by wj
We spend so much time discussing politics in the US, it seems like it past time to talk about what’s happening elsewhere.
In particular, in the UK. They have finally got a new Prime Minister. No doubt our members in Britain will have something to say on the subject. And it won’t hurt the rest of us to educate ourselves on the subject as well.
And we’re overdue for another Open Thread (to the extent that we pay attention to that). So let’s do that here as well.
a) After reading Charlie Stross’s recent post, I have changed my morning news reading somewhat, checking in on the UK to see if the blackouts or food riots have started, or if Scotland and/or Northern Ireland have had enough and just declared independence.
b) Wondering if NASA will do the right thing and declare a six-month slip on the Artemis 1 schedule. Not only does that give them a comfortable interval to contemplate solving hydrogen leaks, but also to get back into conformance with their own specs instead of depending on waivers from the military range operators.
a) After reading Charlie Stross’s recent post, I have changed my morning news reading somewhat, checking in on the UK to see if the blackouts or food riots have started, or if Scotland and/or Northern Ireland have had enough and just declared independence.
b) Wondering if NASA will do the right thing and declare a six-month slip on the Artemis 1 schedule. Not only does that give them a comfortable interval to contemplate solving hydrogen leaks, but also to get back into conformance with their own specs instead of depending on waivers from the military range operators.
So, not labor day in the UK…
So, not labor day in the UK…
Charles, that was baaaaaad!
Although, as I understand how the UK works, the new PM was always going to be the new Conservative leader. The only question was who that leader would be. (Well, that and how long it would take to settle that question.)
Charles, that was baaaaaad!
Although, as I understand how the UK works, the new PM was always going to be the new Conservative leader. The only question was who that leader would be. (Well, that and how long it would take to settle that question.)
I can’t remember if I posted this before, when it was in the Times a couple of weeks ago – I’ve copied it to lots of friends and ObWi might be included. If so, forgive me. But I do think that it’s significant. The writer was a Conservative MP, and an aide to Margaret Thatcher, and it is noticeable that Truss has been trying to position herself as an heir to Thatcher. So here’s what somebody who knew her says:
There’s no more to Truss than meets the eye
People trying to identify personal and political qualities that make the foreign secretary a winner should give up now
More than six years ago I wrote on this page about an expanding star in the Tory sky. “Steadily,” I said, “almost imperceptibly, an absurd idea has crept upon us.” The idea, I said, was that Boris Johnson might prove fit to be prime minister. Laughable, I wrote, “. . . yet still the idea has grown: shrewdly, assiduously, flamboyantly puffed by its only conceivable beneficiary. Where else in politics can such self-validating, self-inflating nonsense be found?” My column teetered between indignation and incredulity. It described him as “a blustering, bantering hole in the air”. It drew embarrassed attention to his moral carelessness.
And it built towards a conclusion that was magnificently wrong. Surely, I argued, neither his colleagues nor the electorate would ever fall for this.
I well recall the response, and still keep some of the messages to prove it. Colleagues in political journalism, and former parliamentary colleagues too, agreed. Some were later to write in praise of him, others to serve in his government, even in his cabinet.
The mood changed as it became apparent the impossible was going to happen. There is in all of us a habit of which we are rarely conscious, impelling us towards the suspicion that if Destiny is taking someone or something seriously, then Destiny might be right.
Some genuinely forgot their earlier opinion; others concluded there was, after all, more to this man than met the eye. Commentators and colleagues willed him to be what they wanted him to be. He’d always been (many noted) a man of liberal instincts. Others opined that as a charming pragmatist he might steer Brexiteers away from the wilder shores of xenophobia. It became the conventional wisdom that, aware of his limitations, Johnson’s great talent had always been to pick a good, strong and sensible team to carry his leadership forward. There might be (it was felt by some wise heads) so much more to this man than surface charm, froth and bubble.
There never was. First impressions had been right all along. Save yourself the trouble of second thoughts. Margaret Thatcher turned out to be exactly what she at first seemed, for good or ill. Keir Starmer seems at first sight to be a man who knows what he should do but keeps losing his nerve. On the second, third and fourth glances too we’re unlikely to refine that judgment.
“Intelligence takes many forms,” wrote Michael Gove after interviewing Donald Trump early in 2017. We forget it now but there was a belief and argument that we had underestimated the then president. Our first impression had been that the man was an unhinged and ignorant egomaniac. The first impression was right.
And so to the choice facing Tory members now pondering whether to vote for Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak as — effectively — our next prime minister. Truss is reported to be the likely victor. We ringside commentators love struggles for power, and admire politicians who show flair in its accumulation. But ability to acquire power has never entailed an ability to exercise it.
In Times columns I’ve offered my first impressions of this candidate. They were that she was intellectually shallow, her convictions wafer-thin; that she was driven by ambition pure and simple; that her manner was wooden and her ability to communicate convincingly to an electorate wider than the narrow band of Tory activists was virtually non-existent; that she was dangerously impulsive and headstrong, with a self-belief unattended by precaution; and that her leadership of the Conservative Party and our country would be a tragedy for both. “There’s nothing there,” I wrote last December, “nothing beyond a leaping self-confidence that’s almost endearing in its wide-eyed disregard for the forces of political gravity.” I likened any decision to follow Johnson with Truss to the doner kebab which, after a night on the tiles, momentarily seems like a good idea — until you open the bread pouch.
If these, my first impressions, were expressed extravagantly, they nevertheless reflected a judgment expressed more soberly by most political commentators — and, I suggest, felt by the majority of her fellow Tory MPs, for whom Sunak was plainly the preferred candidate. There was incredulity as to how she had got to where she was.
I have noticed since that some are revising their first impressions. MPs and ministers are cleaving to her, some doubtless out of naked opportunism but others persuading themselves they’ve now spotted talents they perhaps missed when Truss was further from power. Journalists, meanwhile, some of them simply reaching for something new to say, but others seriously thinking again, are venturing the thought that there may be more to her than meets the eye: a resolute, “steely” strategist, perhaps? A woman with a quirky but shrewdly Trumpian eye for connecting with voters? A hard worker (unlike Boris) and someone who can be talked out of mistaken plans if an intelligent effort is made? Hell, she’s going to win so maybe she’s a winner? Shouldn’t we at least give her the benefit of the doubt?
No. Ignore those whispers of precaution. Stick to your first impressions. Liz Truss is a planet-sized mass of overconfidence and ambition teetering upon a pinhead of a political brain. It must all come crashing down. Her biggest job has been foreign secretary. Does she join her new best friend, Tom Tugendhat, in condemning the UN security council for its criticism of illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory? Does she really want to “review” (as she’s suggested) Britain’s decision not to join the Americans in moving our embassy to Jerusalem? What did she mean by saying Britain’s civil service culture “strays into antisemitism”? These explosive hip shots are only indicative.
And now that she moves her attention to domestic politics, does she really believe that “freedom” and deregulation will help red-wall England? Mansfield isn’t being held back by big government; it’s being held together by it. What are her instincts — not the corrections she’s been forced to row back to, but her personal instincts — on help for the poor, on Theresa May’s “good that government can do”? I think we know.
I’ll wager that at the outset most readers thought Liz Truss a bit weird, curiously hollow and potentially dangerous. This summer a short period will see such rushes to judgment revised. Then government will descend into a huge effort to contain and defang an unstable prime minister; and we shall revert to our first impressions. Save yourself the detour and stick with them. She’s crackers. It isn’t going to work.
I can’t remember if I posted this before, when it was in the Times a couple of weeks ago – I’ve copied it to lots of friends and ObWi might be included. If so, forgive me. But I do think that it’s significant. The writer was a Conservative MP, and an aide to Margaret Thatcher, and it is noticeable that Truss has been trying to position herself as an heir to Thatcher. So here’s what somebody who knew her says:
There’s no more to Truss than meets the eye
People trying to identify personal and political qualities that make the foreign secretary a winner should give up now
More than six years ago I wrote on this page about an expanding star in the Tory sky. “Steadily,” I said, “almost imperceptibly, an absurd idea has crept upon us.” The idea, I said, was that Boris Johnson might prove fit to be prime minister. Laughable, I wrote, “. . . yet still the idea has grown: shrewdly, assiduously, flamboyantly puffed by its only conceivable beneficiary. Where else in politics can such self-validating, self-inflating nonsense be found?” My column teetered between indignation and incredulity. It described him as “a blustering, bantering hole in the air”. It drew embarrassed attention to his moral carelessness.
And it built towards a conclusion that was magnificently wrong. Surely, I argued, neither his colleagues nor the electorate would ever fall for this.
I well recall the response, and still keep some of the messages to prove it. Colleagues in political journalism, and former parliamentary colleagues too, agreed. Some were later to write in praise of him, others to serve in his government, even in his cabinet.
The mood changed as it became apparent the impossible was going to happen. There is in all of us a habit of which we are rarely conscious, impelling us towards the suspicion that if Destiny is taking someone or something seriously, then Destiny might be right.
Some genuinely forgot their earlier opinion; others concluded there was, after all, more to this man than met the eye. Commentators and colleagues willed him to be what they wanted him to be. He’d always been (many noted) a man of liberal instincts. Others opined that as a charming pragmatist he might steer Brexiteers away from the wilder shores of xenophobia. It became the conventional wisdom that, aware of his limitations, Johnson’s great talent had always been to pick a good, strong and sensible team to carry his leadership forward. There might be (it was felt by some wise heads) so much more to this man than surface charm, froth and bubble.
There never was. First impressions had been right all along. Save yourself the trouble of second thoughts. Margaret Thatcher turned out to be exactly what she at first seemed, for good or ill. Keir Starmer seems at first sight to be a man who knows what he should do but keeps losing his nerve. On the second, third and fourth glances too we’re unlikely to refine that judgment.
“Intelligence takes many forms,” wrote Michael Gove after interviewing Donald Trump early in 2017. We forget it now but there was a belief and argument that we had underestimated the then president. Our first impression had been that the man was an unhinged and ignorant egomaniac. The first impression was right.
And so to the choice facing Tory members now pondering whether to vote for Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak as — effectively — our next prime minister. Truss is reported to be the likely victor. We ringside commentators love struggles for power, and admire politicians who show flair in its accumulation. But ability to acquire power has never entailed an ability to exercise it.
In Times columns I’ve offered my first impressions of this candidate. They were that she was intellectually shallow, her convictions wafer-thin; that she was driven by ambition pure and simple; that her manner was wooden and her ability to communicate convincingly to an electorate wider than the narrow band of Tory activists was virtually non-existent; that she was dangerously impulsive and headstrong, with a self-belief unattended by precaution; and that her leadership of the Conservative Party and our country would be a tragedy for both. “There’s nothing there,” I wrote last December, “nothing beyond a leaping self-confidence that’s almost endearing in its wide-eyed disregard for the forces of political gravity.” I likened any decision to follow Johnson with Truss to the doner kebab which, after a night on the tiles, momentarily seems like a good idea — until you open the bread pouch.
If these, my first impressions, were expressed extravagantly, they nevertheless reflected a judgment expressed more soberly by most political commentators — and, I suggest, felt by the majority of her fellow Tory MPs, for whom Sunak was plainly the preferred candidate. There was incredulity as to how she had got to where she was.
I have noticed since that some are revising their first impressions. MPs and ministers are cleaving to her, some doubtless out of naked opportunism but others persuading themselves they’ve now spotted talents they perhaps missed when Truss was further from power. Journalists, meanwhile, some of them simply reaching for something new to say, but others seriously thinking again, are venturing the thought that there may be more to her than meets the eye: a resolute, “steely” strategist, perhaps? A woman with a quirky but shrewdly Trumpian eye for connecting with voters? A hard worker (unlike Boris) and someone who can be talked out of mistaken plans if an intelligent effort is made? Hell, she’s going to win so maybe she’s a winner? Shouldn’t we at least give her the benefit of the doubt?
No. Ignore those whispers of precaution. Stick to your first impressions. Liz Truss is a planet-sized mass of overconfidence and ambition teetering upon a pinhead of a political brain. It must all come crashing down. Her biggest job has been foreign secretary. Does she join her new best friend, Tom Tugendhat, in condemning the UN security council for its criticism of illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory? Does she really want to “review” (as she’s suggested) Britain’s decision not to join the Americans in moving our embassy to Jerusalem? What did she mean by saying Britain’s civil service culture “strays into antisemitism”? These explosive hip shots are only indicative.
And now that she moves her attention to domestic politics, does she really believe that “freedom” and deregulation will help red-wall England? Mansfield isn’t being held back by big government; it’s being held together by it. What are her instincts — not the corrections she’s been forced to row back to, but her personal instincts — on help for the poor, on Theresa May’s “good that government can do”? I think we know.
I’ll wager that at the outset most readers thought Liz Truss a bit weird, curiously hollow and potentially dangerous. This summer a short period will see such rushes to judgment revised. Then government will descend into a huge effort to contain and defang an unstable prime minister; and we shall revert to our first impressions. Save yourself the detour and stick with them. She’s crackers. It isn’t going to work.
NPR…
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/05/1121104284/the-next-prime-minister-for-the-u-k-to-be-announced-monday
…seems to be throwing a bit of shade the Tories’ way with this bit closing out an otherwise fairly skeptical report:
At the announcement, the party’s co-chairman, Andrew Stevenson, said the long, drawn-out contest this summer — involving the two “fantastic” candidates fielding hundreds of questions from tens of thousands of members — showed that the party remained “in good voice and good strength.” He also drew a long round of applause when he thanked Johnson, who “rose to the challenge and delivered,” throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and more recently the conflict in Ukraine. Truss also thanked Johnson, describing him as a friend who was “admired from Kyiv to Carlisle.”
