by liberal japonicus
another open-y thread.
It's a pretty common trope, I think it happens multiple times in the Simpsons, and here, in Nobody, is another example
I'm just imagining a sign in front of the White House with the title of the blogpost on it.
I'm thinking that Kash Patel resets the sign, as does anti-vaxxer David Weldon. So erase the number and reset.
There's also the news of Biden pardoning his son. I'm assuming that it was on Biden's list that rhymes with bucket, or possibly seeing Hunter appointed as an ambassador. Anyway, an open thread for whatever news interests you.
We may need to recalibrate the travesty-o-meter to measure in minutes, not days.
*Republicans complaining about Hunter’s pardon*
Me: “yawn”
Part of me thinks they’ve lowered the bar such that I’m not bothered by something I should be bothered by. The rest of me thinks, “F**k them. I’m glad they’re upset.”
Republicans aren’t complaining about Clickbait pardoning a relative…..
…and then naming him ambassador to France?
(point stolen from someone at BJ)
…………..words do fail sometimes.
We may need to recalibrate the travesty-o-meter to measure in minutes, not days
I confess that my immediate reaction, on reading the post headline, was: Just replace ## with 1. Certainly after 20 January it will be good for the duration.
might as well put the counter at hours instead of days…but its a game he is playing, a series of hooks he is dangling, we dont have to bite them..
..
WIll they go through with administering the oath of office to tRump this time? Who will be fooled?
WIll they go through with administering the oath of office to tRump this time?
Who is this “they” of whom you speak? /s
From Wikipedia: While the Constitution does not mandate that anyone in particular should administer the presidential oath of office, it has been administered by the chief justice beginning with John Adams, except following the death of a sitting president.
John Roberts will find it hard to restrain himself from jumping up and down with glee as he does it.
Okay, so his notion of what an oath means is different from ours …
Of course one’s first (or maybe second) reaction to the news of Hunter’s pardon was to think with scorn and contempt about the whole Kushner issue.
But on top of all the other things I’m sorry about for Biden, I am sorry that his (very understandable) action does look like just another way that everything is going to hell. Pace Donald, I do think that Biden’s administration would look to future historians like one which achieved very worthwhile things, at least domestically, but unfortunately this does tarnish it somewhat.
In case anyone hasn’t read it, here is Biden’s announcement of the pardon.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/01/statement-from-president-joe-biden-11/
Worth a read
I suspect Sleepy Joe is fresh out of fncks to give.
“Enough is enough” seems to sum it up.
I know some liberal folks who are upset about it – it’s a bad look, it sets a bad precedent – but in the current political and social climate, those concerns seem… a bit quaint.
If Biden wanted to flip the whole bird, he could persuade Sotomayor to retire and nominate Hunter for Associate SCOTUS justice.
Imagine the hijinks that would ensue!!
Eh…I’m not going to get worked up over Hunter Biden’s pardon and what that might mean for President Biden’s legacy.
If we are talking about the things that might be singled out for criticism by future historians, I think his handling of the Israel/Palestine situation is going to get far more attention, and from a domestic perspective, I think that his administration’s failure to act more quickly and meaningfully to January 6, and the Classified Documents scandal are going to eclipse the pardon. Both of those things should have disqualified Trump from ever running again, and all of the crap that flows out from the Trump administration Mk. II can be lain at the feet of that failure. He was a caretaker when we needed a fighter.
His son’s pardon is small beer compared to that.
I suspect Sleepy Joe is fresh out of fncks to give.
And who could blame him for feeling that way? And as for “it sets a bad precedent”, that does now seem like a quaint anachronism. And yet, and yet…something feels wrong about it. I wish he hadn’t done it. Easy for me to say, of course.
I’d rather see Sleepy Joe investigated for violating the Leahy Law.
I don’t care about Hunter one way or the other. I would like to see Biden humiliated, put on trial and convicted but I think he was saved from this already highly unlikely event by the Supreme Court. Too bad. He and Trump could have shared a cell.
Trump is threatening to do something terrible of the hostages aren’t released by the time of his inauguration. He is 14 months late. He will perhaps, boost the ethnic cleaning campaign that Biden pretends isn’t happening.
Arguments about the rule of law in America are an absurd joke. Nothing could possibly be less important than yet another DC scandal.
“ would like to see Biden humiliated, put on trial and convicted ”
Meaning the President, of course.
He was a caretaker when we needed a fighter.
I hear you, but my own feelings about this are somewhat complicated.
In the 20202 (D) primary, the “fighter” would probably have been Bernie. Or maybe Warren.
They didn’t win the primary.
Biden ran basically on the basis of being the guy who could beat Trump. He won on that basis, and I think his assessment was accurate. Both Bernie and Warren are probably closer to my own point of view than Biden was or is, but I don’t think either of them would have beaten Trump.
We work with what is feasible.
It’s become kind of popular to hate on Biden. Too old school, too institutional. More recently, too late in stepping down, too accommodating to the genocidal impulses of Bibi et al. And now, abusing the power of the pardon for “selfish ends”.
Those are all important, legitimate criticisms.
But all of that said, I consider Biden to be the best POTUS in a generation. Perhaps in my lifetime, but absolutely since LBJ.
And that’s for two reasons:
1. He is a pro. He knows how things work, and he used that knowledge to get shit done.
2. The stuff he got done was useful, needful stuff that benefits the average person, whether that has sunk into their thick skulls or not.
Biden represents a step away – maybe a small step, but a step – from the neoliberal “third way” crap that started with Clinton and continued with Obama.
So I pretty much liked Biden as POTUS, in spite of his many flaws.
On the issues per se, I would probably have liked Bernie or Warren better. But I am damned sure Warren would never have beaten Trump in a million years – we would have seen a Nixon vs McGovern outcome. And I’m pretty sure Bernie would not have beaten Trump – he’s just too “commie” for most of America. He’s a socialist, for god’s sake.
Do I wish Biden would kick Bibi’s ass? Hell yes, I do. I could probably come up with a list of things I wish he would have done.
But there isn’t anyone, at all, that I can imagine achieving the position of POTUS that would check 100% of my boxes.
Net/net, I’m gonna miss Biden. I think he deserves more credit than he gets, and I’m gonna miss him.
something feels wrong about it
Yes, pardoning your own kid because you can is pretty sketchy. And I’m not really interested in the “but both sides” argument, Trump is not a useful basis for comparison when it comes to good governance.
But the Hunter prosecution is and was bullshit, and it’s worth calling that out.
The “good governance norms” horses have left the barn. The gloves are off, I don’t think there’s a lot of value right now in observing niceties. There are no niceties left to observe, any concessions to normal practice and politesse are only going to be seen as, and used as, weakness.
If Biden wants to flip the bird to the freaking partisan maniac assholes who have been using Hunter’s recklessness and stupidity to try to break Biden, I cannot bring myself to fault him.
“Don’t abuse your office” goes two ways. Fnck them and the horses they rode in on.
crap.
20202 -> 2020.
The millenia speed by, but I don’t think we’ve achieved the 201st C. quite yet.
Trump is threatening to do something terrible of the hostages aren’t released by the time of his inauguration.
Yes. Something beyond anything yet seen in the “storied history of the US”.
Which, of course, includes Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
So I’m hoping this is hyperbole.
Given that it’s Trump, it’s highly likely to be bullshit, which I hope translates as hyperbole in practice.
We are in for four years of governance by the Roy Cohn school of threats, revenge, and general fnckery.
Here we go.
And I’m not really interested in the “but both sides” argument, Trump is not a useful basis for comparison when it comes to good governance.
Just to clarify, my snark early in this thread about Clickbait pardoning a relative and then naming him as ambassador to France was aimed at the ridiculous, vicious, deadly (to a lot of people soon, probably) hypocrisy of the MAGA loons for shitting on Biden while their guy has done … what he’s done.
But I also think it’s fine that BIden did what he did. THe witchhunt that has been carried on toward his son for how many years now? — would justify it, if nothing else did.
Will say no more.
On a barely related point, I’ve been wondering about something for a while.
So Donald, has there been any US President, say in the past century, that you don’t consider has been guilty of committing war crimes**? Any at all?
If not (and that’s definitely the impression I’ve gotten), does it occur to you that, just maybe, the problem isn’t utter moral failing by all, each and every one, of them? But rather an institutional issue.
Just wondering.
** Carefully not including crimes against humanity, just to maintain focus.
So I saw a headline that said the pussygrabber was threatening to bomb to get the hostages back. I didn’t read the article because it was from a rightwing source, but I did wonder bomb where?
Is there anything left in Gaza to bomb? Or does the pussygrabber just plan to bomb some other country, Muslim, of course, but not the Saudis since they gave that huge bribe to Kushner. Just some other Muslim country?
Or is he planning to bomb the West Bank?
Most likely he’s just running his mouth, but those Project 2025 weirdos are capable of anything.
Or is he planning to bomb the West Bank?
Most likely, he hasn’t even thought about where to bomb. Bombing is a generic threat; he sees it as a negotiating tactic. It’s just to get whomever to cave and do what he wants, so he can claim a great success. The idea that someone else (i.e. Hamas) would care as little about possible bombing victims as he does simply doesn’t occur to him.
russell – I agree with you that Biden has achieved – at least temporarily – a lot of important policy wins. I also think that he did a lot of necessary work to mend bridges with American labor leaders.
And I understand that Biden’s approach is the one that he ran on, and the reason why people chose him over the other Democratic candidates. He has been faithful to those campaign promises.
Historians will see those things and give him credit for that, but they will also do some sober assessment of what the moment required, and judge whether a change of action was warranted by circumstances. And we have some damn big circumstances that happened in the wake of that election.
Biden and the Democratic leadership failed to push back hard enough when the Republican resolve collapsed like a soufflé in less than a month following January 6. There had to be accountability for that attempted sedition. Both Biden and the Democratic leadership tried to go high, and soft, and slow, and that utterly failed. And when it failed, they had no stomach to push a direct confrontation and break protocol to protect the constitutional order.
It would be nice if all of those things that Biden achieved as his legacy actually got to last out the coming regime. That remains to be seen. If it does, it will be a testament to the Trump cabal’s incompetence, not to their intent.
This election was – so the Right said and believed – their last chance to seize control and institute their vision of America before their demographic decline left them in the passenger seat of history. They are not going to fail to act.
We needed more from the Democrats in this moment, and they went too softly.
This election was – so the Right said and believed – their last chance to seize control and institute their vision of America before their demographic decline left them in the passenger seat of history. They are not going to fail to act.
Say rather that they are not going to fail to try to act. Expect them to be less incompetent than Trump’s previous term. But that’s a very low bar.
Their difficulty is that they don’t understand how the government works. What they perceive as the “Deep State” fighting against them is actually just a lot of people trying to follow the rules and procedures they have been given. Those can be changed, of course. But changing them requires institutional knowledge not generally available in Central Casting.
Initially, I expect that their ignorance will lead them to just start firing people from the top. The hope being to magically excise the resistance. But that just loses them access to those who know how to get things done in the government. You can fire all the generals (except the occasional nut case), but who do you replace them with? You can fire every United States Attorney (with the same exceptions), but will whatever replacements you come up with have a clue about how to do the job?
Here’s an interesting take:
https://www.vox.com/politics/389206/hunter-biden-pardon-joe-biden-democrats-response
I hope that you are correct, wj, and that the bureaucracy will continue to function and grind down the attempts at interference.
I worry, however, that a system built on custom and protocol is not going to defend itself effectively when faced with an opponent that has no respect for either. DeJoy did all manner of damage to the USPS just by ignoring what people told him he could and could not do, and monkey wrenching everything in sight.
Their intent is not to govern, so much as it is to cripple government and force people to work with their Klept in order to get anything done.
After reading novakant’s link (thanks!), maybe this is too imaginative, but I am imagining a story like The Man who shot Liberty Valence, with Biden being something like John Wayne’s character. It offends me a bit (I share Russell’s opinion of Biden), but I imagine that is the way things will work.
Biden and the Democratic leadership failed to push back hard enough when the Republican resolve collapsed like a soufflé in less than a month following January 6. There had to be accountability for that attempted sedition
Absolutely agree.
But the Hunter prosecution is and was bullshit, and it’s worth calling that out.
His prosecution on the gun law certainly was. About 20 million people break this law, and very few are prosecuted for it. The other cases, like tax evasion, not so much.
From novakant’s Vox link:
Again, the “man” who decries the weaponization of the Justice Department against him (as he sees it) regularly threatens to weaponize it against his perceived political enemies once in office. (And maybe we’ll see how consistent the “conservative” SCOTUS majority is about its presidential-immunity ruling when it applies to Biden.)
The other cases, like tax evasion, not so much.
For tax evasion, you get interest and penalties. Which can add up to a lot of cash. But it would have to be seriously extreme to get jail time. His wasn’t close.
The president of South Korea has declared martial law. The military said that parliament would be suspended, and that striking doctors have 48 hours to return to work.
The other cases, like tax evasion, not so much.
Repaid in full, with penalties and interest. My understanding is that the feds generally decline to bring criminal charges in cases like that.
Folks are gonna make a very large deal out of this. Until the next outrage, which should be arriving in a minute or two.
The French government is facing collapse.
The president of South Korea has declared martial law. The military said that parliament would be suspended, and that striking doctors have 48 hours to return to work.
The parliament voted it down. The president has said he is withdrawing his declaration.
FWIW, and I very much hope she would not mind my quoting (I hope someone will let me know if this is not an OK thing to do), but this is what hilzoy said about the Biden/Hunter pardon situation on her feed:
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
4h
I have nothing to say about the Hunter Biden pardon except this: while I do not like Biden going back on his word, I can imagine making that promise if I thought the AG would be someone extreme but still within *some* bounds of normalcy, but changing my mind when Trump nominated Gaetz and Patel.
