeless people in them.
California is becoming like France: A great place to visit but you wouldn’t want to live there. And you may not want to visit if you face using hotel rooms that, when vacant, the hotel is required by law to put homeless people in them.
CharlesWT, usually your cryptic pronouncements provoke nothing more than a little exasperated eye rollery in response. At least by me.
But WTF?
Homeless people aren’t people? Rooms aren’t cleaned every day, and before new occupants come in?
And as for “you wouldn’t want to live there,” speak for yourself.
CharlesWT, usually your cryptic pronouncements provoke nothing more than a little exasperated eye rollery in response. At least by me.
But WTF?
Homeless people aren’t people? Rooms aren’t cleaned every day, and before new occupants come in?
And as for “you wouldn’t want to live there,” speak for yourself.
Rooms aren’t cleaned every day, and before new occupants come in?
Yeah, but did they get all of the fleas?…
Rooms aren’t cleaned every day, and before new occupants come in?
Yeah, but did they get all of the fleas?…
Yeah, but did they get all of the fleas?…
If not, the cleaning protocols need to be revised. After all, there are a variety of challenges involving international travelers as well.
But then, I suppose requiring adequate cleaning protocols would infringe on the absolute libertarian worldview. So maybe best to avoid hotels everywhere…
Yeah, but did they get all of the fleas?…
If not, the cleaning protocols need to be revised. After all, there are a variety of challenges involving international travelers as well.
But then, I suppose requiring adequate cleaning protocols would infringe on the absolute libertarian worldview. So maybe best to avoid hotels everywhere…
Yeah, you can pick up bedbugs even in the swankiest hotels.
Hard to see how the absolute libertarian worldview is compatible with having more than one human being on the planet at a time. And even then, other critters might like to have a word.
Yeah, you can pick up bedbugs even in the swankiest hotels.
Hard to see how the absolute libertarian worldview is compatible with having more than one human being on the planet at a time. And even then, other critters might like to have a word.
It might more or less work if it’s limited to people recently homeless. But if they have to house people that have been living on the streets and have mental and drug problems.
A hotel’s paying guests might not take to being harassed and assaulted during their stay.
In Los Angeles, it’s a hotel‐worker union that’s advocating for this policy. Maybe they’ve not thought it all the way through.
It might more or less work if it’s limited to people recently homeless. But if they have to house people that have been living on the streets and have mental and drug problems.
A hotel’s paying guests might not take to being harassed and assaulted during their stay.
In Los Angeles, it’s a hotel‐worker union that’s advocating for this policy. Maybe they’ve not thought it all the way through.
Maybe you’ve not thought it all the way through. Not to mention making big assumptions about homeless people, and filling in the blanks of scanty information with as much nastiness as you can dream up.
Maybe you’ve not thought it all the way through. Not to mention making big assumptions about homeless people, and filling in the blanks of scanty information with as much nastiness as you can dream up.
Doesn’t matter what I think. What matters is what people with money think. And after thinking they may decide not to visit or hold conventions in California because the state and local governments have allowed the homeless problems to run amok.
Doesn’t matter what I think. What matters is what people with money think. And after thinking they may decide not to visit or hold conventions in California because the state and local governments have allowed the homeless problems to run amok.
A hotel’s paying guests might not take to being harassed and assaulted during their stay.
I must say that this is a better rationalization than your first try. (Admittedly a low bar.)
But how much of that harrassment is due to homeless people trying to come up with enough money to survive? A problem substantially reduced by having a roof over their heads.
And how many cases of actual assault (as opposed to “harrassment”) occur? Got any statistics on that? Or just a scary image…?
Finally, I’m curious to what extent the hotel industry is onboard with the idea. With occupancy rates down since covid appears, state money for housing the homeless might be welcome . . . provided they can justify it with a state mandate.
A hotel’s paying guests might not take to being harassed and assaulted during their stay.
I must say that this is a better rationalization than your first try. (Admittedly a low bar.)
But how much of that harrassment is due to homeless people trying to come up with enough money to survive? A problem substantially reduced by having a roof over their heads.
And how many cases of actual assault (as opposed to “harrassment”) occur? Got any statistics on that? Or just a scary image…?
Finally, I’m curious to what extent the hotel industry is onboard with the idea. With occupancy rates down since covid appears, state money for housing the homeless might be welcome . . . provided they can justify it with a state mandate.
All of which has what to do with electric cars? Oh, someone mentioned the Socialist Republic of California. We need trigger warnings!
All of which has what to do with electric cars? Oh, someone mentioned the Socialist Republic of California. We need trigger warnings!
Maybe this is Charles’ oblique way of advocating for a robust system of social services. $:^O
Maybe this is Charles’ oblique way of advocating for a robust system of social services. $:^O
California is becoming like France: A great place to visit but you wouldn’t want to live there.
Interestingly, something similar to this was recently put to me by a very old and dear friend of mine, who was born and grew up in LA, but a few years ago moved to Florida for tax reasons. As you might gather from that last snippet, she is rightwing, as well as being quite rich. In fact, she is very rightwing. But I have known her since we were pre-teens, and I love her, so we no longer discuss politics. Anyway, she’s been in LA, and told me that it has become increasingly lawless, and “many people” have been remarking on this fact. Normally, I would have just put this down to rightwing hatred of the Calif government, but since her whole (Californian) family is Dem, I briefly checked the stats. It does look like crime has been considerably on the rise; so I can’t dismiss it (unless anybody here has better, more precise info). She also goes on about the homeless, and about no-proof rent amnesties during the pandemic, but this would very much fit with her general politics so I have ignored it. But the crime stats did give me pause.
California is becoming like France: A great place to visit but you wouldn’t want to live there.
Interestingly, something similar to this was recently put to me by a very old and dear friend of mine, who was born and grew up in LA, but a few years ago moved to Florida for tax reasons. As you might gather from that last snippet, she is rightwing, as well as being quite rich. In fact, she is very rightwing. But I have known her since we were pre-teens, and I love her, so we no longer discuss politics. Anyway, she’s been in LA, and told me that it has become increasingly lawless, and “many people” have been remarking on this fact. Normally, I would have just put this down to rightwing hatred of the Calif government, but since her whole (Californian) family is Dem, I briefly checked the stats. It does look like crime has been considerably on the rise; so I can’t dismiss it (unless anybody here has better, more precise info). She also goes on about the homeless, and about no-proof rent amnesties during the pandemic, but this would very much fit with her general politics so I have ignored it. But the crime stats did give me pause.
And after thinking they may decide not to visit or hold conventions in California because the state and local governments have allowed the homeless problems to run amok.
For one thing, when a hotel houses a convention, there probably aren’t that many rooms left over for homeless people.
For another, “run amok”????? You think they’re going to do this without any kind of standards for behavior toward other guests?
Never mind the stereotyping of the homeless.
Dr. Amy Acton, who was Ohio’s “CDC” director when the pandemic started (and an amazingly articulate and accomplished MD who was later driven out by things like armed yahoos on her lawn who couldn’t be arsed to wear masks to save the lives of their neighbors) was homeless for part of her childhood. But I’m sure she didn’t deserve a roof over her head, because someone’s fevered imagination decided she might be dangerous or annoying.
Unlike all the other guests in nice hotels, for that matter, who can be annoying (mostly noise-making) beyond belief.
Just, wow.
Keep digging.
And after thinking they may decide not to visit or hold conventions in California because the state and local governments have allowed the homeless problems to run amok.
For one thing, when a hotel houses a convention, there probably aren’t that many rooms left over for homeless people.
For another, “run amok”????? You think they’re going to do this without any kind of standards for behavior toward other guests?
Never mind the stereotyping of the homeless.
Dr. Amy Acton, who was Ohio’s “CDC” director when the pandemic started (and an amazingly articulate and accomplished MD who was later driven out by things like armed yahoos on her lawn who couldn’t be arsed to wear masks to save the lives of their neighbors) was homeless for part of her childhood. But I’m sure she didn’t deserve a roof over her head, because someone’s fevered imagination decided she might be dangerous or annoying.
Unlike all the other guests in nice hotels, for that matter, who can be annoying (mostly noise-making) beyond belief.
Just, wow.
Keep digging.
Finally, I’m curious to what extent the hotel industry is onboard with the idea.
In the case of Los Angeles, they seem to be against it.
“While the measure compelling hotels to house the homeless might temporarily bump up the demand for room cleaner jobs, it’s not clear that it would serve the best interests of hotel employees in other ways. Heather Rozman, executive director of the Hotel Association of Los Angeles, told a council meeting packed with opponents of the measure that the proposal has already begun to chill conference business, as well as threatening increases in insurance premiums and other costs. If business and leisure travelers are scared off by the prospect of confronting the disorders of a homeless shelter amid their stay, it’s not hard to imagine that many workers who currently thrive in the sector would lose both salary and tip income associated with amenity provision: valet parking, room and concierge service, and so forth. Councilman Joe Buscaino, urging voters to defeat the measure, said “Placing paying hotel guests next to an unhoused person shows a complete misunderstanding of the causes of homelessness, which often stem from mental illness and drug abuse.” Rozman said hotels are not public safety providers and “should not be forced to clean up behind the city’s humanitarian crisis.””
Without Respect For Property Rights, It’s a Heartbreak Hotel
Finally, I’m curious to what extent the hotel industry is onboard with the idea.
In the case of Los Angeles, they seem to be against it.
“While the measure compelling hotels to house the homeless might temporarily bump up the demand for room cleaner jobs, it’s not clear that it would serve the best interests of hotel employees in other ways. Heather Rozman, executive director of the Hotel Association of Los Angeles, told a council meeting packed with opponents of the measure that the proposal has already begun to chill conference business, as well as threatening increases in insurance premiums and other costs. If business and leisure travelers are scared off by the prospect of confronting the disorders of a homeless shelter amid their stay, it’s not hard to imagine that many workers who currently thrive in the sector would lose both salary and tip income associated with amenity provision: valet parking, room and concierge service, and so forth. Councilman Joe Buscaino, urging voters to defeat the measure, said “Placing paying hotel guests next to an unhoused person shows a complete misunderstanding of the causes of homelessness, which often stem from mental illness and drug abuse.” Rozman said hotels are not public safety providers and “should not be forced to clean up behind the city’s humanitarian crisis.””
Without Respect For Property Rights, It’s a Heartbreak Hotel
Never mind the stereotyping of the homeless.
There are people in California genuinely homeless through no fault of their own. But a majority of the homeless in California are not even from California much less the communities they’re homeless in. Many are there for easy access to drugs.
Many people argue that we should do things the way the more civilized Europeans do them. In the case of homelessness and drugs, perhaps we should. Several European countries have decriminalized/legalized drugs. But, if you try to sleep/camp/live on the streets, you get arrested. If you use drugs in public, you get arrested. Then you’re given a choice. Go to a shelter/rehab or go to jail.
Never mind the stereotyping of the homeless.
There are people in California genuinely homeless through no fault of their own. But a majority of the homeless in California are not even from California much less the communities they’re homeless in. Many are there for easy access to drugs.
Many people argue that we should do things the way the more civilized Europeans do them. In the case of homelessness and drugs, perhaps we should. Several European countries have decriminalized/legalized drugs. But, if you try to sleep/camp/live on the streets, you get arrested. If you use drugs in public, you get arrested. Then you’re given a choice. Go to a shelter/rehab or go to jail.
If anyone wants to understand California and affordable housing, they should put in a little due diligence with understanding the root causes for all that homelessness (property tax subsidies, NIMBY zoning, short term rentals taking away housing supply, the pandemic, stagnant wages for low-wage workers, etc.). These conditions, and the inequality they drive, are creating the conditions that lead to favelas. The political opposition to these homeless measures isn’t meant to solve the problems, just to make them go away.
I live in a DINK household with two adults that have graduate degrees and no debt, we make in excess of $100k. We have money saved.
But we cannot afford to buy a home without committing to commuting long distances. We make 1/3 of what we need to in order to buy in our area. We could buy outright in many places, but that would require changing jobs and losing our retirement.
If we did not have our savings as a safety net, we would be one loss of employment away from being on the streets ourselves. We’ve seen that happen to colleagues, no drugs or serious mental health issues involved.
As far as crime goes, that tracks with stress and desperation. There’s a lot of that to go around. These people don’t start out bad and end up homeless, they start out homeless and end up desperate.
If anyone wants to understand California and affordable housing, they should put in a little due diligence with understanding the root causes for all that homelessness (property tax subsidies, NIMBY zoning, short term rentals taking away housing supply, the pandemic, stagnant wages for low-wage workers, etc.). These conditions, and the inequality they drive, are creating the conditions that lead to favelas. The political opposition to these homeless measures isn’t meant to solve the problems, just to make them go away.
I live in a DINK household with two adults that have graduate degrees and no debt, we make in excess of $100k. We have money saved.
But we cannot afford to buy a home without committing to commuting long distances. We make 1/3 of what we need to in order to buy in our area. We could buy outright in many places, but that would require changing jobs and losing our retirement.
If we did not have our savings as a safety net, we would be one loss of employment away from being on the streets ourselves. We’ve seen that happen to colleagues, no drugs or serious mental health issues involved.
As far as crime goes, that tracks with stress and desperation. There’s a lot of that to go around. These people don’t start out bad and end up homeless, they start out homeless and end up desperate.
If anyone wants to understand California and affordable housing, they should put in a little due diligence with understanding the root causes for all that homelessness (property tax subsidies, NIMBY zoning, short term rentals taking away housing supply, the pandemic, stagnant wages for low-wage workers, etc.).
Although, increasingly, the constraint on building new housing is simply water supply. Or rather lack of same.
If anyone wants to understand California and affordable housing, they should put in a little due diligence with understanding the root causes for all that homelessness (property tax subsidies, NIMBY zoning, short term rentals taking away housing supply, the pandemic, stagnant wages for low-wage workers, etc.).
Although, increasingly, the constraint on building new housing is simply water supply. Or rather lack of same.
These people don’t start out bad and end up homeless, they start out homeless and end up desperate.
This seems right to me.
And nous, I finally (by the weird instinctive timetable which I in no way understand) finally started on Murderbot. Just finished the first one, and I am wholly committed. I’m just annoyed they are so short. Thank you, and (as always) any more recommendations gratefully received.
These people don’t start out bad and end up homeless, they start out homeless and end up desperate.
This seems right to me.
And nous, I finally (by the weird instinctive timetable which I in no way understand) finally started on Murderbot. Just finished the first one, and I am wholly committed. I’m just annoyed they are so short. Thank you, and (as always) any more recommendations gratefully received.
You’re telling me you wouldn’t live in France?
You’re telling me you wouldn’t live in France?
All of which has what to do with electric cars?
It just reminded me of California’s other warm, fuzzy policies that smash up against reality. California’s grid has problems meeting the state’s current power needs. What’s going to happen when all the cars in the state are hanging off it too?
All of which has what to do with electric cars?
It just reminded me of California’s other warm, fuzzy policies that smash up against reality. California’s grid has problems meeting the state’s current power needs. What’s going to happen when all the cars in the state are hanging off it too?
Yes. You prefer cold, pointy policies that smash up against reality.
Yes. You prefer cold, pointy policies that smash up against reality.
Car manufacturers, able to see which way the wind was blowing (sorry!), have already been working to tool up for more electric vehicles.
I’ve probably mentioned it before, but anyone who watched the commercials during this year’s Super Bowl would have come away believing that the auto industry is running away from internal combustion engines as fast as they can.
The Colorado Front Range’s Brown Cloud disappeared when cars got enough cleaner. The population growth has now overwhelmed how clean we can make ICEs and the Brown Cloud is making a return. ZEVs are likely the only solution to that.
Car manufacturers, able to see which way the wind was blowing (sorry!), have already been working to tool up for more electric vehicles.
I’ve probably mentioned it before, but anyone who watched the commercials during this year’s Super Bowl would have come away believing that the auto industry is running away from internal combustion engines as fast as they can.
The Colorado Front Range’s Brown Cloud disappeared when cars got enough cleaner. The population growth has now overwhelmed how clean we can make ICEs and the Brown Cloud is making a return. ZEVs are likely the only solution to that.
You’re telling me you wouldn’t live in France?
LOL. And if I remember correctly, CharlesWT lives in Texas. But maybe I am being too Eurocentric…
You’re telling me you wouldn’t live in France?
LOL. And if I remember correctly, CharlesWT lives in Texas. But maybe I am being too Eurocentric…
Guardian UK has this to say about CA housing stuff:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/22/california-homelessness-crisis-unhoused-and-unequal
Guardian UK has this to say about CA housing stuff:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/22/california-homelessness-crisis-unhoused-and-unequal
California’s grid has problems meeting the state’s current power needs. What’s going to happen when all the cars in the state are hanging off it too?
I have no problem agreeing that California’s power grid needs a lot of work. (“Deferred maintenance” strikes again!) But electric cars aren’t likely to be a major issue. Peak stress on the grid tends to be late afternoon and early evening (summer) — say 3 PM to 8 PM. Most electric vehicle recharging is going to happen overnight. So not necessarily a lot of overlap.
Plus, a) we’re seeing steady increase in homes (and businesses!) with solar panels. That eases stress on the grid, because distributed generation means less power ever gets onto the grid. And b) electric cars are driving major improvements in battery technology. That means more of that distributed solar power can be stored (at the source), thus flattening demand peaks, and thus stress on the grid.
California’s grid has problems meeting the state’s current power needs. What’s going to happen when all the cars in the state are hanging off it too?
I have no problem agreeing that California’s power grid needs a lot of work. (“Deferred maintenance” strikes again!) But electric cars aren’t likely to be a major issue. Peak stress on the grid tends to be late afternoon and early evening (summer) — say 3 PM to 8 PM. Most electric vehicle recharging is going to happen overnight. So not necessarily a lot of overlap.
Plus, a) we’re seeing steady increase in homes (and businesses!) with solar panels. That eases stress on the grid, because distributed generation means less power ever gets onto the grid. And b) electric cars are driving major improvements in battery technology. That means more of that distributed solar power can be stored (at the source), thus flattening demand peaks, and thus stress on the grid.
Quite right. If demand were constant over time, total demand over the year could be much higher than it is now with far less stress on the grid. It’s the highest among the daily peaks that are the biggest problem.
Quite right. If demand were constant over time, total demand over the year could be much higher than it is now with far less stress on the grid. It’s the highest among the daily peaks that are the biggest problem.
Marina Hyde in today’s Guardian, on Liz Truss’s “plans” for the economy. This is the opening paragraph:
“Cost of living” is an expression now used so frequently, including by those in positions of power, that it’s possible to end up forgetting how incredibly bleak those words are as a concept. (See also: “human resources”.) Maybe we should revitalise the cliche by calling it the “price of existing” crisis. It is, after all, a perfectly matter-of-fact way of suggesting that there is a point at which many may simply find it too expensive to endure. People generally make too much fuss about cliches, but – in one of the very richest countries in the world – this one does feel worth urgently denormalising.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/26/liz-truss-price-cap-uk-omnicrisis
Marina Hyde in today’s Guardian, on Liz Truss’s “plans” for the economy. This is the opening paragraph:
“Cost of living” is an expression now used so frequently, including by those in positions of power, that it’s possible to end up forgetting how incredibly bleak those words are as a concept. (See also: “human resources”.) Maybe we should revitalise the cliche by calling it the “price of existing” crisis. It is, after all, a perfectly matter-of-fact way of suggesting that there is a point at which many may simply find it too expensive to endure. People generally make too much fuss about cliches, but – in one of the very richest countries in the world – this one does feel worth urgently denormalising.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/26/liz-truss-price-cap-uk-omnicrisis
Nadhim Zahawi has become the first senior minister to suggest that households should cut back on their energy use after the price cap was raised to a record £3,549 a year.
