by wj
I have been reading, with some bemusement, the calls from several (most? all?) of the Democratic candidates for free college for all. I’m bemused because I just don’t see this as a Federal issue. An issue nationwide, to be sure, but that’s not really the same thing.
Let me be clear, I absolutely agree that the cost of college has gotten totally out of control. To my mind, someone attending a state college/university (whether Land Grant or otherwise) ought to be able to cover their costs, including tuition and room-and-board, with a half time job. That’s half time at something not much over minimum wage – say washing dishes. It was possible in the late ’60s when I was in school, which I know because I did it. It wasn’t easy, but it definitely was possible. It should be possible today.
That said, it isn’t obvious why the Federal government should be involved. After all, we already have universal (free) public education for grammar school and high school. Funded (over 90%) by the state and local governments.
Free (better yet, cheap) college for all would doubtless require the states to make some changes. Tax increases probably — but it’s a better investment that tax breaks to (theoretically) attract companies. Deciding that funding college athletics isn’t really a reasonable priority would be a good step as well. Quite possibly other things also. But it could be done. (Let me add a caveat that charging more for out-of-state/foreign students is a whole different discussion.)
So why are the candidates pushing this? Besides it being a feel-good issue, of course.
Several reasons why this is being proposed now. I’d link to the writing of Katherine Mangan in the Chronicle of Higher Education, but it’s behind a paywall. However…
Student loan debt is out of control and affordability is a big problem. Federal banking policies facilitated the predatory lending. Bank lobbying and conflicts of interest at the Regent level in many states makes it difficult to enact needed reform. These Debt-Free College plans are end runs designed to get past the lobbyist obstructions and regulatory capture keeping the predatory practices in place.
I note that discussions of college affordability always center on the cost of a college education and not on the horrible state of student employment. Students still have the same types of jobs that we had when we went to college, but those jobs have not kept up with the cost of education, housing, or healthcare. And the effect of these things is disproportionately falling on low-income and first-generation students. I have kids in my classes that work half time and go to school more than full time (20+ credits a quarter plus summer classes) and still have to go to the campus food bank in order to have something to eat. By and large, they get lower grades than the well-off students just because they can’t afford the study time they need to get their school work done.
Free college is also an attempt to cut short all these horrible and exploitative for-profit universities.
I’m for something like free college because it would get rid of the nonsense that drives students into readily-monetizable majors and away from the courses they need to be taking – ethics, history, literature, poltical science – that might help us make better decisions about how society should work. Representative democracies need citizens who think more broadly about their world. Financial desperation forecloses that opportunity. Which is sad, because my students are hungry for that sort of learning, but don’t think they can afford to give it their attention as they rush through.
Anything we choose to do for higher education will be compromised by the hash that high-stakes testing has made of public education policy. Everything I said about that pressure for the practical and monetizable starts in elementary school with the drive to teach quantifiable skills and avoid anything too abstract to measure. It prioritizes calculation over critical thinking. That is killing us at all levels.
Sorry for the scattershot here. Still have to upload final grades.
Several reasons why this is being proposed now. I’d link to the writing of Katherine Mangan in the Chronicle of Higher Education, but it’s behind a paywall. However…
Student loan debt is out of control and affordability is a big problem. Federal banking policies facilitated the predatory lending. Bank lobbying and conflicts of interest at the Regent level in many states makes it difficult to enact needed reform. These Debt-Free College plans are end runs designed to get past the lobbyist obstructions and regulatory capture keeping the predatory practices in place.
I note that discussions of college affordability always center on the cost of a college education and not on the horrible state of student employment. Students still have the same types of jobs that we had when we went to college, but those jobs have not kept up with the cost of education, housing, or healthcare. And the effect of these things is disproportionately falling on low-income and first-generation students. I have kids in my classes that work half time and go to school more than full time (20+ credits a quarter plus summer classes) and still have to go to the campus food bank in order to have something to eat. By and large, they get lower grades than the well-off students just because they can’t afford the study time they need to get their school work done.
Free college is also an attempt to cut short all these horrible and exploitative for-profit universities.
I’m for something like free college because it would get rid of the nonsense that drives students into readily-monetizable majors and away from the courses they need to be taking – ethics, history, literature, poltical science – that might help us make better decisions about how society should work. Representative democracies need citizens who think more broadly about their world. Financial desperation forecloses that opportunity. Which is sad, because my students are hungry for that sort of learning, but don’t think they can afford to give it their attention as they rush through.
Anything we choose to do for higher education will be compromised by the hash that high-stakes testing has made of public education policy. Everything I said about that pressure for the practical and monetizable starts in elementary school with the drive to teach quantifiable skills and avoid anything too abstract to measure. It prioritizes calculation over critical thinking. That is killing us at all levels.
Sorry for the scattershot here. Still have to upload final grades.
As an aside, I have a staff position at an “elite” university. When I started, the department was basically run by several middle-aged black women from the surrounding communities, some with only high school diplomas. About 15 years ago, the university started pretty much requiring an undergraduate degree for low level administrative positions. The most recent position posted for an entry-level administrator in our department required a Masters degree, and (as with all recent administrative positions) was offered with a fixed 8 or 12 month appointment with the dangled possibility of renewals. Unlike the older administrators, several of whom are still working after 45 or 50 years, the new ones mostly last a year or two and before disappearing to a higher paying gig. Basically, the university has taken a solid career path for working class women from the surrounding lower income areas, and turned it into a temporary gig for mostly white, Asian (and often male), recent graduates from second-tier universities. I can’t say that this wasn’t what was intended.
My prediction is that a masters will quickly become the new norm for most jobs, as soon as “anyone” can get a bachelors. It’s a feel-good issue, but I’m not sure it solves anything.
As an aside, I have a staff position at an “elite” university. When I started, the department was basically run by several middle-aged black women from the surrounding communities, some with only high school diplomas. About 15 years ago, the university started pretty much requiring an undergraduate degree for low level administrative positions. The most recent position posted for an entry-level administrator in our department required a Masters degree, and (as with all recent administrative positions) was offered with a fixed 8 or 12 month appointment with the dangled possibility of renewals. Unlike the older administrators, several of whom are still working after 45 or 50 years, the new ones mostly last a year or two and before disappearing to a higher paying gig. Basically, the university has taken a solid career path for working class women from the surrounding lower income areas, and turned it into a temporary gig for mostly white, Asian (and often male), recent graduates from second-tier universities. I can’t say that this wasn’t what was intended.
My prediction is that a masters will quickly become the new norm for most jobs, as soon as “anyone” can get a bachelors. It’s a feel-good issue, but I’m not sure it solves anything.
free community college seems like a reasonable idea, to me. after all, we already provide 13 years of (tuition) free public schools in the US. extending that model two more years – for students who want to do it – shouldn’t be too difficult.
and i agree with wj, it makes more sense as a state/local project – maybe with federal assistance.
Warren’s proposal is close to that – she proposes free 2 and 4 year tuition at all public colleges, paid for in part with federal money. Sanders proposes it for all 2-year and partial 4-year (based on income).
Obama proposed something similar, in 2015.
free community college seems like a reasonable idea, to me. after all, we already provide 13 years of (tuition) free public schools in the US. extending that model two more years – for students who want to do it – shouldn’t be too difficult.
and i agree with wj, it makes more sense as a state/local project – maybe with federal assistance.
Warren’s proposal is close to that – she proposes free 2 and 4 year tuition at all public colleges, paid for in part with federal money. Sanders proposes it for all 2-year and partial 4-year (based on income).
Obama proposed something similar, in 2015.
The details (such as they are) of what cleek is saying about Warren’s plan:
The federal government will partner with states to split the costs of tuition and fees and ensure that states maintain their current levels of funding on need-based financial aid and academic instruction.
“a href=”https://medium.com/@teamwarren/im-calling-for-something-truly-transformational-universal-free-public-college-and-cancellation-of-a246cd0f910f”>You can see it here.
The details (such as they are) of what cleek is saying about Warren’s plan:
The federal government will partner with states to split the costs of tuition and fees and ensure that states maintain their current levels of funding on need-based financial aid and academic instruction.
“a href=”https://medium.com/@teamwarren/im-calling-for-something-truly-transformational-universal-free-public-college-and-cancellation-of-a246cd0f910f”>You can see it here.
If you want to get back to reasonably priced college – and we should – you don’t open with your desired ending position. You say “free”, they say a reluctant okay to reasonably priced. Then you be sure to leave the room before you chuckle.
If you want to get back to reasonably priced college – and we should – you don’t open with your desired ending position. You say “free”, they say a reluctant okay to reasonably priced. Then you be sure to leave the room before you chuckle.
Ack…tag fail.
Ack…tag fail.
If people aren’t going to be able to find jobs that will support them without at least some higher education, then it is arguably in the broad public interest to make it feasible for most folks to get that.
I, too, wore an onion on my belt in my youth, which was the fashion at the time, and attended an outstanding public university. Full tuition, fees, and room and board at that time – 1978 through 1981 – was $900 a semester.
A lot of what made that possible was state money, and in particular the state of New York deciding that they weren’t going to let California out-do them in the area of public education. But part of it was federal money, in the form of Pell grants and other programs.
The question I always have about things like this, when people ask “why is this a federal thing?”, is why isn’t it? What makes it *not* a federal thing?
If people aren’t going to be able to find jobs that will support them without at least some higher education, then it is arguably in the broad public interest to make it feasible for most folks to get that.
I, too, wore an onion on my belt in my youth, which was the fashion at the time, and attended an outstanding public university. Full tuition, fees, and room and board at that time – 1978 through 1981 – was $900 a semester.
A lot of what made that possible was state money, and in particular the state of New York deciding that they weren’t going to let California out-do them in the area of public education. But part of it was federal money, in the form of Pell grants and other programs.
The question I always have about things like this, when people ask “why is this a federal thing?”, is why isn’t it? What makes it *not* a federal thing?
I think the “free college for all” thing needs some qualification, also. Proposals I’ve heard are mostly along the lines of free *public* colleges. Variants include free *public community* colleges, and free *public community college up to associates degree*.
If it’s socialism, it’s socialism-lite.
I think the “free college for all” thing needs some qualification, also. Proposals I’ve heard are mostly along the lines of free *public* colleges. Variants include free *public community* colleges, and free *public community college up to associates degree*.
If it’s socialism, it’s socialism-lite.
tuition is already a federal thing, in that the fed provides lot of grants, loans and other assistance, as well as tax breaks for parents who pay their kids’ tuition.
just make that a lot bigger – problem solved.
tuition is already a federal thing, in that the fed provides lot of grants, loans and other assistance, as well as tax breaks for parents who pay their kids’ tuition.
just make that a lot bigger – problem solved.
what always makes me shake my head is the sheer number of things that were a normal part of plain old American daily life when I was coming up, that are now seen as some kind of evil socialist plot.
cheap public college is just the tip of the iceberg.
Trumpies want “their America back”. Well, I want *my* America the hell back. And I’ll bet you I’m a lot more pissed off about it than your average “heartland” Trumpie is. I’m just not interested in being a jerk about it.
what always makes me shake my head is the sheer number of things that were a normal part of plain old American daily life when I was coming up, that are now seen as some kind of evil socialist plot.
cheap public college is just the tip of the iceberg.
Trumpies want “their America back”. Well, I want *my* America the hell back. And I’ll bet you I’m a lot more pissed off about it than your average “heartland” Trumpie is. I’m just not interested in being a jerk about it.
The question I always have about things like this, when people ask “why is this a federal thing?”, is why isn’t it? What makes it *not* a federal thing?
The default is “not a Federal thing.”
To argue that something is Federal, you need to be able to point to something in the Constitution which authorized the Feds to be involved. Granted there’s been a lot of stretching and twisting over the years, to justify various actions. But you still have to have a clause to hang on to.
I confess I also like the point you mention about New York, back in the day, competing with California on the subject of supporting higher education. I wouldn’t mind terribly seeing more of that. Possibly because the states who would refuse to compete would be those with the strongest political support for stuff I dislike. Small minded of me, no doubt, to wish them to live with their beliefs. (See Kansas under Brownback.) It might be a learning experience for them.
The question I always have about things like this, when people ask “why is this a federal thing?”, is why isn’t it? What makes it *not* a federal thing?
The default is “not a Federal thing.”
To argue that something is Federal, you need to be able to point to something in the Constitution which authorized the Feds to be involved. Granted there’s been a lot of stretching and twisting over the years, to justify various actions. But you still have to have a clause to hang on to.
I confess I also like the point you mention about New York, back in the day, competing with California on the subject of supporting higher education. I wouldn’t mind terribly seeing more of that. Possibly because the states who would refuse to compete would be those with the strongest political support for stuff I dislike. Small minded of me, no doubt, to wish them to live with their beliefs. (See Kansas under Brownback.) It might be a learning experience for them.
what always makes me shake my head is the sheer number of things that were a normal part of plain old American daily life when I was coming up, that are now seen as some kind of evil socialist plot.
And somehow they are all things that the return-to-the-golden-era-of-the-50s folks seem blithely ignorant of the fact were normal. And not part of the collection of things they long to restore, either.
I have to say (as a straight, white, male in his 70s) that overall I definitely wouldn’t want go back to the 50s. But that doesn’t mean that we haven’t lost a few things which we would do well to regain. Prioritizing education, including higher education, being one of them.
what always makes me shake my head is the sheer number of things that were a normal part of plain old American daily life when I was coming up, that are now seen as some kind of evil socialist plot.
And somehow they are all things that the return-to-the-golden-era-of-the-50s folks seem blithely ignorant of the fact were normal. And not part of the collection of things they long to restore, either.
I have to say (as a straight, white, male in his 70s) that overall I definitely wouldn’t want go back to the 50s. But that doesn’t mean that we haven’t lost a few things which we would do well to regain. Prioritizing education, including higher education, being one of them.
Pell grants are good, but they don’t help the overall problem of student debt if the universities are calculating their aid packages on last-dollar models that leave student financial support too short on the back end. If expected student contributions are too high to manage, then the only answers are either to drop out or to take the ridiculous loans on offer.
Well-off students always have a safety net. Low-income students not only lack a safety net, but their struggles affect the prospects of their extended families as well.
Pell grants are good, but they don’t help the overall problem of student debt if the universities are calculating their aid packages on last-dollar models that leave student financial support too short on the back end. If expected student contributions are too high to manage, then the only answers are either to drop out or to take the ridiculous loans on offer.
Well-off students always have a safety net. Low-income students not only lack a safety net, but their struggles affect the prospects of their extended families as well.
Higher Ed tuition are no longer set by “what it costs to provide the education”, but rather “what the market will bear”.
Don’t believe me? Compare the % increase in faculty salary over the past 30 years to the % increase in tuition.
Being nonprofits, the institutions can’t pay dividends to their shareholders, or even sock much of the cash into their endowments, so instead they hire boatloads of highly paid deanlets and assistant adjunct vice presidents for leveraging the buzzwords.
Want to fix college costs? Have the IRS pull the nonprofit status of any higher-ed institution that doesn’t spend at least 50% of it’s tuition income on ‘instruction’, and furthermore if they fall out of non-profit status, are subjected to a punitive tax rate for both the institution and their top admin people.
The whining would be audible from the Oort Cloud. Worth it, though.
Higher Ed tuition are no longer set by “what it costs to provide the education”, but rather “what the market will bear”.
Don’t believe me? Compare the % increase in faculty salary over the past 30 years to the % increase in tuition.
Being nonprofits, the institutions can’t pay dividends to their shareholders, or even sock much of the cash into their endowments, so instead they hire boatloads of highly paid deanlets and assistant adjunct vice presidents for leveraging the buzzwords.
Want to fix college costs? Have the IRS pull the nonprofit status of any higher-ed institution that doesn’t spend at least 50% of it’s tuition income on ‘instruction’, and furthermore if they fall out of non-profit status, are subjected to a punitive tax rate for both the institution and their top admin people.
The whining would be audible from the Oort Cloud. Worth it, though.
To argue that something is Federal, you need to be able to point to something in the Constitution which authorized the Feds to be involved.
The first of the enumerated powers of the Congress, from Article 1, Section 8:
So, what does “general welfare” mean?
Given the historical and cultural context of the writing of the Constitution, it seems to me that “general welfare” is more or less “the public good”. Or “the common good”. Or, the “common weal”, a phrase familiar to the founders, although less so to us.
If access to education needed to make a sufficient living is a national problem, then I don’t see a problem with national public policy to address it.
The feds are not required to do so, neither are they excluded from doing so. Whatever makes sense. And, whatever we, as a self-governing and sovereign polity, want to do.
I definitely wouldn’t want go back to the 50s.
I was born in ’56, so I have no particular memories one way or the other about the 50’s.
The stuff I’m talking about all has to do with a sense of common purpose, and a belief that government is a proper instrument for implementing that common purpose.
We no longer have a sense of common purpose, and there is no longer anything like a consensus that government is a proper instrument for implementing one even if we did have one.
The American people’s fundamental trust in government as a beneficial institution has been undermined by 40 years of people telling them the government is their adversary. Reagan’s nine scariest words, etc.
Now people amass personal arsenals so they can be ready to go to war with their own government and their own neighbors. There is no sound future for a nation where that is seen as anything other than clinical paranoia, deserving of medical intervention.
Here, it is applauded.
Nowadays, we debate whether we should even have public libraries. Not whether they fit in the budget, but whether they should even exist.
There is no sense, whatsoever, of there being such a thing as a public, civic, common good, and no sense that it is something worth investing in and protecting.
That is what is different from when I was coming up. Exactly that.
If you want to know what happened to it, I point you to the (R) party.
To argue that something is Federal, you need to be able to point to something in the Constitution which authorized the Feds to be involved.
The first of the enumerated powers of the Congress, from Article 1, Section 8:
So, what does “general welfare” mean?
Given the historical and cultural context of the writing of the Constitution, it seems to me that “general welfare” is more or less “the public good”. Or “the common good”. Or, the “common weal”, a phrase familiar to the founders, although less so to us.
If access to education needed to make a sufficient living is a national problem, then I don’t see a problem with national public policy to address it.
The feds are not required to do so, neither are they excluded from doing so. Whatever makes sense. And, whatever we, as a self-governing and sovereign polity, want to do.
I definitely wouldn’t want go back to the 50s.
I was born in ’56, so I have no particular memories one way or the other about the 50’s.
The stuff I’m talking about all has to do with a sense of common purpose, and a belief that government is a proper instrument for implementing that common purpose.
We no longer have a sense of common purpose, and there is no longer anything like a consensus that government is a proper instrument for implementing one even if we did have one.
The American people’s fundamental trust in government as a beneficial institution has been undermined by 40 years of people telling them the government is their adversary. Reagan’s nine scariest words, etc.
Now people amass personal arsenals so they can be ready to go to war with their own government and their own neighbors. There is no sound future for a nation where that is seen as anything other than clinical paranoia, deserving of medical intervention.
Here, it is applauded.
Nowadays, we debate whether we should even have public libraries. Not whether they fit in the budget, but whether they should even exist.
There is no sense, whatsoever, of there being such a thing as a public, civic, common good, and no sense that it is something worth investing in and protecting.
That is what is different from when I was coming up. Exactly that.
If you want to know what happened to it, I point you to the (R) party.
On the topic of things that make me “shake my head”, I will also include the fact that the first three enumerated powers of Congress are:
1. To raise money for the common defense and the general welfare through taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.
2. To borrow money
3. To regulate commerce
1, 2, and 3. Exactly the thing that (R)’s have been citing as evil incarnate for the last 40 years.
First, second, and third enumerated powers of Congress. In the Constitution. In plain, unambiguous English. No mysterious unexplained extra commas, simple enough for a 3rd grader to understand.
In the immortal words of the great Casey Stengel, you could look it up.
Originalists can kiss my keister.
On the topic of things that make me “shake my head”, I will also include the fact that the first three enumerated powers of Congress are:
1. To raise money for the common defense and the general welfare through taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.
2. To borrow money
3. To regulate commerce
1, 2, and 3. Exactly the thing that (R)’s have been citing as evil incarnate for the last 40 years.
First, second, and third enumerated powers of Congress. In the Constitution. In plain, unambiguous English. No mysterious unexplained extra commas, simple enough for a 3rd grader to understand.
In the immortal words of the great Casey Stengel, you could look it up.
Originalists can kiss my keister.
What does “general welfare” mean?
Welfare for the Generals.
What does “general welfare” mean?
Welfare for the Generals.
What does “general welfare” mean?
Welfare for the Generals.
What does “general welfare” mean?
Welfare for the Generals.
Morrill Act – constitutional, or no?
Morrill Act – constitutional, or no?
IPad just frisbeed across the room. Mart(y.
Read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Second-Creation-American-Constitution-Founding/dp/0674185048
There were matters that came up weeks and months after the new Constitution was ratified that stymied the very office holders and legislators, ya know the same personalities who authored the founding document, and stumped the band.
Well, what does the Constitution say we should do?
Fuck all, was the answer.
Well, what were our intentions?
As it happens, the big names, in many cases. took the opposite convenient sides from their original intentions expressed in the source materials in the matters at hand.
Thus the endless debates.
As Homer Simpson remarked about Jazz, which James Monroe invented, it sounds like they were making it up as they went along.
Some of those guys could improvise scat singing better than Ella Fitzgerald, if it meant getting their way with the immediate issue, regardless of their immortal words in the Federalist Papers.
The Originalists are the main grift. They are the real improvisational bullshitters.
My keister, too.
IPad just frisbeed across the room. Mart(y.
Read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Second-Creation-American-Constitution-Founding/dp/0674185048
There were matters that came up weeks and months after the new Constitution was ratified that stymied the very office holders and legislators, ya know the same personalities who authored the founding document, and stumped the band.
Well, what does the Constitution say we should do?
Fuck all, was the answer.
Well, what were our intentions?
As it happens, the big names, in many cases. took the opposite convenient sides from their original intentions expressed in the source materials in the matters at hand.
Thus the endless debates.
As Homer Simpson remarked about Jazz, which James Monroe invented, it sounds like they were making it up as they went along.
Some of those guys could improvise scat singing better than Ella Fitzgerald, if it meant getting their way with the immediate issue, regardless of their immortal words in the Federalist Papers.
The Originalists are the main grift. They are the real improvisational bullshitters.
My keister, too.
There is no sense, whatsoever, of there being such a thing as a public, civic, common good, and no sense that it is something worth investing in and protecting.
That is what is different from when I was coming up. Exactly that.
If you want to know what happened to it, I point you to the (R) party.
Although I would phrase it as “I point you to the rise of libertarians in the (R) party.”
I do take your point about Article 1, Section 8. Although it would seem that it would authorize damn near anything. Seriously open ended.
There is no sense, whatsoever, of there being such a thing as a public, civic, common good, and no sense that it is something worth investing in and protecting.
That is what is different from when I was coming up. Exactly that.
If you want to know what happened to it, I point you to the (R) party.
Although I would phrase it as “I point you to the rise of libertarians in the (R) party.”
I do take your point about Article 1, Section 8. Although it would seem that it would authorize damn near anything. Seriously open ended.
The Originalists are the main grift. They are the real improvisational bullshitters.
In practice, “Originalism” means “Here’s how I rationalize, when convenient, doing what I want to do anyway.”
It might be interesting to see what a real Originalist would say on various Constitutional issues. But that has yet to happen. It’s been strictly rationalization, rather than honest philosophy.