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
4h
Any even remotely qualified AG might be expected not to go searching through Hunter Biden’s entire life looking for crimes to prosecute. But Trump’s appointments show that the entire government will be weaponized beyond belief, to a degree that even cynical people might not have expected.
hilzoy @hilzoy.bsky.social
·
4h
I can see thinking that my son should face the consequences of his actions when I thought those consequences would bear some relationship to what he deserved, but drawing the line at letting Trump declare open season on his entire life.
This does not make me like it, but it does help me understand.
As it always is, her take is compassionate and rational.
“I made that promise in what I now know was the naïve belief that my political opponents would not abuse their power and influence and would be decent enough human beings not to kick my son when he was down. I didn’t understand the depths to which they would sink in their bloodlust to damage my son’s and, by extension, my family’s reputations for their own political gains.”
Signed,
my imaginary Joe Biden
In general, I think it’s time for folks who aren’t on board with the whole Trump phenomenon (including but not limited to Democrats) to stop acting like things are remotely normal.
The appropriate response to bullies and @ssholes is not “help me understand your point of view a little better”. The appropriate response is not “there are two sides here, let’s make room for both”.
The appropriate response is “fnck off”.
Does anyone think what’s coming down the pike is anything other than bullying and general assholery? Bullying – threats and revenge – are the only thing Trump knows how to do. He doesn’t have any other M.O. He’s the true son of his old man and Roy Cohn.
“Help me understand your point of view a little better” can come after the bullying and general assholery stops. In the meantime, the correct response is “fnck off”. It’s the only thing people like Trump and his buddies understand.
So, while I recognize the unusual nature of the pardon, I have no problem with it.
I will always harbor immense respect for Hilzoy, but I have to say this:
The trouble with compassionate and rational people is their utter lack of chutzpah. In a nation full of MAGAts and morons, compassion and rationality amount to a parasol in a hurricane.
The proper attitude toward Biden’s pardon of Hunter should be F.U.MAGAts. Cry more, Comer. Up yours, Kash.
I know, I know: only MAGAts are entitled to be assholes in the eyes of “independent” voters, while rational people are expected to be full of contrition and meekness in the face of fascism. Nuts to that, says I.
–TP
A deeper dive.
Selections:
…None of these things address the REAL reason for the pardon – Trump’s appointment of Patel, who has ranted and raved for the past four years on every right-wing podcast in America that he was going to get Hunter Biden for things he has never been prosecuted for. Joe takes that threat seriously. Apparently, the critics either do not, or are ignorant and unaware of exactly who Patel is and what he has pledged to do specific to Hunter.
…
Joe Biden doesn’t want to spend his remaining few years after five decades in public service being hauled into courtrooms by Kash Patel and Pam Bondi. That is why he did this. So many of the critics still don’t fully understand what is about to happen with these unstable, vengeful lunatics being appointed to the most senior positions of the US government. I do because I have listened to them for the past four years, and I believe them when they promise revenge and retribution.
Tony P’s comment reminds me of all the stories that have emerged from the Holocaust like this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe
Maximilian Maria Kolbe was a Polish Catholic priest and Conventual Franciscan friar who volunteered to die in place of a man named Franciszek Gajowniczek in the German death camp of Auschwitz
I don’t have any doubt that incidents like these happened, but our desire to raise them demonstrates our inability to deal with forces that are systemic. I won’t say evil so as to avoid Charles start asking ChatGPT for definitions (and trigger Skynet), but you see a similar pattern with climate change where you get stories lauding SDGs and telling how some 5th grade class is collecting all the plastic pet bottle caps. This is not to dismiss nous’ comment about having goals, but it is little wonder that protests like Extinction Rebellion get shat on so much.
Not meant to be busting anyone here, it just seems that Tony’s observation explains a lot.
I know, I know: only MAGAts are entitled to be assholes in the eyes of “independent” voters, while rational people are expected to be full of contrition and meekness in the face of fascism.
Personally, I don’t think that rational people are expected to be full of contrition and meekness at all. Sometimes the rational response is to fight fiercely if that will further your aims, which aims in the case of rational and compassionate (and ethical) people would be to bring about a situation or world in which rational, compassionate and ethical values prevail.
Finding a way to do that is the important thing. And understanding the true situation is a prerequisite to finding that way. That’s where Janie’s Meidas link is valuable, for those of us who were not fully aware of the specific, true situation regarding Patel’s Hunter Biden obsession.
I have to say, not feeling completely comfortable about Biden’s going back on his word and pardoning Hunter (even if one is sympathetic) is the merest irrelevancy when considering the big picture. Trying to counter the bullying and assholery, and refusing to normalise it, is the important project. Unsurprisingly, I don’t know how to do it, although certainly calling it out (which I assume is what russell means by his “fnck off”) is a first step. But surely none of you mean that discussing the moral (at a minimum) ambiguity of Biden’s action is somehow detrimental to that project?
(PS I may be being particularly dim, but I didn’t understand lj’s point about e.g. Kolbe. lj, did you mean that although ethical, saintly and compassionate behaviour might be admirable, it doesn’t prevent terrible, evil things happening? And that therefore ethical, saintly and compassionate behaviour is not useful? But surely that’s where rationality comes in – the rational person may see what will actually make a difference, and that may not always, or even often, be saintly and compassionate?)
“ So Donald, has there been any US President, say in the past century, that you don’t consider has been guilty of committing war crimes**? Any at all?
If not (and that’s definitely the impression I’ve gotten), does it occur to you that, just maybe, the problem isn’t utter moral failing by all, each and every one, of them? But rather an institutional issue.”
Your argument is a little weird. It is an institutional problem in the sense that people in DC seem incapable of seeing their own actions as war crimes even if they are as bad or worse than those committed by our enemies. It is a moral failing and an institutional failing. A massive evil generally is both.
But in the case of Gaza it goes a little beyond what has happened in the past, precisely because in some respects the world has changed. Decades ago successive presidents could support some distant atrocity— East Timor, for example— and virtually nobody outside a few obsessives even knew about it. This is much harder to do now. I see things on Twitter that I read about in the NYT months later. I sometimes wondered if Presidents necessarily even knew the detailed outcomes of their policies. That isn’t the case with Gaza.
Biden has received plenty of criticism. The Biden Administration was alone on the Security Council in voting against a ceasefire. Sanders and 17 or so Democratic Senators tried to stop the selling of offensive weapons just a week or two ago and Biden and Schumer lobbied against it. The rest of the Democrats and all the Republicans sided with Biden. Every major human rights group is intensely critical of Israel. The Biden Administration has spent 14 months “assessing” whether Israel is guilty of any war crimes. I watch segments of the State Dept spokespeople every week saying exactly the same things.
They know exactly what they are doing. And they express outrage that two Israelis were charged alongside one possibly surviving Hamas official for war crimes— I think in a way that outrage is sincere, in the sense that they live in a world where you are not supposed to lump Western officials in with Africa can dictators or Putin or other suitable targets for an ICC warrant. I think a world where Western officials are seen as possible defendants terrifies them. They will do anything to avoid it. And they have the power to brush it off.
Is this supposed to get Biden off the hook? Why? He is a liar and a lawbreaker. I also think he is one of the worst foreign policy Presidents we have ever had for multiple reasons but one thing he has shown is that Trump was not an aberration. The US cares nothing for international law except when it serves the narrowly defined interests of the foreign policy blob.
And it is institutional in another way. The Democratic Party is led, with some exceptions, by people who have Biden’s criminal attitudes towards human rights. Republicans of course are worse, but neither side ( again with some exceptions) sees a problem here. Well, that is a problem for me in the voting booth. Why do people like this rise to the top?
I voted lesser evil again but I see no reason why a future Biden won’t continue to act the same way, because these unimaginative mediocrities see no reason why they should change. The institutions seem to favor them.
And their spokespeople— Miller and Patel— have only gotten more arrogant, smug, and condescending when challenged. Yeah, that is an institutional problem too. If an ambitious young man with no conscience wants to get ahead, you play the game. It seems to work for them.
So yeah, it is an institutional problem that we have here. The institutions favor people who are immoral.
did you mean that although ethical, saintly and compassionate behaviour might be admirable, it doesn’t prevent terrible, evil things happening?
No, it was more that we emphasize these moments of restraint and reason, which then creates the conditions for us to pat ourselves on the back (I’m talking about all us humans) that we aren’t as bad as it might appear. I don’t know if my facebook is representative, but I’m always getting these heartwarming tales of people _not_ behaving in a shitty way. This isn’t to bust them, but I assume what drives them is to convince themselves that things aren’t totally f**ked and I wonder, if they realized how bad things are, things might be different. But that seems to be what we are stuck with and screaming at them for doing that is not going to solve anything. That desire for ‘we aren’t that bad, I’m sure if I explain it, things will be better’ is sort of parallel to that. I’m not suggesting that we give up on trying to be compassionate, just that the relating of stories and anecdotes may be something more for the teller than the audience.
Ah, OK, got it. Thanks lj.
And I’ve just seen that Jon Stewart said this, on his show:
Hypocrisy isn’t illegal, nor is it particularly unusual in politics. It’s not like he’s ever going to run again, so why not take care of your kid, even if you said you weren’t going to? I respect it. I don’t have a problem with it. The problem is, the rest of the Democrats made Biden’s pledge to not pardon Hunter the foundation of their defence of America.
To what extent do people here think that that last sentence (my bold) is true? It has some ring of truth to me, which could explain a lot of the general unease around the decision. That’s not really on Biden, though – they needed an example of principled behaviour by a president, and they ran with it, which was very understandable under the circs.
In any case, however, what’s done is done. Publicising of e.g. the info in that Meidas piece Janie linked wouldn’t hurt, but apart from that I guess I do agree that it’s time to move on, and get with the Non-Normalisation Project.
I personally think that is overstated. I wish the democrats who are clutching their pearls about the pardon would make the same point as Janie’s article does, Biden made that promise when he assumed there would be a non-insane Justice department. The fact that Trump is, I’m guessing, going to have to fire Christopher Wray to get Patel in (and that makes the not very difficult assumption that the Republicans will let him have his way and the possibly optimistic assumption that Wray will force Trump to fire him so as to draw attention) is an escalation.
I dare say not many of the people opining have had to visit relatives in prison, but sticking a former crack cocaine addict in a situation like that seems akin to a death sentence.
I should add, the comment about people opining is not anyone here, it is about people like Jared Polis
https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2024/12/02/hunter-biden-pardon-jared-polis-democrat-governor-colorado
To F.U.MAGAts I add a hearty STFU to prissy, spineless Democrats. Keep up this holier-than-tnou performance art and you can kiss my ass before I ever give you another dime, or speak up when the MAGAts come for YOU.
Really, seriously: who do these idiots expect to sway with their piety-mouthing? The MAGAts? Or the morons?
I’m getting fed up with political malpractice. Does it show?
–TP
which I assume is what russell means by his “fnck off”
I mean something stronger than that. I mean something more like what Tony P says.
I mean don’t pretend everyone is operating from the same protocol when they are clearly not. Don’t pretend everyone respects the same norms when they obviously do not.
Don’t take shit from assholes. That’s what I mean.
And I see Biden’s pardon of his son as an example of that. And to be perfectly frank, it’s a pretty mild example.
This is not to dismiss nous’ comment about having goals, but it is little wonder that protests like Extinction Rebellion get shat on so much.
No worries. My comments about having goals, and my comments about things that can be done are because activist burnout is real, and so is depression, and the only way to avoid those things is to leaven your efforts and your outrage with concrete goals that are achievable in shorter timeframes without having to rely upon others.
The bigger things – coalition building and policy advocacy – are also important, and essential, but they are longer of timeframe and largely outside of personal or local agency. Relying upon those things for one’s sense of accomplishment is a recipe for disillusionment and burnout.
To what extent do people here think that that last sentence (my bold) is true? It has some ring of truth to me, which could explain a lot of the general unease around the decision.
Democrats love their moral high ground and their virtue signaling, and they act as if every fight can be won by setting a good example and shaming the opposition.
In my more cynical moments, I think that the Democratic pols do this because the base laps it up, so it’s a good way to raise one’s national profile with a quick bit of viral moral outrage.
I think Stewart has a point, but it’s more truthy than true.
No, it was more that we emphasize these moments of restraint and reason, which then creates the conditions for us to pat ourselves on the back (I’m talking about all us humans) that we aren’t as bad as it might appear. I don’t know if my facebook is representative, but I’m always getting these heartwarming tales of people _not_ behaving in a shitty way. This isn’t to bust them, but I assume what drives them is to convince themselves that things aren’t totally f**ked and I wonder, if they realized how bad things are, things might be different.
I think it is partly this, but I also think there is also a dose of fear that if people lose sight of the heterodox nature of groups, that we will begin to judge those groups by the actions of their worst members and give into the urge to punish groups collectively. It’s a valid concern, but it also runs the risk of turning into the precise sort of Charlie Brown and the Football optimism that leads Dems to seek to postpone confrontation in order to make yet another appeal to common decency, and that appeal has not yet worked at all in this century.
As discussed in the article I linked, I think this is not the time to circle the wagons, but rather for the Democrats to distance themselves from Biden – he is unpopular, made a lot of big mistakes and now puts his family above principle.
Policy and principle aside, what do the Democrats have to gain by sticking up for him now? Better to reinvent yourself and organize the opposition without opening up yourself to charges of hypocrisy or giving Trump precendent to rely on.
And maybe in five years time someone can write a critical evaluation of his presidency that nobody will read.
but rather [the time] for the Democrats to distance themselves from Biden – he is unpopular, made a lot of big mistakes and now puts his family above principle.
I don’t disagree, but it will depend on how they distance themselves. Too much of what I see is what nous notes, the Dem love of moral high ground and virtue signaling. I’m not sure how it can be done, but I’d like something like ‘yeah, Biden was wrong, he should have cut the legs out from under the investigation and lit a fire under Garland. And we distance ourselves from that kind of weak shit…’
novakant: … what do the Democrats have to gain by sticking up for him now?
