by liberal japonicus
Seems like I should open another thread, so here it is. Have at it.
506 thoughts on “Another open thread”
Comments are closed.
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
by liberal japonicus
Seems like I should open another thread, so here it is. Have at it.
Comments are closed.
And to start things off, from
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/14/cool-heads-needed-as-political-fringe-dwellers-spread-disinformation-after-trump-shooting
Disinformation researcher Amanda Rogers has described the polarized, unhinged, conspiracy-driven noise in social media responses to the shooting of Donald Trump as “a self-sustaining spiral of shit”.
And to start things off, from
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/14/cool-heads-needed-as-political-fringe-dwellers-spread-disinformation-after-trump-shooting
Disinformation researcher Amanda Rogers has described the polarized, unhinged, conspiracy-driven noise in social media responses to the shooting of Donald Trump as “a self-sustaining spiral of shit”.
Anyone surprised?
To a degree, actually. The amount (and in parts insanity) of 9/11-trutherist conspiracy stuff swelling up within minutes came as a bit of a surprise. The RW reaction was 150% predictable in every aspect though.
Anyone surprised?
To a degree, actually. The amount (and in parts insanity) of 9/11-trutherist conspiracy stuff swelling up within minutes came as a bit of a surprise. The RW reaction was 150% predictable in every aspect though.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/after-trump-assassination-attempt-a-reckoning-over-american-political-rhetoric/ar-BB1pXAUF?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=8f3ba4e25c754ac89f19fd176e8744d5&ei=16
After thirty years of the Republicans deliberately and cynically promoting hate of all non-Republicans, after decades of rightwing violence, after multiple Republican leaders openly or by implication promoting civil war, after Trump instigated an attack on Congress, after nationwide threats directed at election workers, after the recent Heritage Foundation statement that they either get their way or there will be violence, FINALLY a call for moderating rhetoric? And only because a Republican was shot at–a Republican who INSTIGATED A VIOLENT ATTACK ON CONGRESS!
And of course this call for moderation will mean we can’t tell the truth about Republicans while they keep right on hatemongering about the rest of us.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/after-trump-assassination-attempt-a-reckoning-over-american-political-rhetoric/ar-BB1pXAUF?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=8f3ba4e25c754ac89f19fd176e8744d5&ei=16
After thirty years of the Republicans deliberately and cynically promoting hate of all non-Republicans, after decades of rightwing violence, after multiple Republican leaders openly or by implication promoting civil war, after Trump instigated an attack on Congress, after nationwide threats directed at election workers, after the recent Heritage Foundation statement that they either get their way or there will be violence, FINALLY a call for moderating rhetoric? And only because a Republican was shot at–a Republican who INSTIGATED A VIOLENT ATTACK ON CONGRESS!
And of course this call for moderation will mean we can’t tell the truth about Republicans while they keep right on hatemongering about the rest of us.
I’m wondering if he was exposed to the dust up currently occurring over Trump (whether sincerely or tactically) disavowing Project 2025. There seems to be a bit of noise over this “betrayal”.
As ever, waiting for details to trickle out over the next few days.
I’m wondering if he was exposed to the dust up currently occurring over Trump (whether sincerely or tactically) disavowing Project 2025. There seems to be a bit of noise over this “betrayal”.
As ever, waiting for details to trickle out over the next few days.
As far as Trump is concerned, the thing I wish most to read about him, inspired by the Icelandic Sagas, is “and then Donald Fredrickson passed out of the saga.” I wan’t nothing more than I want his absence from the narrative. I want him to go away and take his vacuous, vicious family with him, into a cultural oubliette. Neither his death in political violence nor his survival of an assassination attempt brings me closer to this much wished for moment.
The war on women is not a war that Trump started. He’s not political in that sense. He’s a narcissist, and everything is personal for him. He’s allowed others to wage a war on women because it gives him one more big thing to put his name on. But whether the name is Trump, or Heritage, or Claremont, etc., the war will go on.
This latest round of violence does nothing to hasten the blessed silence that I wish for there. It only brings further chaos and unrest that feeds the hunger for authoritarian responses. And it’s that hunger that feeds the war on women.
As far as Trump is concerned, the thing I wish most to read about him, inspired by the Icelandic Sagas, is “and then Donald Fredrickson passed out of the saga.” I wan’t nothing more than I want his absence from the narrative. I want him to go away and take his vacuous, vicious family with him, into a cultural oubliette. Neither his death in political violence nor his survival of an assassination attempt brings me closer to this much wished for moment.
The war on women is not a war that Trump started. He’s not political in that sense. He’s a narcissist, and everything is personal for him. He’s allowed others to wage a war on women because it gives him one more big thing to put his name on. But whether the name is Trump, or Heritage, or Claremont, etc., the war will go on.
This latest round of violence does nothing to hasten the blessed silence that I wish for there. It only brings further chaos and unrest that feeds the hunger for authoritarian responses. And it’s that hunger that feeds the war on women.
It shouldn’t matter what his motives were. We know they were dumb, no matter what the flavor of stupidity turns out to be. We have so many guns in the US and in a country of 300 something million people, some are nuts.
It shouldn’t matter what his motives were. We know they were dumb, no matter what the flavor of stupidity turns out to be. We have so many guns in the US and in a country of 300 something million people, some are nuts.
Lots of commentary (elsewhere) of the “shame he missed” vs. “how DARE you!”.
So I’m going to resurrect a joke from the early-70’s:
“An IRA man was going to confession, and says to the priest: Father, I have sinned. I killed two protestants…
…and I missed Edward Heath* by an inch.”
(* tells you how old it is!)
Lots of commentary (elsewhere) of the “shame he missed” vs. “how DARE you!”.
So I’m going to resurrect a joke from the early-70’s:
“An IRA man was going to confession, and says to the priest: Father, I have sinned. I killed two protestants…
…and I missed Edward Heath* by an inch.”
(* tells you how old it is!)
Probably the best outcome would be for him to lose the election by a substantial margin. And then stroke out relatively soon thereafter.
Probably the best outcome would be for him to lose the election by a substantial margin. And then stroke out relatively soon thereafter.
Some of that grand history stuff from Timothy Burke on his substack: Fall of the House of US, parts 1 & 2.
https://timothyburke.substack.com/
Weaves together some large themes to diagnose where we were, and how we got here.
Highly recommended.
Some of that grand history stuff from Timothy Burke on his substack: Fall of the House of US, parts 1 & 2.
https://timothyburke.substack.com/
Weaves together some large themes to diagnose where we were, and how we got here.
Highly recommended.
The term is ending here, so we didn’t have the TV news on, so I have a probably mistaken impression that it wasn’t paid much attention to here. I’d love to know how it was reported in China.
One thing that my wife mentioned is that US movies/TV/etc often have some ‘secret cabal’ plot. While that sort of plot isn’t unheard of here, when I stopped to think about it, it’s a standard trope, so much so that I wonder if a lot of this is woven into the dna of the US.
The term is ending here, so we didn’t have the TV news on, so I have a probably mistaken impression that it wasn’t paid much attention to here. I’d love to know how it was reported in China.
One thing that my wife mentioned is that US movies/TV/etc often have some ‘secret cabal’ plot. While that sort of plot isn’t unheard of here, when I stopped to think about it, it’s a standard trope, so much so that I wonder if a lot of this is woven into the dna of the US.
@bobbyp: thanks for the Timothy Burke link. Unusually for me, I read both of the essays, and the comments. He comes from a perspective that I’m not likely to run into normally, and that’s enlightening in its own right. Just a few quick reactions:
1) I had never run across the use of “imaginary” as a noun. It threw me at first, though I righted myself quickly enough. Felt pretty jargon-y but I suppose I’m not his primary audience.
2) One of the comment exchanges — about lawyers — was fascinating.
3) This…
…is a sort of fraternal twin of something I have been thinking about a lot over the past few years, and that is the lack of awareness of what it is going to take to *keep* the “progress” “we” have made over the past 100 years or so. Because of that lack of awareness (which is a core human “failing,” perhaps), the progress is being dismantled brick by brick.
Which brings me to …
4) I was reading pretty quickly, and I know Burke is coming from a very bird’s eye view, but I don’t think he said a single word about the particularity of what was gained and is now being lost by and for women.
‘Nuff said, it’s past when I should be in bed.
Thanks again.
@bobbyp: thanks for the Timothy Burke link. Unusually for me, I read both of the essays, and the comments. He comes from a perspective that I’m not likely to run into normally, and that’s enlightening in its own right. Just a few quick reactions:
1) I had never run across the use of “imaginary” as a noun. It threw me at first, though I righted myself quickly enough. Felt pretty jargon-y but I suppose I’m not his primary audience.
2) One of the comment exchanges — about lawyers — was fascinating.
3) This…
…is a sort of fraternal twin of something I have been thinking about a lot over the past few years, and that is the lack of awareness of what it is going to take to *keep* the “progress” “we” have made over the past 100 years or so. Because of that lack of awareness (which is a core human “failing,” perhaps), the progress is being dismantled brick by brick.
Which brings me to …
4) I was reading pretty quickly, and I know Burke is coming from a very bird’s eye view, but I don’t think he said a single word about the particularity of what was gained and is now being lost by and for women.
‘Nuff said, it’s past when I should be in bed.
Thanks again.
Trying to cut and paste a Twitter thread here. Seems to have worked.
He is complaining about how many liberals are now pulling back on criticizing Trump. I can see doing that for a day or two, but what is the long term plan here? Have they decided to run on their record?
———-
Adam Johnson
@adamjohnsonCHI
NYT says they’d have withheld anti Trump editorial Sunday if they could have. If the shooter wrote a manifesto citing Paul Krugman and Gail Collins maybe this would be a polite gesture but he was some rw crank, why is liberal media accepting premise they are somehow responsible?
Quote
David Folkenflik
@davidfolkenflik
·
1h
In essay condemning political violence, NYT editorial page editor @katiekings explains timing of paper’s editorial in Sunday print paper declaring Trump unfit for office
(tldr: it’s printed way in advance)
Image
8:37 AM · Jul 15, 2024
·
Adam Johnson
@adamjohnsonCHI
·
1h
Begging people to get a grip.
Adam Johnson
@adamjohnsonCHI
·
1h
There are plenty of psycho killers who cite the NYT to justify their actions, but they are sending weapons to Israel and Saudi Arabia not one off losers shooting at presidential candidates.
Adam Johnson
@adamjohnsonCHI
·
1h
Noting that Trump is hellbent on destroying whatever traces of US democracy there is is pretty much the one thing liberal media was good for. Now their role is, what, full time Washington Generals? What’s the plan here? I guess they give Pulitzers for well written handwringing
Trying to cut and paste a Twitter thread here. Seems to have worked.
He is complaining about how many liberals are now pulling back on criticizing Trump. I can see doing that for a day or two, but what is the long term plan here? Have they decided to run on their record?
———-
Adam Johnson
@adamjohnsonCHI
NYT says they’d have withheld anti Trump editorial Sunday if they could have. If the shooter wrote a manifesto citing Paul Krugman and Gail Collins maybe this would be a polite gesture but he was some rw crank, why is liberal media accepting premise they are somehow responsible?
Quote
David Folkenflik
@davidfolkenflik
·
1h
In essay condemning political violence, NYT editorial page editor @katiekings explains timing of paper’s editorial in Sunday print paper declaring Trump unfit for office
(tldr: it’s printed way in advance)
Image
8:37 AM · Jul 15, 2024
·
Adam Johnson
@adamjohnsonCHI
·
1h
Begging people to get a grip.
Adam Johnson
@adamjohnsonCHI
·
1h
There are plenty of psycho killers who cite the NYT to justify their actions, but they are sending weapons to Israel and Saudi Arabia not one off losers shooting at presidential candidates.
Adam Johnson
@adamjohnsonCHI
·
1h
Noting that Trump is hellbent on destroying whatever traces of US democracy there is is pretty much the one thing liberal media was good for. Now their role is, what, full time Washington Generals? What’s the plan here? I guess they give Pulitzers for well written handwringing
Spent the evening working my way thru the Timothy Burke piece. It’s quite interesting, but I thought there were some lacunae there. Janie mentioned about women, and he talks about the opening of high culture so one could first read DH Lawrence and unexpurgated Joyce, which the came to being able to watch pornography (I’m assuming that is what I am Curious (Yellow) is signifying) The structure makes it seem as if the imperative is more a cultural reflex rather than equal rights for women and minorities. He argues that this has been tossed aside in the rush to identity politics, but it seems to me that identity politics is more the result of vying for parts of a political power pie that is judged to be set and requires that one group lose some in order for another group to acquire it. I’m not convinced that it is as reductive as that.
I also thank Janie for pointing me to the comments, and besides lawyers, there is only a passing mention to the problems of capitalism and the concentration of wealth, along with the regulatory capture involved. Had we been able to avoid that (and it has been at least addressed in some countries), would he be able to put so much weight on what he does emphasize.
The last lacuna is the near total absence of historical events, except for domestic events such as Reagan and the air-traffic controllers, and a nod to the Cold War. WWII isn’t even mentioned, with FDR’s New Deal magically morphing into a post 1945 coalition. It seems to me a lot of the parameters for that post 1945 coalition were forged in WWII.
He dings liberal-progressives (kind of ironic grouping, given that the two groups are often at each other’s throats, though he wants to highlight the sort of enabling that the two groups do) for being able to pack their toys and go home if they felt insufficiently catered to or recognized in public institutions, and that increasingly meant that they did not always notice or even care (at least at first) as public goods disappeared or were stolen by a new wave of capitalist enterprises.. That is one possible narrative, but I wonder if, at the inflecton point of Reagan, there had not been an anti-government crusade that had allowed power to be concentrated, which then created many of the problems we are seeing today.
I am still thinking about this and it’s good to read something that requires multiple readings, but I’m not convinced yet.
Spent the evening working my way thru the Timothy Burke piece. It’s quite interesting, but I thought there were some lacunae there. Janie mentioned about women, and he talks about the opening of high culture so one could first read DH Lawrence and unexpurgated Joyce, which the came to being able to watch pornography (I’m assuming that is what I am Curious (Yellow) is signifying) The structure makes it seem as if the imperative is more a cultural reflex rather than equal rights for women and minorities. He argues that this has been tossed aside in the rush to identity politics, but it seems to me that identity politics is more the result of vying for parts of a political power pie that is judged to be set and requires that one group lose some in order for another group to acquire it. I’m not convinced that it is as reductive as that.
I also thank Janie for pointing me to the comments, and besides lawyers, there is only a passing mention to the problems of capitalism and the concentration of wealth, along with the regulatory capture involved. Had we been able to avoid that (and it has been at least addressed in some countries), would he be able to put so much weight on what he does emphasize.
The last lacuna is the near total absence of historical events, except for domestic events such as Reagan and the air-traffic controllers, and a nod to the Cold War. WWII isn’t even mentioned, with FDR’s New Deal magically morphing into a post 1945 coalition. It seems to me a lot of the parameters for that post 1945 coalition were forged in WWII.
He dings liberal-progressives (kind of ironic grouping, given that the two groups are often at each other’s throats, though he wants to highlight the sort of enabling that the two groups do) for being able to pack their toys and go home if they felt insufficiently catered to or recognized in public institutions, and that increasingly meant that they did not always notice or even care (at least at first) as public goods disappeared or were stolen by a new wave of capitalist enterprises.. That is one possible narrative, but I wonder if, at the inflecton point of Reagan, there had not been an anti-government crusade that had allowed power to be concentrated, which then created many of the problems we are seeing today.
I am still thinking about this and it’s good to read something that requires multiple readings, but I’m not convinced yet.
Classified-documents case dismissed. Ugh…
Classified-documents case dismissed. Ugh…
lj — thank you for the analysis. I am with you on your last paragraph, though since I’m off for a couple of days of baby-helping, I’m not going to get any chance for rereading right away. I’ll at least try to keep an eye out for the continuing series.
lj — thank you for the analysis. I am with you on your last paragraph, though since I’m off for a couple of days of baby-helping, I’m not going to get any chance for rereading right away. I’ll at least try to keep an eye out for the continuing series.
Classified-documents case dismissed. Ugh…
Perhaps not. Apparently it wasn’t dismissed “With Prejudice.” (Actually I don’t think it could be at this point.) Which means it can be refiled, and hopefully get a different judge.
Or it could be appealed. If the 11th Circuit slaps her down again, that might be cause to get her kicked off the case.
Classified-documents case dismissed. Ugh…
Perhaps not. Apparently it wasn’t dismissed “With Prejudice.” (Actually I don’t think it could be at this point.) Which means it can be refiled, and hopefully get a different judge.
Or it could be appealed. If the 11th Circuit slaps her down again, that might be cause to get her kicked off the case.
Trying to cut and paste a Twitter thread here. Seems to have worked.
As an aside, comment with
@threadreaderapp unroll
after the first tweet, it will return a link to a webpage containing the tweet thread. First, look in the comments to see if someone else has already done it.
Adam Johnson
Trying to cut and paste a Twitter thread here. Seems to have worked.
As an aside, comment with
@threadreaderapp unroll
after the first tweet, it will return a link to a webpage containing the tweet thread. First, look in the comments to see if someone else has already done it.
Adam Johnson
Quick note about I Am Curious (Yellow). It’s a 1968 Swedish social critical film about a young woman who is exploring her political and sexual identities. A lot of the film explores Lena’s attitudes towards social justice and her relationship with her father who was briefly an international volunteer in the Spanish Civil War. Lena is sexually liberated and the film features some frank erotic scenes, but they are filmed in a more social realist mode than in a manner meant to titillate. Several places in the US did label it pornographic because of the nudity and sexual content, but I think a lot of people also had difficulty with its social commentary.
It’s now part of the Criterion Collection and is enjoying a bit of critical reassessment among film scholars.
Quick note about I Am Curious (Yellow). It’s a 1968 Swedish social critical film about a young woman who is exploring her political and sexual identities. A lot of the film explores Lena’s attitudes towards social justice and her relationship with her father who was briefly an international volunteer in the Spanish Civil War. Lena is sexually liberated and the film features some frank erotic scenes, but they are filmed in a more social realist mode than in a manner meant to titillate. Several places in the US did label it pornographic because of the nudity and sexual content, but I think a lot of people also had difficulty with its social commentary.
It’s now part of the Criterion Collection and is enjoying a bit of critical reassessment among film scholars.
Timothy Burke seems to me to be coming at the issues from a more communitarian perspective (along the lines of Charles Taylor). At least that seems like the perspective given his particular use of “the imaginary” and his criticisms of the Clintons.
There again, I may know just enough about those subjects to see half of the signs, miss the other half, and misread it, so take those comments with a proper degree of caution.
Timothy Burke seems to me to be coming at the issues from a more communitarian perspective (along the lines of Charles Taylor). At least that seems like the perspective given his particular use of “the imaginary” and his criticisms of the Clintons.
There again, I may know just enough about those subjects to see half of the signs, miss the other half, and misread it, so take those comments with a proper degree of caution.
Several places in the US did label it pornographic because of the nudity and sexual content, but I think a lot of people also had difficulty with its social commentary.
Possibly. But my recollection of the time is that virtually all of the public discussion/objection had to do with its sexual content. Whether labeling it pornography or praising it.
Several places in the US did label it pornographic because of the nudity and sexual content, but I think a lot of people also had difficulty with its social commentary.
Possibly. But my recollection of the time is that virtually all of the public discussion/objection had to do with its sexual content. Whether labeling it pornography or praising it.
JD Vance is the VP candidate. The clown show marches on.
JD Vance is the VP candidate. The clown show marches on.
The toxic slime mould oozed ahead on the final stretch despite not having shaved. The other two candidates simply botched their opportunity after the Pennsylvania event. Rubio was of course handicapped as a Latino and a Floridian but he could at least have tried to publicly spew some vile in(s)anities on the occasion. It was obvious to everyone that this would have been the deciding factor: How low can you go and how far can you debase yourself to please His Orangeness?
The toxic slime mould oozed ahead on the final stretch despite not having shaved. The other two candidates simply botched their opportunity after the Pennsylvania event. Rubio was of course handicapped as a Latino and a Floridian but he could at least have tried to publicly spew some vile in(s)anities on the occasion. It was obvious to everyone that this would have been the deciding factor: How low can you go and how far can you debase yourself to please His Orangeness?
Wonder if Peter Thiel is feeling any sense of betrayal about now.
Wonder if Peter Thiel is feeling any sense of betrayal about now.
Too busy writing checks to various Trump
scamsPACs. You know TCFG only went with Vance for the money.Too busy writing checks to various Trump
scamsPACs. You know TCFG only went with Vance for the money.Last I read, Thiel was sitting out 2024 because he was pissed that the GOP was focusing all its attention on culture war crap, and not on the tech war with Chinese industry. An openly gay German immigrant billionaire can’t be too happy with the Project 2025 agenda.
Last I read, Thiel was sitting out 2024 because he was pissed that the GOP was focusing all its attention on culture war crap, and not on the tech war with Chinese industry. An openly gay German immigrant billionaire can’t be too happy with the Project 2025 agenda.
If Thiel is keeping his wallet shut, Trump is going to feel (quite reasonably) like he’s been stiffed. And be furious.
If Thiel is keeping his wallet shut, Trump is going to feel (quite reasonably) like he’s been stiffed. And be furious.
My recollection about I Am Curious (Yellow), which I never saw but which was a cultural touchstone at the time, was that it was regarded as an “arthouse” pornographic film, like Ai no corrida (also known as In the Empire of the Senses) ten years later, which I did see. Which is to say, not a pornographic film solely for titillation, but one with artistic pretensions, or perhaps more fairly, intentions.
My recollection about I Am Curious (Yellow), which I never saw but which was a cultural touchstone at the time, was that it was regarded as an “arthouse” pornographic film, like Ai no corrida (also known as In the Empire of the Senses) ten years later, which I did see. Which is to say, not a pornographic film solely for titillation, but one with artistic pretensions, or perhaps more fairly, intentions.
1. The Vance audition has been going on for a while; whether Thiel is pissed off or not, surely he can’t be surprised. Nor does it seem likely that Clickbait is ignorant of Thiel’s intention to sit it out. This is very old news (on the scale of our current news cycles; i.e. months at least, not hours). I mean, maybe Vance has been lying about his access to funds, nothing would surprise me with these slimeballs. But if so, Clickbait was even stupider than I would have expected to believe him.
2. I saw I am Curious (Yellow) when I was in college — must have been a few years after it first came out, but it was presented with great hype as daring and edgy (related to sex, not the other stuff).
Relative to what’s on the screen now (I watched Bull Durham the other night), it’s pretty tame — certainly not porn just for the sake of it by present-day standards. I do remember two people having sex while sitting on (IIRC) a stone wall in a public place — pretty out of bounds for a good Catholic girl in the late sixties.
1. The Vance audition has been going on for a while; whether Thiel is pissed off or not, surely he can’t be surprised. Nor does it seem likely that Clickbait is ignorant of Thiel’s intention to sit it out. This is very old news (on the scale of our current news cycles; i.e. months at least, not hours). I mean, maybe Vance has been lying about his access to funds, nothing would surprise me with these slimeballs. But if so, Clickbait was even stupider than I would have expected to believe him.
2. I saw I am Curious (Yellow) when I was in college — must have been a few years after it first came out, but it was presented with great hype as daring and edgy (related to sex, not the other stuff).
Relative to what’s on the screen now (I watched Bull Durham the other night), it’s pretty tame — certainly not porn just for the sake of it by present-day standards. I do remember two people having sex while sitting on (IIRC) a stone wall in a public place — pretty out of bounds for a good Catholic girl in the late sixties.
Clarification — I am Curious (Yellow) is more explicit than Bull Durham, but Bull Durham itself would have been far far beyond what was considered respectable in those days. Then again, I grew up with the Legion of Decency running my movie-going life…..
Clarification — I am Curious (Yellow) is more explicit than Bull Durham, but Bull Durham itself would have been far far beyond what was considered respectable in those days. Then again, I grew up with the Legion of Decency running my movie-going life…..
The Ministry of Indecency is here for you, Janie.
The Ministry of Indecency is here for you, Janie.
Anne Laurie’s current post at BJ says this:
So I am clearly out of date on Thiel’s machinations.
Anne Laurie’s current post at BJ says this:
So I am clearly out of date on Thiel’s machinations.
hsh — thank you, it will be a much needed corrective. Although I’ve tried to do as much correcting as I could manage for the past 50+ years….. 😉
hsh — thank you, it will be a much needed corrective. Although I’ve tried to do as much correcting as I could manage for the past 50+ years….. 😉
Dunno if Thiel turns around on this or not:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/27/peter-thiel-says-if-you-hold-a-gun-to-my-head-ill-vote-for-trump.html
He must also have seen how Vance underperformed in his election relative to the other Republicans.
Someone should start a conspiracy theory that Thiel has convinced yon Cassius…er… Vance to win the VP position, but plans to have Vance go 25th Amendment on Clay Pigeon at the earliest possible opportunity.
Dunno if Thiel turns around on this or not:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/27/peter-thiel-says-if-you-hold-a-gun-to-my-head-ill-vote-for-trump.html
He must also have seen how Vance underperformed in his election relative to the other Republicans.
Someone should start a conspiracy theory that Thiel has convinced yon Cassius…er… Vance to win the VP position, but plans to have Vance go 25th Amendment on Clay Pigeon at the earliest possible opportunity.
The challenge with the 25th Amendment thing is that it requires buy-in from a majority of the cabinet. (Not sure what happens if some of them are not yet confirmed by the Senate.) And the cabinet might well include a bunch of Trump loyalists.
Still, it might be workable. But it would probably take a deft hand at stacking the cabinet. (Maybe stack the minor positions, i.e. departments that Trump doesn’t care about.)
The challenge with the 25th Amendment thing is that it requires buy-in from a majority of the cabinet. (Not sure what happens if some of them are not yet confirmed by the Senate.) And the cabinet might well include a bunch of Trump loyalists.
Still, it might be workable. But it would probably take a deft hand at stacking the cabinet. (Maybe stack the minor positions, i.e. departments that Trump doesn’t care about.)
I don’t care if the 25th. is feasible, just that Trump hears it and that it starts to work on his paranoia.
Meanwhile: Sharkey/Wormtongue 2024 – Make the Shire Great Again.
I don’t care if the 25th. is feasible, just that Trump hears it and that it starts to work on his paranoia.
Meanwhile: Sharkey/Wormtongue 2024 – Make the Shire Great Again.
Funny, nous, the Scouring of the Shire has come into my thoughts more than once lately. Too bad it’s not that easy.
Would be nice if people who are young now could put down their mugs in 50 years and say “That was a proper twenty-twenty-four, that was.”
Funny, nous, the Scouring of the Shire has come into my thoughts more than once lately. Too bad it’s not that easy.
Would be nice if people who are young now could put down their mugs in 50 years and say “That was a proper twenty-twenty-four, that was.”
Although nerdily i have to say it would probably be twenty-twenty-five, which misses the echo of four/fourteen.
Although nerdily i have to say it would probably be twenty-twenty-five, which misses the echo of four/fourteen.
I’ve had a lot of thoughts about it and about our current circumstances – fueled by re-reading and re-watching the book and the films. Too much for a comment on an open thread. There’s a lot there.
I’ve had a lot of thoughts about it and about our current circumstances – fueled by re-reading and re-watching the book and the films. Too much for a comment on an open thread. There’s a lot there.
Too much for a comment on an open thread. There’s a lot there.
Want to write a post?
Want a dedicated thread for putting stuff into comments ad hoc?
Too much for a comment on an open thread. There’s a lot there.
Want to write a post?
Want a dedicated thread for putting stuff into comments ad hoc?
JanieM – Let me throw some things at a page tomorrow to see if what I’ve been thinking about coheres, and if it will come out in something fewer than fourteen pages with footnotes. You can never tell with these things.
