by JanieM
We need an open thread (if only so I can post this story), so here we go.
The view from a trail in Belgrade (or Rome?), Maine, on Mother's Day of 2023. The ponds were the site, IIRC, of some of the filming for the movie On Golden Pond. The line of hills in the distance is the Camden Hills, behind which is Camden, the setting of the following story.
*****
Excerpt from the Bangor Daily News via the AP:
CAMDEN, Maine — Suspicious deaths in an idyllic seaside community and detective work that points to poison sound like themes from a classic murder mystery. But the victims in this Maine whodunnit were trees that stood in the way of a wealthy family’s oceanfront view, allegedly felled by well-heeled killers who, while ostracized and publicly shamed, remain free.
Wealth and hubris fuel the tale of a politically connected Missouri couple who allegedly poisoned their neighbor’s trees to secure their million-dollar view of Camden Harbor. The incident that was unearthed by the victim herself — the philanthropic wife of L.L. Bean’s late president — has united local residents in outrage.
To make matters worse, the herbicide used to poison the trees leached into a neighboring park and the town’s only public seaside beach. The state attorney general is now investigating.
“Anybody dumb enough to poison trees right next to the ocean should be prosecuted, as far as I’m concerned,” said Paul Hodgson, echoing the view of many exasperated residents in Camden, a community of 5,000 nestled at the foot of mountains that sweep upward from the Atlantic Ocean and overlook a harbor filled with lobster boats, yachts and schooners.
If this were a made-for-TV drama, the story set against the backdrop of this quaint village would have it all: Wealthy out-of-state villains, a sleuthing member of the venerable L.L. Bean family, and the same powerful chemical used to avenge Alabama’s loss on the football field to archrival Auburn.
Amelia Bond, former CEO of the St. Louis Foundation, which oversees charitable funds with more than $500 million in assets, brought the herbicide from Missouri in 2021 and applied it near oak trees on the waterfront property of Lisa Gorman, wife of the late Leon Gorman, L.L. Bean’s president and grandson of L.L. himself, according to a pair of consent agreements with the town and the state pesticide board.
Bond’s husband, Arthur Bond III, is an architect and the nephew of former U.S. Sen. Kit Bond. Their summer home, owned by a trust, is situated directly behind Gorman’s home, farther up the hill.
When the trees and other vegetation began dying, Amelia Bond told Gorman in June 2022 that the tree didn’t look good and offered to share the cost of removing them, Gorman’s lawyer wrote in a document.
Instead, Gorman had the trees tested. Soon, lawyers were involved.
More than $1.7 million in fines and settlements later, the trees are now gone and the harbor view from the Bond’s home is improved. But the chemical has leached into a neighboring park and beach, leaving the Bonds potentially on the hook for further monitoring and remediation, and Maine’s attorney general has agreed to further investigate the incident.
And here's Amelia Bond in all the charitable glory with which she wants the world to see her. In light of the tree story, I particularly love the ending:
Amelia’s favorite place, next to St. Louis of course, is being on her 32-foot Nova Scotia lobster boat, Wanderin, on Maine’s picturesque Penobscot Bay.
Oh, the whimsy! Oh, the picturesqueness! (Especially of the view from one’s mansion.) Oh, the lightheartedness of owning a 32-foot lobster boat to use for the days when instead of looking at the ocean through your sociopathically enhanced viewshed, you want to gallivant on top of it for a while!
If I ran the world, this woman would first take her lying, narcissistic, tree-killing ass to prison for just long enough to give her a taste of how it feels not to have any resources whatsoever to use in remaking the world according to your every whim, regardless of anyone or anything else’s rights or wishes. (Not to mention regardless of the law. Maine has strict rules about what you can do with land that's next to water, even if it's the tiniest of creeks.)
The rest of her sentence would be lifelong confinement to a desert place where she would never see a tree or open water again.
If only The Lorax was around to prosecute those tree-murderers.
If only The Lorax was around to prosecute those tree-murderers.
I haven’t even read this yet, but I am reeling from the fact that I had just finished reading a story about that exact case in today’s Times, not 10 minutes ago!
I haven’t even read this yet, but I am reeling from the fact that I had just finished reading a story about that exact case in today’s Times, not 10 minutes ago!
Finished, now. Janie, I was going to post a comment asking if you had heard about this case – I’m assuming this was your post!
Finished, now. Janie, I was going to post a comment asking if you had heard about this case – I’m assuming this was your post!
Since it’s an open thread…
Intel is in the process of doing the heavy construction for its new leading-edge fab in Ohio. (A significant part of the cost is being paid by the federal government through one of Biden’s economic bills.) Many of the components are assembled elsewhere then shipped in. Several of these are “super loads” that have to crawl to the final site at very slow speeds. The article below talks about one such load: a self-contained unit that produces the cryogenic liquids needed by some production steps. Comes in at just over 900,000 pounds.
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-is-trucking-a-916000-pound-super-load-across-ohio-to-its-new-fab-spawning-road-closures-over-nine-days
Since it’s an open thread…
Intel is in the process of doing the heavy construction for its new leading-edge fab in Ohio. (A significant part of the cost is being paid by the federal government through one of Biden’s economic bills.) Many of the components are assembled elsewhere then shipped in. Several of these are “super loads” that have to crawl to the final site at very slow speeds. The article below talks about one such load: a self-contained unit that produces the cryogenic liquids needed by some production steps. Comes in at just over 900,000 pounds.
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-is-trucking-a-916000-pound-super-load-across-ohio-to-its-new-fab-spawning-road-closures-over-nine-days
GftNC: yes, it’s my post. I snuck it in when I was getting ready to go to the dentist, hence forgetting the byline and not having time to post a bigger image to Flicker. Will rectify later today.
GftNC: yes, it’s my post. I snuck it in when I was getting ready to go to the dentist, hence forgetting the byline and not having time to post a bigger image to Flicker. Will rectify later today.
And I got the On Golden Pond connection wrong.
From here:
And I got the On Golden Pond connection wrong.
From here:
Yeah, no…rage.
I’ve got nothing constructive to say on this one.
The part of me that has been playing fantasy RPGs for 40+ years thinks the answer is to awaken some trees to sentience and let them go all Isengard on her ass.
We can throw in Peter Thiel for good measure, since he’s the one with the Palantir…
Now let me go try to simmer down my inner Arne-Næss-but-violent a bit.
Yeah, no…rage.
I’ve got nothing constructive to say on this one.
The part of me that has been playing fantasy RPGs for 40+ years thinks the answer is to awaken some trees to sentience and let them go all Isengard on her ass.
We can throw in Peter Thiel for good measure, since he’s the one with the Palantir…
Now let me go try to simmer down my inner Arne-Næss-but-violent a bit.
I think the reason why this story breaks the outrage meter for me is the extra touch of her going to Lisa Gorman to offer to help pay for those poor sick oak trees to be taken down.
Like, in the very first place Amelia Bond coveted a view she didn’t have, though she already had wealth beyond most people’s imagining. (Yes, that’s who you are if you can afford a mansion on the ocean in Maine that is probably not even your primary dwelling.)
Didn’t she notice when they bought the property that the view of the sea was obstructed? Maybe she did, and she knew already what she was going to do. Or okay, maybe she and her husband inherited the property instead of buying/choosing it; the article does say it’s in trust. But it actually isn’t hard to see gorgeous views of the ocean from coastal Maine — just not necessarily from your front window, unless you’re lucky or very wealthy.
Then, she had to learn enough about poisons to know which one to use.
Then she had to bring the poison all the way from Missouri. (SERIOUSLY?) (I remember our realtor all those years ago saying, “Why not spend your money in Maine?” LOL.)
Then she had to sneak out there at a time when no one would see her…if you look at the original article, you will see that the two mansions are quite close together, so that must have been a bit tricky in its own right, although I suppose people who own homes like that are in their other homes quite a bit of the time.
So this wasn’t a sudden whim, someone losing their temper and saying or doing something regrettable. This took forethought, planning, and care. Or “care.”
Having done all that, she also wanted to swan about getting credit for helping to pay for tree removal. (Probably, at bottom, because she thought Lisa Gorman wasn’t getting it done fast enough. Hey! I paved the way, now you do your bit!)
Bah.
*****
nous: Thanks for the “go all Isengard” image. That’s perfect. 🙂
I think the reason why this story breaks the outrage meter for me is the extra touch of her going to Lisa Gorman to offer to help pay for those poor sick oak trees to be taken down.
Like, in the very first place Amelia Bond coveted a view she didn’t have, though she already had wealth beyond most people’s imagining. (Yes, that’s who you are if you can afford a mansion on the ocean in Maine that is probably not even your primary dwelling.)
Didn’t she notice when they bought the property that the view of the sea was obstructed? Maybe she did, and she knew already what she was going to do. Or okay, maybe she and her husband inherited the property instead of buying/choosing it; the article does say it’s in trust. But it actually isn’t hard to see gorgeous views of the ocean from coastal Maine — just not necessarily from your front window, unless you’re lucky or very wealthy.
Then, she had to learn enough about poisons to know which one to use.
Then she had to bring the poison all the way from Missouri. (SERIOUSLY?) (I remember our realtor all those years ago saying, “Why not spend your money in Maine?” LOL.)
Then she had to sneak out there at a time when no one would see her…if you look at the original article, you will see that the two mansions are quite close together, so that must have been a bit tricky in its own right, although I suppose people who own homes like that are in their other homes quite a bit of the time.
So this wasn’t a sudden whim, someone losing their temper and saying or doing something regrettable. This took forethought, planning, and care. Or “care.”
Having done all that, she also wanted to swan about getting credit for helping to pay for tree removal. (Probably, at bottom, because she thought Lisa Gorman wasn’t getting it done fast enough. Hey! I paved the way, now you do your bit!)
Bah.
*****
nous: Thanks for the “go all Isengard” image. That’s perfect. 🙂
And here’s the old BBC take on the march of the ents:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00ExImWxDLY&list=PLKo84Z4x8-vp6tnb-QP0n6zYgugXXWKMC&index=10
And here’s the old BBC take on the march of the ents:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00ExImWxDLY&list=PLKo84Z4x8-vp6tnb-QP0n6zYgugXXWKMC&index=10
…and a slowed down remix of the same:
https://youtu.be/4hPoHmDCca8?feature=shared
…and a slowed down remix of the same:
https://youtu.be/4hPoHmDCca8?feature=shared
me: Maybe she did, and she knew already what she was going to do.
Or maybe she did, and she was so accustomed to getting her way that she just thought she’d deal with that little problem in due time. Then she found out it wasn’t so straightforward, so she had to take matters into her own hands.
me: Maybe she did, and she knew already what she was going to do.
Or maybe she did, and she was so accustomed to getting her way that she just thought she’d deal with that little problem in due time. Then she found out it wasn’t so straightforward, so she had to take matters into her own hands.
I had to go out for the evening not long after commenting, but as I drove to and fro and I was thinking about this story, I just kept thinking:
“she’s a sociopath”. I didn’t even remember that Janie had used that word. And, moreover, while no doubt publicly being a “nature-lover”, she did one of the most awful things you can do in that world: kill old trees. And not just any old trees, oaks. Or maybe oaks don’t have quite the same resonance in the US as they do here? We have a thing for them, “heart of oak” to denote a particularly brave, stalwart person, and also the connection between oak and our 17th -19th century navy. Anyway, this seems like a particularly disgusting, greedy and selfish act. I hope (and imagine) that she will be a pariah from now on, will probably have to sell the house (it’s probably only in a trust as a tax dodge), and leave Maine.
I had to go out for the evening not long after commenting, but as I drove to and fro and I was thinking about this story, I just kept thinking:
“she’s a sociopath”. I didn’t even remember that Janie had used that word. And, moreover, while no doubt publicly being a “nature-lover”, she did one of the most awful things you can do in that world: kill old trees. And not just any old trees, oaks. Or maybe oaks don’t have quite the same resonance in the US as they do here? We have a thing for them, “heart of oak” to denote a particularly brave, stalwart person, and also the connection between oak and our 17th -19th century navy. Anyway, this seems like a particularly disgusting, greedy and selfish act. I hope (and imagine) that she will be a pariah from now on, will probably have to sell the house (it’s probably only in a trust as a tax dodge), and leave Maine.
GftNC: oaks are certainly part of myth and story in the US, but maybe not to the extent that they are in England. For me personally, maple trees are the iconic tree.
Here’s a wonderful old story involving oak trees in England, which I remember from Gregory Bateson and the Whole Earth world from decades ago.
The sad thing is, the moral of the story depends on a reasonably stable climate long term, and we can’t count on that anymore. The American chestnut is a cautionary example, even though it was wiped out by a fungus and not climate change. My point is: it was the dominant tree across a big chunk of North America, from Maine to Georgia: wonderful wood, chestnuts that fed people and animals, shade…and then it was gone.
*****
Bond’s bio page at ACG that I linked now gives the message: “You are not authorized to access this page.” Not so much fun to brag about your 32-foot lobster boat under these circumstances, I guess.
[ETA: typo fixed, jm]
GftNC: oaks are certainly part of myth and story in the US, but maybe not to the extent that they are in England. For me personally, maple trees are the iconic tree.
Here’s a wonderful old story involving oak trees in England, which I remember from Gregory Bateson and the Whole Earth world from decades ago.
The sad thing is, the moral of the story depends on a reasonably stable climate long term, and we can’t count on that anymore. The American chestnut is a cautionary example, even though it was wiped out by a fungus and not climate change. My point is: it was the dominant tree across a big chunk of North America, from Maine to Georgia: wonderful wood, chestnuts that fed people and animals, shade…and then it was gone.
*****
Bond’s bio page at ACG that I linked now gives the message: “You are not authorized to access this page.” Not so much fun to brag about your 32-foot lobster boat under these circumstances, I guess.
[ETA: typo fixed, jm]
And yes about the trust as probably/possibly a tax dodge.
And yes about the trust as probably/possibly a tax dodge.
…and then it was gone
Same for our elms, from Dutch Elm disease. But apparently there is a small number of elms which survived, and are being bred or cloned or something, so that England can be repopulated by another iconic tree.
We also have various diseases affecting our oaks (probably climate change related), and the thought of losing them is very hard.
…and then it was gone
Same for our elms, from Dutch Elm disease. But apparently there is a small number of elms which survived, and are being bred or cloned or something, so that England can be repopulated by another iconic tree.
We also have various diseases affecting our oaks (probably climate change related), and the thought of losing them is very hard.
This story infuriates me. But it hardly surprises me.
The guy who poisoned the Toomer’s Corner oaks at Auburn with the same stuff in 2010 got a 3-year sentence and 5 years probation. Hopefully, Maine will consider that in what is, bluntly, a crime against generations.
Do I think she’ll face anything more than having to write a check? Cf. my surprise. NPR and other outlets have picked up the story, so I hope she’s at least banished from the land. I can’t imagine she’ll be welcome in town any time soon.
Since it was mentioned, we recently found what we believe to be an American Chestnut at my grandfather’s old garden lot on Long Island (NY). He used to have a few on the property and as a kid running around barefoot in the summer, I quickly learned where they were. We contacted SUNY College of ESF to take a sample for their restoration project. Here’s hoping we have a resistant strain.
This story infuriates me. But it hardly surprises me.
The guy who poisoned the Toomer’s Corner oaks at Auburn with the same stuff in 2010 got a 3-year sentence and 5 years probation. Hopefully, Maine will consider that in what is, bluntly, a crime against generations.
Do I think she’ll face anything more than having to write a check? Cf. my surprise. NPR and other outlets have picked up the story, so I hope she’s at least banished from the land. I can’t imagine she’ll be welcome in town any time soon.
Since it was mentioned, we recently found what we believe to be an American Chestnut at my grandfather’s old garden lot on Long Island (NY). He used to have a few on the property and as a kid running around barefoot in the summer, I quickly learned where they were. We contacted SUNY College of ESF to take a sample for their restoration project. Here’s hoping we have a resistant strain.
We lost our elms too. I don’t know anything about them, but I do know that there are ongoing efforts to bring back the American chestnut. There’s a stand of them at the Viles Arboretum in Augusta, where they hand out seedlings sometimes, and last I heard there were several sites in Maine where attempts are being made to find a cross-breed that will be resistant to the blight but still have the valued qualities of the tree.
Good book about the American chestnut.
I asked a state forester once what our woods would look like if the American chestnut came back — because in fact it was the dominant tree (at least maybe among deciduous trees?), and I thought my heart would break if it crowded out the maples. He said that will never happen…. How he thought he knew I don’t know, but we are heading into such changing times that I don’t think anyone knows much. Or maybe some people know too much.
Example — there was this article in the Bangor Daily a few days ago: Maine is preparing for a future without its iconic pines
We lost our elms too. I don’t know anything about them, but I do know that there are ongoing efforts to bring back the American chestnut. There’s a stand of them at the Viles Arboretum in Augusta, where they hand out seedlings sometimes, and last I heard there were several sites in Maine where attempts are being made to find a cross-breed that will be resistant to the blight but still have the valued qualities of the tree.
Good book about the American chestnut.
I asked a state forester once what our woods would look like if the American chestnut came back — because in fact it was the dominant tree (at least maybe among deciduous trees?), and I thought my heart would break if it crowded out the maples. He said that will never happen…. How he thought he knew I don’t know, but we are heading into such changing times that I don’t think anyone knows much. Or maybe some people know too much.
Example — there was this article in the Bangor Daily a few days ago: Maine is preparing for a future without its iconic pines
Pete — that’s a cool story about a possibly resistant American chestnut. The book I linked said that when the disease came, scientists and various advisors told landowners to cut down their American chestnuts pronto, because the wood would still be good in the beginning but useless later. Only too late was it discovered that there *were* some trees that were resistant, which would have been incredibly valuable in attempts to breed a resistant hybrid. But apparently they are still found deep in the woods here and there. Here’s hoping!
Pete — that’s a cool story about a possibly resistant American chestnut. The book I linked said that when the disease came, scientists and various advisors told landowners to cut down their American chestnuts pronto, because the wood would still be good in the beginning but useless later. Only too late was it discovered that there *were* some trees that were resistant, which would have been incredibly valuable in attempts to breed a resistant hybrid. But apparently they are still found deep in the woods here and there. Here’s hoping!
Not the Pines!!!
I get what they’re trying to do and I know nothing about the science but “assisted migration” has the terrifying ring of “unintended consequences”.
Since she loves Wanderin so much, maybe Amelia could do some community service pulling pots.
In November.
There’s probably some room for a winch by the aft wet bar if she doesn’t want to do it the hard way.
Not the Pines!!!
I get what they’re trying to do and I know nothing about the science but “assisted migration” has the terrifying ring of “unintended consequences”.
Since she loves Wanderin so much, maybe Amelia could do some community service pulling pots.
In November.
There’s probably some room for a winch by the aft wet bar if she doesn’t want to do it the hard way.
From an article published in late May, before this story got legs:
$1.8 million is a ridiculously low price for that house. You can’t buy a 1000-square-foot family home inland for less than a few hundred thousand these days. So … shenanigans all around.
From an article published in late May, before this story got legs:
$1.8 million is a ridiculously low price for that house. You can’t buy a 1000-square-foot family home inland for less than a few hundred thousand these days. So … shenanigans all around.
Pete: Since she loves Wanderin so much, maybe Amelia could do some community service pulling pots.
Community service … lots of possibilities there. But if I were a betting person I would bet that the Bonds will not enjoy picturesque Maine so much any more, and that they will sell the property and find some other place to hang out in a “seasonal home.”
Pete: Since she loves Wanderin so much, maybe Amelia could do some community service pulling pots.
Community service … lots of possibilities there. But if I were a betting person I would bet that the Bonds will not enjoy picturesque Maine so much any more, and that they will sell the property and find some other place to hang out in a “seasonal home.”
Some details on a genetic approach to saving the chestnut tree.
“For generations, the American Chestnut dominated East Coast forests—a tree vital to both wildlife and humans and prized for its bountiful nuts and rot-resistant lumber. Around the turn of the 19th century, a devastating blight began to wreak havoc on the species, wiping out an estimated four billion trees. Today American Chestnuts rarely survive to maturity, making them functionally extinct.”
Can Genetic Engineering Save the American Chestnut?: “I think the Chestnut is an example of an interventionist approach,” says scientist Jared Westbrook. “We might have some capabilities and responsibilities to correct some of the problems that we created.”
Some details on a genetic approach to saving the chestnut tree.
“For generations, the American Chestnut dominated East Coast forests—a tree vital to both wildlife and humans and prized for its bountiful nuts and rot-resistant lumber. Around the turn of the 19th century, a devastating blight began to wreak havoc on the species, wiping out an estimated four billion trees. Today American Chestnuts rarely survive to maturity, making them functionally extinct.”
Can Genetic Engineering Save the American Chestnut?: “I think the Chestnut is an example of an interventionist approach,” says scientist Jared Westbrook. “We might have some capabilities and responsibilities to correct some of the problems that we created.”
Pretty sure I know exactly where that house is.
$1.8 million? For that hovel? With a tree-obstructed view of the harbor? Next to the park where the common rabble are allowed to mill about? It’s almost a 5 minute walk to French and Brawn!
But if I were a betting person I would bet that the Bonds will not enjoy picturesque Maine so much any more, and that they will sell the property and find some other place to hang out in a “seasonal home.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if they had to go no further than Kennebunkport, unfortunately.
Pretty sure I know exactly where that house is.
$1.8 million? For that hovel? With a tree-obstructed view of the harbor? Next to the park where the common rabble are allowed to mill about? It’s almost a 5 minute walk to French and Brawn!
But if I were a betting person I would bet that the Bonds will not enjoy picturesque Maine so much any more, and that they will sell the property and find some other place to hang out in a “seasonal home.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if they had to go no further than Kennebunkport, unfortunately.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they had to go no further than Kennebunkport, unfortunately.
You may be right, but I was thinking about Maine’s “one big village” aspect. If the whole state is one big village in a way, then the slice of the population that would be social equals for these people is much, much smaller. On the other hand (your hand), each village is its own little insular realm, so….who knows. I suspect I won’t ever know, actually. I was once very plugged in to connectedness centered around state government, not so much around connectedness centered around wealth. Now I’m just a hermit.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they had to go no further than Kennebunkport, unfortunately.
You may be right, but I was thinking about Maine’s “one big village” aspect. If the whole state is one big village in a way, then the slice of the population that would be social equals for these people is much, much smaller. On the other hand (your hand), each village is its own little insular realm, so….who knows. I suspect I won’t ever know, actually. I was once very plugged in to connectedness centered around state government, not so much around connectedness centered around wealth. Now I’m just a hermit.
I understand. But these people have no shame and they’ll be welcomed back to some enclave with like-minded people “of means”. I mean, “sociopath” is spot-on. According to the article, they’re still members of the Camden Yacht Club – a couple hundred feet down from the beach they poisoned.
I understand. But these people have no shame and they’ll be welcomed back to some enclave with like-minded people “of means”. I mean, “sociopath” is spot-on. According to the article, they’re still members of the Camden Yacht Club – a couple hundred feet down from the beach they poisoned.
And the only reason they got caught was messing with someone with deeper pockets.
And the only reason they got caught was messing with someone with deeper pockets.
Later articles have said they are no longer members of the yacht club….
And as for shame — I mentioned above that her bio page (which I linked in the OP) is now offline, or at least invisible to me, which it wasn’t as of this morning. That could be the organization’s decision and not hers, of course. It seems to have been partly a speaker’s bureau of some sort, related to non-profits, and who wants a speaker with this sort of infamy? At least until it dies down….
Later articles have said they are no longer members of the yacht club….
And as for shame — I mentioned above that her bio page (which I linked in the OP) is now offline, or at least invisible to me, which it wasn’t as of this morning. That could be the organization’s decision and not hers, of course. It seems to have been partly a speaker’s bureau of some sort, related to non-profits, and who wants a speaker with this sort of infamy? At least until it dies down….
Yacht club reference.
Although how they know this … I have no idea. Can you be booted out of a club you’ve paid yearly dues for? Maybe there’s a rule about character defects. 😉
Yacht club reference.
Although how they know this … I have no idea. Can you be booted out of a club you’ve paid yearly dues for? Maybe there’s a rule about character defects. 😉
My bad. The article I read indicated that their membership was current. I would imagine these clubs have bylaws to prevent – let’s say “contamination” – of the institution from individual scandal. But my experience with them has been minimal.
My bad. The article I read indicated that their membership was current. I would imagine these clubs have bylaws to prevent – let’s say “contamination” – of the institution from individual scandal. But my experience with them has been minimal.
Apologies for hijacking the thread, so here’s a twist: TikTokkers and YouTubers and Instagram influencers aren’t the only ones who do awful things for “views”.
Apologies for hijacking the thread, so here’s a twist: TikTokkers and YouTubers and Instagram influencers aren’t the only ones who do awful things for “views”.
If I ran the world, this woman would first take her lying, narcissistic, tree-killing ass to prison for just long enough to give her a taste of how it feels not to have any resources whatsoever to use in remaking the world according to your every whim, regardless of anyone or anything else’s rights or wishes. (Not to mention regardless of the law. Maine has strict rules about what you can do with land that’s next to water, even if it’s the tiniest of creeks.)
The rest of her sentence would be lifelong confinement to a desert place where she would never see a tree or open water again.
All this because you are a nice person. So you can’t generate what she really deserves:
Start with a nice long prison sentence somewhere with no ocean view (nor trees) like west Texas. Follow up with a couple decades probation someplace (since she’s so fond of the sea view, but not trees) like Johnston Island. (Which I’ve only heard of because my father was stationed there near the end of WW II.)
If I ran the world, this woman would first take her lying, narcissistic, tree-killing ass to prison for just long enough to give her a taste of how it feels not to have any resources whatsoever to use in remaking the world according to your every whim, regardless of anyone or anything else’s rights or wishes. (Not to mention regardless of the law. Maine has strict rules about what you can do with land that’s next to water, even if it’s the tiniest of creeks.)
The rest of her sentence would be lifelong confinement to a desert place where she would never see a tree or open water again.
All this because you are a nice person. So you can’t generate what she really deserves:
Start with a nice long prison sentence somewhere with no ocean view (nor trees) like west Texas. Follow up with a couple decades probation someplace (since she’s so fond of the sea view, but not trees) like Johnston Island. (Which I’ve only heard of because my father was stationed there near the end of WW II.)
it’s probably only in a trust as a tax dodge
Certainly possible. But putting your property, and other assets, into a “revokable living trust” isn’t that uncommon in the US. Not for tax breaks, but merely to let your heirs avoid the (sometimes rather extensive) hassles of going thru probate.**
Having been the executor for my parents “estate” (basically a single family house and furnishings, plus a savings and checking account), I can tell you I was very glad not to hassle with probate.
** In California, we’re talking 12-18 months (that’s for a simple estate; complex ones typically take longer), plus 2%-4% of the value of the estate.
it’s probably only in a trust as a tax dodge
Certainly possible. But putting your property, and other assets, into a “revokable living trust” isn’t that uncommon in the US. Not for tax breaks, but merely to let your heirs avoid the (sometimes rather extensive) hassles of going thru probate.**
Having been the executor for my parents “estate” (basically a single family house and furnishings, plus a savings and checking account), I can tell you I was very glad not to hassle with probate.
** In California, we’re talking 12-18 months (that’s for a simple estate; complex ones typically take longer), plus 2%-4% of the value of the estate.
Re: clubs and their abilities to chuck people out, I think most have a clause whereby they can do so if you “bring the club into disrepute” or words to that effect. And really, as well as all the other terms we’ve used to describe her (or their) behaviour, one would think disreputable would be a slam dunk.
Re: clubs and their abilities to chuck people out, I think most have a clause whereby they can do so if you “bring the club into disrepute” or words to that effect. And really, as well as all the other terms we’ve used to describe her (or their) behaviour, one would think disreputable would be a slam dunk.
But putting your property, and other assets, into a “revokable living trust” isn’t that uncommon in the US.
A couple of years ago I set up a revocable trust to be operated for the benefit of my wife. It was obvious at the time that she was no longer competent to manage assets, and she now lives in a memory care unit. Transferring joint accounts to the trust is straightforward in the event of my death. Transferring property is more difficult in this state, so our townhouse has already been put into the trust.
But putting your property, and other assets, into a “revokable living trust” isn’t that uncommon in the US.
A couple of years ago I set up a revocable trust to be operated for the benefit of my wife. It was obvious at the time that she was no longer competent to manage assets, and she now lives in a memory care unit. Transferring joint accounts to the trust is straightforward in the event of my death. Transferring property is more difficult in this state, so our townhouse has already been put into the trust.
to be operated for the benefit of my wife
If it isn’t too personal a question, can you say whether the trust is administered by let’s say a law firm, vs a friend or relative whom you trust?
(And PS: I looked at your link from above about the movement of that 900,000 pound load through Ohio. Kind of unbelievable. If I’m reading it correctly, it’s equipment, not a substance that could be released in a crash. Is that right?)
to be operated for the benefit of my wife
If it isn’t too personal a question, can you say whether the trust is administered by let’s say a law firm, vs a friend or relative whom you trust?
(And PS: I looked at your link from above about the movement of that 900,000 pound load through Ohio. Kind of unbelievable. If I’m reading it correctly, it’s equipment, not a substance that could be released in a crash. Is that right?)
At 5-10 miles per hour, it would be a slow but difficult-to-stop crash.
While chips have gotten very cheap, the plants to manufacture them have gotten very expensive. Some of the individual machines can cost $100,000,000 each. The plants cost billions. With the pressure building for AI chips, they’re talking about plants costing ten billion.
At 5-10 miles per hour, it would be a slow but difficult-to-stop crash.
While chips have gotten very cheap, the plants to manufacture them have gotten very expensive. Some of the individual machines can cost $100,000,000 each. The plants cost billions. With the pressure building for AI chips, they’re talking about plants costing ten billion.
Some video of the equipment move.