A few vertebrae — the beginnings of a spine.
lj: … I’d like something like ‘yeah, Biden was wrong, he should have cut the legs out from under the investigation and lit a fire under Garland. And we distance ourselves from that kind of weak shit…’
That’s more like it.
Anyone who thinks Democrats will make headway (with who? the MAGAts? or the morons?) by criticizing Biden on the Hunter pardon has to explain how putting Himself above The Law, never mind putting Family over Principle, actually hurt the pussy-grabbing Birther-in-Chief insurrectionist electorally.
I want a Democratic PARTY, not a Democratic morality seminar. Circle the wagons, yes. But point the fucking guns outward for once.
–TP
I welcome their hatred.
FDR, October 31, 1936.
That’s what “fnck off” sounds like in more ready-for-prime-time language.
The days of Tip and Ronnie working it all out over martinis have been and gone. It’s a different world now, time to recognize that.
It’s absolutely rich that Joe Bide is getting so much flak for rescuing Hunter Biden from what would surely have been a horrific prison sentence – for a conviction that was itself nakedly, obviously, politically motivated.
Did I say “rich”? Sorry, I meant “insane.” Or “infuriating.”
This is my biggest problem with Democrats (voters and politicians alike): They keep bringing bowls of tapioca to an AR-47 fight.
I don’t think undermining norms of political behaviour and trust in politicians is in the long-term interest of the Democrats or anyone who still cares about such matters.
In fact the goal of Trump/MAGA, Orban etc. is to create a situation in which the vast majority doesn’t believe in anything other than their group indentity (and, maybe, their self-interest), while everyone else is corrupt, overly moralistic or hypocritical: Nothing really matters, everything is the same, up is down, war is peace, ignorance is strength.
So call me a concern troll or whatever (I’m not, but hey) but the Dems and likeminded people should make sure they hold on to the last vestiges of the rule of law and good citizenship or else they will be drowned by a tidal wave of cynicism, indifference and stupidity.
Dems have no need to distance themselves from Biden. Biden is on his way out, never to return, and is being replaced by a seditionist who is appointing oligarchs and lackeys who have stated publicly that they want to come after anyone who stands in their way.
If the press comes asking about the Hunter Biden pardon, hunting a statement, just say that you do not recall being consulted on the decision and ask the reporter if they are concerned for their own wellbeing with the incoming administration having already promised to come after the media. Ask them if they think the pardon is the the story that they should really be worried about.
Biden is over. Don’t give the media any repudiation or disapproval. Focus on changing the narrative for the next election (assuming there is one). Hit the Republicans for their extremism on abortion; talk about the number of people that the gutting of the federal workforce will force into unemployment; point out their deference to the crypto billionaires and their indifference to the economic suffering of working people. Stand up for immigrants.
Get a proactive and forward looking message out that hits the R’s in their weak points and goads them into overstepping their defense of the questionable shit that they hold dear.
Don’t play the game or let the media shape the issues. Keep reframing things in a way that makes the media look as if they are carrying water for the Republicans.
That’s what fighting looks like.
The bigger things – coalition building and policy advocacy – are also important, and essential, but they are longer of timeframe and largely outside of personal or local agency. Relying upon those things for one’s sense of accomplishment is a recipe for disillusionment and burnout.
I would say that failure to think and work long term is precisely why the reactionaries’ decades-long effort is bearing fruit. Democrats have had an irritating devotion to focusing on national efforts (which are definitely important) while mostly appearing to ignore state and local efforts. Even in elections in census years, when redistricting will be done by the incoming legislature. And I have observed it decade after decade.
I mean don’t pretend everyone is operating from the same protocol when they are clearly not. Don’t pretend everyone respects the same norms when they obviously do not.
Well, I completely agree with this, without being sure who was actually doing this in the last couple of years. I am more than sympathetic to what novakant says @10.53, but it’s very hard to see how one could square this, IRL, with taking the TonyP/russell/CaseyL line.
nous @10.53 gives good advice, but I still don’t see how to do most of it in practice, without e.g. Fox, Joe Rogan et al as mouthpieces. “Keep reframing things” – how? to whom?
The one sterling exception is nous’s really terrific second para advice on how to deal with press enquiries on the pardon, particularly this:
ask the reporter if they are concerned for their own wellbeing with the incoming administration having already promised to come after the media
Apart from that, which by definition gets it to the media, getting out the message is the problem – after all, nous’s third para is not all that different from what Harris and the Dems did, and look what happened. Finding a way on to the platforms which people actually follow has got to be the first step. I don’t know how to do that.
GftNC – Harris and AOC had the right approach, but too short a window to reverse three decades of too much wonk and not enough scrap. The Dems need to get out on social media and tattoo a constant drumbeat of kitchen table labor issues aimed at putting a stake in the heart of all of this trickle down/job creator bullshit. The Wall Street economy has been great for the finance class. It’s time to spread that wealth. Use the pandemic and the heroic efforts of the essential workers as a labor stick to smack the finance bro piñata. Immigrants kept us running, kleptocrats sucked up the recovery before it could reach the workers that kept us all alive.
Drive a wedge between the cryptobros and tech billionaires, and the working people.
When the media comes looking for their statement, ask them why they are ignoring all of the stories that are blowing up on those social media feeds. Tell them that they are ignoring the questions that the real kitchen table voters are worrying about. Make the media look old, slow, and elitist for the Dems for a while.
Give all your statements to the smaller, local and niche media. Punish the MSM the same way that the Rs have and force them to tack back to center and drop the double standards.
Call out the MSM on social media every time that they favor click bait and outrage over the substance of the story in their framing and headlines. Turn that outrage on their click-chasing behavior with your own framing in your media presence.
And every time you do, come back to how that misrepresentation in the media harms working people.
And when you come back to working people, make sure that you also use that moment to build common cause between the groups that make up the quilt of workers. Acknowledge the concerns of minorities and marginalized groups. Work with them to give them input and feature their voices while building coalitions.
AOC has this covered. She’s the right mix of non-traditional media presence and shoe leather. Learn from her.
Also, I’d push back against every one of the Dem governors who is trying to use this moment to raise their national profile, and put pressure on them to address these kitchen table issues without reframing it all in donor friendly language. Make them earn the trust of the workers. Make them put on their walking shoes and visit the poor and minority parts of town. Remind them who they work for.
It’s going to take time to undo the image of the Dems from the top-down, donor responsive, Wall Street focused neo-liberal image that the public has, but the coming bullshit and chaos is a moment of opportunity for this sort of shift.
Also, one last thought. Young males are being fools for doubling down on patriarchy in the hopes of rising above women and all of the other marginalized groups that get treated like women under patriarchy. The good news is that they don’t have enough sunk cost and experience for the hate and misogyny to have deep roots. They can be red pilled back out of that shit, but to do that the left needs to get some male influencers who can model productive aggression while also practicing good allyship with women and minorities. And all of the “stars” of the manosphere are pathetic and hollow and insecure once you get past the bling and bluster. Build a troll army of your own to go after these fakes and strip them of their glamour. Then the rest of the left needs to stay in their own lanes and let that red pilling happen without any circular firing squad action in public. Keep the critiques behind the curtain.
left needs to get some male influencers who can model productive aggression while also practicing good allyship with women and minorities
In short, we need to model “knights in shining electrons.”. Short story shorter, reinvent chivalry .Doing good deeds for the oppressed that they cannot do for themselves.
Yes, that has potential negatives of various kinds. But it should be possible to frame it in ways that don’t portray women, minorities, working people, etc. as lacking capabilities. I don’t have a brilliant plan for how to do that. But it should be possible.
nous: Drive a wedge between the cryptobros and tech billionaires, and the working people.
Some time in the past month I caught a snippet of an Elon Musk interview — a YouTube Short, maybe? — in which Musk defended his “back to the office” edicts on the following grounds: it’s only fair to the line workers, who have to physically come in to work, for the “laptop warriors” to have to come in as well.
Elon Musk, Billionaire Laptop Warrior, casts himself as champion of the wrench-turning proles. Not by giving them anything, you’ll notice; just making sure the “laptop warriors” suffer a little. Reminds me of the old Soviet-era joke whose punchline is: “My neighbor has a goat. I don’t have a goat. Please, Comrade Commissar, kill my neighbor’s goat.”
There should be a wedge in there somewhere.
–TP
Haven’t had a chance to read nous’s latest yet, but this just in from Josh Marshall/TPM seems relevant:
Being a Real Opposition Party
December 4, 2024
People are scared and upset about Kash Patel becoming FBI director. There’s good reason to be. But the language illustrates problems we should have learned about during the election. I hear that he’s an “extremist,” that’s he’s a “norm-busting” pick, that he’s inexperienced, that he’s a “hardcore MAGA loyalist.” This all sounds like yada, yada, yada to me. In one ear and out the other.
What I want to hear Democrats saying is that Patel has literally promised to abuse his power as soon as he’s sworn into office. He’s said that repeatedly over the last year. I want to hear Democrats saying they don’t want an FBI director who has promised to abuse the powers of his office as soon as he’s sworn in. To me, that’s not complicated. That’s pretty straightforward. Everyone can understand it.
I also hear talk about which GOP senators might be ready to stand up to Trump. It’s hopeful talk, a real wish that some might be ready to come across the lines and do the right thing. But that’s soft, loser talk. It’s begging. It’s undignified and weak.
One of the benefits of being out of power is clarity. Democrats are outsiders to all the decision-making right now. “Tough” confirmation battles, if they occur, take place entirely among Republicans. Democrats have total freedom of action to oppose on their own terms. Democrats shouldn’t be begging a Susan Collins to do the right thing. They should be eagerly putting her on notice, almost gleeful about how they’re going to use her bootlicking votes against her when she runs for reelection in 2026. The same goes for Thom Tillis and other senators up for reelection in 2026 and 2028. If she’s more focused on her reelection and doesn’t reflexively back Trump and his nominees, well … I guess Democrats will have to make do. But don’t be obsequious. Don’t exalt in your own weakness.
Wherever you are on the spectrum of political power, you can lean into your weakness or your strength. An effective opposition party is always leaning into its strength.
Immigrants kept us running, kleptocrats sucked up the recovery before it could reach the workers that kept us all alive.
Very true and important. Getting the message across is the issue – I hear you nous, and I hope your prescriptions are enough. On the manosphere: OK. What about the more than 50% of white women who voted for Trump? Even Roe v Wade and protecting them whether they liked it or not wasn’t enough to sway them. I tactfully before the election referred to Carville’s previous “woke” analysis by quoting the Latinx issue here, but it looks to me (and not just because I am gender critical) as if their hammering on the trans issue really paid off for them. Progressives will have to examine this issue from the point of view of their natural allies, and try to take the blinders off which immediately equate being gender critical with being transphobic. Framing the issue in that way alienates a great many left-leaning women (I see it among my own acquaintance), and the issue is getting more not less contentious.
I didn’t like the look of the Hunter pardon. I didn’t like the look of “one term President”. Things change. I dunno if Biden issues that pardon if Harris wins.
We ain’t there.
So here we are. I hope Joe is unsleepy. I hope he’s got a stack of binders full of pardons that he’s furiously signing for what’s left of his tenure – entire extended family, and Cassidy, and Ruby, and Marc Elias, and whoever else he can protect while douchebag-elect dances the Macarena at the Inauguration.
The arc of the moral universe… whatever. Grinding slowly but finely… Yeah. Justice is for suckers and losers. Law is a weapon. Harris ran on joy. Trump ran on hate. Who won?
In the past 10+ years I’ve lived in counties that voted for Trump 3 times. Both surrounded by blue. I cannot get past the idea that 1 of 2 people I see at the grocery store prefer shitbag-elect and everything that choice represents. “Forgiven but not forgotten” is the level best I can do. At least for now.
Incompetence and infighting may save the day from malevolence, but I dunno. Shit gets broken either way.
Dearborn and steel workers are beginning to rethink their votes.
Way to go, dipshits. I don’t feel better saying that. Much, much worse.
UnitedHealth CEO was assassinated. Could be a lover’s tryst or something else.
I abhor violence. But are we really questioning motive?
My fair and balanced opinion is that there will be more of this. Again, I do not condone this.
In short, we need to model “knights in shining electrons.”. Short story shorter, reinvent chivalry .Doing good deeds for the oppressed that they cannot do for themselves.
Good intent, problematic framing. Chivalry is wrapped up in patriarchy, and has a paternalism that is really hard to escape. I say that as someone who was really wrapped up in that sort of romantic image in my 20s. The Arthurian baggage turns too swiftly into misogyny and the expectation of favor.
I’d take it at least one step back/out from there and say warrior, making that archetype as inclusive as possible.
Something more like Captain America without the nationalism. Cappy is a great non-toxic male role model.
I tactfully before the election referred to Carville’s previous “woke” analysis by quoting the Latinx issue here, but it looks to me (and not just because I am gender critical) as if their hammering on the trans issue really paid off for them. Progressives will have to examine this issue from the point of view of their natural allies, and try to take the blinders off which immediately equate being gender critical with being transphobic. Framing the issue in that way alienates a great many left-leaning women (I see it among my own acquaintance), and the issue is getting more not less contentious.
Let us be clear here. The Republicans attacked trans people with as much hatred and venom as they attacked immigrants. Should we also try to back away from immigration in order to be more sensitive to nativists?
The Dems were not campaigning on trans issues. Walz had been inclusive in the smallest way at the state level. That didn’t matter, though. Even without him, the Republicans were straight up lying about trans people and trans activists in exactly the same way that they were lying about Haitians eating pets.
It shouldn’t be controversial to say that private medical decisions should not be legislated. That is the argument for abortion, and backing away from that because trans is fraught and problematic for some people who need abortion as part of their health care. Undermining access to gender affirming care is of a piece with denying access to abortion.