The Originalists are the main grift. They are the real improvisational bullshitters.
In practice, “Originalism” means “Here’s how I rationalize, when convenient, doing what I want to do anyway.”
It might be interesting to see what a real Originalist would say on various Constitutional issues. But that has yet to happen. It’s been strictly rationalization, rather than honest philosophy.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/15/1865039/-Trump-orders-all-agencies-to-cut-scientific-advisory-boards-by-at-least-one-third
It doesn’t take a weather scientist to tell you who blows, and who will be butchered in the coming savage violence.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/15/1865039/-Trump-orders-all-agencies-to-cut-scientific-advisory-boards-by-at-least-one-third
It doesn’t take a weather scientist to tell you who blows, and who will be butchered in the coming savage violence.
The originalist debate seems, in most cases, an exercise in picking your bible verse. Some read “general welfare” as encompassing anything the government decides is important. I read the 10th amendment as making it clear that isnt true.
The most powerful words in the Constitution are the three words in the 10th amendment “or the people”.
It is the simplest reminder that the founders thought that the people should run their own lives whenever possible and, after all the argument, they agreed to reiterate that notion.
Most of the things we argue about are varying sets of people deeming their opinion as being in the “general welfare” thus overriding the individuals rights.
Also too, Socialism, as defined in our current debates, isn’t about anything except the Democrats notion that it is incumbent upon the federal government to solve every individual’s problems at any cost. That somehow the state has assumed the power and responsibility to ensure essentially equal outcomes for all persons.
In the 50s people got “cheap” secondary education because very few people needed it. But the notion it was generally attainable is just not reality. In my family I was the first person to be able to go to college, in 1974, and I went on VA benefits. The minimum wage was $1.60 in 1974, no one went to college on that. As much as the GOP is wanting an America that never existed, the discussion of cheap college degrees seems the same
The originalist debate seems, in most cases, an exercise in picking your bible verse. Some read “general welfare” as encompassing anything the government decides is important. I read the 10th amendment as making it clear that isnt true.
The most powerful words in the Constitution are the three words in the 10th amendment “or the people”.
It is the simplest reminder that the founders thought that the people should run their own lives whenever possible and, after all the argument, they agreed to reiterate that notion.
Most of the things we argue about are varying sets of people deeming their opinion as being in the “general welfare” thus overriding the individuals rights.
Also too, Socialism, as defined in our current debates, isn’t about anything except the Democrats notion that it is incumbent upon the federal government to solve every individual’s problems at any cost. That somehow the state has assumed the power and responsibility to ensure essentially equal outcomes for all persons.
In the 50s people got “cheap” secondary education because very few people needed it. But the notion it was generally attainable is just not reality. In my family I was the first person to be able to go to college, in 1974, and I went on VA benefits. The minimum wage was $1.60 in 1974, no one went to college on that. As much as the GOP is wanting an America that never existed, the discussion of cheap college degrees seems the same
That somehow the state has assumed the power and responsibility to ensure essentially equal outcomes for all persons.
this isn’t true, and you know it.
That somehow the state has assumed the power and responsibility to ensure essentially equal outcomes for all persons.
this isn’t true, and you know it.
liberals: hey, we should add two more, optional, years to the public school system that we’ve had in this country for a century.
“conservatives”: NO CONSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT! SOCIALISM!
cleek: did i stutter ?
liberals: hey, we should add two more, optional, years to the public school system that we’ve had in this country for a century.
“conservatives”: NO CONSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT! SOCIALISM!
cleek: did i stutter ?
Except we aren’t talking about “anything the government deems important”, we’re talking about secondary education.
The last four words of the 10th A are “or to the people”. The first phrase in the 10th A is:
Article I Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the United States, and specifically to Congress. Raising money and spending it on public defense and the general welfare are powers *specifically* given to Congress, by the Constitution, in clear language. More than that, it is the *first* power explicitly granted to Congress.
I agree with wj’s observation that the language there is very broad. I have to assume that that was intentional, because the language of the subsequent powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 is extremely specific. I assume they said “general welfare” because they meant “general welfare”. I assume they weren’t more specific because they did not mean to be.
I’ve presented an understanding of what “general welfare” means that is rooted in, and consistent with, political and social thought at the time the Constitution was written. If you would like to present another reading of what that phrase means, have at it.
Nobody here or anywhere is talking about “solv(ing) every individual’s problem at any cost”. The topic under discussion is making secondary education accessible to the public at large. Nobody here or anywhere is talking about ensuring equal outcomes for everyone, nor has anyone talked about that, ever, at least in this country.
When I went to public university in NY, minimum wage was more or less $3.00. Full boat for a year was $1800, let’s make it $2100 with books etc.
You could cover 100% of the cost of attending an excellent public college for 700 hours of work. Work full time in the summer is 400 hours, including a week or two off to go goof off at the beach. Work another 300 hours over the other nine months of the year and you’re good. If Mom and Dad can kick in a few hundred bucks a year, even better.
All of that excludes federal programs like Pell Grants, state programs like Regents scholarships (in NY), and whatever other scholarships you could get.
And that’s the plain math of the situation.
I mentioned the Morrill Act in an earlier comment because wj mentioned land grant schools in his original post. Land grant schools exist because of the Morrill Act, which was federal legislation passed in the 19th C to give some of the proceeds of federal land sales to states for the specific purpose of establishing colleges.
Because the feds recognized a broad-based need to improve the skill set of the public at large in a variety of professions. The land grant program has been recognized as being responsible for the US advancing to the head of the class in economic development in the 19th C.
How access to education overrides anyone’s “individual rights” escapes me. Nobody’s making anybody go to college.
Except we aren’t talking about “anything the government deems important”, we’re talking about secondary education.
The last four words of the 10th A are “or to the people”. The first phrase in the 10th A is:
Article I Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the United States, and specifically to Congress. Raising money and spending it on public defense and the general welfare are powers *specifically* given to Congress, by the Constitution, in clear language. More than that, it is the *first* power explicitly granted to Congress.
I agree with wj’s observation that the language there is very broad. I have to assume that that was intentional, because the language of the subsequent powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 is extremely specific. I assume they said “general welfare” because they meant “general welfare”. I assume they weren’t more specific because they did not mean to be.
I’ve presented an understanding of what “general welfare” means that is rooted in, and consistent with, political and social thought at the time the Constitution was written. If you would like to present another reading of what that phrase means, have at it.
Nobody here or anywhere is talking about “solv(ing) every individual’s problem at any cost”. The topic under discussion is making secondary education accessible to the public at large. Nobody here or anywhere is talking about ensuring equal outcomes for everyone, nor has anyone talked about that, ever, at least in this country.
When I went to public university in NY, minimum wage was more or less $3.00. Full boat for a year was $1800, let’s make it $2100 with books etc.
You could cover 100% of the cost of attending an excellent public college for 700 hours of work. Work full time in the summer is 400 hours, including a week or two off to go goof off at the beach. Work another 300 hours over the other nine months of the year and you’re good. If Mom and Dad can kick in a few hundred bucks a year, even better.
All of that excludes federal programs like Pell Grants, state programs like Regents scholarships (in NY), and whatever other scholarships you could get.
And that’s the plain math of the situation.
I mentioned the Morrill Act in an earlier comment because wj mentioned land grant schools in his original post. Land grant schools exist because of the Morrill Act, which was federal legislation passed in the 19th C to give some of the proceeds of federal land sales to states for the specific purpose of establishing colleges.
Because the feds recognized a broad-based need to improve the skill set of the public at large in a variety of professions. The land grant program has been recognized as being responsible for the US advancing to the head of the class in economic development in the 19th C.
How access to education overrides anyone’s “individual rights” escapes me. Nobody’s making anybody go to college.
The American people’s fundamental trust in government as a beneficial institution has been undermined by 40 years of people telling them the government is their adversary. Reagan’s nine scariest words, etc.
Now people amass personal arsenals so they can be ready to go to war with their own government and their own neighbors. There is no sound future for a nation where that is seen as anything other than clinical paranoia, deserving of medical intervention.
Here, it is applauded.
What russell said at 10.03 above, and particularly this part. The development of this phenomenon in the US is, I believe, horrifying to all thinking people worldwide of any rational political persuasion, but with the added wrinkle that we fear that if it could happen to you, it could happen to us (minus the guns of course) like a zombie apocalypse. Who would have thought it – the USA: a cautionary tale for the world.
The American people’s fundamental trust in government as a beneficial institution has been undermined by 40 years of people telling them the government is their adversary. Reagan’s nine scariest words, etc.
Now people amass personal arsenals so they can be ready to go to war with their own government and their own neighbors. There is no sound future for a nation where that is seen as anything other than clinical paranoia, deserving of medical intervention.
Here, it is applauded.
What russell said at 10.03 above, and particularly this part. The development of this phenomenon in the US is, I believe, horrifying to all thinking people worldwide of any rational political persuasion, but with the added wrinkle that we fear that if it could happen to you, it could happen to us (minus the guns of course) like a zombie apocalypse. Who would have thought it – the USA: a cautionary tale for the world.
As Homer Simpson remarked about Jazz, which James Monroe invented
And not for nothing, but James Monroe wasn’t bringing anything. No time, always playing sharp, always with the corny warmed-over Harry James wanna-be noise. The man couldn’t swing from a rope.
Franklin was the cat who was feeling it.
As Homer Simpson remarked about Jazz, which James Monroe invented
And not for nothing, but James Monroe wasn’t bringing anything. No time, always playing sharp, always with the corny warmed-over Harry James wanna-be noise. The man couldn’t swing from a rope.
Franklin was the cat who was feeling it.
Let me put my old state budget analyst hat on and explain why I think it’s impossible for states to solve the problem.
First, there is a political limit on state/local tax revenues in the narrow range of 9-12%. A bit less in poor states, a bit more in rich ones. Political in the sense that if taxes go above that range, the people in office are voted out and the incoming group cuts taxes. If taxes go below that range, the cuts in services are severe enough that the people in office are voted out and the incoming group raises taxes [1].
Second, the vast majority of contemporary state General Fund spending — at least >90%, in some states >95% — goes to the Big Six categories: K-12 education, Medicaid, other human services, transportation, prisons/courts, and higher ed. Our expectations for state support for higher ed where established in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time, Medicaid was a tiny thing and state-level funding [2] for K-12 education was just getting started.
Third, K-12 education and Medicaid expenses grow faster than state/local tax revenues. The “basket of goods” involved in those have a much higher inflation rate than the broad CPI. See also, for example, Baumol’s Cost Disease. At some point, crowding out of something is going to happen.
Finally, look at the Big Six. Medicaid is fundamentally an all or nothing program; you either meet the standards or you drop out completely. No state seriously considers dropping out of traditional Medicaid. In many states, K-12 spending is protected in the state constitution. Other human services benefit from the “concentration of benefits” effect. In addition, there is so much federal matching money involved that in some programs, cutting $1 in state funds means the loss of another $9 in federal funds. Cutting prisons/courts is hard for various reasons.
We have reached a point where every time there’s a recession, and state revenue either falls (or at least growth slows), the bulk of the pain will fall on transportation and higher ed because they lack the protection the other spending enjoys. If/when growth comes back, much of it is eaten up by K-12 and Medicaid. As a general rule for the past 20 years, higher ed never recovers to pre-recession levels, let alone gets increased.
There’s no politically feasible way to significantly increase state spending on higher ed.
[1] Note that this works very different at the state level than it does at the federal level. If California’s taxes get too high, California voters will vote in Democrats who are willing to cut them back. Recently, when services fell too far, Kansas voters voted in Republicans who were willing to raise taxes. There is a growing disconnect in both parties between how elected federal officials and elected state officials behave on budget matters.
[2] From about 1960, local property taxes couldn’t be set high enough to pay for K-12 education. First in poor districts, so states created “equalization” funds. Then even for rich districts, and the equalization funds become broad state-level funding (mostly from income and sales taxes). Equalization still goes on. In my state, in some of the poorest school districts, >80% of the district budget is state funding.
Let me put my old state budget analyst hat on and explain why I think it’s impossible for states to solve the problem.
First, there is a political limit on state/local tax revenues in the narrow range of 9-12%. A bit less in poor states, a bit more in rich ones. Political in the sense that if taxes go above that range, the people in office are voted out and the incoming group cuts taxes. If taxes go below that range, the cuts in services are severe enough that the people in office are voted out and the incoming group raises taxes [1].
Second, the vast majority of contemporary state General Fund spending — at least >90%, in some states >95% — goes to the Big Six categories: K-12 education, Medicaid, other human services, transportation, prisons/courts, and higher ed. Our expectations for state support for higher ed where established in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time, Medicaid was a tiny thing and state-level funding [2] for K-12 education was just getting started.
Third, K-12 education and Medicaid expenses grow faster than state/local tax revenues. The “basket of goods” involved in those have a much higher inflation rate than the broad CPI. See also, for example, Baumol’s Cost Disease. At some point, crowding out of something is going to happen.
Finally, look at the Big Six. Medicaid is fundamentally an all or nothing program; you either meet the standards or you drop out completely. No state seriously considers dropping out of traditional Medicaid. In many states, K-12 spending is protected in the state constitution. Other human services benefit from the “concentration of benefits” effect. In addition, there is so much federal matching money involved that in some programs, cutting $1 in state funds means the loss of another $9 in federal funds. Cutting prisons/courts is hard for various reasons.
We have reached a point where every time there’s a recession, and state revenue either falls (or at least growth slows), the bulk of the pain will fall on transportation and higher ed because they lack the protection the other spending enjoys. If/when growth comes back, much of it is eaten up by K-12 and Medicaid. As a general rule for the past 20 years, higher ed never recovers to pre-recession levels, let alone gets increased.
There’s no politically feasible way to significantly increase state spending on higher ed.
[1] Note that this works very different at the state level than it does at the federal level. If California’s taxes get too high, California voters will vote in Democrats who are willing to cut them back. Recently, when services fell too far, Kansas voters voted in Republicans who were willing to raise taxes. There is a growing disconnect in both parties between how elected federal officials and elected state officials behave on budget matters.
[2] From about 1960, local property taxes couldn’t be set high enough to pay for K-12 education. First in poor districts, so states created “equalization” funds. Then even for rich districts, and the equalization funds become broad state-level funding (mostly from income and sales taxes). Equalization still goes on. In my state, in some of the poorest school districts, >80% of the district budget is state funding.
Oops. 9-12% of state GDP.
Oops. 9-12% of state GDP.
“So the words general welfare must mean something other than a grant of power for Congress to do whatever it pleased. What exactly did the framers mean?
Two words in the clause hold the key. General and common. The phrase simply means that any tax collected must be collected to the benefit of the United States as a whole, not for partial or sectional (i.e. special) interests. The federal government may promote the general welfare, or common good, but it must do so within the scope of the powers delegated and without favoritism.”
The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks
“So the words general welfare must mean something other than a grant of power for Congress to do whatever it pleased. What exactly did the framers mean?
Two words in the clause hold the key. General and common. The phrase simply means that any tax collected must be collected to the benefit of the United States as a whole, not for partial or sectional (i.e. special) interests. The federal government may promote the general welfare, or common good, but it must do so within the scope of the powers delegated and without favoritism.”
The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks
That’s a good article Charles. Thank you for sharing it.
So – “general welfare” cannot include anything not explicitly mentioned in any of the following clauses?
Higher education – not within the scope of federal power?
Morrill Act – therefore unconstitutional?
That’s a good article Charles. Thank you for sharing it.
So – “general welfare” cannot include anything not explicitly mentioned in any of the following clauses?
Higher education – not within the scope of federal power?
Morrill Act – therefore unconstitutional?
To follow up on Charles’ article:
It actually is a very good piece, and I find it persuasive. I suspect there is more to what Madison, Hamilton, et al had to say than what is contained in the quotes included there, but what is cited there clearly points to a reading more like Charles’, or Marty’s, or wj’s, than mine.
So, take a minute and think about what falls outside of the powers strictly enumerated in the clauses following the first in Article 1, section 8. Here’s Section 8.
That’s off the top of my head. And if we’re going to apply the “first clause is just a caption for the specific clauses that follow”, we need to apply that to the “common defense” part.
That being so, Congress has no power to raise money for:
I’ll stipulate the air force, I’m sure if we had airplanes in the 18th C. they would have included that.
If they need to be explicitly enumerated, then all of the above are out.
To follow up on Charles’ article:
It actually is a very good piece, and I find it persuasive. I suspect there is more to what Madison, Hamilton, et al had to say than what is contained in the quotes included there, but what is cited there clearly points to a reading more like Charles’, or Marty’s, or wj’s, than mine.
So, take a minute and think about what falls outside of the powers strictly enumerated in the clauses following the first in Article 1, section 8. Here’s Section 8.
That’s off the top of my head. And if we’re going to apply the “first clause is just a caption for the specific clauses that follow”, we need to apply that to the “common defense” part.
That being so, Congress has no power to raise money for:
I’ll stipulate the air force, I’m sure if we had airplanes in the 18th C. they would have included that.
If they need to be explicitly enumerated, then all of the above are out.
The minimum wage was $1.60 in 1974, no one went to college on that.
And yet, from 1966-1970 I went to college (UC Berkeley) and I paid for it washing dishes and doing low level clerical work — the dish washing actually paid better, but the working conditions weren’t as nice. I paid everything: tuition and fees, room and board, books, clothes, transportation (not that I needed much), etc.
Yeah, I heard people gripe about how you couldn’t work your way thru school any more. But I did. No financial aid, no loans. And the only “family financial support” ran the other way: for a couple of those years, I was paying my Mom’s tuition while she got her teaching credential.
In short, I’m not buying it.
The minimum wage was $1.60 in 1974, no one went to college on that.
And yet, from 1966-1970 I went to college (UC Berkeley) and I paid for it washing dishes and doing low level clerical work — the dish washing actually paid better, but the working conditions weren’t as nice. I paid everything: tuition and fees, room and board, books, clothes, transportation (not that I needed much), etc.
Yeah, I heard people gripe about how you couldn’t work your way thru school any more. But I did. No financial aid, no loans. And the only “family financial support” ran the other way: for a couple of those years, I was paying my Mom’s tuition while she got her teaching credential.
In short, I’m not buying it.
Just to gild the lily a bit, I might mention that my mother before me worked her way thru college. In the mid-1930s. Yup, depths of the Depression. Again, doing low level clerical stuff — department store accounting, in the days when accounts had to each be manually updated every evening. (By her senior year, she was the swing shift manager.)
It’s a family tradition, I suppose. My younger brother and sister did it too.
Just to gild the lily a bit, I might mention that my mother before me worked her way thru college. In the mid-1930s. Yup, depths of the Depression. Again, doing low level clerical stuff — department store accounting, in the days when accounts had to each be manually updated every evening. (By her senior year, she was the swing shift manager.)
It’s a family tradition, I suppose. My younger brother and sister did it too.
I’m interested in comment from wj, Marty, or Charles on my 11:29, at your convenience, and also on the legitimacy of the Morrill Act.
If the very broad powers implied in the first clause of Article 1 Section 8 are limited to what is explicitly enumerated in the following clauses, and we want to be even in the same neighborhood as complying with that, a lot of stuff needs to go away. Stuff you don’t like, and stuff you like.
No picking and choosing. It’s in or it’s out. If you’re going to argue that as the reason that we cannot, as a national policy, provide support for secondary education, then you’re going to have to own the whole thing.
In or out, that is my question.
We will surely balance the federal budget, anyway. So, upsides.
I’m interested in comment from wj, Marty, or Charles on my 11:29, at your convenience, and also on the legitimacy of the Morrill Act.
If the very broad powers implied in the first clause of Article 1 Section 8 are limited to what is explicitly enumerated in the following clauses, and we want to be even in the same neighborhood as complying with that, a lot of stuff needs to go away. Stuff you don’t like, and stuff you like.
No picking and choosing. It’s in or it’s out. If you’re going to argue that as the reason that we cannot, as a national policy, provide support for secondary education, then you’re going to have to own the whole thing.
In or out, that is my question.
We will surely balance the federal budget, anyway. So, upsides.
I’m interested in comment from wj, Marty, or Charles on my 11:29, at your convenience, and also on the legitimacy of the Morrill Act.
It may be an oddity, but my question (in the original post) about the Constitutional basis for Federal funding of higher education really was an honest request for information. Which you supplied. Simply put, I take your point. And thank you.
I think there are a fair number of areas (agricultural price supports come to mind) where the Federal government is currently involved but which can’t reasonably be justified as promoting the general welfare. But I’d agree that higher education does (IMHO) fit the bill.
I’m interested in comment from wj, Marty, or Charles on my 11:29, at your convenience, and also on the legitimacy of the Morrill Act.
It may be an oddity, but my question (in the original post) about the Constitutional basis for Federal funding of higher education really was an honest request for information. Which you supplied. Simply put, I take your point. And thank you.
I think there are a fair number of areas (agricultural price supports come to mind) where the Federal government is currently involved but which can’t reasonably be justified as promoting the general welfare. But I’d agree that higher education does (IMHO) fit the bill.
thanks, wj
thanks, wj
the US is far past the point where the argument in that article matters. the concrete reality of what centuries of lawmaking has produced obliterates it. we’re simply not going back there.
the US is far past the point where the argument in that article matters. the concrete reality of what centuries of lawmaking has produced obliterates it. we’re simply not going back there.
hell, Madison wouldn’t even let the federal govt build roads. but that approach died with him.
hell, Madison wouldn’t even let the federal govt build roads. but that approach died with him.
I think a great deal of what the federal government does should be phased out to states, localities, the private sector or eliminate altogether. As to the Morrill Act, I don’t it’s any business of the government how many spouses a person has. 🙂
I think a great deal of what the federal government does should be phased out to states, localities, the private sector or eliminate altogether. As to the Morrill Act, I don’t it’s any business of the government how many spouses a person has. 🙂
Regarding the spiralling cost of education, this is an interesting piece:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/05/the-baumol-effect.html
The Baumol Effect was described in the 60s, but is obviously of much greater significance in today’s economy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease
Regarding the spiralling cost of education, this is an interesting piece:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/05/the-baumol-effect.html
The Baumol Effect was described in the 60s, but is obviously of much greater significance in today’s economy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease
The concept of “specific enumeration” is the goulash of American constitutional history. Everything and nothing.
The Founders among themselves didn’t agree, except in highly general terms, what the limitations were, are, and yet to be.
They agreed to not enumerate, other than the all else shall be left to the states verbiage, because they collectively thought it, first, an impossible task, and second, many believed it an egotistical one as well and an imposition on we, the people who came later.
Yes, there were those among them who believed that the federal government should never fund “flying machines”, military or otherwise, because the literal words “flying machines”, were not specifically enumerated in the document, just as some argued, like blockheads, that executive cabinet officers could not be removed for gross corruption in the carrying out of their duties, either by the President or Congress because where does it say that in the Constitution, hanh, even though the President Was accorded the power to appoint them in the first place.
It’s Pa Kettle constitutional reasoning.”Ma, You SAY I should bring in the hay, but can you point to anywhere it says that in writing?”
MA Kettle: “well, pa, you may have point there, which I will take into account when I decide to rely on written authority to cook you supper. KIDS,” she’d rasp at the top of her lungs, “take yer Pa’s rocking chair out to the barn, wouldja, since there’s no hay bales taking up any room.”