Before announcing the result, Sir Graham Brady, who oversees the committee of Conservative legislators responsible for selecting a new leader, said the ballot had been “free and fair,” thanked the party members and all candidates, and said both Truss and Sunak were “outstanding” and had run “excellent campaigns.”
Seriously vacuous and counterfactual statements. It’s a wonder anyone buys them. There again, things may have grown so cynical that this is merely a ritual invocation.
NPR…
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/05/1121104284/the-next-prime-minister-for-the-u-k-to-be-announced-monday
…seems to be throwing a bit of shade the Tories’ way with this bit closing out an otherwise fairly skeptical report:
At the announcement, the party’s co-chairman, Andrew Stevenson, said the long, drawn-out contest this summer — involving the two “fantastic” candidates fielding hundreds of questions from tens of thousands of members — showed that the party remained “in good voice and good strength.” He also drew a long round of applause when he thanked Johnson, who “rose to the challenge and delivered,” throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and more recently the conflict in Ukraine. Truss also thanked Johnson, describing him as a friend who was “admired from Kyiv to Carlisle.”
Before announcing the result, Sir Graham Brady, who oversees the committee of Conservative legislators responsible for selecting a new leader, said the ballot had been “free and fair,” thanked the party members and all candidates, and said both Truss and Sunak were “outstanding” and had run “excellent campaigns.”
Seriously vacuous and counterfactual statements. It’s a wonder anyone buys them. There again, things may have grown so cynical that this is merely a ritual invocation.
Can’t we just go back to talking about US politics ?
Can’t we just go back to talking about US politics ?
Can’t we just go back to talking about US politics ?
Sigh.
There is no comfort to be had, anywhere.
A lady born under a curse, etc etc….
Can’t we just go back to talking about US politics ?
Sigh.
There is no comfort to be had, anywhere.
A lady born under a curse, etc etc….
Meanwhile, one of our longest running satirical panel shows, Have I Got News for You, commonly referred to as HIGNFY, just ran a “celebration” goodbye to BoJo. He guest hosted decades ago, to which many of us attributed his (otherwise rather unlikely, as an Etonian etc) popularity with the general population. They have had plenty of time to rue the day. It was very funny, but I have never heard them be so profane (though they are always very rude). At one stage they referred to him (without asterisks) as “a cosmic c**t”. I don’t know if you can get it in the US, or Japan, but for you connoisseurs of British humour, it’s worth searching out.
Meanwhile, one of our longest running satirical panel shows, Have I Got News for You, commonly referred to as HIGNFY, just ran a “celebration” goodbye to BoJo. He guest hosted decades ago, to which many of us attributed his (otherwise rather unlikely, as an Etonian etc) popularity with the general population. They have had plenty of time to rue the day. It was very funny, but I have never heard them be so profane (though they are always very rude). At one stage they referred to him (without asterisks) as “a cosmic c**t”. I don’t know if you can get it in the US, or Japan, but for you connoisseurs of British humour, it’s worth searching out.
two “fantastic” candidates
Probably too much to hope that he was aware that “fantastic” means, among other things, “remote from reality”….
P.S. “doner kebab” my ObWi language addition for today.
two “fantastic” candidates
Probably too much to hope that he was aware that “fantastic” means, among other things, “remote from reality”….
P.S. “doner kebab” my ObWi language addition for today.
The HIGNFY episode in question is here (whether legitimately is unknown, so get it while it’s hot):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWrc253S9zk
The HIGNFY episode in question is here (whether legitimately is unknown, so get it while it’s hot):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWrc253S9zk
At Balloon Juice Adam Silverman posts regularly on Ukraine, including Zelenskyy’s addresses. Today Zelenskyy has (a href=”https://balloon-juice.com/2022/09/05/war-for-ukraine-day-194-russia-shelling-has-cut-the-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant-off-from-ukraines-grid/”> kind words for Boris Johnson.
I just thought it is worth a link.
At Balloon Juice Adam Silverman posts regularly on Ukraine, including Zelenskyy’s addresses. Today Zelenskyy has (a href=”https://balloon-juice.com/2022/09/05/war-for-ukraine-day-194-russia-shelling-has-cut-the-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant-off-from-ukraines-grid/”> kind words for Boris Johnson.
I just thought it is worth a link.
Gah! I have lost my powers. link.
Gah! I have lost my powers. link.
Oh yes, there’s no doubt they love BoJo in Ukraine. And he has given them staunch support, from the start (he has never stopped going on about it, particularly and sometimes incredibly embarrassingly when trying to distract from accurate accusations of appalling misbehaviour). Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, or words to that effect.
Oh yes, there’s no doubt they love BoJo in Ukraine. And he has given them staunch support, from the start (he has never stopped going on about it, particularly and sometimes incredibly embarrassingly when trying to distract from accurate accusations of appalling misbehaviour). Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, or words to that effect.
Today Zelenskyy has kind words for Boris Johnson.
And during WW II we had kind words for “Uncle Joe”(Stalin) . Never mind the terrible things he had done, and was doing, to his own people. Even allies of convenience must be flattered in the moment.
Today Zelenskyy has kind words for Boris Johnson.
And during WW II we had kind words for “Uncle Joe”(Stalin) . Never mind the terrible things he had done, and was doing, to his own people. Even allies of convenience must be flattered in the moment.
Hi there, GftNC! For contrast, there is Jonathan Pie in the (FTF?) NY Times.
As you can deduce, I have been spending time at BJ.
Hi there, GftNC! For contrast, there is Jonathan Pie in the (FTF?) NY Times.
As you can deduce, I have been spending time at BJ.
Interesting thread.
I know it’s un-Twitter-like to ask a genuine Q, not try to score points, but a Q. I understand how a court can enjoin further execution of a warrant. But does a federal court have authority to enjoin executive branch “use” of seized materials for “investigative purposes”?
https://mobile.twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1566858604644143104
Interesting thread.
I know it’s un-Twitter-like to ask a genuine Q, not try to score points, but a Q. I understand how a court can enjoin further execution of a warrant. But does a federal court have authority to enjoin executive branch “use” of seized materials for “investigative purposes”?
https://mobile.twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1566858604644143104
We’re fucked.
We’re fucked.
They’re gonna duke it out in the courts. Which, on the whole, is probably better than duking it out with pistols at dawn.
We’ll see how it lands.
But yeah, being utterly f**ked is one of the possible outcomes.
They’re gonna duke it out in the courts. Which, on the whole, is probably better than duking it out with pistols at dawn.
We’ll see how it lands.
But yeah, being utterly f**ked is one of the possible outcomes.
We’re fucked.
A lawyer being succinct. Who knew that was even possible/allowed? (Although accuracy makes up for a lot.)
We’re fucked.
A lawyer being succinct. Who knew that was even possible/allowed? (Although accuracy makes up for a lot.)
They’re gonna duke it out in the courts. Which, on the whole, is probably better than duking it out with pistols at dawn.
Somehow, the image that leapt to mind was of Trump and DeSantis dueling at dawn. Seemed like it would be a win either way.
They’re gonna duke it out in the courts. Which, on the whole, is probably better than duking it out with pistols at dawn.
Somehow, the image that leapt to mind was of Trump and DeSantis dueling at dawn. Seemed like it would be a win either way.
I must admit, this is a cloud phenomenon that I’ve never seen (or even heard of) before
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap220906.html
I must admit, this is a cloud phenomenon that I’ve never seen (or even heard of) before
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap220906.html
A column from Sam Leith at The Spectator, where the headline says it all:
Is Liz Truss a Tory Jeremy Corbyn?
A column from Sam Leith at The Spectator, where the headline says it all:
Is Liz Truss a Tory Jeremy Corbyn?
for wj-
https://oliverwillis.substack.com/p/it-is-long-past-time-to-give-up-on
That snip at 05:33 was a classic, GftNC. American political commentary pales in comparison. Many thanks.
“We’re fucked?” Who coulda’ known?
for wj-
https://oliverwillis.substack.com/p/it-is-long-past-time-to-give-up-on
That snip at 05:33 was a classic, GftNC. American political commentary pales in comparison. Many thanks.
“We’re fucked?” Who coulda’ known?
Glad you enjoyed it, bobbyp. Also ral.
FWIW, although Pro Bono’s “We’re fucked” was probably meant for the UK and about the Tory clusterfuck, it is unfortunately absolutely true that it has (much) wider and broader application.
Glad you enjoyed it, bobbyp. Also ral.
FWIW, although Pro Bono’s “We’re fucked” was probably meant for the UK and about the Tory clusterfuck, it is unfortunately absolutely true that it has (much) wider and broader application.
@bobby,
If you accept the far right’s redefinition of “conservative”, then he’s largely spot on. Unfortunately for his overall message, there are a lot of us who just don’t see ourselves as liberals/progressives. Even though we loath the far right crazies.**
I guess what I’m saying is that the world isn’t limited to a choice between the “progressive” view/approach on one hand, and insanity on the other. Demonizing all those who aren’t devout progressives, which I encounter all too often, is ultimately as self-defeating as the far right’s demonizing of “RINOs”.
**Possibly because we were exposed to history, specifically the history of the 1930s. We’ve seen their vision before. And know it doesn’t end well if allowed to take hold.
@bobby,
If you accept the far right’s redefinition of “conservative”, then he’s largely spot on. Unfortunately for his overall message, there are a lot of us who just don’t see ourselves as liberals/progressives. Even though we loath the far right crazies.**
I guess what I’m saying is that the world isn’t limited to a choice between the “progressive” view/approach on one hand, and insanity on the other. Demonizing all those who aren’t devout progressives, which I encounter all too often, is ultimately as self-defeating as the far right’s demonizing of “RINOs”.
**Possibly because we were exposed to history, specifically the history of the 1930s. We’ve seen their vision before. And know it doesn’t end well if allowed to take hold.
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-technology-donald-trump-voting-92c0ace71d7bee6151dd33938688371e
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-technology-donald-trump-voting-92c0ace71d7bee6151dd33938688371e
hsh: speechless.
It feels almost bathetic to pivot to this side of the pond, but Marina Hyde (whose reaction to David Cameron below exactly mirrors my own) today continues the formulation which Janie recently (and correctly) declared uncanonical:
The Conservative party’s forever war is still raging, with less than half its MPs supporting Truss, and the leadership contest having landed its winner a smaller percentage of members’ votes than even Iain Duncan Smith, back when they tried that dadaist experiment.
Nevertheless, former Tory leaders have been weighing in with good wishes for Truss. There may well be a day when my reaction to any vanilla interjection from David Cameron is not to shout to an empty room: “You did this! You’re the reason we all live in the upside-down! YOU OPENED THE GATE!” That day, however, was not yesterday. The current bookies’ favourite to replace Liz Truss as Tory leader is … Boris Johnson.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/06/liz-truss-prime-minister-mps
hsh: speechless.
It feels almost bathetic to pivot to this side of the pond, but Marina Hyde (whose reaction to David Cameron below exactly mirrors my own) today continues the formulation which Janie recently (and correctly) declared uncanonical:
The Conservative party’s forever war is still raging, with less than half its MPs supporting Truss, and the leadership contest having landed its winner a smaller percentage of members’ votes than even Iain Duncan Smith, back when they tried that dadaist experiment.
Nevertheless, former Tory leaders have been weighing in with good wishes for Truss. There may well be a day when my reaction to any vanilla interjection from David Cameron is not to shout to an empty room: “You did this! You’re the reason we all live in the upside-down! YOU OPENED THE GATE!” That day, however, was not yesterday. The current bookies’ favourite to replace Liz Truss as Tory leader is … Boris Johnson.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/06/liz-truss-prime-minister-mps
GftNC, how could you skip right over the caption on the lead photo:
GftNC, how could you skip right over the caption on the lead photo:
wj, Marina Hyde is always packed with so much one has to decide what to focus on. I particularly loved the IDS (“quiet man”) debacle being referred to as a “dadaist experiment”, but each to their own favoured bon mot.
wj, Marina Hyde is always packed with so much one has to decide what to focus on. I particularly loved the IDS (“quiet man”) debacle being referred to as a “dadaist experiment”, but each to their own favoured bon mot.
GftNC, I get it. It’s like trying to select the worst examples of Trump bad behavior — there’s such an embarrassment of riches that it’s hard to choose.
GftNC, I get it. It’s like trying to select the worst examples of Trump bad behavior — there’s such an embarrassment of riches that it’s hard to choose.
there’s such an embarrassment of riches that it’s hard to choose.
And an enrichment of embarrassments…
there’s such an embarrassment of riches that it’s hard to choose.
And an enrichment of embarrassments…
Truss may be too close to classical liberal/libertarian for much of the Tory party.
“Throughout her think tank days, Truss took aim at this growing culture of affluent entitlement. One of her most influential reports dared to call for a rethink of the “winter fuel payment,” an unconditional handout of between £250 and £600 ($288 and $691) made to every single retiree in Britain (one in four of whom is now a millionaire). Truss’ assessment was spot on: Why should taxpayers subsidize the fuel bills of rich households?
Many of Truss’ best ideas will encounter similar resistance. To her credit, Truss has long been an advocate of relaxing Britain’s punitive planning laws, which would make it easier to build much-needed homes and energy infrastructure. But such ideas are toxic with backbench Conservatives, whose voters—high on inflated house prices—will punish them for greenlighting the smallest development. When Michael Gove, a Conservative minister with a knack for pursuing radical reforms, tried to take them on, he ended up flushing his plan down the toilet (literally).”
Liz Truss Is Britain’s Next Prime Minister. Should Libertarians Be Happy?: Only time will tell if Truss reverses the big spending style of her predecessor.
Truss may be too close to classical liberal/libertarian for much of the Tory party.