JanieM – Let me throw some things at a page tomorrow to see if what I’ve been thinking about coheres, and if it will come out in something fewer than fourteen pages with footnotes. You can never tell with these things.
nous — it’s a deal.
nous — it’s a deal.
Fall of the House of the US Part 3 is out.
Has the Left lost its way? Tune in.
Fall of the House of the US Part 3 is out.
Has the Left lost its way? Tune in.
bobbyp, so they’re saying that the US is a has been, rather than a never was. That’s more credit than the left usually give this country. 🙂
bobbyp, so they’re saying that the US is a has been, rather than a never was. That’s more credit than the left usually give this country. 🙂
On J D Vance, and his connections:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1812923820421906464.html?utm_campaign=topunroll
On J D Vance, and his connections:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1812923820421906464.html?utm_campaign=topunroll
That’s more credit than the left usually give this country.
I’m not sure I understand this. Can you unpack it a bit?
First, who is on the “left”? What does it mean to be “on the left” in the United States now?
And what does it mean to “not give credit” to this country? What are you referring to? Candid and honest talk about our history?
That’s more credit than the left usually give this country.
I’m not sure I understand this. Can you unpack it a bit?
First, who is on the “left”? What does it mean to be “on the left” in the United States now?
And what does it mean to “not give credit” to this country? What are you referring to? Candid and honest talk about our history?
That’s more credit than the left usually give this country.
I’m not sure I understand this. Can you unpack it a bit?
In my experience, the left (however delineated) has always had a negative view of the state of the nation. Some, reluctantly, will concede that things are a bit better than they once were. While insisting (correctly) that we’ve got further to go; that’s the entire focus.
But to say “Fall of the House of the US” you have to admit that it was once, arguably recently, substantially better. Good even — because you can’t really fall from abysmal. And that we were ever good is not, again in my experience, a position the left embraces.
That’s more credit than the left usually give this country.
I’m not sure I understand this. Can you unpack it a bit?
In my experience, the left (however delineated) has always had a negative view of the state of the nation. Some, reluctantly, will concede that things are a bit better than they once were. While insisting (correctly) that we’ve got further to go; that’s the entire focus.
But to say “Fall of the House of the US” you have to admit that it was once, arguably recently, substantially better. Good even — because you can’t really fall from abysmal. And that we were ever good is not, again in my experience, a position the left embraces.
First, who is on the “left”? What does it mean to be “on the left” in the United States now?
I would, as a first approximation, say it includes those who dispute that there is any difference between anyone and everyone who is more conservative/moderate than they are and the most rabid reactionaries. In short, that there is no center, no such thing as a moderate (let alone a moderate, non-reactionary) conservative.
First, who is on the “left”? What does it mean to be “on the left” in the United States now?
I would, as a first approximation, say it includes those who dispute that there is any difference between anyone and everyone who is more conservative/moderate than they are and the most rabid reactionaries. In short, that there is no center, no such thing as a moderate (let alone a moderate, non-reactionary) conservative.
I have to start looking at hilzoy’s feed more regularly. She was the reason I first came to ObWi, and still is the opinion I trust the most on issues where I don’t know what I think. I did actually know what I thought about J D Vance, but even so, she retweeted (or re-blueskyed) Rick Perlstein posting this, by John Ganz, today:
https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/the-meaning-of-jd-vance
I have to start looking at hilzoy’s feed more regularly. She was the reason I first came to ObWi, and still is the opinion I trust the most on issues where I don’t know what I think. I did actually know what I thought about J D Vance, but even so, she retweeted (or re-blueskyed) Rick Perlstein posting this, by John Ganz, today:
https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/the-meaning-of-jd-vance
“ In short, that there is no center, no such thing as a moderate (let alone a moderate, non-reactionary) conservative.”
There might be someone like this because you can find all sorts of views if you look hard enough, but actually existing leftists are perfectly capable of employing political bestiaries that include “ far left” “ centrist lib”, “ moderate right” “ far right” and so on. One can even notice distinctions between different sorts of rightwingers that aren’t captured by terms like “ moderate” and “ far”. There are paleocons and neocons. There are libertarians. There is also a difference between social democrats and socialists. There are tankies. Chomsky calls himself a libertarian socialist, which in the US is very confusing. Never fully got it myself.
The words “ moderate” and “ centrist” are confusing anyway. Does it mean someone whose views on most issues are in- between or is it someone with a mix of rightwing and leftwing views? I also get the sense that self- described moderates think there is something inherently virtuous about being a moderate, because they conflate the non- political virtues of moderation in everyday life with their political stance. Also, what is moderate in one decade might have been crazy extremism a decade or two earlier.
“ In short, that there is no center, no such thing as a moderate (let alone a moderate, non-reactionary) conservative.”
There might be someone like this because you can find all sorts of views if you look hard enough, but actually existing leftists are perfectly capable of employing political bestiaries that include “ far left” “ centrist lib”, “ moderate right” “ far right” and so on. One can even notice distinctions between different sorts of rightwingers that aren’t captured by terms like “ moderate” and “ far”. There are paleocons and neocons. There are libertarians. There is also a difference between social democrats and socialists. There are tankies. Chomsky calls himself a libertarian socialist, which in the US is very confusing. Never fully got it myself.
The words “ moderate” and “ centrist” are confusing anyway. Does it mean someone whose views on most issues are in- between or is it someone with a mix of rightwing and leftwing views? I also get the sense that self- described moderates think there is something inherently virtuous about being a moderate, because they conflate the non- political virtues of moderation in everyday life with their political stance. Also, what is moderate in one decade might have been crazy extremism a decade or two earlier.
On the surveys I take on political topics, I describe myself as a moderate. On the one-dimensional political spectrum everyone insists on using that’s as close as I can get.
On the surveys I take on political topics, I describe myself as a moderate. On the one-dimensional political spectrum everyone insists on using that’s as close as I can get.
They way I get it, in the US ‘centrist’ means in favor of the status quo. ‘Moderate’ these days means the next step to the right as far as politicians are concerned. They see themselves as between the centrists and the Right trying to find a compromise between them (thus actually producing a pull to the Right).
They way I get it, in the US ‘centrist’ means in favor of the status quo. ‘Moderate’ these days means the next step to the right as far as politicians are concerned. They see themselves as between the centrists and the Right trying to find a compromise between them (thus actually producing a pull to the Right).
I think the MSM uses the term “moderate” to mean “A Beltway insider we know who has good manners, doesn’t yell at people, and seems to favor the rich though without being really ostentatious about it.”
I think Vance is likely to be deemed moderate by the same media that perseverated for weeks on Biden’s imaginary mental decline.
Howard Dean was treated like a radical because he had a loud voice and was a Beltway outsider.
In my perception, the pundit class uses words like “centrist” “progressive” “moderate” and “conservative” in response to personal style and presentation as much as in response to policy ideas.
I think the MSM uses the term “moderate” to mean “A Beltway insider we know who has good manners, doesn’t yell at people, and seems to favor the rich though without being really ostentatious about it.”
I think Vance is likely to be deemed moderate by the same media that perseverated for weeks on Biden’s imaginary mental decline.
Howard Dean was treated like a radical because he had a loud voice and was a Beltway outsider.
In my perception, the pundit class uses words like “centrist” “progressive” “moderate” and “conservative” in response to personal style and presentation as much as in response to policy ideas.
Maybe there’s a willingness to compromise involved with moderates, regardless of what they consider ideal. That is to say, they may be radically liberal or conservative in their ideals, but will accept something short to get things done. And centrists want whatever’s in between the poles, because they just buy into that, maybe to save themselves from thinking critically and to feel above it all. Crap, now I’m being mean.
Take a stand or admit you don’t give a sh*t. I don’t give a sh*t sometimes, but it’s mostly weariness. I give sh*t somewhere inside, but I’ve given up. I’m an ennuist.
Maybe there’s a willingness to compromise involved with moderates, regardless of what they consider ideal. That is to say, they may be radically liberal or conservative in their ideals, but will accept something short to get things done. And centrists want whatever’s in between the poles, because they just buy into that, maybe to save themselves from thinking critically and to feel above it all. Crap, now I’m being mean.
Take a stand or admit you don’t give a sh*t. I don’t give a sh*t sometimes, but it’s mostly weariness. I give sh*t somewhere inside, but I’ve given up. I’m an ennuist.
Let me, as someone who considers himself a mildly conservative (in the old time meaning of the term), i.e. center-right, try to lay out how I see things.
There definitely is a lot of room for improvement in this country. Both things which merely could be better and things which are just flat wrong. And those should be addressed.
However, there are also a lot of things which are right. And we should not, when addressing the problems, ignore the potential damage to those good things arising from the particular proposed solution. A part of that, given how poorly we understand how the various parts of our economy, society, etc. interact, is a preference for incremental approaches. Naturally there are times when that is infeasible or inappropriate. It’s a preference, not a straitjacket.
It is my perception that those furthest from the center, on both the right and the left, see few or none of the things which are right. (Or simply fail to imagine that their proposed solutions could possibly impact them.) So the tend to suggest solutions which are indistinguishable from “smash it all entirely and build something new and better.” Said new building which utterly ignores real life human nature. Except when it involves authoritarianism, in order to avoid dealing with the views of the real population.
Note that I’m talking about the extremes. As both left and right approach the center their solutions become more realistic. Note also that all this also applies to views, such as libertarianism, which run orthogonal to the usual left/right framing. Except that, having had few opportunities to actually run a country, the solutions of their proponents tend to run further from reality.
Let me, as someone who considers himself a mildly conservative (in the old time meaning of the term), i.e. center-right, try to lay out how I see things.
There definitely is a lot of room for improvement in this country. Both things which merely could be better and things which are just flat wrong. And those should be addressed.
However, there are also a lot of things which are right. And we should not, when addressing the problems, ignore the potential damage to those good things arising from the particular proposed solution. A part of that, given how poorly we understand how the various parts of our economy, society, etc. interact, is a preference for incremental approaches. Naturally there are times when that is infeasible or inappropriate. It’s a preference, not a straitjacket.
It is my perception that those furthest from the center, on both the right and the left, see few or none of the things which are right. (Or simply fail to imagine that their proposed solutions could possibly impact them.) So the tend to suggest solutions which are indistinguishable from “smash it all entirely and build something new and better.” Said new building which utterly ignores real life human nature. Except when it involves authoritarianism, in order to avoid dealing with the views of the real population.
Note that I’m talking about the extremes. As both left and right approach the center their solutions become more realistic. Note also that all this also applies to views, such as libertarianism, which run orthogonal to the usual left/right framing. Except that, having had few opportunities to actually run a country, the solutions of their proponents tend to run further from reality.
I’ve been poking around a bit to find out where Timothy Burke is coming from. Interestingly, if I’m not mistaken, he’s an Africanist, here’s his blurb from his faculty page at Swarthmore
https://www.swarthmore.edu/profile/timothy-burke
Timothy Burke’s main field of specialty is modern African history, specifically southern Africa, but he has also worked on U.S. popular culture and on computer games. Professor Burke teaches a wide variety of courses at Swarthmore, including surveys of African history, the environmental history of Africa, the social history of consumption, history of leisure and play, and a cultural history of the idea of the future.
Different countries manifest different scales and looking at individual issues or particular areas can be quite misleading and tt seems to me that trying to place him on the Likert scale of US politics seems kind of lazy. I suppose he could be on ‘the left’, he is a prof at Swarthmore, a little Ivy, and how he writes represents the academy, but that dumps a whole lot of positions on him that he may not accept or even violently disagree with.
I’ve been poking around a bit to find out where Timothy Burke is coming from. Interestingly, if I’m not mistaken, he’s an Africanist, here’s his blurb from his faculty page at Swarthmore
https://www.swarthmore.edu/profile/timothy-burke
Timothy Burke’s main field of specialty is modern African history, specifically southern Africa, but he has also worked on U.S. popular culture and on computer games. Professor Burke teaches a wide variety of courses at Swarthmore, including surveys of African history, the environmental history of Africa, the social history of consumption, history of leisure and play, and a cultural history of the idea of the future.
Different countries manifest different scales and looking at individual issues or particular areas can be quite misleading and tt seems to me that trying to place him on the Likert scale of US politics seems kind of lazy. I suppose he could be on ‘the left’, he is a prof at Swarthmore, a little Ivy, and how he writes represents the academy, but that dumps a whole lot of positions on him that he may not accept or even violently disagree with.
Just watched Colbert’s take(s) on the RNC which include(s) clips of speeches held there. Even without his commentary I was torn between “Is this (bad) comedy?” “What the Riefenstahl?” “Wtf” “OMG, these loonies are going to run the country?” and “Bolshevik Party 2.0, brown Edition”. Both hilarious and horrifying (although not unexpected).
Just watched Colbert’s take(s) on the RNC which include(s) clips of speeches held there. Even without his commentary I was torn between “Is this (bad) comedy?” “What the Riefenstahl?” “Wtf” “OMG, these loonies are going to run the country?” and “Bolshevik Party 2.0, brown Edition”. Both hilarious and horrifying (although not unexpected).
In my experience, the left (however delineated) has always had a negative view of the state of the nation
I think it’s fair to say that the “left” typically has a critical view of the state of the nation. Which is to say, a view that notices where we do harm, or fall short of our own ideals, and says “we can do better than this”.
Whereas the more conservative view is typically “yes, maybe there are problems, but let’s not rush into making any changes”.
I put left in quotes above because what gets called “the left” here in the US doesn’t always have much to do with what left-ism (for lack of a better term) means in most of the world. That broader sense has IMO more to do with the rights and privileges of property and the folks who hold it.
That’s an aspect of the American “left” but isn’t essential to it. What is consistently true of the American “left” is an interest in expanding the scope of rights – both the rights themselves, and the people who are seen as deserving them.
The economic dimension of that mostly shows up in the form of remedial efforts to keep folks from, literally, starving or similar – the social safety net. Which is, relative to what a truly left agenda would be, pretty small beer.
IMO there really is not a meaningful left in the United States. Not today, and maybe not really ever. Certainly not since WWII. What we have today are liberals – people interested in expanding the scope of rights – and reactionaries – people who want to stand athwart the bow of history while yelling “stop”.
And lots of folks – probably the majority of folks – who are mostly just trying to get through their day, and are not that interested in any of it except in the ways that it intersects with their own lives.
My own personal view on all of this – my own understanding of how public life ought to work – is captured in the preamble to the Massachusetts state constitution.
Or, in Lincoln’s words, a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”.
In short, a commonwealth. WIth, per Adam’s language from the MA Constitution, an assumption of mutual and reciprocal duty and obligation between individuals and the people as a whole. And for the common good – the good of all, not just some.
And, for us here in the US, in the form of a republic.
All of which are concepts with a really long heritage, which is why it always cracks me up to find myself counted among the “radical left”. In the area of political economy, I consider myself to be deeply and profoundly traditional.
We’re in a weird place in this country right now. We appear to be on the verge of abandoning the republican model and the rule of law in favor of a dictatorship. And with a dictator of the most despicable personal character, which I guess may just be part of the job description.
It’s quite a reversal. I’m at a loss to explain it, other than to say that we may not be who we claim to be.
If that seems like another case of a “leftist” being overly “negative”, I’m not sure what to say. I refer you to the events of January 6, and the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of our response to it as a polity.
I’m not sure the terms “left” and “right” apply to our situation. I’m not sure what would be a better way to describe it. But we need better language for this – the language we use now fails to clarify what’s actually going on.
In my experience, the left (however delineated) has always had a negative view of the state of the nation
I think it’s fair to say that the “left” typically has a critical view of the state of the nation. Which is to say, a view that notices where we do harm, or fall short of our own ideals, and says “we can do better than this”.
Whereas the more conservative view is typically “yes, maybe there are problems, but let’s not rush into making any changes”.
I put left in quotes above because what gets called “the left” here in the US doesn’t always have much to do with what left-ism (for lack of a better term) means in most of the world. That broader sense has IMO more to do with the rights and privileges of property and the folks who hold it.
That’s an aspect of the American “left” but isn’t essential to it. What is consistently true of the American “left” is an interest in expanding the scope of rights – both the rights themselves, and the people who are seen as deserving them.
The economic dimension of that mostly shows up in the form of remedial efforts to keep folks from, literally, starving or similar – the social safety net. Which is, relative to what a truly left agenda would be, pretty small beer.
IMO there really is not a meaningful left in the United States. Not today, and maybe not really ever. Certainly not since WWII. What we have today are liberals – people interested in expanding the scope of rights – and reactionaries – people who want to stand athwart the bow of history while yelling “stop”.
And lots of folks – probably the majority of folks – who are mostly just trying to get through their day, and are not that interested in any of it except in the ways that it intersects with their own lives.
My own personal view on all of this – my own understanding of how public life ought to work – is captured in the preamble to the Massachusetts state constitution.
Or, in Lincoln’s words, a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”.
In short, a commonwealth. WIth, per Adam’s language from the MA Constitution, an assumption of mutual and reciprocal duty and obligation between individuals and the people as a whole. And for the common good – the good of all, not just some.
And, for us here in the US, in the form of a republic.
All of which are concepts with a really long heritage, which is why it always cracks me up to find myself counted among the “radical left”. In the area of political economy, I consider myself to be deeply and profoundly traditional.
We’re in a weird place in this country right now. We appear to be on the verge of abandoning the republican model and the rule of law in favor of a dictatorship. And with a dictator of the most despicable personal character, which I guess may just be part of the job description.
It’s quite a reversal. I’m at a loss to explain it, other than to say that we may not be who we claim to be.
If that seems like another case of a “leftist” being overly “negative”, I’m not sure what to say. I refer you to the events of January 6, and the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of our response to it as a polity.
I’m not sure the terms “left” and “right” apply to our situation. I’m not sure what would be a better way to describe it. But we need better language for this – the language we use now fails to clarify what’s actually going on.
It’s quite a reversal. I’m at a loss to explain it, other than to say that we may not be who we claim to be.
“We” – meaning the USA – never were who we claimed to be. The original deal was made in terms of lofty language about rights and freedoms for . . . straight white males who owned property, some of that property being other human beings.
We (I will stop using the quotation marks, having made my point about “we” for the gazillionth time) have made some progress in expanding the set of people who are recognized, under the law anyhow, as being owed those rights and freedoms. But the country is now under siege by people who want to roll back that (what I consider to be) progress.
Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, yesterday (I think), quoted by Anne Laurie in a BJ thread, and also elsewhere (and note the word “Heritage”):
“How many of you are ready to very steadily, calmly and peacefully take our country back?” Roberts asked the crowd Monday…
That asshole vocabulary is an attempt to walk back his previous statement that they were about to bring about the second American revolution, and it would be non-violent if the left would allow it . (“The left” being acc’ to cleek’s law — anyone they hate and want to step on, or who supports the people they hate and want to step on.)
I read that quote after driving for an hour through Maine back roads and seeing the equivalent on a Clickbait sign in front of a dwelling: “take back our country again.”
By “our” they certainly don’t mean me, or anyone of color, or recent immigrants….
And my point back is: “our” means all of us. Get over it, violently or not. I’m not the one claiming that the world or the country we both live in is for me and not for you….
*****
Also: as russell says, “left” and “right” are pretty meaningless in the US, especially now. There was some discussion here yesterday about centrist vs moderate, but just as one example, none of the terms discussed covered someone who is to the “right” economically and to the “left” socially. Mostly they’re terms used as a convenient way to categorize the other side (from oneself) into one blameable, caricaturable lump. (“We” do it too. Although I do feel as though the whole MAGA phenomenon, and the bowing down the Clickbait, has made a sameness among the people who are going to vote for him that we blatantly obviously don’t have on “the other side.” Witness the past 20 days……
It’s quite a reversal. I’m at a loss to explain it, other than to say that we may not be who we claim to be.
“We” – meaning the USA – never were who we claimed to be. The original deal was made in terms of lofty language about rights and freedoms for . . . straight white males who owned property, some of that property being other human beings.
We (I will stop using the quotation marks, having made my point about “we” for the gazillionth time) have made some progress in expanding the set of people who are recognized, under the law anyhow, as being owed those rights and freedoms. But the country is now under siege by people who want to roll back that (what I consider to be) progress.
Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, yesterday (I think), quoted by Anne Laurie in a BJ thread, and also elsewhere (and note the word “Heritage”):
“How many of you are ready to very steadily, calmly and peacefully take our country back?” Roberts asked the crowd Monday…
That asshole vocabulary is an attempt to walk back his previous statement that they were about to bring about the second American revolution, and it would be non-violent if the left would allow it . (“The left” being acc’ to cleek’s law — anyone they hate and want to step on, or who supports the people they hate and want to step on.)
I read that quote after driving for an hour through Maine back roads and seeing the equivalent on a Clickbait sign in front of a dwelling: “take back our country again.”
By “our” they certainly don’t mean me, or anyone of color, or recent immigrants….
And my point back is: “our” means all of us. Get over it, violently or not. I’m not the one claiming that the world or the country we both live in is for me and not for you….
*****
Also: as russell says, “left” and “right” are pretty meaningless in the US, especially now. There was some discussion here yesterday about centrist vs moderate, but just as one example, none of the terms discussed covered someone who is to the “right” economically and to the “left” socially. Mostly they’re terms used as a convenient way to categorize the other side (from oneself) into one blameable, caricaturable lump. (“We” do it too. Although I do feel as though the whole MAGA phenomenon, and the bowing down the Clickbait, has made a sameness among the people who are going to vote for him that we blatantly obviously don’t have on “the other side.” Witness the past 20 days……
“Take our country back” enrages me as much as allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because it’s against their religion. The latter is actually a clear step toward the former and should never have been allowed. You want to be a pharmacists? You serve everyone. You don’t? Find another job.
“Our” country. All of us.
“Take our country back” enrages me as much as allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because it’s against their religion. The latter is actually a clear step toward the former and should never have been allowed. You want to be a pharmacists? You serve everyone. You don’t? Find another job.
“Our” country. All of us.
straight white males who owned property, some of that property being other human beings.
On reflection, I would modify this statement somewhat, because including “straight” is a modern addition to the list of qualifications. For reasons that I hope are obvious enough not to need an explanation, there was no need or opportunity to add LGBTQ+-related qualifiers to the job description then.
straight white males who owned property, some of that property being other human beings.
On reflection, I would modify this statement somewhat, because including “straight” is a modern addition to the list of qualifications. For reasons that I hope are obvious enough not to need an explanation, there was no need or opportunity to add LGBTQ+-related qualifiers to the job description then.
NYT mention of Roberts’s earlier statement:
NYT mention of Roberts’s earlier statement:
All of which are concepts with a really long heritage, which is why it always cracks me up to find myself counted among the “radical left”. In the area of political economy, I consider myself to be deeply and profoundly traditional.
As the Timothy Burke essays make blindingly clear, I am not educated in these topic areas. But from the pop perspective of Colin Woodard’s “American Nations,” I would say that your (russell’s) notions about political economy are rooted in New England traditions, and have nothing much to do with some other parts of the US.
All of which are concepts with a really long heritage, which is why it always cracks me up to find myself counted among the “radical left”. In the area of political economy, I consider myself to be deeply and profoundly traditional.
As the Timothy Burke essays make blindingly clear, I am not educated in these topic areas. But from the pop perspective of Colin Woodard’s “American Nations,” I would say that your (russell’s) notions about political economy are rooted in New England traditions, and have nothing much to do with some other parts of the US.
As to wj’s earlier observation that he was surprised to see someone (who may be, maybe) progressive saying anything about progress having been made. You aren’t alone in making this observation. I’ve seen it more than a bit from people whose mission seems to be scolding the Democrats for scaring the straights. (I am not trying to lump you into that group, wj.)
I think of it more this way: it’s not that progressives do not appreciate the progress that has been made, they just don’t want to stop and take a selfie when the opposition is busy dragging back that progress. No “maybe we pulled a bit too far and need to ease back a bit and rest” moments while there are people still on the rope whose progress we have yet to achieve.
From that perspective, a centrist is someone who does not feel threatened when a more marginal group suffers a setback, and is willing to let it rest for the sake of economy of effort. And a moderate is someone who thinks that the marginalized groups calling for change should slow their roll and not ask for so much so quickly. They think that parts of their coalition are pulling too hard to sustain the movement and call for a rest.
As to wj’s earlier observation that he was surprised to see someone (who may be, maybe) progressive saying anything about progress having been made. You aren’t alone in making this observation. I’ve seen it more than a bit from people whose mission seems to be scolding the Democrats for scaring the straights. (I am not trying to lump you into that group, wj.)
I think of it more this way: it’s not that progressives do not appreciate the progress that has been made, they just don’t want to stop and take a selfie when the opposition is busy dragging back that progress. No “maybe we pulled a bit too far and need to ease back a bit and rest” moments while there are people still on the rope whose progress we have yet to achieve.
From that perspective, a centrist is someone who does not feel threatened when a more marginal group suffers a setback, and is willing to let it rest for the sake of economy of effort. And a moderate is someone who thinks that the marginalized groups calling for change should slow their roll and not ask for so much so quickly. They think that parts of their coalition are pulling too hard to sustain the movement and call for a rest.
I would say that your (russell’s) notions about political economy are rooted in New England traditions, and have nothing much to do with some other parts of the US.
In Woodard’s characterization, I’m a blend of Yankee, Midland, and New Netherland.
But all or nearly all of the groups Woodard calls out have deep roots. And yes, this country encompasses groups of people with dramatically different histories, values, and understandings of what the country is (or should be) about.
To follow that idea a step further, that’s pretty much why I’m skeptical of calls for “unity” and “finding common ground”. We are not all going to agree. It’s not reasonable to think we’re going to somehow wave a magic wand and “all come together”.
A more reasonable goal might be to live with our disagreements. It’s unclear if that’s achievable.
I would say that your (russell’s) notions about political economy are rooted in New England traditions, and have nothing much to do with some other parts of the US.
In Woodard’s characterization, I’m a blend of Yankee, Midland, and New Netherland.
But all or nearly all of the groups Woodard calls out have deep roots. And yes, this country encompasses groups of people with dramatically different histories, values, and understandings of what the country is (or should be) about.
To follow that idea a step further, that’s pretty much why I’m skeptical of calls for “unity” and “finding common ground”. We are not all going to agree. It’s not reasonable to think we’re going to somehow wave a magic wand and “all come together”.
A more reasonable goal might be to live with our disagreements. It’s unclear if that’s achievable.
To follow that idea a step further, that’s pretty much why I’m skeptical of calls for “unity” and “finding common ground”. We are not all going to agree. It’s not reasonable to think we’re going to somehow wave a magic wand and “all come together”.
A more reasonable goal might be to live with our disagreements. It’s unclear if that’s achievable.
A much better formulation of my notions about whose country it is. Living with our disagreements is the fundamental challenge, unless your notion is that everyone is going to do it your way, tough shit. (Alito, Vance, et al.)
To follow that idea a step further, that’s pretty much why I’m skeptical of calls for “unity” and “finding common ground”. We are not all going to agree. It’s not reasonable to think we’re going to somehow wave a magic wand and “all come together”.
A more reasonable goal might be to live with our disagreements. It’s unclear if that’s achievable.
A much better formulation of my notions about whose country it is. Living with our disagreements is the fundamental challenge, unless your notion is that everyone is going to do it your way, tough shit. (Alito, Vance, et al.)
Rick Perlstein actually reads Project 2025.
Terms such as: Unbelievable, ghastly, terrible outlandish, dreadful, appalling, horrific, abominable, shocking, and hideous do not really convey the dystopian vision that is contained therein.
https://americanprospect.bluelena.io/index.php?action=social&chash=cdd96eedd7f695f4d61802f8105ba2b0.2809&s=dc0796b2ca975e64fd6b1b00a629e04c
Rick Perlstein actually reads Project 2025.