The Loop 06.21.24: The first of four extra-large super loads is on the move.
Some video of the equipment move.
The Loop 06.21.24: The first of four extra-large super loads is on the move.
Thanks for the video Charles. Almost as long as a football field….sheesh.
Thanks for the video Charles. Almost as long as a football field….sheesh.
Wow. Thanks for the video link, Charles.
It does seem odd to site the plant where they apparently have. Rather than, say, someplace with a port. (If I have understood correctly, this load came along the Ohio River on a ship from somewhere.)
Back when Congress mandated the location for pork barrel projects, this sort of thing happened a lot. (Redstone Arsenal in Alabama leaps to mind.) But I thought we got rid of that nonsense.
Wow. Thanks for the video link, Charles.
It does seem odd to site the plant where they apparently have. Rather than, say, someplace with a port. (If I have understood correctly, this load came along the Ohio River on a ship from somewhere.)
Back when Congress mandated the location for pork barrel projects, this sort of thing happened a lot. (Redstone Arsenal in Alabama leaps to mind.) But I thought we got rid of that nonsense.
An infamous example is booster rockets built in Utal. They had to be segmented so they could be shipped to the cape by rail. And they needed O rings when assembled.
An infamous example is booster rockets built in Utal. They had to be segmented so they could be shipped to the cape by rail. And they needed O rings when assembled.
If the chips are intended for the domestic market — insurance against China interfering in Taiwan? — maybe it doesn’t matter about a port. (I know nothing about this but snippets I’ve picked up from headlines around the web over the years.) Also, Licking County is only a couple of hours by road from Cleveland. (A port….)
If the chips are intended for the domestic market — insurance against China interfering in Taiwan? — maybe it doesn’t matter about a port. (I know nothing about this but snippets I’ve picked up from headlines around the web over the years.) Also, Licking County is only a couple of hours by road from Cleveland. (A port….)
I was think more about getting the fab built than about shipping product.
I’ve been on the road with an oversize load (not this big, but long and wide compared to the usual). Which was moving faster than this load’s 20 mph, but still at least 25 mph slower than the next slowest vehicle. Even so, the traffic snarl was notable. Not to the level of Ohio needing to put out traffic advisories, but….
And that could have been avoided, just by a different location decision. Granted, there might have been other factors involved. But it’s not obvious, at least to me, what they might be.
I was think more about getting the fab built than about shipping product.
I’ve been on the road with an oversize load (not this big, but long and wide compared to the usual). Which was moving faster than this load’s 20 mph, but still at least 25 mph slower than the next slowest vehicle. Even so, the traffic snarl was notable. Not to the level of Ohio needing to put out traffic advisories, but….
And that could have been avoided, just by a different location decision. Granted, there might have been other factors involved. But it’s not obvious, at least to me, what they might be.
wj, Here you go.
wj, Here you go.
IOW, mirabile dictu, there were other factors involved. 😉
IOW, mirabile dictu, there were other factors involved. 😉
Janie, I had no problem understanding why Ohio. I may not have realized all the factors. But some of the reasons were obvious, even to me.
What was not obvious, and the linked article barely hints at, is why certral Ohio? That is, somewhere not well located if you are going to have to ship in enormous chunks of infrastructure/plant. Which might be (OK, obviously is) tolerable the first time around. But Intel’s got to at least be thinking about the future, when they can hope and expect to build another fab, probably in the same place.** After all, those monster plants have a very limited lifespan compared to most manufacturing facilities.
** This to leverage their trained workforce, who might be unenthused at having to up stakes when their job moves. Only consider how many people in the rust belt have resisted moving when unemployment is high there, and jobs are going begging elsewhere in the country.
Janie, I had no problem understanding why Ohio. I may not have realized all the factors. But some of the reasons were obvious, even to me.
What was not obvious, and the linked article barely hints at, is why certral Ohio? That is, somewhere not well located if you are going to have to ship in enormous chunks of infrastructure/plant. Which might be (OK, obviously is) tolerable the first time around. But Intel’s got to at least be thinking about the future, when they can hope and expect to build another fab, probably in the same place.** After all, those monster plants have a very limited lifespan compared to most manufacturing facilities.
** This to leverage their trained workforce, who might be unenthused at having to up stakes when their job moves. Only consider how many people in the rust belt have resisted moving when unemployment is high there, and jobs are going begging elsewhere in the country.
Surprised that Hartmut hasn’t chimed in with the odyssey of the KATRIN experiment.
Not so massive, but super-bulky and fragile. looks like an alien spaceship arriving, but the humans are celebrating!
Surprised that Hartmut hasn’t chimed in with the odyssey of the KATRIN experiment.
Not so massive, but super-bulky and fragile. looks like an alien spaceship arriving, but the humans are celebrating!
I’ve been on the road with an oversize load (not this big, but long and wide compared to the usual).
Passing a big wind turbine blade on the interstate is an interesting experience. I’ve done that on a number of occasions. Pictures of turbine blades being moved on twisty little roads in Europe are kind of fascinating.
I’ve been on the road with an oversize load (not this big, but long and wide compared to the usual).
Passing a big wind turbine blade on the interstate is an interesting experience. I’ve done that on a number of occasions. Pictures of turbine blades being moved on twisty little roads in Europe are kind of fascinating.
@JanieM, I’m the trustee. “operated for the benefit of my wife” is probably shortened too much. “Operated for the benefit of Mary in the event Michael predeceases her” is more accurate, but sometimes my fingers are lazy. The document that actually created the Cain Family Trust goes on for pages.
I was trying to provide an example of wj’s point, that trusts exist in lots of forms for lots of purposes. If you check the county records here, the title to the townhouse where I live is held by the Cain Family Trust. No tax benefits (or penalties), just standard estate planning.
@JanieM, I’m the trustee. “operated for the benefit of my wife” is probably shortened too much. “Operated for the benefit of Mary in the event Michael predeceases her” is more accurate, but sometimes my fingers are lazy. The document that actually created the Cain Family Trust goes on for pages.
I was trying to provide an example of wj’s point, that trusts exist in lots of forms for lots of purposes. If you check the county records here, the title to the townhouse where I live is held by the Cain Family Trust. No tax benefits (or penalties), just standard estate planning.
If I’m reading it correctly, it’s equipment, not a substance that could be released in a crash. Is that right?)
In this case yes, equipment. Once the fab is in operation, though, there will be plenty of nasty toxins stored in relatively large quantities. Plenty of lethal chemicals will be shipped in on a regular basis. Shouldn’t be too much hassle from a regulatory perspective: Ohio is already a major player in the chemistry industry.
If I’m reading it correctly, it’s equipment, not a substance that could be released in a crash. Is that right?)
In this case yes, equipment. Once the fab is in operation, though, there will be plenty of nasty toxins stored in relatively large quantities. Plenty of lethal chemicals will be shipped in on a regular basis. Shouldn’t be too much hassle from a regulatory perspective: Ohio is already a major player in the chemistry industry.
Thanks, Michael. That helps. I don’t own any property, and I doubt my estate is big enough to justify a trust. But I’m overdue for a conversation with the lawyer, so I will ask about it.
I was the executor named in my mom’s will — she was very particular about having one. When she died at 96 I wasn’t looking forward to having to deal with probate (I’m in Maine, probate was in Ohio, Covid was raging) — but she didn’t own a car or any real estate, and she was in a nursing home and entangled with Medicaid (all deities bless my sister for handling that insanity of paperwork). So — basically no estate and no probate necessary.
Thanks, Michael. That helps. I don’t own any property, and I doubt my estate is big enough to justify a trust. But I’m overdue for a conversation with the lawyer, so I will ask about it.
I was the executor named in my mom’s will — she was very particular about having one. When she died at 96 I wasn’t looking forward to having to deal with probate (I’m in Maine, probate was in Ohio, Covid was raging) — but she didn’t own a car or any real estate, and she was in a nursing home and entangled with Medicaid (all deities bless my sister for handling that insanity of paperwork). So — basically no estate and no probate necessary.
What was not obvious, and the linked article barely hints at, is why certral Ohio?
A better question is “Why Columbus?” The Ohio State University. Battelle. Columbus avoided the “crashed urban core” phenomenon common in other Ohio cities (which is likely reflected in the quality of infrastructure). Moving the big heavy stuff is a one-time operation. Staff maintenance is a forever task.
What was not obvious, and the linked article barely hints at, is why certral Ohio?
A better question is “Why Columbus?” The Ohio State University. Battelle. Columbus avoided the “crashed urban core” phenomenon common in other Ohio cities (which is likely reflected in the quality of infrastructure). Moving the big heavy stuff is a one-time operation. Staff maintenance is a forever task.
Moving the big heavy stuff is a one-time operation. Staff maintenance is a forever task.
Thank you for putting this so succinctly. 🙂
Moving the big heavy stuff is a one-time operation. Staff maintenance is a forever task.
Thank you for putting this so succinctly. 🙂
Open thread, & I know there’s nothing ObWi likes more than discussing sport!
So… Here’s your Euro’24 update:
Disclaimer: I’m not there.
Germany is the perfect host nation, transit/transport issues aside (which are understandable) and the general behavior has been a joy, with particular acclaim to the Dutch supporters – do they have a national curriculum for this?
For Snarki: That was just a test run for handling the Oranje Army.
GftNC: I don’t know how far north you are, but I hope Scotland goes through. If England, – Saka, Fodan, and Kane all off on an even match. Wtf, Southgate??? I suspect they’ll go through, but… coming home might be a bit premature. #1, in the FIFA, fwiw.
In adjacent news, House GOP members have introduced a bill to leave the EU on the basis that Team USA did not qualify for the Euros, and hold up Messi as a right example.
Open thread, & I know there’s nothing ObWi likes more than discussing sport!
So… Here’s your Euro’24 update:
Disclaimer: I’m not there.
Germany is the perfect host nation, transit/transport issues aside (which are understandable) and the general behavior has been a joy, with particular acclaim to the Dutch supporters – do they have a national curriculum for this?
For Snarki: That was just a test run for handling the Oranje Army.
GftNC: I don’t know how far north you are, but I hope Scotland goes through. If England, – Saka, Fodan, and Kane all off on an even match. Wtf, Southgate??? I suspect they’ll go through, but… coming home might be a bit premature. #1, in the FIFA, fwiw.
In adjacent news, House GOP members have introduced a bill to leave the EU on the basis that Team USA did not qualify for the Euros, and hold up Messi as a right example.
Pete, sweet of you to ask, or believe that I have the slightest interest in football! If I do (a minuscule amount) it is for the sake of friends who care.
The only sport I care about is tennis, and since I hate to watch the fall of giants this has been a depressing period. (Clarification: although I am very aware that he is, by stats etc alone, a giant, I care nothing about Djokovich. But Federer and Nadal, and even Murray – he is such a good guy, and a serious feminist – it is sad to see). However, I have high hopes that Alcaraz may in time win my serious interest.
Pete, sweet of you to ask, or believe that I have the slightest interest in football! If I do (a minuscule amount) it is for the sake of friends who care.
The only sport I care about is tennis, and since I hate to watch the fall of giants this has been a depressing period. (Clarification: although I am very aware that he is, by stats etc alone, a giant, I care nothing about Djokovich. But Federer and Nadal, and even Murray – he is such a good guy, and a serious feminist – it is sad to see). However, I have high hopes that Alcaraz may in time win my serious interest.
In adjacent news, House GOP members have introduced a bill to leave the EU on the basis that Team USA did not qualify for the Euros
Could we get a link for that? I can see one (any of several) of these clueless morons submitting such a bill. But a group of them? Getting together, working together, to do it? Color me a trifle skeptical.
In adjacent news, House GOP members have introduced a bill to leave the EU on the basis that Team USA did not qualify for the Euros
Could we get a link for that? I can see one (any of several) of these clueless morons submitting such a bill. But a group of them? Getting together, working together, to do it? Color me a trifle skeptical.
My bad, wj. I made that up of whole cloth and the problem is that it might even have a sniff of believability.
My bad, wj. I made that up of whole cloth and the problem is that it might even have a sniff of believability.
@GftNC: Federer is GOAT, on so many levels. Murray? Are you giving yourself away? 😉 Cheers!
@GftNC: Federer is GOAT, on so many levels. Murray? Are you giving yourself away? 😉 Cheers!
Surprised that Hartmut hasn’t chimed in with the odyssey of the KATRIN experiment.
Hadn’t actually heard about that one. I got a bit out of touch in that area.
Still waiting for the equatorial particle accelerator running once around the world.
Surprised that Hartmut hasn’t chimed in with the odyssey of the KATRIN experiment.
Hadn’t actually heard about that one. I got a bit out of touch in that area.
Still waiting for the equatorial particle accelerator running once around the world.
Most stories about these massive equipment moves are about successes. After 9/11 the operator of the Fort Calhoun nuclear power station in Nebraska had to get a spare for the very-large one-off main transformer at the station, which weighed in at around 500,000 pounds. Siemens built it in Europe, it was barged to the coast, moved by ship to New Orleans, barged up the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, then off-loaded to one of those trucks with all the wheels. At that point, it was three miles from the power station. While entering the power station grounds, the hydraulics for the truck’s leveling system failed, the transformer tipped over and fell to the ground.
Most stories about these massive equipment moves are about successes. After 9/11 the operator of the Fort Calhoun nuclear power station in Nebraska had to get a spare for the very-large one-off main transformer at the station, which weighed in at around 500,000 pounds. Siemens built it in Europe, it was barged to the coast, moved by ship to New Orleans, barged up the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, then off-loaded to one of those trucks with all the wheels. At that point, it was three miles from the power station. While entering the power station grounds, the hydraulics for the truck’s leveling system failed, the transformer tipped over and fell to the ground.
Near Berlin there is a huge airship hangar – now turned into a popular resort. That one was built as part of the Cargolifter project that intended to built huge airships for such transport tasks. It would have been able to get huge loads (350000 pounds were planned for the first generation) into remote areas without major road access, e.g. in Siberia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter
Near Berlin there is a huge airship hangar – now turned into a popular resort. That one was built as part of the Cargolifter project that intended to built huge airships for such transport tasks. It would have been able to get huge loads (350000 pounds were planned for the first generation) into remote areas without major road access, e.g. in Siberia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter
I hate that bitch. Here’s a story that goes in the other direction: sociopathy, water, trees. The demolition of the dam is restoring so much more than the salmon. In the case of the Shasta people, it’s the restoration of home and community. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/shasta-tribe-will-reclaim-land-long-buried-by-a-reservoir-on-the-klamath-river/ar-BB1oGUrX?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=6480433de82f4eac815be13ba6fac51e&ei=11
I hate that bitch. Here’s a story that goes in the other direction: sociopathy, water, trees. The demolition of the dam is restoring so much more than the salmon. In the case of the Shasta people, it’s the restoration of home and community. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/shasta-tribe-will-reclaim-land-long-buried-by-a-reservoir-on-the-klamath-river/ar-BB1oGUrX?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=6480433de82f4eac815be13ba6fac51e&ei=11
Re: the original post – it strikes me, and fairly clearly, that there is a moral hazard in accumulating excessive wealth. Where a simple common sense definition for “excessive” is more money than you can possibly use in your own lifetime, in any way that will make a tangible difference in your happiness or sense of well-being.
Having a lot of money enables sociopathy. It insulates you from the consequences of your own actions. It’s a get out of jail free card, and that’s a morally dangerous thing to have.
Not all wealthy people are assholes – many are upright and generous – but the ones who are believe they are entitled to be assholes.
There’s a reason they call it “f**k you money”.
Re: the original post – it strikes me, and fairly clearly, that there is a moral hazard in accumulating excessive wealth. Where a simple common sense definition for “excessive” is more money than you can possibly use in your own lifetime, in any way that will make a tangible difference in your happiness or sense of well-being.
Having a lot of money enables sociopathy. It insulates you from the consequences of your own actions. It’s a get out of jail free card, and that’s a morally dangerous thing to have.
Not all wealthy people are assholes – many are upright and generous – but the ones who are believe they are entitled to be assholes.
There’s a reason they call it “f**k you money”.
And not “f**k you money” sense. I don’t have a problem with wealth accumulation, philosophically. But practically, when one can buy the odd bridge-dismantling in a foreign county for your ridiculous yacht or a motor coach or offer a spare seat for a “fishing” trip that costs more than the average annual household income… yeah, that becomes a problem.
And not “f**k you money” sense. I don’t have a problem with wealth accumulation, philosophically. But practically, when one can buy the odd bridge-dismantling in a foreign county for your ridiculous yacht or a motor coach or offer a spare seat for a “fishing” trip that costs more than the average annual household income… yeah, that becomes a problem.
russell and Pete’s point is important, and I want to put next to it the (sort of) other way around.
If I ran the world (ha ha), no one would go hungry or live under a bridge or have to decide whether to pay the electric bill or take their kid to the doctor because they didn’t have the $ to do both.
In a system where everyone had the right to a decent basic existence economically, I wouldn’t even worry too much about the idiots who wanted to compete with each other to see who could grab the most extras. Let ’em fight each other as long as they leave the rest of us (and the oak trees etc.) alone.
But right now they don’t, and the more wealth some people get the more they use it to buy politicians and judges, and huge piles of accumulated wealth are used in effect to buy harm for other people (think Clarence’s yacht trips, Susan Collins’s chumminess with Leonard Leo: gun laws, abortion laws, etc — someone is in effect paying for all that stuff, which, acc’ to opinion polls (will try to find links another time) most Americans don’t want).
I was poking around the web looking for an updated version of my old after-tax income graph, but with data on wealth instead of income, and found this:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wealth-distribution-in-america/
Haven’t had time to dig into it yet but it looks interesting.
And there’s always this:
https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
Sorry for bare links and hasty writing. I haven’t had my caffeine yet. 😉
I’m hoping to do a post on this…..
russell and Pete’s point is important, and I want to put next to it the (sort of) other way around.
If I ran the world (ha ha), no one would go hungry or live under a bridge or have to decide whether to pay the electric bill or take their kid to the doctor because they didn’t have the $ to do both.
In a system where everyone had the right to a decent basic existence economically, I wouldn’t even worry too much about the idiots who wanted to compete with each other to see who could grab the most extras. Let ’em fight each other as long as they leave the rest of us (and the oak trees etc.) alone.
But right now they don’t, and the more wealth some people get the more they use it to buy politicians and judges, and huge piles of accumulated wealth are used in effect to buy harm for other people (think Clarence’s yacht trips, Susan Collins’s chumminess with Leonard Leo: gun laws, abortion laws, etc — someone is in effect paying for all that stuff, which, acc’ to opinion polls (will try to find links another time) most Americans don’t want).
I was poking around the web looking for an updated version of my old after-tax income graph, but with data on wealth instead of income, and found this:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wealth-distribution-in-america/
Haven’t had time to dig into it yet but it looks interesting.
And there’s always this:
https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
Sorry for bare links and hasty writing. I haven’t had my caffeine yet. 😉
I’m hoping to do a post on this…..
When one has enough wealth to have bought all of the things, the only thing left to buy is people.
When one has enough wealth to have bought all of the things, the only thing left to buy is people.
@Pete: like this?
@Pete: like this?
From Facebook, so feel free to apply grains of salt to taste.
Average salary in the US is not quite $60K, median is about $37.5K, which is quite a spread. And “Median”, of course, means half of working folks make less than that.
There will likely, pretty much certainly, always be rich people and poor people and people somewhere in between. If you’re lucky enough or smart enough or ambitious enough or hard-working enough to become rich, mazel tov.
But kindly leave some space for the rest of us.
From Facebook, so feel free to apply grains of salt to taste.
Average salary in the US is not quite $60K, median is about $37.5K, which is quite a spread. And “Median”, of course, means half of working folks make less than that.
There will likely, pretty much certainly, always be rich people and poor people and people somewhere in between. If you’re lucky enough or smart enough or ambitious enough or hard-working enough to become rich, mazel tov.
But kindly leave some space for the rest of us.
@Janie
Yes. And that doesn’t even begin to describe it.
@Janie
Yes. And that doesn’t even begin to describe it.
I would say that our tax system is insufficiently progressive at the top.
It might take a few years, but it would resolve our ridiculous wealth concentration.
I would say that our tax system is insufficiently progressive at the top.
It might take a few years, but it would resolve our ridiculous wealth concentration.
Further to the Murray question, it’s not that I’m ever particularly nationalistic in my support for sportsmen and women, but it is his character that has won me over. And that is quite apart from the fact that he survived one of the only school massacres in our history, which of course engenders compassion. But watching his struggles, and his determination to overcome, them, has been moving. From today’s Times:
After nearly two decades, it’s difficult to imagine Wimbledon without Murray in the mix, that tenacious, taciturn brilliance that won him titles in 2013 and 2016; the relentless drive that hauled him back from behind in so many five-set melodramas; his gritty, at times agonised fist pumps in recent years, as he willed himself back onto court and into form following a hip replacement.
Anyone with even a passing interest in tennis will miss Murray at SW19. He was not the greatest of a unique golden generation that included Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic; but his fierce and sometimes forlorn struggle to match those titans often made him the most human of the four, the most relatable.
Further to the Murray question, it’s not that I’m ever particularly nationalistic in my support for sportsmen and women, but it is his character that has won me over. And that is quite apart from the fact that he survived one of the only school massacres in our history, which of course engenders compassion. But watching his struggles, and his determination to overcome, them, has been moving. From today’s Times:
After nearly two decades, it’s difficult to imagine Wimbledon without Murray in the mix, that tenacious, taciturn brilliance that won him titles in 2013 and 2016; the relentless drive that hauled him back from behind in so many five-set melodramas; his gritty, at times agonised fist pumps in recent years, as he willed himself back onto court and into form following a hip replacement.
Anyone with even a passing interest in tennis will miss Murray at SW19. He was not the greatest of a unique golden generation that included Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic; but his fierce and sometimes forlorn struggle to match those titans often made him the most human of the four, the most relatable.
wj — !!!! And you call yourself a conservative?!?!?!
wj — !!!! And you call yourself a conservative?!?!?!
Yup. A conservative, just not a reactionary.
There is nothing particularly conservative about inherited wealth. Rather the opposite, in fact. Getting ahead on merit, by hard work, qualifies as conservative; spending your life leveraging a silver spoon does not.
That’s also why free public education is a conservative plus. Don’t want parent-lottery determining who gets the tools to show their merit. In fact, I’d go so far as to say college education also should be no cost, given our current economy. (Still waffling about grad school.). If the Ivy League universities want to compete on their claimed quality, more power to them. But state colleges should be accessible without having rich parents (or a receptive predatory lender).
Yup. A conservative, just not a reactionary.
There is nothing particularly conservative about inherited wealth. Rather the opposite, in fact. Getting ahead on merit, by hard work, qualifies as conservative; spending your life leveraging a silver spoon does not.
That’s also why free public education is a conservative plus. Don’t want parent-lottery determining who gets the tools to show their merit. In fact, I’d go so far as to say college education also should be no cost, given our current economy. (Still waffling about grad school.). If the Ivy League universities want to compete on their claimed quality, more power to them. But state colleges should be accessible without having rich parents (or a receptive predatory lender).
I would say that our tax system is insufficiently progressive at the top.
Some counterarguments to quibble with. 🙂
Tax Reform
I would say that our tax system is insufficiently progressive at the top.
Some counterarguments to quibble with. 🙂
Tax Reform
1) CharlesWT: I’m not going to quibble with an AI.
2) I’m not going to quibble at all until I get a chance to lay out the philosophical underpinnings of my position on this, which is quite like wj’s in practice, but rests on some assumptions about the world that I think should be articulated.
3) So … it will be awhile before I get time.
1) CharlesWT: I’m not going to quibble with an AI.
2) I’m not going to quibble at all until I get a chance to lay out the philosophical underpinnings of my position on this, which is quite like wj’s in practice, but rests on some assumptions about the world that I think should be articulated.
3) So … it will be awhile before I get time.
Some counterarguments to quibble with
Why bother to quibble?
Argument 1 — assumes facts not in evidence. Except when it asserts stuff that is palpably untrue.
Argument 2 — silly. The “family farms” argument had some force in the middle of the last century. Today? They’re scarce as hen’s teeth. The rest is even less cogent.
Argument 3 — talk about quibbling! When it isn’t totally off topic,
Some counterarguments to quibble with
Why bother to quibble?
Argument 1 — assumes facts not in evidence. Except when it asserts stuff that is palpably untrue.
Argument 2 — silly. The “family farms” argument had some force in the middle of the last century. Today? They’re scarce as hen’s teeth. The rest is even less cogent.
Argument 3 — talk about quibbling! When it isn’t totally off topic,
@GftNC: Murray struck me as a bit of a prick, early days. But my respect for him has grown as he seems to have grown into his position. I did not know that about his history, which explains a lot. Thank you for that.
Revocable Trust: My father has some property in this. It’s not a tax dodge, but rather insurance to prevent my (sadly) estranged litigious sister from having standing. In many cases, it IS a tax dodge, but not always.
Re: Ohio. I dunno anything about it, but I assume there are a lot of things involved. I do know something about Plum Island. It’s a bit deceiving – you can wade out a fair bit & almost think it’s swimmable but for the New London ferry channel. Anyway, it makes (made) sense – anything gets loose, the prevailing winds take it off into the Atlantic. Of course, it’s been shuttered and moved to Manhattan, Kansas. Because when studying things like Anthrax, why not not keep it in the middle of America’s breadbasket and fucking Tornado Alley? Good call.
@Janie: Cur me Latinum legere?
@GftNC: Murray struck me as a bit of a prick, early days. But my respect for him has grown as he seems to have grown into his position. I did not know that about his history, which explains a lot. Thank you for that.
Revocable Trust: My father has some property in this. It’s not a tax dodge, but rather insurance to prevent my (sadly) estranged litigious sister from having standing. In many cases, it IS a tax dodge, but not always.
Re: Ohio. I dunno anything about it, but I assume there are a lot of things involved. I do know something about Plum Island. It’s a bit deceiving – you can wade out a fair bit & almost think it’s swimmable but for the New London ferry channel. Anyway, it makes (made) sense – anything gets loose, the prevailing winds take it off into the Atlantic. Of course, it’s been shuttered and moved to Manhattan, Kansas. Because when studying things like Anthrax, why not not keep it in the middle of America’s breadbasket and fucking Tornado Alley? Good call.
@Janie: Cur me Latinum legere?
@Pete: Cur me Latinum legere?
I’m missing something here….
@Pete: Cur me Latinum legere?
I’m missing something here….
Don’t make me read Latin, smarty pants. 🙂
Don’t make me read Latin, smarty pants. 🙂
Don’t make me read Latin, smarty pants.
Not much danger of that…… 😉
Don’t make me read Latin, smarty pants.
Not much danger of that…… 😉
Conversely…
From 1945 until 1963, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. In 1963 that rate kicked in at $400K, which is about $4 million today.
Nobody got rich from 1945 through 1963? All the genius entrepreneurs went Galt?
Conversely…
From 1945 until 1963, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. In 1963 that rate kicked in at $400K, which is about $4 million today.
Nobody got rich from 1945 through 1963? All the genius entrepreneurs went Galt?
russell, what you’ll get in response, as I know from experience, is the assertion “but with all the loopholes nobody actually paid that much!”
Asserted without a shred of evidence, mind. No doubt some high earners cut their taxes some, in various ways. But the tax code was sufficiently simpler then that the opportunities were less than modern experience might suggest.
russell, what you’ll get in response, as I know from experience, is the assertion “but with all the loopholes nobody actually paid that much!”
Asserted without a shred of evidence, mind. No doubt some high earners cut their taxes some, in various ways. But the tax code was sufficiently simpler then that the opportunities were less than modern experience might suggest.
Asserted without a shred of evidence, mind.
I vaguely recall that it wasn’t really the people at the very top who provided all the anecdotal evidence about loopholes, it was the people a level or two down from that. People like doctors who were hitting their income stride, whose small-firm accountants went to local seminars where someone taught them about investing $5,000 this year and claiming a $10,000 paper loss in each of the next five years.
I didn’t go to graduate school until the 1970s, but in Texas at that time there were plenty of jokes about small drilling companies that specialized in dry holes.
Asserted without a shred of evidence, mind.
I vaguely recall that it wasn’t really the people at the very top who provided all the anecdotal evidence about loopholes, it was the people a level or two down from that. People like doctors who were hitting their income stride, whose small-firm accountants went to local seminars where someone taught them about investing $5,000 this year and claiming a $10,000 paper loss in each of the next five years.
I didn’t go to graduate school until the 1970s, but in Texas at that time there were plenty of jokes about small drilling companies that specialized in dry holes.
Known as tax-loss harvesting, allowed individuals to lower their overall tax liability.
Known as tax-loss harvesting, allowed individuals to lower their overall tax liability.
I’ll confess that I come to this discussion with, more or less, a prejudice.
I have basically zero patience or sympathy for people who go to great lengths to avoid paying taxes.
I get the usual random assortment of nonsense on my news feed. One recent article was by some guy saying that the one and only vehicle to buy (as opposed to lease) was a $150,000 Range Rover.
Because it weighs over 6,000 pounds, and apparently if your vehicle weighs over 6,000 pounds, you can write off 100% of the purchase price.
The guy recommended paying cash.
My reaction to this was, first, why the actual f*** are we subsidizing personal vehicles that weigh over three tons?
And second, if you have the wealth to pay $150,000 in cash for a car, why do you need a tax write-off?
The top marginal income tax rate for 2024 in the US is currently 37%. That kicks in at $609,350 for single people, $731,200 for married and filing jointly.
More generally, if you make north of about $200K (double that for joint filers until you reach the very top bracket), your taxes on the amount you make above that are about a third of your income.
If your income comes from investments, it’s less. If you have a mortgage, you can deduct the interest on that. If you are self-employed and are organized as an S corporation, DJT handed you a 20% deduction back in 2017 which, as far as I understand, is still in place.