“Throughout her think tank days, Truss took aim at this growing culture of affluent entitlement. One of her most influential reports dared to call for a rethink of the “winter fuel payment,” an unconditional handout of between £250 and £600 ($288 and $691) made to every single retiree in Britain (one in four of whom is now a millionaire). Truss’ assessment was spot on: Why should taxpayers subsidize the fuel bills of rich households?
Many of Truss’ best ideas will encounter similar resistance. To her credit, Truss has long been an advocate of relaxing Britain’s punitive planning laws, which would make it easier to build much-needed homes and energy infrastructure. But such ideas are toxic with backbench Conservatives, whose voters—high on inflated house prices—will punish them for greenlighting the smallest development. When Michael Gove, a Conservative minister with a knack for pursuing radical reforms, tried to take them on, he ended up flushing his plan down the toilet (literally).”
Liz Truss Is Britain’s Next Prime Minister. Should Libertarians Be Happy?: Only time will tell if Truss reverses the big spending style of her predecessor.
Why should taxpayers subsidize the fuel bills of rich households?
Because means-tested benefits are expensive to administer, open to fraud, and distorting. It’s better to give the money to everyone who’s eligible and get it back in taxation, including tax on the benefits of people with high incomes.
Why should taxpayers subsidize the fuel bills of rich households?
Because means-tested benefits are expensive to administer, open to fraud, and distorting. It’s better to give the money to everyone who’s eligible and get it back in taxation, including tax on the benefits of people with high incomes.
Only time will tell if Truss reverses the big spending style of her predecessor.
Given everything we have heard about Truss’ willingness (nay, enthusiasm) for changing her positions in pursuit of power and position, it seems unlikely. After all, she once called for getting rid of the monarchy, yet seemed to have no problem bowing to the Queen in order to become Prime Minister. And that is only the most visible, not the most consequential, of her reverses.
Only time will tell if Truss reverses the big spending style of her predecessor.
Given everything we have heard about Truss’ willingness (nay, enthusiasm) for changing her positions in pursuit of power and position, it seems unlikely. After all, she once called for getting rid of the monarchy, yet seemed to have no problem bowing to the Queen in order to become Prime Minister. And that is only the most visible, not the most consequential, of her reverses.
A wide ranging interview with Lawrence Wilkerson—
https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/feature/former-chief-of-staff-to-us-secretary-of-state-colin-powell:
Starts off talking about Israel and the Iranian deal,, gets into US foreign policy ( he thinks more highly of Biden than of his staff) and ends with a claim the US military has some Christian nationalists in it who are basically fascists and Bannon is trying to make them more influential in some way. Not sure I understood how. Anyway, Wilkerson thinks there is a strong enough culture in the military against that sort of thing to keep it from happening.
A wide ranging interview with Lawrence Wilkerson—
https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/feature/former-chief-of-staff-to-us-secretary-of-state-colin-powell:
Starts off talking about Israel and the Iranian deal,, gets into US foreign policy ( he thinks more highly of Biden than of his staff) and ends with a claim the US military has some Christian nationalists in it who are basically fascists and Bannon is trying to make them more influential in some way. Not sure I understood how. Anyway, Wilkerson thinks there is a strong enough culture in the military against that sort of thing to keep it from happening.
Wilkerson thinks there is a strong enough culture in the military against that sort of thing to keep it from happening.
The vast majority of members** of the military take very seriously the oath they took to “support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The Constitution. Not the President, even though he is their commander-in-chief. Certainly not an ex-President.
** Not to mention us ex-members, who recall that our oath didn’t include an expiration date.
Wilkerson thinks there is a strong enough culture in the military against that sort of thing to keep it from happening.
The vast majority of members** of the military take very seriously the oath they took to “support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The Constitution. Not the President, even though he is their commander-in-chief. Certainly not an ex-President.
** Not to mention us ex-members, who recall that our oath didn’t include an expiration date.
The vast majority of members** of the military take very seriously the oath they took to “support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Even if we assume you are correct (and I hope that you are) we have seen from any number of failed US military occupations how well a standing army can shut down a determined insurgency that does not consent to be governed.
Furthermore, we should really be troubled by the percentages of law enforcement that hold Christian nationalist views, and especially those who went to law enforcement from the US military. That’s going to be the real problem demographic in all of this. 85% of police officers supported Trump in the last election, and the watchdog groups have been sounding a warning about far-right influence in law enforcement for a couple decades now.
The vast majority of members** of the military take very seriously the oath they took to “support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Even if we assume you are correct (and I hope that you are) we have seen from any number of failed US military occupations how well a standing army can shut down a determined insurgency that does not consent to be governed.
Furthermore, we should really be troubled by the percentages of law enforcement that hold Christian nationalist views, and especially those who went to law enforcement from the US military. That’s going to be the real problem demographic in all of this. 85% of police officers supported Trump in the last election, and the watchdog groups have been sounding a warning about far-right influence in law enforcement for a couple decades now.
Law enforcement is indeed a different problem. But I wonder whether Iraq is really the best model for our situation. As an alternative, consider the various civil rights laws and court decisions of the late 1950s and early 1960s. There was a pretty determined insurgency, including local law enforcement. But the standing army got the job done.
(I don’t know if your personal memories stretch back far enough. But I vividly remember the nightly news showing the 101st Airbourne forcing Little Rock to integrate its schools.)
Will it come to that this time? I certainly hope not. But if it does, the military still owns the heavy artillery.
Law enforcement is indeed a different problem. But I wonder whether Iraq is really the best model for our situation. As an alternative, consider the various civil rights laws and court decisions of the late 1950s and early 1960s. There was a pretty determined insurgency, including local law enforcement. But the standing army got the job done.
(I don’t know if your personal memories stretch back far enough. But I vividly remember the nightly news showing the 101st Airbourne forcing Little Rock to integrate its schools.)
Will it come to that this time? I certainly hope not. But if it does, the military still owns the heavy artillery.
(I don’t know if your personal memories stretch back far enough. But I vividly remember the nightly news showing the 101st Airbourne forcing Little Rock to integrate its schools.)
Will it come to that this time? I certainly hope not. But if it does, the military still owns the heavy artillery.
1000 troops to one city. For one school. And the school got shut down for a year thereafter. And it only reopened because the SC sided with the president.
And there was no RW media blitz 24/7.
And there was no Internet on which to coordinate and organize flash mobs.
And the US was not swimming in military weapons and ammunition like today.
Also, that last sentence of yours is quite interesting. Under what circumstances do you see the US actually using heavy artillery against its own citizens in anything but a metaphorical manner?
War may be a continuation of politics/policy by other means, but that assumes that the political goal to be achieved has a military solution. If it’s the destruction of the US federal government, then yes, there is a military solution. If it is convincing the Christian nationalists to stop trying to destroy the federal government’s power to enforce its laws in places that don’t wish to comply, then good luck with that occupation. We didn’t even manage that during Reconstruction.
(I don’t know if your personal memories stretch back far enough. But I vividly remember the nightly news showing the 101st Airbourne forcing Little Rock to integrate its schools.)
Will it come to that this time? I certainly hope not. But if it does, the military still owns the heavy artillery.
1000 troops to one city. For one school. And the school got shut down for a year thereafter. And it only reopened because the SC sided with the president.
And there was no RW media blitz 24/7.
And there was no Internet on which to coordinate and organize flash mobs.
And the US was not swimming in military weapons and ammunition like today.
Also, that last sentence of yours is quite interesting. Under what circumstances do you see the US actually using heavy artillery against its own citizens in anything but a metaphorical manner?
War may be a continuation of politics/policy by other means, but that assumes that the political goal to be achieved has a military solution. If it’s the destruction of the US federal government, then yes, there is a military solution. If it is convincing the Christian nationalists to stop trying to destroy the federal government’s power to enforce its laws in places that don’t wish to comply, then good luck with that occupation. We didn’t even manage that during Reconstruction.
Will it come to that this time? I certainly hope not. But if it does, the military still owns the heavy artillery.
US and NATO doctrine is light on artillery and heavy on air dominance.
I have not followed it lately, but the Air Force Academy has had a chronic problem with the top brass favoring Christianity and Christians for entry into the best career tracks.
This too may pass. I understand the fighter jet mafia is steadily losing their battle against the fact that ability to handle the flood of information the software makes available and translating that into correct use of the weapons systems is more important than dogfight flying skills. As numerous people have said, “An F-35 pilot who finds him/herself in a dogfight has made some horrible tactical blunder.”
Will it come to that this time? I certainly hope not. But if it does, the military still owns the heavy artillery.
US and NATO doctrine is light on artillery and heavy on air dominance.
I have not followed it lately, but the Air Force Academy has had a chronic problem with the top brass favoring Christianity and Christians for entry into the best career tracks.
This too may pass. I understand the fighter jet mafia is steadily losing their battle against the fact that ability to handle the flood of information the software makes available and translating that into correct use of the weapons systems is more important than dogfight flying skills. As numerous people have said, “An F-35 pilot who finds him/herself in a dogfight has made some horrible tactical blunder.”
I have not followed it lately, but the Air Force Academy has had a chronic problem with the top brass favoring Christianity and Christians for entry into the best career tracks.
Not just the AFA. The Air Force as a whole has been struggling with this for a while. There have been several cases of high ranking officers requiring everyone under their command to attend off-duty events that were overtly evangelical, with those that refused having their off-duty time revoked and replaced by scut work.
Having such a big footprint in Colorado Springs can’t be helping that much.
I have not followed it lately, but the Air Force Academy has had a chronic problem with the top brass favoring Christianity and Christians for entry into the best career tracks.
Not just the AFA. The Air Force as a whole has been struggling with this for a while. There have been several cases of high ranking officers requiring everyone under their command to attend off-duty events that were overtly evangelical, with those that refused having their off-duty time revoked and replaced by scut work.
Having such a big footprint in Colorado Springs can’t be helping that much.
Under what circumstances do you see the US actually using heavy artillery against its own citizens in anything but a metaphorical manner?
Yes, it was, indeed, metaphorical. (Although there may be some camps of various so-called militias where something like that might be useful.)
And there was no RW media blitz 24/7.
And there was no Internet on which to coordinate and organize flash mobs.
And the US was not swimming in military weapons and ammunition like today.
Yes, today’s conditions are different. But conceptually, the situations are similar — there are people, a substantial majority in some places, who want things done their way, regardless of what the government, and a majority of the country, decide.
My sense is, the rest of us have limited tolerance for that. And for all that the (not all that semi-)fascists have far more weapons currently, there are a lot of the rest of us who are trained how to use them.
Under what circumstances do you see the US actually using heavy artillery against its own citizens in anything but a metaphorical manner?
Yes, it was, indeed, metaphorical. (Although there may be some camps of various so-called militias where something like that might be useful.)
And there was no RW media blitz 24/7.
And there was no Internet on which to coordinate and organize flash mobs.
And the US was not swimming in military weapons and ammunition like today.
Yes, today’s conditions are different. But conceptually, the situations are similar — there are people, a substantial majority in some places, who want things done their way, regardless of what the government, and a majority of the country, decide.
My sense is, the rest of us have limited tolerance for that. And for all that the (not all that semi-)fascists have far more weapons currently, there are a lot of the rest of us who are trained how to use them.
My sense is, the rest of us have limited tolerance for that. And for all that the (not all that semi-)fascists have far more weapons currently, there are a lot of the rest of us who are trained how to use them.
Yes. We all get to shoot each other. Hooray. It’s what the NRA asked for for its birthday.
So every Pride celebration, and every library, and every college campus, and every women’s health clinic, and every synagogue, and every visible minority neighborhood gets to exist as a semi-public target, and the non-fascists get to do what with our weapons and training to change those conditions?
Those are not victory conditions for both sides.
My sense is, the rest of us have limited tolerance for that. And for all that the (not all that semi-)fascists have far more weapons currently, there are a lot of the rest of us who are trained how to use them.
Yes. We all get to shoot each other. Hooray. It’s what the NRA asked for for its birthday.
So every Pride celebration, and every library, and every college campus, and every women’s health clinic, and every synagogue, and every visible minority neighborhood gets to exist as a semi-public target, and the non-fascists get to do what with our weapons and training to change those conditions?
Those are not victory conditions for both sides.
We all get to shoot each other. Hooray. It’s what the NRA asked for for its birthday.
Ah, the NRA. There’s another spot that artillery (or HIMARS) might be useful.
And their epitaph shall be: Be careful what you ask for; you might get it.
and the non-fascists get to do what with our weapons and training to change those conditions?
I’m open to alternate suggestions. Not just open, I’d love to hear one. Unfortunately, my own imagination hasn’t managed to come up with one.
We all get to shoot each other. Hooray. It’s what the NRA asked for for its birthday.
Ah, the NRA. There’s another spot that artillery (or HIMARS) might be useful.
And their epitaph shall be: Be careful what you ask for; you might get it.
and the non-fascists get to do what with our weapons and training to change those conditions?
I’m open to alternate suggestions. Not just open, I’d love to hear one. Unfortunately, my own imagination hasn’t managed to come up with one.
Under what circumstances do you see the US actually using heavy artillery against its own citizens in anything but a metaphorical manner?
I describe it in terms of where I live. Yes, the US military can flatten the Colorado Front Range. With conventional explosives if they go that route, with nukes if they chose that. Small air burst nukes aren’t that bad a choice, the winds tend west-to-east and there’s 400+ miles of Great Plains that averages less than 11 people per square mile in the fallout pattern. The US military can’t occupy the Colorado Front Range and impose an evangelical Christian set of policies.
Under what circumstances do you see the US actually using heavy artillery against its own citizens in anything but a metaphorical manner?
I describe it in terms of where I live. Yes, the US military can flatten the Colorado Front Range. With conventional explosives if they go that route, with nukes if they chose that. Small air burst nukes aren’t that bad a choice, the winds tend west-to-east and there’s 400+ miles of Great Plains that averages less than 11 people per square mile in the fallout pattern. The US military can’t occupy the Colorado Front Range and impose an evangelical Christian set of policies.