The chancellor blamed the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the 80 per cent rise in bills that will take effect in October
Zahawi advised people to consider reducing their use of energy to manage the steep rise in costs.
You couldn’t fucking make it up. Zahawi has been Chancellor of the Exchequer since July 5th. People are already telling food banks they can’t use their ovens to cook because of the rise in energy prices. And it’s still a hot summer….
Nadhim Zahawi has become the first senior minister to suggest that households should cut back on their energy use after the price cap was raised to a record £3,549 a year.
The chancellor blamed the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the 80 per cent rise in bills that will take effect in October
Zahawi advised people to consider reducing their use of energy to manage the steep rise in costs.
You couldn’t fucking make it up. Zahawi has been Chancellor of the Exchequer since July 5th. People are already telling food banks they can’t use their ovens to cook because of the rise in energy prices. And it’s still a hot summer….
Meanwhile, a GOP representative has found an innovative* reason why canceling student debts is bad: It will rob the armed forces of badly needed cannon fodder:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/key-gop-rep-fears-student-debt-relief-will-undercut-military-recruitin-rcna44964
*I guess that is not the correct adjective but ‘new and original’ doesn’t seem to properly fit either.
Meanwhile, a GOP representative has found an innovative* reason why canceling student debts is bad: It will rob the armed forces of badly needed cannon fodder:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/key-gop-rep-fears-student-debt-relief-will-undercut-military-recruitin-rcna44964
*I guess that is not the correct adjective but ‘new and original’ doesn’t seem to properly fit either.
Car manufacturers, able to see which way the wind was blowing (sorry!), have already been working to tool up for more electric vehicles.
For those who might have doubts about where the car industry is at, this:
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/08/24/ford-statement-on-proposed-advanced-clean-cars-ii-regulations-in.html
Bob Holycross, Chief Sustainability Officer at Ford:
Also this, indicating that it’s not just Ford. GM, which in 2001 sued (unsuccessfully) to block new California emissions standards, is onboard this time:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/-california-no-gas-ford-gm-51661464075
Car manufacturers, able to see which way the wind was blowing (sorry!), have already been working to tool up for more electric vehicles.
For those who might have doubts about where the car industry is at, this:
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/08/24/ford-statement-on-proposed-advanced-clean-cars-ii-regulations-in.html
Bob Holycross, Chief Sustainability Officer at Ford:
Also this, indicating that it’s not just Ford. GM, which in 2001 sued (unsuccessfully) to block new California emissions standards, is onboard this time:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/-california-no-gas-ford-gm-51661464075
1. I’m loving the White House’s response to all the R pols complaining about debt forgiveness. If you haven’t seen it, go down the whole thread and give yourself a treat.
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1562916200866267138?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1562916200866267138%7Ctwgr%5Ed8cd6c9652960d52e2568e06b7d9e88d2e327959%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fok-cleek.com%2Fblogs%2F
2. Where the F is this redacted affidavit? I can’t find it anywhere, and if I’ve got the timing right it should have landed half an hour ago.
1. I’m loving the White House’s response to all the R pols complaining about debt forgiveness. If you haven’t seen it, go down the whole thread and give yourself a treat.
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1562916200866267138?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1562916200866267138%7Ctwgr%5Ed8cd6c9652960d52e2568e06b7d9e88d2e327959%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fok-cleek.com%2Fblogs%2F
2. Where the F is this redacted affidavit? I can’t find it anywhere, and if I’ve got the timing right it should have landed half an hour ago.
Where the F is this redacted affidavit? I can’t find it anywhere, and if I’ve got the timing right it should have landed half an hour ago.
Ask, and ye shall receive:
Trump Mar-a-Lago affidavit unsealed, with redactions
Note: There are lots of redactions. All, be it noted, approved by the judge. If Trump was hoping to identify who, in his entourage, was talking to the Feds, he’s SOL.
Where the F is this redacted affidavit? I can’t find it anywhere, and if I’ve got the timing right it should have landed half an hour ago.
Ask, and ye shall receive:
Trump Mar-a-Lago affidavit unsealed, with redactions
Note: There are lots of redactions. All, be it noted, approved by the judge. If Trump was hoping to identify who, in his entourage, was talking to the Feds, he’s SOL.
OK, I’ve got it. Here goes!
OK, I’ve got it. Here goes!
“The FBI has clearly developed significant evidence of criminal activity at Mar-a-Lago related to the handling of classified material, and government property more generally. There is evidence of document tampering. And there is evidence, at a minimum, of willful retention of material that should not have been at the resort…. We can further infer from Garland’s apparent eagerness to have this material made public that the Justice Department is confident of its position, not just in court but in public opinion.
The volume of highly sensitive material in the warrant, which includes numerous references to material classified at the Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret levels—and even some SCI content—gives a sense of why this is the case.”
https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-unsealed-mar-lago-search-warrant
“The FBI has clearly developed significant evidence of criminal activity at Mar-a-Lago related to the handling of classified material, and government property more generally. There is evidence of document tampering. And there is evidence, at a minimum, of willful retention of material that should not have been at the resort…. We can further infer from Garland’s apparent eagerness to have this material made public that the Justice Department is confident of its position, not just in court but in public opinion.
The volume of highly sensitive material in the warrant, which includes numerous references to material classified at the Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret levels—and even some SCI content—gives a sense of why this is the case.”
https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-unsealed-mar-lago-search-warrant
The 1:15 is from the earlier release of the warrant, just to set the bar of what is already known.
The 1:15 is from the earlier release of the warrant, just to set the bar of what is already known.
In inflation economics, the technical term for $300 billion of debt forgiveness is “pouring gas on the fire.”
In inflation economics, the technical term for $300 billion of debt forgiveness is “pouring gas on the fire.”
Maybe but for a few exceptions, it’s not a windfall for the beneficiaries. It saves them some money every month, which will flow gradually into the economy. More like a small log than gas. And there’s also the whole thing about helping people who need the help. God forbid.
Maybe but for a few exceptions, it’s not a windfall for the beneficiaries. It saves them some money every month, which will flow gradually into the economy. More like a small log than gas. And there’s also the whole thing about helping people who need the help. God forbid.
Not to mention that the inflationary aspects are irrelevant to the hypocrisy of the people who had their PPP loans forgiven.
Not to mention that the inflationary aspects are irrelevant to the hypocrisy of the people who had their PPP loans forgiven.
Is there any opportunity for punching down that a libertarian won’t grab? Stereotyping the homeless one day, bitching about help for student loan holders another…. In inflation economics, is there a technical term for bailing out billionaires?
The whole system is rigged so that the peons look kickable. But the lenders made out like bandits, college administrations ditto. I am the last person to complain about paying taxes for legitimate public goods, but I want my taxes to go to supporting universities in the way they were supported when I was growing up, not into the pockets of bankers profiting from a system where 18-year-olds are the dupes.
Is there any opportunity for punching down that a libertarian won’t grab? Stereotyping the homeless one day, bitching about help for student loan holders another…. In inflation economics, is there a technical term for bailing out billionaires?
The whole system is rigged so that the peons look kickable. But the lenders made out like bandits, college administrations ditto. I am the last person to complain about paying taxes for legitimate public goods, but I want my taxes to go to supporting universities in the way they were supported when I was growing up, not into the pockets of bankers profiting from a system where 18-year-olds are the dupes.
In inflation economics, is there a technical term for bailing out billionaires?
Actually, snark notwithstanding, this is an excellent question.
In inflation economics, is there a technical term for bailing out billionaires?
Actually, snark notwithstanding, this is an excellent question.
In inflation economics, is there a technical term for bailing out billionaires?
“Trickle up” comes to mind….
In inflation economics, is there a technical term for bailing out billionaires?
“Trickle up” comes to mind….
Making my way through the affidavit. One of the things they are worried about is clearly the exposure of clandestine sources (human or otherwise) from whom (or which) intelligence reports are derived.
Making my way through the affidavit. One of the things they are worried about is clearly the exposure of clandestine sources (human or otherwise) from whom (or which) intelligence reports are derived.
Parallel question implied in this quote from an Atlantic article (allegedly; the BJ commenter didn’t give a link) — the subject being Bill Kristol, who was bitching about the snark yesterday from the WH about PPP loans:
(H/t to BJ commenter Cacti.)
Parallel question implied in this quote from an Atlantic article (allegedly; the BJ commenter didn’t give a link) — the subject being Bill Kristol, who was bitching about the snark yesterday from the WH about PPP loans:
(H/t to BJ commenter Cacti.)
I have a very hard time fathoming what Trump thought he was accomplishing by holding on to those documents – and trying really hard to against pressure from the federal government to hand them over! Also how he thought he was going to get away with it given that pressure, which made it very obvious that people knew he had the docs. He is one weird individual.
I have a very hard time fathoming what Trump thought he was accomplishing by holding on to those documents – and trying really hard to against pressure from the federal government to hand them over! Also how he thought he was going to get away with it given that pressure, which made it very obvious that people knew he had the docs. He is one weird individual.
Prof. Katznelson recalled, he then asked Irving what he thought of affirmative action. ‘I oppose it,’ Irving replied. ‘It subverts meritocracy.’
Perhaps he finds that having/making useful contacts constitutes merit? Right up there with having successfully selected the right parents….
Prof. Katznelson recalled, he then asked Irving what he thought of affirmative action. ‘I oppose it,’ Irving replied. ‘It subverts meritocracy.’
Perhaps he finds that having/making useful contacts constitutes merit? Right up there with having successfully selected the right parents….
hsh, for what it’s worth in the amateur psychologizing department, I found this comment from another BJ-er useful.
Again and again I have tried to interpret Clickbait in the light of how I view the world and make choices — even if my conclusion is that he does it the opposite of me in almost every way. But he’s just not explainable in that way.
hsh, for what it’s worth in the amateur psychologizing department, I found this comment from another BJ-er useful.
Again and again I have tried to interpret Clickbait in the light of how I view the world and make choices — even if my conclusion is that he does it the opposite of me in almost every way. But he’s just not explainable in that way.
I have a very hard time fathoming what Trump thought he was accomplishing by holding on to those document
In this, as in so many other respects, he’s like a two-year-old. (No offense intended to all the two-year-olds who display more maturity.)
There was a toy in which he had absolutely no interest. Until some other kid looked like he would pick it up. At which point the first kid grabs it and screams that nobody can take it from him.
I have a very hard time fathoming what Trump thought he was accomplishing by holding on to those document
In this, as in so many other respects, he’s like a two-year-old. (No offense intended to all the two-year-olds who display more maturity.)
There was a toy in which he had absolutely no interest. Until some other kid looked like he would pick it up. At which point the first kid grabs it and screams that nobody can take it from him.
Well, apparently he loves keeping memorabilia about himself. And, according to the affidavit, several of these documents have his handwritten notes on them. Which, if the documents are particularly consequential, would mean they represented very juicily satisfying props for his narcissism.
Also, I’m now more than halfway through the affidavit (there have been lots of interruptions) and the redactions (placing and size) are absolutely fascinating.
Well, apparently he loves keeping memorabilia about himself. And, according to the affidavit, several of these documents have his handwritten notes on them. Which, if the documents are particularly consequential, would mean they represented very juicily satisfying props for his narcissism.
Also, I’m now more than halfway through the affidavit (there have been lots of interruptions) and the redactions (placing and size) are absolutely fascinating.
hsh — and trying really hard to against pressure from the federal government to hand them over!
Again — I’m not sure he sees the federal government in anything like the way we do. I think first of all, he thought it was his private fiefdom when he was in office. And since he thinks he should still be in office, well….
But more obscurely, I am thinking of one of those cartoons that shows someone’s self-image and/or image of the world all distorted, compared to what consensus reality says it is. In my cartoon of Clickbait, he’s this huge outsized figure, and “the federal government” is just a bunch of dopey scurrying ants that he can stomp on if he wants. … Or something like that, where what we think of as the something big and powerful, he thinks of as a minor obstacle. I just think he thinks he can bluster, bluff, lie, and bully his way past all this just like he has done all his life. And let’s not forget the grift and the graft….
hsh — and trying really hard to against pressure from the federal government to hand them over!
Again — I’m not sure he sees the federal government in anything like the way we do. I think first of all, he thought it was his private fiefdom when he was in office. And since he thinks he should still be in office, well….
But more obscurely, I am thinking of one of those cartoons that shows someone’s self-image and/or image of the world all distorted, compared to what consensus reality says it is. In my cartoon of Clickbait, he’s this huge outsized figure, and “the federal government” is just a bunch of dopey scurrying ants that he can stomp on if he wants. … Or something like that, where what we think of as the something big and powerful, he thinks of as a minor obstacle. I just think he thinks he can bluster, bluff, lie, and bully his way past all this just like he has done all his life. And let’s not forget the grift and the graft….
And there’s also the whole thing about helping people who need the help.
Is there any opportunity for punching down that a libertarian won’t grab?
From my financial point of view, it’s hardly punching down.
“Summary: We estimate that forgiving federal college student loan debt will cost between $300 billion and $980 billion over the 10-year budget window, depending on program details. About 70 percent of debt relief accrues to borrowers in the top 60 percent of the income distribution. “
Forgiving Student Loans: Budgetary Costs and Distributional Impact
And there’s also the whole thing about helping people who need the help.
Is there any opportunity for punching down that a libertarian won’t grab?
From my financial point of view, it’s hardly punching down.
“Summary: We estimate that forgiving federal college student loan debt will cost between $300 billion and $980 billion over the 10-year budget window, depending on program details. About 70 percent of debt relief accrues to borrowers in the top 60 percent of the income distribution. “
Forgiving Student Loans: Budgetary Costs and Distributional Impact
forgiving federal college student loan debt will cost between $300 billion and $980 billion over the 10-year budget window, depending on program details. About 70 percent of debt relief accrues to borrowers in the top 60 percent of the income distribution.
And the comparable figures for the PPP debt forgiveness were what?
forgiving federal college student loan debt will cost between $300 billion and $980 billion over the 10-year budget window, depending on program details. About 70 percent of debt relief accrues to borrowers in the top 60 percent of the income distribution.
And the comparable figures for the PPP debt forgiveness were what?
I lost a comment somehow, but all I can do is marvel at the weasely “lies, damned lies, and statistics” nature of framing the assertion as … wait for it! — “70% of the $ will go to the top 60%” of the income distribution.
Oh, the horror!
Reminds me of an article I once read where I was supposed to get all outraged because “fully 75%” of the people living in poverty in the world were women and children. Depending on where you make the cutoff for counting children, it seems to me that would be not far off from the percentage of people who *are* women and children.
Perhaps CharlesWT could actually read beyond the intro blurb and tell us how much of the $ will go to people in the middle quintile, who are very very far from well off in this country.
I lost a comment somehow, but all I can do is marvel at the weasely “lies, damned lies, and statistics” nature of framing the assertion as … wait for it! — “70% of the $ will go to the top 60%” of the income distribution.
Oh, the horror!
Reminds me of an article I once read where I was supposed to get all outraged because “fully 75%” of the people living in poverty in the world were women and children. Depending on where you make the cutoff for counting children, it seems to me that would be not far off from the percentage of people who *are* women and children.
Perhaps CharlesWT could actually read beyond the intro blurb and tell us how much of the $ will go to people in the middle quintile, who are very very far from well off in this country.
And the comparable figures for the PPP debt forgiveness were what?
Hundreds of billions. But one lousy bailout doesn’t justify another. And, hopefully, it was a one-shot thing. But the student loan debt bailouts will be ongoing.
“Most of the discourse on Biden’s student debt plan has so far focused on the $10,000 income-tested debt forgiveness. This makes sense as the forgiveness is a splashy short-run policy that is easy to understand. But the plan also includes significant changes to the country’s income-driven repayment (IDR) system that are, in the long-run, far more significant than the debt forgiveness.”
The New Income-Driven Repayment System Could Cause Some Big Problems: As IDR becomes the norm, college and student incentives radically change.
And the comparable figures for the PPP debt forgiveness were what?
Hundreds of billions. But one lousy bailout doesn’t justify another. And, hopefully, it was a one-shot thing. But the student loan debt bailouts will be ongoing.
“Most of the discourse on Biden’s student debt plan has so far focused on the $10,000 income-tested debt forgiveness. This makes sense as the forgiveness is a splashy short-run policy that is easy to understand. But the plan also includes significant changes to the country’s income-driven repayment (IDR) system that are, in the long-run, far more significant than the debt forgiveness.”
The New Income-Driven Repayment System Could Cause Some Big Problems: As IDR becomes the norm, college and student incentives radically change.
Let me just point out that 30% of the money will go to the lowest 40% of the income distribution. That’s not too far out of whack…..but I’m not going to speculate about why.
Let me just point out that 30% of the money will go to the lowest 40% of the income distribution. That’s not too far out of whack…..but I’m not going to speculate about why.
So, was funneling the equivalent of billions into the land grant universities in prior eras, so that ordinary people go could to college for very little in tuition and come out without debt…..a despicable communist plot? A terrible system financially? A disaster for “the economy” (where is Tony P to remind us what “the economy” is?)?
I’m sure it was a very undesirable thing that working class people could get an education without owing their betters $ for the rest of their lives. Good thing we got rid of that system, isn’t it?
So, was funneling the equivalent of billions into the land grant universities in prior eras, so that ordinary people go could to college for very little in tuition and come out without debt…..a despicable communist plot? A terrible system financially? A disaster for “the economy” (where is Tony P to remind us what “the economy” is?)?
I’m sure it was a very undesirable thing that working class people could get an education without owing their betters $ for the rest of their lives. Good thing we got rid of that system, isn’t it?
“The New Income-Driven Repayment System Could Cause Some Big Problems” —- Funny, the current system of having millions of people enslaved to debt at not-low interest rates for most of their lives causes some problems too. I do wonder if any of these articles actually weighing the trade-offs.
Not betting on it.
“The New Income-Driven Repayment System Could Cause Some Big Problems” —- Funny, the current system of having millions of people enslaved to debt at not-low interest rates for most of their lives causes some problems too. I do wonder if any of these articles actually weighing the trade-offs.
Not betting on it.
funneling the equivalent of billions into the land grant universities in prior eras, so that ordinary people go could to college for very little in tuition and come out without debt
Loss of which is one of the “features” of our current education system which can get me frothing at the mouth. To the point where I can’t even write a coherent comment. Beyond noting that those of us who got an education that way are responsible for a huge chunk of the economic progress** of the last half century or more.
** Although admittedly those longing for the libertarian heaven of the Gilded Age might not see it as progress.
funneling the equivalent of billions into the land grant universities in prior eras, so that ordinary people go could to college for very little in tuition and come out without debt
Loss of which is one of the “features” of our current education system which can get me frothing at the mouth. To the point where I can’t even write a coherent comment. Beyond noting that those of us who got an education that way are responsible for a huge chunk of the economic progress** of the last half century or more.
** Although admittedly those longing for the libertarian heaven of the Gilded Age might not see it as progress.
And the comparable figures for the PPP debt forgiveness were what?
How many times do I have to explain this to you people?
PPP and bank bailouts are good clean stimuli for Job Creators™ and nice people.
Debt forgiveness and social programs are dirty giveaways to panhandlers and filthy hippies.
I lost a comment somehow, but all I can do is marvel at the weasely “lies, damned lies, and statistics” nature of framing the assertion as … wait for it! — “70% of the $ will go to the top 60%” of the income distribution.
Yeah, that was a pretty creative way of describing the data. Imagine my surprised face when I read that Kent Smetters is a visiting scholar at the AEI.
And the comparable figures for the PPP debt forgiveness were what?
How many times do I have to explain this to you people?
PPP and bank bailouts are good clean stimuli for Job Creators™ and nice people.
Debt forgiveness and social programs are dirty giveaways to panhandlers and filthy hippies.