If you’re lucky enough to earn north of $200K (generally double that if you’re filing jointly), uncle gets a third of your income above that and you get two out of three dollars. So if you’re earning, for example, $300K a year, you keep about $66K of that last $100K.
Lucky you. Half the people in this country earn less than $37.5K. And that’s this country, globally median income is something like a third of that.
You’re at the top, the very pinnacle of the food chain. You’re in the top 10%, or (if you’re in that top bracket) 1%, or maybe even fraction of 1%, in one of the richest countries in the world.
You are freaking golden. Get down on your knees, thank your lucky stars, and pay your freaking taxes.
I’m tired of the bleating of the extraordinarily fortunate.
I’ll confess that I come to this discussion with, more or less, a prejudice.
I have basically zero patience or sympathy for people who go to great lengths to avoid paying taxes.
I get the usual random assortment of nonsense on my news feed. One recent article was by some guy saying that the one and only vehicle to buy (as opposed to lease) was a $150,000 Range Rover.
Because it weighs over 6,000 pounds, and apparently if your vehicle weighs over 6,000 pounds, you can write off 100% of the purchase price.
The guy recommended paying cash.
My reaction to this was, first, why the actual f*** are we subsidizing personal vehicles that weigh over three tons?
And second, if you have the wealth to pay $150,000 in cash for a car, why do you need a tax write-off?
The top marginal income tax rate for 2024 in the US is currently 37%. That kicks in at $609,350 for single people, $731,200 for married and filing jointly.
More generally, if you make north of about $200K (double that for joint filers until you reach the very top bracket), your taxes on the amount you make above that are about a third of your income.
If your income comes from investments, it’s less. If you have a mortgage, you can deduct the interest on that. If you are self-employed and are organized as an S corporation, DJT handed you a 20% deduction back in 2017 which, as far as I understand, is still in place.
If you’re lucky enough to earn north of $200K (generally double that if you’re filing jointly), uncle gets a third of your income above that and you get two out of three dollars. So if you’re earning, for example, $300K a year, you keep about $66K of that last $100K.
Lucky you. Half the people in this country earn less than $37.5K. And that’s this country, globally median income is something like a third of that.
You’re at the top, the very pinnacle of the food chain. You’re in the top 10%, or (if you’re in that top bracket) 1%, or maybe even fraction of 1%, in one of the richest countries in the world.
You are freaking golden. Get down on your knees, thank your lucky stars, and pay your freaking taxes.
I’m tired of the bleating of the extraordinarily fortunate.
@russell — i’m right there with you.
Sadly and frustratingly, the ruling philosophy in our culture (maybe built in to our species, I don’t know) is: “WHATEVER I CAN TAKE AND KEEP IS MINE. MINE MINE MINE.”
Taxes violate that world view; taxes are the rest of us saying no: you can’t dam the river and keep all of the water for yourself, dribbling out bits at a time so that the peons you need to do all the scut work for you don’t die of thirst.
And these activities are not mirror images of each other, or moral equivalents: grabbing everything you can get regardless of other people’s needs is NOT the same as grabbing some of it back to spread around for the general welfare.
This applies to other things besides money….
But that’s enough for tonight.
@russell — i’m right there with you.
Sadly and frustratingly, the ruling philosophy in our culture (maybe built in to our species, I don’t know) is: “WHATEVER I CAN TAKE AND KEEP IS MINE. MINE MINE MINE.”
Taxes violate that world view; taxes are the rest of us saying no: you can’t dam the river and keep all of the water for yourself, dribbling out bits at a time so that the peons you need to do all the scut work for you don’t die of thirst.
And these activities are not mirror images of each other, or moral equivalents: grabbing everything you can get regardless of other people’s needs is NOT the same as grabbing some of it back to spread around for the general welfare.
This applies to other things besides money….
But that’s enough for tonight.
Some studies indicate that the rake for entrepreneurs is about 2% of the wealth they create.
Some studies indicate that the rake for entrepreneurs is about 2% of the wealth they create.
the wealth they create
No one “creates wealth” alone.
the wealth they create
No one “creates wealth” alone.
True. They get 2% for facilitating the wealth creation and everyone else gets the 98%.
True. They get 2% for facilitating the wealth creation and everyone else gets the 98%.
Some studies indicate… [Emphasis added]
A reference to one or two of said studies might be a nice touch. (Preferably ones published somewhere other than some libertarian rag.)
Some studies indicate… [Emphasis added]
A reference to one or two of said studies might be a nice touch. (Preferably ones published somewhere other than some libertarian rag.)
the rake for entrepreneurs is about 2% of the wealth they create.
Snarky side bet: they get that number by carefully taking the average of every company ever started. Actually, the median might be closer.
the rake for entrepreneurs is about 2% of the wealth they create.
Snarky side bet: they get that number by carefully taking the average of every company ever started. Actually, the median might be closer.
I shouldn’t even have bitten the hook. As you (wj) point out via both your comments, “some studies” is so mushy as to be meaningless. But also, zeroing in one one vague number is useless in relation to this topic. What is the context? Who are “the rest of us”? Who gave entrepreurs their entrepreneurian talent in the first place, and how much did they “pay” for it? (This is sort of a trick question and again, I hope to get back to it.) How well is the “entrepreneur” in the first place? How much of our common resource base was used by the wealth creation process? (I would bet anything that the calculations that led to the 2% number didn’t take this into account…)
And on and on.
Note to self: don’t bite trick question hooks.
I shouldn’t even have bitten the hook. As you (wj) point out via both your comments, “some studies” is so mushy as to be meaningless. But also, zeroing in one one vague number is useless in relation to this topic. What is the context? Who are “the rest of us”? Who gave entrepreurs their entrepreneurian talent in the first place, and how much did they “pay” for it? (This is sort of a trick question and again, I hope to get back to it.) How well is the “entrepreneur” in the first place? How much of our common resource base was used by the wealth creation process? (I would bet anything that the calculations that led to the 2% number didn’t take this into account…)
And on and on.
Note to self: don’t bite trick question hooks.
In my previous comment:
well -> wealthy
I blame babysitting.
In my previous comment:
well -> wealthy
I blame babysitting.
Some studies indicate that the rake for entrepreneurs is about 2% of the wealth they create.
Leaving aside the vagueness of “some studies”, what does this mean?
The entrepreneurial role is to recognize a heretofore unrecognized opportunity for creating value, especially if that involves a novel or innovative approach.
That’s a very valuable role, and deserves recognition as such.
To go from “I have an idea” to an actual going concern is normally the work of many hands. Usually other people’s money is involved, almost always other people’s labor is involved.
And how is the “wealth they create” measured? Total net profit of the enterprise over it’s lifetime? Total gross earnings? The value of any durable infrastructure created by the enterprise? Total ROI to investors?
What does that number mean?
It’s hard to know what to make of this statement. What are we supposed to take away?
Be nice to entrepreneurs because they “create a lot of wealth”? Give them favorable treatment under tax law?
What’s your point?
Some studies indicate that the rake for entrepreneurs is about 2% of the wealth they create.
Leaving aside the vagueness of “some studies”, what does this mean?
The entrepreneurial role is to recognize a heretofore unrecognized opportunity for creating value, especially if that involves a novel or innovative approach.
That’s a very valuable role, and deserves recognition as such.
To go from “I have an idea” to an actual going concern is normally the work of many hands. Usually other people’s money is involved, almost always other people’s labor is involved.
And how is the “wealth they create” measured? Total net profit of the enterprise over it’s lifetime? Total gross earnings? The value of any durable infrastructure created by the enterprise? Total ROI to investors?
What does that number mean?
It’s hard to know what to make of this statement. What are we supposed to take away?
Be nice to entrepreneurs because they “create a lot of wealth”? Give them favorable treatment under tax law?
What’s your point?
The 2% thing is a great way to distract from actual human experiences and practical discussion. Well, at least usually. Too many smarty-pants around here who don’t fall for it. ;^)
The 2% thing is a great way to distract from actual human experiences and practical discussion. Well, at least usually. Too many smarty-pants around here who don’t fall for it. ;^)
A reference to one or two of said studies might be a nice touch.
As requested references are not from a libertarian rag.
“Entrepreneurs typically generate a surplus benefit above and beyond the profits they reap, finds the eminent Yale University economist William Nordhaus. Nordhaus has calculated that entrepreneurs capture only about 2 percent of this surplus, with the remainder passed on to society in the form of jobs, wages, and value. By creating so much value that does not accrue to themselves, regular entrepreneurs are also social entrepreneurs.”
All Entrepreneurship Is Social: Let’s not overlook what traditional entrepreneurs contribute to society (“Schumpeterian Profits in the American Economy: Theory and Measurement”: Abstract, Paper – page 16, last paragraph)
A reference to one or two of said studies might be a nice touch.
As requested references are not from a libertarian rag.
“Entrepreneurs typically generate a surplus benefit above and beyond the profits they reap, finds the eminent Yale University economist William Nordhaus. Nordhaus has calculated that entrepreneurs capture only about 2 percent of this surplus, with the remainder passed on to society in the form of jobs, wages, and value. By creating so much value that does not accrue to themselves, regular entrepreneurs are also social entrepreneurs.”
All Entrepreneurship Is Social: Let’s not overlook what traditional entrepreneurs contribute to society (“Schumpeterian Profits in the American Economy: Theory and Measurement”: Abstract, Paper – page 16, last paragraph)
And yet:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBST01134
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBSTP1300
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBSB50215
And yet:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBST01134
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBSTP1300
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBSB50215
Nordhaus is not looking at all at the return on investment for innovation in that article. The 2% that is getting bandied about there is not the percent of private profit, it’s the amount of “Schumpeterian profits” that the innovator is capable of capturing out of the “total social value” of the innovation.
Numerous individuals and firms in a modern economy are engaged in innovative activities designed to produce new and improved goods and services along with processes that reduce the cost of production. Some of these are formalized in legal ownership of intellectual property rights such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks, while others are no more than trade secrets or early-mover advantages. Some of the innovative activities produce extra-normal profits (called Schumpeterian profits), which are profits above those that would represent the normal return to investment and risk-taking.
In this study, we take a slightly restrictive definition of Schumpeterian profits. These comprise only the profits that exceed the risk-adjusted return to innovative investments. In other words, any research and development (R&D) that yields a normal return on investment will lead to an increase in output or decrease in inputs but no increase in appropriately measured multifactor productivity (MFP).
Anyone with a better background in economic theory care to unpack this some more for us? It sounds to me like that 2% is a special class of “rake” that has to do with some abstracted measure of the social value of an innovation – how much “value” the product or service provides to society at large.
So if, say, an innovator developed a LLM that could produce ad and marketing copy that allowed businesses to lay off some number of copy writers and be more productive, then the 2% here is the percentage of that total savings to all those corporations that the innovator is able to capture in their own profits by offering that service.
Please correct me if I am misreading this. I have only a layperson’s understanding of economics, and I’d value any clarification or reframing anyone with a stronger background could offer on this.
Also, go straight to the Nordhaus article and skip right past that Stanford Social Innovation Review piece, which is the equivalent of an op-ed, providing a personal critical perspective on someone else’s research.
Nordhaus is not looking at all at the return on investment for innovation in that article. The 2% that is getting bandied about there is not the percent of private profit, it’s the amount of “Schumpeterian profits” that the innovator is capable of capturing out of the “total social value” of the innovation.
Numerous individuals and firms in a modern economy are engaged in innovative activities designed to produce new and improved goods and services along with processes that reduce the cost of production. Some of these are formalized in legal ownership of intellectual property rights such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks, while others are no more than trade secrets or early-mover advantages. Some of the innovative activities produce extra-normal profits (called Schumpeterian profits), which are profits above those that would represent the normal return to investment and risk-taking.
In this study, we take a slightly restrictive definition of Schumpeterian profits. These comprise only the profits that exceed the risk-adjusted return to innovative investments. In other words, any research and development (R&D) that yields a normal return on investment will lead to an increase in output or decrease in inputs but no increase in appropriately measured multifactor productivity (MFP).
Anyone with a better background in economic theory care to unpack this some more for us? It sounds to me like that 2% is a special class of “rake” that has to do with some abstracted measure of the social value of an innovation – how much “value” the product or service provides to society at large.
So if, say, an innovator developed a LLM that could produce ad and marketing copy that allowed businesses to lay off some number of copy writers and be more productive, then the 2% here is the percentage of that total savings to all those corporations that the innovator is able to capture in their own profits by offering that service.
Please correct me if I am misreading this. I have only a layperson’s understanding of economics, and I’d value any clarification or reframing anyone with a stronger background could offer on this.
Also, go straight to the Nordhaus article and skip right past that Stanford Social Innovation Review piece, which is the equivalent of an op-ed, providing a personal critical perspective on someone else’s research.
Back to the OP for a moment, here’s the consent agreement between the State of Maine and the Bonds. #26 quotes the label requirements and cautions for the poison Amelia Bond used to get her view.
Back to the OP for a moment, here’s the consent agreement between the State of Maine and the Bonds. #26 quotes the label requirements and cautions for the poison Amelia Bond used to get her view.
I dunno thing one about Economics, so the following is all Colberian “truthiness” that I feel in my gut. Whoever said, “figures lie and liars figure” surely had Economics squarely in mind. And probably the likes of Friedman and Greenspan in particular.
I kinda think there’s a marked distinction between innovator and entrepreneur. From Janie’s link in “The data is there” thread:
What Silicon Valley brought to the table this time around is a bit of light criminality, the same sort of “well, what if we just ignored all the damn rules” version of innovation that brought us Ubers instead of taxis and scattered unregistered micro-hotels anywhere a landlord had a vacant house to put to the task.
Innovation seems rare to me. Entrepreneurship seems commonplace and, in the interest of shoehorning my rant in to the topic at hand, relies largely on externalizing costs. Where’s Facebook without the interwebs, or Bezos without the same (and roads, and airports, and GPS, and ports, and international shipping lanes, and…)? All paid for by tax dollars.
And it’s not enough to get that “for free”. Then the Rugged American Entrepreneur™ can pull up the ladder behind him. With the right help, of course.
I sometimes wonder if I – with unlimited land grants, use of the US military to clear and secure such, and slave labor – coulda made it as a railroad entrepreneur.
I dunno thing one about Economics, so the following is all Colberian “truthiness” that I feel in my gut. Whoever said, “figures lie and liars figure” surely had Economics squarely in mind. And probably the likes of Friedman and Greenspan in particular.
I kinda think there’s a marked distinction between innovator and entrepreneur. From Janie’s link in “The data is there” thread:
What Silicon Valley brought to the table this time around is a bit of light criminality, the same sort of “well, what if we just ignored all the damn rules” version of innovation that brought us Ubers instead of taxis and scattered unregistered micro-hotels anywhere a landlord had a vacant house to put to the task.
Innovation seems rare to me. Entrepreneurship seems commonplace and, in the interest of shoehorning my rant in to the topic at hand, relies largely on externalizing costs. Where’s Facebook without the interwebs, or Bezos without the same (and roads, and airports, and GPS, and ports, and international shipping lanes, and…)? All paid for by tax dollars.
And it’s not enough to get that “for free”. Then the Rugged American Entrepreneur™ can pull up the ladder behind him. With the right help, of course.
I sometimes wonder if I – with unlimited land grants, use of the US military to clear and secure such, and slave labor – coulda made it as a railroad entrepreneur.
I read the Nordhaus article to be making a point about how those extra profits decay and what their present value is, both depending on certain conditions. It’s about how the modern economy works for innovators (or did as of 20 years ago), not some morality play about who’s virtuous.
I read the Nordhaus article to be making a point about how those extra profits decay and what their present value is, both depending on certain conditions. It’s about how the modern economy works for innovators (or did as of 20 years ago), not some morality play about who’s virtuous.
*Colbertian. Stephen, not Jean-Baptiste.
Stupid silent ‘t’.
*Colbertian. Stephen, not Jean-Baptiste.
Stupid silent ‘t’.
@ Janie 7:11PM
So if I’m reading that correctly, the $4500 is a fine for the violations, but remediation costs are still open and under evaluation?
@ Janie 7:11PM
So if I’m reading that correctly, the $4500 is a fine for the violations, but remediation costs are still open and under evaluation?
Entrepreneurship seems commonplace and, in the interest of shoehorning my rant in to the topic at hand, relies largely on externalizing costs.
Somebody who starts a new restaurant is, clearly, an entrepreneur. But I’m struggling to identify the externalization of costs involved. What am I missing?
Entrepreneurship seems commonplace and, in the interest of shoehorning my rant in to the topic at hand, relies largely on externalizing costs.
Somebody who starts a new restaurant is, clearly, an entrepreneur. But I’m struggling to identify the externalization of costs involved. What am I missing?
Pete @7:41
I need to read it again. That $4500 number has been mentioned in a lot of articles, particularly as being too low. I think I saw a much larger # (> $200,000) and will try to go chase it down. That consent agreement is over a year old, so the larger number might have been for subsequent testing and remediation. And I don’t know if they’re finished; I doubt it.
The more recent articles have said that the AG is looking into the situation.
Also, of course, there’s the $ the Bonds had to pay to Lisa Gorman, which I think was $1.5 million.
Will try to put together a timeline at some point, because it *is* very confusing, and I don’t know why the whole thing boiled up just now when the core of the story was in the news at least a year ago.
Checked realtor dot com — AFAICT the house isn’t on the market yet. 😉
Pete @7:41
I need to read it again. That $4500 number has been mentioned in a lot of articles, particularly as being too low. I think I saw a much larger # (> $200,000) and will try to go chase it down. That consent agreement is over a year old, so the larger number might have been for subsequent testing and remediation. And I don’t know if they’re finished; I doubt it.
The more recent articles have said that the AG is looking into the situation.
Also, of course, there’s the $ the Bonds had to pay to Lisa Gorman, which I think was $1.5 million.
Will try to put together a timeline at some point, because it *is* very confusing, and I don’t know why the whole thing boiled up just now when the core of the story was in the news at least a year ago.
Checked realtor dot com — AFAICT the house isn’t on the market yet. 😉
@ wj
Open a restaurant, a garage, start a landscaping business – I’m not talking about that. I’m referring to a particular kind of “entrepreneur”.
Innovator: Whoever developed dynamic ad insertion. I’m not crazy about it, but it’s an effective way of generating revenue and if I gotta scroll past some ads for content, that’s fine.
Entrepreneur: Enshittifying a site with with so much revenue-generating garbage as to make it unusable.
If you want a worst-case example, think Martin Shkreli.
@ wj
Open a restaurant, a garage, start a landscaping business – I’m not talking about that. I’m referring to a particular kind of “entrepreneur”.
Innovator: Whoever developed dynamic ad insertion. I’m not crazy about it, but it’s an effective way of generating revenue and if I gotta scroll past some ads for content, that’s fine.
Entrepreneur: Enshittifying a site with with so much revenue-generating garbage as to make it unusable.
If you want a worst-case example, think Martin Shkreli.
Janie… I saw $200,000 for other Town violations, whatever they may be. And $30,000 for environmental testing. I would hope those numbers are open-ended. As it so happens, the Bonds have earned themselves an entry in the Tebuthiuron Wikipedia page.
It seems Amelia retired from her position at the St. Louis Community Foundation last year.
Janie… I saw $200,000 for other Town violations, whatever they may be. And $30,000 for environmental testing. I would hope those numbers are open-ended. As it so happens, the Bonds have earned themselves an entry in the Tebuthiuron Wikipedia page.
It seems Amelia retired from her position at the St. Louis Community Foundation last year.
Pete: “other Town violations, whatever they may be”
From this article.
This one gives 11/8/23 for the consent agreement with the town.
Pete: “other Town violations, whatever they may be”
From this article.
This one gives 11/8/23 for the consent agreement with the town.
Entrepreneur: Enshittifying a site with with so much revenue-generating garbage as to make it unusable.
The thing is, Pete, that’s not what the word means. Not even close.
Entrepreneur: Enshittifying a site with with so much revenue-generating garbage as to make it unusable.
The thing is, Pete, that’s not what the word means. Not even close.
Traditionally, no. But I might argue that in common use it’s become almost synonymous with “businessman” which is kinda where I was going.
I also might argue that whoever invented collateralized debt obligations and whatever it is Bain Capital does is “innovative”. But hey, man, one rant at a time.
Traditionally, no. But I might argue that in common use it’s become almost synonymous with “businessman” which is kinda where I was going.
I also might argue that whoever invented collateralized debt obligations and whatever it is Bain Capital does is “innovative”. But hey, man, one rant at a time.
But I might argue that in common use it’s become almost synonymous with “businessman” which is kinda where I was going.
I haven’t encountered it for anyone but the founder of a business. But even granting your definition, I’m having a hard time seeing everybody, or even most of those, who runs a business taking the approach you describe.
Are there businesses which are run that way? Absolutely. No argument on that. But most do not behave that way.
But I might argue that in common use it’s become almost synonymous with “businessman” which is kinda where I was going.
I haven’t encountered it for anyone but the founder of a business. But even granting your definition, I’m having a hard time seeing everybody, or even most of those, who runs a business taking the approach you describe.
Are there businesses which are run that way? Absolutely. No argument on that. But most do not behave that way.
Ok, lemme clarify my clarification. I wasn’t talking about the entrepreneur in the classic sense, but rather that anyone with a side hustle, from IG influencers to mango-hued carnival barkers hawking bibles and gilded shoes, is now an “entrepreneur” – hence the “commonplace” description. Maybe I need to be more judicious with my quotes.
I’m gonna assume that I’m too dim to appreciate the depth or nuance of whatever Schramm was on about. Seems definitional that any sustainable business has to offer some kind of social benefit, unless it’s Herbalife or Bernie Madoff. Social benefit on balance is something else. I found myself waiting for the case to be made that if not for ArmaLite’s social entrepreneurship, our advancements in multiple gunshot victim ER preparedness would be so much less robust than they are. Who can deny Swift & Co’s contributions to child labor laws and Upton Sinclair’s career? Or Pretty Boy Floyd’s innovative contribution to public debt remediation?
Ok, maybe that last one dances on the fringes of classical entrepreneurship, no quotes.
Whatever. Maybe we’re talking past each other? I’m not trying to dump on legitimate businesses, especially the Mom & Pop variety.
Ok, lemme clarify my clarification. I wasn’t talking about the entrepreneur in the classic sense, but rather that anyone with a side hustle, from IG influencers to mango-hued carnival barkers hawking bibles and gilded shoes, is now an “entrepreneur” – hence the “commonplace” description. Maybe I need to be more judicious with my quotes.
I’m gonna assume that I’m too dim to appreciate the depth or nuance of whatever Schramm was on about. Seems definitional that any sustainable business has to offer some kind of social benefit, unless it’s Herbalife or Bernie Madoff. Social benefit on balance is something else. I found myself waiting for the case to be made that if not for ArmaLite’s social entrepreneurship, our advancements in multiple gunshot victim ER preparedness would be so much less robust than they are. Who can deny Swift & Co’s contributions to child labor laws and Upton Sinclair’s career? Or Pretty Boy Floyd’s innovative contribution to public debt remediation?
Ok, maybe that last one dances on the fringes of classical entrepreneurship, no quotes.
Whatever. Maybe we’re talking past each other? I’m not trying to dump on legitimate businesses, especially the Mom & Pop variety.
OT – Remember that I bought an eMTB at the beginning of the year? I’ve now ridden it for a bit over 50 hours and put a bit over 300 miles on it. I’d long had an aspiration to make it around a local loop that had always been just a bit to steep and too tall for me to make it over the top and on to the back side. All it took was 90 extra watts of electric tailwind to get me through that in April, and now it’s slotted into my head as my regular ride for when I have a spare hour to get out on the trails.
Today I decided to give “the impossible hill” a shot. I’d seen some riders going up it when we were hiking to the top, but it had always been a lot of work just to hike it (the first stretch is about a 21% grade, and there are other sections that are in the upper teens). Made it all the way up without exceeding my target heart rate, and without moving out of my reduced “eco mode” settings that limit how much assist the motor gives me – again about a 90 watt tailwind, and all within the number of watts I can generate on my own with no assist. (I ran out of battery on one ride last week and did not notice the loss of assist until I went to turn it off as I was pulling into the garage.)
Now that I know that is doable, the next step is to connect that first loop to the impossible hill, and stretch that out to the next further trail system to make an 18 mi. loop.
It’s nice to feel like I am making progress with fitness again after feeling like I was just struggling to maintain what I had for several years.
OT – Remember that I bought an eMTB at the beginning of the year? I’ve now ridden it for a bit over 50 hours and put a bit over 300 miles on it. I’d long had an aspiration to make it around a local loop that had always been just a bit to steep and too tall for me to make it over the top and on to the back side. All it took was 90 extra watts of electric tailwind to get me through that in April, and now it’s slotted into my head as my regular ride for when I have a spare hour to get out on the trails.
Today I decided to give “the impossible hill” a shot. I’d seen some riders going up it when we were hiking to the top, but it had always been a lot of work just to hike it (the first stretch is about a 21% grade, and there are other sections that are in the upper teens). Made it all the way up without exceeding my target heart rate, and without moving out of my reduced “eco mode” settings that limit how much assist the motor gives me – again about a 90 watt tailwind, and all within the number of watts I can generate on my own with no assist. (I ran out of battery on one ride last week and did not notice the loss of assist until I went to turn it off as I was pulling into the garage.)
Now that I know that is doable, the next step is to connect that first loop to the impossible hill, and stretch that out to the next further trail system to make an 18 mi. loop.
It’s nice to feel like I am making progress with fitness again after feeling like I was just struggling to maintain what I had for several years.
Sounds fun, nous. I’ve been trying to make some progress with fitness too, but more at the level of just not getting winded walking up the gentle hill above where I live. I’m not sure how I got quite so out of shape, and I want to figure out if that’s all it is. I’ve never been this old before, so I’m not sure how it’s supposed to feel. 😉
Sounds fun, nous. I’ve been trying to make some progress with fitness too, but more at the level of just not getting winded walking up the gentle hill above where I live. I’m not sure how I got quite so out of shape, and I want to figure out if that’s all it is. I’ve never been this old before, so I’m not sure how it’s supposed to feel. 😉
One evening a few years ago, I was loading my drums into a club to get ready to play that night. A somewhat drunk guy walks up to me and asks for money for gas for his truck. He was headed for home after his workday, but decided to stop and have a few pops first. He spent all his $$$ on beer or whatever without realizing he was out of gas. So he was now stranded.
“Isn’t there anyone you can call?” I ask. “My wife, but I don’t want her to know”, he replied.
I gave the guy some money along with a brief comment along the lines of “what the actual hell were you thinking?”. I mean, he was by all appearances a basically intelligent grown-ass man.
He took offense at my comment. “I’m an *entrepreneur*!”, he declared.
I shook my head and carried on with my evening.
“Entrepreneur” has become a kind of elevated term for somebody that either works for themselves or own and operates a business. It’s kind of like “job creator”, a signal that you are a member of that special breed that makes all the wheels turn. We are intended to respond with humility and gratitude.
I think it’s great that people have good ideas and start businesses. It’s one role among many. It’s a valuable one, but so are all the others.
One evening a few years ago, I was loading my drums into a club to get ready to play that night. A somewhat drunk guy walks up to me and asks for money for gas for his truck. He was headed for home after his workday, but decided to stop and have a few pops first. He spent all his $$$ on beer or whatever without realizing he was out of gas. So he was now stranded.
“Isn’t there anyone you can call?” I ask. “My wife, but I don’t want her to know”, he replied.
I gave the guy some money along with a brief comment along the lines of “what the actual hell were you thinking?”. I mean, he was by all appearances a basically intelligent grown-ass man.
He took offense at my comment. “I’m an *entrepreneur*!”, he declared.
I shook my head and carried on with my evening.
“Entrepreneur” has become a kind of elevated term for somebody that either works for themselves or own and operates a business. It’s kind of like “job creator”, a signal that you are a member of that special breed that makes all the wheels turn. We are intended to respond with humility and gratitude.
I think it’s great that people have good ideas and start businesses. It’s one role among many. It’s a valuable one, but so are all the others.
Scamming people into giving you gas money outside a club is pretty entrepreneurial in its own right!!
Scamming people into giving you gas money outside a club is pretty entrepreneurial in its own right!!
I believe the first time I encountered the word was when it became a Dubya-related meme that “The French have no word for entrepreneur.”
I believe the first time I encountered the word was when it became a Dubya-related meme that “The French have no word for entrepreneur.”
Getting back to innovators, I’ve been wondering what kind of rake people like Archimedes and Benjamin Franklin got. Or whoever the fire and wheel innovators were. I guess those two had to wait around for someone to invent money.
Getting back to innovators, I’ve been wondering what kind of rake people like Archimedes and Benjamin Franklin got. Or whoever the fire and wheel innovators were. I guess those two had to wait around for someone to invent money.
I guess those two had to wait around for someone to invent money.
Kind of a task to calculate the “wealth” they “created,” too.
I guess those two had to wait around for someone to invent money.
Kind of a task to calculate the “wealth” they “created,” too.
Well, Archimedes was on a fixed employment contract with the tyrant of Syracuse, so I guess all the material benefits went legally to the latter. And he got no chance to judge the quality of his pension plan because of that time-traveling Southern State cop that got to him first disguised as a Roman legionnaire ignoring that the CIC explicitly wanted the old geezer alive.
Well, Archimedes was on a fixed employment contract with the tyrant of Syracuse, so I guess all the material benefits went legally to the latter. And he got no chance to judge the quality of his pension plan because of that time-traveling Southern State cop that got to him first disguised as a Roman legionnaire ignoring that the CIC explicitly wanted the old geezer alive.
I believe the first time I encountered the word was when it became a Dubya-related meme that “The French have no word for entrepreneur.”
I think it was even better than that, I think he said words to the effect that “It is significant that the French have no word for entrepreneur”. Rarely has an attempt to claim American exceptionalism been so immediately punished.