The Founders worked it out, because, to overwork the Jazz metaphor, Alexander Hamilton and others laid down such an insistent backbeat with his argumentation that the rest of them fell into line and improvised a solution.
The Founders preferred a written Constitution, unlike the unwritten English Constitution, but came quickly to conclude that it couldn’t be overwritten and what could be written had to rely on general principles and terms.
Let’s take healthcare policy as an example. Conservatives pontificate that it should be left to the States to decide, but they work overtime at the state level electing (by cheating) pols who believe even the states should have no say in healthcare policy AND they pass laws preventing the states from acting on the issue, and many other issues, hamstringing Democrats when they are in office and now hamstringing even the citizen initiative process because the people might contravene preciously absolute conservative principles, to which I have three words in response: Fucking Fort Sumter.
We make it up as we go along, and if now we are prevented from doing that in this 250-year national conversation, then the talking stops and the violence commences.
Besides, to the literal-minded blockheads out there, may I point you to the word “checks” in the Constitution.
Language is ambiguous and it is that way whether the constitution says so or not.
Otherwise, we could have killed all the lawyers in 1789 and been done with it and reveled in absolute certainty ever since.
Happily, many of the Founders had law degrees and felt making THAT explicit in the document would have put a crimp in their lifestyles.
Go ahead and stop all of the checks. You’ll soon find out the fragility of the general welfare.
The concept of “specific enumeration” is the goulash of American constitutional history. Everything and nothing.
The Founders among themselves didn’t agree, except in highly general terms, what the limitations were, are, and yet to be.
They agreed to not enumerate, other than the all else shall be left to the states verbiage, because they collectively thought it, first, an impossible task, and second, many believed it an egotistical one as well and an imposition on we, the people who came later.
Yes, there were those among them who believed that the federal government should never fund “flying machines”, military or otherwise, because the literal words “flying machines”, were not specifically enumerated in the document, just as some argued, like blockheads, that executive cabinet officers could not be removed for gross corruption in the carrying out of their duties, either by the President or Congress because where does it say that in the Constitution, hanh, even though the President Was accorded the power to appoint them in the first place.
It’s Pa Kettle constitutional reasoning.”Ma, You SAY I should bring in the hay, but can you point to anywhere it says that in writing?”
MA Kettle: “well, pa, you may have point there, which I will take into account when I decide to rely on written authority to cook you supper. KIDS,” she’d rasp at the top of her lungs, “take yer Pa’s rocking chair out to the barn, wouldja, since there’s no hay bales taking up any room.”
The Founders worked it out, because, to overwork the Jazz metaphor, Alexander Hamilton and others laid down such an insistent backbeat with his argumentation that the rest of them fell into line and improvised a solution.
The Founders preferred a written Constitution, unlike the unwritten English Constitution, but came quickly to conclude that it couldn’t be overwritten and what could be written had to rely on general principles and terms.
Let’s take healthcare policy as an example. Conservatives pontificate that it should be left to the States to decide, but they work overtime at the state level electing (by cheating) pols who believe even the states should have no say in healthcare policy AND they pass laws preventing the states from acting on the issue, and many other issues, hamstringing Democrats when they are in office and now hamstringing even the citizen initiative process because the people might contravene preciously absolute conservative principles, to which I have three words in response: Fucking Fort Sumter.
We make it up as we go along, and if now we are prevented from doing that in this 250-year national conversation, then the talking stops and the violence commences.
Besides, to the literal-minded blockheads out there, may I point you to the word “checks” in the Constitution.
Language is ambiguous and it is that way whether the constitution says so or not.
Otherwise, we could have killed all the lawyers in 1789 and been done with it and reveled in absolute certainty ever since.
Happily, many of the Founders had law degrees and felt making THAT explicit in the document would have put a crimp in their lifestyles.
Go ahead and stop all of the checks. You’ll soon find out the fragility of the general welfare.
I have always found it historically interesting that as soon as the people who wrote the bits about enumerated powers were elected to Congress and the Presidency, they were all “Well, f*ck, that’s not going to work,” and started ignoring it.
I have always found it historically interesting that as soon as the people who wrote the bits about enumerated powers were elected to Congress and the Presidency, they were all “Well, f*ck, that’s not going to work,” and started ignoring it.
Can an editor add the missing forward slash in Charles’s comment?
wj: your wish is my command. 😉
Can an editor add the missing forward slash in Charles’s comment?
wj: your wish is my command. 😉
And it should be “I don’t think it’s…” :}
And it should be “I don’t think it’s…” :}
Marty, up above, provides a convenient juxtaposition when he repeats the old crap about Socialism and Democrats’ demand that the Federal Government solve every individual’s problems at any cost and then announces he went to college on the VA, which was an offshoot of the old GI Bill passed in 1944.
As it happens, the original GI Bill (see Wikipedia) was authored by conservative Republicans and was much more generous and expensive than the Great Satan FDR’s proposal that these benefits be sharply circumscribed, means-tested, and allocated only to the very poorest former military.
Natch, the only bipartisan agreement was that Jim Crow should be observed as much as possible as pigfuckery was not exclusive to conservatives.
My ex-wife’ about whom I have not a bad word to say, use to accuse me of NEVER doing some things and ALWAYS doing other things, when in reality it would be beyond belief that anyone would ever NEVER do some things, and ever ALWAYS do other things.
Point being, Wemake exceptions, ala Marty and his socialist satisfaction of his individual need for a college education, we pick and choose, and then we call it absolutism decreed by constitutional means.
Marty, up above, provides a convenient juxtaposition when he repeats the old crap about Socialism and Democrats’ demand that the Federal Government solve every individual’s problems at any cost and then announces he went to college on the VA, which was an offshoot of the old GI Bill passed in 1944.
As it happens, the original GI Bill (see Wikipedia) was authored by conservative Republicans and was much more generous and expensive than the Great Satan FDR’s proposal that these benefits be sharply circumscribed, means-tested, and allocated only to the very poorest former military.
Natch, the only bipartisan agreement was that Jim Crow should be observed as much as possible as pigfuckery was not exclusive to conservatives.
My ex-wife’ about whom I have not a bad word to say, use to accuse me of NEVER doing some things and ALWAYS doing other things, when in reality it would be beyond belief that anyone would ever NEVER do some things, and ever ALWAYS do other things.
Point being, Wemake exceptions, ala Marty and his socialist satisfaction of his individual need for a college education, we pick and choose, and then we call it absolutism decreed by constitutional means.
The VA is not Socialism? Sez who?
The VA is not Socialism? Sez who?
JDT, it’s really quite simple. If it benefits you, but not me, then it’s “socialism”**. If it benefits me, then it’s not. Clear?
** Obviously that’s “socialism” in current political use. Not socialism in its economic organization sense.
JDT, it’s really quite simple. If it benefits you, but not me, then it’s “socialism”**. If it benefits me, then it’s not. Clear?
** Obviously that’s “socialism” in current political use. Not socialism in its economic organization sense.
I meant James Madison in my comments when I wrote James Monroe.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/presidents-constitution/james-madison-federal-power/
I meant James Madison in my comments when I wrote James Monroe.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/presidents-constitution/james-madison-federal-power/
It’s really not that hard. Ss, Medicare are paid for directly by my contributions, the VA I paid for with three pretty miserable years of my life. College assistance being a part of the contract I signed going in.
Free college is just free college, a pure redistribution of income. There are more, but the difference is simple. I am entirely in favor of college assistance for other forms of government service.
It’s really not that hard. Ss, Medicare are paid for directly by my contributions, the VA I paid for with three pretty miserable years of my life. College assistance being a part of the contract I signed going in.
Free college is just free college, a pure redistribution of income. There are more, but the difference is simple. I am entirely in favor of college assistance for other forms of government service.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/chris-stewart-foolish-not-accept-foreign-dirt
And
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-accuse-new-york-times-virtual-treason
And
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-president-obstruct-justice-can-run-the-country
So here’s the deal. For any conservative and/or republican (let’s confine it to the professionals for now) to receive my permission to talk in my face about the inviolability of the Constitution, you first will have to demonstrate your righteous bonafides by violently and savagely overthrowing the United States government as it exists on this day June 16, 2019, else, really, just STFU.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/chris-stewart-foolish-not-accept-foreign-dirt
And
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-accuse-new-york-times-virtual-treason
And
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-president-obstruct-justice-can-run-the-country
So here’s the deal. For any conservative and/or republican (let’s confine it to the professionals for now) to receive my permission to talk in my face about the inviolability of the Constitution, you first will have to demonstrate your righteous bonafides by violently and savagely overthrowing the United States government as it exists on this day June 16, 2019, else, really, just STFU.
Interesting article I found when considering CharlesWT’s comments above and pondering what a modern libertarian nation state would look like:
https://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/
If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?
Interesting article I found when considering CharlesWT’s comments above and pondering what a modern libertarian nation state would look like:
https://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/
If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?
You will not have paid anything close in Medicare premiums to what the government will spend on your medical care should you live long enough, and by God, Marty I hope you will spend as much as you need.
But just in case, I hope you have the figure memorized that you have paid into the program over the decades and that figure is fed as an algorithm into the medical equipment and time-release medicinals you are provided and a bell goes off and all care halts at that second, and you rise from your sickbed, race down the hospital hallway, holding your in-patient gown shut at the back with one hand, and burst into the street into the clarifying, purifying sunshine and announce in the words of Martin Luther King “Free at Last! I am free at last!”
You will not have paid anything close in Medicare premiums to what the government will spend on your medical care should you live long enough, and by God, Marty I hope you will spend as much as you need.
But just in case, I hope you have the figure memorized that you have paid into the program over the decades and that figure is fed as an algorithm into the medical equipment and time-release medicinals you are provided and a bell goes off and all care halts at that second, and you rise from your sickbed, race down the hospital hallway, holding your in-patient gown shut at the back with one hand, and burst into the street into the clarifying, purifying sunshine and announce in the words of Martin Luther King “Free at Last! I am free at last!”
It might be worth mentioning that many countries provide their citizens with free (or near-free) college education. And, not surprisingly, the “state universities” in these countries tend to be excellent while privately funded institutions play a marginal role.
It might be worth mentioning that many countries provide their citizens with free (or near-free) college education. And, not surprisingly, the “state universities” in these countries tend to be excellent while privately funded institutions play a marginal role.
You will not have paid anything close in Medicare premiums to what the government will spend on your medical care should you live long enough,
Ditto Social Security, unless misadventure (medical or mechanical) cuts your life short. Certainly that was even more true in the early years, when recipients hadn’t spent a working lifetime paying in.
You will not have paid anything close in Medicare premiums to what the government will spend on your medical care should you live long enough,
Ditto Social Security, unless misadventure (medical or mechanical) cuts your life short. Certainly that was even more true in the early years, when recipients hadn’t spent a working lifetime paying in.
As to free college, it will never happen.
As it does happen, I am at this moment sitting in a friend’s living room not a mile from the private liberal arts college campus in the little college town I spent five years in some time in the 18th century, and we, including my now 90 year old philosophy professor, now retired, were speaking yesterday in awe regarding the tuition and room and board then and now ($4000 per annum then and something close to $70,000 per annum now) and wondering how DO they manage it, much like we used to sit around discussing in awe in 1972 how we could possibly manage the $4000 cost (where oh where are we going to find the spare bucks for booze and pot) when only 30 years earlier, my Dad spent maybe $300 per annum when he attended the same college and not even that amount, because he was On The GI Bill on account of having spent four years fighting the socialist Japanese army in the jungles of New Guinea to prevent the spread of free education to the American homeland.
As to free college, it will never happen.
As it does happen, I am at this moment sitting in a friend’s living room not a mile from the private liberal arts college campus in the little college town I spent five years in some time in the 18th century, and we, including my now 90 year old philosophy professor, now retired, were speaking yesterday in awe regarding the tuition and room and board then and now ($4000 per annum then and something close to $70,000 per annum now) and wondering how DO they manage it, much like we used to sit around discussing in awe in 1972 how we could possibly manage the $4000 cost (where oh where are we going to find the spare bucks for booze and pot) when only 30 years earlier, my Dad spent maybe $300 per annum when he attended the same college and not even that amount, because he was On The GI Bill on account of having spent four years fighting the socialist Japanese army in the jungles of New Guinea to prevent the spread of free education to the American homeland.
Should free college at federal expense be in the offing, however, I agree with Marty that something in return should be expected from the recipients, most certainly some form of useful important government service for a specified time after the fact just as it is expected before the fact by military service.
And not just digging and refilling holes either, unless it’s the holes in Larry Kudlow’s noggin,
Should free college at federal expense be in the offing, however, I agree with Marty that something in return should be expected from the recipients, most certainly some form of useful important government service for a specified time after the fact just as it is expected before the fact by military service.
And not just digging and refilling holes either, unless it’s the holes in Larry Kudlow’s noggin,
I’d agree with you both that “free” isn’t the way to go. Work while you study. Work for the government for a few (3-4?) years after you study. Something doable anyway — regardless of whether your family can afford to subsidize your education.
There’s something to be said for the view that you will value more what you have to actually pay for. I definitely noticed that those of my fellow students who were on full mommy/daddy scholarships didn’t seem to value college anywhere near as much as those of us who were having to put some sweat equity into the mix.
I’d agree with you both that “free” isn’t the way to go. Work while you study. Work for the government for a few (3-4?) years after you study. Something doable anyway — regardless of whether your family can afford to subsidize your education.
There’s something to be said for the view that you will value more what you have to actually pay for. I definitely noticed that those of my fellow students who were on full mommy/daddy scholarships didn’t seem to value college anywhere near as much as those of us who were having to put some sweat equity into the mix.
Also what novakant said, which is the nose on our faces, once again described to the noseless.
That the fully subsidized universities abroad are excellent seems to be a feature American conservatives find the most abhorrent.
Even Soviet scientists were pretty well damned educated, that is if they managed to avoid the free graduate school programs in Siberia.
Not sure about since.
Also what novakant said, which is the nose on our faces, once again described to the noseless.
That the fully subsidized universities abroad are excellent seems to be a feature American conservatives find the most abhorrent.
Even Soviet scientists were pretty well damned educated, that is if they managed to avoid the free graduate school programs in Siberia.
Not sure about since.
I could keep track of SS, that should be a bit of a race likely resulting in me losing money. But I dont object. Medicare is insurance, I’m not sure what the accrued benefit should be but I expect to die, based on current prognosis, long before my premiums would run out.
Whether I, as an American, have struck a fair bargain with me as an individual may be questionable. But I stand behind my bargains.
I could keep track of SS, that should be a bit of a race likely resulting in me losing money. But I dont object. Medicare is insurance, I’m not sure what the accrued benefit should be but I expect to die, based on current prognosis, long before my premiums would run out.
Whether I, as an American, have struck a fair bargain with me as an individual may be questionable. But I stand behind my bargains.
As my late uncle, who could afford it, said when he learned what the meals alone were going to cost at the retirement community where he and my aunt spend their emeritus years: “I’m going to choke down every bite of food they provide and go back for thirds, dammit!”
Just so, Marty, and I expect you’ll outlive all of us, but still, you should try to break your hips many times and contract various expensive chronic but not quite fatal diseases to get your money’s worth.
&-6
Anyway, get a second opinion on that prognosis. I don’t accept the first one.
As my late uncle, who could afford it, said when he learned what the meals alone were going to cost at the retirement community where he and my aunt spend their emeritus years: “I’m going to choke down every bite of food they provide and go back for thirds, dammit!”
Just so, Marty, and I expect you’ll outlive all of us, but still, you should try to break your hips many times and contract various expensive chronic but not quite fatal diseases to get your money’s worth.
&-6
Anyway, get a second opinion on that prognosis. I don’t accept the first one.
The problem with the “Let the states do it” argument is simple – it won’t work. It would be hopeless.
Look at the items Russell lists in his 6/16 11:29AM comment. Take away the federal role and what happens? Disaster is what happens.
So I don’t really care about about all this federalist purity. The federalists can write all the articles they want claiming the federal government can’t do this or that. Very nice from the confines of a law school faculty office or a well-funded gig at some right-wing institution. Doesn’t carry much weight in the world we live in.
The problem with the “Let the states do it” argument is simple – it won’t work. It would be hopeless.
Look at the items Russell lists in his 6/16 11:29AM comment. Take away the federal role and what happens? Disaster is what happens.
So I don’t really care about about all this federalist purity. The federalists can write all the articles they want claiming the federal government can’t do this or that. Very nice from the confines of a law school faculty office or a well-funded gig at some right-wing institution. Doesn’t carry much weight in the world we live in.
It’s really not that hard.
SS and Medicare, clearly not in scope of any of the specifically enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8.
In general the “is it constitutional” argument is a red herring. Most people who argue about “limited government” haven’t read the Constitution since 8th grade civics, if they read it then.
Some people are okay with programs that help people who aren’t them. Some people aren’t.
Some people are okay with programs if the recipients have “earned” the benefit, whatever that means. Some aren’t bothered by people getting stuff they haven’t “earned”.
Helping people get an education means increasing the likelihood that they will make whatever contribution to the world it is in their power to make. That isn’t to denigrate the contribution or achievements of people who haven’t had the opportunity to go to college, or to receive some kind of professional training beyond K-12. It’s simply to note the difference between what people can achieve with, and without, a greater degree of education.
The benefits of that do not simply accrue to them. They accrue to everyone.
You can look at things like this as a “freebie” or a “handout”. Or you can look at it as an investment. An investment in the people with whom you share a nation and a world.
IMO these discussions have damned little to do with “what the founders had in mind”. They have to do with the individuals participating in the discussion, now, today. They have to do with people’s differing understandings of what it means to be a human being, what things are good, and what obligations we have toward each other. Ultimately, what the purpose and meaning of life are.
I have no a priori suspicion of government, any more than I do of any other human institution. Some are good, some are not, most are mixed. I accept that people who live in a polity – which is basically everyone other than a handful of hunter-gatherer bands – are going to put up with some amount of government “bugging them”. I am happy for the various governments I live under to do things that are generally useful and constructive and productive and good, even if I make no specific use of those things, and even if they create no actual direct benefit to me at all. I’m happy to contribute to that through taxes, fees, etc.
Because it’s better for good and constructive and productive things to happen, than for them not to happen. Even if the people who benefit from those things haven’t directly and personally “earned” them, whatever that means.
If the feds make two years of community college available to whoever wants it, or even four years of public college, then whoever takes advantage of that still has to get off of their ass and go. All anyone is talking about doing is making it available.
If that rubs you the wrong way, so be it. If it rubs enough people the wrong way, it won’t happen, and some number of people who might otherwise been able to go to college, won’t be able to.
Why that’s a good idea is beyond me.
If you want to send it to the states, fine. Send it to the states. My state will get it done. If yours doesn’t, too bad for you.
Not my preferred attitude, but if that’s the attitude that is on offer, so be it. I’m happy to make some effort to persuade people that it’s neither a useful nor a productive point of view, but at a certain point – most likely right about now – I’ll shake the dust off my boots and give it up as a bad job.
It’s really not that hard.
SS and Medicare, clearly not in scope of any of the specifically enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8.
In general the “is it constitutional” argument is a red herring. Most people who argue about “limited government” haven’t read the Constitution since 8th grade civics, if they read it then.
Some people are okay with programs that help people who aren’t them. Some people aren’t.
Some people are okay with programs if the recipients have “earned” the benefit, whatever that means. Some aren’t bothered by people getting stuff they haven’t “earned”.
Helping people get an education means increasing the likelihood that they will make whatever contribution to the world it is in their power to make. That isn’t to denigrate the contribution or achievements of people who haven’t had the opportunity to go to college, or to receive some kind of professional training beyond K-12. It’s simply to note the difference between what people can achieve with, and without, a greater degree of education.
The benefits of that do not simply accrue to them. They accrue to everyone.
You can look at things like this as a “freebie” or a “handout”. Or you can look at it as an investment. An investment in the people with whom you share a nation and a world.
IMO these discussions have damned little to do with “what the founders had in mind”. They have to do with the individuals participating in the discussion, now, today. They have to do with people’s differing understandings of what it means to be a human being, what things are good, and what obligations we have toward each other. Ultimately, what the purpose and meaning of life are.
I have no a priori suspicion of government, any more than I do of any other human institution. Some are good, some are not, most are mixed. I accept that people who live in a polity – which is basically everyone other than a handful of hunter-gatherer bands – are going to put up with some amount of government “bugging them”. I am happy for the various governments I live under to do things that are generally useful and constructive and productive and good, even if I make no specific use of those things, and even if they create no actual direct benefit to me at all. I’m happy to contribute to that through taxes, fees, etc.
Because it’s better for good and constructive and productive things to happen, than for them not to happen. Even if the people who benefit from those things haven’t directly and personally “earned” them, whatever that means.
If the feds make two years of community college available to whoever wants it, or even four years of public college, then whoever takes advantage of that still has to get off of their ass and go. All anyone is talking about doing is making it available.
If that rubs you the wrong way, so be it. If it rubs enough people the wrong way, it won’t happen, and some number of people who might otherwise been able to go to college, won’t be able to.
Why that’s a good idea is beyond me.
If you want to send it to the states, fine. Send it to the states. My state will get it done. If yours doesn’t, too bad for you.
Not my preferred attitude, but if that’s the attitude that is on offer, so be it. I’m happy to make some effort to persuade people that it’s neither a useful nor a productive point of view, but at a certain point – most likely right about now – I’ll shake the dust off my boots and give it up as a bad job.
You can look at things like this as a “freebie” or a “handout”. Or you can look at it as an investment. An investment in the people with whom you share a nation and a world.
As usual, wrs in toto. But particularly this bit. I can never understand when people don’t see it as an investment, it seems like wilful blindness.
You can look at things like this as a “freebie” or a “handout”. Or you can look at it as an investment. An investment in the people with whom you share a nation and a world.
As usual, wrs in toto. But particularly this bit. I can never understand when people don’t see it as an investment, it seems like wilful blindness.
I can never understand when people don’t see it as an investment, it seems like wilful blindness.
Perhaps it stems from them personally having majored in something easy and useless. Well, useless except to check the “college degree” box on their resume. (The sort of “major” designed for athletes who couldn’t get into college on academic merit. /snark) That would account for them not seeing it as a valuable investment.
I can never understand when people don’t see it as an investment, it seems like wilful blindness.
Perhaps it stems from them personally having majored in something easy and useless. Well, useless except to check the “college degree” box on their resume. (The sort of “major” designed for athletes who couldn’t get into college on academic merit. /snark) That would account for them not seeing it as a valuable investment.
wj: That would account for them not seeing it as a valuable investment.
I doubt that’s what it is. It’s more that they don’t see that we’re all in this together, and that an investment in other people’s health and welfare is a benefit to them too.
To put it a different way, I took russell and GftNC’s mention of “investment” as applying to our collective investment in our collective well-being…
And even as I write, I see that it amounts to the same thing: are we atomistic individuals, or members of each other?
I’m one of the most cussedly solitary and independent people alive; I live in lifelong and massive rebellion against all kinds of social norms and expectations. Weirdly enough, I am also an extreme collectivist in relation to sharing the wealth. It would be an impertinence I would probably go to jail to avoid for the government to tell me I had to wear a dress, but I see paying taxes as the most obvious duty I have to share my luck.
wj: That would account for them not seeing it as a valuable investment.