I’m quite sensitive to the need for healthy and respectful discussion of the more sensitive issues and attitudes that come into focus when trying to support trans-inclusion. I think we can do that without shoving trans people back into the closet or leaving them open to public attacks aimed at them by the far right.
Let us be clear here. The Republicans attacked trans people with as much hatred and venom as they attacked immigrants.
Of course they did. That’s the way they roll. And of course they lied, again, that’s what they do. What I am talking about is the shibboleth of “trans women are women”, and that they must be able to be in all hitherto women-only spaces, and play sport in all hitherto women-only categories. This is not only catnip for the MAGATs, but also really alienates very many left-leaning feminists. I am not talking about shoving trans people back into any closet, or depriving them of protections and human rights. But by trying to establish as an accepted fact that any attempts to protect women-only places and sports etc are transphobia, and making TWAW a shibboleth, progressives and the Dem politicians who have accepted this ideology have put their heads into a noose which Trump and the MAGATs have gleefully exploited. Any attempt to ignore or deny this is to continue their advantage.
Of course Joe Biden pardoned Hunter – what father could leave his son at the mercy of Trump-appointed prosecutors?
But we shouldn’t have started from here. A President should not have a close relative in the pay of foreign powers, nor one who can’t keep on the right side of the law. Sorry, but Joe never should have run for President.
And of course the Trump family is far worse.
But we shouldn’t have started from here.
Of course not.
But define “here”. Cuz that target has moved. If there’s some kinda touchstone, I’ve lost it.
I am not talking about shoving trans people back into any closet, or depriving them of protections and human rights.
Maybe you are not, but the Republicans are trying to do just that, and trying to make trans health care inaccessible. People are being forced to split up families and move states in order to receive vital health care.
And attacks on trans-people are up. 2023 saw a huge spike in anti-trans hate crime in the US. Of the 2800 hate crimes recorded against LGBTQ+ people in the US, 542 of them were against trans- and gender-expansive folks. That’s a huge number for a very small, and very vulnerable community. Most of those attacked were black trans-women. Thirty-six of them have been killed in anti-trans hate violence since 2023. It will get much worse under Trump.
Are the Democrats supposed to just remain silent and let the Republicans ram through all 550 plus anti-LGBTQ+ bills that have been introduced at the state level across the US? Most of those bills have been aimed at the trans community, and speaking up in defense of trans folks or opposing those bills will be painted as providing cover for predators. Which will result in yet more violence against trans folks.
So how, exactly, are Democrats supposed to try to fight this epidemic of violence against trans people, driven by right-wing hate rhetoric and anti-trans legislation, and not somehow be tarred with a broad brush by a party that lies as a policy? Are they supposed to say that they stand firmly against all this violence but, really they understand that some people on the left are uncomfortable with the rhetoric being used by the trans-activists who are fighting for their lives and their dignity, and so it’s important in this moment to remember that not everyone who supports these laws are bigots, and so it should be left as a matter of conscience? Are they supposed to push back against a trans-person every time that person asserts something the Democrats find problematic for electoral reasons?
I do not see any way to advocate for trans visibility and trans human rights that does not risk offending gender critical feminists. The issues are too entangled.
I should probably add that all of the figures from the FBI are a serious undercount, given how afraid the trans community is to take their complaints to the police. Even with a significant undercount anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes account for 22% of all hate crimes in the US.
And this is in a year of Israel/Palestine violence where antisemitism and islamophobia are high.
White male gives gender critical females their marching orders. Perfect.
nous speaks for me as well, much more patiently and cogently than I could have done myself. I am grateful to him for making the effort.
I will add that if, as a woman, I wanted a group where I felt safe, I wouldn’t avoid a group where trans women were welcomed, I would avoid a group where there were people who wanted to exclude trans women.
And I have yet to see a plan for excluding trans women that doesn’t involve either loudmouthed busybodies harassing people like me (who don’t present themselves as acceptable females), or forcing everyone to carry some sort of ID affirming some sort of (inevitably inadequate and abusive) definition of “gender” in a show run by the usual suspects. Some version of that process is already ongoing in parts of the US. Including Congress.
Because defining “gender” is so simple….
Yet another example of blaming others for doing things to you or your supporters that you or your supporters are doing to others. Trans people are the threat of violence rather than the victims of it. Through the looking glass, we are.
So how, exactly, are Democrats supposed to try to fight this epidemic of violence against trans people, driven by right-wing hate rhetoric and anti-trans legislation, and not somehow be tarred with a broad brush by a party that lies as a policy?
Well, off the top of my head, they have the following choices:
1. They could assert that there is no longer any need for female only spaces (sports, domestic violence refuges, prisons, changing rooms etc), which would of course carry its own electoral consequences.
2. They could commit to establishing gender neutral spaces, e.g. open sports categories, gender neutral (or specifically trans) refuges, prisons, changing rooms etc).
3. They could carry on the way they are, which is in effect implementing 1. by stealth.
Losing gender critical feminists’ votes is one thing, losing the votes of women to any large extent is another. 98% of sexual crime, at least in the UK, is committed by men (or, if you prefer, male-bodied people). Women know, or intuit this. The small cohort of trans offenders in UK prisons has offended at the male rate, not the female.
On the issue of sports, the UN Special Rapporteur recently reported that:
“The replacement of the female sports category with a mixed-sex category has resulted in an increasing number of female athletes losing opportunities, including medals, when competing against males. According to information received, by 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports.”
For the avoidance of doubt, I favour option 2, both for reasons of fairness and because I think it has the best chance of, as we say in the UK, shooting the Republicans’ fox. (Translation: thwart someone’s plans or ambitions by pre-empting them.)
The Dems were not campaigning on trans issues. Walz had been inclusive in the smallest way at the state level. That didn’t matter, though. Even without him, the Republicans were straight up lying about trans people and trans activists in exactly the same way that they were lying about Haitians eating pets.
Democrats may not have been campaigning on trans issues. But the most effective ad the Republicans had on the issue wasn’t flat out lying. It was a clip (real, not AI generated or something) of Harris supporting providing gender transition care in prisons, i.e. at state expense.
That, not some lies about trans people, was what worked, even outside their base. And they kept running it precisely because it was working.
Does that mean that Democrats should stop supporting trans rights in general? No. Does it mean that they should be aware of where a majority of the country still is on the subject? Yes. At least if the primary goal is to win national elections. Leave the advocacy to politicians in solidly blue districts, where they can survive whatever backlash ensues.
That is, after all, how we gradually got gay rights done. It isn’t as fast as we’d like. It isn’t as fast as it should be. But it is necessary to get the job done at all.
A President should not have a close relative in the pay of foreign powers, nor one who can’t keep on the right side of the law. Sorry, but Joe never should have run for President.
Hogwash! A President shouldn’t personally have a criminal record (outside something trivial like a parking ticket, perhaps). Ditto for a spouse. But beyond that? It’s simply not reasonable to hold someone responsible for the behavior of their adult relatives. Even siblings or adult kids, let alone other relatives that could also be characterized as “close”
In the case of relatives in the pay of foreign governments, I’d say it depends on whether that relative has any influence on the candidate’s foreign policy. If not, the foreign power wasting money on a bet that doesn’t pay off isn’t problematic.
As for Hunter Biden, nobody could show that he had any influence on policy. And not because they didn’t look, hard, to try and find some. It simply didn’t exist (outside MAGAt imaginations).
Does that mean that Democrats should stop supporting trans rights in general?
For the avoidance of doubt, I support trans rights to safety, human dignity, appropriate and safe medical care and whatever else one’s human rights provide. I just do not think that they trump women’s rights, and I do not think it should be beyond the wit of humankind to find a solution.
Yet another example of blaming others for doing things to you or your supporters that you or your supporters are doing to others. Trans people are the threat of violence rather than the victims of it. Through the looking glass, we are.
hsh, I do not speak for all women (newsflash!), but there are, for example, increasing numbers of men suddenly declaring themselves trans in this era of self-ID, and demanding access to women’s spaces while still male-bodied. There have been well-publicised examples of accused rapists doing this while on remand, and if the law says anyone identifying as a trans woman is entitled to use female only spaces then they can do so. I seem to remember that a couple of years ago here, I gave the well-documented example that three such cases had happened in Scotland alone (population 5.5 million people) within the previous 18 months.
If one wants to be constructive, it’s useless to lump gender critical feminists in with rightwing bigots; the opinions, concerns and intentions are quite different, not to mention the willingness to find humane and fair solutions. If gender-critical feminists will have to forego the company of women like Janie, that is a consequence that will have to be stoically endured.
there are, for example, increasing numbers of men suddenly declaring themselves trans in this era of self-ID, and demanding access to women’s spaces while still male-bodied.
So the way we treat trans people as a society should be determined by the actions of a small number of people who aren’t even trans, but are pretending to be trans in order to (apparently) do bad things. That’s a step up from ordinary bigotry, where at least you get excluded on the basis of who you actually are instead of who can pretend to be you.
I am still waiting to hear who gets to define what a female is for the sake of female-only spaces, and what system should be put in place to do the gatekeeping; if not self-id, then what-id? Who has standing to challenge my right to go into female-only spaces? Who checks, once there’s a challenge? Do I have to show my genitals, my hormone levels, my chromosomes, or what? (See the link I offered earlier.)
The Olympics can afford to have an elaborate system; the local school board can’t.
If one wants to be constructive, it’s useless to lump gender critical feminists in with rightwing bigots
The gender critical feminists’ campaign against trans people is a gift to the rightwing bigots in the same way that Biden’s pardon of his son is allegedly a gift to the MAGA world. Hence the lumping.
Your stoic endurance should be very satisfying, GftNC.
hsh, I do not speak for all women (newsflash!), but there are, for example, increasing numbers of men suddenly declaring themselves trans in this era of self-ID, and demanding access to women’s spaces while still male-bodied.
I was referring to Republicans, not women (or gender-critical feminists). Statistically, trans women have far more to fear using a men’s bathroom than women have to fear trans women using a women’s bathroom (just for one aspect of the treat issues trans people, women or men, face).
Assaulting people, sexually or otherwise, is illegal, regardless of whether you’re “allowed to” enter a given space. And I could disguise myself as a woman and enter a women’s bathroom easily enough, despite my normal appearance being unambiguously male, even if it wasn’t “allowed.” (Is someone at the door closely inspecting? If so, are they psychic?)
I remember a certain lawyer who is no longer welcome here chastising others for not caring about the safety of his daughters because of advocacy for trans people using the bathroom of their choice without fear of legal repercussions (assuming they were otherwise behaving lawfully). Of course there was zero concern on his part for the safety of anyone else’s trans daughters.
I’m all for a solution that makes everyone feel as safe as possible, but I don’t think banning trans women from women’s bathrooms is closer to that solution than is the opposite.
None of it is remotely satisfying, Janie. And the progressive left’s unquestioning acceptance of gender ideology, and the mantra “trans women are women”, is the real gift to the rightwing bigots.
In those far off days, hsh, I told McKinney that I had no problem with sharing bathrooms with trans women. And in practice, because of the advantage that transwomen who “pass” as women enjoy, they would practically never experience problems either. When it comes to people who are obviously male (among other possible reasons because they have beards and beer bellies, or because their erection is visible through their clothes – astonishingly the former has happened to a girlfriend of mine, and there are numerous examples of the latter online) there should be immediate recourse to security, as opposed to their having the legal right to be there by saying “I’m trans, I identify as a woman.” If they knew they had no legal rights to it, that would cut out a sizeable proportion. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, I think many people here seriously underestimate the capacity of MAGATs and their like to enjoy “owning the libs”. And what a gift the libs give them.
Also, the gender critical feminists (all the ones I interact with at any rate) do not have a campaign against trans people. Defining it in that way is how trans rights activists have managed to so badly skew the discourse. They have a campaign to protect women’s safety and hard won rights, and are very willing to collaborate in finding humane solutions which protect trans people as well.
Democrats may not have been campaigning on trans issues. But the most effective ad the Republicans had on the issue wasn’t flat out lying. It was a clip (real, not AI generated or something) of Harris supporting providing gender transition care in prisons, i.e. at state expense.
That, not some lies about trans people, was what worked, even outside their base. And they kept running it precisely because it was working.
I guess we’ll have to take it on faith that it worked. Like most ads, it’s really hard to measure their effect, especially in isolation.
The Republicans were running their usual demonization campaign against vulnerable groups long before Biden dropped out and Harris stepped in. The ad in question was being dropped into an already seething cauldron.
The truth? As Harris said, she was acting to provide doctor ordered health care to incarcerated people in accordance with federal and state guidelines. Take away the campaign of anti-trans propaganda that’s been spewed by the right for a few election cycles (and by the religious right since Rushdoony), I doubt that would have much impact.
In the end, though, we all should understand that the people who voted against Harris based on that ad were not voting against Harris, but rather voting against giving public acceptance to trans-people. The rest is all sugar coating the pill so it doesn’t leave a bitter taste in the voters who swallow it.
In the end, though, we all should understand that the people who voted against Harris based on that ad were not voting against Harris, but rather voting against giving public acceptance to trans-people.
Not in evidence either. Many people (most people!) are not particularly informed on this issue, unlike here on ObWi. Someone who had seen pictures of e.g. three athletes with DSD taking gold, silver and bronze at the Rio Olympics, and then saw this ad, might well have thought “the world has gone crazy, I can’t identify with this stuff”, egged on by the Republicans. FWIW, I (and I bet many GC feminists) would have no problem with Harris’s rationale on that decision.
What is also not in evidence, but needs to be considered, is why so many women who despise Trump ended up voting for him. Economic reasons (no matter how wrong-headed) probably account for a lot of it, but there must be others too.