Terms such as: Unbelievable, ghastly, terrible outlandish, dreadful, appalling, horrific, abominable, shocking, and hideous do not really convey the dystopian vision that is contained therein.
https://americanprospect.bluelena.io/index.php?action=social&chash=cdd96eedd7f695f4d61802f8105ba2b0.2809&s=dc0796b2ca975e64fd6b1b00a629e04c
A modicum of belief in the concept of “the common good” is all it takes to be labelled a “leftist” in some quarters.
In terms of numbers, there has not been a significant left (in the commonly accepted term, i.e., marxists and/or socialists of one stripe or another) in this country since Gene Debs’ high water mark in his presidential run(s) prior to the First World War.
A modicum of belief in the concept of “the common good” is all it takes to be labelled a “leftist” in some quarters.
In terms of numbers, there has not been a significant left (in the commonly accepted term, i.e., marxists and/or socialists of one stripe or another) in this country since Gene Debs’ high water mark in his presidential run(s) prior to the First World War.
Adam Schiff calls for Biden to drop out. I don’t know what to think.
Adam Schiff calls for Biden to drop out. I don’t know what to think.
hsh,
My congressman, Adam Smith, has also called for Biden to move on. I, too, am at a loss.
The convention shall decide this one way or the other. What we need now is less panic and resignation and greater resolve.
hsh,
My congressman, Adam Smith, has also called for Biden to move on. I, too, am at a loss.
The convention shall decide this one way or the other. What we need now is less panic and resignation and greater resolve.
Schiff is a Los Angeles creature. He’s fairly well wrapped up in all that Hollywood donor anxiety. No telling if this is him, or if this is him serving his core constituency.
Had Porter won the primary, I doubt that she would be tilting that direction. She didn’t win in large part because Schiff had all those big donors and was willing to spend their money to elevate his Republican opponent above the colleague most dangerous to his ambitions.
The panic seems strongest amongst donors and technocrats. I feel a lot of dread and anxiety, but no real panic.
Schiff is a Los Angeles creature. He’s fairly well wrapped up in all that Hollywood donor anxiety. No telling if this is him, or if this is him serving his core constituency.
Had Porter won the primary, I doubt that she would be tilting that direction. She didn’t win in large part because Schiff had all those big donors and was willing to spend their money to elevate his Republican opponent above the colleague most dangerous to his ambitions.
The panic seems strongest amongst donors and technocrats. I feel a lot of dread and anxiety, but no real panic.
Adam Schiff calls for Biden to drop out. I don’t know what to think.
Me neither, still. I feel so much dread and anxiety about it, that it is stopping me feeling as much relief as I should about Labour’s win.
But after reading that thread of hilzoy’s, one thing I do believe is that (re Biden) it actually is reasonable to worry, it is not just a panic confected by the media, Hollywood donors, the sort of people who always blame Dems etc etc.
As for J D Vance, Project 2025 may be too abstruse to worry the average voter (although it shouldn’t be), but one would think that if the Dems go hard on his anti-abortion stance, along with his anthropogenic climate change denial, it might have a salutary effect on younger undecided voters. I mean, even if people generally don’t take that much notice of VP picks, maybe Trump’s age might give them pause, at least the ones who are unpersuaded by Trump’s absurd pretence of superhuman strength and resilience.
Adam Schiff calls for Biden to drop out. I don’t know what to think.
Me neither, still. I feel so much dread and anxiety about it, that it is stopping me feeling as much relief as I should about Labour’s win.
But after reading that thread of hilzoy’s, one thing I do believe is that (re Biden) it actually is reasonable to worry, it is not just a panic confected by the media, Hollywood donors, the sort of people who always blame Dems etc etc.
As for J D Vance, Project 2025 may be too abstruse to worry the average voter (although it shouldn’t be), but one would think that if the Dems go hard on his anti-abortion stance, along with his anthropogenic climate change denial, it might have a salutary effect on younger undecided voters. I mean, even if people generally don’t take that much notice of VP picks, maybe Trump’s age might give them pause, at least the ones who are unpersuaded by Trump’s absurd pretence of superhuman strength and resilience.
One damned thing after another.
“Biden tests positive for Covid-19.”
One damned thing after another.
“Biden tests positive for Covid-19.”
Biden has Covid again. Fuckitty fuck.
That is genuinely bad news. Covid can hit you worse if you’re older (which he is), and if you’ve had it before (which he has).
This is bad news.
Biden has Covid again. Fuckitty fuck.
That is genuinely bad news. Covid can hit you worse if you’re older (which he is), and if you’ve had it before (which he has).
This is bad news.
Vance is becoming a more intelligent, competent, and ambitious version of Trump.
Vance is becoming a more intelligent, competent, and ambitious version of Trump.
Nearly two thirds of Democrats now believe Biden should drop out of the race. Unsurprisingly that number goes up to 75% among those between 18-44.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/17/us/politics/biden-poll-democrats-drop-out.html
Nearly two thirds of Democrats now believe Biden should drop out of the race. Unsurprisingly that number goes up to 75% among those between 18-44.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/17/us/politics/biden-poll-democrats-drop-out.html
I see from a piece in the NYT that the gunman had searched for images of both Trump and Biden, and had searched the dates of the Dem convention as well. It would be interesting to see how the Rs would spin this, in view of their “Biden has blood on his hands” narrative.
I see from a piece in the NYT that the gunman had searched for images of both Trump and Biden, and had searched the dates of the Dem convention as well. It would be interesting to see how the Rs would spin this, in view of their “Biden has blood on his hands” narrative.
“The left” being acc’ to cleek’s law — anyone they hate and want to step on, or who supports the people they hate and want to step on.
For folks like the Heritage Foundation and the MAGAts, “the left” includes a lot of us who are rather right of center. Certainly conservative enough for most here to consider them conservative.
I really dislike any sign of allowing those scum to set the framing for the discussion.
“The left” being acc’ to cleek’s law — anyone they hate and want to step on, or who supports the people they hate and want to step on.
For folks like the Heritage Foundation and the MAGAts, “the left” includes a lot of us who are rather right of center. Certainly conservative enough for most here to consider them conservative.
I really dislike any sign of allowing those scum to set the framing for the discussion.
I think of it more this way: it’s not that progressives do not appreciate the progress that has been made, they just don’t want to stop and take a selfie when the opposition is busy dragging back that progress. No “maybe we pulled a bit too far and need to ease back a bit and rest” moments while there are people still on the rope whose progress we have yet to achieve.
From that perspective, a centrist is someone who does not feel threatened when a more marginal group suffers a setback, and is willing to let it rest for the sake of economy of effort. And a moderate is someone who thinks that the marginalized groups calling for change should slow their roll and not ask for so much so quickly. They think that parts of their coalition are pulling too hard to sustain the movement and call for a rest.
Sometimes, that’s true. Other times, not so much.
For those with long memories, here’s a counterexample: circa 1980, California came up with “domestic partnerships” as a way to give gay couples some of the benefits of marriage. It was, to be kind, a kludge. It also had a variety of negative unintended (and unanticipated) consequences.
Why do this this way? Mostly concern by politicians about what would be tolerable to those you frame as “moderates” or “centerists.” But that’s an incorrect framing IMHO. I certainly don’t recall (although I may be mistaken) any serious effort to ask “Could you live with something else?”
Those folks would, I believe, have tolerated (not been enthused about, but tolerated) a conservative solution: just tweak (and it was a damn small tweak) the marriage law to say “two adults” rather than “a man and a woman”. It took a couple of decades before risk-averse “progressive” politicians finally bit the bullet and did the right thing.
I think of it more this way: it’s not that progressives do not appreciate the progress that has been made, they just don’t want to stop and take a selfie when the opposition is busy dragging back that progress. No “maybe we pulled a bit too far and need to ease back a bit and rest” moments while there are people still on the rope whose progress we have yet to achieve.
From that perspective, a centrist is someone who does not feel threatened when a more marginal group suffers a setback, and is willing to let it rest for the sake of economy of effort. And a moderate is someone who thinks that the marginalized groups calling for change should slow their roll and not ask for so much so quickly. They think that parts of their coalition are pulling too hard to sustain the movement and call for a rest.
Sometimes, that’s true. Other times, not so much.
For those with long memories, here’s a counterexample: circa 1980, California came up with “domestic partnerships” as a way to give gay couples some of the benefits of marriage. It was, to be kind, a kludge. It also had a variety of negative unintended (and unanticipated) consequences.
Why do this this way? Mostly concern by politicians about what would be tolerable to those you frame as “moderates” or “centerists.” But that’s an incorrect framing IMHO. I certainly don’t recall (although I may be mistaken) any serious effort to ask “Could you live with something else?”
Those folks would, I believe, have tolerated (not been enthused about, but tolerated) a conservative solution: just tweak (and it was a damn small tweak) the marriage law to say “two adults” rather than “a man and a woman”. It took a couple of decades before risk-averse “progressive” politicians finally bit the bullet and did the right thing.
Sorry to be flooding the zone. But today got busy, and I’m way behind.
A modicum of belief in the concept of “the common good” is all it takes to be labelled a “leftist” in some quarters.
I’ve definitely noticed that. Right here. Where I’ve been told more than once that I am actually a closet liberal, rather than the conservative I think I am. Merely because I support something that is, in my view, merely a matter of the common good.
In short, the far right is not the only who does this.
Sorry to be flooding the zone. But today got busy, and I’m way behind.
A modicum of belief in the concept of “the common good” is all it takes to be labelled a “leftist” in some quarters.
I’ve definitely noticed that. Right here. Where I’ve been told more than once that I am actually a closet liberal, rather than the conservative I think I am. Merely because I support something that is, in my view, merely a matter of the common good.
In short, the far right is not the only who does this.
Those folks would, I believe, have tolerated (not been enthused about, but tolerated) a conservative solution: just tweak (and it was a damn small tweak) the marriage law to say “two adults” rather than “a man and a woman”. It took a couple of decades before risk-averse “progressive” politicians finally bit the bullet and did the right thing.
I think you’re wildly wrong about this, wj. Maybe you’re assuming that a lot of other “conservatives” were sensible like you, but my experience is that they definitely were (and in many case still are) not.
The whole point of the anti-SSM mindset and political position was that you can’t let *those people* have what *normal (virtuous) people* have. By some weird voo-doo that is never explained, if same-sex couples have it, it ruins it for opposite-sex couples.
Domestic partnerships were an attempt to give same-sex couples some protection under the law while making sure they were *not* recognized as normal human beings who should have the same things straight people have.
I gathered a lot of the history of Maine marriage laws in 2009 when we had our first SSM referendum, but I don’t have time to track any of it down right now. One thing to note, though, is that Maine stopped mentioning words like “husband” and “wife” in the marriage laws in 1967.
Those folks would, I believe, have tolerated (not been enthused about, but tolerated) a conservative solution: just tweak (and it was a damn small tweak) the marriage law to say “two adults” rather than “a man and a woman”. It took a couple of decades before risk-averse “progressive” politicians finally bit the bullet and did the right thing.
I think you’re wildly wrong about this, wj. Maybe you’re assuming that a lot of other “conservatives” were sensible like you, but my experience is that they definitely were (and in many case still are) not.
The whole point of the anti-SSM mindset and political position was that you can’t let *those people* have what *normal (virtuous) people* have. By some weird voo-doo that is never explained, if same-sex couples have it, it ruins it for opposite-sex couples.
Domestic partnerships were an attempt to give same-sex couples some protection under the law while making sure they were *not* recognized as normal human beings who should have the same things straight people have.
I gathered a lot of the history of Maine marriage laws in 2009 when we had our first SSM referendum, but I don’t have time to track any of it down right now. One thing to note, though, is that Maine stopped mentioning words like “husband” and “wife” in the marriage laws in 1967.
if the Dems go hard on his [Vance’s] anti-abortion stance, along with his anthropogenic climate change denial, it might have a salutary effect on younger undecided voters.
I hope they also go after his statements in favor of forcing people to stay in violently abusive marriages. And yes, he does explicitly talk about violent physical abuse, not just psychologically abusive ones.
if the Dems go hard on his [Vance’s] anti-abortion stance, along with his anthropogenic climate change denial, it might have a salutary effect on younger undecided voters.
I hope they also go after his statements in favor of forcing people to stay in violently abusive marriages. And yes, he does explicitly talk about violent physical abuse, not just psychologically abusive ones.
I.e. once you were married, there was no distinction in your rights or responsibilities based on gender. This I know because I did the research in the law library after a Colby college professor whined in an op-ed that if the SSM law passed, he would no longer be a “husband.” Under the law, he already wasn’t a “husband,” he was a “spouse.” This idiot actually taught con law, though not as a lawyer.
I.e. once you were married, there was no distinction in your rights or responsibilities based on gender. This I know because I did the research in the law library after a Colby college professor whined in an op-ed that if the SSM law passed, he would no longer be a “husband.” Under the law, he already wasn’t a “husband,” he was a “spouse.” This idiot actually taught con law, though not as a lawyer.
I think you’re wildly wrong about this, wj. Maybe you’re assuming that a lot of other “conservatives” were sensible like you, but my experience is that they definitely were (and in many case still are) not.
It may also be that my view is colored (how could it not be?) by my own not-typical-of-the-whole-country environment. I’ll just note that I wasn’t going just on my personal view. Personally, I thought SSM was a positive good. But while most of the conservatives I knew then wouldn’t go that far, they didn’t run screaming from the suggestion either.
I think you’re wildly wrong about this, wj. Maybe you’re assuming that a lot of other “conservatives” were sensible like you, but my experience is that they definitely were (and in many case still are) not.
It may also be that my view is colored (how could it not be?) by my own not-typical-of-the-whole-country environment. I’ll just note that I wasn’t going just on my personal view. Personally, I thought SSM was a positive good. But while most of the conservatives I knew then wouldn’t go that far, they didn’t run screaming from the suggestion either.
We had 7 or 8 statewide votes on “gay rights” from 1995 onward, a referendum on marriage in 2009 in which it was defeated, and a referendum on marriage in 2012 which passed. There were plenty of people even in this fairly blue state who were hell bent (I choose my words advisedly) on making sure gay people continued to be treated as second-class citizens.
And not all those votes by a long shot were initiated by gay people trying to gain their rights. The 1995 one was initiated by anti-gay activists who wanted to codify in the law that gay people explicitly were NOT protected from discrimination in housing, public accommodation, etc.
We had 7 or 8 statewide votes on “gay rights” from 1995 onward, a referendum on marriage in 2009 in which it was defeated, and a referendum on marriage in 2012 which passed. There were plenty of people even in this fairly blue state who were hell bent (I choose my words advisedly) on making sure gay people continued to be treated as second-class citizens.
And not all those votes by a long shot were initiated by gay people trying to gain their rights. The 1995 one was initiated by anti-gay activists who wanted to codify in the law that gay people explicitly were NOT protected from discrimination in housing, public accommodation, etc.
In 1998 (per the NYT):
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/12/us/maine-voters-repeal-a-law-on-gay-rights.html
They never had any cogent explanation beyond “I SAY GOD SAID SO” for why *discrimination* should be allowed based on (often only suspected) sexual activity behind closed doors………
In 1998 (per the NYT):
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/12/us/maine-voters-repeal-a-law-on-gay-rights.html
They never had any cogent explanation beyond “I SAY GOD SAID SO” for why *discrimination* should be allowed based on (often only suspected) sexual activity behind closed doors………
I really dislike any sign of allowing those scum to set the framing for the discussion.
Not to make too fine a point, but isn’t
That’s more credit than the left usually give this country.
basically installing the joists?…
I really dislike any sign of allowing those scum to set the framing for the discussion.
Not to make too fine a point, but isn’t
That’s more credit than the left usually give this country.
basically installing the joists?…
1. lj — lol, I noticed that when wj first wrote it, but didn’t want to rag him too much.
2. The “behind closed doors” comment is fascinating, isn’t it? I mean, all the closeting of and discrimination against gay people was because of what bigots thought about “sexual activity behind closed doors.” So to suggest that gay people wanted the same rights as everyone else *because* of what they did behind closed doors is pretty rich.
Imagine a long litany of swear words inserted here.
1. lj — lol, I noticed that when wj first wrote it, but didn’t want to rag him too much.
2. The “behind closed doors” comment is fascinating, isn’t it? I mean, all the closeting of and discrimination against gay people was because of what bigots thought about “sexual activity behind closed doors.” So to suggest that gay people wanted the same rights as everyone else *because* of what they did behind closed doors is pretty rich.
Imagine a long litany of swear words inserted here.
I used to think about the “decent” evangelicals the way that wj still appears to think about the “decent” conservatives – that they were just acting in conscience, respected freedom of religion for all, and would yield to the will of the voters and follow settled law. Instead, they gave into their fear and disgust, and steeled themselves to lie, cheat, and dehumanize anyone that their leaders told them to hate. I know a tiny minority who have not given into the vileness, but even there, they lack the strength to confront and oppose the vileness in their community.
I really miss that illusion of decency and am dismayed at how few have held out against the last 30 years of radicalization.
I used to think about the “decent” evangelicals the way that wj still appears to think about the “decent” conservatives – that they were just acting in conscience, respected freedom of religion for all, and would yield to the will of the voters and follow settled law. Instead, they gave into their fear and disgust, and steeled themselves to lie, cheat, and dehumanize anyone that their leaders told them to hate. I know a tiny minority who have not given into the vileness, but even there, they lack the strength to confront and oppose the vileness in their community.
I really miss that illusion of decency and am dismayed at how few have held out against the last 30 years of radicalization.
About evangelicals, apparently
“The number of evangelicals that never attend church increased from 25% pre-COVID to 33% today (AEI Survey Center on American Life) The number of evangelicals that attend church regularly dropped from 26% pre-COVID to 24% today (AEI Survey Center on American Life)”
(emph mine)
https://www.churchtrac.com/articles/the-state-of-church-attendance-trends-and-statistics-2023
An evangelical who doesn’t attend church seems like an oxymoron, but apparently, that is 1/3rd, I have to think that as then move away from attendance and a congregation, they necessarily move away from compromising.
About evangelicals, apparently
“The number of evangelicals that never attend church increased from 25% pre-COVID to 33% today (AEI Survey Center on American Life) The number of evangelicals that attend church regularly dropped from 26% pre-COVID to 24% today (AEI Survey Center on American Life)”
(emph mine)
https://www.churchtrac.com/articles/the-state-of-church-attendance-trends-and-statistics-2023
An evangelical who doesn’t attend church seems like an oxymoron, but apparently, that is 1/3rd, I have to think that as then move away from attendance and a congregation, they necessarily move away from compromising.
Does that include online or TV church services? The worst offenders reach many of their marks that way.
Televangelist has become a dirty word not for nothing.
I consider guys like Kenneth Copeland to be among the most despicable excuses for human beings around, leaving even most political demagogues far behind.
And that guy in particular already looks like a c-movie edition of ‘demon badly disguised as human’.
Does that include online or TV church services? The worst offenders reach many of their marks that way.
Televangelist has become a dirty word not for nothing.
I consider guys like Kenneth Copeland to be among the most despicable excuses for human beings around, leaving even most political demagogues far behind.
And that guy in particular already looks like a c-movie edition of ‘demon badly disguised as human’.
That’s an interesting point, though the survey is self-reporting and apparently gives the option of online attendance
According to Barna, 16% of Christians who regularly attended church services before COVID no longer attend at all. Surprisingly, Boomers had the highest dropoff rate, with 22% self-reporting as no longer attending church services either in-person or online.
Though I wonder how they worded it.
That’s an interesting point, though the survey is self-reporting and apparently gives the option of online attendance
According to Barna, 16% of Christians who regularly attended church services before COVID no longer attend at all. Surprisingly, Boomers had the highest dropoff rate, with 22% self-reporting as no longer attending church services either in-person or online.
Though I wonder how they worded it.
That’s an interesting point, though the survey is self-reporting and apparently gives the option of online attendance
According to Barna, 16% of Christians who regularly attended church services before COVID no longer attend at all. Surprisingly, Boomers had the highest dropoff rate, with 22% self-reporting as no longer attending church services either in-person or online.
Though I wonder how they worded it.
That’s an interesting point, though the survey is self-reporting and apparently gives the option of online attendance
According to Barna, 16% of Christians who regularly attended church services before COVID no longer attend at all. Surprisingly, Boomers had the highest dropoff rate, with 22% self-reporting as no longer attending church services either in-person or online.
Though I wonder how they worded it.
That’s an interesting point, though the survey is self-reporting and apparently gives the option of online attendance
According to Barna, 16% of Christians who regularly attended church services before COVID no longer attend at all. Surprisingly, Boomers had the highest dropoff rate, with 22% self-reporting as no longer attending church services either in-person or online.
Though I wonder how they worded it.
That’s an interesting point, though the survey is self-reporting and apparently gives the option of online attendance
According to Barna, 16% of Christians who regularly attended church services before COVID no longer attend at all. Surprisingly, Boomers had the highest dropoff rate, with 22% self-reporting as no longer attending church services either in-person or online.
Though I wonder how they worded it.
In my now daily check-in to hilzoy’s feed, she links this when talking about the death of Bernice Johnson Reagon, and says it is “finally, the very best (possibly the only) song ever written about the defeat of Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court”. I attended those hearings, so although I have never heard of Bernice Johnson Reagon, I was delighted to see this. I think I only went out of interest (I have always been obsessed with the SCOTUS), but I remember feeling awkward because I knew something discreditable but not in the public domain about Bork (I can’t now remember what it was), and didn’t know what to do about it. In the end I did nothing, but luckily then had no cause to regret it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjRFbB72sxY
In my now daily check-in to hilzoy’s feed, she links this when talking about the death of Bernice Johnson Reagon, and says it is “finally, the very best (possibly the only) song ever written about the defeat of Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court”. I attended those hearings, so although I have never heard of Bernice Johnson Reagon, I was delighted to see this. I think I only went out of interest (I have always been obsessed with the SCOTUS), but I remember feeling awkward because I knew something discreditable but not in the public domain about Bork (I can’t now remember what it was), and didn’t know what to do about it. In the end I did nothing, but luckily then had no cause to regret it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjRFbB72sxY
An evangelical who doesn’t attend church seems like an oxymoron, but apparently, that is 1/3rd, I have to think that as then move away from attendance and a congregation, they necessarily move away from compromising.”
I’m no 3xpert but I think it is the other way around. The church is a group think experience. Someone outside is, well, outside. More flexible, possibly critical.
I used to visit a family of evangelicals regularly. They read and discussed the Bible at home, had TV preachers on as background noise while doing other things including playing solitaire on the computer, and–while giving lip service to the evangelical party line–were actually quite flexible in their attitudes even toward core issues like abortion. In fact, one told be that she was “pro-life” but it turned out after discussion that she was pretty strongly pro-choice. She said she didn’t think people should use abortion like birth control–as if there was no moral issue involved in the termination of the…life form. But she definitely saw the mother has having rights and having lots of different reasons why the pregnancy should be terminated including simply not being able to raise the child.
She also told me that she thought the pastor of one of the local churches was the type who could engage in violence.
Who will she voter for? Her family probably won’t vote, but if they do they are more likely to voter for Trump because they are very uninformed, give politics very little thought, and react only to messages that are strong enough to break through the fog of their business and indifference. Trump is louder than Biden, and while my guess is he’s loud in a way they don’t approve of, they at least can hear him. So, if they vote, it will be for him.
On the other hand, the church functions like a cult and the pastor will tell the congregation how to vote. I also had a client who attended weekly, and she was always full of whatever the pastor said.
An evangelical who doesn’t attend church seems like an oxymoron, but apparently, that is 1/3rd, I have to think that as then move away from attendance and a congregation, they necessarily move away from compromising.”
I’m no 3xpert but I think it is the other way around. The church is a group think experience. Someone outside is, well, outside. More flexible, possibly critical.
I used to visit a family of evangelicals regularly. They read and discussed the Bible at home, had TV preachers on as background noise while doing other things including playing solitaire on the computer, and–while giving lip service to the evangelical party line–were actually quite flexible in their attitudes even toward core issues like abortion. In fact, one told be that she was “pro-life” but it turned out after discussion that she was pretty strongly pro-choice. She said she didn’t think people should use abortion like birth control–as if there was no moral issue involved in the termination of the…life form. But she definitely saw the mother has having rights and having lots of different reasons why the pregnancy should be terminated including simply not being able to raise the child.
She also told me that she thought the pastor of one of the local churches was the type who could engage in violence.
Who will she voter for? Her family probably won’t vote, but if they do they are more likely to voter for Trump because they are very uninformed, give politics very little thought, and react only to messages that are strong enough to break through the fog of their business and indifference. Trump is louder than Biden, and while my guess is he’s loud in a way they don’t approve of, they at least can hear him. So, if they vote, it will be for him.
On the other hand, the church functions like a cult and the pastor will tell the congregation how to vote. I also had a client who attended weekly, and she was always full of whatever the pastor said.
I never listen to the radio except in the car, and I quit doing that when I switched over to a huge music library on CDs that someone gave me a few years ago.
But when I was still listening to NPR sometimes, I heard part of a program about the growing belief in Q and conspiracy theories. It included interviews with a number of pastors concerned about how so many people in their congregations were turning to belief in Q and attendant scary nonsense.
Can’t remember if this was just before or just after covid started, but I thought it was both scary and ironic. I was almost rooting for the pastors. (Not really.)
Substituting one fantasy fairy tale as your alleged guide for life to another … watching what the beginnings of Christianity might have been like … so many angles on that story.
I never listen to the radio except in the car, and I quit doing that when I switched over to a huge music library on CDs that someone gave me a few years ago.
But when I was still listening to NPR sometimes, I heard part of a program about the growing belief in Q and conspiracy theories. It included interviews with a number of pastors concerned about how so many people in their congregations were turning to belief in Q and attendant scary nonsense.
Can’t remember if this was just before or just after covid started, but I thought it was both scary and ironic. I was almost rooting for the pastors. (Not really.)
Substituting one fantasy fairy tale as your alleged guide for life to another … watching what the beginnings of Christianity might have been like … so many angles on that story.
If it wasn’t obvious by implication, the pastors were concerned partly because the belief in Q was undermining *their* authority and teachings.
If it wasn’t obvious by implication, the pastors were concerned partly because the belief in Q was undermining *their* authority and teachings.
COVID broke a lot of habits. People formed new habits or just didn’t return to the old habits. Tens of thousands of kids vanished from the public schools. Some are in home schools or private schools. For thousands of others, the schools they attended have no idea what happened to them.
COVID broke a lot of habits. People formed new habits or just didn’t return to the old habits. Tens of thousands of kids vanished from the public schools. Some are in home schools or private schools. For thousands of others, the schools they attended have no idea what happened to them.
JD Vance in his acceptance speech called His Orangeness “America’s Last Best Hope”.
May I suggest that they adapt this old classic*:
https://www.lbi.org/griffinger/record/5543998
He also came up with this:
The footnote to the election poster notes that at the time AH had a private meeting with industrialists that led to them donating to his campaign. So, nice parallel there.
[DJT is NOT the new AH, he’s at best what the German Old Right believed AH to be: a corruptible lowlife that could be easily manipulated to do their bidding]
*It would not be the first time. I have seen numerous variations of the infamous German “stab-in-the-back” poster with the communist replaced by the Dem donkey and the soldier by a GI
JD Vance in his acceptance speech called His Orangeness “America’s Last Best Hope”.
May I suggest that they adapt this old classic*:
https://www.lbi.org/griffinger/record/5543998
He also came up with this:
The footnote to the election poster notes that at the time AH had a private meeting with industrialists that led to them donating to his campaign. So, nice parallel there.