I believe the first time I encountered the word was when it became a Dubya-related meme that “The French have no word for entrepreneur.”
I think it was even better than that, I think he said words to the effect that “It is significant that the French have no word for entrepreneur”. Rarely has an attempt to claim American exceptionalism been so immediately punished.
Apocryphal, but truer than history nonetheless.
Apocryphal, but truer than history nonetheless.
russell’s story reminded me of this old joke:
A man entering a Vegas casino is accosted by a seedy-looking guy who says “Could you please let me have some money to buy medicine for my wife?”
“You’re not going to walk in here and just place bets with it, are you?”
“Oh, no sir! I’ve GOT gambling money.”
Ah, entrepreneurship!
To me, entrepreneurship and innovation have always seemed distinct concepts.
You can be an entrepreneur by starting a business that does nothing novel. See above: restaurants, barber shops, even investment banks.
You can innovate without entre-prising. Being the first to off-shore your widget production is innovative, for instance. And of course you can innovate things like bifocals or lightning rods without making a business out of it, like Ben Franklin.
There’s a reason why the language of Shakespeare and Twain has different words for different things, and it’s a shame that innovative entrepreneurs like Frank Luntz get away with conflating them.
–TP
russell’s story reminded me of this old joke:
A man entering a Vegas casino is accosted by a seedy-looking guy who says “Could you please let me have some money to buy medicine for my wife?”
“You’re not going to walk in here and just place bets with it, are you?”
“Oh, no sir! I’ve GOT gambling money.”
Ah, entrepreneurship!
To me, entrepreneurship and innovation have always seemed distinct concepts.
You can be an entrepreneur by starting a business that does nothing novel. See above: restaurants, barber shops, even investment banks.
You can innovate without entre-prising. Being the first to off-shore your widget production is innovative, for instance. And of course you can innovate things like bifocals or lightning rods without making a business out of it, like Ben Franklin.
There’s a reason why the language of Shakespeare and Twain has different words for different things, and it’s a shame that innovative entrepreneurs like Frank Luntz get away with conflating them.
–TP
Back to the OP, a link especially for Pete: This is the most detailed local article I’ve found.
*****
This is my favorite reddit comment:
From a different reddit thread:
*****
The first of the two reddit comments touches on something I’ve been thinking about, which is social context. I’m sure I’ve written here before that Maine is the only state I know of that has a specific label for people not born here: if you are one of those unfortunates, you are “from away.” Most people don’t take it seriously, but some do.
When I first moved here, I ran into a man who said he had just come back from vacation. “Where’d you go?” I asked. “Out of state,” he said. New Hampshire? The Gobi Desert? Who cares!
In newspaper articles, you might read that there was a fire at someone’s house when they were “out of state” – where in other places it would say “out of town.”
So from that POV I can imagine that the Bonds were a bit clueless, all aside from their wealth, and made (probably unconscious, and definitely inaccurate) assumptions about how they would fit in here. Did they think they were going to be big shots in Camden because they were big shots in Missouri? I mean, probably to them Maine was just a backwater, stuck up here on the way to nowhere, the most rural state in the nation, with a population not much more than half that of greater St. Louis. (But also a storybook place; see below.)
They might also have looked around at the most forested state in the nation and asked themselves, “What’s a few oak trees more or less?”
I also wonder if Amelia just couldn’t grasp that the story she was telling herself about herself wasn’t the only possible story. (A not uncommon failure of imagination in our species.)
In that passage from her speakers bureau bio that I quoted, almost every word was selected to reinforce a story. Not just a boat, but a lobster boat. Not just any old lobster boat, but a Nova Scotia lobster boat. Not just any old Nova Scotia lobster boat, either, but a 32-foot Nova Scotia lobster boat. And she sailed it not just on the ocean, but on “picturesque Penobscot Bay.” (Indeed, Camden’s harbor may be the most picturesque on the coast, which may be why I never go there. Camden itself is a little too full of itself; I prefer the more down-to-earth environs of Rockland.)
I don’t remotely mean to excuse her, I still think she should get a prison sentence for what she did. I just keep trying to understand (or imagine I might understand) what she must have been thinking. No doubt I’m in my own little bubble, but it astounds me that she thought she could get away with it. All aside from cultural disconnects, even in a red state like Missouri, while they may not give much of a damn about shoreland zoning, surely they’ve heard of property rights….
*****
Would a Mainer do such a thing? Mainers commit crimes just like everyone else. But I have a hard time imagining that a Mainer (elastically defined to include even people like me) would have committed this particular crime. If nothing else, I think a Mainer would have known she couldn’t get away with it. I mean, poisoning some oak trees belonging to the widow of the CEO of LL Bean?
Seriously?
Back to the OP, a link especially for Pete: This is the most detailed local article I’ve found.
*****
This is my favorite reddit comment:
From a different reddit thread:
*****
The first of the two reddit comments touches on something I’ve been thinking about, which is social context. I’m sure I’ve written here before that Maine is the only state I know of that has a specific label for people not born here: if you are one of those unfortunates, you are “from away.” Most people don’t take it seriously, but some do.
When I first moved here, I ran into a man who said he had just come back from vacation. “Where’d you go?” I asked. “Out of state,” he said. New Hampshire? The Gobi Desert? Who cares!
In newspaper articles, you might read that there was a fire at someone’s house when they were “out of state” – where in other places it would say “out of town.”
So from that POV I can imagine that the Bonds were a bit clueless, all aside from their wealth, and made (probably unconscious, and definitely inaccurate) assumptions about how they would fit in here. Did they think they were going to be big shots in Camden because they were big shots in Missouri? I mean, probably to them Maine was just a backwater, stuck up here on the way to nowhere, the most rural state in the nation, with a population not much more than half that of greater St. Louis. (But also a storybook place; see below.)
They might also have looked around at the most forested state in the nation and asked themselves, “What’s a few oak trees more or less?”
I also wonder if Amelia just couldn’t grasp that the story she was telling herself about herself wasn’t the only possible story. (A not uncommon failure of imagination in our species.)
In that passage from her speakers bureau bio that I quoted, almost every word was selected to reinforce a story. Not just a boat, but a lobster boat. Not just any old lobster boat, but a Nova Scotia lobster boat. Not just any old Nova Scotia lobster boat, either, but a 32-foot Nova Scotia lobster boat. And she sailed it not just on the ocean, but on “picturesque Penobscot Bay.” (Indeed, Camden’s harbor may be the most picturesque on the coast, which may be why I never go there. Camden itself is a little too full of itself; I prefer the more down-to-earth environs of Rockland.)
I don’t remotely mean to excuse her, I still think she should get a prison sentence for what she did. I just keep trying to understand (or imagine I might understand) what she must have been thinking. No doubt I’m in my own little bubble, but it astounds me that she thought she could get away with it. All aside from cultural disconnects, even in a red state like Missouri, while they may not give much of a damn about shoreland zoning, surely they’ve heard of property rights….
*****
Would a Mainer do such a thing? Mainers commit crimes just like everyone else. But I have a hard time imagining that a Mainer (elastically defined to include even people like me) would have committed this particular crime. If nothing else, I think a Mainer would have known she couldn’t get away with it. I mean, poisoning some oak trees belonging to the widow of the CEO of LL Bean?
Seriously?
There was a somewhat similar case in England last year, except that the tree was a very prominent landmark and cut down.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-66994729
There was a somewhat similar case in England last year, except that the tree was a very prominent landmark and cut down.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-66994729
Even in Alabama, hardly a citadel of justice, poisoning trees resulted in jail time.
Just some random information (and I don’t know why I was looking this up previously) The guy who poisoned the trees at Toomer’s corner (an Alabama fan mad that Auburn had won), was convicted on criminal mischief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toomer%27s_Corner
Later, an LSU fan tried to burn the trees that had been planted to replace them
https://www.al.com/auburnfootball/2016/09/oak_tree_at_toomers_corner_set.html
And was tried on desecration of a venerable object.
Even in Alabama, hardly a citadel of justice, poisoning trees resulted in jail time.
Just some random information (and I don’t know why I was looking this up previously) The guy who poisoned the trees at Toomer’s corner (an Alabama fan mad that Auburn had won), was convicted on criminal mischief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toomer%27s_Corner
Later, an LSU fan tried to burn the trees that had been planted to replace them
https://www.al.com/auburnfootball/2016/09/oak_tree_at_toomers_corner_set.html
And was tried on desecration of a venerable object.
Thanks, novakant. Some great pictures in that article. I remember seeing a headline about it, and reacting somewhat similarly….
Thanks, novakant. Some great pictures in that article. I remember seeing a headline about it, and reacting somewhat similarly….
Interesting article about policing. Crime came down, but so did the number of police but summarizing it doesn’t do the article justice.
I am traveling, so no further comment.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/police-crime-minneapolis-george-floyd-blm-brutality-defund.html
Interesting article about policing. Crime came down, but so did the number of police but summarizing it doesn’t do the article justice.
I am traveling, so no further comment.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/police-crime-minneapolis-george-floyd-blm-brutality-defund.html
I just keep trying to understand (or imagine I might understand) what she must have been thinking.
I suspect you nailed it earlier:
[In] the most forested state in the nation and asked themselves, “What’s a few oak trees more or less?”
In short, no clue that anybody might even be paying attention. After all, trees die all the time of natural causes, right? So what’s to notice?
Although, to be fair (?), a massive sense of entitlement, rooted back at hime, may also have been a factor.
I just keep trying to understand (or imagine I might understand) what she must have been thinking.
I suspect you nailed it earlier:
[In] the most forested state in the nation and asked themselves, “What’s a few oak trees more or less?”
In short, no clue that anybody might even be paying attention. After all, trees die all the time of natural causes, right? So what’s to notice?
Although, to be fair (?), a massive sense of entitlement, rooted back at hime, may also have been a factor.
In short, no clue that anybody might even be paying attention. After all, trees die all the time of natural causes, right? So what’s to notice?
Maybe she’s this stupid and ignorant (two different things), but I don’t think it’s quite that simple.
At some point (maybe after the poisoning, though, I’m not sure) Gorman’s landscapers stopped a crew hired by the Bonds from cutting trees on Gorman’s property. From everything the articles and the consent agreement say, I have the impression that the Bonds had already tried to get their ocean view by less underhanded means, and failed. So Amelia Bond took matters into her own hands.
IOW, I’m pretty sure she knew Gorman was paying attention. It wasn’t that she thought no one would notice, it was that she thought no one SHOULD notice, and if they did, they’d surrender to the reality in the end.
Or something.
In short, no clue that anybody might even be paying attention. After all, trees die all the time of natural causes, right? So what’s to notice?
Maybe she’s this stupid and ignorant (two different things), but I don’t think it’s quite that simple.
At some point (maybe after the poisoning, though, I’m not sure) Gorman’s landscapers stopped a crew hired by the Bonds from cutting trees on Gorman’s property. From everything the articles and the consent agreement say, I have the impression that the Bonds had already tried to get their ocean view by less underhanded means, and failed. So Amelia Bond took matters into her own hands.
IOW, I’m pretty sure she knew Gorman was paying attention. It wasn’t that she thought no one would notice, it was that she thought no one SHOULD notice, and if they did, they’d surrender to the reality in the end.
Or something.
Or she thought that Gorman, at least, would notice the trees, but would, as you say, just assume they had died of natural causes. Unfortunately for her, Gorman and her arborists aren’t stupid. 😉
Plus, she only called more attention to herself by offering to pay for tree removal…. Better to have never said a word about it.
Or she thought that Gorman, at least, would notice the trees, but would, as you say, just assume they had died of natural causes. Unfortunately for her, Gorman and her arborists aren’t stupid. 😉
Plus, she only called more attention to herself by offering to pay for tree removal…. Better to have never said a word about it.
I’ve been reading articles/posts about the problems the polling companies are struggling with. It seems worth stating the obvious. Somewhere out there is a lead researcher with a horde of
minionsgraduate students training a neural network with hundreds of millions of parameters using the vast amount of fine-grained voter registration, education and economic data, global ammunition consumption, voting methods, etc. Probably more than one, to be honest. One or more of them will get lucky and choose an NN structure and right data sets that will yield better-than-polling prediction results. I doubt that it will be in time for the 2024 election, but that it will for 2028.I have been told by someone on the inside that preliminary work on NN weather forecasting models looks very good. As in, will probably surpass the physics-based models for one to a few days out. The big holdup is that all of the NWS supercomputing resources are tied up running the physics-based models.
I’ve been reading articles/posts about the problems the polling companies are struggling with. It seems worth stating the obvious. Somewhere out there is a lead researcher with a horde of
minionsgraduate students training a neural network with hundreds of millions of parameters using the vast amount of fine-grained voter registration, education and economic data, global ammunition consumption, voting methods, etc. Probably more than one, to be honest. One or more of them will get lucky and choose an NN structure and right data sets that will yield better-than-polling prediction results. I doubt that it will be in time for the 2024 election, but that it will for 2028.I have been told by someone on the inside that preliminary work on NN weather forecasting models looks very good. As in, will probably surpass the physics-based models for one to a few days out. The big holdup is that all of the NWS supercomputing resources are tied up running the physics-based models.
Thanks, Janie. I’m not familiar with the Penobscot Bay Pilot. Good on them for some solid reporting. Coupla things…
IANAL, but I wonder if that Redditor doesn’t have a point. Deliberate transport to a state where it’s not authorized for use? Conspiracy to commit? I would think, perhaps naively, that while the toxicity reading may not exceed EPA standards where its use is authorized, anything over “none” would be criminal in this case. Maybe there’s some teeth in that somewhere?
“on what planet did this woman think she could outfox a native of Maine and the heiress to LL Bean, an heritage focused family friendly outdoor driven company, on her own turf?
The outrage would be the same, given the scope, but I did briefly wonder if the public opinion needle would’ve wobbled a bit if instead of Lisa Gorman it was Linda Bean (who I just found out recently passed this Spring. What a shame. So, anyway…)
So from that POV I can imagine that the Bonds were a bit clueless
Nope. I don’t buy it. Maine may be the most rural, technically, but that doesn’t really describe it. The Rte1/95 corridor is significantly different from the rest of the state. Regardless, it’s especially because of her highly-curated story that there’s no way they didn’t do their homework. They knew exactly what/where they were buying into precisely because it fit the narrative they were creating. (For some reason I keep picturing a conversation with a native: “4100sqft??? What’s it cost to heat that place?!”)
And as it turns out, Amelia has some experience with environmental remediation. Bonus: See if you can identify another shit-heel in the story.)
Did they think they were going to be big shots in Camden because they were big shots in Missouri?
This cracks me up a little, cuz I can’t imagine anyone from Camden getting all wide-eyed about Missouri. (But I may have something of an East Coast bias. “Oh, St. Louis? Good for you!”) Also, Ocean? Yeah, I’d wager that boat’s never been east of Islesboro in their care.
Camden’s harbor may be the most picturesque on the coast, which may be why I never go there. Camden itself is a little too full of itself; I prefer the more down-to-earth environs of Rockland.
Another of my biases, from the Church to the Library is beautiful and possibly my favorite place at Christmastime. But I get it. Rockland has it’s own thing going on. 🙂
Thanks, Janie. I’m not familiar with the Penobscot Bay Pilot. Good on them for some solid reporting. Coupla things…
IANAL, but I wonder if that Redditor doesn’t have a point. Deliberate transport to a state where it’s not authorized for use? Conspiracy to commit? I would think, perhaps naively, that while the toxicity reading may not exceed EPA standards where its use is authorized, anything over “none” would be criminal in this case. Maybe there’s some teeth in that somewhere?
“on what planet did this woman think she could outfox a native of Maine and the heiress to LL Bean, an heritage focused family friendly outdoor driven company, on her own turf?
The outrage would be the same, given the scope, but I did briefly wonder if the public opinion needle would’ve wobbled a bit if instead of Lisa Gorman it was Linda Bean (who I just found out recently passed this Spring. What a shame. So, anyway…)
So from that POV I can imagine that the Bonds were a bit clueless
Nope. I don’t buy it. Maine may be the most rural, technically, but that doesn’t really describe it. The Rte1/95 corridor is significantly different from the rest of the state. Regardless, it’s especially because of her highly-curated story that there’s no way they didn’t do their homework. They knew exactly what/where they were buying into precisely because it fit the narrative they were creating. (For some reason I keep picturing a conversation with a native: “4100sqft??? What’s it cost to heat that place?!”)
And as it turns out, Amelia has some experience with environmental remediation. Bonus: See if you can identify another shit-heel in the story.)
Did they think they were going to be big shots in Camden because they were big shots in Missouri?
This cracks me up a little, cuz I can’t imagine anyone from Camden getting all wide-eyed about Missouri. (But I may have something of an East Coast bias. “Oh, St. Louis? Good for you!”) Also, Ocean? Yeah, I’d wager that boat’s never been east of Islesboro in their care.
Camden’s harbor may be the most picturesque on the coast, which may be why I never go there. Camden itself is a little too full of itself; I prefer the more down-to-earth environs of Rockland.
Another of my biases, from the Church to the Library is beautiful and possibly my favorite place at Christmastime. But I get it. Rockland has it’s own thing going on. 🙂
Apocryphal, but truer than history nonetheless.
I’m sad if it’s apocryphal, but agree it expresses a certain truth nonetheless. However, it might be more complicated than that. I found several sources saying there was no record of him ever saying it, but one which went into more detail. It said that Shirley Williams had told the story, saying that Tony Blair told her that Dubya had said it to him at some kind of economic summit. And that Alastair Campbell (Blair’s spin doctor, and apparently the model for the immortal Malcolm Tucker) had then gone on record to say that it never happened.
But I would trust Shirley Williams over Alastair Campbell any day, even though I have a soft spot for AC, because there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he would have lied or twisted the truth if he felt it necessary to protect Tony Blair from any untoward consequences.
Better to have never said a word about it.
Janie, I am glad to see that despite your very upright character, you nevertheless have the ability to think like a master criminal. This is a combination of characteristics I have a lot of time for!
Apocryphal, but truer than history nonetheless.
I’m sad if it’s apocryphal, but agree it expresses a certain truth nonetheless. However, it might be more complicated than that. I found several sources saying there was no record of him ever saying it, but one which went into more detail. It said that Shirley Williams had told the story, saying that Tony Blair told her that Dubya had said it to him at some kind of economic summit. And that Alastair Campbell (Blair’s spin doctor, and apparently the model for the immortal Malcolm Tucker) had then gone on record to say that it never happened.
But I would trust Shirley Williams over Alastair Campbell any day, even though I have a soft spot for AC, because there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he would have lied or twisted the truth if he felt it necessary to protect Tony Blair from any untoward consequences.
Better to have never said a word about it.
Janie, I am glad to see that despite your very upright character, you nevertheless have the ability to think like a master criminal. This is a combination of characteristics I have a lot of time for!
@Pete — lots of threads in your comment to take up, but I have another dentist visit to get to so I’ll just mention this one for now, ’cause it’s the easiest:
See if you can identify another shit-heel in the story.
I didn’t have to go beyond the standfirst (and I just learned that term by asking google “what is the intro line after a headline called”).
Josh Hawley, shitheeling for all these years.
As for the article itself — it opens by asserting that Amelia Bond “says she doesn’t know why.” But then it quotes her as saying “I can’t speak to why.” That’s rather a different thing.
*****
Anyhow, I realized this morning, it’s really all Lisa Gorman’s fault! What kind of meanie wouldn’t cut down her mature trees so the new neighbors could have a view! (Apparently they also never heard of buyer beware. I wondered if maybe they looked at the house in the winter and got a shock when summer came and the trees were in full leaf. But the dates of marketing and sale on that house don’t support that theory. On the other hand, the sale did take place the same year as the environmental remediation thingie in St. Louis.)
Every new angle on the story makes Amelia Bond look worse. As Jack Tanner says at one point in GBS’s Man and Superman — “Abyss beneath abyss of perfidy.” (Only in the play it’s a laugh line.)
@Pete — lots of threads in your comment to take up, but I have another dentist visit to get to so I’ll just mention this one for now, ’cause it’s the easiest:
See if you can identify another shit-heel in the story.
I didn’t have to go beyond the standfirst (and I just learned that term by asking google “what is the intro line after a headline called”).
Josh Hawley, shitheeling for all these years.
As for the article itself — it opens by asserting that Amelia Bond “says she doesn’t know why.” But then it quotes her as saying “I can’t speak to why.” That’s rather a different thing.
*****
Anyhow, I realized this morning, it’s really all Lisa Gorman’s fault! What kind of meanie wouldn’t cut down her mature trees so the new neighbors could have a view! (Apparently they also never heard of buyer beware. I wondered if maybe they looked at the house in the winter and got a shock when summer came and the trees were in full leaf. But the dates of marketing and sale on that house don’t support that theory. On the other hand, the sale did take place the same year as the environmental remediation thingie in St. Louis.)
Every new angle on the story makes Amelia Bond look worse. As Jack Tanner says at one point in GBS’s Man and Superman — “Abyss beneath abyss of perfidy.” (Only in the play it’s a laugh line.)
Pete quoting me: So from that POV I can imagine that the Bonds were a bit clueless
And Pete’s response: “Nope. I don’t buy it. Maine may be the most rural, technically, but that doesn’t really describe it.”
But my point was that the Bonds were reading it incorrectly, which I think is very easy to do. The biggest city in Maine has 70,000 people. No matter how sophisticated Mainers really are (esp. along the coast), it’s very different from the kind of big city context the Bonds were from. And that famed Yankee reserve, maybe esp. with outsiders, makes it all the harder to read. My speculation is that the Bonds badly misunderestimated their new neighbors.
*****
Pete quoting me: Did they think they were going to be big shots in Camden because they were big shots in Missouri?
Pete’s response: “This cracks me up a little, cuz I can’t imagine anyone from Camden getting all wide-eyed about Missouri.”
I agree with this, and that’s kind of my point, that no one in Camden gave a damn about how important the Bonds were on their home ground, but the Bonds didn’t really get that.
Pete quoting me: So from that POV I can imagine that the Bonds were a bit clueless
And Pete’s response: “Nope. I don’t buy it. Maine may be the most rural, technically, but that doesn’t really describe it.”
But my point was that the Bonds were reading it incorrectly, which I think is very easy to do. The biggest city in Maine has 70,000 people. No matter how sophisticated Mainers really are (esp. along the coast), it’s very different from the kind of big city context the Bonds were from. And that famed Yankee reserve, maybe esp. with outsiders, makes it all the harder to read. My speculation is that the Bonds badly misunderestimated their new neighbors.
*****
Pete quoting me: Did they think they were going to be big shots in Camden because they were big shots in Missouri?
Pete’s response: “This cracks me up a little, cuz I can’t imagine anyone from Camden getting all wide-eyed about Missouri.”
I agree with this, and that’s kind of my point, that no one in Camden gave a damn about how important the Bonds were on their home ground, but the Bonds didn’t really get that.
Here are some instances of people damaging or killing important trees. The guy who tried to kill the Treaty Oak in Austin got nine years in prison. His motivation was his resentment for having spent time in a Texas prison.
Here are some instances of people damaging or killing important trees. The guy who tried to kill the Treaty Oak in Austin got nine years in prison. His motivation was his resentment for having spent time in a Texas prison.
I guess I don’t know exactly what you mean by “big city context”. When I lived in Brooklyn, my neighborhood was 79,000 people.
I assume the calculus was along the lines of “If we get away with it, great! If not, we’ll offer our mea culpas and write a check. Either way, we get what we want.”
And if they didn’t use poison, that’s probably how it would’ve hashed out.
I guess I don’t know exactly what you mean by “big city context”. When I lived in Brooklyn, my neighborhood was 79,000 people.
I assume the calculus was along the lines of “If we get away with it, great! If not, we’ll offer our mea culpas and write a check. Either way, we get what we want.”
And if they didn’t use poison, that’s probably how it would’ve hashed out.
I assume the calculus was along the lines of “If we get away with it, great! If not, we’ll offer our mea culpas and write a check. Either way, we get what we want.”
And if they didn’t use poison, that’s probably how it would’ve hashed out.
No disagreement with that. I guess I’ve been unconsciously assuming some things that probably never happened, but I should let it go at this point, except for keeping an occasional eye out for what happens next.
I assume the calculus was along the lines of “If we get away with it, great! If not, we’ll offer our mea culpas and write a check. Either way, we get what we want.”
And if they didn’t use poison, that’s probably how it would’ve hashed out.
No disagreement with that. I guess I’ve been unconsciously assuming some things that probably never happened, but I should let it go at this point, except for keeping an occasional eye out for what happens next.
So since this is an open thread: did anyone watch the debate? The papers are all over Biden struggling and I’m getting really worried now (not that I haven’t been all along on that count).
There’s talk about replacing him. What do you think the chances are? Is there historical precedent?
So since this is an open thread: did anyone watch the debate? The papers are all over Biden struggling and I’m getting really worried now (not that I haven’t been all along on that count).
There’s talk about replacing him. What do you think the chances are? Is there historical precedent?
And what do you all think of this Newsom guy?
And what do you all think of this Newsom guy?
He’d have to step down, or the party would have to change the rules in such a way to massively undermine the expressed will of the primary voters. Neither is going to happen.
He’d have to step down, or the party would have to change the rules in such a way to massively undermine the expressed will of the primary voters. Neither is going to happen.
If by “watch” you mean “suffered through in agony”, then yeah. If it was a boxing match, I would’ve stopped it. Early.
This format should have been a slam-dunk for Biden. His responses had to be clear and coherent. Banal. He didn’t need to be fire and passion. Competency would win the day. He did not meet that very low bar. People are concerned that he’s too old and he looked every bit of it. And if that’s the best he could do after a week of sequestered Camp David prep, that’s a problem.
Trump was his usual firehose of terrifying nonsense and lies, but he seemed (relatively) controlled and spoke clearly. That’s a problem.
In a way, I feel like there were only 2 questions to be answered last night: Who can do the job and who will do it better? Distressingly, while the answer to the latter is Biden, the answer to the first – based solely on last night’s performance – looked like Trump.
I think Biden can be rehabbed, but that’s going to be a rough ride. And that assumes he’s up to it which, after last night, is a fair question. I like Biden. He’s been more progressive than I expected. He’s put together a competent administration that is quietly and effectively moving in the right direction. But to do the job you have to first get the job and last night put that in jeopardy.
I’ve been impressed by Newsom, from what I’ve seen. He ticks a lot of boxes – sharp, excellent speaker both prepared and off-the-cuff, has experience, name sounds like handsome, which he is. If I’m honest, he might be a better candidate at this point. That said, if the DNC nominates a bowl of day-old porridge, I’m full-go Team Oatmeal.
The DNC is at a crossroads and has some serious soul-searching to do. And there’s not a lot of time to do it.
If by “watch” you mean “suffered through in agony”, then yeah. If it was a boxing match, I would’ve stopped it. Early.
This format should have been a slam-dunk for Biden. His responses had to be clear and coherent. Banal. He didn’t need to be fire and passion. Competency would win the day. He did not meet that very low bar. People are concerned that he’s too old and he looked every bit of it. And if that’s the best he could do after a week of sequestered Camp David prep, that’s a problem.
Trump was his usual firehose of terrifying nonsense and lies, but he seemed (relatively) controlled and spoke clearly. That’s a problem.
In a way, I feel like there were only 2 questions to be answered last night: Who can do the job and who will do it better? Distressingly, while the answer to the latter is Biden, the answer to the first – based solely on last night’s performance – looked like Trump.
I think Biden can be rehabbed, but that’s going to be a rough ride. And that assumes he’s up to it which, after last night, is a fair question. I like Biden. He’s been more progressive than I expected. He’s put together a competent administration that is quietly and effectively moving in the right direction. But to do the job you have to first get the job and last night put that in jeopardy.
I’ve been impressed by Newsom, from what I’ve seen. He ticks a lot of boxes – sharp, excellent speaker both prepared and off-the-cuff, has experience, name sounds like handsome, which he is. If I’m honest, he might be a better candidate at this point. That said, if the DNC nominates a bowl of day-old porridge, I’m full-go Team Oatmeal.
The DNC is at a crossroads and has some serious soul-searching to do. And there’s not a lot of time to do it.
did anyone watch the debate?
I refuse to watch anything I suspect will be more cringe-worthy than my high school class play.
did anyone watch the debate?
I refuse to watch anything I suspect will be more cringe-worthy than my high school class play.
I was too scared to watch it.
I was too scared to watch it.
This is starting to feel like 2016, i.e. a trainwreck in slow motion… Can somebody call the men in the grey suits to have a word with Biden?
This is starting to feel like 2016, i.e. a trainwreck in slow motion… Can somebody call the men in the grey suits to have a word with Biden?
This is starting to feel like 2016, i.e. a trainwreck in slow motion… Can somebody call the men in the grey suits to have a word with Biden?
That would be 2016, where Clinton won all three debates overwhelmingly? That 2016?
I see all these folks who have gone all in on “Biden was horrible! (I.e. didn’t win in a slam dunk.) He should step aside!” In other words, totally bought the Republican spin. It’s really tedious.
I really wish any of them could come up with a plausible scenario where Biden stepping aside at this point improves things for the Democrats. Including a specific real person alternative candidate — not an imaginary savior, a real world person. Spoiler alert: there is no such person, no such scenario.
Short of a medical event which makes Harris President immediately, the choices are a) Biden, or b) Trump. Anything else is fantasy land.
Am I saying Biden did great? No. On the other hand, by mid-July this debate will be mostly forgotten (except for the pearl-clutchers, of course.) Except for the myriad sound bites Trump provided. For example: “Most people are glad Roe was overturned!” That is going to be in ads for the four months.
This is starting to feel like 2016, i.e. a trainwreck in slow motion… Can somebody call the men in the grey suits to have a word with Biden?
That would be 2016, where Clinton won all three debates overwhelmingly? That 2016?