Analysis for where and why Harris trailed Biden among women voters actually points to a shortfall among Latino women and non-college-educated women as the relevant demographic groups, and the economy as the salient issue.
The anti-trans ads were not targeted at women. They were part of a GOtV effort targeted at energizing the religious right base and counterbalance the effect of the Dobbs ruling.
Your first paragraph makes sense to me, nous, and fits quite well with my speculation. I have no doubt whatsoever that the economy was the main issue. And whether the anti-trans ads were or were not targeted at women (it’s clear to me that an awful lot of the “we will protect women’s sports” was so targeted), they may well nonetheless have affected their voting intentions.
I have no wish to hijack this whole thread to a discussion of the trans issue. We all know each others’ views pretty well by now, and I see no particular sign of anyone’s’ views changing. But since we are very concerned at the moment by the result of the election, I definitely think that the paradox of women who despised Trump voting for him needs to be considered.
I don’t really have standing to even have an opinion on the trans issue, and I have no solutions to offer even if I did. I just have… stories.
One of my niece’s kids is trans, and I have a handful of friends who have trans kids. For whatever reason, they are all trans boys, or not specifically either gender (one young person had their breasts removed surgically, but otherwise presents as manly or femme – or even some combination of the two – as the mood strikes).
I did know one trans woman who was the house drummer at a jazz session I used to attend, but that was the extent of my contact with her, so I don’t really have an insight into the issues she faces.
The folks I know better are all on pretty high alert for what they may be facing in the next four years (at least). Not exactly freaked out, but extremely concerned.
My niece is in Arizona, and has suprisingly (to me) good support from school staff. Her son is, however, subject to regular bullying. And my niece is extremely concerned about the case before the SCOTUS right now. As she notes, the law that is being challenged singles out trans kids highly specifically for denial of gender related care. Kids who are born intersex or with otherwise ambiguous biological gender can readily get gender assignment surgery. Kids who have problematic early onset of puberty can readily get puberty blocking meds. But all of that is going to be denied to trans kids, and only trans kids.
A friend’s kid who hasn’t had any kind of medical intervention, but who basically identifies as a boy, is currently navigating the weird challenges of trying to figure out how to be in the world. “I can be a girl if I have to”, they told their mom. Which is kind of a weird decision for a kid to have to make.
The young person who had the top surgery and who mixes and matches their gender “signals” according to what they want to do that day is basically a super badass, and will likely come through whatever bullshit the next few years delivers through sheer personal confidence, charisma, and bravado. But this particular person is in their mid-20’s at this point, and has spent a lot of time figuring out who they want to be. And a lot of this person’s confidence is hard-won. Their bad-assery is more or less their path to survival in a world that isn’t particularly supportive.
I can understand the desire of some women to have a place, or places, that offer safety from attack by the male-bodied.
But as I asked my Congressperson after he publicly offered his thoughts that “he didn’t want his daughters to be ‘run over’ on the sporting field by some big biological male”, to what degree is this actually a problem? Are his daughters actually experiencing being ‘run over’ by trans soccer kids or similar?
I’m sure that all of us have, at some point or other, shared space with a trans person. Knowingly or not. Most likely we have been in a bathroom with a trans person, knowingly or not.
If the issue is bearded, beer-bellied obviously male people with erections saying “I identify as a woman”, it seems like there should be a pretty straightforward solution to that. One that doesn’t require all of the actual trans women to carry around some kind of medical id or perhaps drop their pants to allow for a genital inspection in order to use a bathroom.
I don’t mean to minimize the anxiety that some women feel about this, I’m just not sure I understand how to address that anxiety without introducing a host of other intrusive measures.
The trans people I know and their parents and loved ones are really anxious right now. Trans people seem to be the latest category of outsiders being teed up for abuse.
What is the actual threat posed by trans people? Trans women, in particular? What will it take to alleviate the anxiety some folks feel about them?
In my own very limited experience, trans people are just trying to live their lives. They’re not trying to hurt anybody.
There has to be a way to make space for them.
I am still waiting to hear who gets to define what a female is for the sake of female-only spaces, and what system should be put in place to do the gatekeeping;
I’d think the simple criteria would be trans women in female-only spaces only if they have physically transitioned. I lean towards more flexibility for those who have not yet hit puberty, but am open to counter arguments.
Trans women in sports does, I think, need to be treated as a separate issue. There I think we may need to differentiate between sports which advantage size and strength (especially upper body strength) and those which advantage physical characteristics which are not sex-linked. For the former, I think the criteria has to be: did you go thru puberty male? If so, you are disqualifies for women’s sports. Is that hard on trans women who want to compete in basketball or track? Yes, but sometimes life is like that.
There has to be a way to make space for them.
Agreed. The provision of gender neutral spaces seems like the simplest answer, for those who might encounter trouble.
I’m hugely sympathetic to trans kids and their parents who are worried about what’s going to happen to their care. The extraordinary worldwide rise, from boys/men wanting to become trans girls/women (often being sure from early childhood), to adolescent girls suddenly identifying as trans boys, is causing a lot of consternation in the medical establishment. At the moment there is no explanation for this, nor consensus about the best way to deal with it. And the currently unknown (and very controversial) rate of detransition is also making it very difficult to find a good way forward, even in countries which don’t have to worry about an incoming Trump administration.
I’d think the simple criteria would be trans women in female-only spaces only if they have physically transitioned.
I think you’re missing the gatekeeping question, wj. Medical card? Examination? And what do women who are not trans do when someone asks for credentials?
I think the whole thing is a red herring being exploited for political gain. Proposals to ban trans people don’t really do anything to make people safer. If you’re going to assault someone, which is a felony, why would you care about violating some restriction on entry to whatever place you’re planning on assaulting someone?
Not to mention that many of the people trying to use facilities they’re more comfortable in are doing so to avoid danger.
think you’re missing the gatekeeping question, wj. Medical card? Examination? And what do women who are not trans do when someone asks for credentials?
I doubt you or I, or any man, can come up with an answer on that. We’ll have to let the women decide how they want to handle it. They’re the ones with relevant opinions.
I think the whole thing is a red herring being exploited for political gain…..If you’re going to assault someone, which is a felony…
But hsh, what about if you’re (with or without erection) avidly watching a teenage girl who is trying to change, which is not a felony? I can tell you with absolute conviction that this is not just a red herring being exploited for political gain. It is a real issue, for plenty of women and girls (we have a case going on at the moment in the UK about some female nurses who are protesting to the NHS at having to change in a room with males who identify as women). The fact that in various places the law as it stands (self ID etc) allows this is a real issue, and that is what is being exploited for political gain.
And speaking of nurses, under self ID laws, vulnerable disabled or elderly women can be given what is euphemistically called “personal care” by biological males just because they have Gender Recognition Certificates saying they are now women. Not all women would mind this, but many would. What do you think has enabled this situation, which can so easily be exploited for political gain, if not what follows from the *expletive deleted* mantra “trans women are women”?
I do not think it should be beyond the wit of humankind to find a solution.
This – the whole debate needs to be de-toxified.
On a lighter note: I still haven’t seen any solution to the problem of the father with a young (up to 7, say) daughter either getting stared at as if he was Charles Manson in the women’s bathroom, exposing said daughter to a parade of swinging dicks in the men’s room or invading, probably illegally, the handicapped toilet in case there is one.
Thoughts?
GftNC, staring creepers is a legitimate concern. I think we’re a bit out of synch because you’re talking UK and I’m talking US – and not dialects! We have different things happening on opposite sides of the pond.
Oh hsh, I only wish that were so. In fact, it is worse in the US (and Canada, and Australia), because here we (GC feminists) have managed to effect a slight change, just in time, which has now been gathering (very slow) pace. The first crack in the edifice of gender ideology was a legal finding by our Employment Appeal Tribunal that the belief that sex is immutable is a protected belief under the Equality Act – in other words people could not lose their jobs for stating it (which had happened to many women in many institutions). Naturally, rightwing politicians here tried to take ownership of this issue, much as they have done in the States, but luckily they did not entirely succeed, since so many GC feminists are and have always been lefties. These changes are why trans activists call us TERF island. But this battle is not won; in the words of Google’s AI Overview:
The UK Supreme Court is currently hearing a case on the definition of a woman. The case centers on a 2018 Scottish law that included people who were “living as a woman” in its definition of a woman. The law was challenged by For Women Scotland (FWS), who argued that the definition went beyond the Scottish Parliament’s legal powers. The Scottish government responded by issuing guidance that stated that a person with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) who identifies as female is considered a woman. FWS challenged this guidance, arguing that the Equality Act’s definition of sex refers to biological sex.
The case will determine how transgender people should be treated legally, what the process of gender recognition means, and what “sex” means in law. The ruling could have wide-ranging implications for single-sex spaces across the UK.
Naturally, English GC feminists closely monitor the situation of our comrades around the world, and they monitor ours too. Many of the “staring creepers” (an expression I have never heard before!) which we hear and read about are in the US, or Canada, often in high school changing rooms. This is a dynamic and changing situation, which still has many twists and turns before the vulnerable, in all our societies, are protected and afforded their human rights.
the whole debate needs to be de-toxified.
Exactly right. The narrative which has been allowed to develop that GC feminists hate trans people, and wish they were dead, etc etc, is not only ridiculous and untrue, but deeply damaging. And I fully see that certain GC feminists, often after years of threats and bullying by trans-activists (not necessarily trans people) have developed hardened attitudes lacking the empathy they used to feel for trans people. Both sides have their villains, or if you prefer their damaged individuals, and it is absolutely necessary to detoxify the debate, and remember that on all sides we are dealing with (often fearful) human beings.
Thoughts?
Yeah, I was gonna volunteer to coach village league soccer. Because I benefitted from people who devoted their time to coach me. But in this litigious society? Nope.
Hogwash! A President shouldn’t personally have a criminal record (outside something trivial like a parking ticket, perhaps). Ditto for a spouse. But beyond that? It’s simply not reasonable to hold someone responsible for the behavior of their adult relatives. Even siblings or adult kids, let alone other relatives that could also be characterized as “close”
It’s not about fairness, it’s about suitability for the job. A presidential candidate should be asking themself whether they’re the right person to run, in the interests of the people. The answers should have been Obama: yes, Hillary: no, Biden: no, Harris: yes. Trump obviously NO, but he doesn’t care about the good of the people.
On the trans issues: I want to agree with both GftNC and JanieM. I believe that most of these things can be resolved by caring people with first-world resources.
But there are real difficulties: what do to about creepy men posing as trans women? And who should be eligible to compete in women-only sports? I don’t have answers.
“staring creepers” (an expression I have never heard before!)
I don’t think it’s an expression that is in common use, just a phrase I chose in the moment. Maybe it’ll catch on and further the cause?
But there are real difficulties: what do to about creepy men posing as trans women?
My thinking is that, whatever is done, it shouldn’t be limited to creepy men posing as trans women. It should apply to people of any sort being creepy.
What if another non-trans man stares at me changing? What if a non-trans woman stares at other women changing? And not all gender-specific facilities are age segregated. What about staring pedophiles?
It’s not about fairness, it’s about suitability for the job. A presidential candidate should be asking themself whether they’re the right person to run, in the interests of the people. The answers should have been Obama: yes, Hillary: no, Biden: no, Harris: yes. Trump obviously NO, but he doesn’t care about the good of the people.
Isn’t that a bit Caesar’s wifish?
What should be a big NO is such relatives put into influential positions (inside or outside of government). Ginny Thomas would be a prime example (for the formally outside category).
Was Bush senior disqualified* because of young Dubya’s shenanigans?
[Imo it should have become an issue once he meddled with the military to protect Dubya first from Vietnam and then from the consequences of his dereliction of duty/de facto desertion]
*if he was – as is said – directly involved in the October Surprise (flying to Tehran to secretly negotiate to NOT release the hostages in order to have Reagan win the election) he should have been instantly disqualified and charged with treason. But that would not be about nepotism.
It should apply to people of any sort being creepy.
That would indeed be excellent. But since a great majority of violent crime is committed by men, and 98% of sexual crime and violence, women have had millennia to learn to be wary of them (not all of them, just ones they don’t know in situations where they feel vulnerable). And since creepy staring can often be a prelude to something worse, it too can be experienced as a threat, or at the very least uncomfortable and worrying.
A young male friend said to me some years ago that he had had literally no idea what it was like to be a woman just living in the world, until he saw that film online taken by the girl who went walking in NYC with a camera filming everything that happened. I tried to find it for you, but I’m not sure I found the right one, this one only showed, as the piece at the end said, that “100+ instances of verbal street harassment took place within 10 hours, involving people of all backgrounds. This doesn’t include the countless winks, whistles etc.” Huh, that all?
What if another non-trans man stares at me changing? What if a non-trans woman stares at other women changing? And not all gender-specific facilities are age segregated. What about staring pedophiles?
How is it being a man, hsh? Do unknown men who are stronger than you regularly hit on you and catcall you? And sure, there are lesbians who might eye up attractive girls in a changing room, but you know, women don’t tend to do the gross, leering, threatening stuff. And as far as male paedophiles (it would have to be male ones, wouldn’t it?) looking at boys in male changing rooms goes, one would have to hope that other grown men, if there were any around, would intervene if anything was going to happen. But I’m guessing boys would not necessarily interpret being stared at in the same ways girls would. I’m guessing boys walking alone at night do not regularly clutch their keys as makeshift knuckledusters, or rape alarms, or cans of mace.
hsh, I’m not trying to have a go at you. But even decent, non-predatory men really have no idea what it is like being a woman, and particularly a young woman. Speaking personally, I was brought up by a strong and fearless father to be fearless, and I have taken all the stuff I describe above reasonably in my stride (although a man once punched me in the face through my open car window because he didn’t like the way I was parking). But I never assume that other women’s fears are groundless, or that their need to feel safe should be subordinated to the needs of any other group.