How does all of this fit in with Joe Biden making a speech on a The Man in the High Castle set?…
How does all of this fit in with Joe Biden making a speech on a The Man in the High Castle set?…
Charles, which movie were you watching…?
Charles, which movie were you watching…?
Pretty much.
The only way to maintain a representative form of government is for the people to agree to liberal (Lockean) compromises and self-limitation. Negative partisanship leads to the collapse of all that.
Holding it all together is going to require more buy-in than we currently have.
One key question I keep asking myself in all of this – what structures outside of national governments can we create/utilize for accomplishing some collective goals that can mitigate the environmental and humanitarian crisis we are heading towards?
And given this, how can we keep such communities alive in the face of the entropic forces, intentional or otherwise, that will bear upon them to degrade their ability to act?
Any talk of the use of force is going to have to serve something like this for us to have any bulwark against that which our collective lifeways have wrought.
Pretty much.
The only way to maintain a representative form of government is for the people to agree to liberal (Lockean) compromises and self-limitation. Negative partisanship leads to the collapse of all that.
Holding it all together is going to require more buy-in than we currently have.
One key question I keep asking myself in all of this – what structures outside of national governments can we create/utilize for accomplishing some collective goals that can mitigate the environmental and humanitarian crisis we are heading towards?
And given this, how can we keep such communities alive in the face of the entropic forces, intentional or otherwise, that will bear upon them to degrade their ability to act?
Any talk of the use of force is going to have to serve something like this for us to have any bulwark against that which our collective lifeways have wrought.
One key question I keep asking myself in all of this – what structures outside of national governments can we create/utilize for accomplishing some collective goals that can mitigate the environmental and humanitarian crisis we are heading towards?
If you (or anyone else) comes up with a viable answer to this it will be a cause for enormous rejoicing.
One key question I keep asking myself in all of this – what structures outside of national governments can we create/utilize for accomplishing some collective goals that can mitigate the environmental and humanitarian crisis we are heading towards?
If you (or anyone else) comes up with a viable answer to this it will be a cause for enormous rejoicing.
Charles, which movie were you watching…?
Some wags say that Biden’s speech with the red lighting is reminiscent of a scene from the The Man in the High Castle drama series.
Charles, which movie were you watching…?
Some wags say that Biden’s speech with the red lighting is reminiscent of a scene from the The Man in the High Castle drama series.
Responding to nous’s 9:37: I have no answers, but I think about those questions a lot. A commenter at BJ linked this article last night and later said:
I can’t find a source now, but Flynn related groups have been doing training in harassment techniques to drive opposition out of office, into silence, or even out of town
The stories of what’s going on with school boards and little local libraries around the country are appalling. What I wish for is some Soros funding (/sarcasm) for a program that would train local officials, librarians, and citizens on what to do in response to this kind of local harassment. Because the path to our collective goals is going to be much rockier, if not impassable, if Flynn’s army takes over.
Responding to nous’s 9:37: I have no answers, but I think about those questions a lot. A commenter at BJ linked this article last night and later said:
I can’t find a source now, but Flynn related groups have been doing training in harassment techniques to drive opposition out of office, into silence, or even out of town
The stories of what’s going on with school boards and little local libraries around the country are appalling. What I wish for is some Soros funding (/sarcasm) for a program that would train local officials, librarians, and citizens on what to do in response to this kind of local harassment. Because the path to our collective goals is going to be much rockier, if not impassable, if Flynn’s army takes over.
What I wish for is some Soros funding (/sarcasm) for a program that would train local officials, librarians, and citizens on what to do in response to this kind of local harassment.
As a first step, write up and widely publish what those techniques are. Especially for cyberthreats. (I, for one, wouldn’t know where to start looking. http://www.stopbullying.gov doesn’t seem particularly helpful for the kinds of harrassment we’re talking about)
Training is certainly good. But just getting the information out there where it’s readily findable would help in a lot of cases. Because I suspect a lot of the local harrassers are untrained amateurs. Defeating them may be critical, but doesn’t require serious expertise.
What I wish for is some Soros funding (/sarcasm) for a program that would train local officials, librarians, and citizens on what to do in response to this kind of local harassment.
As a first step, write up and widely publish what those techniques are. Especially for cyberthreats. (I, for one, wouldn’t know where to start looking. http://www.stopbullying.gov doesn’t seem particularly helpful for the kinds of harrassment we’re talking about)
Training is certainly good. But just getting the information out there where it’s readily findable would help in a lot of cases. Because I suspect a lot of the local harrassers are untrained amateurs. Defeating them may be critical, but doesn’t require serious expertise.
Hi, a bit of fun, a woman named Liz Trussell who has the twitter handle LizTruss has been replying to mentions of her.
I think this story has the tweets embedded
https://theweek.com/united-kingdom/1016455/ordinary-user-liz-trussell-mistaken-for-uks-new-pm-on-twitter
Or you can navigate this brave new world here
https://mobile.twitter.com/liztruss/with_replies
Hi, a bit of fun, a woman named Liz Trussell who has the twitter handle LizTruss has been replying to mentions of her.
I think this story has the tweets embedded
https://theweek.com/united-kingdom/1016455/ordinary-user-liz-trussell-mistaken-for-uks-new-pm-on-twitter
Or you can navigate this brave new world here
https://mobile.twitter.com/liztruss/with_replies
Training is certainly good. But just getting the information out there where it’s readily findable would help in a lot of cases. Because I suspect a lot of the local harrassers are untrained amateurs. Defeating them may be critical, but doesn’t require serious expertise.
This is nonsense. Libraries are being closed, school boards are being harassed, a court case in Maine just awarded some asshole lots of $ because he had been banned from local school board meetings for being so disruptive they couldn’t conduct their business. And a judge decided that not only did they have to let him attend, they had to pay him damages. (Don’t have time to look for the link.)
You don’t just read a few idealistic suggestions in order to be able to deal with this stuff, you have to practice. Suggestions might help a little bit, especially if you’re already a saintly proto-Gandhi or MLK. But most of us are hardly that.
I know, I’ve been there. (In relation to giving talks about gay rights.) But right now I’ve got to get to an appointment for a covid shot and a flu shot. So — see you all later.
Training is certainly good. But just getting the information out there where it’s readily findable would help in a lot of cases. Because I suspect a lot of the local harrassers are untrained amateurs. Defeating them may be critical, but doesn’t require serious expertise.
This is nonsense. Libraries are being closed, school boards are being harassed, a court case in Maine just awarded some asshole lots of $ because he had been banned from local school board meetings for being so disruptive they couldn’t conduct their business. And a judge decided that not only did they have to let him attend, they had to pay him damages. (Don’t have time to look for the link.)
You don’t just read a few idealistic suggestions in order to be able to deal with this stuff, you have to practice. Suggestions might help a little bit, especially if you’re already a saintly proto-Gandhi or MLK. But most of us are hardly that.
I know, I’ve been there. (In relation to giving talks about gay rights.) But right now I’ve got to get to an appointment for a covid shot and a flu shot. So — see you all later.
Sorry for the “nonsense” comment, wj. It’s just that this isn’t a simple arithmetic problem where there’s always an easy answer. If there were a cheerful, easy, optimism-affirming answer, we wouldn’t be here.
Sorry for the “nonsense” comment, wj. It’s just that this isn’t a simple arithmetic problem where there’s always an easy answer. If there were a cheerful, easy, optimism-affirming answer, we wouldn’t be here.
Understood, Janie. I don’t think there’s an easy answer either.
It’s just that, until and unless the suggested training becomes widely available, every little bit of help is a plus. A small plus, agreed. But still better than being left trying to reinvent the wheel.
Understood, Janie. I don’t think there’s an easy answer either.
It’s just that, until and unless the suggested training becomes widely available, every little bit of help is a plus. A small plus, agreed. But still better than being left trying to reinvent the wheel.
And here’s a little something, from one of the Post’s less reactionary columnists.
Liz Truss has one thing in her favor: Her character.
Seriously? Character?
He writes, in part:
But then, he’s also someone who writes: “Truss is not to the manner born.” Clearly oblivious to the detail that it’s “to the manor born.
And here’s a little something, from one of the Post’s less reactionary columnists.
Liz Truss has one thing in her favor: Her character.
Seriously? Character?
He writes, in part:
But then, he’s also someone who writes: “Truss is not to the manner born.” Clearly oblivious to the detail that it’s “to the manor born.
I beg to differ.
However, the Post’s columnist is talking nonsense: a strong leader appoints the best candidate for the job, expecting to win them to her side.
I beg to differ.
However, the Post’s columnist is talking nonsense: a strong leader appoints the best candidate for the job, expecting to win them to her side.
Throw a dart at a few lines of Shakespeare, get not one but two sayings for the ages.
Throw a dart at a few lines of Shakespeare, get not one but two sayings for the ages.
Hmmm….
Here’s where I go all egotistical and insist the Shakespeare (or, more likely, whoever transcribed his words) go it wrong. 🙂
Hmmm….
Here’s where I go all egotistical and insist the Shakespeare (or, more likely, whoever transcribed his words) go it wrong. 🙂
Interesting, I was also more used to manor than manner in the context. But only those born in/at/to the former have the proper latter anyway.
So, will this be more a comedy or tragedy of manners?
My personal bet is on lots of manure.
Interesting, I was also more used to manor than manner in the context. But only those born in/at/to the former have the proper latter anyway.
So, will this be more a comedy or tragedy of manners?
My personal bet is on lots of manure.
There was a BBC sitcom To the Manor Born
There was a BBC sitcom To the Manor Born
Yes, I think the TV series is what’s confusing the issue, and it was actually a pun on the original. I don’t believe the true meaning implies a class aspect (although it is often used that way), more a behaviour one, as the quotation implies.
Yes, I think the TV series is what’s confusing the issue, and it was actually a pun on the original. I don’t believe the true meaning implies a class aspect (although it is often used that way), more a behaviour one, as the quotation implies.
However, the Post’s columnist is talking nonsense: a strong leader appoints the best candidate for the job, expecting to win them to her side.
Should have said: I agree with this. Wasn’t that more or less what that Doris Kearns Goodwin book was about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_of_Rivals
However, the Post’s columnist is talking nonsense: a strong leader appoints the best candidate for the job, expecting to win them to her side.
Should have said: I agree with this. Wasn’t that more or less what that Doris Kearns Goodwin book was about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_of_Rivals
OED seems definitive on this:
b. to the manner born: (originally) familiar from birth with a given custom, role, etc.; (now usually) naturally suited for, or taking readily to, a given role or task.
1603 W. Shakespeare Hamlet i. iv. 16 Though I am Natiue here, and to the maner [1623 manner] borne, It is a custome, more honourd in the breach, Then in the obseruance.
[…]
1874 T. Hardy Far from Madding Crowd I. ii. 16 If occasion demanded he could do or think a thing with as mercurial a dash as can the men of towns who are more to the manner born.
[…]
1922 J. Joyce Ulysses ii. xii. [Cyclops] 287 Then did you, chivalrous Terence, hand forth, as to the manner born, that nectarous beverage.
vs.
4. to the manor born [variant of, error for, or (in sense 4(b)) punning on to the manner born at manner n. 3b] : (a) familiar from birth with, naturally suited for, or readily taking to a given role, task, custom, etc.; (b) born into, naturally suited for, or readily taking to upper-class life.
1847 Biblical Repertory July 320 He intended..to return to Scotland and reside on his estate there as ‘though a native—and to the manor born’.
I included the Joyce usage just for wj’s sake.
OED seems definitive on this:
b. to the manner born: (originally) familiar from birth with a given custom, role, etc.; (now usually) naturally suited for, or taking readily to, a given role or task.
1603 W. Shakespeare Hamlet i. iv. 16 Though I am Natiue here, and to the maner [1623 manner] borne, It is a custome, more honourd in the breach, Then in the obseruance.
[…]
1874 T. Hardy Far from Madding Crowd I. ii. 16 If occasion demanded he could do or think a thing with as mercurial a dash as can the men of towns who are more to the manner born.
[…]
1922 J. Joyce Ulysses ii. xii. [Cyclops] 287 Then did you, chivalrous Terence, hand forth, as to the manner born, that nectarous beverage.
vs.
4. to the manor born [variant of, error for, or (in sense 4(b)) punning on to the manner born at manner n. 3b] : (a) familiar from birth with, naturally suited for, or readily taking to a given role, task, custom, etc.; (b) born into, naturally suited for, or readily taking to upper-class life.
1847 Biblical Repertory July 320 He intended..to return to Scotland and reside on his estate there as ‘though a native—and to the manor born’.
I included the Joyce usage just for wj’s sake.
LOL.
I was going to say, if this example helped wj, that if Eliza Dolittle had been born a duchess and was successfully impersonating a cockney flower girl, one might have said admiringly that one could never have guessed the truth, she carried it off as to the manner born (ie in the correct manner).
LOL.
I was going to say, if this example helped wj, that if Eliza Dolittle had been born a duchess and was successfully impersonating a cockney flower girl, one might have said admiringly that one could never have guessed the truth, she carried it off as to the manner born (ie in the correct manner).
I included the Joyce usage just for wj’s sake.
Ouch! That was a low blow, nous. Deserved, perhaps, but still….
I included the Joyce usage just for wj’s sake.
Ouch! That was a low blow, nous. Deserved, perhaps, but still….
The main takeaway from yesterday’s first PQM’s was that Truss actually answered questions and engaged in an actual contest of ideas with Starmer – so that’s progress.
I would add, though, that the downside is that most of her ideas are wrong and, while she does seem on top of her brief, Truss is a curious mixture of simplistic ideologue and ruthless opportunist.