I see all these folks who have gone all in on “Biden was horrible! (I.e. didn’t win in a slam dunk.) He should step aside!” In other words, totally bought the Republican spin. It’s really tedious.
I really wish any of them could come up with a plausible scenario where Biden stepping aside at this point improves things for the Democrats. Including a specific real person alternative candidate — not an imaginary savior, a real world person. Spoiler alert: there is no such person, no such scenario.
Short of a medical event which makes Harris President immediately, the choices are a) Biden, or b) Trump. Anything else is fantasy land.
Am I saying Biden did great? No. On the other hand, by mid-July this debate will be mostly forgotten (except for the pearl-clutchers, of course.) Except for the myriad sound bites Trump provided. For example: “Most people are glad Roe was overturned!” That is going to be in ads for the four months.
Just for the record, I see about 80% chance Biden wins, at most 20% Trump wins. That’s Electoral College, of course; on total nationwide popular vote, Trump loses even worse than the first two times.
To my mind, the major question is where are we on the spectrum between “Biden ekes out another win, just like in 2020” and “Biden wins in a blowout.” Between Dobbs (and videos of Trump boasting about it) and Dark Brandon, I suspect we end up closer to the latter. The only way we don’t is if Democrats buy into “All is irretrievably lost!” and just sortof go thru the motions. YMMV
Just for the record, I see about 80% chance Biden wins, at most 20% Trump wins. That’s Electoral College, of course; on total nationwide popular vote, Trump loses even worse than the first two times.
To my mind, the major question is where are we on the spectrum between “Biden ekes out another win, just like in 2020” and “Biden wins in a blowout.” Between Dobbs (and videos of Trump boasting about it) and Dark Brandon, I suspect we end up closer to the latter. The only way we don’t is if Democrats buy into “All is irretrievably lost!” and just sortof go thru the motions. YMMV
Thanks, wj.
A friend of mine just wrote, “changing candidates would be suicide.” I’ll leave it at that lest I start a rant that I can’t finish.
Thanks, wj.
A friend of mine just wrote, “changing candidates would be suicide.” I’ll leave it at that lest I start a rant that I can’t finish.
I really wish any of them could come up with a plausible scenario where Biden stepping aside at this point improves things for the Democrats.
“Due to recent and unforeseen health issues, President Biden has made the difficult decision to step aside and endorse [candidate] for the Democratic Presidential nomination.”
[candidate] would have to be someone who already has national recognition, like a Newsom or Whitmer (Bashear?).
Likely? No. But I think it’s not outside the realm of plausibility. Last night was bad. Really, really bad. Maybe it gets memory-holed and Trump gets a serious sentence that overshadows everything. There are a lot of plausible scenarios at this point.
I really wish any of them could come up with a plausible scenario where Biden stepping aside at this point improves things for the Democrats.
“Due to recent and unforeseen health issues, President Biden has made the difficult decision to step aside and endorse [candidate] for the Democratic Presidential nomination.”
[candidate] would have to be someone who already has national recognition, like a Newsom or Whitmer (Bashear?).
Likely? No. But I think it’s not outside the realm of plausibility. Last night was bad. Really, really bad. Maybe it gets memory-holed and Trump gets a serious sentence that overshadows everything. There are a lot of plausible scenarios at this point.
wj: FYLTGE, ad infinitum.
wj: FYLTGE, ad infinitum.
That would be 2016, where Clinton won all three debates overwhelmingly? That 2016?
I mean… yeah. Am I missing something?
Don’t get me wrong. I desperately hope you’re spot-on, wj.
FWIW, Vegas odds as of right now:
Ex. Bet $100 on Donald Trump (3/5) to win $60
Ex. Bet $100 on Joe Biden (4/1) to win $400
Ex. Bet $100 on Gavin Newsom (5/1) to win $500
That would be 2016, where Clinton won all three debates overwhelmingly? That 2016?
I mean… yeah. Am I missing something?
Don’t get me wrong. I desperately hope you’re spot-on, wj.
FWIW, Vegas odds as of right now:
Ex. Bet $100 on Donald Trump (3/5) to win $60
Ex. Bet $100 on Joe Biden (4/1) to win $400
Ex. Bet $100 on Gavin Newsom (5/1) to win $500
You never sent me that novel, Janie. At least give us the rant. 🙂
You never sent me that novel, Janie. At least give us the rant. 🙂
It was a bad night for Biden. He seemed frail, which plays into the whole “he’s too old” narrative.
Trump, conversely, was overfull with vulgar zeal. And bullshit, as always.
I think the (D)’s would be out of their minds to try to replace Biden at this point. It would do nothing but signal panic and self-doubt. Plus, replace him with who?
Biden is an elderly but actually very competent career politician. Some folks see the “politician” thing as a liability, but the gig is actually politics, so I personally see it as a valuable asset. He knows how to work the system and get things done. Not everything, but a lot.
If I was going to have brain surgery, I’d like to have it done by a brain surgeon. Right?
Trump is a belligerent criminal asshole who has plainly stated his intention to use the office to wreak personal vengeance on anyone who hasn’t supported him. His favorite foreign leaders are authoritarian fascist bastards, and he surrounds himself with our own domestic version of the same.
Old guy who mumbles but who’s actually pretty good at the job, or sociopath. Those are our choices.
I wish I could say, with wj, that it’s a slam dunk. Unfortunately I’m not confident about that.
We’ll see how it goes.
It was a bad night for Biden. He seemed frail, which plays into the whole “he’s too old” narrative.
Trump, conversely, was overfull with vulgar zeal. And bullshit, as always.
I think the (D)’s would be out of their minds to try to replace Biden at this point. It would do nothing but signal panic and self-doubt. Plus, replace him with who?
Biden is an elderly but actually very competent career politician. Some folks see the “politician” thing as a liability, but the gig is actually politics, so I personally see it as a valuable asset. He knows how to work the system and get things done. Not everything, but a lot.
If I was going to have brain surgery, I’d like to have it done by a brain surgeon. Right?
Trump is a belligerent criminal asshole who has plainly stated his intention to use the office to wreak personal vengeance on anyone who hasn’t supported him. His favorite foreign leaders are authoritarian fascist bastards, and he surrounds himself with our own domestic version of the same.
Old guy who mumbles but who’s actually pretty good at the job, or sociopath. Those are our choices.
I wish I could say, with wj, that it’s a slam dunk. Unfortunately I’m not confident about that.
We’ll see how it goes.
The one thing that bothers me about the age thing is that we’re electing someone to take office in January of 2025 and serve until January of 2029. No one gets younger, especially while serving as POTUS.
Don’t take to mean I wouldn’t chose Biden over tRump. That’s not even a question. It does mean that I wish there were some other option – you know, in a nation populated by a third of a billion people.
The one thing that bothers me about the age thing is that we’re electing someone to take office in January of 2025 and serve until January of 2029. No one gets younger, especially while serving as POTUS.
Don’t take to mean I wouldn’t chose Biden over tRump. That’s not even a question. It does mean that I wish there were some other option – you know, in a nation populated by a third of a billion people.
Truly, I think that what the Democrats should be doing in response to all of the uneasiness that Biden’s age generates is to borrow straight from the Reagan playbook and start stressing how Biden’s accomplishments in office have been a team effort, and how that team is fully capable of carrying on and delivering more wins and more progress come what may. Worst case, we are no worse off whatever happens to Joe.
Meanwhile, the other side’s people are all either weaklings toadying up to Trump, or they are the terrible fanatics that have brought us the fall of Roe and are angling for more intrusions and more racism, and more book banning. Trump is a shitshow. Whoever is on his coattails is bound to be more of a shitshow.
Make it a choice between two visions of America and show the GOP up for the chaos goblins that they are. Go after their dysfunction and extremism. Contrast that to the steady progress and competence of the Dems.
And then get out the goddamn vote.
Truly, I think that what the Democrats should be doing in response to all of the uneasiness that Biden’s age generates is to borrow straight from the Reagan playbook and start stressing how Biden’s accomplishments in office have been a team effort, and how that team is fully capable of carrying on and delivering more wins and more progress come what may. Worst case, we are no worse off whatever happens to Joe.
Meanwhile, the other side’s people are all either weaklings toadying up to Trump, or they are the terrible fanatics that have brought us the fall of Roe and are angling for more intrusions and more racism, and more book banning. Trump is a shitshow. Whoever is on his coattails is bound to be more of a shitshow.
Make it a choice between two visions of America and show the GOP up for the chaos goblins that they are. Go after their dysfunction and extremism. Contrast that to the steady progress and competence of the Dems.
And then get out the goddamn vote.
For once this is not only appropriate, but almost literally true:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
***
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
I think we know what rough beast, both individually and symbolically as something happening worldwide. But there’s time til the election, the moving finger has not yet writ and moved on. And: what nous said @01.44
For once this is not only appropriate, but almost literally true:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
***
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
I think we know what rough beast, both individually and symbolically as something happening worldwide. But there’s time til the election, the moving finger has not yet writ and moved on. And: what nous said @01.44
You never sent me that novel, Janie. At least give us the rant. 🙂
I did send it … but it seems never to have reached you. I’ll send it again later today. The rant is best left unranted, and anyhow, other people are saying what I might have said, in a less ranty way. All to the good. 🙂
You never sent me that novel, Janie. At least give us the rant. 🙂
I did send it … but it seems never to have reached you. I’ll send it again later today. The rant is best left unranted, and anyhow, other people are saying what I might have said, in a less ranty way. All to the good. 🙂
Pete — I re-sent the book. If you don’t get it fairly soon, why don’t you send me an email so I can make sure I have a current email address for you.
Pete — I re-sent the book. If you don’t get it fairly soon, why don’t you send me an email so I can make sure I have a current email address for you.
For that matter, send me an email if you got it, then I’ll know for sure.
For that matter, send me an email if you got it, then I’ll know for sure.
Sent to the fairpoint thingy.
Sent to the fairpoint thingy.
That would be 2016, where Clinton won all three debates overwhelmingly? That 2016?
I was referring to the Democrats sleepwalking into losing the election. I’m not sure how you arrive at your 80% Biden win. All the data I’ve seen is 50% at best and the debate performance isn’t going to help.
That would be 2016, where Clinton won all three debates overwhelmingly? That 2016?
I was referring to the Democrats sleepwalking into losing the election. I’m not sure how you arrive at your 80% Biden win. All the data I’ve seen is 50% at best and the debate performance isn’t going to help.
ALso, I don’t think all these people are just regurgitating Republican talking points:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/28/trump-biden-debate-reaction
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/28/western-politicians-shocked-joe-biden-us-presidential-debate
ALso, I don’t think all these people are just regurgitating Republican talking points:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/28/trump-biden-debate-reaction
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/28/western-politicians-shocked-joe-biden-us-presidential-debate
Absent news from his doctor regarding an incurable medical condition, Joe Biden will not step down at this late date. He knows the politics of such a move would be an absolute unmitigated disaster for him, his party, and our democracy (such as it is).
Dems panicked at his debate performance need to dig deep into their basket of resolve (they haz some, right?) to back the President to the hilt. That is good politics. They should know better.
Pundits who blather about an open convention need to be ridiculed and shunned. They do not know what politics is about. Such blathering is pure batshittery.
When presented with an existential binary choice between bad and not so bad…well, the choice is fairly straightforward.
Let’s go, Brandon. Stick it to ’em.
Absent news from his doctor regarding an incurable medical condition, Joe Biden will not step down at this late date. He knows the politics of such a move would be an absolute unmitigated disaster for him, his party, and our democracy (such as it is).
Dems panicked at his debate performance need to dig deep into their basket of resolve (they haz some, right?) to back the President to the hilt. That is good politics. They should know better.
Pundits who blather about an open convention need to be ridiculed and shunned. They do not know what politics is about. Such blathering is pure batshittery.
When presented with an existential binary choice between bad and not so bad…well, the choice is fairly straightforward.
Let’s go, Brandon. Stick it to ’em.
Additional thought… Biden needs to give Harris more prominence and let her go after Trump’s Roepocalypse the way that she has been doing. She’ll give the younger voters a reason to turn out, and giving her a higher profile will reassure voters that it’s not all resting on an old man who has lost a step.
Harris has been doing well. Let her step up.
Additional thought… Biden needs to give Harris more prominence and let her go after Trump’s Roepocalypse the way that she has been doing. She’ll give the younger voters a reason to turn out, and giving her a higher profile will reassure voters that it’s not all resting on an old man who has lost a step.
Harris has been doing well. Let her step up.
Listened to the Pod Save America podcast from last night. For those not in the know, this is 4 former Obama staffers – mostly speechwriters and an advisor. I’m not going to link to it here – it’s easy to find. These guys love Joe Biden and are doing everything they can to ensure his re-election.
They didn’t even try to put lipstick on last night’s pig. There was discussion about the whole open convention thing. The upshot was – as I understood it – this may not be the best course of action, but it is necessary to have that discussion. I think that’s true. And I think Joe Biden needs to be directly involved in it.
Listened to the Pod Save America podcast from last night. For those not in the know, this is 4 former Obama staffers – mostly speechwriters and an advisor. I’m not going to link to it here – it’s easy to find. These guys love Joe Biden and are doing everything they can to ensure his re-election.
They didn’t even try to put lipstick on last night’s pig. There was discussion about the whole open convention thing. The upshot was – as I understood it – this may not be the best course of action, but it is necessary to have that discussion. I think that’s true. And I think Joe Biden needs to be directly involved in it.
As the meme of the day says, “F*ck that bum, let’s go Joe!”.
If he loses, he loses, in which case a hell of a lot of people will be screwed and the world will be a different place four years from now than it is today. And not in a good way.
But I can’t think of anyone else who has a better shot of beating Trump, and even if there was a golden unicorn unbeatable candidate somewhere waiting in the wings, it’s kinda late in the game to make the switch.
The only precedent I’m aware of where an incumbent POTUS stood down during an election cycle was LBJ in 1968. He made the announcement in late March, not almost-July. And the result was an utter crap show – a police riot at the convention and an electoral landslide for Nixon.
Yes, it was a different time, conditions are never exactly the same, it may not be a perfect analogy. But let’s not do that again. A bad performance in a debate is not the same as being caught in a disastrous and unwinnable war.
Biden’s old, but Trump’s a great big bag of sociopathic dysfunction. This election should be a slam dunk, but it doesn’t look like it will be.
The reason for that – the basic problem we’re looking at – is that a belligerent, bullying, felonious, sociopathic asshole appeals to a lot of people.
Absent some kind of massive national mental health intervention, it’s going to be close. It’s time to get the man’s back.
F*ck that bum, let’s go Joe. If we go down in flames, it’ll be because lots of people think that’s a great idea. That ain’t Biden’s fault.
As the meme of the day says, “F*ck that bum, let’s go Joe!”.
If he loses, he loses, in which case a hell of a lot of people will be screwed and the world will be a different place four years from now than it is today. And not in a good way.
But I can’t think of anyone else who has a better shot of beating Trump, and even if there was a golden unicorn unbeatable candidate somewhere waiting in the wings, it’s kinda late in the game to make the switch.
The only precedent I’m aware of where an incumbent POTUS stood down during an election cycle was LBJ in 1968. He made the announcement in late March, not almost-July. And the result was an utter crap show – a police riot at the convention and an electoral landslide for Nixon.
Yes, it was a different time, conditions are never exactly the same, it may not be a perfect analogy. But let’s not do that again. A bad performance in a debate is not the same as being caught in a disastrous and unwinnable war.
Biden’s old, but Trump’s a great big bag of sociopathic dysfunction. This election should be a slam dunk, but it doesn’t look like it will be.
The reason for that – the basic problem we’re looking at – is that a belligerent, bullying, felonious, sociopathic asshole appeals to a lot of people.
Absent some kind of massive national mental health intervention, it’s going to be close. It’s time to get the man’s back.
F*ck that bum, let’s go Joe. If we go down in flames, it’ll be because lots of people think that’s a great idea. That ain’t Biden’s fault.
Also, great thinking about Harris and the Roepocalypse. And emphasising how, on the same basis, gay marriage and contraception are in the firing line – and that it has to be taken seriously because nobody ever thought Roe was really in danger either.
Also, great thinking about Harris and the Roepocalypse. And emphasising how, on the same basis, gay marriage and contraception are in the firing line – and that it has to be taken seriously because nobody ever thought Roe was really in danger either.
I’m having trouble finding precedent where a coupla ~octogenarians, both of whom have been President, where one has multiple indictments as well as convictions (on appeal, I guess) are the only viable candidates.
All bets are off.
I don’t know any “undecided” voters in my social sphere, be it what it is. A few “double-haters”, yes. But begrudgingly already decided.
But apparently, they’re out there. I dunno what the numbers are. But I know what the Vegas odds are. And I kinda trust that more than Steve Kornacki at the Big Board.
(No hate for Steve. I like that guy.)
If it’s ride-or-die for Biden, I’m all-in. But, yeah. 2016. Can we not even have that conversation? Because I think we need that conversation to determine the focus for the final stretch. Let’s go, Joe! But we’re behind. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
I’m having trouble finding precedent where a coupla ~octogenarians, both of whom have been President, where one has multiple indictments as well as convictions (on appeal, I guess) are the only viable candidates.
All bets are off.
I don’t know any “undecided” voters in my social sphere, be it what it is. A few “double-haters”, yes. But begrudgingly already decided.
But apparently, they’re out there. I dunno what the numbers are. But I know what the Vegas odds are. And I kinda trust that more than Steve Kornacki at the Big Board.
(No hate for Steve. I like that guy.)
If it’s ride-or-die for Biden, I’m all-in. But, yeah. 2016. Can we not even have that conversation? Because I think we need that conversation to determine the focus for the final stretch. Let’s go, Joe! But we’re behind. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
One advantage Biden could get from taking the restraints off of Harris and letting her do what she has been doing with young voters in front of everybody… I can’t imagine Trump dealing well with being on the receiving end of Harris’ mouth. Getting stung by her could well be enough to goad him across some very shaky lines and into territory that will sink him with suburban women, young voters, and whatever POC might have been wavering on Biden over Israel-Palestine.
One advantage Biden could get from taking the restraints off of Harris and letting her do what she has been doing with young voters in front of everybody… I can’t imagine Trump dealing well with being on the receiving end of Harris’ mouth. Getting stung by her could well be enough to goad him across some very shaky lines and into territory that will sink him with suburban women, young voters, and whatever POC might have been wavering on Biden over Israel-Palestine.
Biden should gracefully resign. That is what would save the country— a man putting the needs of the country over his own ego. That alone would put him and the Democrats way ahead of a party which has lined up behind a giant toddler. To any people who haven’t decided who they are voting for or who are repelled by both men, that would be a very clear ,even moving, distinction.
How seriously does Biden take the fascist threat if he won’t do this?
And I am not saying this hoping to see anyone replacing him that I would actually like. I think Biden belongs in jail for complicity in war crimes and any centrist liberal who replaces him would most likely be just as repulsive. I loathe the Democrats who support Biden’s Gaza policies and despise his spokespeople.
But the Republicans manage to be worse even on Gaza. And it would be genuinely impressive to see a man do something against his own personal greatest desires— his endorsement of his successor, whoever that would turn out to be, would carry some weight for anyone who has any trace of actual patriotism.
Biden should gracefully resign. That is what would save the country— a man putting the needs of the country over his own ego. That alone would put him and the Democrats way ahead of a party which has lined up behind a giant toddler. To any people who haven’t decided who they are voting for or who are repelled by both men, that would be a very clear ,even moving, distinction.
How seriously does Biden take the fascist threat if he won’t do this?
And I am not saying this hoping to see anyone replacing him that I would actually like. I think Biden belongs in jail for complicity in war crimes and any centrist liberal who replaces him would most likely be just as repulsive. I loathe the Democrats who support Biden’s Gaza policies and despise his spokespeople.
But the Republicans manage to be worse even on Gaza. And it would be genuinely impressive to see a man do something against his own personal greatest desires— his endorsement of his successor, whoever that would turn out to be, would carry some weight for anyone who has any trace of actual patriotism.
”Gina Gannon, 65, a retiree in the battleground state of Georgia, voted for Trump in 2016 before ditching him for Biden in 2020.
“Joe Biden looked very weak and confused right from the start. It concerns me that our global enemies see Joe Biden in this manner. I was shocked and dismayed. I hate to see our president acting that way on TV and in front of the world,” Gannon said.
She added: “I am absolutely voting for Donald Trump now.”
”Gina Gannon, 65, a retiree in the battleground state of Georgia, voted for Trump in 2016 before ditching him for Biden in 2020.
“Joe Biden looked very weak and confused right from the start. It concerns me that our global enemies see Joe Biden in this manner. I was shocked and dismayed. I hate to see our president acting that way on TV and in front of the world,” Gannon said.
She added: “I am absolutely voting for Donald Trump now.”
Dems panicked at his debate performance need to dig deep into their basket of resolve (they haz some, right?) to back the President to the hilt. That is good politics. They should know better.
Pundits who blather about an open convention need to be ridiculed and shunned. They do not know what politics is about. Such blathering is pure batshittery.
The world must be ending! Because bobbyp and I are totally on the same page here.
It’s worth noting that the audience that matters saw a very different debate. Polls of Hispanic/Latino voters showed the previously undecided voters unanimous reaction was “Trump is insane! I’m voting for Biden!” Similarly, almost word for word, with undecided non-Hispanic white voters. For both groups, it seems that Trump dominated their perception of the debate, and not in a good way.
Dems panicked at his debate performance need to dig deep into their basket of resolve (they haz some, right?) to back the President to the hilt. That is good politics. They should know better.
Pundits who blather about an open convention need to be ridiculed and shunned. They do not know what politics is about. Such blathering is pure batshittery.
The world must be ending! Because bobbyp and I are totally on the same page here.
It’s worth noting that the audience that matters saw a very different debate. Polls of Hispanic/Latino voters showed the previously undecided voters unanimous reaction was “Trump is insane! I’m voting for Biden!” Similarly, almost word for word, with undecided non-Hispanic white voters. For both groups, it seems that Trump dominated their perception of the debate, and not in a good way.
Biden should gracefully resign. That is what would save the country— a man putting the needs of the country over his own ego. That alone would put him and the Democrats way ahead of a party which has lined up behind a giant toddler. To any people who haven’t decided who they are voting for or who are repelled by both men, that would be a very clear ,even moving, distinction.
This is just totally divorced from reality.
Let us assume, entirely for the sake of discussion, that Biden “gracefully resigns.” Then what happens?
Well, the Democrats still need to nominate someone. So, the convention will be full of people elected to vote to nominate Biden-Harris. Most likely, they thereupon vote to put Harris on the ballot. To the fury of everybody who has been calling on Biden to step aside so their personal fantasy savior can be nominated. So, having had their hopes raised, they go off to sulk. And Trump wins.
But let’s further make the unreasonable assumption that the delegates don’t do that, ignore the preferences of the voters who selected them, and there truly is an open convention. How does that work out? For openers, we do not see is a congenial working out, among the possible replacements, of who would have the best chance against Trump. Instead, we get an utter shitshow. One which runs on and on for weeks.
If and when a candidate emerges, he has to build a nationwide campaign organization, less than 2 months from Election Day. And deal with all the sulks from those whose candidate didn’t get picked. And, again, Trump wins.
Sure, like the diehard Bernie fans in 2016, all the folks who called for Biden to step aside can feel warm and fuzzy with virtue. While watching Trump destroy the nation. They may think, by letting a disaster loose, people will embrace their savior next time. Even though, as we saw in 2020, the primary voters didn’t.
Biden should gracefully resign. That is what would save the country— a man putting the needs of the country over his own ego. That alone would put him and the Democrats way ahead of a party which has lined up behind a giant toddler. To any people who haven’t decided who they are voting for or who are repelled by both men, that would be a very clear ,even moving, distinction.
This is just totally divorced from reality.
Let us assume, entirely for the sake of discussion, that Biden “gracefully resigns.” Then what happens?
Well, the Democrats still need to nominate someone. So, the convention will be full of people elected to vote to nominate Biden-Harris. Most likely, they thereupon vote to put Harris on the ballot. To the fury of everybody who has been calling on Biden to step aside so their personal fantasy savior can be nominated. So, having had their hopes raised, they go off to sulk. And Trump wins.
But let’s further make the unreasonable assumption that the delegates don’t do that, ignore the preferences of the voters who selected them, and there truly is an open convention. How does that work out? For openers, we do not see is a congenial working out, among the possible replacements, of who would have the best chance against Trump. Instead, we get an utter shitshow. One which runs on and on for weeks.
If and when a candidate emerges, he has to build a nationwide campaign organization, less than 2 months from Election Day. And deal with all the sulks from those whose candidate didn’t get picked. And, again, Trump wins.
Sure, like the diehard Bernie fans in 2016, all the folks who called for Biden to step aside can feel warm and fuzzy with virtue. While watching Trump destroy the nation. They may think, by letting a disaster loose, people will embrace their savior next time. Even though, as we saw in 2020, the primary voters didn’t.
Not very interested in arguing this, wj— if people truly think Trump is a threat to democracy then they would welcome Biden stepping aside for the good of the country, there would be several weeks to thrash out who the nominee would be, and Biden would give his endorsement.
But if everyone, Biden included, is too selfish to do this, then sure, it can’t happen because everyone is placing their personal interests above the Trump threat. Then one has to hope that Biden’s horrible performance won’t matter and won’t be repeated.
Personally I have no ideological stake in this. I am reconciled to the fact that there is no Sanders who will step in. It would be someone I dislike. But here is another point—the meltdown by leading Democratic pundits and the NYT editorial board was very public. As Adam Johnson just pointed out ( a lefty I often read). all of these public breakdowns are going to go into Trump ads. I suppose you and bobbyp would say everyone should have been disciplined and stuck to their message despite Biden’s abysmal performance, but reality doesn’t work that way.
Not very interested in arguing this, wj— if people truly think Trump is a threat to democracy then they would welcome Biden stepping aside for the good of the country, there would be several weeks to thrash out who the nominee would be, and Biden would give his endorsement.
But if everyone, Biden included, is too selfish to do this, then sure, it can’t happen because everyone is placing their personal interests above the Trump threat. Then one has to hope that Biden’s horrible performance won’t matter and won’t be repeated.
Personally I have no ideological stake in this. I am reconciled to the fact that there is no Sanders who will step in. It would be someone I dislike. But here is another point—the meltdown by leading Democratic pundits and the NYT editorial board was very public. As Adam Johnson just pointed out ( a lefty I often read). all of these public breakdowns are going to go into Trump ads. I suppose you and bobbyp would say everyone should have been disciplined and stuck to their message despite Biden’s abysmal performance, but reality doesn’t work that way.
And if she speaks for several hundred thousand people strategically distributed across swing states, we’re screwed.
Who are the (D)’s gonna put up that’s gonna change Gina’s mind?
This is just totally divorced from reality.
Not sure I’d go that far, but as a practical matter IMO it’s a non-starter. For all the reasons wj names.
Politics is not a virtuous discipline. It’s about power. Who has it, who can use it, how and where and when can it be used.
With respect, should Biden stand down and endorse his would-be successor, the number of folks for whom that would “carry some weight” is fairly small. For most people, who they vote for is going to be about what a gallon of gas costs. Or similar. I’m not sure the noble gesture would register. ObWi readers and commenters are more or less self-selected political nerds. Most folks aren’t.
Biden had a bad debate. While fully acknowledging the moral and ethical compromise of our national response to Gaza, I also am hard pressed to think of anyone other than Biden who would have handled it better, and who also would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected POTUS.
I personally do not expect extraordinary, or even more than ordinary, moral virtue from political actors. I expect competence, basic fairness, and a commitment to the institutions that keep the wheels on.
Biden is good at those things. Trump wants to burn them down. And I can’t think of anyone who, starting from square one in July of an election year, is likely to do a better job of beating Trump than Biden.
Maybe Michelle Obama, but I don’t think she wants the gig. 🙂
So recognizing all of his faults and limitations, I’m basically all in for Biden.
Pretty much where I’m at.
The only realistic alternative – President Trump 2.0 – is beyond disturbing.
Seriously – I’m asking seriously – who are the (D)’s gonna put up that is going to start from ground zero and beat Trump in four months?
If you don’t have a serious and credible answer, than I think you either need to double down on Biden or else throw your hands in the air and get ready to watch the world burn.
If you think it’s bad now, just wait.
And if she speaks for several hundred thousand people strategically distributed across swing states, we’re screwed.
Who are the (D)’s gonna put up that’s gonna change Gina’s mind?
This is just totally divorced from reality.
Not sure I’d go that far, but as a practical matter IMO it’s a non-starter. For all the reasons wj names.
Politics is not a virtuous discipline. It’s about power. Who has it, who can use it, how and where and when can it be used.
With respect, should Biden stand down and endorse his would-be successor, the number of folks for whom that would “carry some weight” is fairly small. For most people, who they vote for is going to be about what a gallon of gas costs. Or similar. I’m not sure the noble gesture would register. ObWi readers and commenters are more or less self-selected political nerds. Most folks aren’t.
Biden had a bad debate. While fully acknowledging the moral and ethical compromise of our national response to Gaza, I also am hard pressed to think of anyone other than Biden who would have handled it better, and who also would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected POTUS.
I personally do not expect extraordinary, or even more than ordinary, moral virtue from political actors. I expect competence, basic fairness, and a commitment to the institutions that keep the wheels on.
Biden is good at those things. Trump wants to burn them down. And I can’t think of anyone who, starting from square one in July of an election year, is likely to do a better job of beating Trump than Biden.
Maybe Michelle Obama, but I don’t think she wants the gig. 🙂
So recognizing all of his faults and limitations, I’m basically all in for Biden.
Pretty much where I’m at.
The only realistic alternative – President Trump 2.0 – is beyond disturbing.
Seriously – I’m asking seriously – who are the (D)’s gonna put up that is going to start from ground zero and beat Trump in four months?