I doubt that’s what it is. It’s more that they don’t see that we’re all in this together, and that an investment in other people’s health and welfare is a benefit to them too.
To put it a different way, I took russell and GftNC’s mention of “investment” as applying to our collective investment in our collective well-being…
And even as I write, I see that it amounts to the same thing: are we atomistic individuals, or members of each other?
I’m one of the most cussedly solitary and independent people alive; I live in lifelong and massive rebellion against all kinds of social norms and expectations. Weirdly enough, I am also an extreme collectivist in relation to sharing the wealth. It would be an impertinence I would probably go to jail to avoid for the government to tell me I had to wear a dress, but I see paying taxes as the most obvious duty I have to share my luck.
Perhaps. But I believe it is more that they cannot conceive of society (like Margaret Thatcher), so cannot conceive of an investment that pays out into the public weal (thanks to whoever reminded me of this phrase), as opposed to to themselves. If someone benefits, they think it will be the individual (who got “something for nothing”), not the wider population. It’s such a mean (in the English sense of miserly and ignoble) concept of how the world works.
Perhaps. But I believe it is more that they cannot conceive of society (like Margaret Thatcher), so cannot conceive of an investment that pays out into the public weal (thanks to whoever reminded me of this phrase), as opposed to to themselves. If someone benefits, they think it will be the individual (who got “something for nothing”), not the wider population. It’s such a mean (in the English sense of miserly and ignoble) concept of how the world works.
Janie and I cross-posted, but I see we have the same interpretation!
Janie and I cross-posted, but I see we have the same interpretation!
“cross-posted in response to wj” I should have said.
“cross-posted in response to wj” I should have said.
I can never understand when people don’t see it as an investment, it seems like wilful blindness.
For some of us, it’s due to a different point of view as articulated about 170 years ago.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
I can never understand when people don’t see it as an investment, it seems like wilful blindness.
For some of us, it’s due to a different point of view as articulated about 170 years ago.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
It’s possible that it might be some of both. They got degrees which were of no value. Plus, they can’t see a direct, personal, benefit to themselves of someone else getting an education, and therefore cannot see that they are benefiting from the gain to society as a whole.
Something as indirect as “If you don’t have more productive people coming into the workforce, there won’t be any money to pay for your retirement benefits. No matter whether you think you paid in and therefore deserve them or not.”? Just beyond their comprehension apparently.
It’s possible that it might be some of both. They got degrees which were of no value. Plus, they can’t see a direct, personal, benefit to themselves of someone else getting an education, and therefore cannot see that they are benefiting from the gain to society as a whole.
Something as indirect as “If you don’t have more productive people coming into the workforce, there won’t be any money to pay for your retirement benefits. No matter whether you think you paid in and therefore deserve them or not.”? Just beyond their comprehension apparently.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education.
A distinction which is harder to see when they do, in fact, appear to disapprove of education. Whether the link is causal or not.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education.
A distinction which is harder to see when they do, in fact, appear to disapprove of education. Whether the link is causal or not.
We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all.
well, i’m not trying to force my religion (or lack thereof) into any law.
on the other hand …
We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all.
well, i’m not trying to force my religion (or lack thereof) into any law.
on the other hand …
Let me hone Bastiat’s words to better reflect reality:
Socialism, as it expresses itself in America in 2019, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, holds that what human beings require can be supplied by society in many, but not all cases, and when there is a shortfall in that realm, government can ably step in and make up the shortfall in many cases. If society refuses to supply certain things to all, then step aside and let government do it. As a result, every time that we object to a thing being done by government, which we do in nearly all cases according to our druthers, the socialists conclude that we object to it being done for everyone, rather than merely for those who can pay individuals in society to do it for them. We disapprove of state education. Why, who knows, but then the socialists say that we are opposed to education for the many because we refuse to pay for it, but if the few can afford it, then good for them but stay out of our hair otherwise. We object to a state religion. Socialists nowadays, being accused of godlessness by conservatives, are just as bad as libertarians according to conservatives in the realm of refusing the imposition of a state imposition and the two of them, according to conservatives will burn in Hell and good riddance, though the libertarians believe they each get their very own bespoke flame in separate pits, while the socialists writhe in one great burning mass for their punishment. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then socialists accuse us of desiring state enforced inequality in medical treatment for example, with one guy getting the expensive concierge treatment and the other guy, standing four feet away across a state line, keeling over because insurance and treatment was beyond his means. And so on, well not really. It is a fact that we make little or no provision for people who don’t have enough to eat, but whaddaya expect, the word “grain” is not in the Constitution so we are helpless beyond some totally self-congratutory charity to the needy.
I concede that reality is wordier than an inflexible ideology.
Let me hone Bastiat’s words to better reflect reality:
Socialism, as it expresses itself in America in 2019, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, holds that what human beings require can be supplied by society in many, but not all cases, and when there is a shortfall in that realm, government can ably step in and make up the shortfall in many cases. If society refuses to supply certain things to all, then step aside and let government do it. As a result, every time that we object to a thing being done by government, which we do in nearly all cases according to our druthers, the socialists conclude that we object to it being done for everyone, rather than merely for those who can pay individuals in society to do it for them. We disapprove of state education. Why, who knows, but then the socialists say that we are opposed to education for the many because we refuse to pay for it, but if the few can afford it, then good for them but stay out of our hair otherwise. We object to a state religion. Socialists nowadays, being accused of godlessness by conservatives, are just as bad as libertarians according to conservatives in the realm of refusing the imposition of a state imposition and the two of them, according to conservatives will burn in Hell and good riddance, though the libertarians believe they each get their very own bespoke flame in separate pits, while the socialists writhe in one great burning mass for their punishment. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then socialists accuse us of desiring state enforced inequality in medical treatment for example, with one guy getting the expensive concierge treatment and the other guy, standing four feet away across a state line, keeling over because insurance and treatment was beyond his means. And so on, well not really. It is a fact that we make little or no provision for people who don’t have enough to eat, but whaddaya expect, the word “grain” is not in the Constitution so we are helpless beyond some totally self-congratutory charity to the needy.
I concede that reality is wordier than an inflexible ideology.
From JDT’s TPM link: “A president can run the country,” Trump responded.
From CharlesWT’s Bastiat quote: “Socialism … confuses the distinction between government and society.”
He, Trump would appear to be a Socialist under Bastiat’s definition.
Alternatively, He, Trump is too stupid to know that the POTUS runs the executive branch of the federal government, not “the country”. But He may have this excuse: lots of Americans are as stupid as He is, in that respect.
As for the general topic of what We The People choose to consider our “general welfare”, all I can do is remind True Libertarians that neither they nor our long-dead Framers get the last word on the matter.
–TP
From JDT’s TPM link: “A president can run the country,” Trump responded.
From CharlesWT’s Bastiat quote: “Socialism … confuses the distinction between government and society.”
He, Trump would appear to be a Socialist under Bastiat’s definition.
Alternatively, He, Trump is too stupid to know that the POTUS runs the executive branch of the federal government, not “the country”. But He may have this excuse: lots of Americans are as stupid as He is, in that respect.
As for the general topic of what We The People choose to consider our “general welfare”, all I can do is remind True Libertarians that neither they nor our long-dead Framers get the last word on the matter.
–TP
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society.
And Bastiat manufactures distinctions that don’t exist in the real world.
Governments are artifacts of human societies. They are not some alien institution, they are a natural expression of human social behavior.
Government is, precisely, as natural and appropriate an instrument by which people may “do stuff” as market dynamics are.
If you think governments are any more coercive than markets are, try negotiating the world without your wallet.
are we atomistic individuals, or members of each other?
Exactly
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society.
And Bastiat manufactures distinctions that don’t exist in the real world.
Governments are artifacts of human societies. They are not some alien institution, they are a natural expression of human social behavior.
Government is, precisely, as natural and appropriate an instrument by which people may “do stuff” as market dynamics are.
If you think governments are any more coercive than markets are, try negotiating the world without your wallet.
are we atomistic individuals, or members of each other?
Exactly
Governments are artifacts of human societies. They are not some alien institution, they are a natural expression of human social behavior.
Amen.
But it made me chuckle, for a reason that indicates that I’m getting punchy.
Long ago, one of my housemates was waxing eloquent (and sanctimonious) about the difference between “natural” things like dancing, and artificial, odious things like math. I informed her that doing math was as natural and habitual to me as dancing was to her.
On my long car drives to Ohio I am incessantly recalculating in my head: mileage, hours to destination, etc. I am often to be found trying to think of math-based metaphors for human phenomena…
Sad to say, I don’t dance. Maybe in another lifetime, when I reincarnate as Colin Dunne. (The drummer at about the two-minute mark is cool too.) Of course, that kind of dancing isn’t really what my friend meant: too patterned for her. Not to say mathematical. Like life itself. 😉
Governments are artifacts of human societies. They are not some alien institution, they are a natural expression of human social behavior.
Amen.
But it made me chuckle, for a reason that indicates that I’m getting punchy.
Long ago, one of my housemates was waxing eloquent (and sanctimonious) about the difference between “natural” things like dancing, and artificial, odious things like math. I informed her that doing math was as natural and habitual to me as dancing was to her.
On my long car drives to Ohio I am incessantly recalculating in my head: mileage, hours to destination, etc. I am often to be found trying to think of math-based metaphors for human phenomena…
Sad to say, I don’t dance. Maybe in another lifetime, when I reincarnate as Colin Dunne. (The drummer at about the two-minute mark is cool too.) Of course, that kind of dancing isn’t really what my friend meant: too patterned for her. Not to say mathematical. Like life itself. 😉
For me, singing is “unnatural”. Not because I don’t love to sing. But because my voice is terrible to the point that nobody wants to be in earshot. Sigh.
For me, singing is “unnatural”. Not because I don’t love to sing. But because my voice is terrible to the point that nobody wants to be in earshot. Sigh.
wj,
One of the few things George Will ever wrote that I could wholeheartedly endorse:
“Anything worth doing is worth doing badly.”
I keep telling myself that when called upon to dance, for instance.
–TP
wj,
One of the few things George Will ever wrote that I could wholeheartedly endorse:
“Anything worth doing is worth doing badly.”
I keep telling myself that when called upon to dance, for instance.
–TP
Great quote, TP.
Great quote, TP.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education.
It is certainly accurate to say that those opposed to state education are opposed to widespread education, as available to the children of the poor as to those of the rich.
So the complaint here is not clear to me. Tell us, Charles, do you think education should be entirely a privately funded affair, and too bad for those whose parents cannot pay?
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education.
It is certainly accurate to say that those opposed to state education are opposed to widespread education, as available to the children of the poor as to those of the rich.
So the complaint here is not clear to me. Tell us, Charles, do you think education should be entirely a privately funded affair, and too bad for those whose parents cannot pay?
…, do you think education should be entirely a privately funded affair, …
Yes, with parents and guardians paying tuition with such things as education savings accounts and scholarships added to the mix. For people who couldn’t afford the tuition, charitable scholarships, means-tested public vouchers, etc.
Of course, I’m just throwing dirt in the air. If private education had been around for some time, there would be all kinds of ways to facilitate it.
It would beat the current system where square and other oddly shaped pegs get hammered into round holes.
…, do you think education should be entirely a privately funded affair, …
Yes, with parents and guardians paying tuition with such things as education savings accounts and scholarships added to the mix. For people who couldn’t afford the tuition, charitable scholarships, means-tested public vouchers, etc.
Of course, I’m just throwing dirt in the air. If private education had been around for some time, there would be all kinds of ways to facilitate it.
It would beat the current system where square and other oddly shaped pegs get hammered into round holes.
If private education had been around for some time….
News Flash: Private education has been around for centuries. You may have heard of places like Harvard and Stanfod, yes? Not to mention Oxford, Cambridge….
If private education had been around for some time….
News Flash: Private education has been around for centuries. You may have heard of places like Harvard and Stanfod, yes? Not to mention Oxford, Cambridge….
Private education has been around for centuries.
I was thinking about K-12 education.
As for “higher” education:
“Why we need to stop wasting public funds on education
“Despite being immensely popular–and immensely lucrative―education is grossly overrated. In this explosive book, Bryan Caplan argues that the primary function of education is not to enhance students’ skill but to certify their intelligence, work ethic, and conformity―in other words, to signal the qualities of a good employee. Learn why students hunt for easy As and casually forget most of what they learn after the final exam, why decades of growing access to education have not resulted in better jobs for the average worker but instead in runaway credential inflation, how employers reward workers for costly schooling they rarely if ever use, and why cutting education spending is the best remedy.”
The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money
Private education has been around for centuries.
I was thinking about K-12 education.
As for “higher” education:
“Why we need to stop wasting public funds on education
“Despite being immensely popular–and immensely lucrative―education is grossly overrated. In this explosive book, Bryan Caplan argues that the primary function of education is not to enhance students’ skill but to certify their intelligence, work ethic, and conformity―in other words, to signal the qualities of a good employee. Learn why students hunt for easy As and casually forget most of what they learn after the final exam, why decades of growing access to education have not resulted in better jobs for the average worker but instead in runaway credential inflation, how employers reward workers for costly schooling they rarely if ever use, and why cutting education spending is the best remedy.”
The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money
Private education has been around for centuries.
I was thinking about K-12 education.
The same applies.
Private education has been around for centuries.
I was thinking about K-12 education.
The same applies.
The same applies.
Except that government schools have almost completely crowded out private and privately owned public schools. Charter schools are making some inroads though.
The same applies.
Except that government schools have almost completely crowded out private and privately owned public schools. Charter schools are making some inroads though.
‘Crowded out’….
If private education had been around for some time, there would be all kinds of ways to facilitate it.
It would beat the current system where square and other oddly shaped pegs get hammered into round holes….
Hmmm.
‘Crowded out’….
If private education had been around for some time, there would be all kinds of ways to facilitate it.
It would beat the current system where square and other oddly shaped pegs get hammered into round holes….
Hmmm.
Charles, we’ve been there before. We haven’t always had publicly funded schools or mandatory attendance. And schools, public or otherwise, haven’t always been organized along the lines of the Prussian reforms introduced by Mann and others.
There are good and bad things to say about public education, and in particular the way we’ve done it for the last 100 or so years. I don’t see a return to a private academy system as an improvement.
For one thing, people with less money got less, or no, education. And private schools engage in at least as much social engineering – square pegs in round holes – as public ones.
Charles, we’ve been there before. We haven’t always had publicly funded schools or mandatory attendance. And schools, public or otherwise, haven’t always been organized along the lines of the Prussian reforms introduced by Mann and others.
There are good and bad things to say about public education, and in particular the way we’ve done it for the last 100 or so years. I don’t see a return to a private academy system as an improvement.
For one thing, people with less money got less, or no, education. And private schools engage in at least as much social engineering – square pegs in round holes – as public ones.
According to Catholic tradition both math and dancing are fundamentally sinful and as such unnatural.
“Where there is a dance there is also the devil” (St.John Chrysostomos)
“Math is the base of all heresy” (a cardinal observing the Galilei trial in a latter to a colleague)
As for opposition to education, my mother personally knew some parents that hoped The Lord would come back before their kids are forced to attend school due to the inherent danger of public education to the soul.
And I know of some extremists that try to keep their kids analphabets in order to protect them (German courts were rather unsympathetic to that line of argument).
—-
To give that cardinal the benefit of the doubt, at the time mathematician was synonymous with astrologer and there was no real disctinction between astronomy and astrology.
According to Catholic tradition both math and dancing are fundamentally sinful and as such unnatural.
“Where there is a dance there is also the devil” (St.John Chrysostomos)
“Math is the base of all heresy” (a cardinal observing the Galilei trial in a latter to a colleague)
As for opposition to education, my mother personally knew some parents that hoped The Lord would come back before their kids are forced to attend school due to the inherent danger of public education to the soul.
And I know of some extremists that try to keep their kids analphabets in order to protect them (German courts were rather unsympathetic to that line of argument).
—-
To give that cardinal the benefit of the doubt, at the time mathematician was synonymous with astrologer and there was no real disctinction between astronomy and astrology.
Giving a cardinal the benefit of the doubt seems overly generous to me, unless it might be, for purely frivolous reasons, the (possibly homaeopathically named) Cardinal Sin of the Phillipines.
Giving a cardinal the benefit of the doubt seems overly generous to me, unless it might be, for purely frivolous reasons, the (possibly homaeopathically named) Cardinal Sin of the Phillipines.
also George Will:
duh
also George Will:
duh
Private education has been around for centuries. You may have heard of places like Harvard and Stanford, yes? Not to mention Oxford, Cambridge…
Oxford and Cambridge universities are not private.
Private education has been around for centuries. You may have heard of places like Harvard and Stanford, yes? Not to mention Oxford, Cambridge…
Oxford and Cambridge universities are not private.
That a wordsmith like George Will would put aside the Thesaurus and settle on the descriptive “dumb” is a particularly ouchy kick in the family jewels.
I imagine William F Buckley would be so disdainful of this catastrophe that he would grab his crotch, make an tiny oval of his mouth and tell the party to bite him. Then flash those eyes and kiss Gore Vidal on the lips.
Still, a parent of this mess should be held responsible.
That a wordsmith like George Will would put aside the Thesaurus and settle on the descriptive “dumb” is a particularly ouchy kick in the family jewels.
I imagine William F Buckley would be so disdainful of this catastrophe that he would grab his crotch, make an tiny oval of his mouth and tell the party to bite him. Then flash those eyes and kiss Gore Vidal on the lips.
Still, a parent of this mess should be held responsible.
“Oxford and Cambridge are not private”
Don’t wake Margaret Thatcher.
“Oxford and Cambridge are not private”
Don’t wake Margaret Thatcher.
“Oxford and Cambridge are not private”
For now…
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/apr/17/oxford-cambridge-universities-private-raise-fees
“Oxford and Cambridge are not private”
For now…
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/apr/17/oxford-cambridge-universities-private-raise-fees
The lout who shits the bed every night and shows it to us every morning doesn’t like coughing or sneezing in his immaculate presence:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/watch-trump-mulvaney-coughing-oval-office
His financial statement will look and smell like a landfill full of used baby diapers. He’d show it to us but we wouldn’t be able to handle it.
Hold the coughing, for pity’s sake.
Bannon, you lift that fat butt cheek and fart one more time, and I’ll have you court-martialed. Now stifle, Edith.
The lout is Lewis Carroll’s effing Queen of Hearts.
The lout who shits the bed every night and shows it to us every morning doesn’t like coughing or sneezing in his immaculate presence:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/watch-trump-mulvaney-coughing-oval-office
His financial statement will look and smell like a landfill full of used baby diapers. He’d show it to us but we wouldn’t be able to handle it.
Hold the coughing, for pity’s sake.
Bannon, you lift that fat butt cheek and fart one more time, and I’ll have you court-martialed. Now stifle, Edith.
The lout is Lewis Carroll’s effing Queen of Hearts.
Mulvaney, for his part in all of this, will be executed by firing squad and his carcass dumped into the reflecting pond.
Mulvaney, for his part in all of this, will be executed by firing squad and his carcass dumped into the reflecting pond.
Redistribution is as redistribution was….
The Founders redistributed blacks from Africa to the Americas.
Then they redistributed the 13 colonies from the British to themselves.
This theme continued as the remainder of what is commonly called the USofA was redistributed from the indigenous peoples and Mexico.
Redistribution continued as the major asset of the Slave Power was redistributed (sort of) as a result of the Civil War.
But redistribution did not stop there as unions were declared to be unlawful conspiracies, and federal power was used rather nakedly to preserve the prerogratives of the financial class.
Even votes were ‘redistributed’ in 1919 as women obtained the vote.
More power was redistributed to “The People” (aka federal government-an instrument of The People, but you wouldn’t know that from talking with some folks) during the New Deal and on into the Civil Rights, Great Society eras.
Since Reagan, the conservative movement is bent on one thing, and one thing only-redistributing power (financial and political) to themselves: (1.) Preserving private power in the workplace; (2.) enhancing the financial power of the already wealthy; (3.) changing the rules of the game to help them and their ilk.
So all this bullshit talk of ‘redistribution’ is pure political theater and projection.
Redistribution is as redistribution was….
The Founders redistributed blacks from Africa to the Americas.
Then they redistributed the 13 colonies from the British to themselves.
This theme continued as the remainder of what is commonly called the USofA was redistributed from the indigenous peoples and Mexico.
Redistribution continued as the major asset of the Slave Power was redistributed (sort of) as a result of the Civil War.
But redistribution did not stop there as unions were declared to be unlawful conspiracies, and federal power was used rather nakedly to preserve the prerogratives of the financial class.
Even votes were ‘redistributed’ in 1919 as women obtained the vote.
More power was redistributed to “The People” (aka federal government-an instrument of The People, but you wouldn’t know that from talking with some folks) during the New Deal and on into the Civil Rights, Great Society eras.
Since Reagan, the conservative movement is bent on one thing, and one thing only-redistributing power (financial and political) to themselves: (1.) Preserving private power in the workplace; (2.) enhancing the financial power of the already wealthy; (3.) changing the rules of the game to help them and their ilk.
So all this bullshit talk of ‘redistribution’ is pure political theater and projection.
You need only to ignore the predations of the private sector to understand that the government is always the real enemy.
You need only to ignore the predations of the private sector to understand that the government is always the real enemy.
Charter schools, before they became a tool of private sector disruption, were a product of the teachers’ unions trying to find better ways to teach. Here’s a history.
ALTHOUGH the leaders of teachers unions and charter schools are often in warring camps today, the original vision for charter schools came from Albert Shanker, the president of the American Federation of Teachers.
In a 1988 address, Mr. Shanker outlined an idea for a new kind of public school where teachers could experiment with fresh and innovative ways of reaching students. Mr. Shanker estimated that only one-fifth of American students were well served by traditional classrooms. In charter schools, teachers would be given the opportunity to draw upon their expertise to create high-performing educational laboratories from which the traditional public schools could learn.
Mr. Shanker was particularly inspired by a 1987 visit to a public school in Cologne, Germany, which stood out for a couple of reasons. Teams of teachers had considerable say in how the school was run. They made critical decisions about what and how to teach and stayed with each class of students for six years. And unlike most German schools, which are rigidly tracked, the Cologne school had students with a mix of abilities, family incomes and ethnic origins. Turkish and Moroccan immigrants were educated alongside native German students in mixed-ability groups. Sixty percent of the school’s students scored high enough on exams to be admitted to four-year colleges, compared with 27 percent of students nationally.
It has nothing to do with public vs private. You want better schools? Let teachers actually use their professional knowledge to teach and spend your time and money reducing poverty.
Charter schools, before they became a tool of private sector disruption, were a product of the teachers’ unions trying to find better ways to teach. Here’s a history.
ALTHOUGH the leaders of teachers unions and charter schools are often in warring camps today, the original vision for charter schools came from Albert Shanker, the president of the American Federation of Teachers.
In a 1988 address, Mr. Shanker outlined an idea for a new kind of public school where teachers could experiment with fresh and innovative ways of reaching students. Mr. Shanker estimated that only one-fifth of American students were well served by traditional classrooms. In charter schools, teachers would be given the opportunity to draw upon their expertise to create high-performing educational laboratories from which the traditional public schools could learn.