Also, she leads one of the most right-wing governments ever and some of her cabinet appointments amount to Trump-like trolling:
Suella Braverman, home secretary
Brandon Lewis, justice secretary and lord chancellor
Jacob Rees-Mogg, business, energy and industrial strategy secretary
Chris Heaton-Harris, Northern Ireland secretary
The main takeaway from yesterday’s first PQM’s was that Truss actually answered questions and engaged in an actual contest of ideas with Starmer – so that’s progress.
I would add, though, that the downside is that most of her ideas are wrong and, while she does seem on top of her brief, Truss is a curious mixture of simplistic ideologue and ruthless opportunist.
Also, she leads one of the most right-wing governments ever and some of her cabinet appointments amount to Trump-like trolling:
Suella Braverman, home secretary
Brandon Lewis, justice secretary and lord chancellor
Jacob Rees-Mogg, business, energy and industrial strategy secretary
Chris Heaton-Harris, Northern Ireland secretary
Sorry, I realize non-geeks may need a bit more detail:
Chris Heaton-Harris / Steve Baker, Northern Ireland secretary:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/09/08/liz-truss-appoints-two-staunch-brexiteers-drive-northern-ireland/
Jacob Rees-Mogg, business, energy and industrial strategy secretary
https://www.newstatesman.com/environment/climate/2022/09/jacob-rees-mogg-climate-emergency-business-secretary
Brandon Lewis, justice secretary and lord chancellor
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-minister-confirms-plan-to-break-international-law-over-brexit/
Suella Braverman, home secretary
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/09/06/suella-braverman-home-secretary/
And the new health minister, Therese Coffey is a catholic opposed to abortion rights:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62805268
Sorry, I realize non-geeks may need a bit more detail:
Chris Heaton-Harris / Steve Baker, Northern Ireland secretary:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/09/08/liz-truss-appoints-two-staunch-brexiteers-drive-northern-ireland/
Jacob Rees-Mogg, business, energy and industrial strategy secretary
https://www.newstatesman.com/environment/climate/2022/09/jacob-rees-mogg-climate-emergency-business-secretary
Brandon Lewis, justice secretary and lord chancellor
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-minister-confirms-plan-to-break-international-law-over-brexit/
Suella Braverman, home secretary
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/09/06/suella-braverman-home-secretary/
And the new health minister, Therese Coffey is a catholic opposed to abortion rights:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62805268
The main challenges are of course the energy / cost of living crisis and the NHS:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-huge-economic-challenge-facing-liz-truss-new-british-prime-minister
The main challenges are of course the energy / cost of living crisis and the NHS:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-huge-economic-challenge-facing-liz-truss-new-british-prime-minister
Thank you for the links, novakant.
As someone out-of-the-loop, all I know about Truss is that she’s the Second Coming of Maggie (or fancies herself as such) and that PM stands for”Pork Markets” and I had to zoom in on that video to convince myself it wasn’t Amy Poehler doing a send-up.
Thank you for the links, novakant.
As someone out-of-the-loop, all I know about Truss is that she’s the Second Coming of Maggie (or fancies herself as such) and that PM stands for”Pork Markets” and I had to zoom in on that video to convince myself it wasn’t Amy Poehler doing a send-up.
I would add, though, that the downside is that most of her ideas are wrong and, while she does seem on top of her brief, Truss is a curious mixture of simplistic ideologue and ruthless opportunist.
Also, she leads one of the most right-wing governments ever and some of her cabinet appointments amount to Trump-like trolling
Exactly right, and particularly where the trolling is concerned.
I would add, though, that the downside is that most of her ideas are wrong and, while she does seem on top of her brief, Truss is a curious mixture of simplistic ideologue and ruthless opportunist.
Also, she leads one of the most right-wing governments ever and some of her cabinet appointments amount to Trump-like trolling
Exactly right, and particularly where the trolling is concerned.
Well, at least Brandon Lewis knows enough about international law to realize that he’s proposing breaking it. (With Trump and his band of incompetents it was seldom clear whether they even knew when they were doing so. Not that they would have cared, of course.)
Although one has to wonder if the new Lord Chancellor (or the new PM) realizes how likely they are to be resurrecting the Troubles with their plans.
Well, at least Brandon Lewis knows enough about international law to realize that he’s proposing breaking it. (With Trump and his band of incompetents it was seldom clear whether they even knew when they were doing so. Not that they would have cared, of course.)
Although one has to wonder if the new Lord Chancellor (or the new PM) realizes how likely they are to be resurrecting the Troubles with their plans.
And, apart from the new cabinet, if the Queen is about to die (which currently looks likely), I am glad that the scoundrel who illegally advised her to prorogue parliament will not be presiding over her obsequies.
And, apart from the new cabinet, if the Queen is about to die (which currently looks likely), I am glad that the scoundrel who illegally advised her to prorogue parliament will not be presiding over her obsequies.
But if Truss cannot preside over Her Majesty’s obsequies, how can she leverage them for her personal political advantage??? Which appears to be her only interest in life.
/sarcasm
But if Truss cannot preside over Her Majesty’s obsequies, how can she leverage them for her personal political advantage??? Which appears to be her only interest in life.
/sarcasm
No wj, Truss will be the one presiding, the scoundrel was BoJo. And of the two, better her by far (no matter how little one otherwise respects her). It looks pretty certain, all the broadcasters are wearing black etc, and the main BBC channel is running it non-stop.
No wj, Truss will be the one presiding, the scoundrel was BoJo. And of the two, better her by far (no matter how little one otherwise respects her). It looks pretty certain, all the broadcasters are wearing black etc, and the main BBC channel is running it non-stop.
Pardon my ignorance, GftNC, but how would BoJo, as merely an ex-Prime Minister, get any involvement here? I understand why you wouldn’t want him there. I just don’t understand how/why he would become involved.
Pardon my ignorance, GftNC, but how would BoJo, as merely an ex-Prime Minister, get any involvement here? I understand why you wouldn’t want him there. I just don’t understand how/why he would become involved.
Ah, rereading what you actually wrote (I should read more slowly!) I see that you weren’t saying that he would. Sorry.
Ah, rereading what you actually wrote (I should read more slowly!) I see that you weren’t saying that he would. Sorry.
“I should read more slowly” would make a fine epitaph rich in imaginative possibilities.
“I should read more slowly” would make a fine epitaph rich in imaginative possibilities.
Epitaph, comma.
Epitaph, comma.
Amazingly, the first Prime Minister she appointed (Churchill) was born 101 years before the last (Truss). Crikey.
Amazingly, the first Prime Minister she appointed (Churchill) was born 101 years before the last (Truss). Crikey.
Am I seeing a serious downhill trend here?
(Having carefully avoided the confusion inherent in considering anyone beyond the endpoints.)
Am I seeing a serious downhill trend here?
(Having carefully avoided the confusion inherent in considering anyone beyond the endpoints.)
Things do not get better, but worse.
Things do not get better, but worse.
Am I seeing a serious downhill trend here?
What I’ve been thinking instead was how people in the future will view this era in terms of (hopefully) wondering what on earth went wrong. Clickbait in the US and Bojo/Truss in the UK?
I think “wtf” would sum it up nicely.
Am I seeing a serious downhill trend here?
What I’ve been thinking instead was how people in the future will view this era in terms of (hopefully) wondering what on earth went wrong. Clickbait in the US and Bojo/Truss in the UK?
I think “wtf” would sum it up nicely.
Things do not get better, but worse.
Sadly, this is the basis of reactionary politics. Since things get worse, there must logically have been a Golden Age in the past. And what we need to do is return to it. In toto. Although, inconveniently, when that past wonderland occurred is not readily agreed upon.
But although some things do get worse, a lot of other things get better. And even things getting worse do not do so steadily — careful selection of endpoints is critical. Hence my care to avoid the “confusion” of looking at intermediate cases. 🙂
Things do not get better, but worse.
Sadly, this is the basis of reactionary politics. Since things get worse, there must logically have been a Golden Age in the past. And what we need to do is return to it. In toto. Although, inconveniently, when that past wonderland occurred is not readily agreed upon.
But although some things do get worse, a lot of other things get better. And even things getting worse do not do so steadily — careful selection of endpoints is critical. Hence my care to avoid the “confusion” of looking at intermediate cases. 🙂
how people in the future will view this era in terms of (hopefully) wondering what on earth went wrong.
It is hard to avoid the suspicion that they will ask: How did these people not notice that what was happening was very much what happened in Germany and Italy in the 1930s? How soon they forget….
how people in the future will view this era in terms of (hopefully) wondering what on earth went wrong.
It is hard to avoid the suspicion that they will ask: How did these people not notice that what was happening was very much what happened in Germany and Italy in the 1930s? How soon they forget….
I think a lot of people *have* noticed that it’s a lot like what happened in Germany and Italy in the 1930s, and some of them are pushing it in that direction on purpose.
I think a lot of people *have* noticed that it’s a lot like what happened in Germany and Italy in the 1930s, and some of them are pushing it in that direction on purpose.
some of them are pushing it in that direction on purpose.
Selective history being akin to selective memory. Obviously they are avoiding little details like how that worked out in the 1940s.
Here’s hoping it isn’t as difficult, and messy, to put them down this time around.
some of them are pushing it in that direction on purpose.
Selective history being akin to selective memory. Obviously they are avoiding little details like how that worked out in the 1940s.
Here’s hoping it isn’t as difficult, and messy, to put them down this time around.
Well, Italy and Germany failed because the US got in the way. But who will/could (successfully) get in the way when the US
triestry* the same?* “states” is a g*dd@mned plural. What idiot came up with the idea to treat that entity as a singular (an idea that cannot count me among its obedient followers)?
Well, Italy and Germany failed because the US got in the way. But who will/could (successfully) get in the way when the US
triestry* the same?* “states” is a g*dd@mned plural. What idiot came up with the idea to treat that entity as a singular (an idea that cannot count me among its obedient followers)?
I think “wtf” would sum it up nicely.
Which would sum up much of world history.
I think “wtf” would sum it up nicely.
Which would sum up much of world history.
“states” is a g*dd@mned plural. What idiot came up with the idea to treat that entity as a singular (an idea that cannot count me among its obedient followers)?
Over the 25 or so years after the American Civil War, the common usage went from “the United States are” to “the United States is”. Tradition has it the change was that the war established the supremacy of the federal government over that of the states. If you want to be picky, the US House of Representatives Committee on the Revision of the Laws made the singular official in 1902.
(It’s okay to be peeved about it. Americans think the same thing when they realize, “What do you mean knife, fork, and spoon all require a different form of ‘the’?”)
“states” is a g*dd@mned plural. What idiot came up with the idea to treat that entity as a singular (an idea that cannot count me among its obedient followers)?
Over the 25 or so years after the American Civil War, the common usage went from “the United States are” to “the United States is”. Tradition has it the change was that the war established the supremacy of the federal government over that of the states. If you want to be picky, the US House of Representatives Committee on the Revision of the Laws made the singular official in 1902.
(It’s okay to be peeved about it. Americans think the same thing when they realize, “What do you mean knife, fork, and spoon all require a different form of ‘the’?”)
Since things get worse, there must logically have been a Golden Age in the past.
I would say that so far, the peak golden age in human history is the first decades of the 21st century. The question is whether any decline will be substantial or just another pothole on the way to higher peaks.
Since things get worse, there must logically have been a Golden Age in the past.
I would say that so far, the peak golden age in human history is the first decades of the 21st century. The question is whether any decline will be substantial or just another pothole on the way to higher peaks.
“states” is a g*dd@mned plural. What idiot came up with the idea to treat that entity as a singular
Yes, “states” is plural. When used in discussing more than one state. But note what I (and you!) did there. “states” is….
Similarly, “Unites States” is a single entity, a country, and thus gets “is” rather than “are”.
“states” is a g*dd@mned plural. What idiot came up with the idea to treat that entity as a singular
Yes, “states” is plural. When used in discussing more than one state. But note what I (and you!) did there. “states” is….
Similarly, “Unites States” is a single entity, a country, and thus gets “is” rather than “are”.
How did these people not notice that what was happening was very much what happened in Germany and Italy in the 1930s?
Depends on your point of view. Some people see what is happening now as, so far, a dim reflection of what happened in the Soviet Union.
How did these people not notice that what was happening was very much what happened in Germany and Italy in the 1930s?
Depends on your point of view. Some people see what is happening now as, so far, a dim reflection of what happened in the Soviet Union.
Not to mention the idiots that see what happened in the 1930s (accurately or not), support it now for similar reasons, and have YouTube videos they want to share with you to explain why you are wrong.
W. B. Yeats nailed this one…
Not to mention the idiots that see what happened in the 1930s (accurately or not), support it now for similar reasons, and have YouTube videos they want to share with you to explain why you are wrong.
W. B. Yeats nailed this one…
E pluribus unums?
I’ll show myself out.
E pluribus unums?
I’ll show myself out.
More chickens coming home to roost?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/08/trump-subpoenas-pac-jan-6/?itid=hp-top-table-main-t-6
Wonder if any of the money the marks sent in went to the supposed purpose of the PAC. At a guess, the louder the howls of outrage, the more was grifted away.
More chickens coming home to roost?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/08/trump-subpoenas-pac-jan-6/?itid=hp-top-table-main-t-6
Wonder if any of the money the marks sent in went to the supposed purpose of the PAC. At a guess, the louder the howls of outrage, the more was grifted away.
wj, ‘plural’ is a singular (is that a paradox?).
Seems that the US started as a proper plural historically but English (and Spanish) have turned them (also the Netherlands and the Emirates) into a singular* while other languages kept the plural (I checked Italian, French, Islandic; German is obvious). The singular should properly only apply when the word is in quotes ‘x’ thus referring to the word, not the entity.
*I found no exact date but it seems to have happened in the 19th century (does not apply to the Emirates of course, them not being around at the time).
wj, ‘plural’ is a singular (is that a paradox?).