[DJT is NOT the new AH, he’s at best what the German Old Right believed AH to be: a corruptible lowlife that could be easily manipulated to do their bidding]
*It would not be the first time. I have seen numerous variations of the infamous German “stab-in-the-back” poster with the communist replaced by the Dem donkey and the soldier by a GI
Trump likes to be seen driving the monster truck. Vance likes driving the monster truck because of the things you can do with it. Like running over your enemies.
Trump likes to be seen driving the monster truck. Vance likes driving the monster truck because of the things you can do with it. Like running over your enemies.
So… this whole Biden sideshow, as far as I can tell, is the legacy of the Clintons shifting the power base for the Dems away from the grassroots to the big donors, and then playing moneyball with polling to map out a path to electoral success. And by centralizing all of that, they facilitated access journalism and lazy filling of the 24 hour media maw.
And now here we are.
And it is all a sideshow because the real issue that needs to be front and center for Americans is that the Christian Nationalists are attempting to seize power and create an illiberal, authoritarian state.
So… this whole Biden sideshow, as far as I can tell, is the legacy of the Clintons shifting the power base for the Dems away from the grassroots to the big donors, and then playing moneyball with polling to map out a path to electoral success. And by centralizing all of that, they facilitated access journalism and lazy filling of the 24 hour media maw.
And now here we are.
And it is all a sideshow because the real issue that needs to be front and center for Americans is that the Christian Nationalists are attempting to seize power and create an illiberal, authoritarian state.
…the real issue that needs to be front and center for Americans is that the Christian Nationalists are attempting to seize power and create an illiberal, authoritarian state.
What I can’t figure out is how many Americans support the GOP without knowing this is happening and how many know and are just fine with it.
It seems like what Trumpism is should be obvious to anyone who’s not in a coma, but I think a fair number of people don’t know what they’re really signing up for.
…the real issue that needs to be front and center for Americans is that the Christian Nationalists are attempting to seize power and create an illiberal, authoritarian state.
What I can’t figure out is how many Americans support the GOP without knowing this is happening and how many know and are just fine with it.
It seems like what Trumpism is should be obvious to anyone who’s not in a coma, but I think a fair number of people don’t know what they’re really signing up for.
Or they are like CharlesWT, and think that all that is window dressing that will never happen because the money guys are too smart for that.
Never mind that it has all literally been happening already for the last four years.
Or they are like CharlesWT, and think that all that is window dressing that will never happen because the money guys are too smart for that.
Never mind that it has all literally been happening already for the last four years.
I think it is completely irresponsible for someone to say, “I know what he says he’s going to do, but I’m going to vote for him because I don’t think he will actually do those things.”
People who make that argument have a very narrow and usually selfish approach to deciding on their vote. Basically they are rationalizing away the harm their candidate will do to others in hopes of a benefit to themselves.
IN the case of TRump it is rationalizing not only a candidate who is hell bent on destroying the process of elections, but an entire political party that has the same goal. And for what? Another round of tax cuts for the rich?
I think it is completely irresponsible for someone to say, “I know what he says he’s going to do, but I’m going to vote for him because I don’t think he will actually do those things.”
People who make that argument have a very narrow and usually selfish approach to deciding on their vote. Basically they are rationalizing away the harm their candidate will do to others in hopes of a benefit to themselves.
IN the case of TRump it is rationalizing not only a candidate who is hell bent on destroying the process of elections, but an entire political party that has the same goal. And for what? Another round of tax cuts for the rich?
“It can’t happen here” they said.
“It can’t happen here” they said.
And for what? Another round of tax cuts for the rich?
Well, for hurting people they want to see hurt.
Don’t want to see no icky trans people, or gay people who (they’ve heard) do icky things, don’t want to see no uppity black people stealing their white people affirmative action, don’t want to see no lazy immigrants coming for a handout, don’t want to see no women allowed to make decisions and choices for themselves, or be in control of their own sexuality.
Obviously it’s not couched that way. We have to protect the children. We deserve to keep what (little) we earn. Etc. Etc.
Basically they are rationalizing away the harm their candidate will do to others in hopes of a benefit to themselves.
I think it goes beyond this. The harm their candidate will do to others is well deserved by those others, for reasons, one of which is [I say] God said so.
And for what? Another round of tax cuts for the rich?
Well, for hurting people they want to see hurt.
Don’t want to see no icky trans people, or gay people who (they’ve heard) do icky things, don’t want to see no uppity black people stealing their white people affirmative action, don’t want to see no lazy immigrants coming for a handout, don’t want to see no women allowed to make decisions and choices for themselves, or be in control of their own sexuality.
Obviously it’s not couched that way. We have to protect the children. We deserve to keep what (little) we earn. Etc. Etc.
Basically they are rationalizing away the harm their candidate will do to others in hopes of a benefit to themselves.
I think it goes beyond this. The harm their candidate will do to others is well deserved by those others, for reasons, one of which is [I say] God said so.
There is a (probably large) faction of honest-to-goodness revanchist white Christian nationalists. They’re the ones who know what’s on the menu and are tucking their napkins into their shirt collars.
But I still think there is a significant number of people who don’t get it. They don’t know how complicated the issues are and like the simplicity of the “we’re fighting for you” patriot vibe. I don’t think they’re cruel. I think they lack imagination.
There is a (probably large) faction of honest-to-goodness revanchist white Christian nationalists. They’re the ones who know what’s on the menu and are tucking their napkins into their shirt collars.
But I still think there is a significant number of people who don’t get it. They don’t know how complicated the issues are and like the simplicity of the “we’re fighting for you” patriot vibe. I don’t think they’re cruel. I think they lack imagination.
And information – like the real kind that’s, you know … true.
And information – like the real kind that’s, you know … true.
As maddowblog puts it:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/voters-incredulity-gives-trump-important-edge-2024-race-rcna162534
The blog post also refers to an earlier case where voters simply assumed that they were lied to about GOP plans by Dems because those plans were simply too evil to be true.
Jews for Hitler again who assumed that his insane ideas were simply a tool to fool the stupid masses and he would drop all the vile rhetorics once he’d be in power. And hyperpatriotic assimilated German Jews had not much sympathy for the Eastern European “Kaftan-Juden” (i.e. those still wearing the traditional garb) and were not opposed to have them kicked out of the country.
Again, His Orangeness has no plans to commit mass murder for ideological reasons (as opposed to some of his supporters and enablers) but he would do nothing to stop it, if he thought it would benefit him personally. For him hurting others is something personal not ideological.
As maddowblog puts it:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/voters-incredulity-gives-trump-important-edge-2024-race-rcna162534
The blog post also refers to an earlier case where voters simply assumed that they were lied to about GOP plans by Dems because those plans were simply too evil to be true.
Jews for Hitler again who assumed that his insane ideas were simply a tool to fool the stupid masses and he would drop all the vile rhetorics once he’d be in power. And hyperpatriotic assimilated German Jews had not much sympathy for the Eastern European “Kaftan-Juden” (i.e. those still wearing the traditional garb) and were not opposed to have them kicked out of the country.
Again, His Orangeness has no plans to commit mass murder for ideological reasons (as opposed to some of his supporters and enablers) but he would do nothing to stop it, if he thought it would benefit him personally. For him hurting others is something personal not ideological.
I don’t think they’re cruel. I think they lack imagination.
I agree about the lack of imagination. Imagining other people’s lives is hard. Even, oftentimes, the lives of people close to us.
As for cruelty — I suppose I’m repeating myself, but I think there’s a lot of cruelty justified by the idea that the recipients “deserve” it somehow. They’re lazy, they’re sinful, they’re greedy.
I had a guy tell me last winter that immigrants when my grandparents came (early 1900s) wanted to work hard, while today’s immigrants just want a handout. Actually, he ascribed that belief to an unnamed friend of his, not wanting to own it himself.
I think it’s utter bullshit, at least in relation to what I’ve read about immigrants in Maine. But it makes people feel better to have “reasons” for why bad things should happen to *other* people.
I don’t think they’re cruel. I think they lack imagination.
I agree about the lack of imagination. Imagining other people’s lives is hard. Even, oftentimes, the lives of people close to us.
As for cruelty — I suppose I’m repeating myself, but I think there’s a lot of cruelty justified by the idea that the recipients “deserve” it somehow. They’re lazy, they’re sinful, they’re greedy.
I had a guy tell me last winter that immigrants when my grandparents came (early 1900s) wanted to work hard, while today’s immigrants just want a handout. Actually, he ascribed that belief to an unnamed friend of his, not wanting to own it himself.
I think it’s utter bullshit, at least in relation to what I’ve read about immigrants in Maine. But it makes people feel better to have “reasons” for why bad things should happen to *other* people.
Some details on some variants of Christian nationalism.
“The Christian nationalist variant getting the most public attention today has a Pentecostal inflection. Journalists cannot resist the spectacle, whether it is self-proclaimed prophet Lance Wallnau peddling $45 “prayer coins” featuring Trump’s face superimposed over that of the Persian King Cyrus, pastor Rafael Cruz promoting Trump as a champion of the “Seven Mountain Mandate,” or televangelist Paula White-Cain praying for “angelic reinforcement” to boost Trump’s reelection.
But another variant has made waves recently with the publication of Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism. Wolfe, an evangelical Presbyterian, argues that modern Christians have forgotten the political wisdom of early Protestant reformers and have been lulled into a dangerous secularism. He advocates an ethnically uniform nation ruled by a “Christian prince” with the power to punish blasphemy and false religion.
Wolfe veers chapter by chapter between close readings of often obscure Reformation theologians and mostly unsourced screeds against the dangers of feminist “gynocracy” and immigrant invasion. The book is obtusely argued, poorly written, and worth a read only in the same sense that rubbernecking at a car crash counts as sightseeing. But the ways that Wolfe is wrong are instructive.”
Beware the ‘Christian Prince’: The Case for Christian Nationalism advocates for an ethnically uniform nation ruled by a “Christian prince.” (June 2023)
Some details on some variants of Christian nationalism.
“The Christian nationalist variant getting the most public attention today has a Pentecostal inflection. Journalists cannot resist the spectacle, whether it is self-proclaimed prophet Lance Wallnau peddling $45 “prayer coins” featuring Trump’s face superimposed over that of the Persian King Cyrus, pastor Rafael Cruz promoting Trump as a champion of the “Seven Mountain Mandate,” or televangelist Paula White-Cain praying for “angelic reinforcement” to boost Trump’s reelection.
But another variant has made waves recently with the publication of Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism. Wolfe, an evangelical Presbyterian, argues that modern Christians have forgotten the political wisdom of early Protestant reformers and have been lulled into a dangerous secularism. He advocates an ethnically uniform nation ruled by a “Christian prince” with the power to punish blasphemy and false religion.
Wolfe veers chapter by chapter between close readings of often obscure Reformation theologians and mostly unsourced screeds against the dangers of feminist “gynocracy” and immigrant invasion. The book is obtusely argued, poorly written, and worth a read only in the same sense that rubbernecking at a car crash counts as sightseeing. But the ways that Wolfe is wrong are instructive.”
Beware the ‘Christian Prince’: The Case for Christian Nationalism advocates for an ethnically uniform nation ruled by a “Christian prince.” (June 2023)
For him hurting others is something personal not ideological.
D’you know, I think this is exactly right and goes to the heart of his narcissism. He wants to hurt people who have attacked him, or thwarted him and his projects, but I don’t really think he has an ideology per se. He is like a simple lifeform: he is in favour of things that benefit him, and against things that threaten his own interests. And in pursuit of these, he has no allegiances other than useful temporary allyship.
For him hurting others is something personal not ideological.
D’you know, I think this is exactly right and goes to the heart of his narcissism. He wants to hurt people who have attacked him, or thwarted him and his projects, but I don’t really think he has an ideology per se. He is like a simple lifeform: he is in favour of things that benefit him, and against things that threaten his own interests. And in pursuit of these, he has no allegiances other than useful temporary allyship.
Listened to NPR yesterday while running an errand. They had an interview with two women who IIRC either attended or watched the RNC convention. One was a retired hairdresser, the other had a real estate business.
On the topic of Project2025, retired hairdresser professed ignorance about what was in it. Real estate person stated, forcefully, that Trump didn’t say any of that stuff.
It was pointed out that virtually everyone involved in Project2025 was a political associate of Trump’s. Real estate lady was asked if, were Trump to endorse Project2025, that would change her vote.
That’s not even a question, said real estate lady, because he won’t.
So, a salmagundi of ignorance and “la la la la I can’t hear you”.
And of course there are folks who can barely wait for all of it to be implemented.
It’s a mind-boggling time. The zone has been flooded with sufficient shit that nobody knows which end is up anymore.
The whole “I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue” thing sounded like a joke at the time. Not anymore.
Listened to NPR yesterday while running an errand. They had an interview with two women who IIRC either attended or watched the RNC convention. One was a retired hairdresser, the other had a real estate business.
On the topic of Project2025, retired hairdresser professed ignorance about what was in it. Real estate person stated, forcefully, that Trump didn’t say any of that stuff.
It was pointed out that virtually everyone involved in Project2025 was a political associate of Trump’s. Real estate lady was asked if, were Trump to endorse Project2025, that would change her vote.
That’s not even a question, said real estate lady, because he won’t.
So, a salmagundi of ignorance and “la la la la I can’t hear you”.
And of course there are folks who can barely wait for all of it to be implemented.
It’s a mind-boggling time. The zone has been flooded with sufficient shit that nobody knows which end is up anymore.
The whole “I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue” thing sounded like a joke at the time. Not anymore.
I heard the same story as russell, also on my car radio while running an errand. Minor nit: I think russell has the roles reversed.
The real estate lady, 60ish, former Republican, from Nevada, Hispanic(?) name, is voting for Biden. She had not heard much about P2025.
The retired hairdresser, 60ish(?), from North Carolina, MAGAt-ish, is voting for He, Trump. She claimed to know more about P2025 but just knows He would not endorse it.
I wish we knew their religions. What color is Jesus, for each of them?
Anyway, I hear that 65% of Democratic voters want Biden to withdraw from the race. I have not had time to look at whether the pollsters asked: if Biden doesn’t, will you vote for him, stay home, or vote MAGA? Anybody know?
TRUCK FUMP and his JV DANCE prom date.
–TP
I heard the same story as russell, also on my car radio while running an errand. Minor nit: I think russell has the roles reversed.
The real estate lady, 60ish, former Republican, from Nevada, Hispanic(?) name, is voting for Biden. She had not heard much about P2025.
The retired hairdresser, 60ish(?), from North Carolina, MAGAt-ish, is voting for He, Trump. She claimed to know more about P2025 but just knows He would not endorse it.
I wish we knew their religions. What color is Jesus, for each of them?
Anyway, I hear that 65% of Democratic voters want Biden to withdraw from the race. I have not had time to look at whether the pollsters asked: if Biden doesn’t, will you vote for him, stay home, or vote MAGA? Anybody know?
TRUCK FUMP and his JV DANCE prom date.
–TP
Nikki Haley in her RNC speech already assumes that Biden will either step down before the election or shortly thereafter to give the POTUS job to Kamala Harris and presents that as the main reason to vote for His Orangeness no matter what one personally thinks about him. “A vote for Biden is a vote for president Harris”, “We can’t afford four more years of Biden or A SINGLE DAY of Harris.” And the reaction of the crowd is as had to be expected.
No need to use the n- or c-word, they understand exactly what is meant. It would have been a bit too much even for her to openly say: “No woman, no non-white person.”
Nikki Haley in her RNC speech already assumes that Biden will either step down before the election or shortly thereafter to give the POTUS job to Kamala Harris and presents that as the main reason to vote for His Orangeness no matter what one personally thinks about him. “A vote for Biden is a vote for president Harris”, “We can’t afford four more years of Biden or A SINGLE DAY of Harris.” And the reaction of the crowd is as had to be expected.
No need to use the n- or c-word, they understand exactly what is meant. It would have been a bit too much even for her to openly say: “No woman, no non-white person.”
Since it’s open thread, another sort of pressure… Last year I gave granddaughter #2 a mounted cartoon for a birthday card/present. All three granddaughters were here yesterday, and granddaughter #1 asked if she was getting a mounted cartoon for her birthday next month. She seemed pleased when I told her I was working on one. I didn’t tell her that it seems to be advancing at my usual glacial pace…
Since it’s open thread, another sort of pressure… Last year I gave granddaughter #2 a mounted cartoon for a birthday card/present. All three granddaughters were here yesterday, and granddaughter #1 asked if she was getting a mounted cartoon for her birthday next month. She seemed pleased when I told her I was working on one. I didn’t tell her that it seems to be advancing at my usual glacial pace…
Good luck Michael. My pace of projects seems to get more glacial every year…..
Getting a decent night’s sleep more often would help, but that’s an elusive goal.
Good luck Michael. My pace of projects seems to get more glacial every year…..
Getting a decent night’s sleep more often would help, but that’s an elusive goal.
Sweaty low energy TFG on the tube this evening. Borrrrring.
Sweaty low energy TFG on the tube this evening. Borrrrring.
soporific in fact….
soporific in fact….
ugh, random obwi glitches.
Microsoft napalma est.
(YES, I know I’m mangling that, but it sounds so much BETTER that way! SHEESH)
ugh, random obwi glitches.
Microsoft napalma est.
(YES, I know I’m mangling that, but it sounds so much BETTER that way! SHEESH)
I still cherish the memory of Andrew Neil’s interview with Ben Shapiro, in which BS accused him of being a socialist (hysterical to an English audience), but having seen the Emily Maitlis interview with Kari Lake, I am afraid that US MAGA types are very unfortunately going to boycott English interviewers from now on (“you mean like J D Vance?” is the highlight):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcIA8queaCw
However, although these things give momentary satirical pleasure, I think back ruefully to something said by the immortal Peter Cook, which was quoted in a recent play I saw about Tom Lehrer:
“those wonderful Berlin cabarets which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler and prevent the outbreak of the Second World War”.
I still cherish the memory of Andrew Neil’s interview with Ben Shapiro, in which BS accused him of being a socialist (hysterical to an English audience), but having seen the Emily Maitlis interview with Kari Lake, I am afraid that US MAGA types are very unfortunately going to boycott English interviewers from now on (“you mean like J D Vance?” is the highlight):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcIA8queaCw
However, although these things give momentary satirical pleasure, I think back ruefully to something said by the immortal Peter Cook, which was quoted in a recent play I saw about Tom Lehrer:
“those wonderful Berlin cabarets which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler and prevent the outbreak of the Second World War”.
soporific in fact….
But perhaps they are just obsessively following their Dear Leader’s example. He kept falling asleep during earlier convention speeches. So obviously that’s the proper way to behave. Sort of like the ear bandages.
soporific in fact….
But perhaps they are just obsessively following their Dear Leader’s example. He kept falling asleep during earlier convention speeches. So obviously that’s the proper way to behave. Sort of like the ear bandages.
Microsoft napalma est.
I assume you mean napalmanda.
(= is to be set on fire)
Pusillimollis exurendast.
Microsoft napalma est.
I assume you mean napalmanda.
(= is to be set on fire)
Pusillimollis exurendast.
So will the ICJ’s ruling against Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories further roil the presidential election, or are those fault lines already baked into the contest?
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/19/nx-s1-5046204/top-u-n-court-says-israels-occupation-of-west-bank-east-jerusalem-is-unlawful
(I mean, I don’t see how the ICJ could have ruled otherwise from a legal standpoint, nor would I want them to, and I think this is important on its own. I’m just always thinking about the places where one issue crashes into another in complex ways.)
So will the ICJ’s ruling against Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories further roil the presidential election, or are those fault lines already baked into the contest?
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/19/nx-s1-5046204/top-u-n-court-says-israels-occupation-of-west-bank-east-jerusalem-is-unlawful
(I mean, I don’t see how the ICJ could have ruled otherwise from a legal standpoint, nor would I want them to, and I think this is important on its own. I’m just always thinking about the places where one issue crashes into another in complex ways.)
So the product “napalm” has a name derived from Latin?
Interesting, if so!
Years ago, I noted that Archimedes was (claimed) to be the first to use a beam-energy weapon, and asked a greek-knower to translate into Greek “eat photonic death, invader scum!”
But all I recall was “that doesn’t really work in Greek”. Dammit.
So the product “napalm” has a name derived from Latin?
Interesting, if so!
Years ago, I noted that Archimedes was (claimed) to be the first to use a beam-energy weapon, and asked a greek-knower to translate into Greek “eat photonic death, invader scum!”
But all I recall was “that doesn’t really work in Greek”. Dammit.
Napalm is contracted from ‘Natrium’ (sodium) and ‘Palmitat’ (salt of a carbonic acid derived from palm oil), which were the original ingredients, Napalm technically being a soap/detergent.
‘Natrium’ is derived from the Wadi Natroun in Egypt and ‘palma’ is the Latin word for – duh – palm tree.
Napalm is contracted from ‘Natrium’ (sodium) and ‘Palmitat’ (salt of a carbonic acid derived from palm oil), which were the original ingredients, Napalm technically being a soap/detergent.
‘Natrium’ is derived from the Wadi Natroun in Egypt and ‘palma’ is the Latin word for – duh – palm tree.
nous, one of the other lawyers (other than Amal Clooney and some of the other signatories of the letter to the FT I linked soon after October 7th) who advised on the ICCJ warrant issue, who is a holocaust survivor who did national service with the IDF, and has had an otherwise fascinating legal life story, gave his opinion on the settlements in the 60s:
In 2006, it was revealed that after the 1967 War, as legal adviser for the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Meron issued a secret memo that the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank or other territories Israel had captured was illegal under international law. In 1968, he declared in another secret legal memo that the demolition of Arab houses would be considered a form of unlawful collective punishment
His opinions were largely ignored by Israeli governments and prime ministers of both the Labor and Likud parties, who all oversaw the building of settlements in the West Bank; Netanyahu has also increased house demolitions as a form of punishment.
Article about him, for anyone interested
nous, one of the other lawyers (other than Amal Clooney and some of the other signatories of the letter to the FT I linked soon after October 7th) who advised on the ICCJ warrant issue, who is a holocaust survivor who did national service with the IDF, and has had an otherwise fascinating legal life story, gave his opinion on the settlements in the 60s:
In 2006, it was revealed that after the 1967 War, as legal adviser for the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Meron issued a secret memo that the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank or other territories Israel had captured was illegal under international law. In 1968, he declared in another secret legal memo that the demolition of Arab houses would be considered a form of unlawful collective punishment
His opinions were largely ignored by Israeli governments and prime ministers of both the Labor and Likud parties, who all oversaw the building of settlements in the West Bank; Netanyahu has also increased house demolitions as a form of punishment.
Article about him, for anyone interested
On the hottest day of the year I spent half the day in the A&E (hey, at least it’s free here) to get an abrasion in my cornea + bacterial infection treated and then I find out I have COVID (yeah, it’s still around) – bliss.
Naturally, to cheer me up, I watch a bunch of PBS Frontline docs from the past 4 years about Trump and the myth of the stolen election.
Apparently one third of Americans still believe in it and the question arises: even if the Democrats manage to win by some minor miracle, what are we going to do with those people or, gasp, what are they going to do to us?
On the hottest day of the year I spent half the day in the A&E (hey, at least it’s free here) to get an abrasion in my cornea + bacterial infection treated and then I find out I have COVID (yeah, it’s still around) – bliss.
Naturally, to cheer me up, I watch a bunch of PBS Frontline docs from the past 4 years about Trump and the myth of the stolen election.
Apparently one third of Americans still believe in it and the question arises: even if the Democrats manage to win by some minor miracle, what are we going to do with those people or, gasp, what are they going to do to us?
What are they going to do to us?
If Clickbait doesn’t win, I think we can expect widespread violence that will make 2020 look like kindergarten. (If Clickbait does win, ditto, but it will be differently constructed and differently aimed, at least for a while.) For that matter, I think voting is going to be made very difficult and possibly dangerous for a lot of people, especially in red and purple states.
I try to console myself with the thought that if this possibility can occur to us, it has also occurred to people who can do something about it, to counter or deflect the violence and resistance. But I’m not sure I really believe it’s deflectable, any more than the current state of a significant portion of the country marching eagerly toward fascism is deflectable. The time to stop it was … a long time ago.
I hope I’m wrong about what’s coming. I mean, Clickbait winning is going to be far worse than Clickbait losing, but we’re a long way from out of the woods even if he loses.
What are they going to do to us?
If Clickbait doesn’t win, I think we can expect widespread violence that will make 2020 look like kindergarten. (If Clickbait does win, ditto, but it will be differently constructed and differently aimed, at least for a while.) For that matter, I think voting is going to be made very difficult and possibly dangerous for a lot of people, especially in red and purple states.
I try to console myself with the thought that if this possibility can occur to us, it has also occurred to people who can do something about it, to counter or deflect the violence and resistance. But I’m not sure I really believe it’s deflectable, any more than the current state of a significant portion of the country marching eagerly toward fascism is deflectable. The time to stop it was … a long time ago.
I hope I’m wrong about what’s coming. I mean, Clickbait winning is going to be far worse than Clickbait losing, but we’re a long way from out of the woods even if he loses.
even if the Democrats manage to win by some minor miracle
It’s not entirely clear why you would think this would represent a minor miracle. The Democrats are running someone who beat Trump once already. Who has done a damned impressive job the last 4 years.
The economy is booming. Sure, the stock market is overvalued, and so a crash is entirely possible. But it’s been overvalued for at least a decade, so there’s no particular reason why it should crash just now. Incomes for most of the population are rising faster than inflation for the first time in quite a while. It’s hard to remember the last time an incumbent president lost a reelection bid when the economy was like this. And even longer since one lost absent a major unpopular war.
Meanwhile, anyone listening to Trump can hardly miss how much he has deteriorated. Most of the voting population hasn’t been, and likely won’t for another month or two. But I expect they’ll be shocked. Far more so than by the fact that Biden isn’t as spry, physically, as he was 4 years ago. After all, he wasn’t elected to a job requiring physical strength and agility.
Finally, there is the detail that a huge part of winning elections these days is getting out the vote. That typically requires a massive infrastructure across the country. Which doesn’t come cheap. Biden already has one in place, and keeps adding to it. Trump has nothing. (And is spending his money on his legal bills.). And the Republican party doesn’t have one either. And is pretty much broke, both nationally and in several major states as well. (Arizona and Michigan in particular.)
I know it’s popular, both among the chattering class and among the tiny minority of us who pay attention to politics all the time, to trash Biden’s chances. But my guess is that he wins even bigger this time.
Actually, I think he would have won bigger even without the Dobbs decision. With propositions regarding abortion on the ballot in several states, I expect his margins to be bigger. Those sorts of propositions have won even in places like Kansas and Kentucky. It’s reasonable to expect them to do so in Nevada and even Florida this November. There may be a few women who will vote for those propositions, and then vote for a ticket where the VP loudly opposes abortion, and exceptions for rape and incest as well. But not, I think, a lot.
In short, I think the panic and hysteria is over the top. That doesn’t mean the Democrats can coast to victory. But it does mean that it won’t be any kind of surprise when they win.
even if the Democrats manage to win by some minor miracle
It’s not entirely clear why you would think this would represent a minor miracle. The Democrats are running someone who beat Trump once already. Who has done a damned impressive job the last 4 years.
The economy is booming. Sure, the stock market is overvalued, and so a crash is entirely possible. But it’s been overvalued for at least a decade, so there’s no particular reason why it should crash just now. Incomes for most of the population are rising faster than inflation for the first time in quite a while. It’s hard to remember the last time an incumbent president lost a reelection bid when the economy was like this. And even longer since one lost absent a major unpopular war.
Meanwhile, anyone listening to Trump can hardly miss how much he has deteriorated. Most of the voting population hasn’t been, and likely won’t for another month or two. But I expect they’ll be shocked. Far more so than by the fact that Biden isn’t as spry, physically, as he was 4 years ago. After all, he wasn’t elected to a job requiring physical strength and agility.