I lost a comment somehow, but all I can do is marvel at the weasely “lies, damned lies, and statistics” nature of framing the assertion as … wait for it! — “70% of the $ will go to the top 60%” of the income distribution.
Yeah, that was a pretty creative way of describing the data. Imagine my surprised face when I read that Kent Smetters is a visiting scholar at the AEI.
Loss of which is one of the “features” of our current education system which can get me frothing at the mouth. To the point where I can’t even write a coherent comment.
Our hearts beat as one.
Between that and for-profit health insurance….
Aiy.
Loss of which is one of the “features” of our current education system which can get me frothing at the mouth. To the point where I can’t even write a coherent comment.
Our hearts beat as one.
Between that and for-profit health insurance….
Aiy.
This is giving me flashbacks to the beginning of the pandemic, when all these “big data” geniuses were telling us what we should do and how it was going to go because they had crunched a bunch of numbers.
I’m not sure which is a bigger problem, although I wish “we” (lol) could tackle both of them: the inability of so many people to see behind the simplest numbers in headlines, or the general (not necessarily number-based) slanting of information that makes nonsense sound plausible.
This is giving me flashbacks to the beginning of the pandemic, when all these “big data” geniuses were telling us what we should do and how it was going to go because they had crunched a bunch of numbers.
I’m not sure which is a bigger problem, although I wish “we” (lol) could tackle both of them: the inability of so many people to see behind the simplest numbers in headlines, or the general (not necessarily number-based) slanting of information that makes nonsense sound plausible.
they had crunched a bunch of numbers
A bunch of cherry-picked numbers applied to cherry-picked scenarios.
they had crunched a bunch of numbers
A bunch of cherry-picked numbers applied to cherry-picked scenarios.
Imagine my surprised face
I am enjoying my mental picture. 😉
Imagine my surprised face
I am enjoying my mental picture. 😉
And, hopefully, it was a one-shot thing
You’re not serious, are you?
It was only the latest in a very long line. A brief history.
And, hopefully, it was a one-shot thing
You’re not serious, are you?
It was only the latest in a very long line. A brief history.
And, hopefully, it was a one-shot thing
You’re not serious, are you?
It was only the latest in a very long line. A brief history.
I admit to occasional libertarian leanings myself. But it isn’t really possible to be an all-in libertarian unless you are willing to be totally and willfully blind to history. Because history serves up so many, and such consistent, counterexamples. Including cases over the past half century (i.e. in living memory) where true believer libertarians predicted disaster if something they disliked was done . . . yet it was done, and no visible disaster happened. And cases where actions proposed by libertarians were taken, and disaster followed.
Awkward, that. Better to just ignore history and stick to ideology. Worked real well for the communists, didn’t it? As long as you ignore history.
And, hopefully, it was a one-shot thing
You’re not serious, are you?
It was only the latest in a very long line. A brief history.
I admit to occasional libertarian leanings myself. But it isn’t really possible to be an all-in libertarian unless you are willing to be totally and willfully blind to history. Because history serves up so many, and such consistent, counterexamples. Including cases over the past half century (i.e. in living memory) where true believer libertarians predicted disaster if something they disliked was done . . . yet it was done, and no visible disaster happened. And cases where actions proposed by libertarians were taken, and disaster followed.
Awkward, that. Better to just ignore history and stick to ideology. Worked real well for the communists, didn’t it? As long as you ignore history.
This is giving me flashbacks to the beginning of the pandemic, when all these “big data” geniuses were telling us what we should do and how it was going to go because they had crunched a bunch of numbers.
Remember that experiment in Kansas when they cut all those taxes and Kansas went straight into the toilet and only began crawling out of it when they repealed all those policies?
Apparently, no conclusions could be drawn from the experiment.
This is giving me flashbacks to the beginning of the pandemic, when all these “big data” geniuses were telling us what we should do and how it was going to go because they had crunched a bunch of numbers.
Remember that experiment in Kansas when they cut all those taxes and Kansas went straight into the toilet and only began crawling out of it when they repealed all those policies?
Apparently, no conclusions could be drawn from the experiment.
By the way, I meant to say earlier, I loved that Irving Kristol/Prof Katznelson story. It’s almost too good to be true, would make a wonderful comedy skit with that punchline. Gallows humour.
Also, I do not think I am getting sufficient praise and kudos for so brilliantly thinking myself into the mind of DJT, and his motivation for keeping the documents. But then, a prophet is without honour in her own country…or could it be that after all the comments here and elsewhere about how utterly impossible he is for normal people to understand, you are all now reeling and terrified at the revelation that someone you have been hanging out with has a spooky ability to understand he who must not be named? (Insert scary, supernatural laughter.)
By the way, I meant to say earlier, I loved that Irving Kristol/Prof Katznelson story. It’s almost too good to be true, would make a wonderful comedy skit with that punchline. Gallows humour.
Also, I do not think I am getting sufficient praise and kudos for so brilliantly thinking myself into the mind of DJT, and his motivation for keeping the documents. But then, a prophet is without honour in her own country…or could it be that after all the comments here and elsewhere about how utterly impossible he is for normal people to understand, you are all now reeling and terrified at the revelation that someone you have been hanging out with has a spooky ability to understand he who must not be named? (Insert scary, supernatural laughter.)
One detail that I haven’t seen stated explicitly regarding the Mar-a-Lago search warrant: Trump had previously been served with a subpoena for all government documents in his possession. Considering all the stuff found in the search, it’s obvious that he failed to comply with the subpoena. Last I looked, that’s criminal in and of itself. Not as serious as the other possible charges. But still, a slam dunk in court.
One detail that I haven’t seen stated explicitly regarding the Mar-a-Lago search warrant: Trump had previously been served with a subpoena for all government documents in his possession. Considering all the stuff found in the search, it’s obvious that he failed to comply with the subpoena. Last I looked, that’s criminal in and of itself. Not as serious as the other possible charges. But still, a slam dunk in court.
One detail that I haven’t seen stated explicitly regarding the Mar-a-Lago search warrant: Trump had previously been served with a subpoena for all government documents in his possession. Considering all the stuff found in the search, it’s obvious that he failed to comply with the subpoena.
Not only did he fail to comply, he and/or his lawyers lied about it afterwords, IIRC. I’ve skimmed so much by now that I don’t have the heart to try and find a reference.
One detail that I haven’t seen stated explicitly regarding the Mar-a-Lago search warrant: Trump had previously been served with a subpoena for all government documents in his possession. Considering all the stuff found in the search, it’s obvious that he failed to comply with the subpoena.
Not only did he fail to comply, he and/or his lawyers lied about it afterwords, IIRC. I’ve skimmed so much by now that I don’t have the heart to try and find a reference.
Not only did he fail to comply, he and/or his lawyers lied about it afterwords,
Wonder if the lawyers will dodge the bullet by claiming that he lied to them, too? I believe that’s the usual excuse. And with a notorious liar for a client, it just might fly.
Not only did he fail to comply, he and/or his lawyers lied about it afterwords,
Wonder if the lawyers will dodge the bullet by claiming that he lied to them, too? I believe that’s the usual excuse. And with a notorious liar for a client, it just might fly.
Elizabeth Warren:
Reminds me of another angle on the 70%/60% magic trick — income isn’t the same as wealth.
Elizabeth Warren:
Reminds me of another angle on the 70%/60% magic trick — income isn’t the same as wealth.
wj — Original NYT reporting on the lie about having returned all the docs.
More recent.
wj — Original NYT reporting on the lie about having returned all the docs.
More recent.
There’s some speculation about the “residential suite” and the idea that it’s probably not an area widely available to staff. So if someone dropped a dime, conventional wisdom says it’s an “inner circle” type.
Which, if true, can’t have Trump sleeping well at night.
There’s some speculation about the “residential suite” and the idea that it’s probably not an area widely available to staff. So if someone dropped a dime, conventional wisdom says it’s an “inner circle” type.
Which, if true, can’t have Trump sleeping well at night.
Thanks, Janie. So nice to have people here who know things I don’t.
Thanks, Janie. So nice to have people here who know things I don’t.
if someone dropped a dime, conventional wisdom says it’s an “inner circle” type.
Or the cleaning crew. Or any of the other “servants” that people like Trump routinely ignore. Invisibility can be really handy.
if someone dropped a dime, conventional wisdom says it’s an “inner circle” type.
Or the cleaning crew. Or any of the other “servants” that people like Trump routinely ignore. Invisibility can be really handy.
This is all going to end up at the SCOTUS. The question will be, is there a broad “executive privilege” which puts the President outside of the courts’ purview (and possibly Congress’s as well), and does that executive privilege extend to former Presidents.
This is all going to end up at the SCOTUS. The question will be, is there a broad “executive privilege” which puts the President outside of the courts’ purview (and possibly Congress’s as well), and does that executive privilege extend to former Presidents.
Or the cleaning crew. Or any of the other “servants” that people like Trump routinely ignore. Invisibility can be really handy.
Could very well be, especially if that invisibility allowed them to overhear certain things. I just get the (completely baseless) sense that an informant would be in a position to know what they had. If I was vacuuming an office and saw a bunch of folders marked “Top Secret”, I’d probably assume it was a joke thing. I doubt “I should probably contact the National Archives” would cross my mind.
I also get the sense that anyone in the “servant” class spends no more time in the residential suite than is absolutely necessary.
Or the cleaning crew. Or any of the other “servants” that people like Trump routinely ignore. Invisibility can be really handy.
Could very well be, especially if that invisibility allowed them to overhear certain things. I just get the (completely baseless) sense that an informant would be in a position to know what they had. If I was vacuuming an office and saw a bunch of folders marked “Top Secret”, I’d probably assume it was a joke thing. I doubt “I should probably contact the National Archives” would cross my mind.
I also get the sense that anyone in the “servant” class spends no more time in the residential suite than is absolutely necessary.
Responding to Michael Cain —
1. Article about executive privilege.
2. Why not post it again? It’s so wonderful….
3. I’m skeptical as to whether Clickbait can get any lawyer to work for him who is competent enough to make the argument.
4. And if SCOTUS, corrupted as it is by the ideological six, rules that former presidents’ privilege can trump (sorry) both the law and the current executive branch’s privilege, then I won’t be surprised to see some form of that civil war people talk about, and/or a rebellion against the notion that SCOTUS has the last word. Of course, the latter will depend on who holds Congress and the White House when a ruling comes down. But then, if the Rs hold both those branches, we’re screwed beyond repair anyhow.
5. For SCOTUS to say that the president is outside the courts’ (including its own) purview would be … weird. Seems like that undoes Marbury v. Madison and sends the whole shebang up into the air to fall back down in some unpredictable shape.
Responding to Michael Cain —
1. Article about executive privilege.
2. Why not post it again? It’s so wonderful….
3. I’m skeptical as to whether Clickbait can get any lawyer to work for him who is competent enough to make the argument.
4. And if SCOTUS, corrupted as it is by the ideological six, rules that former presidents’ privilege can trump (sorry) both the law and the current executive branch’s privilege, then I won’t be surprised to see some form of that civil war people talk about, and/or a rebellion against the notion that SCOTUS has the last word. Of course, the latter will depend on who holds Congress and the White House when a ruling comes down. But then, if the Rs hold both those branches, we’re screwed beyond repair anyhow.
5. For SCOTUS to say that the president is outside the courts’ (including its own) purview would be … weird. Seems like that undoes Marbury v. Madison and sends the whole shebang up into the air to fall back down in some unpredictable shape.
If I was vacuuming an office and saw a bunch of folders marked “Top Secret”, I’d probably assume it was a joke thing. I doubt “I should probably contact the National Archives” would cross my mind.
In general, absolutely. On the other hand, if I’d been hearing ranting from the owner about his “absolute right to declassify anything”? And I’d seen boxes of documents being packed up and sent out previously? And then I’d seen news stories about the whole issue? I might not assume a joke thing. Context matters.
If I was vacuuming an office and saw a bunch of folders marked “Top Secret”, I’d probably assume it was a joke thing. I doubt “I should probably contact the National Archives” would cross my mind.
In general, absolutely. On the other hand, if I’d been hearing ranting from the owner about his “absolute right to declassify anything”? And I’d seen boxes of documents being packed up and sent out previously? And then I’d seen news stories about the whole issue? I might not assume a joke thing. Context matters.
if SCOTUS, corrupted as it is by the ideological six, rules that former presidents’ privilege can trump (sorry) both the law and the current executive branch’s privilege,
The biggest deterrent? At least some of them can figure out that, if they rule that way on executive privilege here, a Democratic President would be free to tell them to buzz off. After all, the only way their decisions get enforced is if the Executive Branch implements them. Not bright to set up a reason to not do so.
For that matter, (if you’re paranoid enough) find an executive privilege excuse to just lock them up and throw away the key.
if SCOTUS, corrupted as it is by the ideological six, rules that former presidents’ privilege can trump (sorry) both the law and the current executive branch’s privilege,
The biggest deterrent? At least some of them can figure out that, if they rule that way on executive privilege here, a Democratic President would be free to tell them to buzz off. After all, the only way their decisions get enforced is if the Executive Branch implements them. Not bright to set up a reason to not do so.
For that matter, (if you’re paranoid enough) find an executive privilege excuse to just lock them up and throw away the key.
With everything going to hell, I’ve not read a lot of SCOTUS watching articles, but while I don’t think what Janie suggests is impossible, I’d be (mildly) surprised if SCOTUS upholds it. Going against Trump in this instance might be viewed as a way to keep whatever dignity they have left. A lot would depend on how the question arrived at the SCOTUS, but I don’t see the conservative bloc as invested in making sure that Trump were safe as they were in making sure Roe was overruled.
With everything going to hell, I’ve not read a lot of SCOTUS watching articles, but while I don’t think what Janie suggests is impossible, I’d be (mildly) surprised if SCOTUS upholds it. Going against Trump in this instance might be viewed as a way to keep whatever dignity they have left. A lot would depend on how the question arrived at the SCOTUS, but I don’t see the conservative bloc as invested in making sure that Trump were safe as they were in making sure Roe was overruled.
Also, here’s a nice little snake eating its tail framing:
A traitor to the United States of America appointed three Supreme Court Justices.
Are they going to recuse themselves?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Also, here’s a nice little snake eating its tail framing:
A traitor to the United States of America appointed three Supreme Court Justices.
Are they going to recuse themselves?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Are they going to recuse themselves?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Perhaps they will show as much loyalty to Trump as he routinely shows to those around him. No matter how much they have done for him in the past; all that matters is what they can do to him going forward.
What could he do to them; they’re at the top of their field and they’ve got lifetime appointments. OK, I suppose he could send a mob of cultists after them. But Biden might be more active in keeping the piece that TFG was when a riot happens.
Are they going to recuse themselves?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Perhaps they will show as much loyalty to Trump as he routinely shows to those around him. No matter how much they have done for him in the past; all that matters is what they can do to him going forward.
What could he do to them; they’re at the top of their field and they’ve got lifetime appointments. OK, I suppose he could send a mob of cultists after them. But Biden might be more active in keeping the piece that TFG was when a riot happens.
What lj said @09.35.
Despite the dodgy circumstances of their appointments, the ignoble three (or two if you choose not to count Gorsuch) are now invested in appearing clothed in the dignity, rectitude and unassailability of their office. I hope it won’t stop the Dems from taking appropriate steps if and when they control both houses and the Presidency. A girl from the north country can hope.
What lj said @09.35.
Despite the dodgy circumstances of their appointments, the ignoble three (or two if you choose not to count Gorsuch) are now invested in appearing clothed in the dignity, rectitude and unassailability of their office. I hope it won’t stop the Dems from taking appropriate steps if and when they control both houses and the Presidency. A girl from the north country can hope.
Responding to various comments, and following up on my own snark.
My 9:05 last night was a reaction to Michael Cain’s 8:43.
Michael wrote this: This is all going to end up at the SCOTUS. The question will be, is there a broad “executive privilege” which puts the President outside of the courts’ purview (and possibly Congress’s as well), and does that executive privilege extend to former Presidents.
This sounds all calm and ordinary, but these are not ordinary times and this is not an ordinary question to be coming before the Court. As I think wj pointed out, the Court has no enforcement mechanism and depends totally on buy-in from everyone else for its decisions to have any force. But more fundamentally than that, what I see in Michael’s proposition, which I didn’t explain at all well amidst the snark, is a double bind that I don’t see how the current Court can weasel out of.
Ruling that ex-presidents have some sort of ongoing executive privilege opens up one can of worms, ruling that he doesn’t opens another.
What if they say former presidents *do* have some level of executive privilege? And then, what if something Clickbait wants or does is in conflict with something Carter or Clinton or Obama does or wants?
Never mind the sitting president.
No matter where or how they try to draw the boundaries, Clickbait will ignore them, because that’s what he does. Plus, they will have neutered themselves by, as Michael says, putting the president (and in this scenario a whole crew of ex-presidents) outside their purview, thus gutting their own power to be the final arbiter of what our laws are and can be.
Are they going to neuter themselves in that manner, Clickbait or not? I don’t think so.
For further entertainment, Clickbait will immediately assert (has already asserted) explicitly and implicitly that because of this “privilege,” and despite what Merrick Garland says, he is, in fact, above the law.
On the other hand, if they say that the sort of executive privilege Clickbait and his ventriloquist’s dummies are braying about doesn’t exist (the privilege of revealing who our spies are, selling US secrets to MBS and Putin, stealing government property, whatever it all is), then Clickbait is the profoundly, relentlessly, irredeemably criminal asshole we all think he is and has been forever, and he’s the one who appointed three of them, so where does that leave them? With any legitimacy at all? Justices can be impeached, after all.
So indirectly, Michael’s scenario suggests that the current justices should rule on their own legitimacy.
Good luck with that.
We will be very lucky to get away with “only” a Constitutional crisis.
Responding to various comments, and following up on my own snark.
My 9:05 last night was a reaction to Michael Cain’s 8:43.
Michael wrote this: This is all going to end up at the SCOTUS. The question will be, is there a broad “executive privilege” which puts the President outside of the courts’ purview (and possibly Congress’s as well), and does that executive privilege extend to former Presidents.
This sounds all calm and ordinary, but these are not ordinary times and this is not an ordinary question to be coming before the Court. As I think wj pointed out, the Court has no enforcement mechanism and depends totally on buy-in from everyone else for its decisions to have any force. But more fundamentally than that, what I see in Michael’s proposition, which I didn’t explain at all well amidst the snark, is a double bind that I don’t see how the current Court can weasel out of.
Ruling that ex-presidents have some sort of ongoing executive privilege opens up one can of worms, ruling that he doesn’t opens another.
What if they say former presidents *do* have some level of executive privilege? And then, what if something Clickbait wants or does is in conflict with something Carter or Clinton or Obama does or wants?
Never mind the sitting president.
No matter where or how they try to draw the boundaries, Clickbait will ignore them, because that’s what he does. Plus, they will have neutered themselves by, as Michael says, putting the president (and in this scenario a whole crew of ex-presidents) outside their purview, thus gutting their own power to be the final arbiter of what our laws are and can be.
Are they going to neuter themselves in that manner, Clickbait or not? I don’t think so.
For further entertainment, Clickbait will immediately assert (has already asserted) explicitly and implicitly that because of this “privilege,” and despite what Merrick Garland says, he is, in fact, above the law.
On the other hand, if they say that the sort of executive privilege Clickbait and his ventriloquist’s dummies are braying about doesn’t exist (the privilege of revealing who our spies are, selling US secrets to MBS and Putin, stealing government property, whatever it all is), then Clickbait is the profoundly, relentlessly, irredeemably criminal asshole we all think he is and has been forever, and he’s the one who appointed three of them, so where does that leave them? With any legitimacy at all? Justices can be impeached, after all.
So indirectly, Michael’s scenario suggests that the current justices should rule on their own legitimacy.
Good luck with that.
We will be very lucky to get away with “only” a Constitutional crisis.