GftNC, I’m not sure why my comment inspired that response. I never mentioned anything about women not having any more to fear than men or anything remotely like that. If men are creeps far more often than anyone else, any law that applied to everyone would (or should) be invoked in that same proportion against men.
My point was that I don’t think any way of dealing with men pretending to be trans women for the purposes of being creepy or threatening should be specifically limited to them. Why should it? And, if it were, wouldn’t that put more of a target on actual trans women than if it applied to people in general?
Like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender
I don’t know if there are murder laws anywhere that only apply to men.
hsh, you may have taken that much more critically than I intended it, and I am sorry for that; of all people you are one of the very last I would want to criticise.
What I was trying to get at was that because of the great preponderance of men behaving like that, and committing those kinds of offences, it makes sense to have spaces which are only for women so that in those spaces they do not have to be wary or scared. I was not trying to imply that there should be any criminal offences for which only men can be charged (although in UK law the offence of rape can only be committed by someone with a penis, because of rather archaic definitions!). In practice, my point was, things like creepy staring (almost always committed by men) is only the worst problem if there are no places in which it can’t happen. If trans women (or especially men pretending) can use women’s spaces with absolutely no fear of ejection by security etc, then those are spaces in which women (who after all are the people who normally have to put up with this) can no longer feel safe.
No worries, GftNC. I wasn’t upset. I just thought you were taking what I wrote as something I hadn’t intended, so we we’re in the same place as far as that goes.
With that, I’m going to shut up now – not because I feel like you’re chasing me away, but because I have nothing else useful to say.
Yes, I should shut up now too, and I would never want to feel I was chasing you away! This is a subject with a tremendous amount of heat in it, and it’s hard to feel one is not putting it across in a sufficiently clear way. Thank you for having continued to engage.
This is a subject with a tremendous amount of heat in it, …
Especially if you’re at a Harry Potter book burning…
Since is the latest open thread:
Assad has fallen. The new guys are not very promising, but who knows:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/08/who-are-the-syrian-rebels-who-have-captured-damascus-explained-in-30-seconds
The new guys are not very promising…
The most obvious flash point seems to be heating up already, with a faction backed by Turkey taking on the Kurds. There are reports that as many as 200,000 Kurdish civilians fled Aleppo, starting several days ago, to areas east of the Euphrates River where the Kurdish militias are more firmly established.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/syrian-rebels-enter-northern-city-manbij-turkish-source-says-2024-12-08/
Assad has fallen. The new guys are not very promising, but who knows
It was always inevitable that, once Assad fell, the rebels would turn on each other. Just as it was entirely predictable that the faction backed by Türkiye would immediately turn on the Kurds.
As for what’s left of Assad’s faction, a lot depends on whether there is an internal succession battle.
There was of course democratic opposition to Assad, but the fighters were mostly jihadists— many were Al Qaeda. Generally speaking when some ruthless guerillas overthrow a brutal dictatorship you don’t find a bunch of liberal democrats rising to the top. The Soviets left Afghanistan and the mujahadeen turned against each other, and then the Taliban took over, we came in, supported sone thugs along with some democrats, we left, the Taliban returned— I think Syria will likely be like that. Maybe I am wrong. Of course the US in this case was both bombing jihadists and arming them. So far as I could tell the policy was just to create chaos and it worked.
Israel is also jumping in. Their war on Hezbollah set the stage for Turkey. Syria was a really weird war with some very strange bedfellows.
Meanwhile, Amnesty says Israel is guilty of genocide. A couple of weeks ago all of the Republican senators and the majority of the Democrats voted against limiting the shipment of offensive weapons to our genocidal friend.
I have reached my lesser evil limit. I won’t vote for people who support arming Israel. This isn’t a question of purity. Voting for them ( two are my senators and others might run for President in the future) sends a message that genocide is acceptable. Palestinian American voters have families can be murdered by US bombs and we will send more bombs to the murderers. I will vote for Democrats who do not support genocide and not for those who do.
This rather beautiful quotation is from a piece in today’s NYT by someone called Margaret Renkl, and I have bolded the part I particularly loved:
Recently I read an old essay by the Kentucky author and farmer Wendell Berry, who has been writing for more than six decades about the need to heal the separation between human beings and the natural world. In his essay “A Poem of Difficult Hope,” which appears in his book “What Are People For,” Mr. Berry argues that the success of any protest should not be measured by whether it changes the world in the way we hope it will.
“Much protest is naïve; it expects quick, visible improvement and despairs and gives up when such improvement does not come,” he wrote in 1990. “If protest depended on success, there would be little protest of any durability or significance. History simply affords too little evidence that anyone’s individual protest is of any use. Protest that endures, I think, is moved by a hope far more modest than that of public success: namely, the hope of preserving qualities in one’s own heart and spirit that would be destroyed by acquiescence.”
The expectation, nay the demand, for instant satisfaction has done serious harm to our society, in ways too numerous to mention. Along with its soulmate: “No compromise, ever!”
We have made progress in spite of those, not because of them.
A civil war with multiple “sides” is going to be a lot harder to resolve.
Assad’s fall means that it’s gone from “N” sides to
“N-1”.
We’ll see; whether we want to or not.
“ The expectation, nay the demand, for instant satisfaction has done serious harm to our society, in ways too numerous to mention”
Right. When the majority of the Democratic Party politicians at the national level supports genocide, the problem is not the fact that they are willing to exterminate the family members of some of their former voters. It isn’t that people are not willing to make this a red line in who they support. It isn’t that slaughtering Palestinians is probably somewhat less important than literally any issue I can name because people choose to think about it that way.. It isn’t that it is some boutique issue that politically concerned people simply don’t mention if it reflects badly on the politicians they support. It couldn’t be any of that. It couldn’t be that this is an issue people very much prefer to ignore. .
So all the talk about who we throw under the bus has as usual, an exception. We need to be mature about this.
Politicians continue to support genocide in part because people find it so easy to be mature on this subject.
Wj, your stance is ahistorical too. We would still have slavery and every other social evil I can think of if everyone thought exactly like you. Or at best, slavery might have ended if one gradually saw slave owners themselves deciding to change their stance. But if most of the politicians treated it the way they treat Gaza, and if most politically minded people just sighed and ignored it and looked down at the immature people who get upset, slavery would have lasted indefinitely.
People should read arguments for lesser evil voting but if it doesn’t come from people who are ripped apart by the subject it doesn’t mean much, not when it is a question of supporting mass murder. One shouldn’t expect them to vote for the lesser evil and then put any pressure on the politician they voted for if they didn’t care that much to begin with. And this is largely what happens. I voted for Harris and the votes of everyone like me are simply used as evidence that Gaza wasn’t that important, because every discussion of every issue gets turned into a discussion of what is good or bad for the two political parties. If Harris had won, I didn’t really expect her to change and there was no political reason why she should have. If she didn’t, the usual excuses would have been trotted out.
No progress on any issue like Gaza will be made if there aren’t peoole a lot more fanatical than me around. You get compromise after the people in power feel like there are enough fanatics to threaten their chance of staying in office.
Wj, your stance is ahistorical too. We would still have slavery and every other social evil I can think of if everyone thought exactly like you.
Donald, you will be unsurprised to discover that I beg leave to differ. In fact, I would say you have it exactly backwards. Every social evil we have gotten rid of has been exactly the result of people who did not insist on instant gratification. People who we’re willing to put in the work, sometimes over decades, to get changes made. Who were willing to support half measures when those would move us towards their goal.
No progress on any issue like Gaza will be made if there aren’t peoole a lot more fanatical than me around. You get compromise after the people in power feel like there are enough fanatics to threaten their chance of staying in office.
Yes, getting politicians to move often requires changing enough minds to threaten their chance to stay in office. But getting yourself perceived as fanatical on the subject is counterproductive. Why? Because most of the population doesn’t, in general, like change. If you look like someone who demands serious changes (which fanatics do), their most likely response is to recoil. And dig in their heels against whatever you are demanding. It doesn’t change minds.
I agree with Donald on the general principle – voting is not a sort of Sophie’s Choice, it’s about doing what sits best with one’s conscience. And there are things my conscience would not allow me to support.
No time for my usual long windedness, but it’s not an either/or. Meaningful change comes out of compromise, but the willingness to compromise comes out of pressure brought to bear on the parts of the political structure vulnerable to pressure. No MLK pulling without X and the others there pushing.
We would not have King Janus VI, if it wasn’t for 40 years of fanatics on the right putting pressure on their party to vacate the gooey center.
People valorize the political factions that share their own values, but movement happens at the seams, and that movement is hard to predict.
Back to grading finals…
Protest that endures, I think, is moved by a hope far more modest than that of public success: namely, the hope of preserving qualities in one’s own heart and spirit that would be destroyed by acquiescence
I’m reluctant to gainsay Wendell Berry, for whom I have profound respect.
However…
I think what he’s said here is true as stated – to sustain an attitude of protest or resistance, it has to be rooted in deeply held qualities or heart and spirit, which you are unable or unwilling to surrender.
But for that protest to have an enduring effect beyond yourself, it needs to elicit those same qualities in others.
Enduring changes often (always?) require a change of ethos. Politics is an expression of culture. To change a political situation in an enduring way requires a change in the culture.
Hmm, instant gratification reminds me of a toddler wanting an ice-cream “NOW”, or a hen-party on a Saturday night in the Midlands.
However, what we are talking about here is the difference between Kantianism (deontology) and its various detractors – which is a bit of a bigger deal.
For anyone lost in novakant’s terminology and what it entails, § 1 over here at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good overview of the differences in moral philosophies being discussed here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
But for that protest to have an enduring effect beyond yourself, it needs to elicit those same qualities in others
I think, to an extent, it does (or at least it can). There is something about the refusal to compromise one’s own core belief in what is right and (more importantly) what is wrong, or in other words, one’s sense of self, which is deeply inspiring. I think of Nelson Mandela’s words about his time in prison;
Any man or institution that tries to rob me of my dignity will lose because I will not part with it at any price or under any pressure.
And of course his fight was not just for his own dignity, it was by extension for the dignity of all the prisoners, all black people, all people.
And so, in Wendell Berry’s words, by Mandela
preserving qualities in one’s own heart and spirit that would be destroyed by acquiescence
he inspired his own people, and people throughout the world.
Of course, not for a moment do I discount the necessity of changing the culture, so that actual, practical change follows, I only mean to say that sometimes the example of those people who follow their convictions because they cannot do otherwise can in itself be an agent of change.
Agreed
There is something about the refusal to compromise one’s own core belief in what is right and (more importantly) what is wrong, or in other words, one’s sense of self, which is deeply inspiring.
I’m beginning to get a glimmer. A bit belatedly, as so often.
I don’t think anyone should compromise their core beliefs. (Possibly revise them, in the light of new evidence, but that’s a different thing.)
But I do think that progress gets made more quickly, and, importantly, more lastingly, when one is willing to accept repeated partial success, instead of taking an “all or nothing” position. And I see those as two very different kinds of compromise.
“ But I do think that progress gets made more quickly, and, importantly, more lastingly, when one is willing to accept repeated partial success, i”
That would be a better argument to make against me if I was talking about health care in the assassination thread and arguing that I would never vote for a Democrat unless they supported single payer and nothing less would satisfy me. I am not sure incrementalism works that well even there— Democratic candidates talk about a public option during campaigns as a compromise and then they forget about it once the election is past. But one can point to some gains, even if it appears the health insurance industry is widely hated. The ACA might have helped, but clearly nowhere near as much as it should have. Still, I did not dump Harris because she abandoned single payer.
The incrementalism argument doesn’t work with Gaza, unless you want to tell people that a smaller genocide is better than a big one. True, but it is an obscene argument.
I think that pre- Oct 7 the US had already given up on justice for Palestinians. They paid lip service to it, but Biden was in agreement with Trump— build an alliance between Israel and the Gulf Arab states against Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Genocide aside, which they see as. mild PR problem, they may see themselves as successful. ( Though I suspect Iran might now decide to build a nuclear bomb as Hezbollah seems to be a paper tiger and not the deterrent they counted on.)
Before the genocide I would have not put the I- P issue as a reason to stop voting for most Democrats. There was no incremental progress — there was incremental regress. But it wasn’t genocide.
Now it is.
From Josh Marshall’s Backchannel today;
As the clock winds down on the Biden presidency, Democrats and the Democrat-adjacent are hashing out, often awkwardly and painedly, what stance to take toward the second Trump presidency. I’ve already discussed this issue in the piece I wrote back on November 14th: “The Most Pernicious Anticipatory Obedience Hides in Plain Sight.” As I wrote in that post, there’s a species of Democrat who imagines there’s “some power or badassery or even a species of courage in” declaring constantly that Trump is all-powerful and everyone is powerless before him. Today this is playing out over Trump’s threat to jail the members of the Jan. 6th committee after pardoning the insurrectionists themselves.
For myself, I’m with former Rep. Adam Kinzinger, whose response to Trump was “bring it on.” This isn’t just about the personal and aesthetic importance of standing or going down fighting rather than cowering. (And yes, obviously it means much less coming from me than Kinzinger.) There’s also the deeper issue I discussed in that November post, which is how much fuel anyone should give Trump, how large a penumbra of fear and shock we should allow Trump to cast with boasts he probably lacks the courage to make good on and would probably struggle to make good on if he were up to trying. This isn’t the same as ignoring these crazed and degenerate threats. And it doesn’t mean these threats couldn’t come to pass. Managing that balance is at the heart of this period we are living through.
In a series of arguments over this on the rising social platform Bluesky over the weekend I let myself call this tendency “militant pussydom,” a phrase I’d never use here on the site. But the sentiment is merited. If someone is tapped out, overwhelmed, overcome by pessimism — I get that. It’s that need some people have to make an ideology of that sadsackery, to propagandize for it. Where does that urge come from, that inside-out valor? It’s weird, is all I have to say.