Seems that the US started as a proper plural historically but English (and Spanish) have turned them (also the Netherlands and the Emirates) into a singular* while other languages kept the plural (I checked Italian, French, Islandic; German is obvious). The singular should properly only apply when the word is in quotes ‘x’ thus referring to the word, not the entity.
*I found no exact date but it seems to have happened in the 19th century (does not apply to the Emirates of course, them not being around at the time).
Pete, the union (or Union) is of course a singular (same for the disunion).
But ‘e pluribus unum’ isn’t something that should be mentioned in RW circles these days. It’s Latin (the lingo they speak in South America according to certain GOP congresscritters) to start with. And using it is of course also a deliberate insult to G*d Almighty who decreed that the US motto should be the proper English ‘In G*d we trust’.
Pete, the union (or Union) is of course a singular (same for the disunion).
But ‘e pluribus unum’ isn’t something that should be mentioned in RW circles these days. It’s Latin (the lingo they speak in South America according to certain GOP congresscritters) to start with. And using it is of course also a deliberate insult to G*d Almighty who decreed that the US motto should be the proper English ‘In G*d we trust’.
Collective nouns
The United States (“the” being a definite article) seems to indicate singular.
More pedantic nonsense, up with which I will not put.
Collective nouns
The United States (“the” being a definite article) seems to indicate singular.
More pedantic nonsense, up with which I will not put.
Hartmut, does it matter that “United States” is actually a truncation of “United States of America”? “America” being singular….
a deliberate insult to G*d Almighty who decreed that the US motto should be the proper English ‘In G*d we trust’
Which is, of course, why the Bible is written in English — so we could read Jesus’words exactly as He spoke them.
Hartmut, does it matter that “United States” is actually a truncation of “United States of America”? “America” being singular….
a deliberate insult to G*d Almighty who decreed that the US motto should be the proper English ‘In G*d we trust’
Which is, of course, why the Bible is written in English — so we could read Jesus’words exactly as He spoke them.
The United States (“the” being a definite article) seems to indicate singular.
The stars are shining.
Etc.
The United States (“the” being a definite article) seems to indicate singular.
The stars are shining.
Etc.
OK I give up.
The exception that proves the rule? English as she are spoke.
OK I give up.
The exception that proves the rule? English as she are spoke.
The people have spoken, it would seem.
Didn’t anyone study the periodic table of the elements in chemistry, assuming they studied the sciences at all?
My favorite football team is the Philadelphia Eagles.
Did anyone wash the dishes after dinner? The mashed potatoes were perfect.
Of all the seasons, fall has the nicest weather, at least when the clouds aren’t too thick.
Are the examples I’ve given sufficient?
The people have spoken, it would seem.
Didn’t anyone study the periodic table of the elements in chemistry, assuming they studied the sciences at all?
My favorite football team is the Philadelphia Eagles.
Did anyone wash the dishes after dinner? The mashed potatoes were perfect.
Of all the seasons, fall has the nicest weather, at least when the clouds aren’t too thick.
Are the examples I’ve given sufficient?
hsh, you had to bring a sports team into it, didn’t you!
I’ve been staying out of this little scrum, but now I have to note a difference between American and British usage in relation to teams.
I root for the Boston Celtics. The Celtics are a great team. Boston is ahead at halftime.
British usage seems to be: Boston are ahead at halftime.
Grrrrrrr!
Pre-Covid, before I stopped paying even a scrap of attention to the NBA, NBC sports seemed to have acquired a British aura and was using the plural for sports teams when referred to by the names of their cities.
Did someone say something about collective nouns?
Did someone imply that there is only one “English”?
🙂
hsh, you had to bring a sports team into it, didn’t you!
I’ve been staying out of this little scrum, but now I have to note a difference between American and British usage in relation to teams.
I root for the Boston Celtics. The Celtics are a great team. Boston is ahead at halftime.
British usage seems to be: Boston are ahead at halftime.
Grrrrrrr!
Pre-Covid, before I stopped paying even a scrap of attention to the NBA, NBC sports seemed to have acquired a British aura and was using the plural for sports teams when referred to by the names of their cities.
Did someone say something about collective nouns?
Did someone imply that there is only one “English”?
🙂
Over the pond, but also an elegy for Lilibet. This is BoJo speaking in the House of Commons on the death of the Queen. He is a scoundrel, and severely flawed in the parts of character regarding integrity, honesty and honour, but his delusions of a Churchillian quality are not entirely absurd, as this shows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adsBMbJsm8Q
And, as I have been arguing to many friends, although the principle of a hereditary head of state is ridiculous, still: give me Charles, or William, rather than the risk of a Trump-type or a representative of the half of the country who voted for Brexit.
Over the pond, but also an elegy for Lilibet. This is BoJo speaking in the House of Commons on the death of the Queen. He is a scoundrel, and severely flawed in the parts of character regarding integrity, honesty and honour, but his delusions of a Churchillian quality are not entirely absurd, as this shows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adsBMbJsm8Q
And, as I have been arguing to many friends, although the principle of a hereditary head of state is ridiculous, still: give me Charles, or William, rather than the risk of a Trump-type or a representative of the half of the country who voted for Brexit.
As to language, here’s a passage, quoted at Daily Kos from here (note: it’s a UK outlet):
Writers: you’d think they cared enough about language to know what words mean.
As to language, here’s a passage, quoted at Daily Kos from here (note: it’s a UK outlet):
Writers: you’d think they cared enough about language to know what words mean.
Hartmut, does it matter that “United States” is actually a truncation of “United States of America”? “America” being singular….
Nope. The dogs of war, the bells of St.Mary’s and the children of man claim otherwise.
Hartmut, does it matter that “United States” is actually a truncation of “United States of America”? “America” being singular….
Nope. The dogs of war, the bells of St.Mary’s and the children of man claim otherwise.
British English is fairly relaxed about grammatical number. “The team is playing well” and “the team are playing well” are both entirely acceptable, perhaps with slightly different shades of meaning.
It occurs to me now that the finite verb in “the team are playing well” is often reduced to a schwa, almost as if we don’t quite feel comfortable with it.
British English is fairly relaxed about grammatical number. “The team is playing well” and “the team are playing well” are both entirely acceptable, perhaps with slightly different shades of meaning.
It occurs to me now that the finite verb in “the team are playing well” is often reduced to a schwa, almost as if we don’t quite feel comfortable with it.
On Janie’s recent remark about Shakespearean quotations, the King ended his first address to the nation, about his mother: “May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest”. It was moving.
On Janie’s recent remark about Shakespearean quotations, the King ended his first address to the nation, about his mother: “May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest”. It was moving.
The flights of angels quote brought to mind something similar that has stuck in my mind all these years, fifty-nine to be precise: “May the angels, dear Jack, lead you into paradise.” Spoken by Cardinal Cushing of Boston at JFK’s funeral.
Google being what it is, you can find out all about it online. The line itself, minus the “dear Jack” part, is from the Catholic litury, not from Shakespeare.
Cardinal Cushing “helped presidential candidate John F. Kennedy deflect fears of papal interference in American government if a Catholic became president,” and was much later implicated in covering up sexual abuse by priests.
One thing leads to another.
The flights of angels quote brought to mind something similar that has stuck in my mind all these years, fifty-nine to be precise: “May the angels, dear Jack, lead you into paradise.” Spoken by Cardinal Cushing of Boston at JFK’s funeral.
Google being what it is, you can find out all about it online. The line itself, minus the “dear Jack” part, is from the Catholic litury, not from Shakespeare.
Cardinal Cushing “helped presidential candidate John F. Kennedy deflect fears of papal interference in American government if a Catholic became president,” and was much later implicated in covering up sexual abuse by priests.
One thing leads to another.
In Fire in the Lake Frances Fitzgerald argued that it was specifically Diem’s catholicism that brought then senator Kennedy into committing to support the regime against the Viet Minh. Not, to be sure, papal interference, but still a case of religious identity that shifted the course of a nation and has been screwing our politics up for decades.
(Tangential, but I don’t feel like I have anything helpful to add regarding the queen’s passing.)
In Fire in the Lake Frances Fitzgerald argued that it was specifically Diem’s catholicism that brought then senator Kennedy into committing to support the regime against the Viet Minh. Not, to be sure, papal interference, but still a case of religious identity that shifted the course of a nation and has been screwing our politics up for decades.
(Tangential, but I don’t feel like I have anything helpful to add regarding the queen’s passing.)
The Møøses of Maine is abundant. Meeses of Maine are redundant?
Am I doing this right?
I have been sacked.
The Møøses of Maine is abundant. Meeses of Maine are redundant?
Am I doing this right?
I have been sacked.
although the principle of a hereditary head of state is ridiculous, still: give me Charles, or William, rather than the risk of a Trump-type or a representative of the half of the country who voted for Brexit.
At least we know Charles is unlikely to embrace the climate change deniers. Whatever his personal political inclinations.
although the principle of a hereditary head of state is ridiculous, still: give me Charles, or William, rather than the risk of a Trump-type or a representative of the half of the country who voted for Brexit.
At least we know Charles is unlikely to embrace the climate change deniers. Whatever his personal political inclinations.
give me Charles, or William, rather than the risk of a Trump-type or a representative of the half of the country who voted for Brexit.
You mean someone like Boris Johnson or Liz Truss? If the monarch had any ability to rein them in, that might be relevant. As it is, I don’t see how it makes much difference.
give me Charles, or William, rather than the risk of a Trump-type or a representative of the half of the country who voted for Brexit.
You mean someone like Boris Johnson or Liz Truss? If the monarch had any ability to rein them in, that might be relevant. As it is, I don’t see how it makes much difference.
I haven’t seen much of Truss. But from what I have seen, it kinda reminds me of 2017 and how I wished for the sober statesmanship of the W administration.
I haven’t seen much of Truss. But from what I have seen, it kinda reminds me of 2017 and how I wished for the sober statesmanship of the W administration.
When you were a carefree tenured professor living your best life, and then are suddenly forced to chair your department.
When you were a carefree tenured professor living your best life, and then are suddenly forced to chair your department.
Reading the news from Ukraine for the last few days, the large numbers of towns, villages, and settlements reported to have changed hands, the nominally long distances the Ukrainians have penetrated. Then I look at the total area involved and realize that it’s all happening in a space about half the size of my moderate-sized county (for western values of moderate).
Reading the news from Ukraine for the last few days, the large numbers of towns, villages, and settlements reported to have changed hands, the nominally long distances the Ukrainians have penetrated. Then I look at the total area involved and realize that it’s all happening in a space about half the size of my moderate-sized county (for western values of moderate).
But when I read the Russians announcing that they are “redeploying” their forces toward the regional capital of Donetsk in the south “in order to achieve the goals of the special military operation,” it reminds me of their previous redeployment, after failing to take Kyiv. Although this time seems to have combined Russian troops fleeing in disarray with significant weapons and ammunition stores being abandoned. But then, they were in danger of being surrounded and cut off by the Ukrainians’ pincer movement.
The territory recovered may be only the size of a “moderate-sized county” here. But there are counties in California which are bigger than entire European countries. And I’m talking places like Belgium and the Netherlands, not pipsqueaks like Luxemburg. I always have to remind myself of just how compact things are there.
But when I read the Russians announcing that they are “redeploying” their forces toward the regional capital of Donetsk in the south “in order to achieve the goals of the special military operation,” it reminds me of their previous redeployment, after failing to take Kyiv. Although this time seems to have combined Russian troops fleeing in disarray with significant weapons and ammunition stores being abandoned. But then, they were in danger of being surrounded and cut off by the Ukrainians’ pincer movement.
The territory recovered may be only the size of a “moderate-sized county” here. But there are counties in California which are bigger than entire European countries. And I’m talking places like Belgium and the Netherlands, not pipsqueaks like Luxemburg. I always have to remind myself of just how compact things are there.
It may also be worth noting that Kupiansk and Izyum, two of the cities Ukraine recaptured, are rail hubs. As such, they have been important for Russian logistics across their captured territory. Not that Russian logistic capabilities as shown in this war have been anything to write home about. This could make things even worse for them.
It may also be worth noting that Kupiansk and Izyum, two of the cities Ukraine recaptured, are rail hubs. As such, they have been important for Russian logistics across their captured territory. Not that Russian logistic capabilities as shown in this war have been anything to write home about. This could make things even worse for them.
When I say “Russian troops fleeing in disarray,” this is what I’m talking about.
https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status/1568563472048193536
When I say “Russian troops fleeing in disarray,” this is what I’m talking about.
https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status/1568563472048193536
Coupla problems there. That was obviously a Nazi Ukrainian tree that was selflessly and heroically neutralized. And you spelled “victoriously advancing back to the Motherland” wrong.
Coupla problems there. That was obviously a Nazi Ukrainian tree that was selflessly and heroically neutralized. And you spelled “victoriously advancing back to the Motherland” wrong.
If the Ukrainians boot the Russians out of everywhere, including Crimea, Putin will doubtless announce that, “having achieved all the objectives of our Special Military Operation, our victorious troops are returning to their home bases.” (Assuming that the “success” of his war hasn’t resulted in his forced retirement. Possibly with extreme prejudice.)
If the Ukrainians boot the Russians out of everywhere, including Crimea, Putin will doubtless announce that, “having achieved all the objectives of our Special Military Operation, our victorious troops are returning to their home bases.” (Assuming that the “success” of his war hasn’t resulted in his forced retirement. Possibly with extreme prejudice.)
P.S. Pete, you realize what we have there is the first occasion where an Ent has been caught on camera.
P.S. Pete, you realize what we have there is the first occasion where an Ent has been caught on camera.
They’re notoriously slow to mobilize, but once they get going…
😉
They’re notoriously slow to mobilize, but once they get going…
😉
Mud in the spring, trees in the fall. You get the impression that nature doesn’t approve of the Russian invasion. (Or, at least, of Russian tanks.)