I’d be (mildly) surprised if SCOTUS upholds it.
So would I, for all the reasons that people have mentioned. I still think the case will get there, though. Trump as the plaintiff because executive privilege is what keeps him out of jail. Assorted scholars as the necessary legal talent who don’t care about Trump, they just want the executive privilege in place for the next time there’s a Republican in the Oval Office. They won’t worry about “Gee, you’ve given Biden all that power” because they don’t believe a Democrat will take advantage of it.
I’d be (mildly) surprised if SCOTUS upholds it.
So would I, for all the reasons that people have mentioned. I still think the case will get there, though. Trump as the plaintiff because executive privilege is what keeps him out of jail. Assorted scholars as the necessary legal talent who don’t care about Trump, they just want the executive privilege in place for the next time there’s a Republican in the Oval Office. They won’t worry about “Gee, you’ve given Biden all that power” because they don’t believe a Democrat will take advantage of it.
Ex-POTUS privilege?
And by the way, I am not at all predicting that SCOTUS will uphold Clickbait’s claims of executive privilege. I’m not sure how you could read what I wrote that way. I’m just trying to lay out the dilemma the whole situation creates.
Ex-POTUS privilege?
And by the way, I am not at all predicting that SCOTUS will uphold Clickbait’s claims of executive privilege. I’m not sure how you could read what I wrote that way. I’m just trying to lay out the dilemma the whole situation creates.
That Jabbabonk nominated the three justices will not – in their view – undermine their legitimacy since they were approved by the senate. The senate could have refused to approve them but did not. Thus Jabbabonk nominating them is a mere historical coincidence. Any GOPster POTUS could have done it. Jabbabonk probably did not know any of them in advance but got a list to choose from approved by ‘serious’ conservatives. The unsavoury behavior of McTurtle in the senate is irrelevant since it was all formally legal, there were no direct bribes.
etc.
I guess they would have preferred to get their job from someone else (e.g. another Bush or even Ted Cruz) but they can rest assured that they really got it through the initiative of the conservative movement. Had it been up to Jabbabonk alone, he would have chosen someone he saw on Faux Newts or from his own legal team (as Bush the Lesser tried with Harriet Miers).
Btw, they formally rejected the Big Lie and did not intervene in a Bush vs. Gore 2.0 way, thus ‘proving’ that they were not bought creatures of the Orange One but independent. They will consider that as sufficent to protect their legitimacy. And the conservative movement will agree. The one with problems is Roberts. Not because he got his job illegitimately (he did not) but because he angered the base with some decisions that were in their (and his) long term but not short term interest (which is the only thing that currently matters).
That Jabbabonk nominated the three justices will not – in their view – undermine their legitimacy since they were approved by the senate. The senate could have refused to approve them but did not. Thus Jabbabonk nominating them is a mere historical coincidence. Any GOPster POTUS could have done it. Jabbabonk probably did not know any of them in advance but got a list to choose from approved by ‘serious’ conservatives. The unsavoury behavior of McTurtle in the senate is irrelevant since it was all formally legal, there were no direct bribes.
etc.
I guess they would have preferred to get their job from someone else (e.g. another Bush or even Ted Cruz) but they can rest assured that they really got it through the initiative of the conservative movement. Had it been up to Jabbabonk alone, he would have chosen someone he saw on Faux Newts or from his own legal team (as Bush the Lesser tried with Harriet Miers).
Btw, they formally rejected the Big Lie and did not intervene in a Bush vs. Gore 2.0 way, thus ‘proving’ that they were not bought creatures of the Orange One but independent. They will consider that as sufficent to protect their legitimacy. And the conservative movement will agree. The one with problems is Roberts. Not because he got his job illegitimately (he did not) but because he angered the base with some decisions that were in their (and his) long term but not short term interest (which is the only thing that currently matters).
if they say that the sort of executive privilege Clickbait and his ventriloquist’s dummies are braying about doesn’t exist
…
and he’s the one who appointed three of them, so where does that leave them? With any legitimacy at all?
I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem. Consider, for example, Christopher Wray, who Trump appointed Director of the FBI. Not exactly a Trump lacky these days. Or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, virtually all of whom are Trump appointees. Or the numerous Federal judges that Trump appointed, who have ruled against his various frivolous lawsuits over the election. They may infuriate the cult by their lack of “loyalty”, but the rest of us reserve our negative views for the massive incompetents among his appointees.
So the Justices might reasonably expect the same response after ruling against him. I expect the political hacks that he appointed wouldn’t get it, due to the fantasies used in their rulings.** But would they admit it to themselves in advance of ruling on his “executive privilege” claims? I’m guessing not.
** But then, the same applies to Thomas and Alito, and Trump didn’t appoint them.
if they say that the sort of executive privilege Clickbait and his ventriloquist’s dummies are braying about doesn’t exist
…
and he’s the one who appointed three of them, so where does that leave them? With any legitimacy at all?
I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem. Consider, for example, Christopher Wray, who Trump appointed Director of the FBI. Not exactly a Trump lacky these days. Or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, virtually all of whom are Trump appointees. Or the numerous Federal judges that Trump appointed, who have ruled against his various frivolous lawsuits over the election. They may infuriate the cult by their lack of “loyalty”, but the rest of us reserve our negative views for the massive incompetents among his appointees.
So the Justices might reasonably expect the same response after ruling against him. I expect the political hacks that he appointed wouldn’t get it, due to the fantasies used in their rulings.** But would they admit it to themselves in advance of ruling on his “executive privilege” claims? I’m guessing not.
** But then, the same applies to Thomas and Alito, and Trump didn’t appoint them.
What I think we’re all saying is that they don’t really have a dilemma in their own minds. Even if it might appear so from the outside.
What I think we’re all saying is that they don’t really have a dilemma in their own minds. Even if it might appear so from the outside.
There has been a lot of noise made already about expanding the court, just (“just”) because of Roe. If they were to hand above-the-law status to Clickbait, and the Ds had Congress and the WH, do you think that noise would quiet down, or get louder?
Listing what *their* and other conservatives’ arguments might be about their legitimacy ignores the fact that there are actually other sides and other viewpoints in play.
There has been a lot of noise made already about expanding the court, just (“just”) because of Roe. If they were to hand above-the-law status to Clickbait, and the Ds had Congress and the WH, do you think that noise would quiet down, or get louder?
Listing what *their* and other conservatives’ arguments might be about their legitimacy ignores the fact that there are actually other sides and other viewpoints in play.
If they were to hand above-the-law status to Clickbait, and the Ds had Congress and the WH, do you think that noise would quiet down, or get louder?
Of course not. But the lack of a dilemma comes from the lack (or perceived lack) of a downside for them from ruling against Trump’s assertions.
If they were to hand above-the-law status to Clickbait, and the Ds had Congress and the WH, do you think that noise would quiet down, or get louder?
Of course not. But the lack of a dilemma comes from the lack (or perceived lack) of a downside for them from ruling against Trump’s assertions.
I suspect most Supreme Court justices consider themselves a bit above the fray of partisan politics. And to the degree they have them, may have agendas that don’t aline with the ideologies of the people who appointed them.
I suspect most Supreme Court justices consider themselves a bit above the fray of partisan politics. And to the degree they have them, may have agendas that don’t aline with the ideologies of the people who appointed them.
I suspect most Supreme Court justices consider themselves a bit above the fray of partisan politics. And to the degree they have them, may have agendas that don’t aline with the ideologies of the people who appointed them.
I point you back to the ProPublica link my Aug. 24 11:55 comment.
No one is going to have a personal agenda that tracks entirely with the ideologies of the people who appointed them, but a lot of time and money has been spent looking for the people whose agendas and temperaments match the goals that their sponsors wish to achieve. And the sponsors have undoubtedly winnowed that pool down to the ones they think best fit their view of the future. The curve has been pre-fit.
It’s easy to think yourself above the fray if you choose to focus only on first principles and ignore context, but that view of things is self-delusional and uncritical, and not worthy of a responsible adult.
I suspect most Supreme Court justices consider themselves a bit above the fray of partisan politics. And to the degree they have them, may have agendas that don’t aline with the ideologies of the people who appointed them.
I point you back to the ProPublica link my Aug. 24 11:55 comment.
No one is going to have a personal agenda that tracks entirely with the ideologies of the people who appointed them, but a lot of time and money has been spent looking for the people whose agendas and temperaments match the goals that their sponsors wish to achieve. And the sponsors have undoubtedly winnowed that pool down to the ones they think best fit their view of the future. The curve has been pre-fit.
It’s easy to think yourself above the fray if you choose to focus only on first principles and ignore context, but that view of things is self-delusional and uncritical, and not worthy of a responsible adult.
I suspect most Supreme Court justices consider themselves a bit above the fray of partisan politics.
Once upon a time, I would have agreed with you. But now? Not so much.
Perhaps it’s just that the parties have become far more homogeneous, and further apart, than they once were. Thus making the Justices’ personal views align with a partisan view.
But there’s equally good reason to think that the three Trump appointees really do qualify as partisan hacks first and foremost. Making the only question wherher they consider Trump good or bad for their partisan preference. The way the midterms go may push them one way or another on that. But at the moment, I’d guess they lean towards the “bad” view.
I suspect most Supreme Court justices consider themselves a bit above the fray of partisan politics.
Once upon a time, I would have agreed with you. But now? Not so much.
Perhaps it’s just that the parties have become far more homogeneous, and further apart, than they once were. Thus making the Justices’ personal views align with a partisan view.
But there’s equally good reason to think that the three Trump appointees really do qualify as partisan hacks first and foremost. Making the only question wherher they consider Trump good or bad for their partisan preference. The way the midterms go may push them one way or another on that. But at the moment, I’d guess they lean towards the “bad” view.
I hesitate to contribute this, since it is a) only vaguely remembered and b) anecdata, but I am under the impression that reasonably non-partisan but comparatively well-informed opinion (at least outside the US) is that Gorsuch is not the kind of partisan hack that e.g. Kavanaugh is, and (obviously) not as much of a mole of Gilead as ACB. In other words, that a regular, run-of-the-mill R POTUS (like say George H W Bush) might have nominated Gorsuch, but Kavanaugh and ACB would have been disqualified the moment information about their pasts came to light, if they were even considered before that. Does this make sense, from a US perspective? Or is Gorsuch also beyond the pale, apart from being a conservative?
I hesitate to contribute this, since it is a) only vaguely remembered and b) anecdata, but I am under the impression that reasonably non-partisan but comparatively well-informed opinion (at least outside the US) is that Gorsuch is not the kind of partisan hack that e.g. Kavanaugh is, and (obviously) not as much of a mole of Gilead as ACB. In other words, that a regular, run-of-the-mill R POTUS (like say George H W Bush) might have nominated Gorsuch, but Kavanaugh and ACB would have been disqualified the moment information about their pasts came to light, if they were even considered before that. Does this make sense, from a US perspective? Or is Gorsuch also beyond the pale, apart from being a conservative?
Gorsuch is able to keep up appearances, that’s imo the main difference to the other two. By now (i.e. after Gorsuch) that is no longer deemed necessary anymore or worse, a bug. The base by now (mis)takes the usual charade of respectability for the real thing and will not tolerate it. Lack of froth at the intake orifice is a disqualifier now.
Gorsuch is able to keep up appearances, that’s imo the main difference to the other two. By now (i.e. after Gorsuch) that is no longer deemed necessary anymore or worse, a bug. The base by now (mis)takes the usual charade of respectability for the real thing and will not tolerate it. Lack of froth at the intake orifice is a disqualifier now.
I’m not sure that Gorsuch is as bad as Kavanaugh. But I certainly wouldn’t care to try to argue that he isn’t.
It may be indicative that, while W named both to the 10 Circuit Appeals Court, Kavanaugh’s nomination stalled for 3 years (while Republicans controlled the Senate the whole time) before he was finally confirmed. Gorsuch’s did not. Make of that what you will.
I’m not sure that Gorsuch is as bad as Kavanaugh. But I certainly wouldn’t care to try to argue that he isn’t.
It may be indicative that, while W named both to the 10 Circuit Appeals Court, Kavanaugh’s nomination stalled for 3 years (while Republicans controlled the Senate the whole time) before he was finally confirmed. Gorsuch’s did not. Make of that what you will.
I make of that that there may well be something to the impression I got in those vaguely remembered conversations.
I make of that that there may well be something to the impression I got in those vaguely remembered conversations.
Lack of froth at the intake orifice is a disqualifier now.
Personally, I would make endorsement by, let alone membership in, the Federalist Society cause for immediate disqualification for any Federal judicial position. But then, utter lack of qualification is, if anything, considered a major plus by the cult.
Lack of froth at the intake orifice is a disqualifier now.
Personally, I would make endorsement by, let alone membership in, the Federalist Society cause for immediate disqualification for any Federal judicial position. But then, utter lack of qualification is, if anything, considered a major plus by the cult.
FWIW, I doubt the agendas and aims of
1) the right-wing justices,
2) deep pockets like Leonard Leo who have gotten them where they are, and
3) people who actually have to run for office
are entirely in synch in any pairing. That’s more or less a truism, but it plays into this discussion of what might happen of Clickbait’s issues come before the court.
I’ve heard a lot of speculation for decades, some of it from people involved in state government in Maine (i.e. in part, politics) to the effect that politicians would just as soon run against Roe forever.
Now they’ve lost that. On the other hand, they’ve gained this weird fanatical cult-like context….which I hope comes back to bite them hard, but may not.
I think there’s a lot of greed for $ and power (and hatred of “socialism,” dark people, women, etc.) in all directions, and a lot of religious fanaticism (Alito and ACB most of all), and that those two strains overlap but also are not identical. They’re all using each other as tools — not surprisingly, of course, but it makes it a complicated game to figure out where they (and we) are going.
FWIW, I doubt the agendas and aims of
1) the right-wing justices,
2) deep pockets like Leonard Leo who have gotten them where they are, and
3) people who actually have to run for office
are entirely in synch in any pairing. That’s more or less a truism, but it plays into this discussion of what might happen of Clickbait’s issues come before the court.
I’ve heard a lot of speculation for decades, some of it from people involved in state government in Maine (i.e. in part, politics) to the effect that politicians would just as soon run against Roe forever.
Now they’ve lost that. On the other hand, they’ve gained this weird fanatical cult-like context….which I hope comes back to bite them hard, but may not.
I think there’s a lot of greed for $ and power (and hatred of “socialism,” dark people, women, etc.) in all directions, and a lot of religious fanaticism (Alito and ACB most of all), and that those two strains overlap but also are not identical. They’re all using each other as tools — not surprisingly, of course, but it makes it a complicated game to figure out where they (and we) are going.
I’m not sure that Gorsuch is as bad as Kavanaugh.
Gorsuch was appointed based on what he was willing to put into dissents and public writing because he is dedicated to rolling back the regulatory state. His concurrence in West Virginia v EPA is basically that the Court didn’t go nearly far enough in restricting the EPA.
I’m not sure that Gorsuch is as bad as Kavanaugh.
Gorsuch was appointed based on what he was willing to put into dissents and public writing because he is dedicated to rolling back the regulatory state. His concurrence in West Virginia v EPA is basically that the Court didn’t go nearly far enough in restricting the EPA.
Gorsuch is entirely as much of a partisan as the others, it’s just that in contrast to those appointed after him, his basic competence in the law garnishes that partisanship with a thin slice of lemon.
Gorsuch is entirely as much of a partisan as the others, it’s just that in contrast to those appointed after him, his basic competence in the law garnishes that partisanship with a thin slice of lemon.
Gorsuch was appointed based on what he was willing to put into dissents and public writing because he is dedicated to rolling back the regulatory state.
Which would perhaps suggest that he is an ideologue, like Thomas, rather than a straight partisan hack. Admittedly a distinction that only occasionally makes a difference. But those occasions can be significant.
Gorsuch was appointed based on what he was willing to put into dissents and public writing because he is dedicated to rolling back the regulatory state.
Which would perhaps suggest that he is an ideologue, like Thomas, rather than a straight partisan hack. Admittedly a distinction that only occasionally makes a difference. But those occasions can be significant.
Both nous’s and Michael Cain’s comments make perfect sense to me. And wj may be right too, if it isn’t a product of his chronic over-optimism. But even if he is right, those ideologues’ agendas align with the extreme right’s often enough that it is a serious problem for the rest of America’s population, whether that population realises it or not.
Both nous’s and Michael Cain’s comments make perfect sense to me. And wj may be right too, if it isn’t a product of his chronic over-optimism. But even if he is right, those ideologues’ agendas align with the extreme right’s often enough that it is a serious problem for the rest of America’s population, whether that population realises it or not.
And, on our own clusterfuck, this is the opening paragraph from today’s column by the Observer’s excellent political commentator, Andrew Rawnsley. The analysis of the two leadership candidates that follows this excerpt is very well worth reading:
I have an issue with the phrase “zombie government”. Say what you like about the walking dead, they occasionally get their teeth into things. Faced with a scary array of daunting crises that demand immediate attention, we have a zero government. Boris Johnson has spent his last weeks in office joy-riding on an RAF jet, throwing boozy barbecues at Chequers for his cronies, gadding around the Med and seeking money-earning opportunities for his post-Downing Street life. The ministers left to hold the fort say as little as possible and do nothing. Social services should step in and take Britain away from the Conservatives on the grounds of neglect.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/28/sunak-and-truss-care-more-about-their-small-differences-than-the-crises-facing-britain
And, on our own clusterfuck, this is the opening paragraph from today’s column by the Observer’s excellent political commentator, Andrew Rawnsley. The analysis of the two leadership candidates that follows this excerpt is very well worth reading:
I have an issue with the phrase “zombie government”. Say what you like about the walking dead, they occasionally get their teeth into things. Faced with a scary array of daunting crises that demand immediate attention, we have a zero government. Boris Johnson has spent his last weeks in office joy-riding on an RAF jet, throwing boozy barbecues at Chequers for his cronies, gadding around the Med and seeking money-earning opportunities for his post-Downing Street life. The ministers left to hold the fort say as little as possible and do nothing. Social services should step in and take Britain away from the Conservatives on the grounds of neglect.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/28/sunak-and-truss-care-more-about-their-small-differences-than-the-crises-facing-britain
Since I was obsessed with this (and kept posting here about it) at the time of the Cadwalladr exposé, I might as well follow up with this news on the Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal (my bold):
Carole Cadwalladr, the Observer journalist whose investigations into Facebook and Cambridge Analytica also helped inspire the Netflix film The Great Hack, said: “It is a measure of how desperate Zuckerberg is to avoid answering questions about Facebook’s cover-up of the Cambridge Analytica data breach that Facebook has settled this case just days away from him being cross-examined under oath for six hours.”
It emerged that Zuckerberg and Sandberg, who recently announced she would be stepping down in the autumn, would face questioning, with the depositions scheduled to take place from 20 September.
The latest developments follow a separate lawsuit last year that claimed Facebook paid $4.9bn more than necessary to the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in a settlement over the Cambridge Analytica scandal in order to protect Zuckerberg.
The lawsuit alleged that the size of the $5bn settlement was motivated by a desire to prevent Facebook’s founder from being named in the FTC complaint.
Cadwalladr added: “Facebook has proved that they are prepared to pay almost any sum of money to avoid their executives answering these questions. This settlement comes on top of the $5bn they already paid the FTC.
“The truth will come out one day – but today is not that day.”
And I’m sure that Janie will recognise the LOTR echo in that final remark!
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/27/facebook-cambridge-analytica-data-breach-lawsuit-ends-in-11th-hour-settlement
Since I was obsessed with this (and kept posting here about it) at the time of the Cadwalladr exposé, I might as well follow up with this news on the Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal (my bold):
Carole Cadwalladr, the Observer journalist whose investigations into Facebook and Cambridge Analytica also helped inspire the Netflix film The Great Hack, said: “It is a measure of how desperate Zuckerberg is to avoid answering questions about Facebook’s cover-up of the Cambridge Analytica data breach that Facebook has settled this case just days away from him being cross-examined under oath for six hours.”