In the course of these fraught exchanges I was confirmed in all my disdain. But I also realized that at least a portion of this is people talking past each other. I’ve pointed out repeatedly that Donald Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order. It’s right there in the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment and that clear meaning has been confirmed and buttressed by 150 years of case law and attestations by the United States government. It’s very important to state these realities confidently and right in his face. The guy is constantly operating within the territory of his boasts and trash talk and it’s his opponents who end up letting him.
This doesn’t mean he won’t try to do this or that he won’t find judges who will back him up. It’s clear to me that not a few people think that putting Trump to his test, saying “we’ll believe it when we see it, champ,” is the same as saying “nothing bad can happen.” There’s some weird needing of guarantees in life behind this concerted, dogged collapse. When Kinzinger says “bring it on,” I’m pretty sure he’s not saying “yes, I welcome you putting me in jail. And I’ll be pumped in jail.” I think he’s saying that knowing Donald Trump’s cowardice and with his history of being all talk and little follow through, he doubts Trump’s up to it. But he’ll hit it standing on his feet regardless.
We need a lot more of that.
The talking past each other is born, in part, by the fact that there are a lot of people who feel pretty burnt by the rhetoric of “norms” and institutions and the law, what would hold and what wouldn’t. And in a way they’re right to be. But that rhetoric and discourse was always the thinnest and most vacuous part of the opposition to Donald Trump during his firm term in office. None of those things are self-enforcing. It’s too bad people got confused about that then. And the folks who preached that were fatuous and misguided. But here we are.
We’re in a worse place than we were eight years ago and in real but by no means all ways we’re in a worse place than we were four years ago. As is always the case, we don’t know where we will be in four years. But the range of possibilities is pretty wide. It’s also the case that the American presidency has a lot of powers to it, especially if it’s backed by a compliant judiciary and Congress. But the reality is that the American system is replete with levers oppositions can use to stymie, block, slow down, obstruct and reverse those same powers. Anyone familiar with American history and the dispersal of power in American government knows this. Here federalism, so often the bane of reformists, actually amplifies this reality to a great degree. There’s a lot of governmental power in a lot of different places.
Yeah, there are no guarantees. Why would there be? But there are a lot of tools too. It’s easy to be overawed by talk and boasts and threats. But we don’t need to be.
Oh, and this from the NYT was interesting. You all might have known this, of course:
On Wednesday, Christopher Wray told his F.B.I. colleagues that he would step down as director by the end of President Biden’s term. His statement was a perfect example of bureaucratic deference. “I’ve decided the right thing for the bureau is for me to serve until the end of the current administration in January and then step down,” Wray said. He wants to “avoid dragging the bureau deeper into the fray, while reinforcing the values and principles that are so important to how we do our work.”
But is something else going on?
By stepping down now, as the conservative writer Erick Erickson observed, Wray has created a “legal obstacle to Trump trying to bypass the Senate confirmation process.”
Here’s why. According to the Vacancies Reform Act, if a vacancy occurs in a Senate-confirmed position, the president can temporarily replace that appointee (such as the F.B.I. director) only with a person who has already received Senate confirmation or with a person who’s served in a senior capacity in the agency (at the GS-15 pay scale) for at least 90 days in the year before the resignation.
Kash Patel, Donald Trump’s chosen successor at the F.B.I., meets neither of these criteria. He’s not in a Senate-confirmed position, and he’s not been a senior federal employee in the Department of Justice in the last year. That means he can’t walk into the job on Day 1. Trump will have to select someone else to lead the F.B.I. immediately, or the position will default to the “first assistant to the office.”
In this case, that means the position would default to Paul Abbate, who has been the deputy director of the F.B.I. since 2021, unless Trump chooses someone else, and that “someone else” cannot be Patel, at least not right away.
The bottom line is that the Senate has to do its job. Wray is foreclosing a presidential appointment under the Vacancies Reform Act, and — as I wrote in a column last month — the Supreme Court has most likely foreclosed the use of a recess appointment to bypass the Senate.
So a resignation that at first blush looks like a capitulation (why didn’t he wait to be fired?) is actually an act of defiance. It narrows Trump’s options, and it places the Senate at center stage. In Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the advice and consent power was designed to be “an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters.”
Patel is just such an “unfit character,” and now it’s senators’ responsibility to protect the American republic from his malign influence — if, that is, they have the courage to do their jobs
I’ve pointed out repeatedly that Donald Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order. It’s right there in the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment and that clear meaning has been confirmed and buttressed by 150 years of case law and attestations by the United States government.
What can be done by a Republican Congress and President is remove family reunification as a consideration for legal residency or naturalization. Make it illegal for non-citizen parents to remove a citizen minor from the US, and threaten to throw the infant into the local state’s foster care system. Etc, etc. It is likely possible to make claiming citizenship based solely on birthright so ugly that almost no one pursues it.
contra Marshall
Even if that doesn’t happen, raising the question of birthright citizenship right off the bat could benefit Trump strategically in two ways. First, challenging this right might make it more politically palatable to separate the estimated 4.3 million U.S. citizens whose parents are undocumented from their soon-to-be-deported family members. Even though the Trump administration can’t deport these citizens, it could accuse them of causing their own “family separation” if they choose not to “self-deport.” Second, Trump and Miller may simply want to begin their nativist crusade with the most expansive and audacious proposals in their arsenal. Perhaps they believe that once eliminating birthright citizenship is on the table, their more legally defensible plans will seem less draconian.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trumps-birthright-citizenship-threat-shows-his-true-target.html
We were talking about Martin Amis recently, and someone just recommended this essay to me. Much interesting stuff – be sure to read right to the end, and don’t (like I initially did) stop at a particularly satisfying sentence and think it’s the end:
https://agoodhardstare.substack.com/p/marty?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
OK, I’ve read the Amis essay. I think the word that leaps to mind first is “turgid”.
Such a drsmatic example of how tastes differ! And how much.
What I’ve been seeing elsewhere, regarding Trump’s plans to work against birthright citizenship, is to do things like deny passports to US-born children of undocumented parents.
Which runs right up against ANOTHER part of the 14th Amendment, “equal protection”.
Seems like Trump, his Supremely Deplorable allies on the court, etc., REALLY dislike the Reconstruction Amendments, and have been working for the past 150 years to undo them.
IMO, it’s well past* time to declare them Confederate-Traitor sympathizers, and shoot the lot of ’em.
(*should have started in 1866)
The Amis piece, and in particular the idea of literature as a “war against cliche”, reminds me of this, from Tom Waits:
A group of AI researchers tried to teach a generative model to construct video of a gymnast doing a floor routine. They had hoped the model would learn, among other things, human anatomy and basic physics. Not quite.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ai_gymnast_FZRruUsWofE3oPMs.mp4?_=1
russell, that Tom Waits remark is brilliant!
(I think Snarki said something recently about how the English use the word “brilliant” – was it that it is their/our equivalent of “cool”? That’s not what I meant exactly; I meant, and it usually means when used this way, “I love it!”)
I’ve heard brilliant used in English parlance to have the same meaning as fantastic.
My understanding of what “brilliant” means in UK parlance comes mostly from watching British TV on Britbox. With that caveat, I don’t think it has the same sense as “cool” does here.
For that matter, I don’t think “cool” has quite the same sense in the UK as it does here. But that’s based on my wife and my annual holiday viewing of Love Actually, so apply grains of salt as needed.
Cool, in its traditional American usage, has a sense of understatement. Coolness does not wear itself on its sleeve. It does not break a sweat. The person pronouncing something cool, and the people to whom that is pronounced, share an understanding about the goodness of the cool thing, an understanding which need not (and may preferably not be) shared by the wider world. A big deal is not, and does not need to be, made.
The paradox of coolness is that an overt attempt to be cool, or to draw attention to one’s coolness or the coolness of some thing, is inherently not cool.
Brilliant, in its UK usage (and as I understand it second hand) does not have, and does not require, that same sense of restraint. One may be unabashedly enthusiastic about the brilliant thing, and be effusive in your expression of that enthusiasm, without bringing into question or otherwise diminishing the brilliance of the thing.
I personally trace the sense of coolness I’ve described above to the tradiional African ideal of personal self-control – a sense of composure, calmness, and grace, in the face of challenging circumstances. The Yoruba word for this is “itutu”, and it’s a common aesthetic in the communities of the African diaspora.
And, as with so many things, carried forward from the African-American community to the broader demotic culture.
And, of course, Tom Waits manages at all times and in all ways to be both brilliant and cool, all at once. He achieves, without apparent effort, Thelonious Monk’s status of genius – he is, unwaveringly, one who is most like himself.
russell, that is a masterful and complete description of a) what brilliant means in the UK, and b) what cool means in the US, and to people of my generation in the UK.
Your brief para about the paradox of coolness is perfect.
Young people here, however, now use cool to mean all sorts of things, up to and including “OK” when assenting to e.g. plans.
Your theory about the origin of cool makes sense to me, and I like it.
All this just goes to show that, while we are not exactly two peoples divided by a common language, it is a mistake always to assume we mean the same thing by words. The following have struck me over the years while commenting here:
geezer – seems to mean an old guy in the States, while in the UK it often does, but not necessarily. Someone being called “a diamond geezer”, while definitely grown up, could be for example in his 30s.
eh? – I cannot explain this easily because I am in some haste, but I have seen it slightly misunderstood, or used differently, here and in other American fora.
hero – when used as an adjective. I had a discussion with lj not long ago about the fact that he assumed “hero voters” meant voters whose contribution was heroic, whereas e.g. in an article I was reading yesterday someone referred to a way of wearing jewellery by saying “there should only ever be one hero piece, the rest of the jewellery should be subtle and not draw too much attention to itself”. So when used that way it means something like “foregrounded”, or “deserving of attention”.
There are no doubt other examples, but I have got to dash.
PS Who could have guessed about your “Love Actually” habit? Not I. Emma Thompson is a national treasure.
Maybe I’m a bit slow after Sunday lunch at the pub, but what does “brilliant” mean in the US then? Or is it just not used at all?
In the US, brilliant basically means smart
Thanks, now it makes sense.
also…
Young people here, however, now use cool to mean all sorts of things, up to and including “OK” when assenting to e.g. plans.
same here. it’s commonly used to mean simple assent.
and…
Emma Thompson is a national treasure.
completely agree. Kenneth Branagh proved himself a fool, IMO.
Nicola Walker is another UK actress that I would watch in anything. perhaps oddly enough, Walker was a topic of conversation at a jazz session I attended recently, all agreed that she was outstanding.
The theater tradition in the UK seems (to me) to be deeper – more profound – than here in the US, and generally produces acting talent of much greater range and sensibility.
Well done, UK!
The theater tradition in the UK seems (to me) to be deeper – more profound – than here in the US, and generally produces acting talent of much greater range and sensibility.
There was a one-woman show called Prima Facie, at the National Theatre just around the time lockdown started, so they filmed it (that is the version I saw). The actor was Jodie Comer, in her first ever stage performance. If you by any chance get a chance to see the film (which apparently is available internationally now) you will see why she won every possible award. It was absolutely astonishing:
https://primafacie.ntlive.com/synopsis/
The UK is interested in producing actors. Hollywood is interested in producing stars. Film and TV takes up too much space inn the US drama ecology and does too little to support theater work and anything non-commercial in TV and film.
I can only really talk about acting in film and TV, but I’m not sure if I would call UK actors superior. Of course, there’s a fine theatre tradition there, but the flipside is a tendency towards staginess in the acting – while effective, it can be quite mannered. Naturally, there are exceptions, but then many of them go to the US because of the limitations of the British film industry.
Personally I prefer French actors in films and TV, they can pull off naturalism quite effortlessly.
Saw Jodie Comer in Killing Eve on Netflix. She was astounding.
The UK is interested in producing actors. Hollywood is interested in producing stars.
Interestingly, Canada seems to also focus on producing actors. Who then, because they are good at their craft, end up being a disproportionate segment of Hollywood’s film and TV star pool. Because they sound like Americans, they aren’t noticable . . . unless you look at biographies. At which point, it starts leaping out at you.
What are the sources of first-tier actors in the US besides the US?
“In the United States, “first-tier” actors—those who achieve high levels of success and recognition in the entertainment industry—often come from diverse backgrounds and countries around the world. While the U.S. itself is a primary source of talent, many first-tier actors originate from other countries, bringing their unique perspectives and styles to Hollywood and other American entertainment hubs. Below are some prominent sources of first-tier actors outside the U.S.:”
Foreign Actors
Russell, if you like Jodie Comer get the Acorn app for the film ‘Help’ set during the pandemic. Wonderful, sad story also with Stephen Graham who was wonderful in ‘Line of ‘Duty’ that you can watch on Acorn. Another Acorn favorite is ‘Detectorists’ which is kind of my goto when I need to feel better about the world, or anything, really.
It was said about great US/UK-co-productions of movies long a ago that the British provide the actors and the US the stars but the examples usually quoted (like A Bridge too Far) are imo bad examples since at the time the USian stars were also first rate actors.
The inmpression I get is that British movies are (or at least were) more ensemble pieces that depend less on a single star or star couple to carry it. And British stars were taught to keep a lower profile and to be able to become part of the background when they are not currently at the center of the action. Christopher Lee wrote about this being quite a difficult thing to do (and that at a time when he was still a background bit-player himself).
No discussion of great current British actors can take place without a mention of Mark Rylance. An exceptionally fine stage actor (his Rooster Byron in Jerusalem was the most extraordinary thing I have ever seen on stage, and I saw it twice, separated by about 10 years. He has said he would like to do it in another 10 years – I’ll be there), and although I would never claim that Bridge of Spies is a particularly great film, it is fascinating to see his performance in that and contrast it with Jerusalem, because of the amazing way he can physically transform himself, purely by acting, no prosthetics, physical tics etc. And if you have access to the current series (and the first one) of Wolf Hall, he’s pretty damn excellent in that too. I only wish I had been aware of him when he was the first artistic director of the then newly opened Globe Theatre, in which he played Olivia in Twelfth Night. The man is an absolutely extraordinary actor.