Mud in the spring, trees in the fall. You get the impression that nature doesn’t approve of the Russian invasion. (Or, at least, of Russian tanks.)
But, without wanting to be superstititous, let’s not get our hopes up too much. Putin is a very dangerous man, and perhaps even more so when it looks like he (or Russia – and perhaps to him it is the same thing) seems about to lose face.
But, without wanting to be superstititous, let’s not get our hopes up too much. Putin is a very dangerous man, and perhaps even more so when it looks like he (or Russia – and perhaps to him it is the same thing) seems about to lose face.
Is he in danger of that, tho? I suspect the Russian people have made their minds up about Ukraine at this point. Putin’s standing in the world is unrecoverably in the bog, and he – rightly, I think – is more concerned with knives out internally.
Maybe he keeps Crimea & Donetsk. Maybe, and with Troubles-like insurgency. And the idea, maybe, that Russian military might is still a force to be reckoned with.
My sense from pre-invasion was that this would blow up in his face & I have seen little to move me from that position. When was the last time Belarus topped the papers?
This isn’t Afghanistan, but there are parallels.
Is he in danger of that, tho? I suspect the Russian people have made their minds up about Ukraine at this point. Putin’s standing in the world is unrecoverably in the bog, and he – rightly, I think – is more concerned with knives out internally.
Maybe he keeps Crimea & Donetsk. Maybe, and with Troubles-like insurgency. And the idea, maybe, that Russian military might is still a force to be reckoned with.
My sense from pre-invasion was that this would blow up in his face & I have seen little to move me from that position. When was the last time Belarus topped the papers?
This isn’t Afghanistan, but there are parallels.
Putin is a very dangerous man, and perhaps even more so when it looks like he (or Russia – and perhaps to him it is the same thing) seems about to lose face.
Dangerous, certainly. But it’s becoming clear that his invasion is turning into a no-win situation. At which point, not being suicidal, it seems to me he’ll decide to cut his losses and spin like crazy.
What, after all, are his options?
In short, good options are in short supply. If the Ukrainians decided to go on the offensive inside Russia, general mobilization becomes viable. But even just artillery or missiles onto military targets in close by parts of Russia wouldn’t do it.
Putin is a very dangerous man, and perhaps even more so when it looks like he (or Russia – and perhaps to him it is the same thing) seems about to lose face.
Dangerous, certainly. But it’s becoming clear that his invasion is turning into a no-win situation. At which point, not being suicidal, it seems to me he’ll decide to cut his losses and spin like crazy.
What, after all, are his options?
In short, good options are in short supply. If the Ukrainians decided to go on the offensive inside Russia, general mobilization becomes viable. But even just artillery or missiles onto military targets in close by parts of Russia wouldn’t do it.
Pete: I meant lose face in Russia itself. That’s still a possibility, because the media censorship in Russia might mean (and the last time I checked, admittedly several days ago, still meant) that a majority of the population swallowed his lies and supported his Ukraine “special operation”.
wj, I believe that people who know him are far from discounting your option 4. But let’s hope that’s wrong. You make a rational case; let’s hope he’s able to be rational.
Pete: I meant lose face in Russia itself. That’s still a possibility, because the media censorship in Russia might mean (and the last time I checked, admittedly several days ago, still meant) that a majority of the population swallowed his lies and supported his Ukraine “special operation”.
wj, I believe that people who know him are far from discounting your option 4. But let’s hope that’s wrong. You make a rational case; let’s hope he’s able to be rational.
GftNC,
To be clear, I meant that minds were made up in the same way that minds are made up here in the States. As in, there are Trumpers & there are not. Propaganda is a thing, certainly, but so is the internet. I did not mean to suggest that the Russian people were unified.
GftNC,
To be clear, I meant that minds were made up in the same way that minds are made up here in the States. As in, there are Trumpers & there are not. Propaganda is a thing, certainly, but so is the internet. I did not mean to suggest that the Russian people were unified.
I believe that people who know him are far from discounting your option 4. But let’s hope that’s wrong. You make a rational case; let’s hope he’s able to be rational.
Or, if not rational, at least not suicidal. Because if he takes option 4, he has to know that taking him out becomes priority 1 for a host of countries.
Sure, he’s got security. But probably not the whole Russian military any more. Some things will scare the rest of leadership more than him. So he might get to keep a dache somewhare, and some personal security. Pots of money, even. Or not.
Also, defending against a drone fired missile (for just one option) is a whole different deal than merely stopping a possible sniper. Not to mention that the missile doesn’t care if you never go near a window.
I believe that people who know him are far from discounting your option 4. But let’s hope that’s wrong. You make a rational case; let’s hope he’s able to be rational.
Or, if not rational, at least not suicidal. Because if he takes option 4, he has to know that taking him out becomes priority 1 for a host of countries.
Sure, he’s got security. But probably not the whole Russian military any more. Some things will scare the rest of leadership more than him. So he might get to keep a dache somewhare, and some personal security. Pots of money, even. Or not.
Also, defending against a drone fired missile (for just one option) is a whole different deal than merely stopping a possible sniper. Not to mention that the missile doesn’t care if you never go near a window.
Zelensky’s speech tonight.
Another level.
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1569044030272454663
Zelensky’s speech tonight.
Another level.
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1569044030272454663
Wow. That’s some powerful stuff. More importantly, I believe it.
Wow. That’s some powerful stuff. More importantly, I believe it.
I mean, doesn’t matter what I believe, but one can feel the steel behind those words. Ukraine has the leader it needs. I don’t doubt that his words resonate with the people.
I mean, doesn’t matter what I believe, but one can feel the steel behind those words. Ukraine has the leader it needs. I don’t doubt that his words resonate with the people.
One of the commenters called it a “Churchill like speech.” And I’ve got to say, that was my immediate reaction as well.
It is amazing how sometimes someone from a most improbable background will rise to the moment and change the course of history. And we can already see that Zelensky is one of those.
That is true even in the worst possible case scenario where Russia eventually conquers. Russia’s stature, and that of Russia’s military, will be a very long time recovering.
One of the commenters called it a “Churchill like speech.” And I’ve got to say, that was my immediate reaction as well.
It is amazing how sometimes someone from a most improbable background will rise to the moment and change the course of history. And we can already see that Zelensky is one of those.
That is true even in the worst possible case scenario where Russia eventually conquers. Russia’s stature, and that of Russia’s military, will be a very long time recovering.
I’m reluctant to believe any war-time reporting entirely, but if the bulk of western reporting is nominally true, Ukrainian forces are making remarkable progress. I don’t have a sense of what Russia may be able to bring to bear but, despite Medvedev’s posturing, it looks like resources are depleted.
I hope this is true & hostilities end by the close of autumn. If not sooner.
I’m reluctant to believe any war-time reporting entirely, but if the bulk of western reporting is nominally true, Ukrainian forces are making remarkable progress. I don’t have a sense of what Russia may be able to bring to bear but, despite Medvedev’s posturing, it looks like resources are depleted.
I hope this is true & hostilities end by the close of autumn. If not sooner.
That is a remarkable speech. As they say, “Cometh the hour, cometh the man”. His speeches and his behaviour certainly are having a Churchillian effect on his people. God (or FSM) help Ukraine.
That is a remarkable speech. As they say, “Cometh the hour, cometh the man”. His speeches and his behaviour certainly are having a Churchillian effect on his people. God (or FSM) help Ukraine.
Putin could check the weather reports for the right time to have ‘an accident’ (to be blamed on Ukraine) occur at the Saporishija nuclear power plant when the wind is blowing away from Russia. Going nuclear with (however implausible) deniability.
Putin could check the weather reports for the right time to have ‘an accident’ (to be blamed on Ukraine) occur at the Saporishija nuclear power plant when the wind is blowing away from Russia. Going nuclear with (however implausible) deniability.
I’m reluctant to believe any war-time reporting entirely, but if the bulk of western reporting is nominally true, Ukrainian forces are making remarkable progress.
Apparently part of the reason is that various Ukranian officials had been boasting for a few weeks about how they were shortly going to make big gains in the south. Which motivated the Russians to shift some forces away from the southeast, where the attack actually happened.
Disinformation still works — even if your opponent is good at it. Guess it helps to be persistently underestimated.
I’m reluctant to believe any war-time reporting entirely, but if the bulk of western reporting is nominally true, Ukrainian forces are making remarkable progress.
Apparently part of the reason is that various Ukranian officials had been boasting for a few weeks about how they were shortly going to make big gains in the south. Which motivated the Russians to shift some forces away from the southeast, where the attack actually happened.
Disinformation still works — even if your opponent is good at it. Guess it helps to be persistently underestimated.
And the next time the Russians will have to ask themselves, whether it’s a ruse again to lure them somewhere else or the genuine thing. Has happened in both world wars.
And the next time the Russians will have to ask themselves, whether it’s a ruse again to lure them somewhere else or the genuine thing. Has happened in both world wars.
I, for one, look forward to Putin tripping on a grand staircase and ‘accidentally’ impaling his head on an ice-ax.
I, for one, look forward to Putin tripping on a grand staircase and ‘accidentally’ impaling his head on an ice-ax.
If you want to laugh, bitterly.
https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
If you want to laugh, bitterly.
https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
I believe the current fashion is to lean out just a little bit too far from that 8th storey window, Snarki.
I believe the current fashion is to lean out just a little bit too far from that 8th storey window, Snarki.
I guess Pucker Gnarlson’s people don’t watch Russian TV, where we are starting to see some cracks in the media façade:
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1569070513909022720
The first clip shows just how far things are slipping.
I guess Pucker Gnarlson’s people don’t watch Russian TV, where we are starting to see some cracks in the media façade:
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1569070513909022720
The first clip shows just how far things are slipping.
“Our heroic troops are advancing victoriously in good order towards the rear, while our battered and smashed enemies follow us in total disarray.”
“Our heroic troops are advancing victoriously in good order towards the rear, while our battered and smashed enemies follow us in total disarray.”
I have read that the media characters are actors mouthing what someone tells them to say, not actually giving their real opinions. I find that a little harder to believe as the façade starts to crack, but I won’t be surprised if some of these opinion people end up in jail, or worse, because of things they’re saying now.
Someone has to take the fall, and it’s not going to be Putin. At least, not unless someone unseats him…
I have read that the media characters are actors mouthing what someone tells them to say, not actually giving their real opinions. I find that a little harder to believe as the façade starts to crack, but I won’t be surprised if some of these opinion people end up in jail, or worse, because of things they’re saying now.
Someone has to take the fall, and it’s not going to be Putin. At least, not unless someone unseats him…
Façade.
Yeah, I got nuthin’ but the whole Cédille thing seems to be trending and I wanna get in on it. And I’m just counting the minutes until my Seahawks get obliterated by our former quarterback. We’re gonna party like it’s 1982.
Façade.
Yeah, I got nuthin’ but the whole Cédille thing seems to be trending and I wanna get in on it. And I’m just counting the minutes until my Seahawks get obliterated by our former quarterback. We’re gonna party like it’s 1982.
nous, I saw Zeal & Ardor last night. Just “wow!” I don’t know if they could ever get popular enough for it, but I could see their performance style scaling up to large arenas very well.
The opening act, Imperial Triumphant, was interesting. I might dig into them a bit. Heavy, jazzy avant with a creepy, stylized stage show.
nous, I saw Zeal & Ardor last night. Just “wow!” I don’t know if they could ever get popular enough for it, but I could see their performance style scaling up to large arenas very well.
The opening act, Imperial Triumphant, was interesting. I might dig into them a bit. Heavy, jazzy avant with a creepy, stylized stage show.
Back across the pond, from a piece in today’s NYT on Nina Totenberg’s book about her friendship with RBG, this made me more tolerant of her choice not to resign in time for Obama to nominate her replacement, a choice about which I had previously been very critical:
For those seeking insights about any remorse Ginsburg might have felt about not retiring while a Democrat was safely serving as president, Totenberg offers little, possibly because Ginsburg was not always forthcoming with her; of a meeting the justice had with Barack Obama at which the president gently tried to raise the question of her retirement, Totenberg says, “She never told me about it.” Nor does she report how Ginsburg responded to the news of Donald Trump’s election. But she does seem to speak with authority when she explains that Ginsburg had been eager to give “the first female president the power to nominate her successor.” And at the time of the election, Totenberg points out, Ginsburg was not in a health crisis. “It was a gamble, and she lost,” she writes.
Back across the pond, from a piece in today’s NYT on Nina Totenberg’s book about her friendship with RBG, this made me more tolerant of her choice not to resign in time for Obama to nominate her replacement, a choice about which I had previously been very critical:
For those seeking insights about any remorse Ginsburg might have felt about not retiring while a Democrat was safely serving as president, Totenberg offers little, possibly because Ginsburg was not always forthcoming with her; of a meeting the justice had with Barack Obama at which the president gently tried to raise the question of her retirement, Totenberg says, “She never told me about it.” Nor does she report how Ginsburg responded to the news of Donald Trump’s election. But she does seem to speak with authority when she explains that Ginsburg had been eager to give “the first female president the power to nominate her successor.” And at the time of the election, Totenberg points out, Ginsburg was not in a health crisis. “It was a gamble, and she lost,” she writes.
Also, I saw this chez cleek:
https://twitter.com/kenolin1/status/1568390158336270337
Posted for anybody with MAGA friends and family, if you still talk to them about this stuff. It seems really hard to argue with, on grounds that Rs would normally love. And it’s only 2.5 minutes long.
Also, I saw this chez cleek:
https://twitter.com/kenolin1/status/1568390158336270337
Posted for anybody with MAGA friends and family, if you still talk to them about this stuff. It seems really hard to argue with, on grounds that Rs would normally love. And it’s only 2.5 minutes long.