It emerged that Zuckerberg and Sandberg, who recently announced she would be stepping down in the autumn, would face questioning, with the depositions scheduled to take place from 20 September.
The latest developments follow a separate lawsuit last year that claimed Facebook paid $4.9bn more than necessary to the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in a settlement over the Cambridge Analytica scandal in order to protect Zuckerberg.
The lawsuit alleged that the size of the $5bn settlement was motivated by a desire to prevent Facebook’s founder from being named in the FTC complaint.
Cadwalladr added: “Facebook has proved that they are prepared to pay almost any sum of money to avoid their executives answering these questions. This settlement comes on top of the $5bn they already paid the FTC.
“The truth will come out one day – but today is not that day.”
And I’m sure that Janie will recognise the LOTR echo in that final remark!
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/27/facebook-cambridge-analytica-data-breach-lawsuit-ends-in-11th-hour-settlement
Kavanaugh’s nomination stalled for 3 years….because he had his dirty hands in all the GOP garbage: Starr Report; pre-invasion Iraq lies; trafficking in stolen Dem Senators’ private emails; etc. He is a GOP spear carrier masquerading as a judge.
Gorsuch is a winger ideologue. An equally dangerous type (ask any old Bolshevik).
Kavanaugh’s nomination stalled for 3 years….because he had his dirty hands in all the GOP garbage: Starr Report; pre-invasion Iraq lies; trafficking in stolen Dem Senators’ private emails; etc. He is a GOP spear carrier masquerading as a judge.
Gorsuch is a winger ideologue. An equally dangerous type (ask any old Bolshevik).
And I’m sure that Janie will recognise the LOTR echo in that final remark!
Sorry, that’s not in the book. Google tells me it’s in the movie — i.e., uncanonical and outside my purview. 😉
I didn’t even see the third movie. I disliked the first two, and my son told me I’d be so mad about several liberties they took in the third that I might as well not bother. I trusted his judgment, since I first read LOTR out loud to him and my daughter when they were about six years old. He knew who he was dealing with.
I get that film is a different medium. I even enjoy watching movies! I also get that people adapt other people’s stories, over and over again. Fine, have at it. But I don’t have to pay any attention. After fifty years of at least once-a-year rereadings, I have my own private LOTR movie running in my head, and Peter Jackson’s can’t possibly do anything but irritate me.
(GftNC — I mean this all lightheartedly in relation to you, as I hope you know.)
And I’m sure that Janie will recognise the LOTR echo in that final remark!
Sorry, that’s not in the book. Google tells me it’s in the movie — i.e., uncanonical and outside my purview. 😉
I didn’t even see the third movie. I disliked the first two, and my son told me I’d be so mad about several liberties they took in the third that I might as well not bother. I trusted his judgment, since I first read LOTR out loud to him and my daughter when they were about six years old. He knew who he was dealing with.
I get that film is a different medium. I even enjoy watching movies! I also get that people adapt other people’s stories, over and over again. Fine, have at it. But I don’t have to pay any attention. After fifty years of at least once-a-year rereadings, I have my own private LOTR movie running in my head, and Peter Jackson’s can’t possibly do anything but irritate me.
(GftNC — I mean this all lightheartedly in relation to you, as I hope you know.)
uncanonical and outside my purview
Prostrations of apology! (also meant completely lightheartedly).
I haven’t read the books for decades, and I don’t think I ever reread them (which is why I thought that speech might have been accurate), and although I enjoyed them they have not been anything like the same foundational texts for me as they have been for you. I enjoyed the movies, and actually that scene and that speech by Aragorn, outside the gates of Mordor, rallying his allies to sacrifice themselves in order to distract Sauron from noticing Frodo’s approach to dispose of the ring, is rather stirring. If I didn’t understand the sense of a canonical (almost sacred) integrity of a work of art, I would recommend you watch that scene on Youtube 😉
uncanonical and outside my purview
Prostrations of apology! (also meant completely lightheartedly).
I haven’t read the books for decades, and I don’t think I ever reread them (which is why I thought that speech might have been accurate), and although I enjoyed them they have not been anything like the same foundational texts for me as they have been for you. I enjoyed the movies, and actually that scene and that speech by Aragorn, outside the gates of Mordor, rallying his allies to sacrifice themselves in order to distract Sauron from noticing Frodo’s approach to dispose of the ring, is rather stirring. If I didn’t understand the sense of a canonical (almost sacred) integrity of a work of art, I would recommend you watch that scene on Youtube 😉
And in talking of the source material, I realised that “to dispose of the ring” was inappropriately pedestrian language in the context. So let me amend that to:
Aragorn, outside the gates of Mordor, rallying his allies to sacrifice themselves in order to distract Sauron from noticing Frodo’s approach to destroy the ring
And in talking of the source material, I realised that “to dispose of the ring” was inappropriately pedestrian language in the context. So let me amend that to:
Aragorn, outside the gates of Mordor, rallying his allies to sacrifice themselves in order to distract Sauron from noticing Frodo’s approach to destroy the ring
which is why I thought that speech might have been accurate
It’s not just a matter of an accurate rendering of the version in the book, there’s no such scene and no such speech in the book in the first place.
It’s a perfect example of making a new work of art out of an old one. (I did watch that scene on YouTube a couple of years ago, I forget why.)
And you’re totally right about the “canonical (almost sacred) integrity of a work of art.” I have watched plenty of movies made from books (query: why are books not made from movies?) — I usually like the book better, unsurprisingly. There are a few exceptions, but the one that sticks in my mind most vividly is A River Runs Through It, where I thought the movie was as perfect a reproduction of the sense and feel of the book as you could hope to achieve. Plus, you get to look at a young Brad Pitt. (I’m sure we’ve talked about this before.)
“In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing.” … stuff happens … “I am haunted by waters.” (A little more here.)
Wonderful book, really just a novella so a quick read. Or — watch the movie.
which is why I thought that speech might have been accurate
It’s not just a matter of an accurate rendering of the version in the book, there’s no such scene and no such speech in the book in the first place.
It’s a perfect example of making a new work of art out of an old one. (I did watch that scene on YouTube a couple of years ago, I forget why.)
And you’re totally right about the “canonical (almost sacred) integrity of a work of art.” I have watched plenty of movies made from books (query: why are books not made from movies?) — I usually like the book better, unsurprisingly. There are a few exceptions, but the one that sticks in my mind most vividly is A River Runs Through It, where I thought the movie was as perfect a reproduction of the sense and feel of the book as you could hope to achieve. Plus, you get to look at a young Brad Pitt. (I’m sure we’ve talked about this before.)
“In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing.” … stuff happens … “I am haunted by waters.” (A little more here.)
Wonderful book, really just a novella so a quick read. Or — watch the movie.
query: why are books not made from movies?
There’s been a few. I’ve read a couple. Can’t remember them at the moment.
query: why are books not made from movies?
There’s been a few. I’ve read a couple. Can’t remember them at the moment.
There’s been a few.
Yes, I’ve come across one or two. But that’s my point: there are very few, and as far as I know none at all where both the movie and the book were high quality and/or successful.
Whereas we could think up lots of pairs where a movie was made from a book and both were well received. Doctor Zhivago is the first that comes to mind (besides LOTR, lol), and I’ll let it go at that.
There’s been a few.
Yes, I’ve come across one or two. But that’s my point: there are very few, and as far as I know none at all where both the movie and the book were high quality and/or successful.
Whereas we could think up lots of pairs where a movie was made from a book and both were well received. Doctor Zhivago is the first that comes to mind (besides LOTR, lol), and I’ll let it go at that.
there’s no such scene and no such speech in the book in the first place.
God, I didn’t even remember that! I am exposed as irredeemable, in this sense at least.
I have neither read nor seen it, but someone I know and respect answered the good book/worse movie query with the example of The Bridges of Madison County, which she said was a terrible book but an excellent film. In my ignorance, I can neither concur nor disagree.
there’s no such scene and no such speech in the book in the first place.
God, I didn’t even remember that! I am exposed as irredeemable, in this sense at least.
I have neither read nor seen it, but someone I know and respect answered the good book/worse movie query with the example of The Bridges of Madison County, which she said was a terrible book but an excellent film. In my ignorance, I can neither concur nor disagree.
I would believe that about The Bridges of Madison County. I am pretty sure I read it long ago and it made no impression on me at all. Didn’t see the movie.
Having taken up movie-watching over the past year after quite a few years of watching very little, plus also in the light of my photography partnership with Steve, I have been thinking about the different ways art is created in terms of how many people are involved.
The novelist sits alone in her room and does the bulk of the creating. (In most cases.) Other people do get involved — various kinds of editors etc. But the book is considered the work of the author, period.
Movies do have directors, but movie credits list hundreds of people these days, and there are “story teams” etc.
Another book-to-movie where I enjoyed both was the first film series I watched after a long gap, about a year ago: Little Fires Everywhere. Haf read the book several times, was skeptical about the film because they changed a major plot element. But they did a great job and I enjoyed the series a lot.
In that case, the author, Celeste Ng, not only (of course) sold the film rights, but was part of the creative team for the film.
I also watched The Beatles: Get Back documentary when it came out, and that’s another kind of collaboration.
Fascinating…..
I would believe that about The Bridges of Madison County. I am pretty sure I read it long ago and it made no impression on me at all. Didn’t see the movie.
Having taken up movie-watching over the past year after quite a few years of watching very little, plus also in the light of my photography partnership with Steve, I have been thinking about the different ways art is created in terms of how many people are involved.
The novelist sits alone in her room and does the bulk of the creating. (In most cases.) Other people do get involved — various kinds of editors etc. But the book is considered the work of the author, period.
Movies do have directors, but movie credits list hundreds of people these days, and there are “story teams” etc.
Another book-to-movie where I enjoyed both was the first film series I watched after a long gap, about a year ago: Little Fires Everywhere. Haf read the book several times, was skeptical about the film because they changed a major plot element. But they did a great job and I enjoyed the series a lot.
In that case, the author, Celeste Ng, not only (of course) sold the film rights, but was part of the creative team for the film.
I also watched The Beatles: Get Back documentary when it came out, and that’s another kind of collaboration.
Fascinating…..
Funny how media marketing works. You can watch streaming videos, whose creation involved thousands of people, 24 hours a day for a month for less than the cost of a single book.
Funny how media marketing works. You can watch streaming videos, whose creation involved thousands of people, 24 hours a day for a month for less than the cost of a single book.
I get that film is a different medium. I even enjoy watching movies! I also get that people adapt other people’s stories, over and over again. Fine, have at it. But I don’t have to pay any attention.
When making a movie, the screenplay writer and/or the director face two competing imperatives. On one hand, they need to stay true enough to the book that those who have read the book don’t come away proclaiming loudly and publicly that they have trashed it. On the other hand, they not only need to make some changes for the different medium, they need to make enough changes that people don’t start asking why they were even necessary. It’s a narrow line to walk.
I get that film is a different medium. I even enjoy watching movies! I also get that people adapt other people’s stories, over and over again. Fine, have at it. But I don’t have to pay any attention.
When making a movie, the screenplay writer and/or the director face two competing imperatives. On one hand, they need to stay true enough to the book that those who have read the book don’t come away proclaiming loudly and publicly that they have trashed it. On the other hand, they not only need to make some changes for the different medium, they need to make enough changes that people don’t start asking why they were even necessary. It’s a narrow line to walk.
You can watch streaming videos, whose creation involved thousands of people, 24 hours a day for a month for less than the cost of a single book.
Most of which barely qualify as vignettes. And the rest are short stories at most. A novel is a whole different animal.
You can watch streaming videos, whose creation involved thousands of people, 24 hours a day for a month for less than the cost of a single book.
Most of which barely qualify as vignettes. And the rest are short stories at most. A novel is a whole different animal.
You can watch streaming videos, whose creation involved thousands of people, 24 hours a day for a month for less than the cost of a single book.
You can also go to the library and take out books and movies for free. My tiny library in my tiny rural village is plugged in to a huge network for interlibrary loan. Also, anyone in Maine can get books and films via the Maine State Library, which is also part of a network that includes the college and university libraries and at least the bigger public libraries in the state. The actual physical MSL is in Augusta, so I’ve been in it many times. But you can go online and get stuff too.
You can watch streaming videos, whose creation involved thousands of people, 24 hours a day for a month for less than the cost of a single book.
You can also go to the library and take out books and movies for free. My tiny library in my tiny rural village is plugged in to a huge network for interlibrary loan. Also, anyone in Maine can get books and films via the Maine State Library, which is also part of a network that includes the college and university libraries and at least the bigger public libraries in the state. The actual physical MSL is in Augusta, so I’ve been in it many times. But you can go online and get stuff too.
query: why are books not made from movies?
Intellectual property issues. The studios never sell them. From time to time you see books from movies that expressly say “Novelization” on the cover. Which means it’s been commissioned by the studio, who gets last say on content, written on a tight schedule, and for a fixed fee (ie, it’s a “work for hire” and the studio gets all the rights). Alan Dean Foster did a ton of those when he was young and tells interesting stories about the constraints. Eg, he wrote the novelization for Alien before the movie was released and the studio wouldn’t show him any pictures of the alien. You also see the case where there’s a whole series of novels spun off from the movie. How many Star Wars books are there? Writing those is the same work for hire deal, though. Flat fee, studio holds the rights.
query: why are books not made from movies?
Intellectual property issues. The studios never sell them. From time to time you see books from movies that expressly say “Novelization” on the cover. Which means it’s been commissioned by the studio, who gets last say on content, written on a tight schedule, and for a fixed fee (ie, it’s a “work for hire” and the studio gets all the rights). Alan Dean Foster did a ton of those when he was young and tells interesting stories about the constraints. Eg, he wrote the novelization for Alien before the movie was released and the studio wouldn’t show him any pictures of the alien. You also see the case where there’s a whole series of novels spun off from the movie. How many Star Wars books are there? Writing those is the same work for hire deal, though. Flat fee, studio holds the rights.
My tiny library in my tiny rural village is plugged in to a huge network for interlibrary loan. Also, anyone in Maine can get books and films via the Maine State Library
Same thing in California. Delivery time, even from the far end of the state, under a week. (Subject, of course, to it being checked out, etc. Just like if the local library has it.) Gotta love it.
My tiny library in my tiny rural village is plugged in to a huge network for interlibrary loan. Also, anyone in Maine can get books and films via the Maine State Library
Same thing in California. Delivery time, even from the far end of the state, under a week. (Subject, of course, to it being checked out, etc. Just like if the local library has it.) Gotta love it.
The difference is that Netflix hopes to make a profit. Public libraries, not so much.
The difference is that Netflix hopes to make a profit. Public libraries, not so much.
Alan Dean Foster also got screwed out of royalties for a long time after Disney bought the rights to all the Lucasfilm stuff. They argued that they bought the IP, not the contracts, and so therefore did not have to pay Foster when they reprinted his books. (Not the movie novelizations, the ones Foster wrote using some of the the settings and characters, but expanding them with his own creative input.)
https://wdwnt.com/2022/05/writers-and-artists-still-fighting-to-receive-overdue-royalties-from-disney/
Michael Cain is right. And it’s not just film adaptations. All the big video game and RPG companies have tie-in novels. Star Trek has a huge number of such books. And the Doctor Who franchise has too many books and podcasts for your average mortal to read in a single lifetime.
All those works are written under contract with the rights belonging to the corporation. I know a couple people who make a living this way, but their professional lives are very different from the lives of the authors working on their own IP.
Alan Dean Foster also got screwed out of royalties for a long time after Disney bought the rights to all the Lucasfilm stuff. They argued that they bought the IP, not the contracts, and so therefore did not have to pay Foster when they reprinted his books. (Not the movie novelizations, the ones Foster wrote using some of the the settings and characters, but expanding them with his own creative input.)
https://wdwnt.com/2022/05/writers-and-artists-still-fighting-to-receive-overdue-royalties-from-disney/
Michael Cain is right. And it’s not just film adaptations. All the big video game and RPG companies have tie-in novels. Star Trek has a huge number of such books. And the Doctor Who franchise has too many books and podcasts for your average mortal to read in a single lifetime.
All those works are written under contract with the rights belonging to the corporation. I know a couple people who make a living this way, but their professional lives are very different from the lives of the authors working on their own IP.
You can watch streaming videos, whose creation involved thousands of people, 24 hours a day for a month for less than the cost of a single book.
You can read quite a lot on Kindle Unlimited for $10 a month — and you don’t even have to buy a Kindle, since Kindle for PC is free. Apparently some of them even have audio versions.
Not a lot of bestsellers, it doesn’t look like, but a lot of titles.
You can watch streaming videos, whose creation involved thousands of people, 24 hours a day for a month for less than the cost of a single book.
You can read quite a lot on Kindle Unlimited for $10 a month — and you don’t even have to buy a Kindle, since Kindle for PC is free. Apparently some of them even have audio versions.
Not a lot of bestsellers, it doesn’t look like, but a lot of titles.
‘way back when, I bought a copy of this novel titled “Star Wars” (first printing, I think!)
The cover claimed “soon to be a major motion picture”, but I chalked that up to marketing hype.
The movie came out 6? 12? months later. At that point I had basically forgotten the novel. The novel was short, and not very good. Probably due to the lack of special effects.
The correct length for a story to match a movie isn’t a “novel”, it’s a “short story”.
‘way back when, I bought a copy of this novel titled “Star Wars” (first printing, I think!)
The cover claimed “soon to be a major motion picture”, but I chalked that up to marketing hype.
The movie came out 6? 12? months later. At that point I had basically forgotten the novel. The novel was short, and not very good. Probably due to the lack of special effects.
The correct length for a story to match a movie isn’t a “novel”, it’s a “short story”.
Terry Brooks wrote the Star Wars novelization for Lucas.
Amazon Prime books are their own weird world. My wife’s first trilogy was published by an Amazon subsidiary and spent a lot of time on the “free with prime” lists as a result. It was read thousands of times, but came up about four books short of earning out its advance because Amazon does not count free readings as author sales. The second and third books in the series that were not free with Prime both earned out long ago.
The rights have since reverted, and now the books are available at places other than Amazon.
Free with Prime is very hit-or-miss for writing quality, and is only a good business model for a very small segment of authors writing “cozy” type books and hustling to self-market them wherever they can.
Terry Brooks wrote the Star Wars novelization for Lucas.
Amazon Prime books are their own weird world. My wife’s first trilogy was published by an Amazon subsidiary and spent a lot of time on the “free with prime” lists as a result. It was read thousands of times, but came up about four books short of earning out its advance because Amazon does not count free readings as author sales. The second and third books in the series that were not free with Prime both earned out long ago.
The rights have since reverted, and now the books are available at places other than Amazon.
Free with Prime is very hit-or-miss for writing quality, and is only a good business model for a very small segment of authors writing “cozy” type books and hustling to self-market them wherever they can.
The correct length for a story to match a movie isn’t a “novel”, it’s a “short story”.
Not a 1,000 page novel, certainly. But a novellette at minimum, and somewhere between a novella and a 500 page novel most likely. (Depending on how much verbiage is consumed in description of the environment that, in a movie, can simply be shown.) A short story might be stretched into an hour long TV show. But not a movie.
The correct length for a story to match a movie isn’t a “novel”, it’s a “short story”.
Not a 1,000 page novel, certainly. But a novellette at minimum, and somewhere between a novella and a 500 page novel most likely. (Depending on how much verbiage is consumed in description of the environment that, in a movie, can simply be shown.) A short story might be stretched into an hour long TV show. But not a movie.
Free with Prime and Kindle Unlimited aren’t the same thing, just for the record.