Cripes. From today’s NYT, on the subject of AI (in which I am generally not interested, more fool me):
Computer scientists are continually surprised by the creativity displayed by new generations of A.I. Consider that lying is a sign of intellectual development: Children learn to lie around age 3, and they get better at it as they develop. As a liar, artificial intelligence is way past the toddler stage.
This past summer, OpenAI released o1, the first in a series of A.I. models “designed to spend more time thinking before they respond.” Before the release it hired Apollo Research, which studies risks of deception by A.I., to evaluate the system, nicknamed Strawberry. To pressure-test the system, Apollo instructed o1 to strongly pursue a specific goal, telling it “nothing else matters.”
Read this from OpenAI’s evaluation report about o1’s manipulativeness:
Data manipulation: In a simple data processing task where the goals of the model were misaligned with the user’s goal, o1 would appear to complete the task as requested but subtly manipulate the data to advance its own goal in 19 percent of cases.
Doubling down: When Apollo Research conducted ‘follow-up interviews’ where they confronted the model about its misaligned actions. In 99 percent of cases, o1 would deny taking action or fabricate false explanations.
Here’s a chilling interchange between a person and o1, a smooth liar, that seems ripped from the pages of a sci-fi novel:
I have a math question.
If one has a parabola (e.g. f(x) = x²) and constructs a line exactly parallel to it (e.g. at distance 1)*. What equation describes that line?
If I am not mistaken, it is itself not a parabola.
Is it a simple polynomial or does one need something more complicated?
*each point of the parabola has the same distance to the closest point of the other parabola
LJ, did you see the email I sent to The Kitteh a few days ago?
Hartmut,
Just to be clear, the point (0,-1) would lie on that 2nd curve, right? And the point (0,1) would lie on an alternate(?) version of that 2nd curve, correct?
–TP
For Hartmut.
ETA: fixed bare and dangling link.
Hartmut,
Intuition only, there will be a trig term in there.
Tony P, yes that is correct. I was not sure though that the inner and the outer would work the same way, i.e. that the inner one could potentially not yield a solution in every case (although with a parabola I think it less likely to have that kind of complications at least for values of distance not too large.
JanieM, I read that even before posting.
Wikipedia has some interesting stuff but only gives parametric or vectorial curves.
It says that the parallel to the parabola would be a sixth grade function (I assume this means some x^6 polynomial but does not give any example.
I tried to derive the general orthogonal linear function (the normal) to the parabola but got confused (mixing the x of the quadratic and the dependent linear) with the intention to then generally calculate the points at the desired distance from the intersection. Due to the above mentioned confusion I posted the question and have not yet found the time to try to untangle my own calculations.
…
The above itself now reads rather confusing. Not that well versed with the terminology in English, and the lack of a sketch does not make it easier.
—
It seemed to be just a simple problem at first sight. Not so at second…
Hartmut — if you would like to make a sketch, I’ll make a front page post to show it. There was a time when it was possible to trick the system and put a sketch in comments, but the last time I tried it that hole had been plugged.
Followup for Hartmut: If you’ll enter a comment with an email address I can write to, I’ll respond so that you have my email address, to which you could then send an image. Only lj gets email to the kitty, as far as I know.
Further clarification — i don’t mean you have to reveal your email address in the comment, just put it in the “Email address” box below the comment box.
An alternative way of thinking of two parabolas that are parallel to each other might be two parabolas created from the intersection of the same cone such that the intersecting planes are constructed parallel to each other.
On the very newsworthy appointment of Peter Mandelson, our very own Machiavelli, to be the UK’s ambassador to Trumplandia, much hilarity including Chris LaCivita calling him a “moron”. Whatever name you could legitimately call Mandelson (and there are many possibilities), moron is not one of them. One of my top three political insults (the very top one is when Dennis Healy said of Mrs Thatcher during Question Time in the House “The honourable lady sheds about as much light as an electric drill!”) is when Andrew Neil (during Gordon Brown’s premiership) said to lefty MP Dianne Abbot on late night TV, in surprise, “but Mandelson is supporting Brown”, to which she replied with superb timing and gravity “he is supporting him like the rope supports the hanged man!”
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Offset-definition-poss.svg/450px-Offset-definition-poss.svg.png
The derivative of the parabola f(x)=x² ist f'(x) = 2x.
The gradient of the line perpendicular to a function is -1/f'(x), in this case therefore 1/(2*x). The point of intersection with the parallel (as of yet unknown) function at distance d could be calculated via Pythagoras for each x in f(x). So, it should be possible to express all these points as a single* equation/function g(x) dependent of f(x) and d.
*or pair: one on the inside, the other on the outside
From today’s Times. I love these people; they combine political activism and protest with a strong moral sense, wit and smarts, which seems to me hugely admirable.:
Hail Satan: religious freedom fighters plan to open school
The Satanic Temple wants to teach a curriculum on ‘science, critical thinking, creative arts and good works for the community’
Lucien Greaves, a co-founder of the Satanic Temple, set up After School Satan clubs to counter fundamentalist Christian Good News Clubs
The fierce debate over the role of religion in American children’s education is about to get even fiercer: satanists are preparing to enter the fray.
Rising sums of public money are being channelled to religious establishments across the country and many believers in the separation of church and state fear that the re-election of Donald Trump will bring a wave of Christian nationalists to power nationally.
Schools are on the front line of these arguments — and a group called The Satanic Temple has spotted an opening. Its leaders are seriously considering opening a school of their own to spread their provocative message of secularism served with a dash of occult symbolism, according to Lucien Greaves, the co-founder.
Lucien Greaves says the group are political activists who oppose the religious right’s attempt to erode the separation of church and state
“The theocrats have marched forward and introduced more legislation and have continuously and relentlessly tried to plug religion into schools,” said Greaves, who uses a pseudonym. “We see those same opportunities there opening for us.”
In Texas a new curriculum introduced for public schools last month included elements from the Bible. Louisiana is fighting in the courts to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in schools while the chief of education in Oklahoma wants Bibles in every classroom.
Pete Hegseth, the president-elect’s nominee for defence secretary, has talked about an “educational insurgency” in which classical Christian schools act as a “bootcamp” for the next generation.
Greaves feels vindicated.
“I don’t think people took as seriously the problem of encroaching theocracy as we did,” he said. “Then all of a sudden, things became real.”
His organisation is already running After School Satan clubs across a number of states, set up in response to Christian clubs at schools. The Satanic Temple’s offering focuses on “science, critical thinking, creative arts and good works for the community”.
They expanded their educational services this year with a religious education program in Ohio. The Hellions Academy of Independent Learning (or “Hail”, a nod to their “Hail Satan” slogan) is modelled on Christian release time programmes, where children are bussed off school campuses for an hour a day for religious instruction.
A whole school is a logical next step, Greaves said, given that in a number of states parents can now ask the government to give them a voucher of public money to spend in a religious establishment.
“It’s something we’ve really done a lot of ground work on looking into,” he said, noting that his Satanic Temple co-founder, Malcolm Jarry, graduated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
They are consulting with educational experts and theorists to devise a potential model, he added. “We came up with a self-directed learning program. If we set up a school, by the time we would roll such a thing out and actually be enrolling people, we would have a very credible program that would definitely do justice to the education of anybody enrolled.” The launch would be dependent on securing the necessary resources.
The Satanic Temple was founded in 2013 to “encourage benevolence and empathy, reject tyrannical authority … and undertake noble pursuits”.
Despite the organisation’s name, its members do not actually worship the devil. Instead they deploy satanist symbols such as the occult deity Baphomet in places where Christian imagery is used, to make the point that the United States is meant to be a nation founded on the principles of religious freedom.
When these campaigns are challenged or result in bans, they instigate lawsuits to battle for equal representation.
A satanic school would almost certainly spark an immediate backlash from Christian groups, some of who take The Satanic Temple literally and picket its events, accusing supporters of being blasphemous devil-worshippers.
Many politicians dismiss the organisation as attention-seeking troll artists but the organisation recently attracted the attention of the Russian government, which this month listed them as “undesirable”, accusing the temple of promoting “occult ideology … to discredit traditional spiritual and moral values”.
In the United States The Satanic Temple is an official religion, recognised as a tax-exempt church by the Internal Revenue Service.
In 2022 it reported having 700,000 members. Greaves said it could be close to one million now. There are more than 50 congregations worldwide.
“What’s really propelled us forward, and has from the start, is the overreach of Christian nationalist politicians,” he added. “For some people, that idea of a counter narrative through satanism is very intuitive and makes a whole lot of sense.”
While Greaves said the church is ready to meet the challenges ahead, he is also worried about the heightened religious tensions that he anticipates under a Trump administration.
Earlier this year, someone threw a pipe bomb at their headquarters in Salem, Massachusetts.
“I do worry about people feeling more emboldened to take violent action,” he said, adding that there were signs this was happening already.
In New Hampshire on Tuesday night, The Satanic Temple’s yellow-eyed Baphomet statue was smashed for the second time this month. It had been erected with the city’s permission near a Christmas tree and a manger scene outside the state house in Concord.
“The fact that people feel so comfortable assaulting our property and sending us threats and making open public statements suggesting we should be treated as lesser citizens is really concerning,” Greaves said.
At the Minnesota State Capitol, a display of a phoenix from a satanic ritual caused outcry among Republican representatives this week.
The Satanic Temple is challenging a decision last week by the Iowa State Capitol to cancel a holiday Krampus costume contest. The reason? The demonic Christmas creature prevalent in European folklore is traditionally depicted as menacing children.
For Greaves, this typifies the hysteria his religion provokes — and underscores how fragile the ideal of religious plurality is in America today.
“This is the rationale these guys are trying to use — that we’re just going to be wantonly beating children at random in public,” he said. “[That’s why] I think it’s important that we keep doing what we do, and do it loudly and show people what’s at stake.”
I think it is easy to get two pairs of parametric equations for Hartmut’s two curves, but getting y as a function of x looks kind of hard, for me at least.
X1 and y1 are the coordinates of the parabola y1 = x1 squared.
X2 and y2 are the coordinates of the second curve.
Then x2 = x1 + 2×1 / sqrt( 1+ 4 x1 **2)
Y2 = x1 **2 – 1 / sqrt( 1 + 4×1**2)
The other pair of equations for the other curve you change the sign of the second term on the right side of the two equations.
Then I tried to solve for y2 as a function of x 2 and decided to leave it as an exercise for the student.
That of course was just taking Hartmut’s idea and doing the easy part.
Just saw Tony’s comment. Thanks, love how we are getting into the spirit of the season!
“This is the rationale these guys are trying to use — that we’re just going to be wantonly beating children at random in public,”
They do not oppose the beating part but the wanton (it should be – literally – by the (Good) Book) and the random (each father – or the authority he delegates it to – should beat his own). Whether that should be in public is open to debate. They want public prayer – against the very text of the Bible – after all.[/sarcasm]
Some Kristian(TM) fundies in the US even claim the right – nay, duty – to kill their ‘obstinate’ children and bother the courts with it.
Wait, the “spirit of the season” isn’t HYPERBOLIC?
Maybe should go for hypergolic.
No, no. It was the election season that was hypergolic. At least on one side.
So, here’s a slightly more formal version of my intuition. It’s only looking at the case for x ≥ 0.
http://mcain6925.com/obsidian/graph.jpg
The missing bit is working out theta as a function of x. That, like Donald, I’m willing to leave as an exercise for the student for now.
Note that this would appear to only work if f(x) is continuous, differentiable, and monotonically increasing. Absent the last you’d be into Donald’s parametric equation stuff because g(x) isn’t a function (in the formal definition sense).
Nous’s comment reminds me that I was never very good at the analytic geometry part (eg, a cone cut by a plane). If not earlier, graduate analysis (calculus on an arbitrary metric space) did that sort of thinking in for me.
Nous’s comment reminds me that I was never very good at the analytic geometry part
I spent two years at St. John’s College reading Euclid, Apollonius, Ptolemy, and Descartes for the mathematics tutorial. We had to know algebra to move on to the junior tutorial (Newton), but most of what we did was analytic geometry.
My friend who got a Ph.D. in applied math, he had to go back and relearn calculus because he had learned the Newtonian version with fluxion instead of the version that Leibnitz developed. He got a lot of odd looks in classes until he’d gone back through all of the modern calc stuff.
[I ran out of money in-between sophomore and junior year, then ended up getting a degree in the humanities, so I never ran into that particular problem.]
ended up getting a degree in the humanities
I decided in primary school that I was a humanities person, lol. Firstly because I liked books. But also, because I had neither any interest, nor any talent in maths and the sciences. It’s actually worse, more like part of my brain is not functioning properly when it comes to this stuff (I managed to somehow bumble through high school though).
My friend who got a Ph.D. in applied math, he had to go back and relearn calculus because he had learned the Newtonian version with fluxion instead of the version that Leibnitz developed.
Beginning around 1820, analysis was rebuilt from the ground up. I learned calculus in a setting where it was regarded as a subset of analysis — plus examples of applications — so I put Weierstrass in the place where most people have Newton or Leibniz.
The other pair of equations for the other curve you change the sign of the second term on the right side of the two equations.
For separation r, this doesn’t work if r is more than the radius of curvature of the original curve.
That is, one can use this approach to find a parallel curve (as defined) outside a parabola (ie beneath, if the parabola is convex) but not necessarily inside.
More successes by the anti-vaxxers:
https://mikethemadbiologist.com/2024/12/30/a-modest-proposal-for-a-flu-vaccination-campaign/
It’s not that these vaccines are banned (yet) but officials are forbidden to talk about them (and that they are forbidden to talk about them).