If you don’t have a serious and credible answer, than I think you either need to double down on Biden or else throw your hands in the air and get ready to watch the world burn.
If you think it’s bad now, just wait.
Not very interested in arguing this, wj
I understand entirely. And why.
Not very interested in arguing this, wj
I understand entirely. And why.
Seriously – I’m asking seriously – who are the (D)’s gonna put up that is going to start from ground zero and beat Trump in four months?
If you get an answer, a serious answer with an actual name, by all means repeat it here. Because it will be a first.
As far as I can tell, the actual preference is an Eeyore-Chicken Little ticket. (With some internal quibbling, of course, over which should get top billing.)
Seriously – I’m asking seriously – who are the (D)’s gonna put up that is going to start from ground zero and beat Trump in four months?
If you get an answer, a serious answer with an actual name, by all means repeat it here. Because it will be a first.
As far as I can tell, the actual preference is an Eeyore-Chicken Little ticket. (With some internal quibbling, of course, over which should get top billing.)
Welcome to the Hunger Games. It’s what the media does these days:
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/media-coverage-trump-s-fascism
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/election-politics-front-pages.php
https://www.cjr.org/covering_the_election/bad-tv-banikarim-trump-networks-mistakes.php
A Common Dreams op-ed and two Columbia Journalism Reveiw pieces that focus on the real reason why we can’t find our way out of political trouble. Our media is feeding our most harmful public tendencies.
And then the media have the gall to wring their hands and bemoan the terrible state that we are in when they have stoked and fed the very fire that’s threatening to burn it all down and take us with it.
But at least it’s an engaging spectacle. So much more interesting than the work of trying to understand and actually fix things.
Welcome to the Hunger Games. It’s what the media does these days:
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/media-coverage-trump-s-fascism
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/election-politics-front-pages.php
https://www.cjr.org/covering_the_election/bad-tv-banikarim-trump-networks-mistakes.php
A Common Dreams op-ed and two Columbia Journalism Reveiw pieces that focus on the real reason why we can’t find our way out of political trouble. Our media is feeding our most harmful public tendencies.
And then the media have the gall to wring their hands and bemoan the terrible state that we are in when they have stoked and fed the very fire that’s threatening to burn it all down and take us with it.
But at least it’s an engaging spectacle. So much more interesting than the work of trying to understand and actually fix things.
Fwiw, the New York Times’ editorial board is asking for Biden to drop out:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/opinion/biden-election-debate-trump.html
Look, I just want to prevent another Trump term which would mean the end of US democracy as we know it and everything that would entail for the rest of the world. I happen to think that this would be the best course of action.
I am aware of the risks, but think the risk of carrying on regardless is greater. The Democrats should have started the process sooner, but there’s still time (European election campaigns are much shorter).
Fwiw, the New York Times’ editorial board is asking for Biden to drop out:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/opinion/biden-election-debate-trump.html
Look, I just want to prevent another Trump term which would mean the end of US democracy as we know it and everything that would entail for the rest of the world. I happen to think that this would be the best course of action.
I am aware of the risks, but think the risk of carrying on regardless is greater. The Democrats should have started the process sooner, but there’s still time (European election campaigns are much shorter).
This is interesting:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ezra-klein-on-why-the-democratic-party-is-too-afraid-of-replacing-biden
This is interesting:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ezra-klein-on-why-the-democratic-party-is-too-afraid-of-replacing-biden
Polls of Hispanic/Latino voters showed the previously undecided voters unanimous reaction was “Trump is insane! I’m voting for Biden!” Similarly, almost word for word, with undecided non-Hispanic white voters
Cite?
Polls of Hispanic/Latino voters showed the previously undecided voters unanimous reaction was “Trump is insane! I’m voting for Biden!” Similarly, almost word for word, with undecided non-Hispanic white voters
Cite?
For those of you looking for Johnny Unbeatable:
So Newsom or Whitmer jump into the shitstorm that would be a Dem open convention? They would emerge bloodied, leading a splintered party, with no campaign war chest in place (as pointed out by L. O’Donnell), and no organization.
You are asking somebody like this to commit political suicide.
Come on. Get serious.
For those of you looking for Johnny Unbeatable:
So Newsom or Whitmer jump into the shitstorm that would be a Dem open convention? They would emerge bloodied, leading a splintered party, with no campaign war chest in place (as pointed out by L. O’Donnell), and no organization.
You are asking somebody like this to commit political suicide.
Come on. Get serious.
but reality doesn’t work that way.
Hi Donald,
As one who firmly believes the concept of private property will lead the human race to perdition, I write to express my disagreement.
Sticking with Biden is based on my cold hearted green shade assessment of the probabilities of the outcomes we face:
Elections (all of them) have consequences.
In a binary system, a choice is pretty much forced upon you. (As much as one may feel we should have a parlimentary sytem, the brute fact of the matter is we don’t have one.)
Make one.
As Russell points out, it is about power (i.e., who gets what).
addendum: Agree with you about standard Dem support for Israel, but most Americans have totally bought into the Exodus fantasy about the Isreali state. Tough nut to crack.
but reality doesn’t work that way.
Hi Donald,
As one who firmly believes the concept of private property will lead the human race to perdition, I write to express my disagreement.
Sticking with Biden is based on my cold hearted green shade assessment of the probabilities of the outcomes we face:
Elections (all of them) have consequences.
In a binary system, a choice is pretty much forced upon you. (As much as one may feel we should have a parlimentary sytem, the brute fact of the matter is we don’t have one.)
Make one.
As Russell points out, it is about power (i.e., who gets what).
addendum: Agree with you about standard Dem support for Israel, but most Americans have totally bought into the Exodus fantasy about the Isreali state. Tough nut to crack.
sad, but true:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/06/murcs-law-achieves-escape-velocity
sad, but true:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/06/murcs-law-achieves-escape-velocity
(European election campaigns are much shorter)
Yep. And we should have shorter campaigns here, too, but we don’t, and nothing at all here is geared up for a drastically shorter campaign, never mind for a candidate chosen in a panic at what is in effect the last minute. (Also see bobbyp @10:41.)
It’s like saying trains could go between two countries with different track gauges, no adjustment or redesign needed.
Or hey, I’ll just plug in my gas stove and it will suddenly be an electric stove! No prob!
And this ship is heading for a bridge, we can turn it in time, piece of cake!
Oops.
As for the NYT editorial board…they’ve helped cause this mess and I imagine they are as gleeful as can be that they’ve brought it this far.
(European election campaigns are much shorter)
Yep. And we should have shorter campaigns here, too, but we don’t, and nothing at all here is geared up for a drastically shorter campaign, never mind for a candidate chosen in a panic at what is in effect the last minute. (Also see bobbyp @10:41.)
It’s like saying trains could go between two countries with different track gauges, no adjustment or redesign needed.
Or hey, I’ll just plug in my gas stove and it will suddenly be an electric stove! No prob!
And this ship is heading for a bridge, we can turn it in time, piece of cake!
Oops.
As for the NYT editorial board…they’ve helped cause this mess and I imagine they are as gleeful as can be that they’ve brought it this far.
Unusually, I find myself unsure of what I think about this (i.e. Biden should step aside v Biden should not).
Obviously, I put more weight on the opinions of Americans than Europeans about this subject, including but not limited to ObWi: you all have a much clearer idea of what is or is not possible or likely in the time remaining. But there are conflicting opinions, even here, held by people on both sides I very much respect.
I do find the suggestion that the NYT are at all gleeful about this situation very unlikely, despite how much the media are or are not responsible for it. If that were true, they’d have to admit to themselves how much they have contributed to it, and I see no signs of that. For self-defence they are in denial, although probably not about previous elections which apparently have caused much soul-searching – if you believe they have a soul.
Unusually, I find myself unsure of what I think about this (i.e. Biden should step aside v Biden should not).
Obviously, I put more weight on the opinions of Americans than Europeans about this subject, including but not limited to ObWi: you all have a much clearer idea of what is or is not possible or likely in the time remaining. But there are conflicting opinions, even here, held by people on both sides I very much respect.
I do find the suggestion that the NYT are at all gleeful about this situation very unlikely, despite how much the media are or are not responsible for it. If that were true, they’d have to admit to themselves how much they have contributed to it, and I see no signs of that. For self-defence they are in denial, although probably not about previous elections which apparently have caused much soul-searching – if you believe they have a soul.
You don’t pull the goaltender because you like your odds. You pull him because you have nothing to lose.
I don’t think we’re there, and I don’t think we will or should get there.
But we all saw what we saw. From novakant’s links, the world saw it. And they like the guy. It requires an explanation. A convincing one. Speech impediment or momentary lapse of who’s president of Mexico ain’t gonna cut it.
Immediately getting out on the stump was good. Necessary. Need more of it. But reading from a teleprompter in a friendly environment is not the same as a debate. Maybe he needs to get on 60 Minutes and chat with Leslie Stahl. I dunno. I’m no strategist.
There’s still another debate to come, and anything but a rock-solid showing will be devastating.
(Obligatory FTFNYT)
You don’t pull the goaltender because you like your odds. You pull him because you have nothing to lose.
I don’t think we’re there, and I don’t think we will or should get there.
But we all saw what we saw. From novakant’s links, the world saw it. And they like the guy. It requires an explanation. A convincing one. Speech impediment or momentary lapse of who’s president of Mexico ain’t gonna cut it.
Immediately getting out on the stump was good. Necessary. Need more of it. But reading from a teleprompter in a friendly environment is not the same as a debate. Maybe he needs to get on 60 Minutes and chat with Leslie Stahl. I dunno. I’m no strategist.
There’s still another debate to come, and anything but a rock-solid showing will be devastating.
(Obligatory FTFNYT)
there’s still time
No, there isn’t.
All changing horses in mid stream would do is guarantee a Trump victory.
there’s still time
No, there isn’t.
All changing horses in mid stream would do is guarantee a Trump victory.
It’s like saying trains could go between two countries with different track gauges, no adjustment or redesign needed.
It’s more like saying, when the express train is on its way, “We’ll just shift one rail over, so the track guage will match. Hey, it’s just a couple of inches!”
Arguing that it’s even vaguely possible just demonstrates that the advocate (assuming a good faith argument, which I will for anyone here) is clueless about how presidential campaigns work. Which is not even notionally like European elections.
It’s like saying trains could go between two countries with different track gauges, no adjustment or redesign needed.
It’s more like saying, when the express train is on its way, “We’ll just shift one rail over, so the track guage will match. Hey, it’s just a couple of inches!”
Arguing that it’s even vaguely possible just demonstrates that the advocate (assuming a good faith argument, which I will for anyone here) is clueless about how presidential campaigns work. Which is not even notionally like European elections.
There’s still another debate to come, and anything but a rock-solid showing will be devastating.
Voter support for the two camps is evenly split, and those folks are not going anywhere. So it comes down to marginal swings (in the right states) of the “undecided” (god, I hate that term), folks who, for the most part, did not watch the debate, do not follow politics closely, and frankly have no clue (just my elitist opinion).
There are many things that could happen between now and election day that would have a consequential marginal effect (cf. the infamous Comey announcement re Clinton best server practices just before the 2016 election).
One subpar debate performance in June does not strike me as one of them.
To quote Joe Biden, “Look”: The grab’em by the pussy tape did not deter a Trump win in 2016.
Get a grip.
There’s still another debate to come, and anything but a rock-solid showing will be devastating.
Voter support for the two camps is evenly split, and those folks are not going anywhere. So it comes down to marginal swings (in the right states) of the “undecided” (god, I hate that term), folks who, for the most part, did not watch the debate, do not follow politics closely, and frankly have no clue (just my elitist opinion).
There are many things that could happen between now and election day that would have a consequential marginal effect (cf. the infamous Comey announcement re Clinton best server practices just before the 2016 election).
One subpar debate performance in June does not strike me as one of them.
To quote Joe Biden, “Look”: The grab’em by the pussy tape did not deter a Trump win in 2016.
Get a grip.
Sidney Blumenthal in today’s Grauniad reckons there won’t be another debate, because Trump has been handed an advantage. But leaving that aside, I do agree with this:
Biden’s age had been set aside until the debate. His accomplishments are the result of his political skill, experience and knowledge. For the Democratic party, Biden was a political necessity. The center held around him. His renewed candidacy prevented a tumultuous free-for-all. But his ability to run on the platform he has built through three and a half years has been severely undermined in 90 minutes.
Biden has run for more reasons than his grasp of the state of the party. He understands the state of the world. Biden has held together the center of the western alliance. He decided he would run again because he was the crucial leader at an unprecedented perilous time. His premise that he must win the presidency to sustain the west against the overarching menace of Putin and his sidekick Trump has been the fundamental reason for his second candidacy.
Donald is certainly somebody whose opinion I respect. But in this case I don’t think his diagnosis that Biden is in it for selfish reasons is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/29/biden-debate-election-stakes
Sidney Blumenthal in today’s Grauniad reckons there won’t be another debate, because Trump has been handed an advantage. But leaving that aside, I do agree with this:
Biden’s age had been set aside until the debate. His accomplishments are the result of his political skill, experience and knowledge. For the Democratic party, Biden was a political necessity. The center held around him. His renewed candidacy prevented a tumultuous free-for-all. But his ability to run on the platform he has built through three and a half years has been severely undermined in 90 minutes.
Biden has run for more reasons than his grasp of the state of the party. He understands the state of the world. Biden has held together the center of the western alliance. He decided he would run again because he was the crucial leader at an unprecedented perilous time. His premise that he must win the presidency to sustain the west against the overarching menace of Putin and his sidekick Trump has been the fundamental reason for his second candidacy.
Donald is certainly somebody whose opinion I respect. But in this case I don’t think his diagnosis that Biden is in it for selfish reasons is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/29/biden-debate-election-stakes
Agreed on both points.
Also agree with Blumenthal’s general analysis.
In terms of possible silver linings, it’s a good thing the debate was early in the cycle. If it was, say, September, things would be worse.
Long story short, for me – I have a really hard time making sense of my own country right now.
How the hell does a guy like DJT come even close to the Presidency? Not once, but twice?
It’s tempting to just point and laugh at Trump and his supporters, and/or just shake my head in consternation. But they’re not going anywhere, and the phenomenon of “Trumpism” is clearly broader and deeper than DJT himself.
Is half the country made up of what appear to be profoundly horrible people? What the hell is going on?
I’m at a loss.
Agreed on both points.
Also agree with Blumenthal’s general analysis.
In terms of possible silver linings, it’s a good thing the debate was early in the cycle. If it was, say, September, things would be worse.
Long story short, for me – I have a really hard time making sense of my own country right now.
How the hell does a guy like DJT come even close to the Presidency? Not once, but twice?
It’s tempting to just point and laugh at Trump and his supporters, and/or just shake my head in consternation. But they’re not going anywhere, and the phenomenon of “Trumpism” is clearly broader and deeper than DJT himself.
Is half the country made up of what appear to be profoundly horrible people? What the hell is going on?
I’m at a loss.
Is half the country made up of what appear to be profoundly horrible people? What the hell is going on?
I’m at a loss.
Social media has reinforced silos and caricatures of the other side, and amplified anger (which Clickbait is a genius at manipulating).
And those other people (the MAGA people) think WE are the horrible people.
But I don’t think it’s actually a mirror image situation.
You can listen to anything Clickbait says, or Mike Johnson, or JD Vance, or those characters in Texas and Louisiana, or Alito and Thomas, and the crap that they want to do is on clear display, and in fact they are actually doing it. (And it’s horrible.)
You could also look at Biden, or AOC, or Schumer, or any of the Ds, and get a pretty clear idea of what THEY want to do. (And our Donald would say, rightly, that some of IT is horrible.)
But what the Ds want to do, and who they are, has in part been grotesquely distorted by Murdoch media, so a lot of people actually believe that “liberals” are only one baby step away from Stalin, and in part includes stuff that a lot of people do genuinely hate (race-related, LGBTQetc-related, women’s autonomy-related). The world was so much nicer when everyone knew their place, and mostly stayed in it.
Meanwhile the billionaires want tax cuts, and can buy them.
Is half the country made up of what appear to be profoundly horrible people? What the hell is going on?
I’m at a loss.
Social media has reinforced silos and caricatures of the other side, and amplified anger (which Clickbait is a genius at manipulating).
And those other people (the MAGA people) think WE are the horrible people.
But I don’t think it’s actually a mirror image situation.
You can listen to anything Clickbait says, or Mike Johnson, or JD Vance, or those characters in Texas and Louisiana, or Alito and Thomas, and the crap that they want to do is on clear display, and in fact they are actually doing it. (And it’s horrible.)
You could also look at Biden, or AOC, or Schumer, or any of the Ds, and get a pretty clear idea of what THEY want to do. (And our Donald would say, rightly, that some of IT is horrible.)
But what the Ds want to do, and who they are, has in part been grotesquely distorted by Murdoch media, so a lot of people actually believe that “liberals” are only one baby step away from Stalin, and in part includes stuff that a lot of people do genuinely hate (race-related, LGBTQetc-related, women’s autonomy-related). The world was so much nicer when everyone knew their place, and mostly stayed in it.
Meanwhile the billionaires want tax cuts, and can buy them.
I’ve just seen Prof Alan Lichtman being interviewed on C4 News. He says that “the media has vastly overrated what effect this debate is having”, and that the polls haven’t moved (good to hear, but it seems a bit early to me).
More to the point, he says that while he cannot yet make a prediction on who would win out of Trump v Biden, nonetheless if Biden steps down (or is pressured to) and the Dems run an alternative, they would be “doomed to defeat”.
From his Wikipedia entry:
Lichtman created the Keys to the White House model with Soviet seismologist Vladimir Keilis-Borok in 1981. The model uses 13 true/false criteria to predict whether the presidential candidate of the incumbent party will win or lose the next election.[1] Using this model, Lichtman has accurately predicted the winner of every U.S. presidential election since 1984, with the exception of 2000,[2] although he did forecast successfully that Al Gore would win the popular vote that year, and 2016, where he predicted Donald Trump would win, despite Trump’s popular vote loss.[3] He ran for the U.S. Senate seat from Maryland in 2006, finishing in sixth place in the Democratic primary. In 2017, Lichtman published The Case for Impeachment, laying out multiple arguments for the impeachment of Donald Trump.[4][5][6]
I’ve just seen Prof Alan Lichtman being interviewed on C4 News. He says that “the media has vastly overrated what effect this debate is having”, and that the polls haven’t moved (good to hear, but it seems a bit early to me).
More to the point, he says that while he cannot yet make a prediction on who would win out of Trump v Biden, nonetheless if Biden steps down (or is pressured to) and the Dems run an alternative, they would be “doomed to defeat”.
From his Wikipedia entry:
Lichtman created the Keys to the White House model with Soviet seismologist Vladimir Keilis-Borok in 1981. The model uses 13 true/false criteria to predict whether the presidential candidate of the incumbent party will win or lose the next election.[1] Using this model, Lichtman has accurately predicted the winner of every U.S. presidential election since 1984, with the exception of 2000,[2] although he did forecast successfully that Al Gore would win the popular vote that year, and 2016, where he predicted Donald Trump would win, despite Trump’s popular vote loss.[3] He ran for the U.S. Senate seat from Maryland in 2006, finishing in sixth place in the Democratic primary. In 2017, Lichtman published The Case for Impeachment, laying out multiple arguments for the impeachment of Donald Trump.[4][5][6]
Casting my eye about for some sort of model by which to understand our moment, and looking for scholarly work that might predict the shape of America as an authoritarian nation, I ran across the work of Norwegian scholar Johan Galtung, one of the foundational thinkers behind Peace and Conflict Studies. It seems that already in 2004, Galtung had predicted the fall of the U.S. Empire (not to be confused with the fall of the U.S. Republic). Galtung reasoned that the contradictions inherent in the US deployment of violence in the War on Terror would cause the U.S. empire to collapse, leading either to fascism or to a “blossoming” of potential. Galtung saw in Obama the seeds for that blossoming, but also warned that Obama could not fulfill that role while also working to sustain the U.S. Empire as president.
I’d venture that the Project 2025 types represent that fascistic tendency that Galtung saw, and that Trump has mostly been useful as a means of broaching the taboo around the subject and helping people with an authoritarian jonez to discover each other and begin to form coalitions.
(If you want the basic shape of Galtung’s thought, check out this synoptic review of his book The Fall of the US Empire and then what: Successors, Regionalisation or Globalisation? US Fascism or US Blossoming? in World Affairs journal, back in 2009:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48505101
Hopefully not paywalled – jstor often provides open access.
Casting my eye about for some sort of model by which to understand our moment, and looking for scholarly work that might predict the shape of America as an authoritarian nation, I ran across the work of Norwegian scholar Johan Galtung, one of the foundational thinkers behind Peace and Conflict Studies. It seems that already in 2004, Galtung had predicted the fall of the U.S. Empire (not to be confused with the fall of the U.S. Republic). Galtung reasoned that the contradictions inherent in the US deployment of violence in the War on Terror would cause the U.S. empire to collapse, leading either to fascism or to a “blossoming” of potential. Galtung saw in Obama the seeds for that blossoming, but also warned that Obama could not fulfill that role while also working to sustain the U.S. Empire as president.
I’d venture that the Project 2025 types represent that fascistic tendency that Galtung saw, and that Trump has mostly been useful as a means of broaching the taboo around the subject and helping people with an authoritarian jonez to discover each other and begin to form coalitions.
(If you want the basic shape of Galtung’s thought, check out this synoptic review of his book The Fall of the US Empire and then what: Successors, Regionalisation or Globalisation? US Fascism or US Blossoming? in World Affairs journal, back in 2009:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48505101
Hopefully not paywalled – jstor often provides open access.
wj, I’m not clueless as to how US presidential elections work, thank you very much. Neither is the NYT editorial board, nor the other advocates for changing course from both the US and elsewhere.
wj, I’m not clueless as to how US presidential elections work, thank you very much. Neither is the NYT editorial board, nor the other advocates for changing course from both the US and elsewhere.
I’m at a loss.
Yup. The civil rights struggle and associated backlash of the 60’s, followed by the crumbling of the New Deal coalition in the 70’s, the flight of southern white Democrats to the GOP rising to a torrent in the 80’s, the onslaught of Reaganism, and the rise of wingnut media….and here we are.
We are now fully sorted, at each other’s throats, and one side is fully funded by all the tax giveaways of the last 40 years. And they have no qualms about playing dirty.
Not a pretty sight if you ask me.
I’m at a loss.
Yup. The civil rights struggle and associated backlash of the 60’s, followed by the crumbling of the New Deal coalition in the 70’s, the flight of southern white Democrats to the GOP rising to a torrent in the 80’s, the onslaught of Reaganism, and the rise of wingnut media….and here we are.
We are now fully sorted, at each other’s throats, and one side is fully funded by all the tax giveaways of the last 40 years. And they have no qualms about playing dirty.
Not a pretty sight if you ask me.
Here’s another synopsis of Galtung’s reasoning, this time from Galtung himself:
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2021/09/the-fall-of-the-u-s-empire-and-then-what/
Have not yet had a chance to read in depth and wrap my head around the material – and thus to start evaluating what I think – but it seems like there’s a lot there that could be productive. I’d excerpt, but there’s too much. It is quite skimmable, though.
Here’s another synopsis of Galtung’s reasoning, this time from Galtung himself:
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2021/09/the-fall-of-the-u-s-empire-and-then-what/
Have not yet had a chance to read in depth and wrap my head around the material – and thus to start evaluating what I think – but it seems like there’s a lot there that could be productive. I’d excerpt, but there’s too much. It is quite skimmable, though.
wj, I’m not clueless as to how US presidential elections work, thank you very much.
OK then. Lay me out a scenario in which Biden steps aside at this point, and Democrats win in November. Step by step. Including at least 1 name of an alternative candidate who executes said victory. Feel free to assume, arguendo, the Biden steps aside first thing tomorrow morning — just to maximize execution tome.
Seriously. Because I just cannot see a path with the slightest chance of working.
wj, I’m not clueless as to how US presidential elections work, thank you very much.
OK then. Lay me out a scenario in which Biden steps aside at this point, and Democrats win in November. Step by step. Including at least 1 name of an alternative candidate who executes said victory. Feel free to assume, arguendo, the Biden steps aside first thing tomorrow morning — just to maximize execution tome.
Seriously. Because I just cannot see a path with the slightest chance of working.
Biden has been like this— two weeks ago he lost his temper for no good reason with a pro- Palestinian person and threatened to grab his phone and throw it, and then bragged that he had a good arm. He has good days and bad days. Nobody like this should be running for President. Trump of course is worse in every way that matters.
If the US were a rational country with politicians who genuinely output the interest of the country above their own interests, the NYT suggestion would be the obvious way to go.
Since it probably isn’t, I have basically no further interest in arguing the point. It is deeply unfortunate that the US is a superpower. We do not deserve to be. If this were Lichtenstein it would be funny.
Biden has been like this— two weeks ago he lost his temper for no good reason with a pro- Palestinian person and threatened to grab his phone and throw it, and then bragged that he had a good arm. He has good days and bad days. Nobody like this should be running for President. Trump of course is worse in every way that matters.
If the US were a rational country with politicians who genuinely output the interest of the country above their own interests, the NYT suggestion would be the obvious way to go.
Since it probably isn’t, I have basically no further interest in arguing the point. It is deeply unfortunate that the US is a superpower. We do not deserve to be. If this were Lichtenstein it would be funny.
Donald – check out the Galtung links if you are not already familiar (and if you have time). Think you will find his methods interesting.
Donald – check out the Galtung links if you are not already familiar (and if you have time). Think you will find his methods interesting.
OK, wj. Check this out. I dare you! 🙂
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/06/well-4
OK, wj. Check this out. I dare you! 🙂
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/06/well-4
bobbyp, I’m not sure what you want me to see. (Or feel the need to dare me to see.) Perhaps the wrong link?
What I do see is something suggesting that a) Biden beats Trump, but all the alternatives lose, and b) it’s very close regardless of the candidate. Neither is astonishing. Although I suspect that Biden ends up doing rather better than this — he’s been underestimated before.
I admit to being surprised at how well Buttigeig does. I had thought homophobia retained more power than that. Glad to see otherwise.
bobbyp, I’m not sure what you want me to see. (Or feel the need to dare me to see.) Perhaps the wrong link?
What I do see is something suggesting that a) Biden beats Trump, but all the alternatives lose, and b) it’s very close regardless of the candidate. Neither is astonishing. Although I suspect that Biden ends up doing rather better than this — he’s been underestimated before.
I admit to being surprised at how well Buttigeig does. I had thought homophobia retained more power than that. Glad to see otherwise.
I admit to being surprised at how well Buttigeig does. I had thought homophobia retained more power than that. Glad to see otherwise.
I wrote in a comment on this very blog, eons ago, that the US would elect a gay president before it ever came close to electing an atheist president (or any variety of non-Christian, I would add). (And of course it may be one of the last nations on earth to elect a female head of state….)
Off the top of my head, I’m not very surprised that D voters aren’t that homophobic. Also, I think there’s something at work in relation to personal styles that do or don’t trigger people’s biases.
From a different angle, long before the internet (and not in writing) I said that if the US were ever going to have a Black president, our first one would be someone who wasn’t exactly a home-grown American Black person. (This might have been a musing during one of Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaigns.)
And lo and behold….Obama, who not only lived overseas for part of his childhood and was raised partly by his white grandparents, but neither of whose parents was an American Black person.
I think something like that holds for Buttigeig, but I’m not going to try to dig into it, because it’s a difficult, nuanced, and probably contentious topic.
Also, though, Buttigeig has had a lot of exposure even (or maybe especially) on Fox News. He’s cogent, full of information, and never unpleasant or condescending even when slapping down idiots.
*****
This is not at all to minimize the importance of the progress we’ve made in the US and the world in relation to LGBTQ+ people in the last few decades. Let’s just hope we can stop it from being all undone in the next few years.
I admit to being surprised at how well Buttigeig does. I had thought homophobia retained more power than that. Glad to see otherwise.
I wrote in a comment on this very blog, eons ago, that the US would elect a gay president before it ever came close to electing an atheist president (or any variety of non-Christian, I would add). (And of course it may be one of the last nations on earth to elect a female head of state….)
Off the top of my head, I’m not very surprised that D voters aren’t that homophobic. Also, I think there’s something at work in relation to personal styles that do or don’t trigger people’s biases.
From a different angle, long before the internet (and not in writing) I said that if the US were ever going to have a Black president, our first one would be someone who wasn’t exactly a home-grown American Black person. (This might have been a musing during one of Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaigns.)
And lo and behold….Obama, who not only lived overseas for part of his childhood and was raised partly by his white grandparents, but neither of whose parents was an American Black person.
I think something like that holds for Buttigeig, but I’m not going to try to dig into it, because it’s a difficult, nuanced, and probably contentious topic.
Also, though, Buttigeig has had a lot of exposure even (or maybe especially) on Fox News. He’s cogent, full of information, and never unpleasant or condescending even when slapping down idiots.
*****
This is not at all to minimize the importance of the progress we’ve made in the US and the world in relation to LGBTQ+ people in the last few decades. Let’s just hope we can stop it from being all undone in the next few years.
This is not at all to minimize the importance of the progress we’ve made in the US and the world in relation to LGBTQ+ people in the last few decades.
Objectively, the change in attitudes in the last 25 years is simply stunning. And the change from 50 years ago (for those with long memories) totally boggles the mind. Not to minimize how much further we need to go. Just to note the progress to date.
If someone had predicted, in the late 1990s, that within 25 years an openly gay man would run for a major party presidential nomination, and be a serious candidate (i.e. not just a stunt), it wouldn’t have been believed. “Incredulous” would probably fit the reaction. Ditto for there being a cabinet secretary in a gay marriage (with kids), and even those who are outraged acting like they have more important issues to focus on. And as for the reaction 50 years ago….
This is not at all to minimize the importance of the progress we’ve made in the US and the world in relation to LGBTQ+ people in the last few decades.