Mr. Shanker was particularly inspired by a 1987 visit to a public school in Cologne, Germany, which stood out for a couple of reasons. Teams of teachers had considerable say in how the school was run. They made critical decisions about what and how to teach and stayed with each class of students for six years. And unlike most German schools, which are rigidly tracked, the Cologne school had students with a mix of abilities, family incomes and ethnic origins. Turkish and Moroccan immigrants were educated alongside native German students in mixed-ability groups. Sixty percent of the school’s students scored high enough on exams to be admitted to four-year colleges, compared with 27 percent of students nationally.
It has nothing to do with public vs private. You want better schools? Let teachers actually use their professional knowledge to teach and spend your time and money reducing poverty.
Oxford and Cambridge universities are not private.
I get confused by the fact that, in England, “public schools” (e.g. Eton) are what we Americans think of as private schools.
Oxford and Cambridge universities are not private.
I get confused by the fact that, in England, “public schools” (e.g. Eton) are what we Americans think of as private schools.
Charles,
I don’t give Caplan a lot of credibility. Whatever else he is, he is a committed extreme libertarian ideologue, who imagines himself an expert on all things.
This is a man who once wrote that Ayn Rand was one of the great Russian novelists, on a par with Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.
Charles,
I don’t give Caplan a lot of credibility. Whatever else he is, he is a committed extreme libertarian ideologue, who imagines himself an expert on all things.
This is a man who once wrote that Ayn Rand was one of the great Russian novelists, on a par with Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.
Eton & Oxford…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_education
As of October 2016, of the 54 Prime Ministers to date, 19 were educated at Eton College, seven at Harrow School, and six at Westminster School. Nine Prime Ministers to date have been educated at non-fee-paying schools; these include all five Prime Ministers to hold office between 1964 and 1997 (Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major). Although it is a widely held view that British Prime Ministers come from an elitist background of private education, only three of the last ten of the country’s leaders have attended public secondary schools. This reflects an increasing shift in social structure and norms in Britain and its government.
27 Prime Ministers were educated at the University of Oxford (including 13 at Christ Church, Oxford), and 14 at the University of Cambridge (including 6 at Trinity College, Cambridge). Nine Prime Ministers were educated at Eton and Christ Church, including all three Prime Ministers to hold office between 1880 and 1902 (Gladstone, Salisbury, Rosebery)…
Eton & Oxford…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_education
As of October 2016, of the 54 Prime Ministers to date, 19 were educated at Eton College, seven at Harrow School, and six at Westminster School. Nine Prime Ministers to date have been educated at non-fee-paying schools; these include all five Prime Ministers to hold office between 1964 and 1997 (Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major). Although it is a widely held view that British Prime Ministers come from an elitist background of private education, only three of the last ten of the country’s leaders have attended public secondary schools. This reflects an increasing shift in social structure and norms in Britain and its government.
27 Prime Ministers were educated at the University of Oxford (including 13 at Christ Church, Oxford), and 14 at the University of Cambridge (including 6 at Trinity College, Cambridge). Nine Prime Ministers were educated at Eton and Christ Church, including all three Prime Ministers to hold office between 1880 and 1902 (Gladstone, Salisbury, Rosebery)…
“Math is the base of all heresy” (a cardinal observing the Galilei trial in a latter to a colleague)
The cardinal almost certainly did not object to the math that went into the assorted grand buildings of the Catholic Church in Rome.
The theocratic US government in Heinlein’s If This Goes On– has the amusingly named Department of Applied Miracles. People still study science and technology, but only after they have been judged religiously “safe”.
“Math is the base of all heresy” (a cardinal observing the Galilei trial in a latter to a colleague)
The cardinal almost certainly did not object to the math that went into the assorted grand buildings of the Catholic Church in Rome.
The theocratic US government in Heinlein’s If This Goes On– has the amusingly named Department of Applied Miracles. People still study science and technology, but only after they have been judged religiously “safe”.
“Math is the base of all heresy” (a cardinal observing the Galilei trial in a latter to a colleague)
Could it be that he had arguments about calculation of the date of Easter in mind? Sounds plausible.
Better to just track when the Easter Bunny returns to Capistrano.
“Math is the base of all heresy” (a cardinal observing the Galilei trial in a latter to a colleague)
Could it be that he had arguments about calculation of the date of Easter in mind? Sounds plausible.
Better to just track when the Easter Bunny returns to Capistrano.
I get confused by the fact that, in England, “public schools” (e.g. Eton) are what we Americans think of as private schools.
That doesn’t apply to universities. Almost all universities in the UK, including Oxbridge, are public in the sense that they get significant government funding for teaching and research. (Funding for teaching is now mainly by way of subsidised loans to students.)
I get confused by the fact that, in England, “public schools” (e.g. Eton) are what we Americans think of as private schools.
That doesn’t apply to universities. Almost all universities in the UK, including Oxbridge, are public in the sense that they get significant government funding for teaching and research. (Funding for teaching is now mainly by way of subsidised loans to students.)
Almost all universities in the UK, including Oxbridge, are public in the sense that they get significant government funding for teaching and research.
A blurring of the distinction that’s hardly unknown in the US.
From MIT’s president in 2017: …we rely on federal funding for 66% of our campus research support.
Some Harvard numbers from a few years ago.
None of the elite “private” universities in the US could exist in their present form without massive infusions of federal research dollars and student loan money.
Almost all universities in the UK, including Oxbridge, are public in the sense that they get significant government funding for teaching and research.
A blurring of the distinction that’s hardly unknown in the US.
From MIT’s president in 2017: …we rely on federal funding for 66% of our campus research support.
Some Harvard numbers from a few years ago.
None of the elite “private” universities in the US could exist in their present form without massive infusions of federal research dollars and student loan money.
but that’s socialism!
but that’s socialism!
JanieM,
If we want to do justice for the private contribution to the universities, we should acknowledge the role of Carnegie Foundation and a couple of other major private funders in establishing the American scientific and scholarly education into its present-day form. It was these foundations that encouraged the American universities to import the Ph.D degree model from Germany, and to start actual original scientific research.
Prior to that, American universities had been a bit medieval-style institutions of “learning”, where very little original work was conducted. Instead, people studied classics and the literary canon, while scientists were content to train practically-minded people in applying the existing knowledge.
However, the private research funding was clearly insufficient and by the WWII, the federal science funding had an absolute dominance.
JanieM,
If we want to do justice for the private contribution to the universities, we should acknowledge the role of Carnegie Foundation and a couple of other major private funders in establishing the American scientific and scholarly education into its present-day form. It was these foundations that encouraged the American universities to import the Ph.D degree model from Germany, and to start actual original scientific research.
Prior to that, American universities had been a bit medieval-style institutions of “learning”, where very little original work was conducted. Instead, people studied classics and the literary canon, while scientists were content to train practically-minded people in applying the existing knowledge.
However, the private research funding was clearly insufficient and by the WWII, the federal science funding had an absolute dominance.
Almost all universities in the UK, including Oxbridge, are public in the sense that they get significant government funding for teaching and research.
Where I would make the distinction is in who picks the board which runs the university. If the government (governor, PM, etc., etc.) picks them, and especially if state office holders are members by reason of their office (e.g. the Governor and Lt. Governor of California sit on the University of California Board of Regents), then they are public. If the University picks its own (by whatever process) then they are private.
It may not be a perfect distinction. But it makes more sense than trying to decide what percentage of government funding (excluding student loans, which are a totally different deal to my mind) is the threshold.
Almost all universities in the UK, including Oxbridge, are public in the sense that they get significant government funding for teaching and research.
Where I would make the distinction is in who picks the board which runs the university. If the government (governor, PM, etc., etc.) picks them, and especially if state office holders are members by reason of their office (e.g. the Governor and Lt. Governor of California sit on the University of California Board of Regents), then they are public. If the University picks its own (by whatever process) then they are private.
It may not be a perfect distinction. But it makes more sense than trying to decide what percentage of government funding (excluding student loans, which are a totally different deal to my mind) is the threshold.
Two sentences from Wikipedia:
and
I get the point that public money flows to just about all universities in one way or another, and that even the ones that most clearly fit into the definition of private universities could not exist as they now do without those public funds. I also think that in the United States, it’s not very hard to distinguish between public and private universities. No comment on the situation in other countries.
Two sentences from Wikipedia:
and
I get the point that public money flows to just about all universities in one way or another, and that even the ones that most clearly fit into the definition of private universities could not exist as they now do without those public funds. I also think that in the United States, it’s not very hard to distinguish between public and private universities. No comment on the situation in other countries.
Where I would make the distinction is in who picks the board which runs the university…
We don’t do things that way, and I wouldn’t want us to. But there’s a regulatory framework which treats public universities differently from the few private universities.
Where I would make the distinction is in who picks the board which runs the university…
We don’t do things that way, and I wouldn’t want us to. But there’s a regulatory framework which treats public universities differently from the few private universities.
wj,
Your point makes no sense at all in international comparison. Let us take the Umiversity of Helsinki, which is a rather clear example of a public European university: founded by Swedish Queen in 1640, transferred to Helsinki by the Russian Czar Nicholas I, and receiving its funding from the state. And charging no tuition from EU/EEA students.
Yet, this university selects its own board by having its university collegium appoint them. In that collegium, the professors, other faculty and students are all represented. And the only link between the government and the university administration is the fact that the chancellor of the University of Helsinki, who is also appointed by the university collegium is authorised by law to be present and speak in Cabinet meetings where the issues concerning the university are decided. In other Finnish universities, the chancellor (if there is one) does not have this right.
With your definition, Finland would have only a single public university: the National Defense University, where the Rector and professors are appointed by the President. Even there, the external authorities have no say in academics. (Although as a military unit, the University is part of the chain of command in operational issues.)
The traditional European model of university governance is that the professors (since 1968, together with students and other faculty), decide upon the issues concerning the university, and that the government only has a veto on professor appointments. To give an example, in Finland, the president appointed the professors until 1990’s from three nominees proposed by the university in order of priority. (The same as with bishops.) After getting the professorship, they were impossible to fire. The usual American idea of European public universities being beholden to government is a misconception.
wj,
Your point makes no sense at all in international comparison. Let us take the Umiversity of Helsinki, which is a rather clear example of a public European university: founded by Swedish Queen in 1640, transferred to Helsinki by the Russian Czar Nicholas I, and receiving its funding from the state. And charging no tuition from EU/EEA students.
Yet, this university selects its own board by having its university collegium appoint them. In that collegium, the professors, other faculty and students are all represented. And the only link between the government and the university administration is the fact that the chancellor of the University of Helsinki, who is also appointed by the university collegium is authorised by law to be present and speak in Cabinet meetings where the issues concerning the university are decided. In other Finnish universities, the chancellor (if there is one) does not have this right.
With your definition, Finland would have only a single public university: the National Defense University, where the Rector and professors are appointed by the President. Even there, the external authorities have no say in academics. (Although as a military unit, the University is part of the chain of command in operational issues.)
The traditional European model of university governance is that the professors (since 1968, together with students and other faculty), decide upon the issues concerning the university, and that the government only has a veto on professor appointments. To give an example, in Finland, the president appointed the professors until 1990’s from three nominees proposed by the university in order of priority. (The same as with bishops.) After getting the professorship, they were impossible to fire. The usual American idea of European public universities being beholden to government is a misconception.
I appreciate the education on how universities are set up in Europe.
And I am reminded of this description of the US and UK:
Two countries separated by a common language.
Clearly we were not meaning the same thing when we talked about (or thought about) public education at the university level.
I appreciate the education on how universities are set up in Europe.
And I am reminded of this description of the US and UK:
Two countries separated by a common language.
Clearly we were not meaning the same thing when we talked about (or thought about) public education at the university level.
The cult of the Republican Party certainly has a seamy side shared by way too many conservatives:
https://juanitajean.com/holy-crap-in-the-name-of-jesus
Some of them aren’t so much pro-life as they are interested in recruiting and grooming fetuses very early in their term for early voter registration and natch, intimidation when it comes to that, and it always does with these lot.
The first thing they ask about a fetus on the sonogram is not does the baby have a heartbeat, but rather “What is it wearing?”
The cult of the Republican Party certainly has a seamy side shared by way too many conservatives:
https://juanitajean.com/holy-crap-in-the-name-of-jesus
Some of them aren’t so much pro-life as they are interested in recruiting and grooming fetuses very early in their term for early voter registration and natch, intimidation when it comes to that, and it always does with these lot.
The first thing they ask about a fetus on the sonogram is not does the baby have a heartbeat, but rather “What is it wearing?”
JDT, by now stories like this about evangelical, right-wing (overlapping but not identical) preachers are so think on the ground that they barely qualify as news.
JDT, by now stories like this about evangelical, right-wing (overlapping but not identical) preachers are so think on the ground that they barely qualify as news.
The “profit” of a good medical system is a healthy and productive populace
From a John Cole rant about insulin. Applies just as surely to our discussion about the funding of education.
*****
Also, I don’t want to forget to offer a “what bobbyp said” in his 10:06 a.m. comment. Yes, yes, and yes again.
The “profit” of a good medical system is a healthy and productive populace
From a John Cole rant about insulin. Applies just as surely to our discussion about the funding of education.
*****
Also, I don’t want to forget to offer a “what bobbyp said” in his 10:06 a.m. comment. Yes, yes, and yes again.
Why are highways ok, but secondary education is not?
Why are highways ok, but secondary education is not?
CharlesWT, are highways okay in your book? (Sorry of you’ve said, and I missed it.)
CharlesWT, are highways okay in your book? (Sorry of you’ve said, and I missed it.)
Well, obviously all highways should be privately run toll roads. Because who can resist the joy of having to keep a pile of change in the car, and slowing down every few miles to pay for the next few? 🙁
Well, obviously all highways should be privately run toll roads. Because who can resist the joy of having to keep a pile of change in the car, and slowing down every few miles to pay for the next few? 🙁
Private roads and highways can work. I believe there’s a Spanish company that builds, operates and maintains highways. They have a big incentive to build highways right.
Sweden as an example:
“Two-thirds of roads in Sweden are privately operated and managed by local Private Road Associations (PRAs). These road associations are composed of homeowners who live along private roads. An estimated 140,000 kilometers (about 87,000 miles) of roads are the responsibility of 60,000 PRAs. While most Swedish private roads do not experience a high level of traffic, the delegation of roads to the private sector helps the government offset costs. Government works in conjunction with road owners and associations to subsidize the costs of repair and maintenance. Around 24,000 PRAs receive government subsidies.”
Why the U.S. Should Adopt the Nordic Approach to Private Roads
Private roads and highways can work. I believe there’s a Spanish company that builds, operates and maintains highways. They have a big incentive to build highways right.
Sweden as an example:
“Two-thirds of roads in Sweden are privately operated and managed by local Private Road Associations (PRAs). These road associations are composed of homeowners who live along private roads. An estimated 140,000 kilometers (about 87,000 miles) of roads are the responsibility of 60,000 PRAs. While most Swedish private roads do not experience a high level of traffic, the delegation of roads to the private sector helps the government offset costs. Government works in conjunction with road owners and associations to subsidize the costs of repair and maintenance. Around 24,000 PRAs receive government subsidies.”
Why the U.S. Should Adopt the Nordic Approach to Private Roads
all-private highways is possibly the dumbest fucking idea ever.
if a group of humans can’t get together and agree to create a road that all can use for everyone’s benefit, then the universe should pull the plug on us and everything we’ve ever touched, because we’re too rotten and ignorant to exist.
all-private highways is possibly the dumbest fucking idea ever.
if a group of humans can’t get together and agree to create a road that all can use for everyone’s benefit, then the universe should pull the plug on us and everything we’ve ever touched, because we’re too rotten and ignorant to exist.
The US should adopt the “Nordic approach to private roads” the minute it gets done adopting the “Nordic approach” to public education. And health care. And guns. Also, abortions.
If someone calls, from a country — Norway — and offers a clue, why shouldn’t we listen?
–TP
The US should adopt the “Nordic approach to private roads” the minute it gets done adopting the “Nordic approach” to public education. And health care. And guns. Also, abortions.
If someone calls, from a country — Norway — and offers a clue, why shouldn’t we listen?
–TP
On the other hand… 🙂
“When a libertarian cherry picks an ownership model from Sweden – which has a world-famous cradle-to-grave welfare system and hence is a country to send shudders down libertarian spines – you know there’s something fishy going on.”
When a libertarian cites Sweden you know there’s something fishy going on
“In St. Louis, these are referred to as “street associations.” They provide not only roads but other municipal services, such as garbage collection and security. Typically these are neighborhoods where the streets were previously public but have been deeded to the street associations by the city, in exchange for the residents providing their own city services.”
Private road association
On the other hand… 🙂
“When a libertarian cherry picks an ownership model from Sweden – which has a world-famous cradle-to-grave welfare system and hence is a country to send shudders down libertarian spines – you know there’s something fishy going on.”
When a libertarian cites Sweden you know there’s something fishy going on
“In St. Louis, these are referred to as “street associations.” They provide not only roads but other municipal services, such as garbage collection and security. Typically these are neighborhoods where the streets were previously public but have been deeded to the street associations by the city, in exchange for the residents providing their own city services.”
Private road association
Nice one, CharlesWT.
*****
I’ve tried to find stats about roads before, and it’s a quagmire. But here’s a list that says Sweden has a “total road network size” of 579,564 km, or about 360,000 miles, quite a different estimate from what you get if you take the numbers in CharlesWT’s 9:37. Of course, one feature of the quagmire is the question: “What kind of road?” So without a lot more digging, it’s hard to know which are the apples and which are the oranges.
Also, per the St. Louis example, there are lots of private housing developments in the US — eight households of my neighbors live in one — that maintain private roads. So it’s not like it isn’t done here. Note that in the Sweden example, 87,000 miles run by 60,000 PRAs averages to less than 1.5 miles per association. Not quite the interstate highway system, or even the road from my house to town.
Nice one, CharlesWT.
*****
I’ve tried to find stats about roads before, and it’s a quagmire. But here’s a list that says Sweden has a “total road network size” of 579,564 km, or about 360,000 miles, quite a different estimate from what you get if you take the numbers in CharlesWT’s 9:37. Of course, one feature of the quagmire is the question: “What kind of road?” So without a lot more digging, it’s hard to know which are the apples and which are the oranges.
Also, per the St. Louis example, there are lots of private housing developments in the US — eight households of my neighbors live in one — that maintain private roads. So it’s not like it isn’t done here. Note that in the Sweden example, 87,000 miles run by 60,000 PRAs averages to less than 1.5 miles per association. Not quite the interstate highway system, or even the road from my house to town.
What is the difference between a street association and government?
What is the difference between a street association and government?
A lot of things in Europe, including perhaps healthcare systems, likely wouldn’t scale to the US which has several metropolitan areas that have more population than some European countries.
A lot of things in Europe, including perhaps healthcare systems, likely wouldn’t scale to the US which has several metropolitan areas that have more population than some European countries.
Good question, russell.
I wouldn’t own a house in a development governed by an “association” if you gave it to me for free. My close knowledge of a couple of the neighbors in the association that abuts the property where I live informs the shudder that seizes me when I imagine having to participate in joint decision-making with them every month.
Of course, that’s my anti-social streak shining forth. Not to be confused with an anti-socialist streak…..
Good question, russell.
I wouldn’t own a house in a development governed by an “association” if you gave it to me for free. My close knowledge of a couple of the neighbors in the association that abuts the property where I live informs the shudder that seizes me when I imagine having to participate in joint decision-making with them every month.
Of course, that’s my anti-social streak shining forth. Not to be confused with an anti-socialist streak…..
What is the difference between a street association and government?
A street association, or other homeowners’ association, is basically government that is small enough that it can spend what it like on “stuff for us”, without having to pay for anything for “those people”. Ideally (i.e. except for nasty interfering government) it can also fulfill its original purpose of keeping “those people” from moving into the neighborhood.
What is the difference between a street association and government?
A street association, or other homeowners’ association, is basically government that is small enough that it can spend what it like on “stuff for us”, without having to pay for anything for “those people”. Ideally (i.e. except for nasty interfering government) it can also fulfill its original purpose of keeping “those people” from moving into the neighborhood.
“In August, after decades of failing to pay property taxes on their private cul-de-sac in San Francisco’s toniest hills, residents of Presidio Terrace were rudely awakened to fact that their street no longer belonged to them. It had been sold at auction, perfectly legally—and the well-heeled homeowners would have to deal with whatever profiteering came of it.”
When Millionaires Squabble Over a Private Street, There Are No Winners: The ongoing saga of Presidio Terrace is just depressing all around. (DEC 4, 2017)
“In August, after decades of failing to pay property taxes on their private cul-de-sac in San Francisco’s toniest hills, residents of Presidio Terrace were rudely awakened to fact that their street no longer belonged to them. It had been sold at auction, perfectly legally—and the well-heeled homeowners would have to deal with whatever profiteering came of it.”
When Millionaires Squabble Over a Private Street, There Are No Winners: The ongoing saga of Presidio Terrace is just depressing all around. (DEC 4, 2017)
CharlesWT: … likely wouldn’t scale to the US …
I don’t think CharlesWT understands what “scale” means. Or maybe I don’t.
If the US has 30x the population of a country — Norway — it probably has 30x the medical needs. But doesn’t it also have 30x the medical personnel, and 30x the tax base?
Galileo figured out 400 years ago that “scale-up” doesn’t work when some parameters grow as the cube of the “scale” while others only grow as the square. But what’s the “scale” problem when everything scales up linearly?
–TP
CharlesWT: … likely wouldn’t scale to the US …
I don’t think CharlesWT understands what “scale” means. Or maybe I don’t.
If the US has 30x the population of a country — Norway — it probably has 30x the medical needs. But doesn’t it also have 30x the medical personnel, and 30x the tax base?
Galileo figured out 400 years ago that “scale-up” doesn’t work when some parameters grow as the cube of the “scale” while others only grow as the square. But what’s the “scale” problem when everything scales up linearly?
–TP
JanieM,
The Swedish “private road” described here exists also in Finland. The “private road association” is, in fact, a rather interesting legal body, because it is formed by the operation of real estate law.
Essentially, there is a legal principle that any plot of land has a right to have a road connection to a public highway. When such connection needs to be established, this is done by the state authorities establishing a road in a land survey operation. All such pieces of real estate that are affected by the road are given a share in the road, and required to join the road association. The size of the share depends on the type of use and length of road connection (e.g. a plot of forest in the beginning of the road gets a much smaller share than an occupied house at the end of the road). The road itself forms a servitude to all plots of land it travels through. So, the private road and its association are essentially elements of land registry.
Now, then, the road association can be either organised or unorganised. If it is unorganised, the “association” is mainly a legal fiction, and the land owners maintain the road connection each as they see fit, perhaps payong to each other as they deem correct. If road association is organised, it has an annual meeting, a board or a supervisory officer and keeps accounts of its expenses. Technically, the road association has a lien to all its member pieces of real estate. If the owner of the real estate does not pay the road maintenance costs allocated to their share, the association can have a sheriff’s sale of the offending piece of land. However, that is also the highest responsibility of the land owner, who is not responsible for the debts of the road association. It is only the land, not the owner, that is responsible.
Most private roads are, in actuality, a kilometer or two of dirt track in the forest, built to help forestry or agriculture, or allow some remote house or cottage to be accessed. In total, they do make up a huge amount of road network, but they do not really change the nature of the social system to the extent described here.