Finally, there is the detail that a huge part of winning elections these days is getting out the vote. That typically requires a massive infrastructure across the country. Which doesn’t come cheap. Biden already has one in place, and keeps adding to it. Trump has nothing. (And is spending his money on his legal bills.). And the Republican party doesn’t have one either. And is pretty much broke, both nationally and in several major states as well. (Arizona and Michigan in particular.)
I know it’s popular, both among the chattering class and among the tiny minority of us who pay attention to politics all the time, to trash Biden’s chances. But my guess is that he wins even bigger this time.
Actually, I think he would have won bigger even without the Dobbs decision. With propositions regarding abortion on the ballot in several states, I expect his margins to be bigger. Those sorts of propositions have won even in places like Kansas and Kentucky. It’s reasonable to expect them to do so in Nevada and even Florida this November. There may be a few women who will vote for those propositions, and then vote for a ticket where the VP loudly opposes abortion, and exceptions for rape and incest as well. But not, I think, a lot.
In short, I think the panic and hysteria is over the top. That doesn’t mean the Democrats can coast to victory. But it does mean that it won’t be any kind of surprise when they win.
It’s not entirely clear why you would think this would represent a minor miracle
Because, by virtue of how we elect POTUS here in the US, it ultimately comes down to hundreds or even tens of thousands of votes, in a very small number of states.
So you can be elected even if a *significantly* larger number of people want the other guy.
It’s not entirely clear why you would think this would represent a minor miracle
Because, by virtue of how we elect POTUS here in the US, it ultimately comes down to hundreds or even tens of thousands of votes, in a very small number of states.
So you can be elected even if a *significantly* larger number of people want the other guy.
Also, too – John Cole captures, perfectly, my own POV on the Biden thing:
Just tell me what sticker to put on my car and let’s get on with it. Please.
Also, too – John Cole captures, perfectly, my own POV on the Biden thing:
Just tell me what sticker to put on my car and let’s get on with it. Please.
Just tell me what sticker to put on my car and let’s get on with it.
On the evidence, we will have a steady drum beat of utterly unsourced rumors for a bit yet.
I find myself saying, quite unexpectedly, “Thank heavens for Ohio’s Republicans!” Because their refusal to delay their state’s deadline means that the actual nomination will happen by teleconference a week or more before the official RNC. So a little less time to put up with this nonsense.
Just tell me what sticker to put on my car and let’s get on with it.
On the evidence, we will have a steady drum beat of utterly unsourced rumors for a bit yet.
I find myself saying, quite unexpectedly, “Thank heavens for Ohio’s Republicans!” Because their refusal to delay their state’s deadline means that the actual nomination will happen by teleconference a week or more before the official RNC. So a little less time to put up with this nonsense.
wj, I truly wish what you are saying would come about, but the polls unfortunately say otherwise.
Anyway, I was trying move the topic on a bit, because these people are nit going away in either case.
wj, I truly wish what you are saying would come about, but the polls unfortunately say otherwise.
Anyway, I was trying move the topic on a bit, because these people are nit going away in either case.
The polls are pretty busted at this point, so who knows? Certainly not the pollsters.
The polls are pretty busted at this point, so who knows? Certainly not the pollsters.
What nous said.
Folks who do polling desperately need to come up with some new methodologies. I’m not brilliant enough to have any suggestions (although having a caller ID which displays their actual name on it might be a start). But clearly their current approach is not working. Not even close.
What nous said.
Folks who do polling desperately need to come up with some new methodologies. I’m not brilliant enough to have any suggestions (although having a caller ID which displays their actual name on it might be a start). But clearly their current approach is not working. Not even close.
Got to amuse myself yesterday, responding to a political poll. Not sure how they’re going to parse “straight white male, 77 years old, registered Republican, voting for Biden.” I figure it’s not one of their pre-assumed demographics. Although perhaps it should be. 😉
Got to amuse myself yesterday, responding to a political poll. Not sure how they’re going to parse “straight white male, 77 years old, registered Republican, voting for Biden.” I figure it’s not one of their pre-assumed demographics. Although perhaps it should be. 😉
Re: polling.
There’s the whole “landline phones going away” thing, but from my own attitudes:
(a) I have better things to do than yak with a pollster
(b) I don’t trust that someone *claiming* to be a pollster is actually a pollster, instead of a rando checking for later harassment.
It’s somewhat sad that (b) seems within the realm of possibility, but that’s where we are.
The question isn’t “paranoid”, but rather “paranoid ENOUGH?”
Re: polling.
There’s the whole “landline phones going away” thing, but from my own attitudes:
(a) I have better things to do than yak with a pollster
(b) I don’t trust that someone *claiming* to be a pollster is actually a pollster, instead of a rando checking for later harassment.
It’s somewhat sad that (b) seems within the realm of possibility, but that’s where we are.
The question isn’t “paranoid”, but rather “paranoid ENOUGH?”
The polls are pretty busted at this point, so who knows? Certainly not the pollsters.
I am pretty certain that somewhere there are groups of people attempting to fit massive amounts of demographic and economic data to election outcomes using large neural networks. Not successfully for this year, but by 2028. Not Seldon psychohistory sorts of success, but better than polling.
The polls are pretty busted at this point, so who knows? Certainly not the pollsters.
I am pretty certain that somewhere there are groups of people attempting to fit massive amounts of demographic and economic data to election outcomes using large neural networks. Not successfully for this year, but by 2028. Not Seldon psychohistory sorts of success, but better than polling.
I’ve tried to write a longer post about my Sharkey/Wormtongue 2024 joke from earlier, but I can’t manage to keep it short and tight and discussion-y enough for a good blog post. But for the sake of timeliness and at least getting some of it out here, I will note that Politico has a piece about JD Vance and the Lord of the Rings that gets at part of it:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/19/lord-of-the-rings-jd-vance-00169372
In an archived episode of the defunct “Grounded” podcast from 2021 that no longer shows up in podcast feeds, Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, who sat next to Vance in Trump’s friends and family box at the convention Tuesday evening, asked Vance to name his favorite author.
“I would have to say Tolkien,” Vance said. “I’m a big Lord of the Rings guy, and I think, not realizing it at the time, but a lot of my conservative worldview was influenced by Tolkien growing up.” He added of Tolkien’s colleague: “Big fan of C.S. Lewis — really sort of like that era of English writers. I think they were really interesting. They were grappling, in part because of World War II, with just very big problems.”
It’s not surprising to me that Vance reads (or watches) The Lord of the Rings with an eye towards the Second World War and the clash between good and evil, and it totally fits that his moment of discovery would coincide with the Jackson film adaptations.
My wife and I rewatched the Jackson extended versions last month, and I was angered and disappointed once again that Jackson chose to excise the Scouring of the Shire from the narrative and to kill off Saruman at Orthanc. I think that both Jackson and Vance oversimplify Tolkien’s attitudes towards war and nationalism by focusing on the wrong World War. Tolkien was, by John Garth’s carefully researched and pieced together account of things in Tolkien and the Great War, very much caught between his own love of the Nordo-Germanic language and mythology and a deep suspicion of the path that nationalism had taken to trap all of Europe in the moral quagmire of the First World War. In his attempt to salvage the spirit of all that was good in the pre-Christian mythic world of Northern Europe, Tolkien had to shift the focus of evil off of the deeds of men and onto the invisible world. But his suspicion of war in service to bad nationalism, firmly tied to his experience in the trenches, shows through most strongly for me in The Scouring of the Shire.
This is the reason why I find myself so deeply disappointed by Peter Jackson’s film adaptation. Jackson’s films revel in the cinematic combat, makes cartoons of the villains, and kills off Saruman and Wormtongue so that they cannot cast any threatening shadow in the denouement. In Jackson’s telling, destroying the ring stops the forces of evil in their tracks, and the only legacy left behind to trouble the future are the wounds that the veterans carry within, that cannot fully heal. This moral and narrative simplification fits quite neatly with the black-and-white worldview of the culture warriors, and the conservative religious types who figure everything in terms of spiritual battles and first principles in an attempt to escape the messiness of a subjective human world.
But in the books, the wizard Saruman (who had been corrupted by Sauron while trying to play Great Power politics in resistance) escapes his captivity and makes his way to The Shire, where he corrupts a portion of the Hobbits and sets himself up as an authoritarian ruler.
As a young (and evangelical) reader, I disliked the Scouring of the Shire because I wanted the book to end on a triumphal note, and did not want the heroes’ return to be spoiled by ordinary corruption, fear, greed, and pettiness. But watching the films now, I think that Tolkien was very right not to let the defeat of the Dark Lord fix all that was wrong with the world, and to show that the influence of evil continues so long as good people persist in seeing only the small picture and looking out for themselves only.
And that is the strongest sense that I get about so many on the religious right. I think they are very much Hobbits, good and well meaning in personal matters, but fearful, suspicious, sanctimonious, and isolationist in their politics, which is why they have fallen so hard for Sharkey these last few decades.
I think this is about as close as I’ll get to that blog post. There’s a lot more going on in my head, but getting at that spills out into pages and footnotes, and some handwaving that I have not yet entirely worked through, so this will have to do.
Don’t know if any of y’all have anything to add or poke at in this, but feel free to weigh in.
I’ve tried to write a longer post about my Sharkey/Wormtongue 2024 joke from earlier, but I can’t manage to keep it short and tight and discussion-y enough for a good blog post. But for the sake of timeliness and at least getting some of it out here, I will note that Politico has a piece about JD Vance and the Lord of the Rings that gets at part of it:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/19/lord-of-the-rings-jd-vance-00169372
In an archived episode of the defunct “Grounded” podcast from 2021 that no longer shows up in podcast feeds, Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, who sat next to Vance in Trump’s friends and family box at the convention Tuesday evening, asked Vance to name his favorite author.
“I would have to say Tolkien,” Vance said. “I’m a big Lord of the Rings guy, and I think, not realizing it at the time, but a lot of my conservative worldview was influenced by Tolkien growing up.” He added of Tolkien’s colleague: “Big fan of C.S. Lewis — really sort of like that era of English writers. I think they were really interesting. They were grappling, in part because of World War II, with just very big problems.”
It’s not surprising to me that Vance reads (or watches) The Lord of the Rings with an eye towards the Second World War and the clash between good and evil, and it totally fits that his moment of discovery would coincide with the Jackson film adaptations.
My wife and I rewatched the Jackson extended versions last month, and I was angered and disappointed once again that Jackson chose to excise the Scouring of the Shire from the narrative and to kill off Saruman at Orthanc. I think that both Jackson and Vance oversimplify Tolkien’s attitudes towards war and nationalism by focusing on the wrong World War. Tolkien was, by John Garth’s carefully researched and pieced together account of things in Tolkien and the Great War, very much caught between his own love of the Nordo-Germanic language and mythology and a deep suspicion of the path that nationalism had taken to trap all of Europe in the moral quagmire of the First World War. In his attempt to salvage the spirit of all that was good in the pre-Christian mythic world of Northern Europe, Tolkien had to shift the focus of evil off of the deeds of men and onto the invisible world. But his suspicion of war in service to bad nationalism, firmly tied to his experience in the trenches, shows through most strongly for me in The Scouring of the Shire.
This is the reason why I find myself so deeply disappointed by Peter Jackson’s film adaptation. Jackson’s films revel in the cinematic combat, makes cartoons of the villains, and kills off Saruman and Wormtongue so that they cannot cast any threatening shadow in the denouement. In Jackson’s telling, destroying the ring stops the forces of evil in their tracks, and the only legacy left behind to trouble the future are the wounds that the veterans carry within, that cannot fully heal. This moral and narrative simplification fits quite neatly with the black-and-white worldview of the culture warriors, and the conservative religious types who figure everything in terms of spiritual battles and first principles in an attempt to escape the messiness of a subjective human world.
But in the books, the wizard Saruman (who had been corrupted by Sauron while trying to play Great Power politics in resistance) escapes his captivity and makes his way to The Shire, where he corrupts a portion of the Hobbits and sets himself up as an authoritarian ruler.
As a young (and evangelical) reader, I disliked the Scouring of the Shire because I wanted the book to end on a triumphal note, and did not want the heroes’ return to be spoiled by ordinary corruption, fear, greed, and pettiness. But watching the films now, I think that Tolkien was very right not to let the defeat of the Dark Lord fix all that was wrong with the world, and to show that the influence of evil continues so long as good people persist in seeing only the small picture and looking out for themselves only.
And that is the strongest sense that I get about so many on the religious right. I think they are very much Hobbits, good and well meaning in personal matters, but fearful, suspicious, sanctimonious, and isolationist in their politics, which is why they have fallen so hard for Sharkey these last few decades.
I think this is about as close as I’ll get to that blog post. There’s a lot more going on in my head, but getting at that spills out into pages and footnotes, and some handwaving that I have not yet entirely worked through, so this will have to do.
Don’t know if any of y’all have anything to add or poke at in this, but feel free to weigh in.
Polls have issues, but what else are you going to go on?
Polls have issues, but what else are you going to go on?
According to Rachel Maddow, you may be part of the far-right if you like The Lord of the Rings. 🙂
According to Rachel Maddow, you may be part of the far-right if you like The Lord of the Rings. 🙂
There’s a lot in LotR to appeal to the illiberal right, but there’s also a lot to appeal to the communitarian left, so…
(And some of what appeals to each probably overlaps.)
There’s a lot in LotR to appeal to the illiberal right, but there’s also a lot to appeal to the communitarian left, so…
(And some of what appeals to each probably overlaps.)
My best take, as was probably obvious, is correlations.
Yes, I know that correlation is not causation. But for prediction, it seems better than polls. (Admittedly a low bar.) Especially when there are multiple different, and not obviously related, correlations.** And they all point the same way.
** For example, not seeing any particular relationship between the state of the economy and reactions to aborting propositions on the ballot.
My best take, as was probably obvious, is correlations.
Yes, I know that correlation is not causation. But for prediction, it seems better than polls. (Admittedly a low bar.) Especially when there are multiple different, and not obviously related, correlations.** And they all point the same way.
** For example, not seeing any particular relationship between the state of the economy and reactions to aborting propositions on the ballot.
Thanks, nous. I will think about what you wrote, though I’m not sure I’ll have much to add.
Probably repeating myself, but I watched the first two Peter Jackson movies (of the original three) and didn’t like them; too much that forms the core of what I love about the books was just left out, not being very cinematic, I’m told.
My son saw the third movie and told me I’d hate it, and why, so I never bothered. (I read LOTR out loud to my kids over the course of several months when they were 6 or 7 years old.) The story is too important to me for me to want to waste time seeing it mangled. Okay, maybe the movies were great in their way, but they were their own thing, as you are showing me even more clearly.
Rachel Maddow can go suck an egg.
Vance — ew. I suppose with any great story there’s an extent to which we all find what we want to find (and maybe what we put there). But anyone less like the great heroes of LOTR than JD Vance is hard to imagine. Wormtongue is more like it. (Okay, his running mate is even less like the heroes of LOTR. But he’s so bad he doesn’t even have an equivalent.)
*****
Speaking of WWI, George Bernard Shaw saw the awfulness of it and spoke out (as was his way) loudly and repeatedly. He lost longtime friends over it.
Thanks, nous. I will think about what you wrote, though I’m not sure I’ll have much to add.
Probably repeating myself, but I watched the first two Peter Jackson movies (of the original three) and didn’t like them; too much that forms the core of what I love about the books was just left out, not being very cinematic, I’m told.
My son saw the third movie and told me I’d hate it, and why, so I never bothered. (I read LOTR out loud to my kids over the course of several months when they were 6 or 7 years old.) The story is too important to me for me to want to waste time seeing it mangled. Okay, maybe the movies were great in their way, but they were their own thing, as you are showing me even more clearly.
Rachel Maddow can go suck an egg.
Vance — ew. I suppose with any great story there’s an extent to which we all find what we want to find (and maybe what we put there). But anyone less like the great heroes of LOTR than JD Vance is hard to imagine. Wormtongue is more like it. (Okay, his running mate is even less like the heroes of LOTR. But he’s so bad he doesn’t even have an equivalent.)
*****
Speaking of WWI, George Bernard Shaw saw the awfulness of it and spoke out (as was his way) loudly and repeatedly. He lost longtime friends over it.
And some of what appeals to each probably overlaps.
Some pundits have likened JD Vance to Elizabeth Warren with a beard.
And some of what appeals to each probably overlaps.
Some pundits have likened JD Vance to Elizabeth Warren with a beard.
Let’s see if this works – another hilzoy thread on what’s obsessing us all, ending with a contribution from someone still on here. Also, if there’s any online etiquette that says I shouldn’t do this, please let me know!
hilzoy
@hilzoy.bsky.social
If any of my friends leaked this kind of thing about me, they would not be my friends for long.
http://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/19/u...
http://www.nytimes.com
Secluded in Rehoboth, Biden Stews at Allies’ Pressure to Drop Out of the Race
As he recovers from Covid, the president has grown resentful toward Democratic congressional leaders and former President Barack Obama.
Jul 20, 2024 at 2:24
5 reposts
38 likes
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
Two more things. First, suppose this is a campaign by Pelosi et al. (It could be, but what do I know?) If so, I think it has been fairly deft and as considerate of Biden’s feelings as it could be under the circumstances.
She talked to him privately first, and apparently at length.
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
She did not just come out and say: Joe must go. Even now, it’s more a slow building of public statements of people, some of whom are seen as her allies. If she does believe that he cannot win, I don’t see how she could have been more graceful.
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
Second, Rep. Connolly: “He said the barrage of criticism must be difficult for Mr. Biden. “I mean, to me, this is very painful. I think it just shows the cold calculus of politics.””
Of course it must be painful for the President. It has been agonizing for ME, and I don’t even know him.
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
That said, “the cold calculus of politics”? It’s not cold for me. I am on Team Whoever Can Beat Trump precisely because my calculus is so hot. Those children taken from their parents at the border still haunt me. Likewise the inhabitants of each Bucha that would follow Trump selling out Ukraine.
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
Each woman sitting in a car outside a hospital, crying, waiting for her bleeding to get bad enough that her life is in danger and she can get the abortion she needs. Each trans kid shamed before their peers, or forced to move to a new state where they can be treated like a human being.
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
Each kid who wonders whether today will be the day when their parents are deported. Each family who wonders how on earth they will pay their bills now that the tariffs have raised all the prices at Walmart. Every government scientist who wonders: how much political interference is TOO much?
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
I could go on (and on and on …), but you get the point.
Anyone who thinks that people who are terrified that Biden can’t win are motivated by “the cold calculus of politics”, or any cold calculus at all, are wrong. (Likewise anyone who thinks that people who think ONLY he can win are.)
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
I really wish I were living in a country where politics involved only cold calculations, like what the exact right set of export regulations on some raw material are, or the precise design of utility company regulations for new transmission lines. That would be wonderful!
But I’m not.
UghObWi @ughobwi.bsky.social
·
21h
Harris-Hilzoy 2024!
Let’s see if this works – another hilzoy thread on what’s obsessing us all, ending with a contribution from someone still on here. Also, if there’s any online etiquette that says I shouldn’t do this, please let me know!
hilzoy
@hilzoy.bsky.social
If any of my friends leaked this kind of thing about me, they would not be my friends for long.
http://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/19/u...
http://www.nytimes.com
Secluded in Rehoboth, Biden Stews at Allies’ Pressure to Drop Out of the Race
As he recovers from Covid, the president has grown resentful toward Democratic congressional leaders and former President Barack Obama.
Jul 20, 2024 at 2:24
5 reposts
38 likes
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
Two more things. First, suppose this is a campaign by Pelosi et al. (It could be, but what do I know?) If so, I think it has been fairly deft and as considerate of Biden’s feelings as it could be under the circumstances.
She talked to him privately first, and apparently at length.
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
She did not just come out and say: Joe must go. Even now, it’s more a slow building of public statements of people, some of whom are seen as her allies. If she does believe that he cannot win, I don’t see how she could have been more graceful.
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
Second, Rep. Connolly: “He said the barrage of criticism must be difficult for Mr. Biden. “I mean, to me, this is very painful. I think it just shows the cold calculus of politics.””
Of course it must be painful for the President. It has been agonizing for ME, and I don’t even know him.
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
That said, “the cold calculus of politics”? It’s not cold for me. I am on Team Whoever Can Beat Trump precisely because my calculus is so hot. Those children taken from their parents at the border still haunt me. Likewise the inhabitants of each Bucha that would follow Trump selling out Ukraine.
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
Each woman sitting in a car outside a hospital, crying, waiting for her bleeding to get bad enough that her life is in danger and she can get the abortion she needs. Each trans kid shamed before their peers, or forced to move to a new state where they can be treated like a human being.
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
Each kid who wonders whether today will be the day when their parents are deported. Each family who wonders how on earth they will pay their bills now that the tariffs have raised all the prices at Walmart. Every government scientist who wonders: how much political interference is TOO much?
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
I could go on (and on and on …), but you get the point.
Anyone who thinks that people who are terrified that Biden can’t win are motivated by “the cold calculus of politics”, or any cold calculus at all, are wrong. (Likewise anyone who thinks that people who think ONLY he can win are.)
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
21h
I really wish I were living in a country where politics involved only cold calculations, like what the exact right set of export regulations on some raw material are, or the precise design of utility company regulations for new transmission lines. That would be wonderful!
But I’m not.
UghObWi @ughobwi.bsky.social
·
21h
Harris-Hilzoy 2024!
Related to Vance’s love of Tolkien, there is Charles Mills’ recently published paper “The Wretched of Middle-Earth: an Orkish Manifesto”
This previously-unpublished essay by the late Charles W. Mills (1951– 2021) seeks to demonstrate the racially-structured character of the universe created by J. R. R. Tolkien in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Written long before the popular film series, the essay critically examines Tolkien’s novels and comments on the nature of fictional creation. Mills argues that Tolkien designs a racial hierarchy in the novels that recapitulates the central racist myth of European thought.
Currently behind a paywall, but if you’d like a copy, let me know.
Related to Vance’s love of Tolkien, there is Charles Mills’ recently published paper “The Wretched of Middle-Earth: an Orkish Manifesto”
This previously-unpublished essay by the late Charles W. Mills (1951– 2021) seeks to demonstrate the racially-structured character of the universe created by J. R. R. Tolkien in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Written long before the popular film series, the essay critically examines Tolkien’s novels and comments on the nature of fictional creation. Mills argues that Tolkien designs a racial hierarchy in the novels that recapitulates the central racist myth of European thought.
Currently behind a paywall, but if you’d like a copy, let me know.
Hit send too early. Been chewing on the above paper, I’m not really prepared to take as strong a stance as Mills does. Here’s the last para
What Tolkien has in effect done, then, is to project onto a fantasy earth the central racist myth of the last millennium: that all human culture comes from the whitest of white peoples, speaking the whitest of languages, and that non-whites are a threat to civilization, culture, and humanity. The “sub creation” of Middle-Earth which is his considerable accomplishment has to be taken out of its misleadingly individualist framework and seen, more illu- minatingly, as part of the general European re-invention of the world: the “creation” of the Orient, of Africa, of the Negro.99 The contribution of Is- lam to preserving the knowledge of the Ancient World, the contribution of Egypt (if Bernal and other scholars are right) to creating that knowledge in the first place, are excised, and replaced by the vacant spaces of Rhun and Harad, and the history-less and culture-less orc. One could say, only half in jest, that The Lord of the Rings is a medievalist’s revenge on the unacknow- ledged and undesired ancestors of medieval Europe’s civilization. The literal genocide of the orcs with which the book concludes is in a sense of second- ary importance to the cultural genocide that their creation signified in the first place. For the very fact that such a creation was at all possible is a sober- ing testimony to the completeness of European intellectual hegemony over the world, and its successful re-writing of history. Could there be a clearer indictment of the West’s willed ignorance of its own past, of the continued naturalness to its vision of racially-structured categorizations of personhood, than the fact that this book should have been hailed for nearly four decades for its moral insight and metaphysical truth? It is a blindness that precludes any genuine re-seeing of the orcs of the past—and present.
I still not able to formulate it, but it seems that what Mills is complaining about with Tolkien is something that is inevitable when we move from a human history where people are organized into smaller groups that might conflict with other groups. If it is inevitable, the problem is not with the European character of Tolkien’s universe but people themselves.
Hit send too early. Been chewing on the above paper, I’m not really prepared to take as strong a stance as Mills does. Here’s the last para
What Tolkien has in effect done, then, is to project onto a fantasy earth the central racist myth of the last millennium: that all human culture comes from the whitest of white peoples, speaking the whitest of languages, and that non-whites are a threat to civilization, culture, and humanity. The “sub creation” of Middle-Earth which is his considerable accomplishment has to be taken out of its misleadingly individualist framework and seen, more illu- minatingly, as part of the general European re-invention of the world: the “creation” of the Orient, of Africa, of the Negro.99 The contribution of Is- lam to preserving the knowledge of the Ancient World, the contribution of Egypt (if Bernal and other scholars are right) to creating that knowledge in the first place, are excised, and replaced by the vacant spaces of Rhun and Harad, and the history-less and culture-less orc. One could say, only half in jest, that The Lord of the Rings is a medievalist’s revenge on the unacknow- ledged and undesired ancestors of medieval Europe’s civilization. The literal genocide of the orcs with which the book concludes is in a sense of second- ary importance to the cultural genocide that their creation signified in the first place. For the very fact that such a creation was at all possible is a sober- ing testimony to the completeness of European intellectual hegemony over the world, and its successful re-writing of history. Could there be a clearer indictment of the West’s willed ignorance of its own past, of the continued naturalness to its vision of racially-structured categorizations of personhood, than the fact that this book should have been hailed for nearly four decades for its moral insight and metaphysical truth? It is a blindness that precludes any genuine re-seeing of the orcs of the past—and present.
I still not able to formulate it, but it seems that what Mills is complaining about with Tolkien is something that is inevitable when we move from a human history where people are organized into smaller groups that might conflict with other groups. If it is inevitable, the problem is not with the European character of Tolkien’s universe but people themselves.
Some pundits have likened JD Vance to Elizabeth Warren with a beard.
As someone who is not a great Warren fan, let me just say that claiming the two are even vaguely comparable demonstrates that the writer, “pundit” or not, lacks the wit to pound sand. The very best that can be said of Vance is that he will probably help drag the ticket down to defeat.
Some pundits have likened JD Vance to Elizabeth Warren with a beard.
As someone who is not a great Warren fan, let me just say that claiming the two are even vaguely comparable demonstrates that the writer, “pundit” or not, lacks the wit to pound sand. The very best that can be said of Vance is that he will probably help drag the ticket down to defeat.
(Okay, his running mate is even less like the heroes of LOTR. But he’s so bad he doesn’t even have an equivalent.)
The mayor of Laketown has some vibes. He’s in it for himself and in the end steals the funds for the rebuilding of Laketown (and consequently starves in the Wilderness). But he seems to have been a capable administrator before. His behaviour is not too blatant in the book and he seems more of another victim of the dragon disease transmitted by ‘gold a dragoon brooded on long enough’.
In The Hobbit films of course, he’s painted as both incompetent and corrupt from the start and dies trying to flee with his ill-gotten gains from the burning town.
—
Personally, I find C.S.Lewis far more problematic of an author and a good deal more reactionary. He also too much relies on the trope of ‘Evil must be bad at strategy and must be defined by illogical (and petty) actions’. Most blatantly in ‘That hideous Strength’ where it is even stated rather explicitly.
The Screwtape Letters are a bit of a deviation from that though. Screwtape’s advice is constructive in context, he embodies sophisticated Evil that may gloat but subordinates that to effectiveness, and he chides his nephew for acting in a far too shortsighted manner).
Tolkien’s Evil covers a great variety in a far more realistic manner and no one is acting stupid because he is contractually obligated to by Evil Central.