Objectively, the change in attitudes in the last 25 years is simply stunning. And the change from 50 years ago (for those with long memories) totally boggles the mind. Not to minimize how much further we need to go. Just to note the progress to date.
If someone had predicted, in the late 1990s, that within 25 years an openly gay man would run for a major party presidential nomination, and be a serious candidate (i.e. not just a stunt), it wouldn’t have been believed. “Incredulous” would probably fit the reaction. Ditto for there being a cabinet secretary in a gay marriage (with kids), and even those who are outraged acting like they have more important issues to focus on. And as for the reaction 50 years ago….
…and this is a big part of the reason why the religious right has lost their minds.
…and this is a big part of the reason why the religious right has lost their minds.
…and this is a big part of the reason why the religious right has lost their minds.
No one told them the part about the establishment clause, aka freedom “FROM” religion. Apparently no one told SCOTUS, either. Or probably more accurately, at least for SCOTUS, someone did tell them and they don’t give a damn.
THey don’t really give a flying banana about either the US or “freedom” if it’s someone else’s freedom we’re talking about.
But I belabor the obvious.
…and this is a big part of the reason why the religious right has lost their minds.
No one told them the part about the establishment clause, aka freedom “FROM” religion. Apparently no one told SCOTUS, either. Or probably more accurately, at least for SCOTUS, someone did tell them and they don’t give a damn.
THey don’t really give a flying banana about either the US or “freedom” if it’s someone else’s freedom we’re talking about.
But I belabor the obvious.
BTW, just the campaign funding side of changing candidates would be a mess. Anyone but Kamala would in effect be starting from scratch. (She is part of his campaign and could use the same $.)
BTW, just the campaign funding side of changing candidates would be a mess. Anyone but Kamala would in effect be starting from scratch. (She is part of his campaign and could use the same $.)
Or probably more accurately, at least for SCOTUS, someone did tell them and they don’t give a damn.
Which is why, for non political junkies, it must be constantly emphasised that Donald Trump’s appointment of three SCOTUS justices is responsible for the overturning of Roe, and the continuing danger to contraception. And if Buttigieg is riding fairly high, it seems to me he could be the face of warning that the right to gay marriage is also at risk.
Or probably more accurately, at least for SCOTUS, someone did tell them and they don’t give a damn.
Which is why, for non political junkies, it must be constantly emphasised that Donald Trump’s appointment of three SCOTUS justices is responsible for the overturning of Roe, and the continuing danger to contraception. And if Buttigieg is riding fairly high, it seems to me he could be the face of warning that the right to gay marriage is also at risk.
Which is why, for non political junkies, it must be constantly emphasised that Donald Trump’s appointment of three SCOTUS justices is responsible for the overturning of Roe, and the continuing danger to contraception.
An effort made easier by Trump, in the debate, both claiming “credit” for getting rid of Roe, and claiming that “everybody” wanted it reversed. I expect clips of those to blanket the airwaves from now until November.
Which is why, for non political junkies, it must be constantly emphasised that Donald Trump’s appointment of three SCOTUS justices is responsible for the overturning of Roe, and the continuing danger to contraception.
An effort made easier by Trump, in the debate, both claiming “credit” for getting rid of Roe, and claiming that “everybody” wanted it reversed. I expect clips of those to blanket the airwaves from now until November.
If you liked Dobbs, you’re gonna love the whole Chevron thing.
If you liked Dobbs, you’re gonna love the whole Chevron thing.
Reporting from Atlanta, today’s AJC has a top of front page editorial board editorial calling for Biden to step aside. They at least make a brief acknowledgement of the procedural and legal hurdles to getting a different candidate on the ballot in every state. But zero acknowledgement that there is no consensus alternative within the party. Or that Biden has already endorsed Harris for 2028, so…
As a practical matter, it’s either Biden or Harris.
Reporting from Atlanta, today’s AJC has a top of front page editorial board editorial calling for Biden to step aside. They at least make a brief acknowledgement of the procedural and legal hurdles to getting a different candidate on the ballot in every state. But zero acknowledgement that there is no consensus alternative within the party. Or that Biden has already endorsed Harris for 2028, so…
As a practical matter, it’s either Biden or Harris.
At least my work shift ended at 6 Thursday, so I was not on site for the debate.
At least my work shift ended at 6 Thursday, so I was not on site for the debate.
If you liked Dobbs, you’re gonna love the whole Chevron thing.
That may be the biggest disaster to hit the country this year. Some business executives may have been cheered, initially, at no longer having to deal with one or another pesky regulation. But by Monday morning, expect reality to intrude, as they realize: “Oh my God! We don’t know what the rules are any more!” Followed by crash projects in every business to try to figure out how to survive (forget about thrive) the next few years.
Businesses really, really, really hate uncertainty. And with good reason. But that’s what we now have. In spades. Nobody knows what is required, what is allowed, what is forbidden. And they won’t know until the courts have ruled. On every single existing regulation.
Expect tens of thousands of law suits involving one regulation or another. The courts simply aren’t staffed to deal with that volume. And, for the cases that do get heard, decisions will get made by judges who, while they may know the law, are clueless about biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, etc., etc., etc. Which means that different courts will reach different conclusions.
The way those conflicts get sorted out is by the Circuit Courts (which don’t have the bandwidth) or, eventually, by the Supreme Court (which likewise doesn’t have the bandwidth) — never mind that they don’t have the expertise either.
Of course, IF we have a House next year than is interested in governing, Congress could legislate all the existing regulations back into place. But there are good reasons why implementation and specifics have been delegated to the Executive branch.
I’m guessing we’re looking at 5-10 years to get things even sort of resolved. It’s not going to be pretty.
If you liked Dobbs, you’re gonna love the whole Chevron thing.
That may be the biggest disaster to hit the country this year. Some business executives may have been cheered, initially, at no longer having to deal with one or another pesky regulation. But by Monday morning, expect reality to intrude, as they realize: “Oh my God! We don’t know what the rules are any more!” Followed by crash projects in every business to try to figure out how to survive (forget about thrive) the next few years.
Businesses really, really, really hate uncertainty. And with good reason. But that’s what we now have. In spades. Nobody knows what is required, what is allowed, what is forbidden. And they won’t know until the courts have ruled. On every single existing regulation.
Expect tens of thousands of law suits involving one regulation or another. The courts simply aren’t staffed to deal with that volume. And, for the cases that do get heard, decisions will get made by judges who, while they may know the law, are clueless about biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, etc., etc., etc. Which means that different courts will reach different conclusions.
The way those conflicts get sorted out is by the Circuit Courts (which don’t have the bandwidth) or, eventually, by the Supreme Court (which likewise doesn’t have the bandwidth) — never mind that they don’t have the expertise either.
Of course, IF we have a House next year than is interested in governing, Congress could legislate all the existing regulations back into place. But there are good reasons why implementation and specifics have been delegated to the Executive branch.
I’m guessing we’re looking at 5-10 years to get things even sort of resolved. It’s not going to be pretty.
As a practical matter, it’s either Biden or Harris.
And somehow the people calling for Biden to step aside mostly want someone-not-Harris. Mostly (admittedly not exclusively) some white guy. Assuming they even bother to propose an actual person. Rather than just some imaginary generic savior.
As a practical matter, it’s either Biden or Harris.
And somehow the people calling for Biden to step aside mostly want someone-not-Harris. Mostly (admittedly not exclusively) some white guy. Assuming they even bother to propose an actual person. Rather than just some imaginary generic savior.
That may be the biggest disaster to hit the country this year.
I don’t think overturning Chevron will have much of an impact. Hopefully, it will put pressure on Congress to write unambiguous laws. And the Chevron Deference created uncertainties itself. For example:
“Gorsuch illustrates that point by describing a bewildering series of reversals concerning regulation of broadband internet services. Initially, he notes, “the Court upheld an agency rule adopted by the administration of President George W. Bush because it was premised on a ‘reasonable’ interpretation of the statute.” Later, “President Barack Obama’s administration rescinded the rule and replaced it with another.” And “later still, during President Donald J. Trump’s administration, officials replaced that rule with a different one, all before President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s administration declared its intention to reverse course for yet a fourth time.” Instead of “promoting reliance by fixing the meaning of the law,” Gorsuch says, “Chevron deference engenders constant uncertainty and convulsive change even when the statute at issue itself remains unchanged.””
SCOTUS Repudiates Doctrine That Gave Agencies a License To Invent Their Own Authority: The Court says Chevron deference allows bureaucrats to usurp a judicial function, creating “an eternal fog of uncertainty” about what the law allows or requires.
If Trump wins, you may appreciate this reduction in administrative power.
Next, the Court needs to overturn qualified immunity.
That may be the biggest disaster to hit the country this year.
I don’t think overturning Chevron will have much of an impact. Hopefully, it will put pressure on Congress to write unambiguous laws. And the Chevron Deference created uncertainties itself. For example:
“Gorsuch illustrates that point by describing a bewildering series of reversals concerning regulation of broadband internet services. Initially, he notes, “the Court upheld an agency rule adopted by the administration of President George W. Bush because it was premised on a ‘reasonable’ interpretation of the statute.” Later, “President Barack Obama’s administration rescinded the rule and replaced it with another.” And “later still, during President Donald J. Trump’s administration, officials replaced that rule with a different one, all before President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s administration declared its intention to reverse course for yet a fourth time.” Instead of “promoting reliance by fixing the meaning of the law,” Gorsuch says, “Chevron deference engenders constant uncertainty and convulsive change even when the statute at issue itself remains unchanged.””
SCOTUS Repudiates Doctrine That Gave Agencies a License To Invent Their Own Authority: The Court says Chevron deference allows bureaucrats to usurp a judicial function, creating “an eternal fog of uncertainty” about what the law allows or requires.
If Trump wins, you may appreciate this reduction in administrative power.
Next, the Court needs to overturn qualified immunity.
Here’s a wrinkle that everyone should have been expecting, given the levels of absolute ratfuckery that the right wing has already gone to:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/heritage-working-election-legal-challenges-case-biden-pulled-from-dnc-nomination
What a timeline we have, folks.
Here’s a wrinkle that everyone should have been expecting, given the levels of absolute ratfuckery that the right wing has already gone to:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/heritage-working-election-legal-challenges-case-biden-pulled-from-dnc-nomination
What a timeline we have, folks.
I don’t think overturning Chevron will have much of an impact. Hopefully, it will put pressure on Congress to write unambiguous laws.
It isn’t that Congress writes ambiguous laws. (Although they have been known to do that from time to time.) It’s that Congress refrains from pretending to expertise that they don’t possess.
So instead of having Congressmen, who have no clue about biochemistry, set limits on allowable limits of various organic chemicals in the environment, they legislate setting safe levels, and delegate establishing what those are. Just like senior executives (smart ones, anyway) don’t try to micromanage how their techies write code to implement their latest product idea.
Of course, if you are a fan of micromanagement based on ignorance….
I don’t think overturning Chevron will have much of an impact. Hopefully, it will put pressure on Congress to write unambiguous laws.
It isn’t that Congress writes ambiguous laws. (Although they have been known to do that from time to time.) It’s that Congress refrains from pretending to expertise that they don’t possess.
So instead of having Congressmen, who have no clue about biochemistry, set limits on allowable limits of various organic chemicals in the environment, they legislate setting safe levels, and delegate establishing what those are. Just like senior executives (smart ones, anyway) don’t try to micromanage how their techies write code to implement their latest product idea.
Of course, if you are a fan of micromanagement based on ignorance….
Here’s a wrinkle that everyone should have been expecting
Not sure why we should have expected Heritage to help make the case for just how stupid replacing Biden would be. But if it helps get the pearl clutchers to get off their fainting couches, STFU, and get back to work on the campaign we’ve got? Well, it’s appreciated.
Here’s a wrinkle that everyone should have been expecting
Not sure why we should have expected Heritage to help make the case for just how stupid replacing Biden would be. But if it helps get the pearl clutchers to get off their fainting couches, STFU, and get back to work on the campaign we’ve got? Well, it’s appreciated.
I don’t think overturning Chevron will have much of an impact.
James Fallows explains, by way of a handful of simple examples, why this is deeply wrong-headed.
This ruling takes enforcement of regulations out of the hands of people who actually have the technical and/or domain knowledge and experience to make intelligent and well-informed judgements.
How that is a good thing is beyond my ability to understand.
Believe it or not, the administrative state makes it possible for people to engage in about a million forms of public life with confidence. Confidence that they aren’t going to be harmed or killed.
Virtually all of the regulatory apparatus of this country came into existence in response to disasters and calamities of one kind or another. The disrespect and suspicion with which it’s regarded baffles me. I can only assume it comes from the fact that few if any of us have had to live without it.
We may get the chance to experience that.
Good luck to us.
I don’t think overturning Chevron will have much of an impact.
James Fallows explains, by way of a handful of simple examples, why this is deeply wrong-headed.
This ruling takes enforcement of regulations out of the hands of people who actually have the technical and/or domain knowledge and experience to make intelligent and well-informed judgements.
How that is a good thing is beyond my ability to understand.
Believe it or not, the administrative state makes it possible for people to engage in about a million forms of public life with confidence. Confidence that they aren’t going to be harmed or killed.
Virtually all of the regulatory apparatus of this country came into existence in response to disasters and calamities of one kind or another. The disrespect and suspicion with which it’s regarded baffles me. I can only assume it comes from the fact that few if any of us have had to live without it.
We may get the chance to experience that.
Good luck to us.
So instead of having Congressmen, who have no clue about biochemistry, set limits on allowable limits of various organic chemicals in the environment, they legislate setting safe levels, and delegate establishing what those are.
Then they should write laws explicitly delegating authority to set limits. Not write laws so vague that the bureaucrats can stuff whatever they like into them.
So instead of having Congressmen, who have no clue about biochemistry, set limits on allowable limits of various organic chemicals in the environment, they legislate setting safe levels, and delegate establishing what those are.
Then they should write laws explicitly delegating authority to set limits. Not write laws so vague that the bureaucrats can stuff whatever they like into them.
Also, FWIW, just threw another $100 at team Biden.
F*ck that guy, let’s go Joe.
If anyone can come up with anyone else who has a credible real-world shot at beating Trump from a standing start with four months to go until November, please share with the rest of us.
I can’t think of anyone.
So I’m doubling down on the geezer. I don’t have the resources I had last time around due to retirement, but I’m happy to spend what I can afford to.
Trump is a cancer on our public life. I’m not sure any of us completely understand the chaos that we’re in for should he be re-elected.
Biden’s old and he mumbles. If elected, he’ll be 85 when he leaves office, which is hella old.
I get that.
He’s also been a remarkably effective POTUS. I don’t agree with everything he’s done, but I recognize that he’s good at the job. If someone wants to explain to me why he’s not actually good at the job, I’m open to that argument. Have at it. I’m not talking about disagreement with some of the choices he’s made, I’m probably with you on some of those. I mean his fundamental competence *on the job*.
In any case, the time to think about “who’d be better” was approximately a year ago. Barring his standing down, he is almost certainly going to be the nominee.
Time to get the man’s back. Time to get real. It’s Biden or the freaking deluge.
Also, FWIW, just threw another $100 at team Biden.
F*ck that guy, let’s go Joe.
If anyone can come up with anyone else who has a credible real-world shot at beating Trump from a standing start with four months to go until November, please share with the rest of us.
I can’t think of anyone.
So I’m doubling down on the geezer. I don’t have the resources I had last time around due to retirement, but I’m happy to spend what I can afford to.
Trump is a cancer on our public life. I’m not sure any of us completely understand the chaos that we’re in for should he be re-elected.
Biden’s old and he mumbles. If elected, he’ll be 85 when he leaves office, which is hella old.
I get that.
He’s also been a remarkably effective POTUS. I don’t agree with everything he’s done, but I recognize that he’s good at the job. If someone wants to explain to me why he’s not actually good at the job, I’m open to that argument. Have at it. I’m not talking about disagreement with some of the choices he’s made, I’m probably with you on some of those. I mean his fundamental competence *on the job*.
In any case, the time to think about “who’d be better” was approximately a year ago. Barring his standing down, he is almost certainly going to be the nominee.
Time to get the man’s back. Time to get real. It’s Biden or the freaking deluge.
Then they should write laws explicitly delegating authority to set limits. Not write laws so vague that the bureaucrats can stuff whatever they like into them.
And we should all get a pony for Christmas.
In the meantime, given a choice between regulatory enforcement via unelected bureaucrats with actual domain expertise, or every freaking regulatory decision going to the courts (with our current regime of judge-shopping, natch!), I’ll take the unelected bureaucrat.
We make our choices from what’s available. If you’re looking for perfection, you have a long wait in store.
Then they should write laws explicitly delegating authority to set limits. Not write laws so vague that the bureaucrats can stuff whatever they like into them.
And we should all get a pony for Christmas.
In the meantime, given a choice between regulatory enforcement via unelected bureaucrats with actual domain expertise, or every freaking regulatory decision going to the courts (with our current regime of judge-shopping, natch!), I’ll take the unelected bureaucrat.
We make our choices from what’s available. If you’re looking for perfection, you have a long wait in store.
And we should all get a pony for Christmas.
Well of course we should. Even (especially?) those living in 3rd floor walk-up studio apartments.
Oh yeah, we’re in Charles’ World, where inconvenient facts about the real world can’t be allowed to intrude on the perfect fantasy. So it’ll all work out for the best.
And we should all get a pony for Christmas.
Well of course we should. Even (especially?) those living in 3rd floor walk-up studio apartments.
Oh yeah, we’re in Charles’ World, where inconvenient facts about the real world can’t be allowed to intrude on the perfect fantasy. So it’ll all work out for the best.
In my world, the courts have been adding caveats to and chipping away at Chevron for years. Loper may put it out of everyone’s misery. According to Chief Justice Roberts:
The Stare Decisis Analyses in Dobbs and Loper Bright.: Ending the Epicycles of Chevron.
[Despite the masthead, The Volokh Conspiracy isn’t part of a libertarian rag.]
In my world, the courts have been adding caveats to and chipping away at Chevron for years. Loper may put it out of everyone’s misery. According to Chief Justice Roberts:
The Stare Decisis Analyses in Dobbs and Loper Bright.: Ending the Epicycles of Chevron.
[Despite the masthead, The Volokh Conspiracy isn’t part of a libertarian rag.]
From someone who has litigated both sides of Chevron cases.
“But again, even before Loper, Chevron did not apply to cases involving questions of major economic or political significance. The Court has required agencies to point to clear congressional authorizations in those cases, not mere silence or ambiguity. So Loper did not end Chevron’s application to the most significant set of agency decisions.
At bottom, agencies will still win significant cases after Loper, but the Supreme Court’s decision puts regular people and businesses on a more level playing field with the government when they challenge a regulatory overreach.”
Brendan Carr
From someone who has litigated both sides of Chevron cases.
“But again, even before Loper, Chevron did not apply to cases involving questions of major economic or political significance. The Court has required agencies to point to clear congressional authorizations in those cases, not mere silence or ambiguity. So Loper did not end Chevron’s application to the most significant set of agency decisions.
At bottom, agencies will still win significant cases after Loper, but the Supreme Court’s decision puts regular people and businesses on a more level playing field with the government when they challenge a regulatory overreach.”
Brendan Carr
And we should all get a pony for Christmas.
I mean… there is a guy.
Don’t forget, Loper brought a partner to the dance.
We are so f*cked. Which is legal, I guess, so long as we put the money on the dresser after the (f)act.
And we should all get a pony for Christmas.
I mean… there is a guy.
Don’t forget, Loper brought a partner to the dance.
We are so f*cked. Which is legal, I guess, so long as we put the money on the dresser after the (f)act.
In any case, the time to think about “who’d be better” was approximately a year ago.
Well, if you mentioned anything along these lines a year ago, you got the exact same reponse you get now. And so it goes…
Let’s hope for the best.
In any case, the time to think about “who’d be better” was approximately a year ago.
Well, if you mentioned anything along these lines a year ago, you got the exact same reponse you get now. And so it goes…
Let’s hope for the best.
And it reminds me a bit of 2016 in the sense that any criticism of Clinton was more or less dismissed as treason.
And it reminds me a bit of 2016 in the sense that any criticism of Clinton was more or less dismissed as treason.
Virtually all of the regulatory apparatus of this country came into existence in response to disasters and calamities of one kind or another. The disrespect and suspicion with which it’s regarded baffles me. I can only assume it comes from the fact that few if any of us have had to live without it.
You could write almost exactly the same thing about vaccines.
Virtually all of the regulatory apparatus of this country came into existence in response to disasters and calamities of one kind or another. The disrespect and suspicion with which it’s regarded baffles me. I can only assume it comes from the fact that few if any of us have had to live without it.
You could write almost exactly the same thing about vaccines.
Don’t forget, Loper brought a partner to the dance.
Well, they really didn’t have a choice here. After all, if the found against Snyder, their conduct would be explicitly corrupt.
Don’t forget, Loper brought a partner to the dance.
Well, they really didn’t have a choice here. After all, if the found against Snyder, their conduct would be explicitly corrupt.
CaseyL wrote this in the other active thread:
There is one, united by a fierce desire to have all the wealth that exists and destroy any government that says otherwise. They have existing national models to study, chiefly Russia.
All this winking and nodding while *not being bribed* seems very Russian to me.
CaseyL wrote this in the other active thread:
There is one, united by a fierce desire to have all the wealth that exists and destroy any government that says otherwise. They have existing national models to study, chiefly Russia.
All this winking and nodding while *not being bribed* seems very Russian to me.
Welp. Some immunity for “official acts”. Your move, Biden administration.
Welp. Some immunity for “official acts”. Your move, Biden administration.
From Sotomayor’s Dissent:
“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune . Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be . That is the majority’s message today.”
From Sotomayor’s Dissent:
“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune . Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be . That is the majority’s message today.”
So they just turned the US into a dictatorship?
So they just turned the US into a dictatorship?
https://x.com/MSNBC/status/1807822316966990102
Larry Tribe: “for all practical purposes, this is absolute immunity, it’s dangerous”
https://x.com/MSNBC/status/1807822316966990102
Larry Tribe: “for all practical purposes, this is absolute immunity, it’s dangerous”
Biden better get busy!
Biden better get busy!
Nah, man. Get a grip. Everything’s fine.
Nah, man. Get a grip. Everything’s fine.
Pete, you’re supposed to put a
/s
tag after sarcasm like that.
Pete, you’re supposed to put a
/s
tag after sarcasm like that.
Maybe a Night of the Long Knives? Clean up congress and the SCOTUS and the pool of presidential candidates?
Maybe a Night of the Long Knives? Clean up congress and the SCOTUS and the pool of presidential candidates?
Though I kid, I have a blanket of dread settling over me because of this ruling. I feel like I’m having a bad dream. It’s surreal.
Though I kid, I have a blanket of dread settling over me because of this ruling. I feel like I’m having a bad dream. It’s surreal.
I have a blanket of dread settling over me because of this ruling.
Yes. Sotomayor’s dissent is on the money. God, those six show that they are absolutely beyond shame, miles beyond. This will live in infamy. If it helps the Dems in November (possibly Pollyanna-ish thinking), then reform of the SCOTUS should leap to the top of the agenda.
I have a blanket of dread settling over me because of this ruling.
Yes. Sotomayor’s dissent is on the money. God, those six show that they are absolutely beyond shame, miles beyond. This will live in infamy. If it helps the Dems in November (possibly Pollyanna-ish thinking), then reform of the SCOTUS should leap to the top of the agenda.
Libertarians are a bit uneasy with the Trump v. United States ruling too.
“Challenging the federal prosecution stemming from his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Donald Trump argued that former presidents can be prosecuted for “official acts” only if they are first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate based on the same conduct. The Supreme Court today rejected that claim, which is based on an implausible reading of the constitutional text. At the same time, the Court held that a former president enjoys “absolute” immunity for “actions within his exclusive constitutional power,” “presumptive” immunity for other “official acts,” and no immunity for unofficial acts.
…
The Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States is based on the concern that the threat of criminal charges is apt to have a chilling effect on a president’s performance of his duties, especially when he makes controversial decisions that his political opponents might view as illegal. But in weighing the risks of presidential paralysis against the risks of presidential impunity, the ruling raises troubling questions about when and how a former occupant of the White House can be held criminally liable for abusing his powers.”
Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Ruling Could Shield Outrageous Abuses of Power: By requiring “absolute” immunity for some “official acts” and “presumptive” immunity for others, the justices cast doubt on the viability of Donald Trump’s election interference prosecution.
Libertarians are a bit uneasy with the Trump v. United States ruling too.
“Challenging the federal prosecution stemming from his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Donald Trump argued that former presidents can be prosecuted for “official acts” only if they are first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate based on the same conduct. The Supreme Court today rejected that claim, which is based on an implausible reading of the constitutional text. At the same time, the Court held that a former president enjoys “absolute” immunity for “actions within his exclusive constitutional power,” “presumptive” immunity for other “official acts,” and no immunity for unofficial acts.
…
The Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States is based on the concern that the threat of criminal charges is apt to have a chilling effect on a president’s performance of his duties, especially when he makes controversial decisions that his political opponents might view as illegal. But in weighing the risks of presidential paralysis against the risks of presidential impunity, the ruling raises troubling questions about when and how a former occupant of the White House can be held criminally liable for abusing his powers.”
Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Ruling Could Shield Outrageous Abuses of Power: By requiring “absolute” immunity for some “official acts” and “presumptive” immunity for others, the justices cast doubt on the viability of Donald Trump’s election interference prosecution.
If only we could know how this would work in practice. Too bad these concerns over criminal charges restraining presidents hadn’t already been tested over a couple of centuries, saving these poor justices from having to make a theoretical judgement call.
If only we could know how this would work in practice. Too bad these concerns over criminal charges restraining presidents hadn’t already been tested over a couple of centuries, saving these poor justices from having to make a theoretical judgement call.
The SCROTUS (R for Roberts) has given Joe Biden the same royal power as it has given to the Orange Felon. They must feel confident that Joe Biden is too decent to take advantage of it.
Not being too decent myself, the first thing I’d do in Joe’s place is to meet, officially, with Attorney General Garland and order him to direct Special Counsel Smith to drop his prosecutions and simply release all his files in those cases on the World Wide Web. If ol’ Merrick is too prissy to do that, fire his ass and designate one of his subordinates Acting AG. Repeat as necessary until I find an Acting AG who is more patriotic than prissy.
The American electorate has the right to elect a king, I suppose. But we should know what kind of scum our would-be king is. Officially.
–TP
The SCROTUS (R for Roberts) has given Joe Biden the same royal power as it has given to the Orange Felon. They must feel confident that Joe Biden is too decent to take advantage of it.
Not being too decent myself, the first thing I’d do in Joe’s place is to meet, officially, with Attorney General Garland and order him to direct Special Counsel Smith to drop his prosecutions and simply release all his files in those cases on the World Wide Web. If ol’ Merrick is too prissy to do that, fire his ass and designate one of his subordinates Acting AG. Repeat as necessary until I find an Acting AG who is more patriotic than prissy.
The American electorate has the right to elect a king, I suppose. But we should know what kind of scum our would-be king is. Officially.
–TP
Hmmm, I may not be the only Pollyanna around here, but this NYT piece (guest link) is headlined:
Ruling Further Slows Trump Election Case but Opens Door to Airing of Evidence
The Supreme Court’s immunity decision directed the trial court to hold hearings on what portions of the indictment can survive — a possible chance for prosecutors to set out their case in public before Election Day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/supreme-court-immunity-trump-jan-6.html?unlocked_article_code=1.300.P5dF.QA8NeQLOKh2F&smid=url-share
Hmmm, I may not be the only Pollyanna around here, but this NYT piece (guest link) is headlined:
Ruling Further Slows Trump Election Case but Opens Door to Airing of Evidence
The Supreme Court’s immunity decision directed the trial court to hold hearings on what portions of the indictment can survive — a possible chance for prosecutors to set out their case in public before Election Day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/supreme-court-immunity-trump-jan-6.html?unlocked_article_code=1.300.P5dF.QA8NeQLOKh2F&smid=url-share
“Not being too decent myself, the first thing I’d do in Joe’s place is to” drone-strike Trump and the Supremely Deplorable Six.
“Not being too decent myself, the first thing I’d do in Joe’s place is to” drone-strike Trump and the Supremely Deplorable Six.
I think where I’d go first is just have the six of them picked up (as involuntarily as possible), relieved of their cell phones, etc., and hauled to the White House. Park them in one of the underground conference rooms and leave them to stew for a couple of hours.
Then have a little meeting where it is explained that, since the President wanted to see them, it’s an official act. Just as it will be an official act to keep them there for a month or six. And, while they wait, they can while away the hours writing, on the white board helpfully provided:
“Actions have consequences”
Over and over and over.
I think where I’d go first is just have the six of them picked up (as involuntarily as possible), relieved of their cell phones, etc., and hauled to the White House. Park them in one of the underground conference rooms and leave them to stew for a couple of hours.
Then have a little meeting where it is explained that, since the President wanted to see them, it’s an official act. Just as it will be an official act to keep them there for a month or six. And, while they wait, they can while away the hours writing, on the white board helpfully provided:
“Actions have consequences”
Over and over and over.
When the Trump administration prosecutes Biden, I’m sure SCROTUS will rule that Trump v. U.S. doesn’t apply to the case at hand.
When the Trump administration prosecutes Biden, I’m sure SCROTUS will rule that Trump v. U.S. doesn’t apply to the case at hand.
Well, then it would be the guy in office doing it and his immunity obviously ranks higher.
Well, then it would be the guy in office doing it and his immunity obviously ranks higher.