JanieM,
The Swedish “private road” described here exists also in Finland. The “private road association” is, in fact, a rather interesting legal body, because it is formed by the operation of real estate law.
Essentially, there is a legal principle that any plot of land has a right to have a road connection to a public highway. When such connection needs to be established, this is done by the state authorities establishing a road in a land survey operation. All such pieces of real estate that are affected by the road are given a share in the road, and required to join the road association. The size of the share depends on the type of use and length of road connection (e.g. a plot of forest in the beginning of the road gets a much smaller share than an occupied house at the end of the road). The road itself forms a servitude to all plots of land it travels through. So, the private road and its association are essentially elements of land registry.
Now, then, the road association can be either organised or unorganised. If it is unorganised, the “association” is mainly a legal fiction, and the land owners maintain the road connection each as they see fit, perhaps payong to each other as they deem correct. If road association is organised, it has an annual meeting, a board or a supervisory officer and keeps accounts of its expenses. Technically, the road association has a lien to all its member pieces of real estate. If the owner of the real estate does not pay the road maintenance costs allocated to their share, the association can have a sheriff’s sale of the offending piece of land. However, that is also the highest responsibility of the land owner, who is not responsible for the debts of the road association. It is only the land, not the owner, that is responsible.
Most private roads are, in actuality, a kilometer or two of dirt track in the forest, built to help forestry or agriculture, or allow some remote house or cottage to be accessed. In total, they do make up a huge amount of road network, but they do not really change the nature of the social system to the extent described here.
Most private roads are, in actuality, a kilometer or two of dirt track
Actually, we do have some of those. Typically in relatively thinly populated rural areas, with minimal traffic (i.e. a dozen or two home owners and their farm equipment). It’s a microscopic portion of the total road network, but it does exist.
Plus, if course, the (usually gravel) roads serving a single large ranch.
Most private roads are, in actuality, a kilometer or two of dirt track
Actually, we do have some of those. Typically in relatively thinly populated rural areas, with minimal traffic (i.e. a dozen or two home owners and their farm equipment). It’s a microscopic portion of the total road network, but it does exist.
Plus, if course, the (usually gravel) roads serving a single large ranch.
“The Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike, opened in 1795 between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was the first major American turnpike. According to Gerald Gunderson’s Privatization and the 19th-Century Turnpike, ‘In the first three decades of the 19th century, Americans built more than 10,000 miles [16,000 km] of turnpikes, in New England and the Middle Atlantic states. Relative to the economy at that time, this effort exceeded the post-World War II interstate highway system.'”
Private highways in the United States
“The Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike, opened in 1795 between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was the first major American turnpike. According to Gerald Gunderson’s Privatization and the 19th-Century Turnpike, ‘In the first three decades of the 19th century, Americans built more than 10,000 miles [16,000 km] of turnpikes, in New England and the Middle Atlantic states. Relative to the economy at that time, this effort exceeded the post-World War II interstate highway system.'”
Private highways in the United States
i live on a ‘private’ road. it’s a cul-de-sac about a half-mile long, blacktopped.
everyone can drive on it, but the only people who do are residents and deliveries (it’s in the middle of nowhere). residents pay for maintenance: all ten of us. and that means it’s in constant disrepair. we pay yearly HOA-ish fees which over time will pay for patches. but erosion is faster than our savings rate.
but hey, low taxes!
so stupid.
i live on a ‘private’ road. it’s a cul-de-sac about a half-mile long, blacktopped.
everyone can drive on it, but the only people who do are residents and deliveries (it’s in the middle of nowhere). residents pay for maintenance: all ten of us. and that means it’s in constant disrepair. we pay yearly HOA-ish fees which over time will pay for patches. but erosion is faster than our savings rate.
but hey, low taxes!
so stupid.
Actually, we do have some of those
See also, northern Maine, where we have several thousand miles of them. Logging trucks have right of way, period.
Regarding scale, I think Charles has a point, but IMO the issue is more about cultural differences and a lack of consensus about what government should be doing than it is about logistics per se.
A government that can take a census of 300MM people, or collect their taxes, can (frex) provide a public health insurance option.
We just can’t agree that we want one.
Actually, we do have some of those
See also, northern Maine, where we have several thousand miles of them. Logging trucks have right of way, period.
Regarding scale, I think Charles has a point, but IMO the issue is more about cultural differences and a lack of consensus about what government should be doing than it is about logistics per se.
A government that can take a census of 300MM people, or collect their taxes, can (frex) provide a public health insurance option.
We just can’t agree that we want one.
Meanwhile….
I wonder if Trump understands that tweeting about this in advance makes it less likely to be effective. People are just going to hide.
I know people who have been asked to take care of undocumented people’s kids, in case they are picked up by ICE. Mom and/or dad is undocumented, kids are US citizens. They live with the reality that, on any given day, kids may come home from school and Mom and/or Dad will just be gone.
If someone can explain to me the harm that these people do that warrants this kind of malice, I’d appreciate it. As far as I can tell, they are hard-working people, committed to their families and communities.
Why the hell we don’t want them here is beyond me. We allow about a million people a year into the US. That’s one-third of one percent of the population. Issue more freaking visas. Problem solved.
We can’t absorb them? We already do. They take jobs? Unemployment rate is as low as it’s been in generations. They come just for the welfare? They come here to freaking work, and they work their asses off.
There aren’t really a lot of people that I actually despise. It’s a small club, but Stephen Miller is in it. I recognize the need for an organization like ICE, but this administration is turning them into a gang of thugs.
Fucking bullies.
Meanwhile….
I wonder if Trump understands that tweeting about this in advance makes it less likely to be effective. People are just going to hide.
I know people who have been asked to take care of undocumented people’s kids, in case they are picked up by ICE. Mom and/or dad is undocumented, kids are US citizens. They live with the reality that, on any given day, kids may come home from school and Mom and/or Dad will just be gone.
If someone can explain to me the harm that these people do that warrants this kind of malice, I’d appreciate it. As far as I can tell, they are hard-working people, committed to their families and communities.
Why the hell we don’t want them here is beyond me. We allow about a million people a year into the US. That’s one-third of one percent of the population. Issue more freaking visas. Problem solved.
We can’t absorb them? We already do. They take jobs? Unemployment rate is as low as it’s been in generations. They come just for the welfare? They come here to freaking work, and they work their asses off.
There aren’t really a lot of people that I actually despise. It’s a small club, but Stephen Miller is in it. I recognize the need for an organization like ICE, but this administration is turning them into a gang of thugs.
Fucking bullies.
Folks, before you get taken in too much by CharlesWJ glibertarian claptrap, you might read a basic introductory primer on the issues raised by the need for road and canal construction in the early 1800’s. The part about Gibbons v. Ogden is quite interesting.
We are still having these same arguments over 200 years later: (1.) What is the public good? and (2.) by what means do we achieve it?
As you consider these matters, it is vital to keep in the forefront the Golden Rule underlying these debates: One side ceaselessly pushes to privatise the profit and socialize the costs.
Folks, before you get taken in too much by CharlesWJ glibertarian claptrap, you might read a basic introductory primer on the issues raised by the need for road and canal construction in the early 1800’s. The part about Gibbons v. Ogden is quite interesting.
We are still having these same arguments over 200 years later: (1.) What is the public good? and (2.) by what means do we achieve it?
As you consider these matters, it is vital to keep in the forefront the Golden Rule underlying these debates: One side ceaselessly pushes to privatise the profit and socialize the costs.
Without immigration, the US population would be falling.
“If someone can explain to me the harm…”
There is no harm.
The persecution of these families might facilitate Trump’s re-election. That is all.
Without immigration, the US population would be falling.
“If someone can explain to me the harm…”
There is no harm.
The persecution of these families might facilitate Trump’s re-election. That is all.
While we’re swapping stories of death cults…
Conservative members would rather break up the United Kingdom, and destroy their own party, than stay in the European Union, according to a new poll.
https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-conservative-members-break-up-uk-destroy-party-stop-brexit-2019-6?r=US&IR=T
They’s probably rather sacrifice their firstborn, and eat their own feet, too, if asked.
While we’re swapping stories of death cults…
Conservative members would rather break up the United Kingdom, and destroy their own party, than stay in the European Union, according to a new poll.
https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-conservative-members-break-up-uk-destroy-party-stop-brexit-2019-6?r=US&IR=T
They’s probably rather sacrifice their firstborn, and eat their own feet, too, if asked.
I wonder if Trump understands that tweeting about this in advance makes it less likely to be effective…
The effect Trump wants is votes for Trump. Removing immigrants isn’t the idea at all – wealthy farmers need labourers, wealthy hoteliers need staff, rich people need servants…
I wonder if Trump understands that tweeting about this in advance makes it less likely to be effective…
The effect Trump wants is votes for Trump. Removing immigrants isn’t the idea at all – wealthy farmers need labourers, wealthy hoteliers need staff, rich people need servants…
If I managed, funded, and maintained my very own private road, it would be designated a one way street in both directions.
When you get to the fork in the road, shove it.
It will lead to the Road to Perdition, which soon turns into the Slippery Slope To Nowhere.
Not for nothing, there’s a private road somewhere named Psycho Path.
https://www.rd.com/culture/funniest-street-names/
No doubt it’s a dead end.
I’m still waiting for anti-gummint right-wing militia to come to the aid of the immigrants who will be rounded up by jack-booted gummint thugs, perhaps by supplying these victims of violent gummint overreach with automatic weaponry and unlimited armor-piercing cop killer ammo, as Dick Cheney stipulated.
Popcorn. Pass it.
One does hope that the conservative movement around the world eats their own feet … don’t stop there ….. and impales all of their born on bayonets in a mass suicide pact, but there will be no such luck.
No, it will end up like a worldwide Waco conflagration and WE will be forced to make martyrs of the tens of millions of them.
Remember, though, if there are no survivors among them, there will be no one left to call their dead brethren “martyrs”
If I managed, funded, and maintained my very own private road, it would be designated a one way street in both directions.
When you get to the fork in the road, shove it.
It will lead to the Road to Perdition, which soon turns into the Slippery Slope To Nowhere.
Not for nothing, there’s a private road somewhere named Psycho Path.
https://www.rd.com/culture/funniest-street-names/
No doubt it’s a dead end.
I’m still waiting for anti-gummint right-wing militia to come to the aid of the immigrants who will be rounded up by jack-booted gummint thugs, perhaps by supplying these victims of violent gummint overreach with automatic weaponry and unlimited armor-piercing cop killer ammo, as Dick Cheney stipulated.
Popcorn. Pass it.
One does hope that the conservative movement around the world eats their own feet … don’t stop there ….. and impales all of their born on bayonets in a mass suicide pact, but there will be no such luck.
No, it will end up like a worldwide Waco conflagration and WE will be forced to make martyrs of the tens of millions of them.
Remember, though, if there are no survivors among them, there will be no one left to call their dead brethren “martyrs”
If THEY are hard-working, they are stealing OUR jobs (the ones we do not like to do). If they’re not, they steal OUR welfare (the one we claim to despise and not need).
If they are community and family oriented, they are forming states-within-the-state and plot with foreigners to take over OUR land (the one we took from their ancestors) or to change our culture (and food). If they assimilate 100% into OUR culture (or what we call that for lack of a better word), it’s proof that they’re fatherland-less cosmopolitans (also plotting to overthrow us just not in favor of a specific foreign national model). Ye see, it’s them BEING THEM! not what they do. OK, one exception: if they are RW terrorists fighting non-RW regimes in Central/South America or GOP voting exiled Cubans, they are welcome for the time being (provided they keep away from OUR virgin daughters).
If THEY are hard-working, they are stealing OUR jobs (the ones we do not like to do). If they’re not, they steal OUR welfare (the one we claim to despise and not need).
If they are community and family oriented, they are forming states-within-the-state and plot with foreigners to take over OUR land (the one we took from their ancestors) or to change our culture (and food). If they assimilate 100% into OUR culture (or what we call that for lack of a better word), it’s proof that they’re fatherland-less cosmopolitans (also plotting to overthrow us just not in favor of a specific foreign national model). Ye see, it’s them BEING THEM! not what they do. OK, one exception: if they are RW terrorists fighting non-RW regimes in Central/South America or GOP voting exiled Cubans, they are welcome for the time being (provided they keep away from OUR virgin daughters).
‘In the first three decades of the 19th century, Americans built more than 10,000 miles [16,000 km] of turnpikes, in New England and the Middle Atlantic states. Relative to the economy at that time, this effort exceeded the post-World War II interstate highway system.’
And yet, with all this experience with the marvels of privately built and run roads, we then mostly went with public roads. Perhaps there’s a lesson there . . . though I somehow doubt that committed libertarians will we willing to see it.
‘In the first three decades of the 19th century, Americans built more than 10,000 miles [16,000 km] of turnpikes, in New England and the Middle Atlantic states. Relative to the economy at that time, this effort exceeded the post-World War II interstate highway system.’
And yet, with all this experience with the marvels of privately built and run roads, we then mostly went with public roads. Perhaps there’s a lesson there . . . though I somehow doubt that committed libertarians will we willing to see it.
If someone can explain to me the harm that these people do that warrants this kind of malice, I’d appreciate it.
By demonstrating that other kinds of people, from other places, can be just as good as the people already here, they undermine the nativists’ sense of being especially wonderful. Very harmful to their fragile egos.
If someone can explain to me the harm that these people do that warrants this kind of malice, I’d appreciate it.
By demonstrating that other kinds of people, from other places, can be just as good as the people already here, they undermine the nativists’ sense of being especially wonderful. Very harmful to their fragile egos.
Wj,
Yep. And the Nordic “private road” has nothing to do with such for-profit turnpikes that served the public. The Nordic private road is a loss-maker serving its members who have the ill luck of not living by a public highway. In fact, because of these features, you could actually view the whole concept as state coercion: the private road association membership and the share of each member is determined by the state. So, the fees of the road association can be compared to taxes, because you can’t resign nor decide not to join.
Further, while most private roads are cul-de-sacs, if the road happens to be useful for public traffic, either the municipality can take the road over without compensation. In such case, the obligations and wealth of the road association are confiscated without monetary compensation. The implicit compensation of the government becoming responsible for the maintenance of the road is considered compensation enough. So, I would take the role of the Nordic private roads as evidence of the superiority of public highways.
Wj,
Yep. And the Nordic “private road” has nothing to do with such for-profit turnpikes that served the public. The Nordic private road is a loss-maker serving its members who have the ill luck of not living by a public highway. In fact, because of these features, you could actually view the whole concept as state coercion: the private road association membership and the share of each member is determined by the state. So, the fees of the road association can be compared to taxes, because you can’t resign nor decide not to join.
Further, while most private roads are cul-de-sacs, if the road happens to be useful for public traffic, either the municipality can take the road over without compensation. In such case, the obligations and wealth of the road association are confiscated without monetary compensation. The implicit compensation of the government becoming responsible for the maintenance of the road is considered compensation enough. So, I would take the role of the Nordic private roads as evidence of the superiority of public highways.
“provided they keep away from our virgin daughters”
Wouldn’t they have a better shot at the main chance if they went after the already violated non-virgin daughters of the American conservative movement, rather than sorting among the few legitimate virgins among the fake news ones in evangelical fundamentalist households?
Why isn’t there a question on the Census form regarding the virgin status of American women and girls, the better to give p a heads-up for his late night phone antics?
“provided they keep away from our virgin daughters”
Wouldn’t they have a better shot at the main chance if they went after the already violated non-virgin daughters of the American conservative movement, rather than sorting among the few legitimate virgins among the fake news ones in evangelical fundamentalist households?
Why isn’t there a question on the Census form regarding the virgin status of American women and girls, the better to give p a heads-up for his late night phone antics?
Why isn’t there a question on the Census form regarding the virgin status of American women and girls
Perhaps because lying on a census form is a crime? And while Trump and his immediate circle don’t worry about the law applying to them, the number of his supporters with molested daughters appears to be significant. Could get awkward.
Why isn’t there a question on the Census form regarding the virgin status of American women and girls
Perhaps because lying on a census form is a crime? And while Trump and his immediate circle don’t worry about the law applying to them, the number of his supporters with molested daughters appears to be significant. Could get awkward.
Can you spot what is wrong with the headline at the link:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-crowd-size-guitarists
How small does the guitar player have to be to be smaller than p’s crowd numbers?
The p campaign fires Kellyanne’Conway’s polling outfit for not clapping hard enough:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B01o2xtJwgk
Can you spot what is wrong with the headline at the link:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-crowd-size-guitarists
How small does the guitar player have to be to be smaller than p’s crowd numbers?
The p campaign fires Kellyanne’Conway’s polling outfit for not clapping hard enough:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B01o2xtJwgk
The news is never fake enough for conservative filth:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-e25d34pY
The news is never fake enough for conservative filth:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-e25d34pY
In Austria, most of the hotels are privately owned, unlike the p hotels in America whichare subsidized by the White House and foreign governments.
Here, let Frank Luntz, the lying reptile, fill you in:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/18/1865573/-I-thought-Frank-Lutz-was-the-smart-one
In Austria, most of the hotels are privately owned, unlike the p hotels in America whichare subsidized by the White House and foreign governments.
Here, let Frank Luntz, the lying reptile, fill you in:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/18/1865573/-I-thought-Frank-Lutz-was-the-smart-one
Didn’t someone once say that religion is the sugar-high of the people:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/people-who-post-god-and-pray-on-facebook-may-be-more-likely-to-develop-these-life-threatening-conditions-2019-06-18?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Didn’t someone once say that religion is the sugar-high of the people:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/people-who-post-god-and-pray-on-facebook-may-be-more-likely-to-develop-these-life-threatening-conditions-2019-06-18?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Luntz, cited above, was responding to George Will’s summing up of the scum line Republican Party as “dumb”, echoing Hillary Clinton’s assessment of them as “deplorable”, which given nearly three years of untreated sewage was an understatement.
Luntz just wanted to peer review and confirm the fatal diagnosis
Luntz, cited above, was responding to George Will’s summing up of the scum line Republican Party as “dumb”, echoing Hillary Clinton’s assessment of them as “deplorable”, which given nearly three years of untreated sewage was an understatement.
Luntz just wanted to peer review and confirm the fatal diagnosis
The OP title being “Free College for All and Other National Platform Proposals“, it is worth asking whether any “platform” is A Thing.
Hint: it isn’t.
For evidence I offer a January 2016 comment from our pet non-Trumper conservative who has nevertheless made a habit of defending He, Trump’s “(Republican) policies” to us benighted libruls.
Note that to He, Trump’s “platform” was either completely misinterpreted by our fellow commenter, or a pack of lies as revealed by subsequent events.
Either way, a “platform” seems to be irrelevant in our current presidential politics, where most Americans vote for President-as-Totem rather than President-as-Executive.
If we (and I include the author of the quoted comment in “we”) are disgusted by what He, Trump represents, we have to worry about the Totem-worshipers in MAGA hats, not about the “platform” put forward by this or that Democrat.
–TP
The OP title being “Free College for All and Other National Platform Proposals“, it is worth asking whether any “platform” is A Thing.
Hint: it isn’t.
For evidence I offer a January 2016 comment from our pet non-Trumper conservative who has nevertheless made a habit of defending He, Trump’s “(Republican) policies” to us benighted libruls.
Note that to He, Trump’s “platform” was either completely misinterpreted by our fellow commenter, or a pack of lies as revealed by subsequent events.
Either way, a “platform” seems to be irrelevant in our current presidential politics, where most Americans vote for President-as-Totem rather than President-as-Executive.
If we (and I include the author of the quoted comment in “we”) are disgusted by what He, Trump represents, we have to worry about the Totem-worshipers in MAGA hats, not about the “platform” put forward by this or that Democrat.
–TP
it is worth asking whether any “platform” is A Thing.
Hint: it isn’t.
It was merely a convenient shorthand for “topics which are getting discussed in the course of the (primary) campaign”. Regardless of whether they make it into the party’s formal platform, or whether the candidate does anything about it if actually elected, they remain issues which are of interest.
it is worth asking whether any “platform” is A Thing.
Hint: it isn’t.
It was merely a convenient shorthand for “topics which are getting discussed in the course of the (primary) campaign”. Regardless of whether they make it into the party’s formal platform, or whether the candidate does anything about it if actually elected, they remain issues which are of interest.
What is wrong with this picture?!?
And here I thought the tradition was for the State Department to be the ones working to avoid military solutions. Guess times change.
What is wrong with this picture?!?
And here I thought the tradition was for the State Department to be the ones working to avoid military solutions. Guess times change.
I think Pompeo just fancies himself as Trump’s successor.
I think Pompeo just fancies himself as Trump’s successor.
Pathological.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trump-and-the-telltale-cough
Trump had two main messages in the interviews: first, that he is respected, cheered, saluted, and loved. The people crying by the roadside were the ones “that couldn’t get in” to his events. The second message: that his enemies are everywhere—indeed, no President has ever been so persecuted. “Although, they do say Abraham Lincoln was treated really badly. I must say, that’s the one. If you can believe it, Abraham Lincoln was treated supposedly very badly. But nobody’s been treated badly like me.” …
Pathological.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trump-and-the-telltale-cough
Trump had two main messages in the interviews: first, that he is respected, cheered, saluted, and loved. The people crying by the roadside were the ones “that couldn’t get in” to his events. The second message: that his enemies are everywhere—indeed, no President has ever been so persecuted. “Although, they do say Abraham Lincoln was treated really badly. I must say, that’s the one. If you can believe it, Abraham Lincoln was treated supposedly very badly. But nobody’s been treated badly like me.” …
Truly a president for the post-truth age.
“You have people on both sides of that.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449181-trump-refuses-to-apologize-to-central-park-five-they-admitted-their
Truly a president for the post-truth age.
“You have people on both sides of that.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449181-trump-refuses-to-apologize-to-central-park-five-they-admitted-their
And here I thought the tradition was for the State Department to be the ones working to avoid military solutions. Guess times change.
Remember that the military are the people who have to figure out how to make those “solutions” actually solve something. Given the utter stupidity of getting into a war with Iran, I suspect that’s quite a struggle.
Plus, their guys get killed.
And here I thought the tradition was for the State Department to be the ones working to avoid military solutions. Guess times change.
Remember that the military are the people who have to figure out how to make those “solutions” actually solve something. Given the utter stupidity of getting into a war with Iran, I suspect that’s quite a struggle.
Plus, their guys get killed.
Defenders of Stalin’s show trials said that the accused had to be shot in any case. Either for having committed the crimes they confessed to or for lying publicly to the people about having committed those crimes.
And in (German) witch trials lack of confession even under torture was proof of guilt since no one could withstand torture without the devil’s* help (in case of confession no further proof of guilt was, of couse, necessary).
Plus: all criminals claim to be innocent, so claims of innocence are as good a proof of guilt as anyone could wish for.
*G#d’s help was not considered since He would not have allowed suspicion to arise in the inquisitors against an innocent in the first place.
Defenders of Stalin’s show trials said that the accused had to be shot in any case. Either for having committed the crimes they confessed to or for lying publicly to the people about having committed those crimes.
And in (German) witch trials lack of confession even under torture was proof of guilt since no one could withstand torture without the devil’s* help (in case of confession no further proof of guilt was, of couse, necessary).
Plus: all criminals claim to be innocent, so claims of innocence are as good a proof of guilt as anyone could wish for.