Kindle Unlimited is $10.00 a month and you don’t have to have Prime to enroll.
I am the technical help for someone who self-publishes for Kindle (and sometimes other platforms, and sometimes print). By my very very rough calculation, you get about half the per-page return from Kindle Unlimited compared to staying out of that program and just hustling to sell individual books for the Kindle. I don’t have a feel for how much less (if any) hustling you have to do, but probably some — since people like feeling that they’re getting something for “free.”
To enroll your book in Kindle Unlimited, you have to not publish it on any other platforms.
From some random website: Second—and this is the BIG difference between the two—is what titles are available on each service. Prime Reading gives you access to a little over 1,000 titles that rotate in and out periodically. Kindle Unlimited gives you access to over 1,000,000 titles. In fact, the Prime Reading titles are just a subset of what’s available on Kindle Unlimited.
Free with Prime and Kindle Unlimited aren’t the same thing, just for the record.
Kindle Unlimited is $10.00 a month and you don’t have to have Prime to enroll.
I am the technical help for someone who self-publishes for Kindle (and sometimes other platforms, and sometimes print). By my very very rough calculation, you get about half the per-page return from Kindle Unlimited compared to staying out of that program and just hustling to sell individual books for the Kindle. I don’t have a feel for how much less (if any) hustling you have to do, but probably some — since people like feeling that they’re getting something for “free.”
To enroll your book in Kindle Unlimited, you have to not publish it on any other platforms.
From some random website: Second—and this is the BIG difference between the two—is what titles are available on each service. Prime Reading gives you access to a little over 1,000 titles that rotate in and out periodically. Kindle Unlimited gives you access to over 1,000,000 titles. In fact, the Prime Reading titles are just a subset of what’s available on Kindle Unlimited.
Yeah. The big thing was not the way that Kindle Unimited worked, it was how Amazon’s own publishers used Free with Prime to reduce its royalty obligations and keep books from earning out or having the rights revert to the author. The Kindle gig can work, but if an author can get an agent and land at a trad publisher it usually works better for them in the long run.
Yeah. The big thing was not the way that Kindle Unimited worked, it was how Amazon’s own publishers used Free with Prime to reduce its royalty obligations and keep books from earning out or having the rights revert to the author. The Kindle gig can work, but if an author can get an agent and land at a trad publisher it usually works better for them in the long run.
The Kindle gig can work, but if an author can get an agent and land at a trad publisher it usually works better for them in the long run.
My “client” (ha ha, I do it for free, it’s actually my daughter) chose not to go that route. Not sure why, but she started publishing for Kindle, Nook, and Kobo very early on. It’s a constant struggle, one that I would not want to take on for own purposes. But then, I wouldn’t relish any of it, except the writing part. 😉
The Kindle gig can work, but if an author can get an agent and land at a trad publisher it usually works better for them in the long run.
My “client” (ha ha, I do it for free, it’s actually my daughter) chose not to go that route. Not sure why, but she started publishing for Kindle, Nook, and Kobo very early on. It’s a constant struggle, one that I would not want to take on for own purposes. But then, I wouldn’t relish any of it, except the writing part. 😉
“I wouldn’t relish any of it” — meaning the selling myself to an agent, etc. etc. So neither path, indie or traditional publishing, seems like something I have it in me to handle these days. Maybe when I was younger…..
“I wouldn’t relish any of it” — meaning the selling myself to an agent, etc. etc. So neither path, indie or traditional publishing, seems like something I have it in me to handle these days. Maybe when I was younger…..
I know a couple people who make a living this way, but their professional lives are very different from the lives of the authors working on their own IP.
I once looked at a list of Star Wars books, authors, and the publication dates. Some of the writers are cranking out an impressive number of pages per year. To be honest, I don’t think I could type fast enough to produce that much copy.
I know a couple people who make a living this way, but their professional lives are very different from the lives of the authors working on their own IP.
I once looked at a list of Star Wars books, authors, and the publication dates. Some of the writers are cranking out an impressive number of pages per year. To be honest, I don’t think I could type fast enough to produce that much copy.
I don’t think I could type fast enough to produce that much copy.
Many years ago I read a statistic about how fast certain writers churned out romance novels. (This was about low-level hacks, not famous authors.) I think it was something like a novel a week.
We’re not talking War and Peace, but still. You’d have to have your formula down pat, along with your ability to narrate the story in a coherent order on the first go. Plus, probably enough grammar chops so that little to no copy editing was needed.
It reminds me of a story I heard in grad school about Anthony Trollope. I’m not going ask Google about it, because I like it too much to see it debunked.
With a day job as a school inspector, Trollope spent a lot of time traveling around England on trains, stopping here there and everywhere to, you guessed it, inspect schools. The story was that he wrote his novels on the train, and if he got to the end of one novel mid-ride, he’d just turn the page and start another. Implied was that what we have are basically first drafts. Complete little (or not so little) gems of stories….
I don’t think I could type fast enough to produce that much copy.
Many years ago I read a statistic about how fast certain writers churned out romance novels. (This was about low-level hacks, not famous authors.) I think it was something like a novel a week.
We’re not talking War and Peace, but still. You’d have to have your formula down pat, along with your ability to narrate the story in a coherent order on the first go. Plus, probably enough grammar chops so that little to no copy editing was needed.
It reminds me of a story I heard in grad school about Anthony Trollope. I’m not going ask Google about it, because I like it too much to see it debunked.
With a day job as a school inspector, Trollope spent a lot of time traveling around England on trains, stopping here there and everywhere to, you guessed it, inspect schools. The story was that he wrote his novels on the train, and if he got to the end of one novel mid-ride, he’d just turn the page and start another. Implied was that what we have are basically first drafts. Complete little (or not so little) gems of stories….
A near-fiancée’s mother used to write for the soaps (had a bunch of Daytime Emmy’s on the shelf). There was a definite Drinking from the Firehose vibe to her typical writing schedule. Think she was doing at least as much page count a week as the SW authors and the romance novelists (and she started doing that in the pre-word-processor days).
PK Dick had a torrid page count as well, but he managed that with amphetamines.
A near-fiancée’s mother used to write for the soaps (had a bunch of Daytime Emmy’s on the shelf). There was a definite Drinking from the Firehose vibe to her typical writing schedule. Think she was doing at least as much page count a week as the SW authors and the romance novelists (and she started doing that in the pre-word-processor days).
PK Dick had a torrid page count as well, but he managed that with amphetamines.
A near-fiancée’s mother
Now there’s a concept. 😉
A near-fiancée’s mother
Now there’s a concept. 😉
Now there’s a concept.
Society has changed a lot over the past few decades. There are lots of new relationships* for which we simply don’t yet have standard terms. So we get inventive, and hope our readers/listeners will get the idea.
The most visible challenge, to my mind, is “partner.” In a particular context it might mean someone one is in business with. Or someone one is otherwise working with, perhaps quite temporarily (for example, a bridge partner). Or (although this is becoming a lot less common) a homosexual whom one would have married, were it only legal — these days more a matter of “We’ve been partners for decades, why get married now?” Or someone with whom one is shacked up** (beyond a few weeks, mostly), but hasn’t married. Or someone who one has been with for years, but the two of you haven’t bothered to marry. (“Mistress” seems to be rapidly falling out of use.)
Once, it would have been the height of bad manners to say that one had broken off an engagement. You could do it, but saying so publicly was simply not the done thing. Now, at least in large swaths of the country, it may be considered a bit tactless, but hardly something that would get you sanctioned by polite society. In fact, it is even possible to break an engagement and remain, or eventually return to being, friends.
In short, language hasn’t caught up with culture on this front.
* Perhaps more accurately, there are more relationships which can now be mentioned in general conversation.
** Is “shacked up” even in use any more?
Now there’s a concept.
Society has changed a lot over the past few decades. There are lots of new relationships* for which we simply don’t yet have standard terms. So we get inventive, and hope our readers/listeners will get the idea.
The most visible challenge, to my mind, is “partner.” In a particular context it might mean someone one is in business with. Or someone one is otherwise working with, perhaps quite temporarily (for example, a bridge partner). Or (although this is becoming a lot less common) a homosexual whom one would have married, were it only legal — these days more a matter of “We’ve been partners for decades, why get married now?” Or someone with whom one is shacked up** (beyond a few weeks, mostly), but hasn’t married. Or someone who one has been with for years, but the two of you haven’t bothered to marry. (“Mistress” seems to be rapidly falling out of use.)
Once, it would have been the height of bad manners to say that one had broken off an engagement. You could do it, but saying so publicly was simply not the done thing. Now, at least in large swaths of the country, it may be considered a bit tactless, but hardly something that would get you sanctioned by polite society. In fact, it is even possible to break an engagement and remain, or eventually return to being, friends.
In short, language hasn’t caught up with culture on this front.
* Perhaps more accurately, there are more relationships which can now be mentioned in general conversation.
** Is “shacked up” even in use any more?
My father and stepmother divorced when I was in high school. She remarried a few years after that. She and her husband are effectively grandparents to my kids. What do you call your ex-stepmother’s husband (other than his name, literalists)?
My father and stepmother divorced when I was in high school. She remarried a few years after that. She and her husband are effectively grandparents to my kids. What do you call your ex-stepmother’s husband (other than his name, literalists)?
A bit of over-the-top hysteria:
The remote revolution could lead to offshoring Armageddon
Oh please! First, at the moment we’ve got a labor shortage.** Yeah, you may need to learn how to use Indeed (or some other online job system). But the jobs are out there.
Second, a lot of that “cheap foreign labor” would happily relocate here, if our immigration policies were more sensible. Not only building our economy overall (and thus generating more local jobs of all kinds), but making jobs in new companies that some of them eventually start domestic (thus generating even more local jobs).
But I suppose that reality would get in the way of readership generating scare tactics.
** Heck, I’m 75 and still gainfully employed. Even though I’m positively terrible at job hunting.
A bit of over-the-top hysteria:
The remote revolution could lead to offshoring Armageddon
Oh please! First, at the moment we’ve got a labor shortage.** Yeah, you may need to learn how to use Indeed (or some other online job system). But the jobs are out there.
Second, a lot of that “cheap foreign labor” would happily relocate here, if our immigration policies were more sensible. Not only building our economy overall (and thus generating more local jobs of all kinds), but making jobs in new companies that some of them eventually start domestic (thus generating even more local jobs).
But I suppose that reality would get in the way of readership generating scare tactics.
** Heck, I’m 75 and still gainfully employed. Even though I’m positively terrible at job hunting.
The Swedes have a word for cohabitation and cohabitants (samboskap and sambo). Those come close to near-fiancée in getting at this.
We’d have been engaged had my summer housing in NYC not fallen through (long story). And then we were two time zones apart and I was no longer in college and was in Colorado paying off student loans and she was trying to find work in Manhattan. And then she went to Israel for a couple years, and things just got too stretched for it all to work.
Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.
The Swedes have a word for cohabitation and cohabitants (samboskap and sambo). Those come close to near-fiancée in getting at this.
We’d have been engaged had my summer housing in NYC not fallen through (long story). And then we were two time zones apart and I was no longer in college and was in Colorado paying off student loans and she was trying to find work in Manhattan. And then she went to Israel for a couple years, and things just got too stretched for it all to work.
Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.
hsh @ 1:02 — my kids’ dad has had two wives in the time since we got divorced… I have no idea what you call all these relationships. One of them, and her son, were originally from Bucha. Even though I was never really close to either of them, knowing them has brought the war in Ukraine close to me in a more personal way, on top of the general outrage I feel at what Putin and the Russians are doing.
This topic also reminds me of the intertwining web of relationships among the Italian people I grew up with. Some of our cousins’ cousins were very much in our lives. A guy just died who was married to the sister of the husband of one of my dad’s sisters. This was worth a series of texts among my sibs and me, because although we weren’t in fact related to him … well, we sort of were. We were also, in some cases, close to our godparents and their kids. People who were “more Italian” than I was (my mother wasn’t Italian!) had a couple of sets of names for godparents — presumably dialect names, I’m not sure to this day, and I’m not going to even try to spell them.
hsh @ 1:02 — my kids’ dad has had two wives in the time since we got divorced… I have no idea what you call all these relationships. One of them, and her son, were originally from Bucha. Even though I was never really close to either of them, knowing them has brought the war in Ukraine close to me in a more personal way, on top of the general outrage I feel at what Putin and the Russians are doing.
This topic also reminds me of the intertwining web of relationships among the Italian people I grew up with. Some of our cousins’ cousins were very much in our lives. A guy just died who was married to the sister of the husband of one of my dad’s sisters. This was worth a series of texts among my sibs and me, because although we weren’t in fact related to him … well, we sort of were. We were also, in some cases, close to our godparents and their kids. People who were “more Italian” than I was (my mother wasn’t Italian!) had a couple of sets of names for godparents — presumably dialect names, I’m not sure to this day, and I’m not going to even try to spell them.
Also, I could have described the guy who just died by saying he married to my uncle’s sister. But since we use the words “aunt” and “uncle” for both blood relations and their spouses, I reminded myself that they can be ambiguous as to whether the people referred to are blood relatives or not.
On the other hand, you all would have deduced that if the uncle in question had been my parent’s sibling, I could have just said the deceased was married to my aunt. Which would have made him my uncle….
🙂
This in turn reminds me of the first time I heard my son speak Chinese. My son, my daughter, and I were in a Chinese restaurant in Maine, and the waiter didn’t speak much English, so my son started to talk to him in Chinese (in which *he* was still a beginner).
Afterwards I asked my son what they’d said, and part of it was that the waiter had asked him who the pretty girl was, and my son had said, “My little sister.”
Since my kids were both college-age adults, I sort of chuckled and asked if that wasn’t a bit patronizing. My son said no, in Chinese there are different words for older vs younger siblings.
Also, I could have described the guy who just died by saying he married to my uncle’s sister. But since we use the words “aunt” and “uncle” for both blood relations and their spouses, I reminded myself that they can be ambiguous as to whether the people referred to are blood relatives or not.
On the other hand, you all would have deduced that if the uncle in question had been my parent’s sibling, I could have just said the deceased was married to my aunt. Which would have made him my uncle….
🙂
This in turn reminds me of the first time I heard my son speak Chinese. My son, my daughter, and I were in a Chinese restaurant in Maine, and the waiter didn’t speak much English, so my son started to talk to him in Chinese (in which *he* was still a beginner).
Afterwards I asked my son what they’d said, and part of it was that the waiter had asked him who the pretty girl was, and my son had said, “My little sister.”
Since my kids were both college-age adults, I sort of chuckled and asked if that wasn’t a bit patronizing. My son said no, in Chinese there are different words for older vs younger siblings.
Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.
Truer words……
Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.
Truer words……
Since no one else has mentioned it, the SLS launch scheduled for this morning was scrubbed because of hydrogen leaks and they couldn’t pre-chill one of the rocket engines (sounds strange, doesn’t it?). Note that pre-chilling was one of the things that was supposed to be tested during the wet dress rehearsal(s) earlier this year. None of those rehearsals were able to try the pre-chilling step because of other problems.
Next launch windows are Friday and next Monday, then none until early October. I’m not sure now if I’m eager to see it succeed, which would be spectacular, or fail completely, which would be even more spectacular.
Since no one else has mentioned it, the SLS launch scheduled for this morning was scrubbed because of hydrogen leaks and they couldn’t pre-chill one of the rocket engines (sounds strange, doesn’t it?). Note that pre-chilling was one of the things that was supposed to be tested during the wet dress rehearsal(s) earlier this year. None of those rehearsals were able to try the pre-chilling step because of other problems.
Next launch windows are Friday and next Monday, then none until early October. I’m not sure now if I’m eager to see it succeed, which would be spectacular, or fail completely, which would be even more spectacular.
A guy just died who was married to the sister of the husband of one of my dad’s sisters. This was worth a series of texts among my sibs and me, because although we weren’t in fact related to him … well, we sort of were.
The term “extended family” springs to mind.
A guy just died who was married to the sister of the husband of one of my dad’s sisters. This was worth a series of texts among my sibs and me, because although we weren’t in fact related to him … well, we sort of were.
The term “extended family” springs to mind.
The term “extended family” springs to mind.
Yes, and/but that’s where, as with some of the terms this discussion started with, there’s no clear definition.
In my framework, my spouse and kids are my immediate family and all my aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents are my extended family. People who aren’t related to me by blood are not, except for those who are married to people who are related to me by blood. (I’m not saying this is THE definition, just that this is how I understand it.)
The guy who died might be more like a fellow clan member or tribesman in a different culture.
The term “extended family” springs to mind.
Yes, and/but that’s where, as with some of the terms this discussion started with, there’s no clear definition.
In my framework, my spouse and kids are my immediate family and all my aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents are my extended family. People who aren’t related to me by blood are not, except for those who are married to people who are related to me by blood. (I’m not saying this is THE definition, just that this is how I understand it.)
The guy who died might be more like a fellow clan member or tribesman in a different culture.
One of my brothers-in-law has a stepfather who is the brother of his biological dad. I think bio dad passed away and then his brother married his widow.
He is known in my brother-in-law’s family as “uncle Leo daddy”.
One of my brothers-in-law has a stepfather who is the brother of his biological dad. I think bio dad passed away and then his brother married his widow.
He is known in my brother-in-law’s family as “uncle Leo daddy”.
Wikipedia:
An extended family is a family that extends beyond the nuclear family, consisting of parents like father, mother, and their children, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins, all living in the same household. Particular forms include the stem and joint families.
Most of the definitions I see in a quick google search include the feature that people in an extended family are all under the same roof. This is (was?) not my understanding of the term at all.
Mine was more like this:
Wikipedia:
An extended family is a family that extends beyond the nuclear family, consisting of parents like father, mother, and their children, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins, all living in the same household. Particular forms include the stem and joint families.
Most of the definitions I see in a quick google search include the feature that people in an extended family are all under the same roof. This is (was?) not my understanding of the term at all.
Mine was more like this:
Or someone one is otherwise working with, perhaps quite temporarily (for example, a bridge partner)
Many bridge partnerships last longer than marriages. And their break-up can be just as fraught.
(From the World Bridge Championships in Wrocław)
Or someone one is otherwise working with, perhaps quite temporarily (for example, a bridge partner)
Many bridge partnerships last longer than marriages. And their break-up can be just as fraught.
(From the World Bridge Championships in Wrocław)
DNA testing really extended the meaning of extended family.
DNA testing really extended the meaning of extended family.
DNA testing really extended the meaning of extended family.
Many years ago, some big-name medical school started a study to look at what we would now call gene-linked illnesses. The subject population was a New England town where relatively few people had left over the years and there were very extensive family records/trees kept. DNA testing and sequencing wasn’t a thing yet so they used very detailed blood testing. After about a year the project was abandoned. The lead researcher, when asked why, answered with “Casual bastardy is much more common than most people think.”
DNA testing really extended the meaning of extended family.
Many years ago, some big-name medical school started a study to look at what we would now call gene-linked illnesses. The subject population was a New England town where relatively few people had left over the years and there were very extensive family records/trees kept. DNA testing and sequencing wasn’t a thing yet so they used very detailed blood testing. After about a year the project was abandoned. The lead researcher, when asked why, answered with “Casual bastardy is much more common than most people think.”
When I was growing up, I was one of fifteen first cousins on my father’s side.
In middle age, we found out that there were actually seventeen of us.
At last count.
One of my uncles had a whole other family……
And all the men of my dad’s generation had been in the war, so who knows on that score.
When I was growing up, I was one of fifteen first cousins on my father’s side.
In middle age, we found out that there were actually seventeen of us.
At last count.
One of my uncles had a whole other family……
And all the men of my dad’s generation had been in the war, so who knows on that score.
Most of the definitions I see in a quick google search include the feature that people in an extended family are all under the same roof. This is (was?) not my understanding of the term at all.