(Okay, his running mate is even less like the heroes of LOTR. But he’s so bad he doesn’t even have an equivalent.)
The mayor of Laketown has some vibes. He’s in it for himself and in the end steals the funds for the rebuilding of Laketown (and consequently starves in the Wilderness). But he seems to have been a capable administrator before. His behaviour is not too blatant in the book and he seems more of another victim of the dragon disease transmitted by ‘gold a dragoon brooded on long enough’.
In The Hobbit films of course, he’s painted as both incompetent and corrupt from the start and dies trying to flee with his ill-gotten gains from the burning town.
—
Personally, I find C.S.Lewis far more problematic of an author and a good deal more reactionary. He also too much relies on the trope of ‘Evil must be bad at strategy and must be defined by illogical (and petty) actions’. Most blatantly in ‘That hideous Strength’ where it is even stated rather explicitly.
The Screwtape Letters are a bit of a deviation from that though. Screwtape’s advice is constructive in context, he embodies sophisticated Evil that may gloat but subordinates that to effectiveness, and he chides his nephew for acting in a far too shortsighted manner).
Tolkien’s Evil covers a great variety in a far more realistic manner and no one is acting stupid because he is contractually obligated to by Evil Central.
Currently behind a paywall, but if you’d like a copy, let me know.
I’d be interested.
Currently behind a paywall, but if you’d like a copy, let me know.
I’d be interested.
Hartmut,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RWimAEeYpiEiBjoYI3Il-nTHT4HobBFo/view?usp=sharing
Hartmut,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RWimAEeYpiEiBjoYI3Il-nTHT4HobBFo/view?usp=sharing
I think Tolkien’s attitudes towards race are a lot more complex than most of these (somewhat structuralist) readings of his fiction present. My own way of navigating this particular question is deeply informed by Kathy Lavezzo’s arguments about Tolkien’s attitudes towards language and his methodological grounding as a comparative philologist that she outlines in “Whiteness, medievalism, immigration: rethinking Tolkien through Stuart Hall.”
TLDR abstract of her argument: Tolkien believed that there was a sort of trans-historical relationship between people and their language/culture that transmitted something like racial memories, and it was that sort linguistic genetics that led him to discourage Stuart Hall from becoming a Medievalist and working on Langland because “Tolkien viewed medieval scholarship as an act of recovery that was the province of a select group of people bound by language, blood and soil to their literary-historical object of
study.” As a West Indian immigrant, Hall would have lacked that essential connection to language and place required for truly understanding British medieval works.
Her argument makes some inferences, but she’s pretty careful to establish that the inferences are warranted. I don’t know that I would lean as strongly into her conclusion based on this as she does, but neither do I think that she is distorting any of the material in order to support her conclusions.
I don’t think there is any evidence that Tolkien was colorist or bigoted on a personal level (indeed, there is evidence to the contrary in his personal correspondences), but I do think that he thought his stories were specifically stories for and about people whose genetic ancestry lay in pre-modern Northern Europe, and that he was simply reflecting and recovering their ancient way of viewing the world on a mythic level.
No idea if Lavezzo’s article is paywalled or not.
I think Tolkien’s attitudes towards race are a lot more complex than most of these (somewhat structuralist) readings of his fiction present. My own way of navigating this particular question is deeply informed by Kathy Lavezzo’s arguments about Tolkien’s attitudes towards language and his methodological grounding as a comparative philologist that she outlines in “Whiteness, medievalism, immigration: rethinking Tolkien through Stuart Hall.”
TLDR abstract of her argument: Tolkien believed that there was a sort of trans-historical relationship between people and their language/culture that transmitted something like racial memories, and it was that sort linguistic genetics that led him to discourage Stuart Hall from becoming a Medievalist and working on Langland because “Tolkien viewed medieval scholarship as an act of recovery that was the province of a select group of people bound by language, blood and soil to their literary-historical object of
study.” As a West Indian immigrant, Hall would have lacked that essential connection to language and place required for truly understanding British medieval works.
Her argument makes some inferences, but she’s pretty careful to establish that the inferences are warranted. I don’t know that I would lean as strongly into her conclusion based on this as she does, but neither do I think that she is distorting any of the material in order to support her conclusions.
I don’t think there is any evidence that Tolkien was colorist or bigoted on a personal level (indeed, there is evidence to the contrary in his personal correspondences), but I do think that he thought his stories were specifically stories for and about people whose genetic ancestry lay in pre-modern Northern Europe, and that he was simply reflecting and recovering their ancient way of viewing the world on a mythic level.
No idea if Lavezzo’s article is paywalled or not.
Agree with you, Hartmut, about CS Lewis’s prejudices, and about That Hideous Strength in particular. So much more problematic than anything Tolkien ever produced.
Agree with you, Hartmut, about CS Lewis’s prejudices, and about That Hideous Strength in particular. So much more problematic than anything Tolkien ever produced.
I love LOTR but yes, parts of it are racist—however, Sam undercuts that a bit with the scene where he sees a dead warrior from Hamas and just sees a person and wonders if he was forced to come and would rather have stayed home. But the whole “ good West vs evil East “ plus the skin color is rather unfortunate. I am guessing he is imagining Gondor as Byzantium and the Haradrim are the Persians.
I don’t think it requires any deep scholarly analysis to see this.
However, if you are a sufficiently nerdy, you also find out that Numenor, which ought to be the ideal white Western dream culture for people who like that sort of thing, gradually morphed into a Western imperialist power which acted as a tyrannical overlord to people in Middle Earth. They did start out as teachers, so to speak, with no imperialist ambitions but that changed and they became steadily more and more evil. Aragorn’s ancestors were the dissidents who fled the Nazi regime that Numenor had become. Both Tolkien and Lewis hated European imperialism. Lewis’s first SF book ( forgot the name) is an attack on Western imperialism.
Both of these men were conservative, with some pretty embarrassing racist passages, but people are often complicated. ( Lewis was also quite the chauvinist pig, though his late marriage to a Jewish former communist allegedly changed him for the better.). I think if they were writing today they would probably be better on these issues but even for their time they were better than some of their rightwing admirers today.
As for the orcs, they are very much not human but Tolkien in his private writings was bothered by his own work a bit. He tried to show that they weren’t completely evil, but didn’t do a great job at that. As a devout Catholic he didn’t believe that any sentient being was inherently evil and it should be possible for an orc to repent. He shows Gollum- Sméagol’s struggle, but it would have been nice to have an orc equivalent. Maybe a former warrior who retires and sets up a coffe shop. ( Reference to Legends and Latees— can’t spell it).
I stumbled across a writer —- Lilith Saintcrow— who is doing thinly disguised fan fiction set in the world of the Silmarillion. The two main characters are human females, one a sort of female wizard and the other a warrior. I really like the first two volumes. The third isn’t out yet. They are well written imho. Also, the Silmarillion was disappointing because it was more of a history book rather than a novel, but Saintcrow’s books are novels.
And the orcs, while fighting for Morgoth, are more humanized. The heroine says a prayer for one of them after he is killed and there is a hint that they have families.
I liked the first Jackson film, was okay with the second and disliked much of the third for big and small reasons. ( One example of a small reason— the trebuchets were ridiculously powerful, like the ballista in GOT that could shoot a dragon in the eye 5000 feet up in the air. Sounds funny, but I hate unrealistic fantasy movies. Magic is fine, but don’t screw up the weapons physics. Also, the longbows in movies just shoot right through plate armor. No. Why would people start wearing it instead of chain mail if it didn’t work?)
Anyway, I hated how Jackson turned Denethor into a grotesque carIcature— people in the theater cheered when he dies, because Gandalf set him on fire. It was so cheap and disgusting. Jackson made the ents look like idiots. He made Sam smart for seeing that Gollum was evil, when the book has a scene which shows how Sam inadvertently pushed Gollum over the edge just when he was in the verge of repentance.
I love LOTR but yes, parts of it are racist—however, Sam undercuts that a bit with the scene where he sees a dead warrior from Hamas and just sees a person and wonders if he was forced to come and would rather have stayed home. But the whole “ good West vs evil East “ plus the skin color is rather unfortunate. I am guessing he is imagining Gondor as Byzantium and the Haradrim are the Persians.
I don’t think it requires any deep scholarly analysis to see this.
However, if you are a sufficiently nerdy, you also find out that Numenor, which ought to be the ideal white Western dream culture for people who like that sort of thing, gradually morphed into a Western imperialist power which acted as a tyrannical overlord to people in Middle Earth. They did start out as teachers, so to speak, with no imperialist ambitions but that changed and they became steadily more and more evil. Aragorn’s ancestors were the dissidents who fled the Nazi regime that Numenor had become. Both Tolkien and Lewis hated European imperialism. Lewis’s first SF book ( forgot the name) is an attack on Western imperialism.
Both of these men were conservative, with some pretty embarrassing racist passages, but people are often complicated. ( Lewis was also quite the chauvinist pig, though his late marriage to a Jewish former communist allegedly changed him for the better.). I think if they were writing today they would probably be better on these issues but even for their time they were better than some of their rightwing admirers today.
As for the orcs, they are very much not human but Tolkien in his private writings was bothered by his own work a bit. He tried to show that they weren’t completely evil, but didn’t do a great job at that. As a devout Catholic he didn’t believe that any sentient being was inherently evil and it should be possible for an orc to repent. He shows Gollum- Sméagol’s struggle, but it would have been nice to have an orc equivalent. Maybe a former warrior who retires and sets up a coffe shop. ( Reference to Legends and Latees— can’t spell it).
I stumbled across a writer —- Lilith Saintcrow— who is doing thinly disguised fan fiction set in the world of the Silmarillion. The two main characters are human females, one a sort of female wizard and the other a warrior. I really like the first two volumes. The third isn’t out yet. They are well written imho. Also, the Silmarillion was disappointing because it was more of a history book rather than a novel, but Saintcrow’s books are novels.
And the orcs, while fighting for Morgoth, are more humanized. The heroine says a prayer for one of them after he is killed and there is a hint that they have families.
I liked the first Jackson film, was okay with the second and disliked much of the third for big and small reasons. ( One example of a small reason— the trebuchets were ridiculously powerful, like the ballista in GOT that could shoot a dragon in the eye 5000 feet up in the air. Sounds funny, but I hate unrealistic fantasy movies. Magic is fine, but don’t screw up the weapons physics. Also, the longbows in movies just shoot right through plate armor. No. Why would people start wearing it instead of chain mail if it didn’t work?)
Anyway, I hated how Jackson turned Denethor into a grotesque carIcature— people in the theater cheered when he dies, because Gandalf set him on fire. It was so cheap and disgusting. Jackson made the ents look like idiots. He made Sam smart for seeing that Gollum was evil, when the book has a scene which shows how Sam inadvertently pushed Gollum over the edge just when he was in the verge of repentance.
Some months back there was internet chatter about how C. S. Lewis was “ woke”.
https://mattmikalatos.substack.com/p/was-cs-lewis-woke
Here is the quote—
“ ‘I am inclined to think that we had better look unflinchingly at the work we have done; like puppies, we must have ‘our noses rubbed in it’. A man, now penitent, who has once seduced and abandoned a girl and then lost sight of her, had better not avert his eyes from the crude realities of the life she may now be living. For the same reason we ought to read the psalms that curse the oppressor; read them with fear. Who knows what imprecations of the same sort have been uttered against ourselves? What prayers have Red men, and Black, and Brown and Yellow, sent up against us to their gods or sometimes to God Himself? All over the earth the White Man’s offence ‘smells to heaven’: massacres, broken treaties, theft, kidnappings, enslavement, deportation, floggings, beatings-up, rape, insult, mockery, and odious hypocrisy make up that smell”
Not exactly Trumpian, I would say. And Biden should be thinking about what Palestinians are praying.
Some months back there was internet chatter about how C. S. Lewis was “ woke”.
https://mattmikalatos.substack.com/p/was-cs-lewis-woke
Here is the quote—
“ ‘I am inclined to think that we had better look unflinchingly at the work we have done; like puppies, we must have ‘our noses rubbed in it’. A man, now penitent, who has once seduced and abandoned a girl and then lost sight of her, had better not avert his eyes from the crude realities of the life she may now be living. For the same reason we ought to read the psalms that curse the oppressor; read them with fear. Who knows what imprecations of the same sort have been uttered against ourselves? What prayers have Red men, and Black, and Brown and Yellow, sent up against us to their gods or sometimes to God Himself? All over the earth the White Man’s offence ‘smells to heaven’: massacres, broken treaties, theft, kidnappings, enslavement, deportation, floggings, beatings-up, rape, insult, mockery, and odious hypocrisy make up that smell”
Not exactly Trumpian, I would say. And Biden should be thinking about what Palestinians are praying.
“ That Hideous Strength” is terrible mainly because of the anti- feminist garbage. Jane, if I recall her name correctly, is supposed to put aside her silly scholarly ambitions, stop practicing birth control and get busy.
Since Lewis knew Dorothy Sayers, I am surprised she didn’t slug him.
I think conservatives like the book because it shows a government ostensibly leftwing trying to turn England into a totalitarian state. I didn’t mind that aspect of it at all.. it was written in 1945 and in some parts of the world something like that basically happened, except without the demonic influence or on the other side, heroic semi- pagan wizards and a brown bear given permission to kill demon- possessed bureaucrats.
“ That Hideous Strength” is terrible mainly because of the anti- feminist garbage. Jane, if I recall her name correctly, is supposed to put aside her silly scholarly ambitions, stop practicing birth control and get busy.
Since Lewis knew Dorothy Sayers, I am surprised she didn’t slug him.
I think conservatives like the book because it shows a government ostensibly leftwing trying to turn England into a totalitarian state. I didn’t mind that aspect of it at all.. it was written in 1945 and in some parts of the world something like that basically happened, except without the demonic influence or on the other side, heroic semi- pagan wizards and a brown bear given permission to kill demon- possessed bureaucrats.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/19/gaza-hospitals-surgeons-00167697
From the link—
“ We started seeing a series of children, preteens mostly, who’d been shot in the head. They’d go on to slowly die, only to be replaced by new victims who’d also been shot in the head, and who would also go on to slowly die. Their families told us one of two stories: the children were playing inside when they were shot by Israeli forces, or they were playing in the street when they were shot by Israeli forces.”
I think that is the sort of thing Lewis was talking about.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/19/gaza-hospitals-surgeons-00167697
From the link—
“ We started seeing a series of children, preteens mostly, who’d been shot in the head. They’d go on to slowly die, only to be replaced by new victims who’d also been shot in the head, and who would also go on to slowly die. Their families told us one of two stories: the children were playing inside when they were shot by Israeli forces, or they were playing in the street when they were shot by Israeli forces.”
I think that is the sort of thing Lewis was talking about.
Lots interesting stuff on LOTR, thanks you-all. I was always mildly annoyed by the accusations of racism, but then I first read it when I was sixteen, and I had my own reasons for responding the way I did, which I won’t try to articulate now.
I will say, though, that if there’s one thing that annoys me about it, it’s that with the notable exceptions we can all list (Galadriel, Arwen, Eowyn, Rosie Cotton?), the world is comprised of males. A lot like the world I grew up in, of course, as far as who got to do the fun stuff….
I still love the things I have always loved about it — that has never wavered in the slightest.
Lots interesting stuff on LOTR, thanks you-all. I was always mildly annoyed by the accusations of racism, but then I first read it when I was sixteen, and I had my own reasons for responding the way I did, which I won’t try to articulate now.
I will say, though, that if there’s one thing that annoys me about it, it’s that with the notable exceptions we can all list (Galadriel, Arwen, Eowyn, Rosie Cotton?), the world is comprised of males. A lot like the world I grew up in, of course, as far as who got to do the fun stuff….
I still love the things I have always loved about it — that has never wavered in the slightest.
Thanks for the pointer to Lavezzo, she published it before Mills came out, so I wonder what her feelings about it are. The Mills is interesting because it was published posthumously after being found in his papers.
Mills obituary
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/us/charles-w-mills-dead.html
And a response paper to Mills
https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol42/iss1/13/
Don’t mean to harp on anyone’s preferences, this just had me thinking quite a bit. We all respond to things in different ways and sorting out the why and how is an individual project, not something that can be done by others from afar.
Thanks for the pointer to Lavezzo, she published it before Mills came out, so I wonder what her feelings about it are. The Mills is interesting because it was published posthumously after being found in his papers.
Mills obituary
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/us/charles-w-mills-dead.html
And a response paper to Mills
https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol42/iss1/13/
Don’t mean to harp on anyone’s preferences, this just had me thinking quite a bit. We all respond to things in different ways and sorting out the why and how is an individual project, not something that can be done by others from afar.
lj – thought you’d find the Lavezzo article interesting.
I think the article is also helpful for understanding why Tolkien is treated like sacred writ amongst a lot of neo-nazis, and folkish asatruars, and the like. They recognize the ethnic romanticism that informs Tolkien’s comparative philology, and they elevate that into a form of chauvinism. I think Tolkien held a soft, Jungian-esque belief in the “blood and soil” connection that becomes quite hardened in the Stormfront crowd.
lj – thought you’d find the Lavezzo article interesting.
I think the article is also helpful for understanding why Tolkien is treated like sacred writ amongst a lot of neo-nazis, and folkish asatruars, and the like. They recognize the ethnic romanticism that informs Tolkien’s comparative philology, and they elevate that into a form of chauvinism. I think Tolkien held a soft, Jungian-esque belief in the “blood and soil” connection that becomes quite hardened in the Stormfront crowd.
thanks, lj
thanks, lj
Darwin was opposed to slavery and condemned what is now known as Social Darwinism. Tolkien left no doubt about what he thought about the Nazis and hated their – in his opinion irreversible – tainting/poisoning of the Norse culture.
Well, neonazis also love Blackletter/Fraktur script, ignoring that it was invented in France to write Latin and was abolished by the Nazis themselves in 1941 (for purely pragmatic reasons: it was cheaper/easier than to try to impose it on the rest of the world).
That’s the difference between the extreme Right and Left: the former relies on uneducated ignorance, the latter on the highly educated/learned*. [/sarcasm]
*the pseudo-intellectual being far more common on that side of the spectrum. I’d even say that rightwing pseudo-intellectualism is often just a cheap imitation or practiced by ‘converts’.
Darwin was opposed to slavery and condemned what is now known as Social Darwinism. Tolkien left no doubt about what he thought about the Nazis and hated their – in his opinion irreversible – tainting/poisoning of the Norse culture.
Well, neonazis also love Blackletter/Fraktur script, ignoring that it was invented in France to write Latin and was abolished by the Nazis themselves in 1941 (for purely pragmatic reasons: it was cheaper/easier than to try to impose it on the rest of the world).
That’s the difference between the extreme Right and Left: the former relies on uneducated ignorance, the latter on the highly educated/learned*. [/sarcasm]
*the pseudo-intellectual being far more common on that side of the spectrum. I’d even say that rightwing pseudo-intellectualism is often just a cheap imitation or practiced by ‘converts’.
This Astronomy Picture of the Day is simply stunning.
Just a little something to brighten our
daysnights.This Astronomy Picture of the Day is simply stunning.
Just a little something to brighten our
daysnights.Biden withdraws. Damn.
–TP
Biden withdraws. Damn.
–TP
Crazy
Crazy
Biden withdraws. Damn.
The folks calling for Biden to step down have gotten their way.
Let’s see what they do with it.
Good luck everybody.
Biden withdraws. Damn.
The folks calling for Biden to step down have gotten their way.
Let’s see what they do with it.
Good luck everybody.
Has now endorsed Harris
Has now endorsed Harris
Let the VP Sweepstakes begin!
Can I get some of that “ uninteresting times” thing, please?
Let the VP Sweepstakes begin!
Can I get some of that “ uninteresting times” thing, please?
Next: aliens.
Next: aliens.
Trump should also do the right thing and resign from the campaign.
Trump should also do the right thing and resign from the campaign.
I know that Biden is old and probably would not have served the whole second term, but his tiredness at the debate was a legitimate story for one news cycle. There was no legitimacy to any of the stories about “questions of competence” etc. None of those stories should ever have been printed. It was “news” making up news. I have cancelled my subscription to NYT and WaPo, blocked Politico, and will not read any of the “news” sites that carried those stories when they come up on my email page or anywhere else. They kneecapped Biden and gave this election to Trump–knowing full well that Trump has mental competence issues as well as moral, ethical, legal, and educational incompetence. Fuck the MSM to hell and back.
I know that Biden is old and probably would not have served the whole second term, but his tiredness at the debate was a legitimate story for one news cycle. There was no legitimacy to any of the stories about “questions of competence” etc. None of those stories should ever have been printed. It was “news” making up news. I have cancelled my subscription to NYT and WaPo, blocked Politico, and will not read any of the “news” sites that carried those stories when they come up on my email page or anywhere else. They kneecapped Biden and gave this election to Trump–knowing full well that Trump has mental competence issues as well as moral, ethical, legal, and educational incompetence. Fuck the MSM to hell and back.
Nikki Haley in her RNC speech already showed the direction the GOP is to go: We can’t afford another year of Biden OR A SINGLE DAY of Harris. And the youtube trolls (bots or not) were going for “n-word c-word who slept her way up since childhood” and called her laughing worse than Hillary’s (OK, Hillary laughing was indeed a rather unpleasant sound, I give them that).
So, will this repel more black women* than attract racists and misogynists?
*I assume male blacks will be targeted with the message that white male is still better than black female.
Nikki Haley in her RNC speech already showed the direction the GOP is to go: We can’t afford another year of Biden OR A SINGLE DAY of Harris. And the youtube trolls (bots or not) were going for “n-word c-word who slept her way up since childhood” and called her laughing worse than Hillary’s (OK, Hillary laughing was indeed a rather unpleasant sound, I give them that).
So, will this repel more black women* than attract racists and misogynists?
*I assume male blacks will be targeted with the message that white male is still better than black female.
I don’t think anyone was really listening to what Haley said, and I don’t think that anything she said had much impact on anyone. Her showing up to endorse Trump at his coronation really undercut anything she could have brought to the conversation. The MAGA crowd saw her as another foe brought to heel. The people who voted for her over Trump just saw another conservative falling to the dark side, and the rest of us see her as an also-ran who is desperate to keep her political viability whatever the cost. She appeared weak, and no one paying any attention to that speech is going to be listening to anyone they perceive as weak.
Is anyone surprised by the direction that the Trump campaign is going to go in to discredit Harris? It all seems on-script.
I also think that script is very dangerous for Trump and his supplicants. I don’t think it will take much for them to overstep their stale edgelord sneering and offend enough of the women and minorities, and if that becomes an interesting narrative, then it could snowball just as quickly against them as the age thing did against Biden.
I don’t think anyone was really listening to what Haley said, and I don’t think that anything she said had much impact on anyone. Her showing up to endorse Trump at his coronation really undercut anything she could have brought to the conversation. The MAGA crowd saw her as another foe brought to heel. The people who voted for her over Trump just saw another conservative falling to the dark side, and the rest of us see her as an also-ran who is desperate to keep her political viability whatever the cost. She appeared weak, and no one paying any attention to that speech is going to be listening to anyone they perceive as weak.
Is anyone surprised by the direction that the Trump campaign is going to go in to discredit Harris? It all seems on-script.
I also think that script is very dangerous for Trump and his supplicants. I don’t think it will take much for them to overstep their stale edgelord sneering and offend enough of the women and minorities, and if that becomes an interesting narrative, then it could snowball just as quickly against them as the age thing did against Biden.
As I said again and again, I didn’t know what the right thing to do was. And I was heavily influenced by what seemed to be the consensus here on ObWi that he should stay, and that anything else would help Trump. But a combination of a) hilzoy’s more equivocal take, particularly that it was unwise to assume this was only a product of media hysteria, and b) the ongoing instances of his getting names appallingly wrong, along with repeated clips of him at the debate, was making me more and more worried. And everybody I respect here in the UK seemed to be absolutely certain he should go (although I wasn’t sure their ear for American politics was sound), so all in all I was paralysed with anxiety about it. OK, here we go. And endorsing Harris will at least (one hopes!) ensure the continuing endorsement and efforts of women of colour.
Yes, on to the VP pick. Let’s go.
As I said again and again, I didn’t know what the right thing to do was. And I was heavily influenced by what seemed to be the consensus here on ObWi that he should stay, and that anything else would help Trump. But a combination of a) hilzoy’s more equivocal take, particularly that it was unwise to assume this was only a product of media hysteria, and b) the ongoing instances of his getting names appallingly wrong, along with repeated clips of him at the debate, was making me more and more worried. And everybody I respect here in the UK seemed to be absolutely certain he should go (although I wasn’t sure their ear for American politics was sound), so all in all I was paralysed with anxiety about it. OK, here we go. And endorsing Harris will at least (one hopes!) ensure the continuing endorsement and efforts of women of colour.
Yes, on to the VP pick. Let’s go.
However, I do realise as I search for the best TV news channel, that I feel as if I have sustained an actual physical blow.
However, I do realise as I search for the best TV news channel, that I feel as if I have sustained an actual physical blow.
What irks me is that it was completely obvious that Biden should not have run for reelection in the first place. He’s left the sane side of US politics much worse placed than if he’d stood down when he should have.
What irks me is that it was completely obvious that Biden should not have run for reelection in the first place. He’s left the sane side of US politics much worse placed than if he’d stood down when he should have.
Yes, on to the VP pick. Let’s go.
Maybe. Biden and Harris had a large number of politicians prepped to immediately endorse Harris. During the past couple of weeks, though, there have been lots of rumors that the same big donors/media that wanted to push Biden out also wanted to push Harris out. The WaPost has already called for an open fight-it-out-on-the-floor convention. I haven’t seen anything from the big donors post-announcement.
I think Harris would be well-served by holding off on any announcements about VP until it becomes clear that she has the nomination wrapped up.
Yes, on to the VP pick. Let’s go.
Maybe. Biden and Harris had a large number of politicians prepped to immediately endorse Harris. During the past couple of weeks, though, there have been lots of rumors that the same big donors/media that wanted to push Biden out also wanted to push Harris out. The WaPost has already called for an open fight-it-out-on-the-floor convention. I haven’t seen anything from the big donors post-announcement.
I think Harris would be well-served by holding off on any announcements about VP until it becomes clear that she has the nomination wrapped up.
I’m just seeing somebody called Moe Vela (I think) from the Biden campaign being rather convincing about how difficult it would be for Trump to deal with Harris, as a felon, a rapist, a serial cheater on his wives, and the man who stacked the SCOTUS which struck down Roe. As I say, quite convincing.
I’m just seeing somebody called Moe Vela (I think) from the Biden campaign being rather convincing about how difficult it would be for Trump to deal with Harris, as a felon, a rapist, a serial cheater on his wives, and the man who stacked the SCOTUS which struck down Roe. As I say, quite convincing.
The overuse of sanctions. Gift link
https://wapo.st/3Wj06F3
The overuse of sanctions. Gift link
https://wapo.st/3Wj06F3
For a change of pace — some pictures of mine at BJ.
For a change of pace — some pictures of mine at BJ.
Open threaad, so Donald (and anybody/everybody else), I think this will give you some reassurance about the stance of Starmer’s Labour government on the Gaza issue:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/jul/26/britain-drops-challenge-icc-arrest-warrants-israeli-leaders-netanyahu-gallant
Open threaad, so Donald (and anybody/everybody else), I think this will give you some reassurance about the stance of Starmer’s Labour government on the Gaza issue:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/jul/26/britain-drops-challenge-icc-arrest-warrants-israeli-leaders-netanyahu-gallant
Hallowell looks like my kind of place to hang out.
Hallowell looks like my kind of place to hang out.
hsh — Hallowell is fun. Ask Pete. 😉
Come on up!
hsh — Hallowell is fun. Ask Pete. 😉
Come on up!