Hmmm. Maybe they’re sulking because they didn’t get one of those 3 Supreme Court nominations? Sulking would be sooo Trumpian.
Of course, while she mentions it in passing, why did that hotshot NewYork law firm that used to work for him decide to bail. (My first guess would be unpaid bills. But “sure loser” might be an option. As would “client who persistently lies to us.”)
Hmmm. Maybe they’re sulking because they didn’t get one of those 3 Supreme Court nominations? Sulking would be sooo Trumpian.
Of course, while she mentions it in passing, why did that hotshot NewYork law firm that used to work for him decide to bail. (My first guess would be unpaid bills. But “sure loser” might be an option. As would “client who persistently lies to us.”)
This, from the Washington Post, typifies Russia so far:
‘Tis true, you wouldn’t be likely to see something like that in Europe.
This, from the Washington Post, typifies Russia so far:
‘Tis true, you wouldn’t be likely to see something like that in Europe.
“Putin sounded strikingly tone deaf as he opened a giant new Ferris wheel in Moscow.”
Clearly a highly efficient “jumped out of a balcony” machine.
#insert <YakovSmirnovJoke.h>
“Putin sounded strikingly tone deaf as he opened a giant new Ferris wheel in Moscow.”
Clearly a highly efficient “jumped out of a balcony” machine.
#insert <YakovSmirnovJoke.h>
“Putin sounded strikingly tone deaf”
A drummer, perhaps…? (Certainly he’s beaten the war drums.)
“Putin sounded strikingly tone deaf”
A drummer, perhaps…? (Certainly he’s beaten the war drums.)
Why doesn’t Jabbabonk get reputable lawyers?
I’d guess lots of MAGAts would argue that they all get intimidated by the thugs from DoJ and the FBI. They fear for the lives or worse – their law licences. Even constitutionalist SCOTUS justices can’t get outdoors anymore due to the danger of being brutally* protested against and denied their rightful peace and quiet at luxury restaurants.
That His Orangeness can’t get lawyers is proof that he is an innocent victim of the Abyssal** State.
*signs with aspersive and derogatory messages have been rumored to have been carried within a mile of their houses.
**Deep clearly has become insufficient by now. And abyssal has a nice ring of abysmal for the thesaurically challenged.
Why doesn’t Jabbabonk get reputable lawyers?
I’d guess lots of MAGAts would argue that they all get intimidated by the thugs from DoJ and the FBI. They fear for the lives or worse – their law licences. Even constitutionalist SCOTUS justices can’t get outdoors anymore due to the danger of being brutally* protested against and denied their rightful peace and quiet at luxury restaurants.
That His Orangeness can’t get lawyers is proof that he is an innocent victim of the Abyssal** State.
*signs with aspersive and derogatory messages have been rumored to have been carried within a mile of their houses.
**Deep clearly has become insufficient by now. And abyssal has a nice ring of abysmal for the thesaurically challenged.
…or worse – their law licences.
This. The tony white-shoe law firms that normally handle things for the national Republican Party were there shortly after the election. And disappeared as soon as it was apparent that the “strategy” was to claim fraud with no evidence. There are real penalties for lawyers that lie in court, or bring lawsuits they should have known were frivolous if they had done their pre-courtroom work.
It is possibly worth noting that even the lawyers that did file the suits dropped the fraud accusations. What showed up in the court cases were accusations of procedural errors. They lost all but one of those, and in the one case they won, the particular jurisdiction had already admitted fault and corrected the problem.
…or worse – their law licences.
This. The tony white-shoe law firms that normally handle things for the national Republican Party were there shortly after the election. And disappeared as soon as it was apparent that the “strategy” was to claim fraud with no evidence. There are real penalties for lawyers that lie in court, or bring lawsuits they should have known were frivolous if they had done their pre-courtroom work.
It is possibly worth noting that even the lawyers that did file the suits dropped the fraud accusations. What showed up in the court cases were accusations of procedural errors. They lost all but one of those, and in the one case they won, the particular jurisdiction had already admitted fault and corrected the problem.
There are real penalties for lawyers that lie in court, or bring lawsuits they should have known were frivolous
This is, naturally, flat out tyranny. After all, they would be doing so in service of the Dear Leader, who can do no wrong.
There are real penalties for lawyers that lie in court, or bring lawsuits they should have known were frivolous
This is, naturally, flat out tyranny. After all, they would be doing so in service of the Dear Leader, who can do no wrong.
It is possibly worth noting that even the lawyers that did file the suits dropped the fraud accusations.
Not only did they drop them, in several instances** the judge flat out asked them if they were alleging fraud. And they hastily assured him that they were absolutely doing no such thing.
** Instances in which, IIRC, those same lawyers had stood on the courthouse steps and told reporters about how much fraud there had been.
It is possibly worth noting that even the lawyers that did file the suits dropped the fraud accusations.
Not only did they drop them, in several instances** the judge flat out asked them if they were alleging fraud. And they hastily assured him that they were absolutely doing no such thing.
** Instances in which, IIRC, those same lawyers had stood on the courthouse steps and told reporters about how much fraud there had been.
If you consider all the conspiracies that some people believe have been perpetrated against Donald Trump, it’s hard to believe he was ever elected president in the first place, at least unless you think some of the people out to get him voted for him.
If you consider all the conspiracies that some people believe have been perpetrated against Donald Trump, it’s hard to believe he was ever elected president in the first place, at least unless you think some of the people out to get him voted for him.
I have to wonder of Georgia is watching closely. Trying to pick the moment to reclaim their occupied territory.
Rapid loss of territory in Ukraine reveals spent Russian military
If the Russian is burnt out enough, they might pull it off. Even though they aren’t nearly as big or as well armed as Ukraine.
I have to wonder of Georgia is watching closely. Trying to pick the moment to reclaim their occupied territory.
Rapid loss of territory in Ukraine reveals spent Russian military
If the Russian is burnt out enough, they might pull it off. Even though they aren’t nearly as big or as well armed as Ukraine.
This is, naturally, flat out tyranny. After all, they would be doing so in service of the Dear Leader, who can do no wrong.
As I patiently told a former colleague, “Just because you say, ‘Look! A crime may have been committed!’ the investigative powers/tools of the state are not suddenly yours to command.”
This is, naturally, flat out tyranny. After all, they would be doing so in service of the Dear Leader, who can do no wrong.
As I patiently told a former colleague, “Just because you say, ‘Look! A crime may have been committed!’ the investigative powers/tools of the state are not suddenly yours to command.”
I have to wonder of Georgia is watching closely. Trying to pick the moment to reclaim their occupied territory.
Until I got to the next bit, my thought was, “What? Georgia’s decided to try to physically grab the bit that Tennessee has due to a surveying error made a couple hundred years ago?”
Georgia dearly wants to have the courts correct that error because it would give them access to the Tennessee River, from which they would immediately start pumping water into the river basin that serves Atlanta.
I have to wonder of Georgia is watching closely. Trying to pick the moment to reclaim their occupied territory.
Until I got to the next bit, my thought was, “What? Georgia’s decided to try to physically grab the bit that Tennessee has due to a surveying error made a couple hundred years ago?”
Georgia dearly wants to have the courts correct that error because it would give them access to the Tennessee River, from which they would immediately start pumping water into the river basin that serves Atlanta.
my thought was, “What? Georgia’s decided to try to physically grab the bit that Tennessee has
Mea culpa. I should have written “the Republic of Georgia.” Although it occurs to me that some could misread that, initially, as “Republican Georgia.” Sigh.
my thought was, “What? Georgia’s decided to try to physically grab the bit that Tennessee has
Mea culpa. I should have written “the Republic of Georgia.” Although it occurs to me that some could misread that, initially, as “Republican Georgia.” Sigh.
Safest to write “საქართველო”
Safest to write “საქართველო”
I look forward to Moldova and Ukraine ganging up to crush Trans-Nistria.
As for Georgia, Putin can only have it if he takes Alabama also, too.
I look forward to Moldova and Ukraine ganging up to crush Trans-Nistria.
As for Georgia, Putin can only have it if he takes Alabama also, too.
Alabama, or as we used to call it in flag football, “Two Mississippi.”
Alabama, or as we used to call it in flag football, “Two Mississippi.”
As for Georgia, Putin can only have it if he takes Alabama also, too.
Kind of unfair to Georgia. Maybe offer Putin Alabama and Mississippi instead.
As for Georgia, Putin can only have it if he takes Alabama also, too.
Kind of unfair to Georgia. Maybe offer Putin Alabama and Mississippi instead.
The Brits could offer Putin a safe retirement in South Georgia, if the situation at home should become untenable.
The Brits could offer Putin a safe retirement in South Georgia, if the situation at home should become untenable.
It’s of course a question, whether South Georgia is large enough to qualify for an ‘in’ instead of an ‘on’.
It’s of course a question, whether South Georgia is large enough to qualify for an ‘in’ instead of an ‘on’.
It’s of course a question, whether South Georgia is large enough to qualify for an ‘in’ instead of an ‘on’.
I think it’s ‘on’ an island whenever one is mentally processing it as an island. I’m sure it’s ‘on’ South Georgia.
It’s of course a question, whether South Georgia is large enough to qualify for an ‘in’ instead of an ‘on’.
I think it’s ‘on’ an island whenever one is mentally processing it as an island. I’m sure it’s ‘on’ South Georgia.
As for Georgia, Putin can only have it if he takes Alabama also, too.
Not for a few years, until Congress without Richard Shelby decides that they won’t keep critical parts of the US space program in Alabama any more. The remaining Atlas Vs will be built in Alabama. The new Vulcan Centaur will be built in Alabama. Bezos’s BE-4 rocket engines will be built in Alabama. The SLS is built in Alabama. A lot of work gets done at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama (6,000 employees).
As for Georgia, Putin can only have it if he takes Alabama also, too.
Not for a few years, until Congress without Richard Shelby decides that they won’t keep critical parts of the US space program in Alabama any more. The remaining Atlas Vs will be built in Alabama. The new Vulcan Centaur will be built in Alabama. Bezos’s BE-4 rocket engines will be built in Alabama. The SLS is built in Alabama. A lot of work gets done at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama (6,000 employees).
It’s of course a question, whether South Georgia is large enough to qualify for an ‘in’ instead of an ‘on’.
Say rather a question of whether South Georgia is large enough for Putin’s ego.
It’s of course a question, whether South Georgia is large enough to qualify for an ‘in’ instead of an ‘on’.
Say rather a question of whether South Georgia is large enough for Putin’s ego.
Well, Napoleon got St.Helena. South Georgia is 30 times larger (and 17 times larger than Elba).
Well, Napoleon got St.Helena. South Georgia is 30 times larger (and 17 times larger than Elba).
South Georgia is 30 times larger (and 17 times larger than Elba).
But further south than St Helena, not to mention Elba. That is, farther from Russia (and Europe generally). While the British have proven themselves capable of launching a military action at that distance, Putin has struggled with a much shorter range. He just doesn’t have Napoleon’s track record.
South Georgia is 30 times larger (and 17 times larger than Elba).
But further south than St Helena, not to mention Elba. That is, farther from Russia (and Europe generally). While the British have proven themselves capable of launching a military action at that distance, Putin has struggled with a much shorter range. He just doesn’t have Napoleon’s track record.
Well, he has lasted far longer in Moscow than the Corsican upstart. Anf who says that Putin has to send troops down there. The World community will provide free transport (one-way-ticket) – provided the Brits will part with the real estate.
I think Putin should be able to deal with the Argentinians without too large an army.
Well, he has lasted far longer in Moscow than the Corsican upstart. Anf who says that Putin has to send troops down there. The World community will provide free transport (one-way-ticket) – provided the Brits will part with the real estate.
I think Putin should be able to deal with the Argentinians without too large an army.
Further to that link from cleek’s place about Trump’s inability to find top lawyers to represent him, Politico reports that his Save America PAC has had to pay a lawyer $3 million in advance to represent him.
Furthermore:
Save America itself is facing scrutiny from the Justice Department. Last week, numerous grand jury subpoenas asked people in Trump world about the PAC’s fundraising and spending activities. The language in those subpoenas was broad, according to reports, and also asked witnesses for information about a host of people linked to Trump’s efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 presidential contest.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/15/trumps-save-america-paid-3-million-to-cover-top-lawyers-legal-work-00056968
Further to that link from cleek’s place about Trump’s inability to find top lawyers to represent him, Politico reports that his Save America PAC has had to pay a lawyer $3 million in advance to represent him.
Furthermore:
Save America itself is facing scrutiny from the Justice Department. Last week, numerous grand jury subpoenas asked people in Trump world about the PAC’s fundraising and spending activities. The language in those subpoenas was broad, according to reports, and also asked witnesses for information about a host of people linked to Trump’s efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 presidential contest.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/15/trumps-save-america-paid-3-million-to-cover-top-lawyers-legal-work-00056968
Anf who says that Putin has to send troops down there. The World community will provide free transport (one-way-ticket) – provided the Brits will part with the real estate.
I wasn’t thinking of getting him there. More about his prospects for success in fighting his way free and back to Europe. A bit more challenging than the little hop from Elba.
P.S. It also seems unlikely that Putin would use his time in exile as productively as the Little Colonel.
The folks on Elba still hold fond memories of him. (Can’t see Putin achieving that!)
Anf who says that Putin has to send troops down there. The World community will provide free transport (one-way-ticket) – provided the Brits will part with the real estate.
I wasn’t thinking of getting him there. More about his prospects for success in fighting his way free and back to Europe. A bit more challenging than the little hop from Elba.
P.S. It also seems unlikely that Putin would use his time in exile as productively as the Little Colonel.
The folks on Elba still hold fond memories of him. (Can’t see Putin achieving that!)