Likewise. I never heard of the “under one roof” thing either.
I have first cousins that I have never met; quite possibly never even heard of. (My Dad came from a large family, including a bunch of half siblings, but far away and not particularly featured in conversations.) They don’t count as extended family.
But I have several second cousins that I hear from (and see regularly – holidays) and do consider family. Not to mention that at one point, on a whim, Mom went looking for family and lucked out. Turns out the lady she found was her eighth (8th!) cousin, Jill Aldersley**, counts in. Even though she lives in the Lake District and I haven’t see her in decades.
** Having the family sense of humor, she much enjoyed taking Mom off to the pub and introducing her around. Response: “Who keeps track of 8th cousins?!?!?” But there you are.
Most of the definitions I see in a quick google search include the feature that people in an extended family are all under the same roof. This is (was?) not my understanding of the term at all.
Likewise. I never heard of the “under one roof” thing either.
I have first cousins that I have never met; quite possibly never even heard of. (My Dad came from a large family, including a bunch of half siblings, but far away and not particularly featured in conversations.) They don’t count as extended family.
But I have several second cousins that I hear from (and see regularly – holidays) and do consider family. Not to mention that at one point, on a whim, Mom went looking for family and lucked out. Turns out the lady she found was her eighth (8th!) cousin, Jill Aldersley**, counts in. Even though she lives in the Lake District and I haven’t see her in decades.
** Having the family sense of humor, she much enjoyed taking Mom off to the pub and introducing her around. Response: “Who keeps track of 8th cousins?!?!?” But there you are.
Good luck, Pro Bono!
Good luck, Pro Bono!
Echoing GftNC — it didn’t really register what that parenthetical meant!
Echoing GftNC — it didn’t really register what that parenthetical meant!
Some bridge partnerships last decades. Then again, it’s fairly common for casual bridge players to shift partners frequently. I’ve know it to happen that we play a few hands with one pairing, and then swap around for the next few hands.
Some bridge partnerships last decades. Then again, it’s fairly common for casual bridge players to shift partners frequently. I’ve know it to happen that we play a few hands with one pairing, and then swap around for the next few hands.
wj — cousin math. 😉
I do quick and dirty calcs to figure out how many ancestors I’m likely to have in each generation backward — i.e. 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc. These numbers obviously assume that there are no cousin marriages in the family tree, however distant, so they’re a mathematical fiction, but informative just the same.
But I’ve never thought about counting potential cousins, so now I’m thinking that through. My first cousins and I share 2 grandparents. My grandparents have 4 parents between them, i.e. my great-grandparents, and *their* descendants in my generation are my 2nd cousins.
Carrying this backward, I think I have to get back to my 7-greats-grandparents to find the common ancestors that make us 8th cousins.
At that distance back, doing the powers of 2 math, there are 256 people, or 128 couples.
Now go the other way. Assuming each of those 128 couples had 2 children (a very modest assumption for the centuries we’re talking about), and each of those children got married and had 2 children, and counting 9 generations from them to me, then in that world of idealized math I should have 128 * 2^9 = 65536 8th cousins.
??
That would be quite the family reunion.
“Who keeps track of 8th cousins?!?!?” indeed!
(Feel free to check my math and my assumptions; I’m multi-tasking as usual, and it’s hot again here so I’m a bit mushy-brained.)
wj — cousin math. 😉
I do quick and dirty calcs to figure out how many ancestors I’m likely to have in each generation backward — i.e. 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc. These numbers obviously assume that there are no cousin marriages in the family tree, however distant, so they’re a mathematical fiction, but informative just the same.
But I’ve never thought about counting potential cousins, so now I’m thinking that through. My first cousins and I share 2 grandparents. My grandparents have 4 parents between them, i.e. my great-grandparents, and *their* descendants in my generation are my 2nd cousins.
Carrying this backward, I think I have to get back to my 7-greats-grandparents to find the common ancestors that make us 8th cousins.
At that distance back, doing the powers of 2 math, there are 256 people, or 128 couples.
Now go the other way. Assuming each of those 128 couples had 2 children (a very modest assumption for the centuries we’re talking about), and each of those children got married and had 2 children, and counting 9 generations from them to me, then in that world of idealized math I should have 128 * 2^9 = 65536 8th cousins.
??
That would be quite the family reunion.
“Who keeps track of 8th cousins?!?!?” indeed!
(Feel free to check my math and my assumptions; I’m multi-tasking as usual, and it’s hot again here so I’m a bit mushy-brained.)
“The average person might have as many as about 590,000 eighth (8th) cousins.”
What is an Eighth Cousin?
“The average person might have as many as about 590,000 eighth (8th) cousins.”
What is an Eighth Cousin?
“Who keeps track of 8th cousins?!?!?” indeed!
And of course we don’t. What happened is my maternal great grandfather wrote a memoir late in life. Decades later, one of my great aunts’ daughters (no, I won’t try to figure out the term) came across the manuscript and did a little (pre-Internet) publication. He mentioned growing up in Ambleside.
So Mom was in Ambleside, and went into a store and asked: “Know anybody named Aldersley?” And he did. Only after meeting up and comparing notes did they figure out how far back the common ancestor was.
“Who keeps track of 8th cousins?!?!?” indeed!
And of course we don’t. What happened is my maternal great grandfather wrote a memoir late in life. Decades later, one of my great aunts’ daughters (no, I won’t try to figure out the term) came across the manuscript and did a little (pre-Internet) publication. He mentioned growing up in Ambleside.
So Mom was in Ambleside, and went into a store and asked: “Know anybody named Aldersley?” And he did. Only after meeting up and comparing notes did they figure out how far back the common ancestor was.
I keep thinking that nothing else could boggle my mind. After all the weirdness we’ve seen. Then something like this comes along.
Senate GOP candidate Blake Masters suggests diversity at Federal Reserve is harming the economy
Well I suppose that, if you combine serious racism with paranoia about the Fed (or just about the government generally), this is what you’d expect.
I keep thinking that nothing else could boggle my mind. After all the weirdness we’ve seen. Then something like this comes along.
Senate GOP candidate Blake Masters suggests diversity at Federal Reserve is harming the economy
Well I suppose that, if you combine serious racism with paranoia about the Fed (or just about the government generally), this is what you’d expect.
Thanks for the good wishes. We lost narrowly today in the round of 32 of the Mixed Teams. But it’s only a card game.
Thanks for the good wishes. We lost narrowly today in the round of 32 of the Mixed Teams. But it’s only a card game.
Playing in the round of 32 sounds pretty impressive to me. I know what that “only a card game” means. (Or I think I do, sort of, from all the years when my kids played basketball.)
Playing in the round of 32 sounds pretty impressive to me. I know what that “only a card game” means. (Or I think I do, sort of, from all the years when my kids played basketball.)
Yes, “only a card game” made me smile a bit too, but sympathetically. I’m absolutely sure that Pro Bono meant us to take his meaning….
Yes, “only a card game” made me smile a bit too, but sympathetically. I’m absolutely sure that Pro Bono meant us to take his meaning….
GftNC — oh yes, I agree. Understated wryness a speciality of the nation, right? 🙂
(Just teasing both of you….)
GftNC — oh yes, I agree. Understated wryness a speciality of the nation, right? 🙂
(Just teasing both of you….)
Senate GOP candidate Blake Masters suggests diversity at Federal Reserve is harming the economy
Everything I have read indicates that Blake Masters is having his entire web site rewritten to remove the more extreme positions he had there right up until the primary election closed. Also filed paperwork with the Internet Wayback Machine to remove all of those records. Mark Kelly’s staff seems to know what they’re about, so I assume they have screen shots of all of that stuff.
Senate GOP candidate Blake Masters suggests diversity at Federal Reserve is harming the economy
Everything I have read indicates that Blake Masters is having his entire web site rewritten to remove the more extreme positions he had there right up until the primary election closed. Also filed paperwork with the Internet Wayback Machine to remove all of those records. Mark Kelly’s staff seems to know what they’re about, so I assume they have screen shots of all of that stuff.
We lost narrowly today in the round of 32 of the Mixed Teams. But it’s only a card game.
Congratulations!
I used to wonder how well my father would have done if he had taken up duplicate bridge. He and my mother played socially, for fun. OTOH, at the end of the evening he could from memory go through every hand, who held what, who bid what, and how the hand was played.
We lost narrowly today in the round of 32 of the Mixed Teams. But it’s only a card game.
Congratulations!
I used to wonder how well my father would have done if he had taken up duplicate bridge. He and my mother played socially, for fun. OTOH, at the end of the evening he could from memory go through every hand, who held what, who bid what, and how the hand was played.
Could the Internet Wayback Machine please post that paperwork, please?
“Dear Wayback Machine, please take down my fascisms. At least until December.
Tremble and Obey,
Blake Masters”
Could the Internet Wayback Machine please post that paperwork, please?
“Dear Wayback Machine, please take down my fascisms. At least until December.
Tremble and Obey,
Blake Masters”
(Just teasing both of you….)
Completely understood. I wish it were true, of me anyway – it sounds so sophisticated.
(Just teasing both of you….)
Completely understood. I wish it were true, of me anyway – it sounds so sophisticated.
“Dear Wayback Machine, please take down my fascisms. At least until December.
Bad news, Blake. The Internet is forever. Once you put it out there, it will be available for all time. (Even if your opponents were so inept, which they likely weren’t, as to fail to make their own copies.) It’s called backups, and pretty much all ISPs do them regularly.
Market segmentation just ain’t as reliable as it once was.
“Dear Wayback Machine, please take down my fascisms. At least until December.
Bad news, Blake. The Internet is forever. Once you put it out there, it will be available for all time. (Even if your opponents were so inept, which they likely weren’t, as to fail to make their own copies.) It’s called backups, and pretty much all ISPs do them regularly.
Market segmentation just ain’t as reliable as it once was.
It’s called backups, and pretty much all ISPs do them regularly.
Absent warrants, it probably takes felony actions to access them. Note too that the ISP in this case specializes in providing hosting services for right-wingers — “Wipe my backups older than three days ago” is probably an available feature. No sane Democrat is going to touch things without a legally acceptable provenance.
It’s called backups, and pretty much all ISPs do them regularly.
Absent warrants, it probably takes felony actions to access them. Note too that the ISP in this case specializes in providing hosting services for right-wingers — “Wipe my backups older than three days ago” is probably an available feature. No sane Democrat is going to touch things without a legally acceptable provenance.
Out of sight; out of mind
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-018-3807-z
I hadn’t realized that the Aral Sea is no more. See Figure 1 for a graphic look.
Out of sight; out of mind
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-018-3807-z
I hadn’t realized that the Aral Sea is no more. See Figure 1 for a graphic look.
I was aware of the problem and have seen pictures of ocean going ships standed in a toxic desert (with captions that the remants of the lake were dozens of kilometers away by the time the photos were taken).
But even I thought a bit more was still left.
Btw, the Dead Sea has shrunk too for similar reasons. Hotels that were once right at the banks now have to use shuttle services to get the tourists to the edge.
There are plans (with massive disapproval from several sides) to dig a connection to the Red Sea (part canal, part pipeline) to solve that problem.
I was aware of the problem and have seen pictures of ocean going ships standed in a toxic desert (with captions that the remants of the lake were dozens of kilometers away by the time the photos were taken).
But even I thought a bit more was still left.
Btw, the Dead Sea has shrunk too for similar reasons. Hotels that were once right at the banks now have to use shuttle services to get the tourists to the edge.
There are plans (with massive disapproval from several sides) to dig a connection to the Red Sea (part canal, part pipeline) to solve that problem.
There are plans (with massive disapproval from several sides) to dig a connection to the Red Sea (part canal, part pipeline) to solve that problem.
As long as they’re looking at a massive civil engineering effort, might it not make more sense to pipe water from the Mediterranean to the headwaters of the Jorden River? (With, of course, a desalination plant along the way.) That would not only address the Dead Sea issue, but might deal with the 90% reduction from historical flow rates that we see today.
There are plans (with massive disapproval from several sides) to dig a connection to the Red Sea (part canal, part pipeline) to solve that problem.
As long as they’re looking at a massive civil engineering effort, might it not make more sense to pipe water from the Mediterranean to the headwaters of the Jorden River? (With, of course, a desalination plant along the way.) That would not only address the Dead Sea issue, but might deal with the 90% reduction from historical flow rates that we see today.
Quote of the day:
As a description of McConnell’s behavior as Senate Majority Leader, a Democrat would find it hard to argue.
H/T Washington Post: Peter Thiel rebuffs Mitch McConnell over Senate rescue in Arizona
Quote of the day:
As a description of McConnell’s behavior as Senate Majority Leader, a Democrat would find it hard to argue.
H/T Washington Post: Peter Thiel rebuffs Mitch McConnell over Senate rescue in Arizona
As long as they’re looking at a massive civil engineering effort, might it not make more sense to pipe water from the Mediterranean to the headwaters of the Jorden River?
Both the Red Sea proposal and a similar one for bringing water from the Mediterranean include desalination, with the necessary power generated using the elevation drop to the Dead Sea level. Desalination is important for two reasons: to provide fresh water for whoever is paying the bills, and the reject brine from the process is closer to matching the Dead Sea’s salinity. The brine still wouldn’t be a good match chemically. And the people paying the bills probably aren’t interested in evaporation and leakage losses from dumping way upstream.
As long as they’re looking at a massive civil engineering effort, might it not make more sense to pipe water from the Mediterranean to the headwaters of the Jorden River?
Both the Red Sea proposal and a similar one for bringing water from the Mediterranean include desalination, with the necessary power generated using the elevation drop to the Dead Sea level. Desalination is important for two reasons: to provide fresh water for whoever is paying the bills, and the reject brine from the process is closer to matching the Dead Sea’s salinity. The brine still wouldn’t be a good match chemically. And the people paying the bills probably aren’t interested in evaporation and leakage losses from dumping way upstream.
…at the end of the evening he could from memory go through every hand, who held what, who bid what, and how the hand was played.
That’s the mark of a talented player. It’s not some magic memory trick, it’s what happens when you’re concentrating on every bid and play.
…at the end of the evening he could from memory go through every hand, who held what, who bid what, and how the hand was played.
That’s the mark of a talented player. It’s not some magic memory trick, it’s what happens when you’re concentrating on every bid and play.
with the necessary power generated using the elevation drop to the Dead Sea level.
The Israelis already do massive desalination, in part because the drop in the Jordan meant they needed a different source of water for irrigation. So they know how to get the necessary power without hydro sources. And they know how to make extraordinarily efficient use of the power they have.
the people paying the bills probably aren’t interested in evaporation and leakage losses from dumping way upstream.
On the other hand, having water in the river would have lots of benefits for lots of people. Just putting water in the Dead Sea directly only benefits the tourist hotels.
with the necessary power generated using the elevation drop to the Dead Sea level.
The Israelis already do massive desalination, in part because the drop in the Jordan meant they needed a different source of water for irrigation. So they know how to get the necessary power without hydro sources. And they know how to make extraordinarily efficient use of the power they have.
the people paying the bills probably aren’t interested in evaporation and leakage losses from dumping way upstream.
On the other hand, having water in the river would have lots of benefits for lots of people. Just putting water in the Dead Sea directly only benefits the tourist hotels.
That’s the mark of a talented player. It’s not some magic memory trick, it’s what happens when you’re concentrating on every bid and play.
I think that level of concentration was a holdover from his cribbage (the only other card game I ever saw him play). In the little Iowa town where Dad grew up cribbage was a blood sport, and then he went into the Navy. Dad taught me when I was seven, and turned me over to Grandpa Cain’s tender mercies when I was eight. The first time I beat Grandpa Cain by pegging out from some ridiculous distance, he said, “Good. I see the Dutchman’s sitting out on his porch.” He slid me a dollar bill and added, “Go tell him you want to play for a penny a point.”
That’s the mark of a talented player. It’s not some magic memory trick, it’s what happens when you’re concentrating on every bid and play.
I think that level of concentration was a holdover from his cribbage (the only other card game I ever saw him play). In the little Iowa town where Dad grew up cribbage was a blood sport, and then he went into the Navy. Dad taught me when I was seven, and turned me over to Grandpa Cain’s tender mercies when I was eight. The first time I beat Grandpa Cain by pegging out from some ridiculous distance, he said, “Good. I see the Dutchman’s sitting out on his porch.” He slid me a dollar bill and added, “Go tell him you want to play for a penny a point.”
Note too that the ISP in this case specializes in providing hosting services for right-wingers — “Wipe my backups older than three days ago” is probably an available feature.
But then there’s this:
https://archive.org/web/
Note too that the ISP in this case specializes in providing hosting services for right-wingers — “Wipe my backups older than three days ago” is probably an available feature.
But then there’s this:
https://archive.org/web/
Ha! Talking of LOTR and its canonical or sacrosanct status, particularly for Janie, I thought this in today’s NYT might interest her:
Tolkien’s works may be still harder to adapt. A professor of medieval literature who as a young man helped write the entries for words including “wasp,” “wain,” and “walrus” in the Oxford English Dictionary, Tolkien wrote a deeply textured prose that is vastly different from that of his fantasy imitators. It evokes the flavor of Anglo-Saxon epic poetry and Old Norse sagas, giving readers the sense that they are reading something very old that has been translated by Professor Tolkien, not composed by him.
Tolkien’s narrative craftsmanship is both dramatic and subtle. He writes from the point of view of his least knowledgeable characters (usually hobbits, but occasionally Gimli or Gollum and once even a confused fox), so they and the reader learn about the world beyond the Shire together, piecing together Middle-earth through hints and fragments. No wonder people say that reading “The Lord of the Rings” feels more like an experience than a book — cognitively, it is. And that is precisely the sort of effect that can translate poorly onto film, particularly when a series has to work from a brief summary.
Not just character but moral clarity can be easily lost when a team of writers, inherently beholden to the concerns, politics and tropes of the day, takes over from a single author and attempts to build a narrative that will best support a studio’s desire for a never-ending revenue stream.
What makes Tolkien’s work unique is the moral heart of his story and the consistency with which he maintains it. Rather than reveling in the acquisition and exercise of power, “The Lord of the Rings” celebrates its renunciation, insisting that the domination of others is always morally wrong. Tolkien is utterly consistent with this morality, even at the expense of his most cherished characters: Frodo has no other choice than to use the power of the Ring to dominate Gollum, but he still pays for that immoral act when he is unable to complete his quest or to enjoy his life afterward. Can a company as intent upon domination as Amazon really understand this perspective — and adapt that morality to the screen?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/opinion/rings-of-power-amazon-tolkien.html
Ha! Talking of LOTR and its canonical or sacrosanct status, particularly for Janie, I thought this in today’s NYT might interest her:
Tolkien’s works may be still harder to adapt. A professor of medieval literature who as a young man helped write the entries for words including “wasp,” “wain,” and “walrus” in the Oxford English Dictionary, Tolkien wrote a deeply textured prose that is vastly different from that of his fantasy imitators. It evokes the flavor of Anglo-Saxon epic poetry and Old Norse sagas, giving readers the sense that they are reading something very old that has been translated by Professor Tolkien, not composed by him.
Tolkien’s narrative craftsmanship is both dramatic and subtle. He writes from the point of view of his least knowledgeable characters (usually hobbits, but occasionally Gimli or Gollum and once even a confused fox), so they and the reader learn about the world beyond the Shire together, piecing together Middle-earth through hints and fragments. No wonder people say that reading “The Lord of the Rings” feels more like an experience than a book — cognitively, it is. And that is precisely the sort of effect that can translate poorly onto film, particularly when a series has to work from a brief summary.
Not just character but moral clarity can be easily lost when a team of writers, inherently beholden to the concerns, politics and tropes of the day, takes over from a single author and attempts to build a narrative that will best support a studio’s desire for a never-ending revenue stream.