It is! Especially in Summer/Fall when Front St is less likely to be part of the Kennebec. 😉
It is! Especially in Summer/Fall when Front St is less likely to be part of the Kennebec. 😉
Pete — the year I moved here, 1987, there was a “100-year” flood, with water well up into the first floors of those buildings. I didn’t see it, but my ex happened to be up here for a job interview right at that time, so he did.
1987 flood memories.
I’ve seen Front Street in both Hallowell and Augusta underwater, but nothing like 1987.
ETA: Fixed bare link.
Pete — the year I moved here, 1987, there was a “100-year” flood, with water well up into the first floors of those buildings. I didn’t see it, but my ex happened to be up here for a job interview right at that time, so he did.
1987 flood memories.
I’ve seen Front Street in both Hallowell and Augusta underwater, but nothing like 1987.
ETA: Fixed bare link.
I recall getting some photos of the Wharf being under a few feet of water not long after we met (relatively)? It’s been a while, so I don’t know if there’s been any mitigation along the river.
Water looks a bit lower in your photo of the Lewiston bridge than it did this past winter. Different river, but as a general rule we might need to recalculate that “100-year” thing.
I recall getting some photos of the Wharf being under a few feet of water not long after we met (relatively)? It’s been a while, so I don’t know if there’s been any mitigation along the river.
Water looks a bit lower in your photo of the Lewiston bridge than it did this past winter. Different river, but as a general rule we might need to recalculate that “100-year” thing.
we might need to recalculate that “100-year” thing.
For sure.
As for mitigation along the river, if so, I haven’t heard about it, but I don’t get the local paper anymore so I’m not as well-informed as I should be. Seems like mitigation would be hard — and expensive, given the phenomena that cause the worst flooding. Big topic, actually.
we might need to recalculate that “100-year” thing.
For sure.
As for mitigation along the river, if so, I haven’t heard about it, but I don’t get the local paper anymore so I’m not as well-informed as I should be. Seems like mitigation would be hard — and expensive, given the phenomena that cause the worst flooding. Big topic, actually.
we might need to recalculate that “100-year” thing.
We definitely know that here in California. What was a “100-year fire season” is now closer to an “every year fire season”.
FYI, this week, only wind direction kept us from losing a city (Chico) with a 100,000+ population. Not to minimize the loss of Jasper, Alberta, of course. But Chico is a major urban area.
we might need to recalculate that “100-year” thing.
We definitely know that here in California. What was a “100-year fire season” is now closer to an “every year fire season”.
FYI, this week, only wind direction kept us from losing a city (Chico) with a 100,000+ population. Not to minimize the loss of Jasper, Alberta, of course. But Chico is a major urban area.
So, will cities of the future need walls again, this time not against human adversaries but against the classical elements (in the shape of wildfires, flooding, storms and landslides)?
So, will cities of the future need walls again, this time not against human adversaries but against the classical elements (in the shape of wildfires, flooding, storms and landslides)?
Vance can’t stop digging holes for himself.
JD Vance to Megyn Kelly on “childless cat ladies”: “Obviously it was a sarcastic comment. I’ve got nothing against cats. … People are focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance … and the substance of what I said, Megyn — I’m sorry, it is true.”
SO it’s the women he minds, not the cats. Good to know.
Vance can’t stop digging holes for himself.
JD Vance to Megyn Kelly on “childless cat ladies”: “Obviously it was a sarcastic comment. I’ve got nothing against cats. … People are focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance … and the substance of what I said, Megyn — I’m sorry, it is true.”
SO it’s the women he minds, not the cats. Good to know.
SO it’s the women he minds, not the cats. Good to know.
Not good women, wonkie. Just those irreligious jezebels ignoring the order to be fruitful and multiply.
SO it’s the women he minds, not the cats. Good to know.
Not good women, wonkie. Just those irreligious jezebels ignoring the order to be fruitful and multiply.
I’m now watching Kamala HQ on X, on J D Vance:
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1816924798099874092
Yup, I think the “weird and creepy” aspect of Vance is really ramping up. I’ll be amazed if Trump doesn’t ditch him. But there’s still be Project 2025 of course…
I’m now watching Kamala HQ on X, on J D Vance:
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1816924798099874092
Yup, I think the “weird and creepy” aspect of Vance is really ramping up. I’ll be amazed if Trump doesn’t ditch him. But there’s still be Project 2025 of course…
I’m now watching Kamala HQ on X on J D Vance:
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1816924798099874092
Yup, I think the “weird and creepy” aspect of Vance is really being beautifully highlighted. I’ll be amazed if Trump doesn’t ditch him. There’ll still be Project 2025 of course.
I’m now watching Kamala HQ on X on J D Vance:
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1816924798099874092
Yup, I think the “weird and creepy” aspect of Vance is really being beautifully highlighted. I’ll be amazed if Trump doesn’t ditch him. There’ll still be Project 2025 of course.
And if you want to see more weird creepiness, I recommend watching this 2.12 minute clip of Trump’s meeting with Netanyahu yesterday. When I first watched it, I didn’t know Sarah was Netanyahu’s wife. Now I do – yeeuch.
From about 1.05:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/26/kamala-harris-biden-trump-obama-election-netanyahu-latest-updates
And if you want to see more weird creepiness, I recommend watching this 2.12 minute clip of Trump’s meeting with Netanyahu yesterday. When I first watched it, I didn’t know Sarah was Netanyahu’s wife. Now I do – yeeuch.
From about 1.05:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/26/kamala-harris-biden-trump-obama-election-netanyahu-latest-updates
Every time the Bronze Blight speaks I get big “6th grader giving book report on book he has not read” vibes.
Also, what a skeevy creeper he is.
Every time the Bronze Blight speaks I get big “6th grader giving book report on book he has not read” vibes.
Also, what a skeevy creeper he is.
Many of the *other* possible GOP VP picks are also “weird and creepy”.
The ones that aren’t probably just haven’t been looked at closely enough, yet.
Many of the *other* possible GOP VP picks are also “weird and creepy”.
The ones that aren’t probably just haven’t been looked at closely enough, yet.
OMG, Vance is looking crazier and crazier. This, after a summary of his lifelong about-turns in the NYT which I link below:
Now this person of unusual suggestibility has become second in command to a first-order demagogue, giving himself over to MAGA theology. As Mother Jones reported on Thursday, Vance recently endorsed a new book called “Unhumans,” co-written by the “Pizzagate” conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec, which demonizes progressives as nonpeople who must be crushed by extra-democratic means. “Our study of history has brought us to this conclusion: Democracy has never worked to protect innocents from the unhumans,” the book’s co-writers say.
It is perhaps not surprising that Vance has ended up in this milieu. Authoritarian personalities, as the German social psychologist Erich Fromm argued, long to dominate, but they long just as much to submit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/26/opinion/jd-vance-changeability.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-E0.GJLt.hCIiyOqmaPM1&smid=url-share
And nous: I completely agree about the “”6th grader giving book report on book he has not read” vibes.” It seems so obvious to me, and frequently so idiotic, that I’m continually astonished that his followers don’t see it.
OMG, Vance is looking crazier and crazier. This, after a summary of his lifelong about-turns in the NYT which I link below:
Now this person of unusual suggestibility has become second in command to a first-order demagogue, giving himself over to MAGA theology. As Mother Jones reported on Thursday, Vance recently endorsed a new book called “Unhumans,” co-written by the “Pizzagate” conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec, which demonizes progressives as nonpeople who must be crushed by extra-democratic means. “Our study of history has brought us to this conclusion: Democracy has never worked to protect innocents from the unhumans,” the book’s co-writers say.
It is perhaps not surprising that Vance has ended up in this milieu. Authoritarian personalities, as the German social psychologist Erich Fromm argued, long to dominate, but they long just as much to submit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/26/opinion/jd-vance-changeability.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-E0.GJLt.hCIiyOqmaPM1&smid=url-share
And nous: I completely agree about the “”6th grader giving book report on book he has not read” vibes.” It seems so obvious to me, and frequently so idiotic, that I’m continually astonished that his followers don’t see it.
I was a sixth grader with some of those followers of his. I’m sure they admire his craft and wish they had his extemporaneous chops.
I was a sixth grader with some of those followers of his. I’m sure they admire his craft and wish they had his extemporaneous chops.
…6th grader giving book report on book he has not read…
It’s an open thread…
When I was a lad, I had Mrs. Helkins for fifth grade at North Elementary School in Storm Lake, IA. Adults who had not been through Mrs. Helkins’ fifth grade class often marveled that the high school valedictorians — indeed, nine out of the top ten students in all of the graduating classes — had come through Mrs. Helkins. Those who had been through it understood. Mrs. Helkins believed every student should be pushed to somewhere near the limit of the load they personally could carry. If you were bright, and stubborn, no class from sixth to 12th grade was really hard.
I was bright, and stubborn, but just rebellious enough to exploit the cracks. My oral book report on Basic Stage Magic was a 20-minute show and was very popular.
OTOH, for the last three weeks of Mrs. Helkins’ fifth grade class after that, my mantra was “She. Can’t. Break. Me.”
…6th grader giving book report on book he has not read…
It’s an open thread…
When I was a lad, I had Mrs. Helkins for fifth grade at North Elementary School in Storm Lake, IA. Adults who had not been through Mrs. Helkins’ fifth grade class often marveled that the high school valedictorians — indeed, nine out of the top ten students in all of the graduating classes — had come through Mrs. Helkins. Those who had been through it understood. Mrs. Helkins believed every student should be pushed to somewhere near the limit of the load they personally could carry. If you were bright, and stubborn, no class from sixth to 12th grade was really hard.
I was bright, and stubborn, but just rebellious enough to exploit the cracks. My oral book report on Basic Stage Magic was a 20-minute show and was very popular.
OTOH, for the last three weeks of Mrs. Helkins’ fifth grade class after that, my mantra was “She. Can’t. Break. Me.”
GTfnc—. Thanks. So far he is much better than I expected him to be.
GTfnc—. Thanks. So far he is much better than I expected him to be.
JD Vance is an Authentic Guaranteed Piece of Shit
JD Vance is an Authentic Guaranteed Piece of Shit
I don’t know what’s going on: I tried (twice) to click on bobbyp’s link, and both times it took me back to a version of the front page. I long to see more proof of J D Vance’s status as an authentic guaranteed piece of shit!
I don’t know what’s going on: I tried (twice) to click on bobbyp’s link, and both times it took me back to a version of the front page. I long to see more proof of J D Vance’s status as an authentic guaranteed piece of shit!
apologies…used incorrect closing tag. Another try:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/07/jd-vance-is-an-authentic-guaranteed-piece-of-shit
apologies…used incorrect closing tag. Another try:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/07/jd-vance-is-an-authentic-guaranteed-piece-of-shit
I’m a bit surprised that
https://x.com/kamalahq
has not made anything (yet) of Trump’s assurance to the Christians last night that if they vote for him this time they will never have to vote again. They have several other excellent bits of the speech, but not that. Perhaps they’re preparing more of a piece on his open, now avowed, threat to democracy?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/27/trump-speech-no-need-to-vote-future
I’m a bit surprised that
https://x.com/kamalahq
has not made anything (yet) of Trump’s assurance to the Christians last night that if they vote for him this time they will never have to vote again. They have several other excellent bits of the speech, but not that. Perhaps they’re preparing more of a piece on his open, now avowed, threat to democracy?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/27/trump-speech-no-need-to-vote-future
Thanks, bobbyp!
Thanks, bobbyp!
Crikey. I’d like to ask what, if anything, is the reaction of the ObWi commentariat to this piece by Carole Cadwalladr? I have a lot of time for her, given her record, but I just don’t know whether, and/or to what extent, it is overwrought because of her own experiences:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/27/misogyny-emergency-huge-outpouring-kamala-harris-us-electionction
It is true that there are very few women left at ObWi, but I am paying the commentariat the compliment of assuming that their understanding of mysogyny, at least, is reasonably intellectually robust.
Crikey. I’d like to ask what, if anything, is the reaction of the ObWi commentariat to this piece by Carole Cadwalladr? I have a lot of time for her, given her record, but I just don’t know whether, and/or to what extent, it is overwrought because of her own experiences:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/27/misogyny-emergency-huge-outpouring-kamala-harris-us-electionction
It is true that there are very few women left at ObWi, but I am paying the commentariat the compliment of assuming that their understanding of mysogyny, at least, is reasonably intellectually robust.
My sense of things WRT misogyny is that, yes, a lot of it is going to be pouring out in Harris’s direction. But the misogyny has already been at that fever pitch for eight years, and I don’t have the sense that it’s a limitless reservoir. Same with the racism. What had been hidden has been revealed, and they are already pretty much maxed out where public discourse is concerned.
The place where misogyny may still be growing is with school age males. Thank goodness they are not eligible to vote. We have some time to reverse their indoctrination before they can vote, and we have a whole generation of young women who *can* vote who are not in a mood to put up with this present bullshit and are becoming more politically active.
Ten years ago my female students rolled their eyes a bit at feminism and thought that feminist science fiction readings from the ’70s and ’80s were unnecessarily angry. These days they respond to it like it’s speaking straight to their own conditions.
So, yes there is going to be a lot of misogyny, and it’s going to be like wading through a sewer, but I don’t think that it is going to shift the needle any in the bad guy’s favor. I think it’s more likely to provoke a backlash and hurt them. I hope I am correct in this.
If I’m worried about anything, it’s the desperation that will mount on the right if we do beat them handily. I think things may take a more openly violent turn at that point. But that’s something to be handled after we take care of the immediate problem in front of us.
My sense of things WRT misogyny is that, yes, a lot of it is going to be pouring out in Harris’s direction. But the misogyny has already been at that fever pitch for eight years, and I don’t have the sense that it’s a limitless reservoir. Same with the racism. What had been hidden has been revealed, and they are already pretty much maxed out where public discourse is concerned.
The place where misogyny may still be growing is with school age males. Thank goodness they are not eligible to vote. We have some time to reverse their indoctrination before they can vote, and we have a whole generation of young women who *can* vote who are not in a mood to put up with this present bullshit and are becoming more politically active.
Ten years ago my female students rolled their eyes a bit at feminism and thought that feminist science fiction readings from the ’70s and ’80s were unnecessarily angry. These days they respond to it like it’s speaking straight to their own conditions.
So, yes there is going to be a lot of misogyny, and it’s going to be like wading through a sewer, but I don’t think that it is going to shift the needle any in the bad guy’s favor. I think it’s more likely to provoke a backlash and hurt them. I hope I am correct in this.
If I’m worried about anything, it’s the desperation that will mount on the right if we do beat them handily. I think things may take a more openly violent turn at that point. But that’s something to be handled after we take care of the immediate problem in front of us.
Undoubtedly the Trumpist right is deeply misogynistic. But the British courts, and the non-Trumpist majority of the US electorate, are not.
Cadwalladr ultimately lost in court because what she implied about Banks was untrue, and the court ruled that her public-interest defence was insufficient. Hillary Clinton lost because she was even less attractive to the floating voter than was Trump.
Joe Biden would have lost this year’s election for the same reason. My guess is that Kamala Harris will not, though the bookies don’t yet agree with me (the odds are moving in the right direction). There will be misogynistic attacks on her, and there will be attacks on her not-very-impressive record as vice president. But against that, Trump is a felon, a bully, an orange-coloured narcissist, and a liar, and Harris is not at all reluctant to say so.
I acknowledge that as a man I am less conscious of misogyny than is the majority of the population. But I believe that in so far as it’s a factor in the election, it’s one that can readily be overcome.
There are ways in which men tend to be more attractive to voters of both sexes than do women – they are on average taller than women, and have deeper voices. You can call that misogyny if you like, but it’s a difficulty which women politicians have overcome before and will overcome again. Harris, from what I have seen of her, is a woman who can do that.
Undoubtedly the Trumpist right is deeply misogynistic. But the British courts, and the non-Trumpist majority of the US electorate, are not.
Cadwalladr ultimately lost in court because what she implied about Banks was untrue, and the court ruled that her public-interest defence was insufficient. Hillary Clinton lost because she was even less attractive to the floating voter than was Trump.
Joe Biden would have lost this year’s election for the same reason. My guess is that Kamala Harris will not, though the bookies don’t yet agree with me (the odds are moving in the right direction). There will be misogynistic attacks on her, and there will be attacks on her not-very-impressive record as vice president. But against that, Trump is a felon, a bully, an orange-coloured narcissist, and a liar, and Harris is not at all reluctant to say so.
I acknowledge that as a man I am less conscious of misogyny than is the majority of the population. But I believe that in so far as it’s a factor in the election, it’s one that can readily be overcome.
There are ways in which men tend to be more attractive to voters of both sexes than do women – they are on average taller than women, and have deeper voices. You can call that misogyny if you like, but it’s a difficulty which women politicians have overcome before and will overcome again. Harris, from what I have seen of her, is a woman who can do that.
My take is not that dissimilar. Misogyny has a solid history (although that is far from unique to the US.). What mostly changed on that front, as with racism, is that the rise of Trump made the misogynists and the racists feel like it was OK to come out of the closet. They could say things that they felt already, but had felt like it was unacceptable, or at least risky, to say out loud.
That, previously, gave the illusion that those views were, if not dead, at least dying out. But no. Hence the change in views of nous’ female students.
Will the full throated misogynists be out in force this fall? No question. Only look at some of the things Vance has been saying. (As a Trump mini-me he’s nearly perfect.). But because the dog whistles have been replaced by foghorns (a phrase I admit to having stolen), it’s becoming impossible for the politically uninterested (which is the bulk of the population) to miss
So, will it be a factor in the election. I’d give that an unequivocal Yes. But it will be a factor because it will be blowing up in their faces. Trash talking the majority of the population is not a path to electoral success — especially if you make it impossible for your targets to avoid hearing about. In this respect, as in several others, Trump’s choice of Vance is an enormous gift to the Democrats. And it appears, which was not assured, that they are going to take that gift and run with it.
My take is not that dissimilar. Misogyny has a solid history (although that is far from unique to the US.). What mostly changed on that front, as with racism, is that the rise of Trump made the misogynists and the racists feel like it was OK to come out of the closet. They could say things that they felt already, but had felt like it was unacceptable, or at least risky, to say out loud.
That, previously, gave the illusion that those views were, if not dead, at least dying out. But no. Hence the change in views of nous’ female students.
Will the full throated misogynists be out in force this fall? No question. Only look at some of the things Vance has been saying. (As a Trump mini-me he’s nearly perfect.). But because the dog whistles have been replaced by foghorns (a phrase I admit to having stolen), it’s becoming impossible for the politically uninterested (which is the bulk of the population) to miss
So, will it be a factor in the election. I’d give that an unequivocal Yes. But it will be a factor because it will be blowing up in their faces. Trash talking the majority of the population is not a path to electoral success — especially if you make it impossible for your targets to avoid hearing about. In this respect, as in several others, Trump’s choice of Vance is an enormous gift to the Democrats. And it appears, which was not assured, that they are going to take that gift and run with it.
Thank you, nous, Pro Bono and wj (and wj, thank you for your use of “uninterested”!) But what I thought might be overwrought was not just (or even) to do solely with Kamala Harris. It was the following stuff which I have bolded:
So, here’s what I need you to do now: to shut up and sit down and listen. You are at risk. We are all at risk. Because this is what I know: bad things are coming. We are in a code red emergency.
Because misogyny isn’t bad people saying bad things that may hurt your feelings. (Though it might.) And misogyny isn’t about silencing women. (Though it does.)
Misogyny is now one of the deadliest weapons on Earth. Misogyny is a dirty bomb in the heart of our information system. Misogyny is electoral interference. Misogyny is a national security threat so lethal we can’t even see it.
Because misogyny is invisible. It’s never about all women, it’s always just about one particular, disagreeable woman who just happens to not be very likeable. Or competent. Who is loud or “shrill” or annoying or who got the job because she slept with a man. Or because she was a diversity hire. A woman who can’t even run her own house let alone a country. A woman who is “nasty”. A woman who isn’t and cannot be the strong leader a nation needs.
Enjoy the sunshine of the Kamala moment. Breathe in the clean fresh air of facts, of evidence, of information. Of hope. Before the toxic social media chimneys crank up the content. Because shortly, the particulates will arrive, will silently and stealthily and invisibly start clogging our bronchial pathways even as the billionaire bros who own the platforms rake in record profits. It’s not so much surveillance capitalism as disaster capitalism.
It took years for us to learn some of the basic facts of what happened in 2016 and it’s still just a partial view. But we now know: Russia attacked Clinton in exactly the same way that Trumpworld attacked Clinton, in exactly the same way that they are attacking Kamala.
We now know how the Kremlin actually paid in roubles for Facebook to pump those messages out across US social media. We now know that Cambridge Analytica, on behalf of the Trump campaign, created an anonymous Crooked Hillary campaign that it fed into the “bloodstream of the internet”.
But neither invented misogyny. They just used it. These were narratives the bros of the broverse were already spreading, which the invisible hand of the social media algorithms were pumping into people’s feeds. The same zombie narratives that have risen again for Kamala and are already being stoked not just by YouTube edgelords and JD Vance fanboys but Russia and China too.
Soon, we won’t even notice. It’ll just be part of the air that we breathe. A choking toxic misogynistic stew that will silently pour over the culture war trenches like mustard gas. Darkness is coming. This is the world social media created. And we’re much further out than we thought.
Thank you, nous, Pro Bono and wj (and wj, thank you for your use of “uninterested”!) But what I thought might be overwrought was not just (or even) to do solely with Kamala Harris. It was the following stuff which I have bolded:
So, here’s what I need you to do now: to shut up and sit down and listen. You are at risk. We are all at risk. Because this is what I know: bad things are coming. We are in a code red emergency.
Because misogyny isn’t bad people saying bad things that may hurt your feelings. (Though it might.) And misogyny isn’t about silencing women. (Though it does.)
Misogyny is now one of the deadliest weapons on Earth. Misogyny is a dirty bomb in the heart of our information system. Misogyny is electoral interference. Misogyny is a national security threat so lethal we can’t even see it.
Because misogyny is invisible. It’s never about all women, it’s always just about one particular, disagreeable woman who just happens to not be very likeable. Or competent. Who is loud or “shrill” or annoying or who got the job because she slept with a man. Or because she was a diversity hire. A woman who can’t even run her own house let alone a country. A woman who is “nasty”. A woman who isn’t and cannot be the strong leader a nation needs.
Enjoy the sunshine of the Kamala moment. Breathe in the clean fresh air of facts, of evidence, of information. Of hope. Before the toxic social media chimneys crank up the content. Because shortly, the particulates will arrive, will silently and stealthily and invisibly start clogging our bronchial pathways even as the billionaire bros who own the platforms rake in record profits. It’s not so much surveillance capitalism as disaster capitalism.
It took years for us to learn some of the basic facts of what happened in 2016 and it’s still just a partial view. But we now know: Russia attacked Clinton in exactly the same way that Trumpworld attacked Clinton, in exactly the same way that they are attacking Kamala.
We now know how the Kremlin actually paid in roubles for Facebook to pump those messages out across US social media. We now know that Cambridge Analytica, on behalf of the Trump campaign, created an anonymous Crooked Hillary campaign that it fed into the “bloodstream of the internet”.
But neither invented misogyny. They just used it. These were narratives the bros of the broverse were already spreading, which the invisible hand of the social media algorithms were pumping into people’s feeds. The same zombie narratives that have risen again for Kamala and are already being stoked not just by YouTube edgelords and JD Vance fanboys but Russia and China too.
Soon, we won’t even notice. It’ll just be part of the air that we breathe. A choking toxic misogynistic stew that will silently pour over the culture war trenches like mustard gas. Darkness is coming. This is the world social media created. And we’re much further out than we thought.
ps The bolded stuff seems to me to be talking about far more than Harris, or the US.
ps The bolded stuff seems to me to be talking about far more than Harris, or the US.
Soon, we won’t even notice. It’ll just be part of the air that we breathe. A choking toxic misogynistic stew that will silently pour over the culture war trenches like mustard gas. Darkness is coming. This is the world social media created. And we’re much further out than we thought.
I think the term I use for this, at this point, is “defeatist.” IF Harris loses, especially if she loses decisively, there may be something to it. On the other hand, if she wins it will tend to move the haters back under their rocks, and into isolated corners of social media. Especially if she wins big, and after a loudly misogynistic campaign.
Social media can be a problem; especially an enabler of problems. But I think a significant part of that is simply that it is still so new, and that it grew so fast. We’re still struggling to work out how to integrate it into polite society. My sense is that young (especially compared to us) people are beginning to get a grip. The rest of us may take a while, and some never will. But my guess is that, in a couple decades, people will look back on our current social media landscape and just shake their heads in wonder.
Soon, we won’t even notice. It’ll just be part of the air that we breathe. A choking toxic misogynistic stew that will silently pour over the culture war trenches like mustard gas. Darkness is coming. This is the world social media created. And we’re much further out than we thought.
I think the term I use for this, at this point, is “defeatist.” IF Harris loses, especially if she loses decisively, there may be something to it. On the other hand, if she wins it will tend to move the haters back under their rocks, and into isolated corners of social media. Especially if she wins big, and after a loudly misogynistic campaign.
Social media can be a problem; especially an enabler of problems. But I think a significant part of that is simply that it is still so new, and that it grew so fast. We’re still struggling to work out how to integrate it into polite society. My sense is that young (especially compared to us) people are beginning to get a grip. The rest of us may take a while, and some never will. But my guess is that, in a couple decades, people will look back on our current social media landscape and just shake their heads in wonder.
Hillary Clinton lost because she was even less attractive to the floating voter than was Trump.
I think this begs the question.
I think you need to ask why Clinton was less attractive to the floating voter than Donald Trump, possibly the singularly most obnoxious human to run for national American public office, ever.
Hillary Clinton lost because she was even less attractive to the floating voter than was Trump.
I think this begs the question.
I think you need to ask why Clinton was less attractive to the floating voter than Donald Trump, possibly the singularly most obnoxious human to run for national American public office, ever.
I don’t think the Russian campaign had much influence on the votes in 2016 and there is some evidence to back that up.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35576-9
America’s bigotry problems are almost entirely homegrown.
I don’t think the Russian campaign had much influence on the votes in 2016 and there is some evidence to back that up.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35576-9
America’s bigotry problems are almost entirely homegrown.
I think you need to ask why Clinton was less attractive to the floating voter than Donald Trump, possibly the singularly most obnoxious human to run for national American public office, ever.
Thomas Massie’s Unified Theory of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Donald Trump: “They weren’t voting for libertarian ideas—they were voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race.” (3/15/2017)
I think you need to ask why Clinton was less attractive to the floating voter than Donald Trump, possibly the singularly most obnoxious human to run for national American public office, ever.
Thomas Massie’s Unified Theory of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Donald Trump: “They weren’t voting for libertarian ideas—they were voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race.” (3/15/2017)
Game recognize game.
Game recognize game.
From Massie’s Wikipedia page:
That’s no small feat. Too bad being really really smart in one sense doesn’t guarantee … anything much else at all. (Take also, for instance, fellow alums Sam Bankman-Fried and Bibi.)
From Massie’s Wikipedia page:
That’s no small feat. Too bad being really really smart in one sense doesn’t guarantee … anything much else at all. (Take also, for instance, fellow alums Sam Bankman-Fried and Bibi.)
Waltz with Walz!
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/07/take-this-walz
Leave Mark Kelly in the Senate. He is badly needed there.
Waltz with Walz!
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/07/take-this-walz
Leave Mark Kelly in the Senate. He is badly needed there.
When I look at the bigger picture Misogyny that she fears and seeks to portend, I mostly get a sort of inchoate dread that she is giving the name of a hate she knows that fits the malevolence. But it strikes me that she’s working more in the mantic register than in anything more specific and analytical.