I mean, the guy is going stone cold crazy. God I hope this kind of stuff is well publicised:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/trump-liz-cheney-treason-jail.html?unlocked_article_code=1.300.HeiF.AFyDJuHGzOpF&smid=url-share
I mean, the guy is going stone cold crazy. God I hope this kind of stuff is well publicised:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/trump-liz-cheney-treason-jail.html?unlocked_article_code=1.300.HeiF.AFyDJuHGzOpF&smid=url-share
Trials? Tribunals? That’s old school thinkin’. Now what you do now is, is you hit ’em with the Official Acts® Wand. And Blammo! Guantanamo!
When you’re a President, they let you do it.
Trials? Tribunals? That’s old school thinkin’. Now what you do now is, is you hit ’em with the Official Acts® Wand. And Blammo! Guantanamo!
When you’re a President, they let you do it.
“You aren’t going to like what comes after America”
Leonard Cohen
I think America might be done.
If there is one irreducible bedrock concept behind the United States as a project, it’s the idea of equality before the law. No-one is above the law, we are all accountable to the law. All of us.
Not anymore.
I’m pushing 70 and have lived my entire life so far in this country. I’ve never seen anything like this. I don’t recognize my own country anymore.
The famous “guardrails” are down.
“You aren’t going to like what comes after America”
Leonard Cohen
I think America might be done.
If there is one irreducible bedrock concept behind the United States as a project, it’s the idea of equality before the law. No-one is above the law, we are all accountable to the law. All of us.
Not anymore.
I’m pushing 70 and have lived my entire life so far in this country. I’ve never seen anything like this. I don’t recognize my own country anymore.
The famous “guardrails” are down.
Well, in the endless quest to blow up and rebuild my science fiction syllabus, I’m currently working myu way through a bunch of solarpunk stories and criticism – basically anything that imagines a future in which we manage to stumble our way to a non-dystopian future of sustainable energy and climate justice.
And, wouldn’t you know it…as I’m looking around to see what sorts of things are being written about the genre, I happen across an American Enterprise Institute yahoo who’s busy slamming solarpunk for being impractical and marxist and terroristic, and preaching free-market entrepreneurial techno utopia as the positive and realistic antidote to the terror and compulsion underpinning the solarpunk future.
Except that the yahoo seems to think that Star Trek is on his side. And he thinks that the circular economy is marxism, rather than managed capitalism. And he imagines that the violence and terror described in these stories is solarpunk wish fulfillment, and not what it really is, which is an acknowledgement that the course we are on is one that ensures those very conflicts are unavoidable. He’s just never imagined that his life may be one of the lives eaten by his future.
But mostly I think he’s just terrified of the idea of cooperation.
But screw that guy. Mostly, I’m looking at solarpunk for the antidote to future doomerism, to stimulate my students’ imagination for livable futures. Like…
https://www.climatealmanac.org/
https://grist.org/imagine2200-climate-fiction-2024/
Because we have to have hope.
I haven’t read any of the stories yet, or blown up the syllabus and reading list yet, but I’m really looking forward to finding some stories that don’t scare and discourage our future problem solvers before they have a chance to do anything for themselves.
Well, in the endless quest to blow up and rebuild my science fiction syllabus, I’m currently working myu way through a bunch of solarpunk stories and criticism – basically anything that imagines a future in which we manage to stumble our way to a non-dystopian future of sustainable energy and climate justice.
And, wouldn’t you know it…as I’m looking around to see what sorts of things are being written about the genre, I happen across an American Enterprise Institute yahoo who’s busy slamming solarpunk for being impractical and marxist and terroristic, and preaching free-market entrepreneurial techno utopia as the positive and realistic antidote to the terror and compulsion underpinning the solarpunk future.
Except that the yahoo seems to think that Star Trek is on his side. And he thinks that the circular economy is marxism, rather than managed capitalism. And he imagines that the violence and terror described in these stories is solarpunk wish fulfillment, and not what it really is, which is an acknowledgement that the course we are on is one that ensures those very conflicts are unavoidable. He’s just never imagined that his life may be one of the lives eaten by his future.
But mostly I think he’s just terrified of the idea of cooperation.
But screw that guy. Mostly, I’m looking at solarpunk for the antidote to future doomerism, to stimulate my students’ imagination for livable futures. Like…
https://www.climatealmanac.org/
https://grist.org/imagine2200-climate-fiction-2024/
Because we have to have hope.
I haven’t read any of the stories yet, or blown up the syllabus and reading list yet, but I’m really looking forward to finding some stories that don’t scare and discourage our future problem solvers before they have a chance to do anything for themselves.
Once Biden disposes of the Supremely Deplorable Six (Lawless John, Strip Search Sammy, Token, Boof, Coathanger, and Squi), evidence of his action will not be admissible, and immune as an ‘official act’ according to current precedent. To be confirmed by a USSC ruling, 3-0.
And since that ‘official act’ could take place in DC, it’s not subject to state laws, is it?
Once Biden disposes of the Supremely Deplorable Six (Lawless John, Strip Search Sammy, Token, Boof, Coathanger, and Squi), evidence of his action will not be admissible, and immune as an ‘official act’ according to current precedent. To be confirmed by a USSC ruling, 3-0.
And since that ‘official act’ could take place in DC, it’s not subject to state laws, is it?
I’m really looking forward to finding some stories that don’t scare and discourage our future problem solvers before they have a chance to do anything for themselves.
Because, in your situation, hope damn well is a strategy.
I’m really looking forward to finding some stories that don’t scare and discourage our future problem solvers before they have a chance to do anything for themselves.
Because, in your situation, hope damn well is a strategy.
To be confirmed by a USSC ruling, 3-0.
No need. Saying otherwise would constitute an ex-post facto law. Which anyone (outside the current Court majority) would recognize as invalid.
To be confirmed by a USSC ruling, 3-0.
No need. Saying otherwise would constitute an ex-post facto law. Which anyone (outside the current Court majority) would recognize as invalid.
I’m still digesting the immunity ruling. I’m proposing a scenario where the president is speaking to the vice president, but the conversation involves the president threatening to murder the vice president if the vice president does not give the president $100,000.
Is this a core function simply because of the people involved, even if it has nothing to do with the legitimate business of the executive branch? What if the conversation also involves legitimate functions of the government? Is the president immune from criminal charges then?
Can breaking the law be the faithful execution of the law? Immunity, as far as I know, doesn’t mean the law hasn’t been broken, just that there isn’t anything anyone can do about it legally.
The whole concept is strange to me. I can sort of wrap my head around it if the president is performing a core function of the presidency that isn’t in and of itself illegal but is in support of something illegal. Not that necessarily I agree with immunity in that case, but I can at least make sense of it.
I’m still digesting the immunity ruling. I’m proposing a scenario where the president is speaking to the vice president, but the conversation involves the president threatening to murder the vice president if the vice president does not give the president $100,000.
Is this a core function simply because of the people involved, even if it has nothing to do with the legitimate business of the executive branch? What if the conversation also involves legitimate functions of the government? Is the president immune from criminal charges then?
Can breaking the law be the faithful execution of the law? Immunity, as far as I know, doesn’t mean the law hasn’t been broken, just that there isn’t anything anyone can do about it legally.
The whole concept is strange to me. I can sort of wrap my head around it if the president is performing a core function of the presidency that isn’t in and of itself illegal but is in support of something illegal. Not that necessarily I agree with immunity in that case, but I can at least make sense of it.
hsh … my impression from scattered skimming is that the way the opinion is written, the act in question can be a peripheral function of the presidency, it doesn’t even have to be obviously core.
But what it really sets up is a vast territory of ambiguity about what acts are or are not part of the office (blow jobs?). And that territory of ambiguity will of course be adjudicated by … judges and justices.
Back when the sovereign citizen movement was getting some attention (at least more than it is now), along with the notion that the REAL final word on the constitution belonged to county sheriffs (kind of like the inerrant word of God belonging to every self-appointed backcountry preacher in America), I thought well, that can’t work, there has to be one recognized place where the buck stops and the final word is honored, and that’s SCOTUS.
Now we see how naive I was about where that could lead.
*****
ETA: “Back then” corrected to “Back when”
hsh … my impression from scattered skimming is that the way the opinion is written, the act in question can be a peripheral function of the presidency, it doesn’t even have to be obviously core.
But what it really sets up is a vast territory of ambiguity about what acts are or are not part of the office (blow jobs?). And that territory of ambiguity will of course be adjudicated by … judges and justices.
Back when the sovereign citizen movement was getting some attention (at least more than it is now), along with the notion that the REAL final word on the constitution belonged to county sheriffs (kind of like the inerrant word of God belonging to every self-appointed backcountry preacher in America), I thought well, that can’t work, there has to be one recognized place where the buck stops and the final word is honored, and that’s SCOTUS.
Now we see how naive I was about where that could lead.
*****
ETA: “Back then” corrected to “Back when”
“I think America might be done.”
The Republicans have been working on destroying America for decades. It looks like they have succeeded.
Hitler was elected at a time of enormous stress and confusion so I can sort of see why people fell for his crap. What excuse to MAGGOTS have?
“I think America might be done.”
The Republicans have been working on destroying America for decades. It looks like they have succeeded.
Hitler was elected at a time of enormous stress and confusion so I can sort of see why people fell for his crap. What excuse to MAGGOTS have?
Cynical me would not be surprised, if speech writers were right now looking at Hitler’s speech after the Night of the Long Knives and ponder which lines they are going to use when His Orangeness is in need for just such a speech.
This one would of course have to be part of it (simplified for the intended user):
Wenn mir jemand den Vorwurf entgegenhält, weshalb wir nicht die ordentlichen Gerichte zur Aburteilung herangezogen hätten, dann kann ich ihm nur sagen: In dieser Stunde war ich verantwortlich für das Schicksal der deutschen Nation und damit des deutschen Volkes oberster Gerichtsherr.
Cynical me would not be surprised, if speech writers were right now looking at Hitler’s speech after the Night of the Long Knives and ponder which lines they are going to use when His Orangeness is in need for just such a speech.
This one would of course have to be part of it (simplified for the intended user):
Wenn mir jemand den Vorwurf entgegenhält, weshalb wir nicht die ordentlichen Gerichte zur Aburteilung herangezogen hätten, dann kann ich ihm nur sagen: In dieser Stunde war ich verantwortlich für das Schicksal der deutschen Nation und damit des deutschen Volkes oberster Gerichtsherr.
Party like it’s 1933. What russell said. I’m all out of words.
Deutschland/Spanien am Freitag. Darauf freue ich mich.
Auf gehts!
Party like it’s 1933. What russell said. I’m all out of words.
Deutschland/Spanien am Freitag. Darauf freue ich mich.
Auf gehts!
e Republicans have been working on destroying America for decades. It looks like they have succeeded.
It might be more accurate to say that they have been working to destroy America as we understood it. They were all for preserving America as they saw it.
Unfortunately, for them, their view and certainly their approach is not viable.
If they get what they think they want (and they are getting depressingly close) they are going to discover it enormously resembles Putin’s Russia. Yes, if you are part of the elite, you can get fabulously wealthy. But what you can NOT get is secure. Take a tiny step out of line, or even look like you might, and you’re looking at a long dive out your office window. (Note: the line that you must never step out of is subject to sudden and unpredictable relocation.)
They have sown the wind. If they fail to reap the whirlwind, it will be despite their best efforts.
e Republicans have been working on destroying America for decades. It looks like they have succeeded.
It might be more accurate to say that they have been working to destroy America as we understood it. They were all for preserving America as they saw it.
Unfortunately, for them, their view and certainly their approach is not viable.
If they get what they think they want (and they are getting depressingly close) they are going to discover it enormously resembles Putin’s Russia. Yes, if you are part of the elite, you can get fabulously wealthy. But what you can NOT get is secure. Take a tiny step out of line, or even look like you might, and you’re looking at a long dive out your office window. (Note: the line that you must never step out of is subject to sudden and unpredictable relocation.)
They have sown the wind. If they fail to reap the whirlwind, it will be despite their best efforts.
Never forget, I’m the resident optimist here. 😉
Actually, I think Biden is going to win in November. I even think that, not least due to Dobbs, the Democrats actually increase their majority in the Senate. (And take the House relatively easily.) Like I say, an optimist.
Even if I’m right, we’re looking at a couple of decades to repair the damage already done.
Never forget, I’m the resident optimist here. 😉
Actually, I think Biden is going to win in November. I even think that, not least due to Dobbs, the Democrats actually increase their majority in the Senate. (And take the House relatively easily.) Like I say, an optimist.
Even if I’m right, we’re looking at a couple of decades to repair the damage already done.
“With this Supreme Court ruling POTUS could:
1) Start a war with American citizens killing 600,000+
2) Put an entire race in internment camps
3) Drop Nukes on civilians
4) invade a sovereign country
5) drone strike American citizens
And face ZERO consequences.
Think about it.”
Jeremy Todd
“With this Supreme Court ruling POTUS could:
1) Start a war with American citizens killing 600,000+
2) Put an entire race in internment camps
3) Drop Nukes on civilians
4) invade a sovereign country
5) drone strike American citizens
And face ZERO consequences.
Think about it.”
Jeremy Todd
Lol, fair point, Charles. Accountability is not really a strong point of the US presidency – as long as it only involves foreigners or outcasts.
Lol, fair point, Charles. Accountability is not really a strong point of the US presidency – as long as it only involves foreigners or outcasts.
Perhaps more to the point, POTUS could
n) order one (or all) Supreme Court Justices shipped off to Gitmo.
And face zero consequences. FAFO, lads.
Perhaps more to the point, POTUS could
n) order one (or all) Supreme Court Justices shipped off to Gitmo.
And face zero consequences. FAFO, lads.
…the act in question can be a peripheral function of the presidency, it doesn’t even have to be obviously core.
Oh, I know. My comment was particularly about the most well-defined part to show that even that has a lot of grey area, at least for me.
There’s also the part about official acts not being admissible as evidence of a crime that was not an official act. So long as you execute the crime via presidential powers, even if the crime itself has no connection to your official duties, you’re good. Crime your ass off!
It amazes me that the argument for immunity derives from fear of presidential hesitance in the face of potential criminal charges while ignoring the naked abuse of power immunity allows. Our whole system was constructed to minimize abuse of power, but the originalists decided otherwise.
…the act in question can be a peripheral function of the presidency, it doesn’t even have to be obviously core.
Oh, I know. My comment was particularly about the most well-defined part to show that even that has a lot of grey area, at least for me.
There’s also the part about official acts not being admissible as evidence of a crime that was not an official act. So long as you execute the crime via presidential powers, even if the crime itself has no connection to your official duties, you’re good. Crime your ass off!
It amazes me that the argument for immunity derives from fear of presidential hesitance in the face of potential criminal charges while ignoring the naked abuse of power immunity allows. Our whole system was constructed to minimize abuse of power, but the originalists decided otherwise.
So, take care to always use your official presidential stationery for your crimes and the courts will automatically exclude this material from evidence. Also establish a special presidential cellphone ‘channel’, so anything said over that line gets the same treatment. There is this Russo-Chinese firm that offers a perfect and inexpensive phone and app for that, Eyespye iirc.
So, take care to always use your official presidential stationery for your crimes and the courts will automatically exclude this material from evidence. Also establish a special presidential cellphone ‘channel’, so anything said over that line gets the same treatment. There is this Russo-Chinese firm that offers a perfect and inexpensive phone and app for that, Eyespye iirc.
Because we all need a little something to brighten our day:
M83: Star Streams and a Thousand Rubies
Because we all need a little something to brighten our day:
M83: Star Streams and a Thousand Rubies
The president of the Heritage Foundation announces that the second American revolution is coming but it will be unbloody – if the Left allows it.
Translation: capitulate unconditionally without a fight and no one gets hurt (at least not in the beginning).
That’s the guy behind the 2025 Project btw and a likely candidate for a high WH position e.g. chief of staff.
Well, we know what ‘heritage’ is a code word for down South.
The president of the Heritage Foundation announces that the second American revolution is coming but it will be unbloody – if the Left allows it.
Translation: capitulate unconditionally without a fight and no one gets hurt (at least not in the beginning).
That’s the guy behind the 2025 Project btw and a likely candidate for a high WH position e.g. chief of staff.
Well, we know what ‘heritage’ is a code word for down South.
Too late for that, Kevin. There’s already blood on your hands.
Too late for that, Kevin. There’s already blood on your hands.
But it’s the blood of no-ones, so it does not matter or count except maybe Dracula.
But it’s the blood of no-ones, so it does not matter or count except maybe Dracula.
Too late for that, Kevin. There’s already blood on your hands.
Took the words right out of my keyboard.
Arrogant murderous pig. Nice rhetorical touch, the “if the Left allows it.” Suddenly he doesn’t believe in “stand your ground,” I guess.
Too late for that, Kevin. There’s already blood on your hands.
Took the words right out of my keyboard.
Arrogant murderous pig. Nice rhetorical touch, the “if the Left allows it.” Suddenly he doesn’t believe in “stand your ground,” I guess.
Of course, “stand your ground” was never meant for the no-ones anyhow…
Of course, “stand your ground” was never meant for the no-ones anyhow…
What do mean with ‘your ground’? I already own it and the courts have declared it legal.
What do mean with ‘your ground’? I already own it and the courts have declared it legal.
In other words: you lack standing.
In other words: you lack standing.
In other words: you lack standing.
Maybe, but I’ve definitely got sitting. 😉
And, back when I was learning such things, I was told that accuracy was improved with a more solid base like that.
In other words: you lack standing.
Maybe, but I’ve definitely got sitting. 😉
And, back when I was learning such things, I was told that accuracy was improved with a more solid base like that.
In German ‘sitzen’ (sitting) is also a euphemism for ‘being in jail’
In German ‘sitzen’ (sitting) is also a euphemism for ‘being in jail’
So, which language has more euphemism/slang for ‘being in jail’?
German? American English? English English? Russian?
Australian English probably has some wonderfully amusing ones, but I don’t know any. YET.
It’s another exploration of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
So, which language has more euphemism/slang for ‘being in jail’?
German? American English? English English? Russian?
Australian English probably has some wonderfully amusing ones, but I don’t know any. YET.
It’s another exploration of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
English English has “porridge”. As in “my old man’s doing porridge. He’s in for 10 years.” I have no idea why. Maybe in the old days they gave prisoners porridge (your oatmeal) for breakfast, but I don’t imagine what’s on offer these days is as healthy as that. There was a much loved comedy series called Porridge some years ago about a cynical old lag “educating” an innocent youngster in jail – the old lag was one of our beloved actors called Ronnie Barker, and the youngster was Kate Beckinsale’s father, who died young.
English English has “porridge”. As in “my old man’s doing porridge. He’s in for 10 years.” I have no idea why. Maybe in the old days they gave prisoners porridge (your oatmeal) for breakfast, but I don’t imagine what’s on offer these days is as healthy as that. There was a much loved comedy series called Porridge some years ago about a cynical old lag “educating” an innocent youngster in jail – the old lag was one of our beloved actors called Ronnie Barker, and the youngster was Kate Beckinsale’s father, who died young.
Since this seems to be the active open thread, soothing thoughts for any pets y’all have who don’t deal well with the fireworks. My wife’s last dog was a Tibetan spaniel who would lift her head at the first explosion, look around, and then go back to sleep. One of the official breed characteristics is “brave to the point of stupidity”.
Since this seems to be the active open thread, soothing thoughts for any pets y’all have who don’t deal well with the fireworks. My wife’s last dog was a Tibetan spaniel who would lift her head at the first explosion, look around, and then go back to sleep. One of the official breed characteristics is “brave to the point of stupidity”.
I’m not thrilled with the term, but this thread may have petered out.
The topic seems important enough to have a dedicated one. And if you would be so kind, Michael Cain, I’d like, selfishly, to see one of your updated maps regarding the fracturing of the US. We might be closer to that discussion than I want to be.
I’m not thrilled with the term, but this thread may have petered out.
The topic seems important enough to have a dedicated one. And if you would be so kind, Michael Cain, I’d like, selfishly, to see one of your updated maps regarding the fracturing of the US. We might be closer to that discussion than I want to be.
Innovation seems rare to me. Entrepreneurship seems commonplace
Certainly innovation is far less common. But I don’t know that I would go so far as “rare.” What is rare is innovation which makes big changes to how our world works.
But incremental changes? Little tweaks, which make things work a bit better, or allow something created for one task to address a somewhat different one? Those happen all the time.
For example, the company I work for is working on a new way to encrypt computer network traffic. One which, unlike current methods, won’t be susceptible to being cracked by quantum computers. The mathematics behind it is a big innovation.** The new stuff being written to implement it is a combination of fairly standard pieces and some new pieces — in short, some incremental innovations.
** And to understand it, you need a PhD in math. And not just any branch of mathematics either. Needless to say, way outside my understanding.
Innovation seems rare to me. Entrepreneurship seems commonplace
Certainly innovation is far less common. But I don’t know that I would go so far as “rare.” What is rare is innovation which makes big changes to how our world works.
But incremental changes? Little tweaks, which make things work a bit better, or allow something created for one task to address a somewhat different one? Those happen all the time.
For example, the company I work for is working on a new way to encrypt computer network traffic. One which, unlike current methods, won’t be susceptible to being cracked by quantum computers. The mathematics behind it is a big innovation.** The new stuff being written to implement it is a combination of fairly standard pieces and some new pieces — in short, some incremental innovations.
** And to understand it, you need a PhD in math. And not just any branch of mathematics either. Needless to say, way outside my understanding.
I used weed-wacker twine to unclog the tubing to my ice maker. I think that counts.
I used weed-wacker twine to unclog the tubing to my ice maker. I think that counts.
Was it clogged with weeds?
Was it clogged with weeds?
But incremental changes? Little tweaks, which make things work a bit better, or allow something created for one task to address a somewhat different one? Those happen all the time.
This is it. We may as well be talking about evolutionary biology and speciation. At what point…?
I think of innovation as a sea-change, not an incremental refinement. Your definition may differ.
:::patent-squatting enters the chat:::
The definition of “entrepreneurship” is similarly fraught. Are we talking risk or simply a new mechanism of wealth extraction?
But incremental changes? Little tweaks, which make things work a bit better, or allow something created for one task to address a somewhat different one? Those happen all the time.
This is it. We may as well be talking about evolutionary biology and speciation. At what point…?
I think of innovation as a sea-change, not an incremental refinement. Your definition may differ.
:::patent-squatting enters the chat:::
The definition of “entrepreneurship” is similarly fraught. Are we talking risk or simply a new mechanism of wealth extraction?
There are also large changes that require more than just innovation or entrepreneurial things, but massive cooperation and spending. The specific example I’m thinking about is digital video. There was lots of innovation in getting the bit rates down to something that could be handled*. Lots of people tried to be entrepreneurs with different coding schemes**. But ultimately, it took the standards bodies writing standards, and the hardware manufacturers building billion-transistor chips, and the content providers replacing their entire production chain, and the consumer suppliers building suitable displays, and getting everyone on board with a legal structure for handling licensing***.
* Lots of math stuck together in lots of ways. I’ve probably mentioned Mikevision, the world’s ugliest digital video, an algorithm of my own devising.
** At one point in the mid-1990s there were dozens of little companies with different algorithms, each with its own advantages, looking for venture capital. There was also Microsoft, the 800-pound gorilla in the room buying them up in order to suppress the intellectual property. One of the questions the VC people asked the little companies was literally, “What’s your plan for being acquired by Microsoft?”
*** The MPEG licensing authority (MPEG LA) was an amazing accomplishment. They got everyone who had a patent on something used in the MPEG standard to put the patents in a single pool which handled licensing. My favorite episode from all of that was when China said, “The license fees are too high. Reduce them or we’ll build our own standard and require all digital TV gear in China to use that instead of MPEG.”
There are also large changes that require more than just innovation or entrepreneurial things, but massive cooperation and spending. The specific example I’m thinking about is digital video. There was lots of innovation in getting the bit rates down to something that could be handled*. Lots of people tried to be entrepreneurs with different coding schemes**. But ultimately, it took the standards bodies writing standards, and the hardware manufacturers building billion-transistor chips, and the content providers replacing their entire production chain, and the consumer suppliers building suitable displays, and getting everyone on board with a legal structure for handling licensing***.
* Lots of math stuck together in lots of ways. I’ve probably mentioned Mikevision, the world’s ugliest digital video, an algorithm of my own devising.
** At one point in the mid-1990s there were dozens of little companies with different algorithms, each with its own advantages, looking for venture capital. There was also Microsoft, the 800-pound gorilla in the room buying them up in order to suppress the intellectual property. One of the questions the VC people asked the little companies was literally, “What’s your plan for being acquired by Microsoft?”
*** The MPEG licensing authority (MPEG LA) was an amazing accomplishment. They got everyone who had a patent on something used in the MPEG standard to put the patents in a single pool which handled licensing. My favorite episode from all of that was when China said, “The license fees are too high. Reduce them or we’ll build our own standard and require all digital TV gear in China to use that instead of MPEG.”
@Pete… One of the things I hope to get done over the next several weeks is to make sure all of my old software works. My daughter has taken over most of the day-to-day management of my wife’s care at the memory facility, and the visiting. She has an advantage: she can take any one of the three granddaughters and my wife is instantly on her best behavior. It’s given me enough space to start trying to figure out who I’m going to be going forward. Working on the software, including all the map software and bulk data, is part of that.
@Pete… One of the things I hope to get done over the next several weeks is to make sure all of my old software works. My daughter has taken over most of the day-to-day management of my wife’s care at the memory facility, and the visiting. She has an advantage: she can take any one of the three granddaughters and my wife is instantly on her best behavior. It’s given me enough space to start trying to figure out who I’m going to be going forward. Working on the software, including all the map software and bulk data, is part of that.
talking about innovation etc, I found this article interesting
https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/22/24171581/netflix-bet-advanced-encoding-anne-aaron
Aaron’s mind never stops looking for those kinds of visual challenges, no matter whether she watches Netflix after work or goes outside to take a walk. This has even caught on with her kids, with Aaron telling me that they occasionally point at things in the real world and shout: “Look, it’s a blur!”
It’s a habit that comes with the job and a bit of a curse, too — one of those things you just can’t turn off.
It seems to me that at the heart of innovation, there has to be a person/people bloody minded enough to dive into the weeds of some problem.
talking about innovation etc, I found this article interesting
https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/22/24171581/netflix-bet-advanced-encoding-anne-aaron
Aaron’s mind never stops looking for those kinds of visual challenges, no matter whether she watches Netflix after work or goes outside to take a walk. This has even caught on with her kids, with Aaron telling me that they occasionally point at things in the real world and shout: “Look, it’s a blur!”
It’s a habit that comes with the job and a bit of a curse, too — one of those things you just can’t turn off.
It seems to me that at the heart of innovation, there has to be a person/people bloody minded enough to dive into the weeds of some problem.
Thank you, Michael. I’ll admit I am cursing you a bit for bringing up old memories of video codec nightmares. You’re an amazing resource and we’re lucky to have your input.
Thank you, Michael. I’ll admit I am cursing you a bit for bringing up old memories of video codec nightmares. You’re an amazing resource and we’re lucky to have your input.
It’s given me enough space to start trying to figure out who I’m going to be going forward.
I am so glad (and I bet everybody else here is too) that you have the space (in every sense of the word) to perform this vital work, when the last few years have been so difficult and painful. And I am confident that it will result in many interesting and fulfilling conclusions and ways forward. Very best wishes with this project.
It’s given me enough space to start trying to figure out who I’m going to be going forward.
I am so glad (and I bet everybody else here is too) that you have the space (in every sense of the word) to perform this vital work, when the last few years have been so difficult and painful. And I am confident that it will result in many interesting and fulfilling conclusions and ways forward. Very best wishes with this project.
About a dedicated thread or threads, I’m certainly open to the idea. I’m not sure how it would work, would we have a ‘threadmaster’ who might ride herd on it? What do folks think?
About a dedicated thread or threads, I’m certainly open to the idea. I’m not sure how it would work, would we have a ‘threadmaster’ who might ride herd on it? What do folks think?
lj — I thought Pete just meant a thread focused on a specific topic, i.e. not an an open thread. Riding herd seems so un-ObWi like……
The topic being: innovation / entrepreneurship???
Would be glad to put up a thread if I’m understanding correctly.
Pete??
lj — I thought Pete just meant a thread focused on a specific topic, i.e. not an an open thread. Riding herd seems so un-ObWi like……
The topic being: innovation / entrepreneurship???
Would be glad to put up a thread if I’m understanding correctly.
Pete??
Sorry. I meant a thread dedicated to the Biden thing. There are parallels in lj’s UK post, for sure, but that deserves its own & this one seems important enough to be its own as well. Pretty sure everyone is galvanized on Not TFG, but there are a lot of takes on how we get there. imho.
Sorry. I meant a thread dedicated to the Biden thing. There are parallels in lj’s UK post, for sure, but that deserves its own & this one seems important enough to be its own as well. Pretty sure everyone is galvanized on Not TFG, but there are a lot of takes on how we get there. imho.
I wasn’t tryna innovate or anything. 😉
I wasn’t tryna innovate or anything. 😉
I would also like to subscribe to Mikevision.
I would also like to subscribe to Mikevision.
Will put up a thread shortly to talk about “the Biden thing.”
Will put up a thread shortly to talk about “the Biden thing.”
Thanks Janie. I wasn’t really sure what the topic was, I just thought that the idea of proposing a topic that one of the frontpagers could make into a post would be good. It would take the onus of a frontpager having to set out a stance. I can’t speak for others, but the reason I didn’t post anything on Biden is that I don’t really have a good idea of where I am on the subject and I don’t want to have people assume my position. So a commentator driven thread (Hey, someone asked for this, so here it is) would be helpful.
Thanks Janie. I wasn’t really sure what the topic was, I just thought that the idea of proposing a topic that one of the frontpagers could make into a post would be good. It would take the onus of a frontpager having to set out a stance. I can’t speak for others, but the reason I didn’t post anything on Biden is that I don’t really have a good idea of where I am on the subject and I don’t want to have people assume my position. So a commentator driven thread (Hey, someone asked for this, so here it is) would be helpful.