What makes Tolkien’s work unique is the moral heart of his story and the consistency with which he maintains it. Rather than reveling in the acquisition and exercise of power, “The Lord of the Rings” celebrates its renunciation, insisting that the domination of others is always morally wrong. Tolkien is utterly consistent with this morality, even at the expense of his most cherished characters: Frodo has no other choice than to use the power of the Ring to dominate Gollum, but he still pays for that immoral act when he is unable to complete his quest or to enjoy his life afterward. Can a company as intent upon domination as Amazon really understand this perspective — and adapt that morality to the screen?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/opinion/rings-of-power-amazon-tolkien.html
GftNC – thanks, that says it better than i ever could.
GftNC – thanks, that says it better than i ever could.
I’m no fan of Amazon, or of Peter Jackson, but it seems to me that Amazon can do no worse, morally speaking, than the thousands of white supremacist fans who see in LotR the perfect expression of the struggle of the aryan race.
And Tolkien’s strong sense of morality is itself more fraught than it seems on the surface – as scholars of race and gender point out.
I am not claiming that Tolkien or the books are racist or sexist, or anything so ridiculously reductive as that. I love the stories and find them moving, but also very deeply embedded in a hazy and often contradictory romanticism that creeps into the worldbuild on the edges where his scholarly obsessions start to fade out.
I’m no fan of Amazon, or of Peter Jackson, but it seems to me that Amazon can do no worse, morally speaking, than the thousands of white supremacist fans who see in LotR the perfect expression of the struggle of the aryan race.
And Tolkien’s strong sense of morality is itself more fraught than it seems on the surface – as scholars of race and gender point out.
I am not claiming that Tolkien or the books are racist or sexist, or anything so ridiculously reductive as that. I love the stories and find them moving, but also very deeply embedded in a hazy and often contradictory romanticism that creeps into the worldbuild on the edges where his scholarly obsessions start to fade out.
Just one more zoomed-out, tangential thought about Amazon and Tolkien. I find it interesting that the same qualities that make some people worry about Amazon’s stewardship of Tolkien’s world are currently transforming the D&D game system, undoing the weirdly racially codified taxonomies that the game stole directly from the LotR imaginary.
I’m interested to see if we can find our way to a more cosmopolitan vision of resistance and moral courage in the face of tyranny. Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast seems to be finding a path through to that, but they are less suspect that the Bezos empire.
Just one more zoomed-out, tangential thought about Amazon and Tolkien. I find it interesting that the same qualities that make some people worry about Amazon’s stewardship of Tolkien’s world are currently transforming the D&D game system, undoing the weirdly racially codified taxonomies that the game stole directly from the LotR imaginary.
I’m interested to see if we can find our way to a more cosmopolitan vision of resistance and moral courage in the face of tyranny. Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast seems to be finding a path through to that, but they are less suspect that the Bezos empire.
I saw the first two episodes of Rings of Power.
The diversity is a good thing. It makes sense. Elves especially should come in different colors unless Eru Iluvater is supposed to be an Aryan God. The same for dwarves— Aule shouldn’t be a racist either. Why would gods who put on physical forms like people wear clothes have a favorite skin color? One can get into the usual discussions about the extent to which Tolkien fell into racist tropes but I have no problem with people making an easy fix when filming his mythology.
But the dialogue was awful, at least whenever the High Elves were talking. One billion dollars and they couldn’t hire some decent scriptwriters? And while I don’t mind Galadriel as a warrior ( there are some hints of that in the unpublished stuff and she was one of the leaders in the Noldor trek across the Middle Earth version of the Arctic Ocean) they turned her into the cliched Hollywood character who is the only person to realize Sauron might be around. It was dumb. I understand the need to compress the timeline but they are doing it badly.
So much of it was painfully stupid and embarrassing, but I liked the Harfoots. They were diverse too. Trying to decide if that would be plausible— a medieval style nomadic culture— but I don’t care that much. Not giving up on the series, but it seems likely that much of the dialogue will continue to idiotic.
The Jackson movies were overrated— he really ruined some of the characters and parts of ROTK made me cringe— but so far they were a lot better than this show. But it has only been two episodes. Maybe the best thing to do is turn the sound off whenever one of the Noldor appear.
I saw the first two episodes of Rings of Power.
The diversity is a good thing. It makes sense. Elves especially should come in different colors unless Eru Iluvater is supposed to be an Aryan God. The same for dwarves— Aule shouldn’t be a racist either. Why would gods who put on physical forms like people wear clothes have a favorite skin color? One can get into the usual discussions about the extent to which Tolkien fell into racist tropes but I have no problem with people making an easy fix when filming his mythology.
But the dialogue was awful, at least whenever the High Elves were talking. One billion dollars and they couldn’t hire some decent scriptwriters? And while I don’t mind Galadriel as a warrior ( there are some hints of that in the unpublished stuff and she was one of the leaders in the Noldor trek across the Middle Earth version of the Arctic Ocean) they turned her into the cliched Hollywood character who is the only person to realize Sauron might be around. It was dumb. I understand the need to compress the timeline but they are doing it badly.
So much of it was painfully stupid and embarrassing, but I liked the Harfoots. They were diverse too. Trying to decide if that would be plausible— a medieval style nomadic culture— but I don’t care that much. Not giving up on the series, but it seems likely that much of the dialogue will continue to idiotic.
The Jackson movies were overrated— he really ruined some of the characters and parts of ROTK made me cringe— but so far they were a lot better than this show. But it has only been two episodes. Maybe the best thing to do is turn the sound off whenever one of the Noldor appear.
I liked Hugo Weaving speaking in iambic pentameter(?) whether in the The Matrix or LotR.
I liked Hugo Weaving speaking in iambic pentameter(?) whether in the The Matrix or LotR.
“One billion dollars and they couldn’t hire some decent scriptwriters?”
They could hire SCORES of them! Which doesn’t mean that the result will be better than a smaller number of writers.
Too many cooks, etc.
Plus interference from the non-writers also, too. Not that I have any inside info, just “how it always is”.
“One billion dollars and they couldn’t hire some decent scriptwriters?”
They could hire SCORES of them! Which doesn’t mean that the result will be better than a smaller number of writers.
Too many cooks, etc.
Plus interference from the non-writers also, too. Not that I have any inside info, just “how it always is”.
In LotR there are indications that there is an equivalent of Africa (Harad) while the informations about the East (Rhun) are so sparse that one cannot draw secure conclusions about ethnicity. From Gandalf we know that he was in Harad (where he was considered a spy from the North) but never in Rhun (and the two blue wizards disappeared there without a trace).
There are some speculations that the dwarves are Hebrew/Jews, at least their language is based on semitic structures.
As far as elves are concerned, there are the two subgroups that went West (languages based on Finnish and Welsh) while another group known as dark elves stayed somewhwere in the East. But the dark very likely does not refer to skin color*. Iirc they got under the power of Morgoth and were turned into what would later become the orcs (Iirc it is explicitly left uncertain, whether the orcs ARE ex-elves or whether they were merely a failed attempt by Morgoth to copy them like trolls were bad copies of ents [according to Treebeard]).
With hobbits there seem to be recognisably different tribes and they seem to have in general Northern European features but with a slightly darker skin colour on average (but more like strong tan than actually ‘black’).
So, there is some diversity but generally on the European model with the POC just out of frame, i.e. known to exist but not a major part of the story but also not necessarily evil. It is stated that Sauron deceived them into joining his side, and I can’t remember any slurs (racial or not) used to refer to them.
C.S.Lewis is far more problematic there. Narnians are white and their eternal antagonists, the Calormenes, are clearly cliche Arabs with “swarthy” faces and also devil worshippers (the final volume of the series makes that explicit).
*Elves seem to be either blonde (e.g. Galadriel) or raven haired (e.g. Arwen) with fair skin a given in those specimens Tolkien presents us with.
In LotR there are indications that there is an equivalent of Africa (Harad) while the informations about the East (Rhun) are so sparse that one cannot draw secure conclusions about ethnicity. From Gandalf we know that he was in Harad (where he was considered a spy from the North) but never in Rhun (and the two blue wizards disappeared there without a trace).
There are some speculations that the dwarves are Hebrew/Jews, at least their language is based on semitic structures.
As far as elves are concerned, there are the two subgroups that went West (languages based on Finnish and Welsh) while another group known as dark elves stayed somewhwere in the East. But the dark very likely does not refer to skin color*. Iirc they got under the power of Morgoth and were turned into what would later become the orcs (Iirc it is explicitly left uncertain, whether the orcs ARE ex-elves or whether they were merely a failed attempt by Morgoth to copy them like trolls were bad copies of ents [according to Treebeard]).
With hobbits there seem to be recognisably different tribes and they seem to have in general Northern European features but with a slightly darker skin colour on average (but more like strong tan than actually ‘black’).
So, there is some diversity but generally on the European model with the POC just out of frame, i.e. known to exist but not a major part of the story but also not necessarily evil. It is stated that Sauron deceived them into joining his side, and I can’t remember any slurs (racial or not) used to refer to them.
C.S.Lewis is far more problematic there. Narnians are white and their eternal antagonists, the Calormenes, are clearly cliche Arabs with “swarthy” faces and also devil worshippers (the final volume of the series makes that explicit).
*Elves seem to be either blonde (e.g. Galadriel) or raven haired (e.g. Arwen) with fair skin a given in those specimens Tolkien presents us with.
Btw, I always imagined the people living at the ice bay of Forochel more as a kind of friendly Yeti than Inuit, although there is no explicit description of them.
The Druedain who lived all over Rohan before the Rohirrim arrived on the other hand give the impression of cave people (as they were imagined a century ago).
Btw, I always imagined the people living at the ice bay of Forochel more as a kind of friendly Yeti than Inuit, although there is no explicit description of them.
The Druedain who lived all over Rohan before the Rohirrim arrived on the other hand give the impression of cave people (as they were imagined a century ago).
Fantasy dialogue is a tough needle to thread – moreso when one has to try to match the tone and expectations set by both literature and film across a diverse audience with varying levels of experience with the world.
I’m also trying to keep in mind that the show can only work with the material in LotR and its appendices. They don’t have rights to either The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales. That’s another set of constraints under which to labor.
So far I find it intriguing, and decent enough executed to hold my interest. Big budgets don’t often translate into excellence, they are usually just a nudge towards competence and away from artistic risk.
I do find it fascinating to look at its reception among that portion of the LotR faithful who embraced the Jackson LotR and its changes, but have now decided that this latest endeavor is the LotR equivalent of the Disney SW films – ruined by its pursuit of SJWs.
It’s like a pop culture version of the Counter-Reformation sometimes.
Fantasy dialogue is a tough needle to thread – moreso when one has to try to match the tone and expectations set by both literature and film across a diverse audience with varying levels of experience with the world.
I’m also trying to keep in mind that the show can only work with the material in LotR and its appendices. They don’t have rights to either The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales. That’s another set of constraints under which to labor.
So far I find it intriguing, and decent enough executed to hold my interest. Big budgets don’t often translate into excellence, they are usually just a nudge towards competence and away from artistic risk.
I do find it fascinating to look at its reception among that portion of the LotR faithful who embraced the Jackson LotR and its changes, but have now decided that this latest endeavor is the LotR equivalent of the Disney SW films – ruined by its pursuit of SJWs.
It’s like a pop culture version of the Counter-Reformation sometimes.
Every author, when trying to create aliens (including hobbit, elves, dwarves, etc., not to mention Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, etc.) works from the spectrum of characteristics he is fsmiliar with. It’s always possible to reverse engineer what might have inspired particular alien species. The operative word being “might”.
Perhaps the author has created multiple universes, with different species, and the same characteristics for heroes and villains. Perhaps there is additional evidence from outside his literary works. But without that, any conclusions about the author’s suposed prejudices say more about the analyst than about the author.
Every author, when trying to create aliens (including hobbit, elves, dwarves, etc., not to mention Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, etc.) works from the spectrum of characteristics he is fsmiliar with. It’s always possible to reverse engineer what might have inspired particular alien species. The operative word being “might”.
Perhaps the author has created multiple universes, with different species, and the same characteristics for heroes and villains. Perhaps there is additional evidence from outside his literary works. But without that, any conclusions about the author’s suposed prejudices say more about the analyst than about the author.
Hartmut – if you are interested in some provocative discussions of Tolkien’s attitudes towards heritage and language, I’ve been reading Kathy Lavezzo’s “Whiteness, medievalism, immigration: rethinking Tolkien
through Stuart Hall” (available through Google Scholar, though unsure if it is available without institutional access). Tolkien had some pretty wacky attitudes towards language and genetics that seem deeply entangled in Romantic Nationalism.
Hartmut – if you are interested in some provocative discussions of Tolkien’s attitudes towards heritage and language, I’ve been reading Kathy Lavezzo’s “Whiteness, medievalism, immigration: rethinking Tolkien
through Stuart Hall” (available through Google Scholar, though unsure if it is available without institutional access). Tolkien had some pretty wacky attitudes towards language and genetics that seem deeply entangled in Romantic Nationalism.
wj – most of the work that explores Tolkien’s attitudes towards race ground their analysis in Tolkiens scholarly writing and in his letters, fleshed out by outside accounts of Tolkien from those who interacted with him in relevant ways.
wj – most of the work that explores Tolkien’s attitudes towards race ground their analysis in Tolkiens scholarly writing and in his letters, fleshed out by outside accounts of Tolkien from those who interacted with him in relevant ways.
nous — which puts that work on a far firmer basis than analyses which don’t have that kind of support.
While I obviously don’t have your depth of background, my impression is that a lot of them do not share that kind of support. Although that impression is necessarily skewed towards those which make it beyond the academic arena.
I confess that the I think some of the efforts to apply current standards to people in the past (i.e. from different cultures) go way too far. When there are military bases which were named after Confederate generals by folks clinging to the Lost Cause — sure, never too late to correct that bit of sedition. If you want to change the name of something named for a slave trader (not named for one of his descendants, named for him) — fine.
On the other hand, renaming a bunch of streets because the guy it’s named for had a family who owned slaves, and brought one (1) black cook when he settled in California** — that’s getting silly. It’s not like naming a street for him was intended to celebrate slavery. And if you want to rename anything named for or by anyone who owned slaves, consider that you’re talking about renaming pretty much every major city and every geographic feature across the Southwest. (If you don’t know that the Spanish here kept Native Americans as slaves, time to improve your education.)
** An effort currently in progress in San Jose.
nous — which puts that work on a far firmer basis than analyses which don’t have that kind of support.
While I obviously don’t have your depth of background, my impression is that a lot of them do not share that kind of support. Although that impression is necessarily skewed towards those which make it beyond the academic arena.
I confess that the I think some of the efforts to apply current standards to people in the past (i.e. from different cultures) go way too far. When there are military bases which were named after Confederate generals by folks clinging to the Lost Cause — sure, never too late to correct that bit of sedition. If you want to change the name of something named for a slave trader (not named for one of his descendants, named for him) — fine.
On the other hand, renaming a bunch of streets because the guy it’s named for had a family who owned slaves, and brought one (1) black cook when he settled in California** — that’s getting silly. It’s not like naming a street for him was intended to celebrate slavery. And if you want to rename anything named for or by anyone who owned slaves, consider that you’re talking about renaming pretty much every major city and every geographic feature across the Southwest. (If you don’t know that the Spanish here kept Native Americans as slaves, time to improve your education.)
** An effort currently in progress in San Jose.
Every author, when trying to create aliens (including hobbit, elves, dwarves, etc., not to mention Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, etc.) works from the spectrum of characteristics he is familiar with
The last Star Trek series I enjoyed and watched all of was Voyager (if that came after Next Gen and DS9, which I think it did and am too lazy currently to look up). I watched one episode of one of the prequels, and wasn’t interested (apart from anything else, and I know it sounds nuts, but the tech seemed too old-fashioned!). But I saved Picard months ago for future need (on the grounds that Stewart is such a good actor it would probably be worthwhile), and by the same mysterious process when I suddenly, finally know it’s time to read something (e.g. Murderbot, where I’m ekeing out the penultimate book because I don’t want to finish the series), I have just this evening started watching the first Picard series. It seems pretty good, so I’m all in. Rings of Power, on the other hand, is not tempting me. I’ll probably end up giving it a go, but (based on the reviews, and also because I’m not particularly a Tolkien devotee) I’m not anticipating it with great pleasure.
Every author, when trying to create aliens (including hobbit, elves, dwarves, etc., not to mention Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, etc.) works from the spectrum of characteristics he is familiar with
The last Star Trek series I enjoyed and watched all of was Voyager (if that came after Next Gen and DS9, which I think it did and am too lazy currently to look up). I watched one episode of one of the prequels, and wasn’t interested (apart from anything else, and I know it sounds nuts, but the tech seemed too old-fashioned!). But I saved Picard months ago for future need (on the grounds that Stewart is such a good actor it would probably be worthwhile), and by the same mysterious process when I suddenly, finally know it’s time to read something (e.g. Murderbot, where I’m ekeing out the penultimate book because I don’t want to finish the series), I have just this evening started watching the first Picard series. It seems pretty good, so I’m all in. Rings of Power, on the other hand, is not tempting me. I’ll probably end up giving it a go, but (based on the reviews, and also because I’m not particularly a Tolkien devotee) I’m not anticipating it with great pleasure.
wj – I don’t know of any broad sentiments to cancel Tolkien. If anything, the prospect of a career as a Tolkien scholar is better than it was when I entered grad school two decades ago.
All these fan culture waves of censure and backlash happen in a very different subculture. I generally try to steer well clear of it as anything other than a lurker.
I try to stay out of popular culture discussions about the meaning and literary merit of particular books. I have to shepherd the reading comprehension and critical thinking skills of too many first-year undergrads (from all different backgrounds, languages, and cultures) to want to do it a bunch in my spare time as well. Reading comprehension is as subject to Sturgeon’s Law as anything else. And every response of mine would be a TLDR with an implicit bibliography, so…
wj – I don’t know of any broad sentiments to cancel Tolkien. If anything, the prospect of a career as a Tolkien scholar is better than it was when I entered grad school two decades ago.
All these fan culture waves of censure and backlash happen in a very different subculture. I generally try to steer well clear of it as anything other than a lurker.
I try to stay out of popular culture discussions about the meaning and literary merit of particular books. I have to shepherd the reading comprehension and critical thinking skills of too many first-year undergrads (from all different backgrounds, languages, and cultures) to want to do it a bunch in my spare time as well. Reading comprehension is as subject to Sturgeon’s Law as anything else. And every response of mine would be a TLDR with an implicit bibliography, so…
I have to shepherd the reading comprehension and critical thinking skills of too many first-year undergrads
Those are skills all to desperately needed these days. I only wish we would teach them in high school. Preferably as a mandatory course.
Frankly, learning that seems even more important than, say, history. If you can read and comprehend, and evaluate what you read, you can learn history on your own. The reverse, not so much. Not to say that history isn’t important — as is made obvious by those who seem determined to repeat historic mistakes. But still, priorities.
I have to shepherd the reading comprehension and critical thinking skills of too many first-year undergrads
Those are skills all to desperately needed these days. I only wish we would teach them in high school. Preferably as a mandatory course.
Frankly, learning that seems even more important than, say, history. If you can read and comprehend, and evaluate what you read, you can learn history on your own. The reverse, not so much. Not to say that history isn’t important — as is made obvious by those who seem determined to repeat historic mistakes. But still, priorities.
nous, I can’t get at the paper on Tolkien from home* but will probably be able to do so the next time (in about a week) when I go to the university library to check for something else.
*I can’t log into the university net from the outside anymore, only from within.
nous, I can’t get at the paper on Tolkien from home* but will probably be able to do so the next time (in about a week) when I go to the university library to check for something else.
*I can’t log into the university net from the outside anymore, only from within.