I think we have plenty of reasons to dread the precarity of human society, and I think she’s pointing to some trouble signs, but I think that the situation is more complex than her language makes it out to be when she names it misogyny.
When I look at the bigger picture Misogyny that she fears and seeks to portend, I mostly get a sort of inchoate dread that she is giving the name of a hate she knows that fits the malevolence. But it strikes me that she’s working more in the mantic register than in anything more specific and analytical.
I think we have plenty of reasons to dread the precarity of human society, and I think she’s pointing to some trouble signs, but I think that the situation is more complex than her language makes it out to be when she names it misogyny.
I find the speculation over the VP pick, the supposed insider rumors about who is being considered, who is probable, etc. all amusing. Did none of these people learn anything from the past couple of weeks?
I’m sure that there is a short list, who are being vetted. There is likely even some overlap with the various speculations. Some. But I think it’s a fair bet that, when the decision is taken, a) it will be a surprise to those of us outside the political sphere, and b) the entire display of declarations of support, who will place the name in nomination at the convention, etc. will be carefully orchestrated.
I will also be unsurprised if the selection is someone who is only obvious to us outsiders in 20/20 hindsight. The people running this have demonstrated that they are very good at their jobs. We here have other things we are good at. But however fascinated we are by politics, we’re none of us (that I know of, anyway) pros.
I find the speculation over the VP pick, the supposed insider rumors about who is being considered, who is probable, etc. all amusing. Did none of these people learn anything from the past couple of weeks?
I’m sure that there is a short list, who are being vetted. There is likely even some overlap with the various speculations. Some. But I think it’s a fair bet that, when the decision is taken, a) it will be a surprise to those of us outside the political sphere, and b) the entire display of declarations of support, who will place the name in nomination at the convention, etc. will be carefully orchestrated.
I will also be unsurprised if the selection is someone who is only obvious to us outsiders in 20/20 hindsight. The people running this have demonstrated that they are very good at their jobs. We here have other things we are good at. But however fascinated we are by politics, we’re none of us (that I know of, anyway) pros.
I think you need to ask why Clinton was less attractive to the floating voter than Donald Trump, possibly the singularly most obnoxious human to run for national American public office, ever.
I don’t think a direct comparison is the best way of looking at this. There just wasn’t much enthusiasm for Clinton and there were a big number of protest voters who didn’t necessarily like Trump or thought he would win – a bit like Brexit.
I think you need to ask why Clinton was less attractive to the floating voter than Donald Trump, possibly the singularly most obnoxious human to run for national American public office, ever.
I don’t think a direct comparison is the best way of looking at this. There just wasn’t much enthusiasm for Clinton and there were a big number of protest voters who didn’t necessarily like Trump or thought he would win – a bit like Brexit.
And again not to forget that she had a majority in the popular vote – it was not even close – but lost because of how the founders rigged the system.
Could someone calculate what would be the most extreme outcome possible, i.e. what majority a candidate for president could theoretically get while still losing? That would mean getting 100% in populous but underepresented states (like California) and losing by a single vote in overrepresenred states with low populatian with high (100% )participation in the former and minimal in the latter.
And again not to forget that she had a majority in the popular vote – it was not even close – but lost because of how the founders rigged the system.
Could someone calculate what would be the most extreme outcome possible, i.e. what majority a candidate for president could theoretically get while still losing? That would mean getting 100% in populous but underepresented states (like California) and losing by a single vote in overrepresenred states with low populatian with high (100% )participation in the former and minimal in the latter.
Interesting stuff. About misogyny, I’d like to try out an analogy and see what y’all think. It seems to me that misogyny is like layers of an onion, all part of the same whole, but each layer is separate. Or perhaps a better analogy would be to a turducken, where each layer comes from a different animal, but combines into a whole.
Take reactions to women in different contexts. The recent police shooting Sonya Massay is one layer
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c28evrd9depo
While racism is definitely involved, there is also a misogynist element. The woman wouldn’t back down and submit. The footage is disturbing and some people might reject adding misogyny to the mix, but the reaction the cop has to seemingly losing control seems to be plugged into his self worth as a male.
We can connect this to incel anger and influencers like Andrew Tate, but I’m not sure it is the same.
And then you have all the videos of so-called ‘Karens’. Despite how much the individuals may deserve being called out, the avalanche of such issues seems to indicate some type of misogyny. Some might suggest that this calling out only happens to women, and ignoring men behaving like that is misogynistic, but I think the misogyny lies in the delight that people have in putting these videos up.
Then there is Vance’s comments about childless cat ladies and not raising kids. Clearly misogyny, but definitely different that the from the cop shooting and calling out Karen’s. This blends into abortion and opposing female autonomy, but again, not the same.
How we classify things is how we make sense of the world, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that are classifications are accurate. So, like nous, I think that there is something more protean here than the label misogyny suggests.
Interesting stuff. About misogyny, I’d like to try out an analogy and see what y’all think. It seems to me that misogyny is like layers of an onion, all part of the same whole, but each layer is separate. Or perhaps a better analogy would be to a turducken, where each layer comes from a different animal, but combines into a whole.
Take reactions to women in different contexts. The recent police shooting Sonya Massay is one layer
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c28evrd9depo
While racism is definitely involved, there is also a misogynist element. The woman wouldn’t back down and submit. The footage is disturbing and some people might reject adding misogyny to the mix, but the reaction the cop has to seemingly losing control seems to be plugged into his self worth as a male.
We can connect this to incel anger and influencers like Andrew Tate, but I’m not sure it is the same.
And then you have all the videos of so-called ‘Karens’. Despite how much the individuals may deserve being called out, the avalanche of such issues seems to indicate some type of misogyny. Some might suggest that this calling out only happens to women, and ignoring men behaving like that is misogynistic, but I think the misogyny lies in the delight that people have in putting these videos up.
Then there is Vance’s comments about childless cat ladies and not raising kids. Clearly misogyny, but definitely different that the from the cop shooting and calling out Karen’s. This blends into abortion and opposing female autonomy, but again, not the same.
How we classify things is how we make sense of the world, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that are classifications are accurate. So, like nous, I think that there is something more protean here than the label misogyny suggests.
Thank you both, lj and nous. The two of you get nearer to the slight uneasiness I had with her piece. I like and admire her, and think she had a rough deal with the legal stuff Pro Bono refers to; in my opinion her public interest defence had a lot to recommend it in her pursuit of the very dodgy Arron Banks. But I wonder whether her very real experiences of persecution have made her ascribe too many worrying phenomena to misogyny, of which there is clearly plenty (more than enough to go round).
In her unforgettable TED talk about the Brexit vote (which I highly recommend – it is only 15 minutes long), she talks about the actors (such as Mercer and Cambridge Analytica) who pulled strings behind the scenes. She addresses Zuckerberg et al directly as “the gods of silicone valley”, and talks about the threat they pose to liberal democracies. If you don’t want to watch the whole thing, that relevant bit starts at about 10 minutes in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSMr-3GGvQ
She gave that talk in 2019, and her piece which we have been discussing here indicates that her forebodings have only got worse. I think there’s a lot to what she says, and I think there’s a lot of misogyny around (maybe more and more – it depends who you believe), but I think the latter is only a part of the whole.
Thank you both, lj and nous. The two of you get nearer to the slight uneasiness I had with her piece. I like and admire her, and think she had a rough deal with the legal stuff Pro Bono refers to; in my opinion her public interest defence had a lot to recommend it in her pursuit of the very dodgy Arron Banks. But I wonder whether her very real experiences of persecution have made her ascribe too many worrying phenomena to misogyny, of which there is clearly plenty (more than enough to go round).
In her unforgettable TED talk about the Brexit vote (which I highly recommend – it is only 15 minutes long), she talks about the actors (such as Mercer and Cambridge Analytica) who pulled strings behind the scenes. She addresses Zuckerberg et al directly as “the gods of silicone valley”, and talks about the threat they pose to liberal democracies. If you don’t want to watch the whole thing, that relevant bit starts at about 10 minutes in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSMr-3GGvQ
She gave that talk in 2019, and her piece which we have been discussing here indicates that her forebodings have only got worse. I think there’s a lot to what she says, and I think there’s a lot of misogyny around (maybe more and more – it depends who you believe), but I think the latter is only a part of the whole.
And, talking of people who have an outsize effect on what happens to the world, I’m assuming that most or all of you know about the extraordinary battle which has broken out in the Murdoch family? I realise I could put this here in an open thread, or in the After Biden what? thread, or probably on any thread at all. Because, as a paragraph in the article says (with my bold):
This battle is in fact bigger than anything featured on Succession, according to Robert Thompson, a media scholar based at Syracuse University. “This is arguably the single most influential media outlet in all of the English-speaking world,” he said of News Corp and Fox. “How this turns out has a real, significant impact on real people living on planet Earth.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/28/rupert-murdoch-succession-children-fox-news-corp
And, talking of people who have an outsize effect on what happens to the world, I’m assuming that most or all of you know about the extraordinary battle which has broken out in the Murdoch family? I realise I could put this here in an open thread, or in the After Biden what? thread, or probably on any thread at all. Because, as a paragraph in the article says (with my bold):
This battle is in fact bigger than anything featured on Succession, according to Robert Thompson, a media scholar based at Syracuse University. “This is arguably the single most influential media outlet in all of the English-speaking world,” he said of News Corp and Fox. “How this turns out has a real, significant impact on real people living on planet Earth.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/28/rupert-murdoch-succession-children-fox-news-corp
the extraordinary battle which has broken out in the Murdoch family
Which, as I understand it, is about whether Rupert can revoke his “irrevocable trust”, in order to hand the empire over to the one child who would maintain its rabid right character.
Dueling, super high priced, lawyers. And a question, potentially, of whether our current Supreme can find some notional “Federal question” which would allow them to butt in.
the extraordinary battle which has broken out in the Murdoch family
Which, as I understand it, is about whether Rupert can revoke his “irrevocable trust”, in order to hand the empire over to the one child who would maintain its rabid right character.
Dueling, super high priced, lawyers. And a question, potentially, of whether our current Supreme can find some notional “Federal question” which would allow them to butt in.
Could someone calculate what would be the most extreme outcome possible, i.e. what majority a candidate for president could theoretically get while still losing? That would mean getting 100% in populous but underepresented states (like California) and losing by a single vote in overrepresenred states with low populatian with high (100% )participation in the former and minimal in the latter.
Using overall population as a proxy for registered or eligible voters (because life is short), it looks like a candidate could eke out an EC victory with as few as 21% of the votes. (Very back of the envelope, so take it with a grain of salt.)
Underlying the EC, the Senate is profoundly undemocratic. A California senator “represents” about 67 times as many people as a Wyoming senator, to take the most extreme example.
Could someone calculate what would be the most extreme outcome possible, i.e. what majority a candidate for president could theoretically get while still losing? That would mean getting 100% in populous but underepresented states (like California) and losing by a single vote in overrepresenred states with low populatian with high (100% )participation in the former and minimal in the latter.
Using overall population as a proxy for registered or eligible voters (because life is short), it looks like a candidate could eke out an EC victory with as few as 21% of the votes. (Very back of the envelope, so take it with a grain of salt.)
Underlying the EC, the Senate is profoundly undemocratic. A California senator “represents” about 67 times as many people as a Wyoming senator, to take the most extreme example.
RIP Edna O’Brien. Quite a woman, and quite a writer, and one who bucked the misogyny of Ireland when the Catholic church still had its iron hand on every aspect of it. Not to mention her marriage to another writer who resented her writing, tried to take the proceeds, and fought her in the most despicable way for the children when she succeeded in leaving him.
RIP Edna O’Brien. Quite a woman, and quite a writer, and one who bucked the misogyny of Ireland when the Catholic church still had its iron hand on every aspect of it. Not to mention her marriage to another writer who resented her writing, tried to take the proceeds, and fought her in the most despicable way for the children when she succeeded in leaving him.
Edna O’Brien’s obituary from the NYT (not especially full, but something for people who don’t know about her)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/28/books/review/edna-obrien-appreciation.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-k0.BZ4l.hLWvWtS2FwQO&smid=url-share
and from the Grauniad (not really a proper obituary yet, but a death notice at least):
https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/jul/28/irish-author-edna-obrien-dies
Edna O’Brien’s obituary from the NYT (not especially full, but something for people who don’t know about her)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/28/books/review/edna-obrien-appreciation.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-k0.BZ4l.hLWvWtS2FwQO&smid=url-share
and from the Grauniad (not really a proper obituary yet, but a death notice at least):
https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/jul/28/irish-author-edna-obrien-dies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FciQeRGYFlw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FciQeRGYFlw
That’s a link to a black musician that I ought to know but I really don’t know any musicians since the late seventies. Anyway, the song is called, “Put a Woman in Charge.”
That’s a link to a black musician that I ought to know but I really don’t know any musicians since the late seventies. Anyway, the song is called, “Put a Woman in Charge.”
That’s Keb Mo.
That’s Keb Mo.
Could someone calculate what would be the most extreme outcome possible, i.e. what majority a candidate for president could theoretically get while still losing? That would mean getting 100% in populous but underepresented states (like California) and losing by a single vote in overrepresenred states with low populatian with high (100% )participation in the former and minimal in the latter.
Purely theoretically, if only one person voted in each state where the EC winner prevailed, a candidate could lose while have 100% of the popular vote within a rounding error.
Could someone calculate what would be the most extreme outcome possible, i.e. what majority a candidate for president could theoretically get while still losing? That would mean getting 100% in populous but underepresented states (like California) and losing by a single vote in overrepresenred states with low populatian with high (100% )participation in the former and minimal in the latter.
Purely theoretically, if only one person voted in each state where the EC winner prevailed, a candidate could lose while have 100% of the popular vote within a rounding error.
…a candidate could lose while have 100% of the popular vote within a rounding error.
Despite having gotten 100% of the popular vote in the states they won. Math is fun.
…a candidate could lose while have 100% of the popular vote within a rounding error.
Despite having gotten 100% of the popular vote in the states they won. Math is fun.
I was thinking about absolute numbers.
So, with 100% voter participation in the states one candidate wins and 1 voter each in the states the other wins while winning also in the EC, how many millions more would the former candidate have while still losing?
And what would it be with 100% participation in all states and still the second candidate winning by a single vote in each state he takes and having not a single one elsewhere?
Thinking about it, the number should be the same since 1 vote or 50% + 1 vote does not matter with all other voters canceling each other out exactly. So the percentage wise win of the first candidate would be lower while having the same difference in absolute terms.
I assume that the electors are elected en bloc, otherwise one would need a very few more voters in the states the second candidate takes.
I was thinking about absolute numbers.
So, with 100% voter participation in the states one candidate wins and 1 voter each in the states the other wins while winning also in the EC, how many millions more would the former candidate have while still losing?
And what would it be with 100% participation in all states and still the second candidate winning by a single vote in each state he takes and having not a single one elsewhere?
Thinking about it, the number should be the same since 1 vote or 50% + 1 vote does not matter with all other voters canceling each other out exactly. So the percentage wise win of the first candidate would be lower while having the same difference in absolute terms.
I assume that the electors are elected en bloc, otherwise one would need a very few more voters in the states the second candidate takes.
Electors are “elected en bloc”, except in Nebraska and Maine (IIRC), where it’s one elector per congressional district, plus two more for the statewide vote winner.
A detail that is very unlikely to change any result, which is probably why it has persisted.
Electors are “elected en bloc”, except in Nebraska and Maine (IIRC), where it’s one elector per congressional district, plus two more for the statewide vote winner.
A detail that is very unlikely to change any result, which is probably why it has persisted.
Listening to a podcast with a pollster targeting swing voters and specifically black voters. It was pretty disheartening. Among black voters, they like Harris, but many were more convinced that an old white guy could win. There’s a serious if not critical apprehension about it, and a former Obama staffer said there was a very similar feeling in 2007. And a sympathetic old white guy winning was a better bet than a black woman losing. In a similarly shitty vein, Buttigieg had high name-recognition and high approval but was immediately followed by “we can’t have a gay President”. The thing I found interesting was – and this is third-hand but my sense of it – the people polled didn’t seem to have a problem with his personal life, but they thought the majority of other people would.
If I’m honest, I agree. I’m old enough to remember when when Pete made all the trains and airports gay. And we all know how this ends. Next thing you know, the cluster bombs we’re dropping on Yemenis by proxy will have Pride flags stenciled on them. And that’s where democracy dies.
Listening to a podcast with a pollster targeting swing voters and specifically black voters. It was pretty disheartening. Among black voters, they like Harris, but many were more convinced that an old white guy could win. There’s a serious if not critical apprehension about it, and a former Obama staffer said there was a very similar feeling in 2007. And a sympathetic old white guy winning was a better bet than a black woman losing. In a similarly shitty vein, Buttigieg had high name-recognition and high approval but was immediately followed by “we can’t have a gay President”. The thing I found interesting was – and this is third-hand but my sense of it – the people polled didn’t seem to have a problem with his personal life, but they thought the majority of other people would.
If I’m honest, I agree. I’m old enough to remember when when Pete made all the trains and airports gay. And we all know how this ends. Next thing you know, the cluster bombs we’re dropping on Yemenis by proxy will have Pride flags stenciled on them. And that’s where democracy dies.
Pete – those sorts of polls make no sense to me at all. All that matters is who those polled are going to vote for, and whether or not fear of disappointment is going to make them less likely to vote or to volunteer for canvassing/GOTV work. Pretty much everything else is an exercise in mind reading and projecting fears. It’s an understandable response, but it doesn’t measure behavior, just opinions of what one believes other people’s behavior will be.
“What do you think the office will order on the pizza” or “what pizza do you think most people will eat” vs. “what do you want on the pizza,” or “if the pizza had X on it, would you eat a piece.”
—
Meanwhile, if you want to get mad at some people, here are some people that deserve your opprobrium:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/24/24204706/marc-andreessen-ben-horowitz-a16z-trump-donations
The podcast itself is an extraordinary performance. At one point, Andreessen concedes that their major problems with President Joe Biden — the ones that led them to support Trump — are what most voters would consider “subsidiary” issues. “It doesn’t have anything to do with the big issues that people care about,” he says. If we take this podcast at face value, we are to believe that these subsidiary issues are the only reason they’ve chosen to endorse and donate to Trump.
These subsidiary issues take precedence for Andreessen and Horowitz over, say, mass deportations and Project 2025’s attempt to end no-fault divorce. We are looking at a simple trade against personal liberty — abortion, the rights of gay and trans people, and possibly democracy itself — in favor of crypto, AI, and a tax policy they like better.
For Horowitz, “probably the most emotional topic” is crypto — a16z started a $4.5 billion crypto fund in 2022, and the pair believe that the Biden administration has been deeply unfair to crypto. In Horowitz’s view, the Biden administration “basically subverted the rule of law to attack the crypto industry.”
Words fail.
Pete – those sorts of polls make no sense to me at all. All that matters is who those polled are going to vote for, and whether or not fear of disappointment is going to make them less likely to vote or to volunteer for canvassing/GOTV work. Pretty much everything else is an exercise in mind reading and projecting fears. It’s an understandable response, but it doesn’t measure behavior, just opinions of what one believes other people’s behavior will be.
“What do you think the office will order on the pizza” or “what pizza do you think most people will eat” vs. “what do you want on the pizza,” or “if the pizza had X on it, would you eat a piece.”
—
Meanwhile, if you want to get mad at some people, here are some people that deserve your opprobrium:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/24/24204706/marc-andreessen-ben-horowitz-a16z-trump-donations
The podcast itself is an extraordinary performance. At one point, Andreessen concedes that their major problems with President Joe Biden — the ones that led them to support Trump — are what most voters would consider “subsidiary” issues. “It doesn’t have anything to do with the big issues that people care about,” he says. If we take this podcast at face value, we are to believe that these subsidiary issues are the only reason they’ve chosen to endorse and donate to Trump.
These subsidiary issues take precedence for Andreessen and Horowitz over, say, mass deportations and Project 2025’s attempt to end no-fault divorce. We are looking at a simple trade against personal liberty — abortion, the rights of gay and trans people, and possibly democracy itself — in favor of crypto, AI, and a tax policy they like better.
For Horowitz, “probably the most emotional topic” is crypto — a16z started a $4.5 billion crypto fund in 2022, and the pair believe that the Biden administration has been deeply unfair to crypto. In Horowitz’s view, the Biden administration “basically subverted the rule of law to attack the crypto industry.”
Words fail.
I ain’t gonna out-snark Snarki, but we’ll toss up a floater wance’na wail. Ope! 🙂
——-
@nous
Yeah, it’s polling. I guess what struck me – the disheartening point – is the calculus that one has to account for. I can’t vote for someone like me because there aren’t enough people like me. That sucks. It’s reality, but it sucks. I dunno. Im in a mood.
Once upon a time, back in the dial-up days, Andreesen was something of a hero – the upstart Netscape against the Microsoft juggernaut (and AOL. Does anyone even remember Netcape?). Now, while maybe not as publicly visible as other Silicon Valley VCs, I see him as just another libertarian douchebag – smarter than the average bear, the rules don’t apply, and they can just fuck off to wherever is convenient with no concern to what’s in their wake.
Crypto is emotional? Geezus.
I ain’t gonna out-snark Snarki, but we’ll toss up a floater wance’na wail. Ope! 🙂
——-
@nous
Yeah, it’s polling. I guess what struck me – the disheartening point – is the calculus that one has to account for. I can’t vote for someone like me because there aren’t enough people like me. That sucks. It’s reality, but it sucks. I dunno. Im in a mood.
Once upon a time, back in the dial-up days, Andreesen was something of a hero – the upstart Netscape against the Microsoft juggernaut (and AOL. Does anyone even remember Netcape?). Now, while maybe not as publicly visible as other Silicon Valley VCs, I see him as just another libertarian douchebag – smarter than the average bear, the rules don’t apply, and they can just fuck off to wherever is convenient with no concern to what’s in their wake.
Crypto is emotional? Geezus.
Among black voters, they like Harris, but many were more convinced that an old white guy could win.
Seems like it might be worth taking the opportunity to remind them that, in the event, Obama did win, rather than the old white guy. So just possibly Harris isn’t a lost cause either.
If it gets them to the polls, instead of deciding there’s no point . . .
Among black voters, they like Harris, but many were more convinced that an old white guy could win.
Seems like it might be worth taking the opportunity to remind them that, in the event, Obama did win, rather than the old white guy. So just possibly Harris isn’t a lost cause either.
If it gets them to the polls, instead of deciding there’s no point . . .
I was thinking about absolute numbers.
Using the data here, one could win all the registered voters in the ten largest states with 10-EV Missouri thrown in to reach the losing total of 268 EVs. The popular vote would then be approximately 86,400,000 to 40.
Anything to avoid doing any actual work this afternoon, I suppose.
I was thinking about absolute numbers.
Using the data here, one could win all the registered voters in the ten largest states with 10-EV Missouri thrown in to reach the losing total of 268 EVs. The popular vote would then be approximately 86,400,000 to 40.
Anything to avoid doing any actual work this afternoon, I suppose.
@wj
Yes. I think that’s known. But I also think there’s an uneasy anxiety of “was Obama just a one-off?” I hope that drives the vote. But I can also see it resulting in a resigned despair and an attendant malaise. I don’t like thinking that. But I can’t not consider it.
The fears are real. Is Harris an injection with legs or a sugar high? No one knows what the true numbers are ’til November, but Trump already got elected once. Those people are out there. And they are legion. And I can understand people looking at the electoral map and losing hope. I think Kamala has the right people in her orbit to run a successful campaign. But I’m white-knuckling all the way.
@wj
Yes. I think that’s known. But I also think there’s an uneasy anxiety of “was Obama just a one-off?” I hope that drives the vote. But I can also see it resulting in a resigned despair and an attendant malaise. I don’t like thinking that. But I can’t not consider it.
The fears are real. Is Harris an injection with legs or a sugar high? No one knows what the true numbers are ’til November, but Trump already got elected once. Those people are out there. And they are legion. And I can understand people looking at the electoral map and losing hope. I think Kamala has the right people in her orbit to run a successful campaign. But I’m white-knuckling all the way.
Trump already got elected once. Those people are out there.
True. But we have to hope that Trump being a convicted felon, January 6th and all the rest, have some effect on people who were on the margins.
Trump already got elected once. Those people are out there.
True. But we have to hope that Trump being a convicted felon, January 6th and all the rest, have some effect on people who were on the margins.
Have just read that after Jenifer Aniston said this, about Vance’s remarks:
“All I can say is … Mr. Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day,” she said on her IG Stories, which featured a tweet showing the politician’s words.
“I hope she will not need to turn to IVF as a second option. Because you are trying to take that away from her, too.”
he replied:
“That’s disgusting because my daughter is 2 years old”
Disgusting? Who would have thought he could say anything more idiotic than his original remarks, yet here we are. It (along with so much else of his) truly beggars belief.
Have just read that after Jenifer Aniston said this, about Vance’s remarks:
“All I can say is … Mr. Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day,” she said on her IG Stories, which featured a tweet showing the politician’s words.
“I hope she will not need to turn to IVF as a second option. Because you are trying to take that away from her, too.”
he replied:
“That’s disgusting because my daughter is 2 years old”
Disgusting? Who would have thought he could say anything more idiotic than his original remarks, yet here we are. It (along with so much else of his) truly beggars belief.
Italiexo!
Plus, I see I am dominating two threads! I’m so sorry, I’ll bow out now…
Italiexo!
Plus, I see I am dominating two threads! I’m so sorry, I’ll bow out now…
Trump already got elected once. Those people are out there.
True. But fewer of them. Not least due to them embracing his stupidities regarding covid
Trump already got elected once. Those people are out there.
True. But fewer of them. Not least due to them embracing his stupidities regarding covid
Heather Cox Richardson’s substack piece dated yesterday is terrifying. She gives three historical US historical examples where she claims fascism/authoritarianism was defeated: the Declaration of Independence, Abe Lincoln’s election, and FDR’s election. Nowhere does she mention that (1) the Declaration didn’t eject George III and the British monarchy, it took a bloody war; (2) electing Lincoln didn’t break the Southern economic aristocrats, it took a bloodier war; and (3) electing FDR happened because the elite crashed the global economy, and it took a global war to suppress Imperial Japan and the German fascists.
I finished the piece with the impression she was saying if we just elect Harris, it will all be okay. No war necessary this time. Based just on her piece, that doesn’t seem like the way to bet.
Heather Cox Richardson’s substack piece dated yesterday is terrifying. She gives three historical US historical examples where she claims fascism/authoritarianism was defeated: the Declaration of Independence, Abe Lincoln’s election, and FDR’s election. Nowhere does she mention that (1) the Declaration didn’t eject George III and the British monarchy, it took a bloody war; (2) electing Lincoln didn’t break the Southern economic aristocrats, it took a bloodier war; and (3) electing FDR happened because the elite crashed the global economy, and it took a global war to suppress Imperial Japan and the German fascists.
I finished the piece with the impression she was saying if we just elect Harris, it will all be okay. No war necessary this time. Based just on her piece, that doesn’t seem like the way to bet.
There’s still the Scouring of the Shire to go.
There’s still the Scouring of the Shire to go.
The question would seem to be, are those the only cases where fascism/authoritarianism was defeated? Or just the seriously traumatic ones?
The question would seem to be, are those the only cases where fascism/authoritarianism was defeated? Or just the seriously traumatic ones?
There was the attempted Business Plot during FDR’s first term. Ended bloodlessly because Smedley Butler wouldn’t play.
There was the attempted Business Plot during FDR’s first term. Ended bloodlessly because Smedley Butler wouldn’t play.
I’ve been enjoying(?) the “Ultra” podcast.
Old history, yet oh so relevant in these parlous times.
I’ve been enjoying(?) the “Ultra” podcast.
Old history, yet oh so relevant in these parlous times.