*G#d’s help was not considered since He would not have allowed suspicion to arise in the inquisitors against an innocent in the first place.
“Abraham Lincoln was treated supposedly very badly. But nobody’s been treated badly like me.” …
Yup, because merely being assassinated is nothing to the terrible things being inflicted on Trump. Who could possibly think otherwise?
“Abraham Lincoln was treated supposedly very badly. But nobody’s been treated badly like me.” …
Yup, because merely being assassinated is nothing to the terrible things being inflicted on Trump. Who could possibly think otherwise?
i like Presidents who don’t get assassinated .
i like Presidents who don’t get assassinated .
The words “they do say” in the shit salad “they do say Abraham Lincoln was treated really badly” are the key giveaways.
Like too many in the soon to be butchered political party he leads, he has his doubts that Lincoln’s treatment at the hands of the racist vermin Confederate precursors of the racist hateful vermin republican base in 2019 was anything but exemplary, and in fact, there were good people on both sides.
But for fake news and fake history, we would know this and agree.
John Wilkes Booth, for example. Hell of an actor, and his final role as assassin and traitor to America was one all conservative racist vermin can aspire to.
Booth was Ronald Reagan’s body double in key scenes during the latter’s movie career, p has read somewhere, probably on the label of his boxer shorts.
Booth apparently dated Carmen Miranda late in both of their lives, so he couldn’t have been racist, right.
Then he played Bruce, the mechanical great white shark, in “Jaws”, named for Stephen Speilberg’s attorney.
He missed a few of his marks, but this happens in your older white racist vermin conservative fuckwad actors.
The words “they do say” in the shit salad “they do say Abraham Lincoln was treated really badly” are the key giveaways.
Like too many in the soon to be butchered political party he leads, he has his doubts that Lincoln’s treatment at the hands of the racist vermin Confederate precursors of the racist hateful vermin republican base in 2019 was anything but exemplary, and in fact, there were good people on both sides.
But for fake news and fake history, we would know this and agree.
John Wilkes Booth, for example. Hell of an actor, and his final role as assassin and traitor to America was one all conservative racist vermin can aspire to.
Booth was Ronald Reagan’s body double in key scenes during the latter’s movie career, p has read somewhere, probably on the label of his boxer shorts.
Booth apparently dated Carmen Miranda late in both of their lives, so he couldn’t have been racist, right.
Then he played Bruce, the mechanical great white shark, in “Jaws”, named for Stephen Speilberg’s attorney.
He missed a few of his marks, but this happens in your older white racist vermin conservative fuckwad actors.
Might actually work
https://images.app.goo.gl/trLvPPogpDa8LacT7
Might actually work
https://images.app.goo.gl/trLvPPogpDa8LacT7
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-the-most-anti-vaxxer-country-in-the-world-2019-06-19?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Contra racist dead filth such as Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, who peddle fake news about immigrants from all over the world infecting white Americans with various poxes, syndromes, and plagues, other countries in the world, as in all of them, but particularly Mexico and Canada, should begin turning back un-vaccinated so-called Americans from entering THEIR countries and infecting their human populations, though they would be protecting their birds and pigs as well from being infected with the American subhuman swine flu.
Better, I would would counsel them to vaccinate these special American fuckers at the border checkpoints … perhaps also kidnapping their American children and sending them to be be cared for by drug cartels in Guatemala, el Salvador and points south …. preferably with rounds of automatic gunfire, liberally applied, to save us the trouble later.
Make the Rio Grande run red with the blood of assholes.
Maybe we could send Dinesh D’Souza back to Goa, India and then put it around that he is an Ebola carrier and then watch his people quarantine, starve, and burn his ass at the stake.
Let freedom sting.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-the-most-anti-vaxxer-country-in-the-world-2019-06-19?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Contra racist dead filth such as Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, who peddle fake news about immigrants from all over the world infecting white Americans with various poxes, syndromes, and plagues, other countries in the world, as in all of them, but particularly Mexico and Canada, should begin turning back un-vaccinated so-called Americans from entering THEIR countries and infecting their human populations, though they would be protecting their birds and pigs as well from being infected with the American subhuman swine flu.
Better, I would would counsel them to vaccinate these special American fuckers at the border checkpoints … perhaps also kidnapping their American children and sending them to be be cared for by drug cartels in Guatemala, el Salvador and points south …. preferably with rounds of automatic gunfire, liberally applied, to save us the trouble later.
Make the Rio Grande run red with the blood of assholes.
Maybe we could send Dinesh D’Souza back to Goa, India and then put it around that he is an Ebola carrier and then watch his people quarantine, starve, and burn his ass at the stake.
Let freedom sting.
JDT, here’s why
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernard-and-lisa-selz-new-york-hedge-fund-couple-said-to-donate-more-than-dollar3-million-to-anti-vaxx-movement
JDT, here’s why
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernard-and-lisa-selz-new-york-hedge-fund-couple-said-to-donate-more-than-dollar3-million-to-anti-vaxx-movement
This makes for chilling reading:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/mh370-malaysia-airlines/590653/
This makes for chilling reading:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/mh370-malaysia-airlines/590653/
No, Joe Biden, you see if those so-called journalists had done their objective, unbiased job in the service of truth and fatally shot Herman Talmadge in his head right there on the air midway thru his threatening cracker cocksucker peroration rather than treating his filthy racism as just another point of view to be balanced in with all the rest, America would not have had to wait another generation, and now three, to settle race relations in this backsliding racist land once and for all with no fucking doubt.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/06/civility-3
It’s 2019, Biden. Your happy talk therapy is bullshit with these filth.
These ilk will not be beneficiaries of civility any longer.
Execute them.
No, Joe Biden, you see if those so-called journalists had done their objective, unbiased job in the service of truth and fatally shot Herman Talmadge in his head right there on the air midway thru his threatening cracker cocksucker peroration rather than treating his filthy racism as just another point of view to be balanced in with all the rest, America would not have had to wait another generation, and now three, to settle race relations in this backsliding racist land once and for all with no fucking doubt.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/06/civility-3
It’s 2019, Biden. Your happy talk therapy is bullshit with these filth.
These ilk will not be beneficiaries of civility any longer.
Execute them.
“Civility” is the anesthetic, not the cure, for what ails American politics.
“Moderates” justify “civility” as a necessary predicate for “getting things done”, as if it doesn’t matter what the “things” are as long as they “get done”.
Birther-in-Chief He, Trump and the “Fuck your feelings” MAGA maggots are not in power because they exercised more “civility” than the Democrats. They’re in power because “moderates” are confused about what the point of politics is.
–TP
“Civility” is the anesthetic, not the cure, for what ails American politics.
“Moderates” justify “civility” as a necessary predicate for “getting things done”, as if it doesn’t matter what the “things” are as long as they “get done”.
Birther-in-Chief He, Trump and the “Fuck your feelings” MAGA maggots are not in power because they exercised more “civility” than the Democrats. They’re in power because “moderates” are confused about what the point of politics is.
–TP
“Moderates” justify “civility” as a necessary predicate for “getting things done”
I wonder how true that really is. Yes, civility can help to get things done — if only because you refrain from alienating others so much that they won’t even support something that they are actually in favor of, just because it’s you putting it forward. (See Obamacare for an example of that kind of behavior. Albeit not one where lack of civility was the motivation.)
But, at least for some of us, civility is a positive good in itself. Even if it had no impact on “getting things done” (whatever those things might be), it is still something worth having. IMHO (and I realize that I achieve it imperfectly, at best).
“Moderates” justify “civility” as a necessary predicate for “getting things done”
I wonder how true that really is. Yes, civility can help to get things done — if only because you refrain from alienating others so much that they won’t even support something that they are actually in favor of, just because it’s you putting it forward. (See Obamacare for an example of that kind of behavior. Albeit not one where lack of civility was the motivation.)
But, at least for some of us, civility is a positive good in itself. Even if it had no impact on “getting things done” (whatever those things might be), it is still something worth having. IMHO (and I realize that I achieve it imperfectly, at best).
This is a bit chilling as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/4-charged-in-downing-of-malaysian-airliner-over-ukraine/2019/06/19/575e50fa-92c7-11e9-956a-88c291ab5c38_story.html
This is a bit chilling as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/4-charged-in-downing-of-malaysian-airliner-over-ukraine/2019/06/19/575e50fa-92c7-11e9-956a-88c291ab5c38_story.html
Just because it’s good to read something cool and positive occasionally:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/50-astronauts-life-in-space/
Enjoy!
Just because it’s good to read something cool and positive occasionally:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/50-astronauts-life-in-space/
Enjoy!
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Civility?
Sleep is a positive good in itself, too, but not while your house is on fire.
And I’m not understanding what you mean by this, wj:
Yes, civility can help to get things done — if only because you refrain from alienating others so much that they won’t even support something that they are actually in favor of, just because it’s you putting it forward. (See Obamacare for an example of that kind of behavior. Albeit not one where lack of civility was the motivation.)
Care to elaborate on that Obamacare bit?
BTW, it would be nice if “civility” had not been killed, stuffed, and mounted on the mantlepiece in 2016 despite its alleged inherent goodness.
–TP
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Civility?
Sleep is a positive good in itself, too, but not while your house is on fire.
And I’m not understanding what you mean by this, wj:
Yes, civility can help to get things done — if only because you refrain from alienating others so much that they won’t even support something that they are actually in favor of, just because it’s you putting it forward. (See Obamacare for an example of that kind of behavior. Albeit not one where lack of civility was the motivation.)
Care to elaborate on that Obamacare bit?
BTW, it would be nice if “civility” had not been killed, stuffed, and mounted on the mantlepiece in 2016 despite its alleged inherent goodness.
–TP
Care to elaborate on that Obamacare bit?
Republicans opposed (and still rant about) Obamacare. But not because it was a radical liberal deal — it originated, after all, with a conservative think tank. Rather, they opposed it entirely (IMO) because of who proposed it at the national level.
Similarly, with lack of civility you can get people opposing something simply because it is put forward by someone who has been nasty to them.
That help?
Care to elaborate on that Obamacare bit?
Republicans opposed (and still rant about) Obamacare. But not because it was a radical liberal deal — it originated, after all, with a conservative think tank. Rather, they opposed it entirely (IMO) because of who proposed it at the national level.
Similarly, with lack of civility you can get people opposing something simply because it is put forward by someone who has been nasty to them.
That help?
I think we should all go see Girl from the North Country
I think we should all go see Girl from the North Country
at least for some of us, civility is a positive good in itself
This.
at least for some of us, civility is a positive good in itself
This.
wj,
So what you’re telling me is that all those civil, polite Republicans who opposed the Heritage-inspired Obamacare because the Kenyan Usurper proposed it — and not because they had principled or practical objections to an essentially conservative initiative — were simply cutting off their Republican noses to spite their racist faces. Am I reading you right?
Incidentally, talk to me about Rubio, Graham, Cruz, and all the other lickspittles who are now kissing the pasty ass of “someone who has been nasty to them”.
–TP
wj,
So what you’re telling me is that all those civil, polite Republicans who opposed the Heritage-inspired Obamacare because the Kenyan Usurper proposed it — and not because they had principled or practical objections to an essentially conservative initiative — were simply cutting off their Republican noses to spite their racist faces. Am I reading you right?
Incidentally, talk to me about Rubio, Graham, Cruz, and all the other lickspittles who are now kissing the pasty ass of “someone who has been nasty to them”.
–TP
Civility is a mode of discourse.
It doesn’t constrain what can be said.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/watch-ta-nehisi-coatess-rebuke-mitch-mcconnell-house-reparations-hearing.html
Civility is a mode of discourse.
It doesn’t constrain what can be said.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/watch-ta-nehisi-coatess-rebuke-mitch-mcconnell-house-reparations-hearing.html
Civility-monger Chuck Todd was just berating AOC on “liberal” MSNBC’s “fake news” Meet the Press Daily for having been naughty enough to call He, Trump’s good, Republican, immigrant jail tent compounds “concentration camps”.
Fuck civility, says I.
–TP
Civility-monger Chuck Todd was just berating AOC on “liberal” MSNBC’s “fake news” Meet the Press Daily for having been naughty enough to call He, Trump’s good, Republican, immigrant jail tent compounds “concentration camps”.
Fuck civility, says I.
–TP
I think we should all go see Girl from the North Country
Marty, I went to see it at the Old Vic in London with my late husband. Neither of us thought it was all that good – it seemed to us a bit like a work in progress, so I guess if we were right it might be a bit better by now. Great soundtrack of course, and with the cast we saw some really outstanding renditions. Looking forward to reviews if any of the ObWitterati go to see it.
I think we should all go see Girl from the North Country
Marty, I went to see it at the Old Vic in London with my late husband. Neither of us thought it was all that good – it seemed to us a bit like a work in progress, so I guess if we were right it might be a bit better by now. Great soundtrack of course, and with the cast we saw some really outstanding renditions. Looking forward to reviews if any of the ObWitterati go to see it.
Civility is a mode of discourse.
It doesn’t constrain what can be said.
Also this, and what Pro Bono and wj said, much as I dislike disagreeing with Tony P.
Civility is a mode of discourse.
It doesn’t constrain what can be said.
Also this, and what Pro Bono and wj said, much as I dislike disagreeing with Tony P.
So what you’re telling me is that all those civil, polite Republicans who opposed the Heritage-inspired Obamacare because the Kenyan Usurper proposed it — and not because they had principled or practical objections to an essentially conservative initiative — were simply cutting off their Republican noses to spite their racist faces.
Well, for some of them it may have been strictly tribal rather than racial. (McConnell actually strikes me as being more that way. At least in private.) But essentially, yes.
So what you’re telling me is that all those civil, polite Republicans who opposed the Heritage-inspired Obamacare because the Kenyan Usurper proposed it — and not because they had principled or practical objections to an essentially conservative initiative — were simply cutting off their Republican noses to spite their racist faces.
Well, for some of them it may have been strictly tribal rather than racial. (McConnell actually strikes me as being more that way. At least in private.) But essentially, yes.
Civility-monger Chuck Todd was just berating AOC on “liberal” MSNBC’s “fake news” Meet the Press Daily for having been naughty enough to call He, Trump’s good, Republican, immigrant jail tent compounds “concentration camps”.
Allow me to distinguish between those who say they want civility, and those who actually are willing to practice it. I could see disagreeing with AOC’s characterization (although I personally think she was spot on), without being nasty or personal about it.
I didn’t catch the show, so I don’t know what Todd said or how. But assuming, from your characterization, that he was berating her in those kinds of terms, that would put him in the first category. (Sort of like the “conservatives” who are actually nothing of the kind. To jump on my personal hobby horse. 😉
Civility-monger Chuck Todd was just berating AOC on “liberal” MSNBC’s “fake news” Meet the Press Daily for having been naughty enough to call He, Trump’s good, Republican, immigrant jail tent compounds “concentration camps”.
Allow me to distinguish between those who say they want civility, and those who actually are willing to practice it. I could see disagreeing with AOC’s characterization (although I personally think she was spot on), without being nasty or personal about it.
I didn’t catch the show, so I don’t know what Todd said or how. But assuming, from your characterization, that he was berating her in those kinds of terms, that would put him in the first category. (Sort of like the “conservatives” who are actually nothing of the kind. To jump on my personal hobby horse. 😉
wj: I could see disagreeing with AOC’s characterization (although I personally think she was spot on), without being nasty or personal about it.
Let me be clear: Chuck Todd was not “nasty or personal”. Heaven forfend! No, he simply chided AOC on the grounds that Democrats (especially, of course, young women Democrats) have to watch how they talk about Trumpian atrocities, because using the wrong words might put off “moderates” — who never seem to be put off by Trumpian hyperbole, invective, or lies, to hear Chucky tell it.
–TP
wj: I could see disagreeing with AOC’s characterization (although I personally think she was spot on), without being nasty or personal about it.
Let me be clear: Chuck Todd was not “nasty or personal”. Heaven forfend! No, he simply chided AOC on the grounds that Democrats (especially, of course, young women Democrats) have to watch how they talk about Trumpian atrocities, because using the wrong words might put off “moderates” — who never seem to be put off by Trumpian hyperbole, invective, or lies, to hear Chucky tell it.
–TP
A member of a form I was on some 15 or so years ago would complain, when called on some of his over-the-top excesses, about the civility brigade.
A member of a form I was on some 15 or so years ago would complain, when called on some of his over-the-top excesses, about the civility brigade.
I didn’t know He, Trump was posting to usenet back then, Charles.
–TP
I didn’t know He, Trump was posting to usenet back then, Charles.
–TP
GftNC,
I must confess I have always admired the civility of British invective.
“It depends on whether I embrace the Honourable Gentleman’s principles or his mistress.”
“If you were my wife, I’d drink it.”
“If he fell into the Thames that would be a misfortune. If someone fished him out again, that would be a calamity.”
How is civility doing in the UK, these days? Invective-wise, I mean?
–TP
GftNC,
I must confess I have always admired the civility of British invective.
“It depends on whether I embrace the Honourable Gentleman’s principles or his mistress.”
“If you were my wife, I’d drink it.”
“If he fell into the Thames that would be a misfortune. If someone fished him out again, that would be a calamity.”
How is civility doing in the UK, these days? Invective-wise, I mean?
–TP
“….because using the wrong words might put off “moderates” — who never seem to be put off by Trumpian hyperbole, invective, or lies….”
Indeed. I have never been bothered by being called a “murderer” (wrt abortion politics), commie, “marxist” (psuedo, Frankfort school, or any other of the endless varieties), “un-american”(yes, no Chingachgook blood in my veins), or “union thug”.
This is because I am the real moderate.
Similarly, people like Trump should take no offense at being called fascist pieces of shit.
“….because using the wrong words might put off “moderates” — who never seem to be put off by Trumpian hyperbole, invective, or lies….”
Indeed. I have never been bothered by being called a “murderer” (wrt abortion politics), commie, “marxist” (psuedo, Frankfort school, or any other of the endless varieties), “un-american”(yes, no Chingachgook blood in my veins), or “union thug”.
This is because I am the real moderate.
Similarly, people like Trump should take no offense at being called fascist pieces of shit.
Chuck Todd was not “nasty or personal”. Heaven forfend! No, he simply chided AOC on the grounds that Democrats (especially, of course, young women Democrats) have to watch how they talk about Trumpian atrocities, because using the wrong words might put off “moderates”
Ah, I see I seriously misinterpreted your post. Sorry.
I would say that it is true that using the “wrong” words might put off moderates. But merely referring to Trump’s concentration camps as such doesn’t seem to me to be particularly immoderate. Now saying that they indicate that Trump (and his minions) are the embodiment of evil** and are deliberately trying to re-enact the Holocaust would be a different thing. But just calling the camps what they are? Not really.
** In many ways, I think there is a better case to be made that here, as in so many ways, Trump is merely a wanna-be. Stephen Miller may actually achieve it, but Trump? Not so much.
Chuck Todd was not “nasty or personal”. Heaven forfend! No, he simply chided AOC on the grounds that Democrats (especially, of course, young women Democrats) have to watch how they talk about Trumpian atrocities, because using the wrong words might put off “moderates”
Ah, I see I seriously misinterpreted your post. Sorry.
I would say that it is true that using the “wrong” words might put off moderates. But merely referring to Trump’s concentration camps as such doesn’t seem to me to be particularly immoderate. Now saying that they indicate that Trump (and his minions) are the embodiment of evil** and are deliberately trying to re-enact the Holocaust would be a different thing. But just calling the camps what they are? Not really.
** In many ways, I think there is a better case to be made that here, as in so many ways, Trump is merely a wanna-be. Stephen Miller may actually achieve it, but Trump? Not so much.
I didn’t know He, Trump was posting to usenet back then, Charles.
The person in question was a second generation Mexican with, perhaps, anger issues. 🙂
I didn’t know He, Trump was posting to usenet back then, Charles.
The person in question was a second generation Mexican with, perhaps, anger issues. 🙂
GftNC, I will be going, just checking what tickets I can get. Did you see the Rolling Thunder Revue movie on Netflix? Great memories, I saw them at the Astrodome in 75.
GftNC, I will be going, just checking what tickets I can get. Did you see the Rolling Thunder Revue movie on Netflix? Great memories, I saw them at the Astrodome in 75.
Oh good….
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/19/nuclear-weapons-pentagon-us-military-doctrine
The Pentagon believes using nuclear weapons could “create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability”, according to a new nuclear doctrine adopted by the US joint chiefs of staff last week.
The document, entitled Nuclear Operations, was published on 11 June, and was the first such doctrine paper for 14 years. Arms control experts say it marks a shift in US military thinking towards the idea of fighting and winning a nuclear war – which they believe is a highly dangerous mindset.
“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” the joint chiefs’ document says. “Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”…
Oh good….
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/19/nuclear-weapons-pentagon-us-military-doctrine
The Pentagon believes using nuclear weapons could “create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability”, according to a new nuclear doctrine adopted by the US joint chiefs of staff last week.
The document, entitled Nuclear Operations, was published on 11 June, and was the first such doctrine paper for 14 years. Arms control experts say it marks a shift in US military thinking towards the idea of fighting and winning a nuclear war – which they believe is a highly dangerous mindset.
“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” the joint chiefs’ document says. “Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”…
“concentration camps”
if you have to write pages of text that amount to “close enough!” to defend your description, then the description is not working.
and
if your description of something is controversial enough to become a popular topic of discussion, then it is distracting attention from the argument you’re trying to make.
but sure, go ahead, call me a “moderate” – as if that means anything anymore, either.
“concentration camps”
if you have to write pages of text that amount to “close enough!” to defend your description, then the description is not working.
and
if your description of something is controversial enough to become a popular topic of discussion, then it is distracting attention from the argument you’re trying to make.
but sure, go ahead, call me a “moderate” – as if that means anything anymore, either.
I suppose she could have made the same point by calling them “internment camps”. Japanese-Americans, at least, would have much the same negative reaction.
I suppose she could have made the same point by calling them “internment camps”. Japanese-Americans, at least, would have much the same negative reaction.
“witch hunt”
All you have to do is repeat it, not explain it. And if you’re He, Trump — who has the best words — nobody will call you out for inappropriate historical allusion. Everybody knows “witch hunts” were A Bad Thing, uhmkay?
–TP
“witch hunt”
All you have to do is repeat it, not explain it. And if you’re He, Trump — who has the best words — nobody will call you out for inappropriate historical allusion. Everybody knows “witch hunts” were A Bad Thing, uhmkay?
–TP
i’m not up for following Trump’s lead
i’m not up for following Trump’s lead
Tony P: just back from a 48 hour flying visit to the North Country, and haven’t even had a chance to go back and see what’s happened on this thread since last I looked, but you asked for civil invective and I knew I should be able to dig up a contemporary example for you. Here’s Matthew Parris, who used to be a Tory MP, on Boris Johnson and those who support him. As well as calling him “this sordid opportunist”, he discusses how people who once seemed to have principles can slide inexorably to the dark side, a subject of interest to all of us with regard to US politics too:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/why-are-sensible-tories-backing-boris-johnson/
Tony P: just back from a 48 hour flying visit to the North Country, and haven’t even had a chance to go back and see what’s happened on this thread since last I looked, but you asked for civil invective and I knew I should be able to dig up a contemporary example for you. Here’s Matthew Parris, who used to be a Tory MP, on Boris Johnson and those who support him. As well as calling him “this sordid opportunist”, he discusses how people who once seemed to have principles can slide inexorably to the dark side, a subject of interest to all of us with regard to US politics too:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/why-are-sensible-tories-backing-boris-johnson/
Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and the pig likes it.
Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and the pig likes it.
Have just posted 2 identical posts to give Tony P some civil invective, with a link to an article in the Spectator. One was sent incognito (which I did to get the link), the second wasn’t. Both seem to have gone into the spam trap, like before when I posted a link. Help (again!) and sorry…
wj — fixed. I live to serve….
Also fixed a couple under Echoes from 5 days ago. Sorry, I should review the Spam file more often.
Have just posted 2 identical posts to give Tony P some civil invective, with a link to an article in the Spectator. One was sent incognito (which I did to get the link), the second wasn’t. Both seem to have gone into the spam trap, like before when I posted a link. Help (again!) and sorry…
wj — fixed. I live to serve….
Also fixed a couple under Echoes from 5 days ago. Sorry, I should review the Spam file more often.
Thanks wj. It’s so weird, even clicking on my newly reinstated comment in the right sidebar (is that the correct name?) doesn’t get to it – you have to click on cleek’s immediately above. Obviously there is something secretly and deeply wrong with my post, and the blog is trying to protect people from it!
Thanks wj. It’s so weird, even clicking on my newly reinstated comment in the right sidebar (is that the correct name?) doesn’t get to it – you have to click on cleek’s immediately above. Obviously there is something secretly and deeply wrong with my post, and the blog is trying to protect people from it!
Become a pig.
When finally the Pig you became a pig to destroy in his very own swinish, muck element is dead, while liking his own destruction on account of the fact that his vermin name is in the headline reporting his total pig destruction, you can shower afterwards and maybe enjoy a little pulled pork at the barbecue celebrating the saving of America and the now dead carcasses of all of the swine in the conservative, republican slaughtered hog movement.
Why split hogs when they are evil in their entirety. Half measures will not suffice. Go whole hog on their trip to fucking oblivion.
p and the vermin he leads in the republican party will only be destroyed by their own methods applied to them exponentially, ruthlessly and without exception.
Become a pig.
When finally the Pig you became a pig to destroy in his very own swinish, muck element is dead, while liking his own destruction on account of the fact that his vermin name is in the headline reporting his total pig destruction, you can shower afterwards and maybe enjoy a little pulled pork at the barbecue celebrating the saving of America and the now dead carcasses of all of the swine in the conservative, republican slaughtered hog movement.
Why split hogs when they are evil in their entirety. Half measures will not suffice. Go whole hog on their trip to fucking oblivion.
p and the vermin he leads in the republican party will only be destroyed by their own methods applied to them exponentially, ruthlessly and without exception.
cleek: i’m not up for following Trump’s lead
Nor am I. And yet here we are. So are the Joint Chiefs.
hairshirt: Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and the pig likes it
I’m glad to stipulate that He, Trump merits the analogy. With apologies to actual swine, of course.
On a serious note, I ask you, cleek:
What’s your judgement on Joe Biden’s rhetorical faux pas? Was it even one?
–TP
cleek: i’m not up for following Trump’s lead
Nor am I. And yet here we are. So are the Joint Chiefs.
hairshirt: Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and the pig likes it
I’m glad to stipulate that He, Trump merits the analogy. With apologies to actual swine, of course.
On a serious note, I ask you, cleek:
What’s your judgement on Joe Biden’s rhetorical faux pas? Was it even one?
–TP
What’s your judgement on Joe Biden’s rhetorical faux pas?
which one? the guy’s a gaffe factory, and really not in sync with the Dem base.
i’m eager to see how his numbers look after a debate or two.
What’s your judgement on Joe Biden’s rhetorical faux pas?
which one? the guy’s a gaffe factory, and really not in sync with the Dem base.
i’m eager to see how his numbers look after a debate or two.
It’s so weird, even clicking on my newly reinstated comment in the right sidebar (is that the correct name?) doesn’t get to it – you have to click on cleek’s immediately above.
I’m seeing the same thing. Weird indeed.
It’s so weird, even clicking on my newly reinstated comment in the right sidebar (is that the correct name?) doesn’t get to it – you have to click on cleek’s immediately above.
I’m seeing the same thing. Weird indeed.
cleek,
I was referring to Biden saying he can work “across the aisle” and offering as proof his ability to work (long ago) with the likes of Eastland and Talmadge.
–TP
cleek,
I was referring to Biden saying he can work “across the aisle” and offering as proof his ability to work (long ago) with the likes of Eastland and Talmadge.
–TP
it was cringe-inducing.
if he wanted to talk about reaching across the aisle to vile people all he had to say was “you don’t get to pick your fellow Senators, so sometimes you have to hold your nose and do what’s best for the people you represent.” or, he could have picked someone who was less vile as a example, and avoided the racial stuff altogether.
and that “boy” / “son” stuff? WTF was he thinking?
i don’t think he has much sense of where the country, especially the Dem base, is these days.
i’ll vote for him if it comes to that. but i don’t want it to come to that.
it was cringe-inducing.
if he wanted to talk about reaching across the aisle to vile people all he had to say was “you don’t get to pick your fellow Senators, so sometimes you have to hold your nose and do what’s best for the people you represent.” or, he could have picked someone who was less vile as a example, and avoided the racial stuff altogether.
and that “boy” / “son” stuff? WTF was he thinking?
i don’t think he has much sense of where the country, especially the Dem base, is these days.
i’ll vote for him if it comes to that. but i don’t want it to come to that.
i’ll vote for him if it comes to that. but i don’t want it to come to that.
I’d apply that to several of the other possible Democratic candidates as well. 😉
i’ll vote for him if it comes to that. but i don’t want it to come to that.
I’d apply that to several of the other possible Democratic candidates as well. 😉
I’ll vote for Biden too if it comes to that.
I’d like to know however what it is that Biden convinced Talmadge (the man threatened a second Civil War if racial integration was enacted and he should have been presented with one then, but it’s not too fucking late to get a civil war started right this minute against his racist subhuman heirs) to compromise on in either the latter’s vile thinking or his legislative voting record.
There seem now to be mean, racist sons and daughters of bastards Talmadges coming out of the woodwork across the “aisle” in 2019, and if it persists, today, in 2019, and for example so much as a hair on the head of Brown vrs Board of Education is mussed by these filth, the aisle should become not something to reach across, but something to set afire and shoot across with nuclear weaponry.
By the way, the new nuclear war “posture” of our military is an ass-kissing gift to p, he of the 90-minute crash course in everything there is to know about nuclear weapons and his campaign trail question: “Why CAN’T we use them?”
One single nuclear weapon is launched by these murderers and every republican/conservative in this country will be butchered and slaughtered.
They need a 30-minute refresher course of total incineration and annihilation and I hope the rest of the word is gunning up to give to us. I’ll be happy to die in that conflagration if I take every conservative in this country with me.
I’ll goddamned slap the side of that nuclear weapon like Slim Pickens riding that baby down on any fucking red p state.
These things will not be permitted to happen without a savage retributional justice coming down on the severed heads of the entire malign conservative movement and their vermin children.
OINK!
I’ll vote for Biden too if it comes to that.
I’d like to know however what it is that Biden convinced Talmadge (the man threatened a second Civil War if racial integration was enacted and he should have been presented with one then, but it’s not too fucking late to get a civil war started right this minute against his racist subhuman heirs) to compromise on in either the latter’s vile thinking or his legislative voting record.
There seem now to be mean, racist sons and daughters of bastards Talmadges coming out of the woodwork across the “aisle” in 2019, and if it persists, today, in 2019, and for example so much as a hair on the head of Brown vrs Board of Education is mussed by these filth, the aisle should become not something to reach across, but something to set afire and shoot across with nuclear weaponry.
By the way, the new nuclear war “posture” of our military is an ass-kissing gift to p, he of the 90-minute crash course in everything there is to know about nuclear weapons and his campaign trail question: “Why CAN’T we use them?”
One single nuclear weapon is launched by these murderers and every republican/conservative in this country will be butchered and slaughtered.
They need a 30-minute refresher course of total incineration and annihilation and I hope the rest of the word is gunning up to give to us. I’ll be happy to die in that conflagration if I take every conservative in this country with me.
I’ll goddamned slap the side of that nuclear weapon like Slim Pickens riding that baby down on any fucking red p state.
These things will not be permitted to happen without a savage retributional justice coming down on the severed heads of the entire malign conservative movement and their vermin children.
OINK!
Good God! These people simply have no clue (and apparently think nobody else does either) about the conflicts between Shia and Sunni Muslims. The chances of al-Qaeda, an extremely partisan Sunni group, having anything to do with Shia Iran are zero. Except over a gun.
Good God! These people simply have no clue (and apparently think nobody else does either) about the conflicts between Shia and Sunni Muslims. The chances of al-Qaeda, an extremely partisan Sunni group, having anything to do with Shia Iran are zero. Except over a gun.
John D. Thullen,
The new US nuclear doctrine is clearly more aggressive than the previous one, but it is nothing quite spectacular. There are some quite important points;
1) It makes eminently clear that the US President always authorises any use of nuclear weapons.
2) It brings up the possibility of the tactical use of nuclear weapons, but in thearer-wide, semi-srraregic context. Essentially, it allows tactical use of nuclear weapons mainly if you are losing badly:
A nuclear weapon could be brought into the campaign as a result of perceived failure in a conventional campaign, potential loss of control or regime, or to escalate the conflict to sue for peace on more-favorable terms.
This semi-strategic nature of battlefield use is underlined by the note that at least some combatant commands lack the targeting ability, and that no lower echelon has nuclear targeting capacity. It even notes that delegating such resources would be a huge administrative mess. Thus, there are no mechanisms to use nuclear weapons as battlefield support like the old Warzaw Pact doctrine did: delegating launch authority down to corps or divisional level to target battalion or company level formations. Similarly, there are no calls for nuclear torpedoes, cruise missiles or artillery. In essence, this document is closely mirroring the Russian “de-escalation” discussion. As a Finn, who might be on the receiving end of such a “de-escalation” strike, I don’t find this superpower unanimity on the acceptability of such limited nuclear warfare very reassuring. Essentially, this document can be interpreted to say: “We understand that you might nuke Warzaw if we conquer Kaliningrad, and we will surely nuke Lvov if you take Warzaw, but after that, we can still make a peace instead of MAD.”
Yet, while this is a step towards danger, it is a sane action compared to the overall style of American policy-making.
John D. Thullen,
The new US nuclear doctrine is clearly more aggressive than the previous one, but it is nothing quite spectacular. There are some quite important points;
1) It makes eminently clear that the US President always authorises any use of nuclear weapons.
2) It brings up the possibility of the tactical use of nuclear weapons, but in thearer-wide, semi-srraregic context. Essentially, it allows tactical use of nuclear weapons mainly if you are losing badly:
A nuclear weapon could be brought into the campaign as a result of perceived failure in a conventional campaign, potential loss of control or regime, or to escalate the conflict to sue for peace on more-favorable terms.
This semi-strategic nature of battlefield use is underlined by the note that at least some combatant commands lack the targeting ability, and that no lower echelon has nuclear targeting capacity. It even notes that delegating such resources would be a huge administrative mess. Thus, there are no mechanisms to use nuclear weapons as battlefield support like the old Warzaw Pact doctrine did: delegating launch authority down to corps or divisional level to target battalion or company level formations. Similarly, there are no calls for nuclear torpedoes, cruise missiles or artillery. In essence, this document is closely mirroring the Russian “de-escalation” discussion. As a Finn, who might be on the receiving end of such a “de-escalation” strike, I don’t find this superpower unanimity on the acceptability of such limited nuclear warfare very reassuring. Essentially, this document can be interpreted to say: “We understand that you might nuke Warzaw if we conquer Kaliningrad, and we will surely nuke Lvov if you take Warzaw, but after that, we can still make a peace instead of MAD.”
Yet, while this is a step towards danger, it is a sane action compared to the overall style of American policy-making.
Essentially, it allows tactical use of nuclear weapons mainly if you are losing badly:
Of course, under a President who sees everything as strictly win-lose, any time you aren’t definitively winning you are (by definition) losing. And losing badly.
Essentially, it allows tactical use of nuclear weapons mainly if you are losing badly:
Of course, under a President who sees everything as strictly win-lose, any time you aren’t definitively winning you are (by definition) losing. And losing badly.
Speaking of signs of the apocalypse….
Speaking of signs of the apocalypse….
I always knew smart phones were the Devil’s tools.
I always knew smart phones were the Devil’s tools.
One might say the same about books. As a lifelong reader, I have a similar postural tendency.
I want to know just what it was the young Trump was doing to come up with those bone spurs…
One might say the same about books. As a lifelong reader, I have a similar postural tendency.
I want to know just what it was the young Trump was doing to come up with those bone spurs…
I know it’s very petty, but Justin Trudeau coughing in the Oval Office while Trump is talking is making me laugh….
I know it’s very petty, but Justin Trudeau coughing in the Oval Office while Trump is talking is making me laugh….
It was Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, whose widow will be collecting his remains from an ad hoc Civil War battlefield morgue in the not to distant future, who coughed his shushing warning to p to shut his mouth about his fucking tax returns in the Oval Office.
Justin Trudeau, for his part, was in HIS office in Ottawa retching into a waste basket after his staff informed him he is scheduled to meet with our very special asshole in a few months to discuss high altitude Canadian cold air incursions into the dispensable (and the sooner the better) nation, America along our northern border.
Meanwhile:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/06/20/tonight-we-almost-started-a-war-with-iran/
It was Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, whose widow will be collecting his remains from an ad hoc Civil War battlefield morgue in the not to distant future, who coughed his shushing warning to p to shut his mouth about his fucking tax returns in the Oval Office.
Justin Trudeau, for his part, was in HIS office in Ottawa retching into a waste basket after his staff informed him he is scheduled to meet with our very special asshole in a few months to discuss high altitude Canadian cold air incursions into the dispensable (and the sooner the better) nation, America along our northern border.
Meanwhile:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/06/20/tonight-we-almost-started-a-war-with-iran/
Incidentally, Biden confirmed, authenticated, and double-downed on his remarks, thus the terms faux pas and gaffe no longer apply.
In fact, let’s expunge those terms from our vocabulary, shall we, given their irrelevance in 2019.
When a cute girl on a reality show eats live, poisonous spiders from a bidet, may we please assume she enjoys and means to eat live poisonous spiders from a bidet as a signal of her authenticity.
Lurker, thank you for the clarification on the new nuclear stance.
Your post is rational, well-considered, informed, and exquisitely restrained and sober in its respectful delineation of normative policy-making.
But given that the new stance will be filtered and interpreted through the mind of a beshatted cretin and the coughing, eagerly murderous monsters the cretin has surrounded himself with, I’ll stick with my interpretation until such time that we return, after a cleansing period of savage retributional mayhem in every street in America, to a rational, well-considered, sober, informed, respectful, restrained, normative world.
Incidentally, Biden confirmed, authenticated, and double-downed on his remarks, thus the terms faux pas and gaffe no longer apply.
In fact, let’s expunge those terms from our vocabulary, shall we, given their irrelevance in 2019.
When a cute girl on a reality show eats live, poisonous spiders from a bidet, may we please assume she enjoys and means to eat live poisonous spiders from a bidet as a signal of her authenticity.
Lurker, thank you for the clarification on the new nuclear stance.
Your post is rational, well-considered, informed, and exquisitely restrained and sober in its respectful delineation of normative policy-making.
But given that the new stance will be filtered and interpreted through the mind of a beshatted cretin and the coughing, eagerly murderous monsters the cretin has surrounded himself with, I’ll stick with my interpretation until such time that we return, after a cleansing period of savage retributional mayhem in every street in America, to a rational, well-considered, sober, informed, respectful, restrained, normative world.
OK, so it seems like I’m not able to post links anymore for some reason. However, I just posted a link to a tweet by someone called Scott Dworkin showing it happening, with the line: Justin Trudeau coughing in front of Trump in the Oval Office is all you need to see today. (It may of course be from an earlier meeting). It must have gone into the spam trap again. (Any IT bod – capable of talking to tech-idiots – who can tell me how to correct this from my end is very welcome to try!)
OK, so it seems like I’m not able to post links anymore for some reason. However, I just posted a link to a tweet by someone called Scott Dworkin showing it happening, with the line: Justin Trudeau coughing in front of Trump in the Oval Office is all you need to see today. (It may of course be from an earlier meeting). It must have gone into the spam trap again. (Any IT bod – capable of talking to tech-idiots – who can tell me how to correct this from my end is very welcome to try!)
“Any IT bod – capable of talking to tech-idiots – who can tell me how to correct this from my end is very welcome to try!”
Not an IT bod, but:
10kt thermonuclear airburst over Facebook HQ
It’s the tech-support equivalent of “turn it off and then on NEVER”. Worth a try.
“Any IT bod – capable of talking to tech-idiots – who can tell me how to correct this from my end is very welcome to try!”
Not an IT bod, but:
10kt thermonuclear airburst over Facebook HQ
It’s the tech-support equivalent of “turn it off and then on NEVER”. Worth a try.
s/kt/Mt/;
grrr.
s/kt/Mt/;
grrr.
Snarki: loved your 08.22 suggestion.
Absolute incomprehension of your 08.23, thus neatly demonstrating my tech-idiocy!
Snarki: loved your 08.22 suggestion.
Absolute incomprehension of your 08.23, thus neatly demonstrating my tech-idiocy!
Here the link confirming I was half-wrong and you were 100% correct, GFTNC:
https://www.indy100.com/article/justin-trudeau-trump-cough-oval-office-video-watch-8968491
Let’s hope this becomes a thing among all foreign leaders meeting with he who shall be coughed at.
Would that they would be infected with the Ebola Virus and give out a throaty, mucusy, non-deflected croupy catarrh spray right in his florid, arrogant face.
I foresee a new way of demonstrating peacefully, while that is still possible, against this mal-administration.
Five million surrounding the White House for a massive cough-in.
Alternate with hankie-less sneezing fits.
Here the link confirming I was half-wrong and you were 100% correct, GFTNC:
https://www.indy100.com/article/justin-trudeau-trump-cough-oval-office-video-watch-8968491
Let’s hope this becomes a thing among all foreign leaders meeting with he who shall be coughed at.
Would that they would be infected with the Ebola Virus and give out a throaty, mucusy, non-deflected croupy catarrh spray right in his florid, arrogant face.
I foresee a new way of demonstrating peacefully, while that is still possible, against this mal-administration.
Five million surrounding the White House for a massive cough-in.
Alternate with hankie-less sneezing fits.
Cough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpIycEqzuU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8F51Qd63_w
Cough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpIycEqzuU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8F51Qd63_w
It’s the tech-support equivalent of “turn it off and then on NEVER”.
what you need to do is: turn it off for five seconds, then on for two, then off for 8, then on for 5, then off for 8, repeat 4x.
https://youtu.be/1BB6wj6RyKo?t=20
It’s the tech-support equivalent of “turn it off and then on NEVER”.
what you need to do is: turn it off for five seconds, then on for two, then off for 8, then on for 5, then off for 8, repeat 4x.
https://youtu.be/1BB6wj6RyKo?t=20
a light bulb with firmware? that needs to be reset?
HOW F*#$KING COMPLICATED CAN EMIT LIGHT / DON’T EMIT LIGHT BE?!?
somewhere around the third or fourth 8 seconds off / 2 seconds on business is when I get the hammer out.
our devices are just trolling us all at this point.
a light bulb with firmware? that needs to be reset?
HOW F*#$KING COMPLICATED CAN EMIT LIGHT / DON’T EMIT LIGHT BE?!?
somewhere around the third or fourth 8 seconds off / 2 seconds on business is when I get the hammer out.
our devices are just trolling us all at this point.
Meanwhile:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/06/20/tonight-we-almost-started-a-war-with-iran/
So, Bolton almost got the war with Iran that he’s been trying for for ages. But didn’t because, at the last minute, Trump acted as the adult in the room??? I can’t believe I’m writing that, but it looks like what happened.
Of course, it was pretty infantile to let things get to that point. But still, let us be thankful for small favors.
Meanwhile:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/06/20/tonight-we-almost-started-a-war-with-iran/
So, Bolton almost got the war with Iran that he’s been trying for for ages. But didn’t because, at the last minute, Trump acted as the adult in the room??? I can’t believe I’m writing that, but it looks like what happened.
Of course, it was pretty infantile to let things get to that point. But still, let us be thankful for small favors.
must be that the company that makes those little paper-clip-sized reset buttons that you used to find on consumer electronics has gone out of business. otherwise, GE could have avoided the whole on/off/on/off/on/off/on/off/on/off thing.
must be that the company that makes those little paper-clip-sized reset buttons that you used to find on consumer electronics has gone out of business. otherwise, GE could have avoided the whole on/off/on/off/on/off/on/off/on/off thing.
Trump acted as the adult in the room???
Apparently he asked, while the planes were in the air, what the casualties would be. Who knows if that’s what happened, that’s just what’s being reported, take it with a grain of salt.
My question is : he asks what the casualties will be *when the strike is underway*? Not my wheelhouse, really, but I guess my expectation would be that the POTUS would be briefed on possible options and downsides, and then make decisions based on that information.
This is all just a freaking incoherent mess.
Trump acted as the adult in the room???
Apparently he asked, while the planes were in the air, what the casualties would be. Who knows if that’s what happened, that’s just what’s being reported, take it with a grain of salt.
My question is : he asks what the casualties will be *when the strike is underway*? Not my wheelhouse, really, but I guess my expectation would be that the POTUS would be briefed on possible options and downsides, and then make decisions based on that information.
This is all just a freaking incoherent mess.
and yesterday Trump was saying that the drone thing just a mistake some Iranian guy made. but then airstrikes?
if the goal is to keep everybody guessing, it’s working.
and yesterday Trump was saying that the drone thing just a mistake some Iranian guy made. but then airstrikes?
if the goal is to keep everybody guessing, it’s working.
What russell said.
Of course, “freaking incoherent mess” describes most of this administration and its works….
What russell said.
Of course, “freaking incoherent mess” describes most of this administration and its works….
Speaking of incoherent messes, consider this:
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/21/detained-migrant-children-no-toothbrush-no-soap/
So, things like soap and toothbrushes are not, according to the Trump administration, a necessary part of the “safe and sanitary” conditions for detained children that are required by law. And this from a gang led by a notorious germaphobe. The mind boggles.
Speaking of incoherent messes, consider this:
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/21/detained-migrant-children-no-toothbrush-no-soap/
So, things like soap and toothbrushes are not, according to the Trump administration, a necessary part of the “safe and sanitary” conditions for detained children that are required by law. And this from a gang led by a notorious germaphobe. The mind boggles.
Trump acted as the adult in the room???
Or maybe it was just Fox News. 🙂
“‘Look, I said I want to get out of these endless wars, I campaigned on that, I want to get out,’ he told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday, according to Politico. ‘We didn’t have a man or woman in the drone. It would have made a big, big difference.’ The president has reportedly sought counsel from others who are skeptical of additional foreign conflicts, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) and Fox News host Tucker Carlson, even as other Trump allies like Bolton, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) have been beating the drums of war.”
Trump Is Right: Killing Innocent Iranians Would Be a ‘Not Proportionate’ Response to Downed Drone: Trump says he called off a planned airstrike against Iran on Thursday night, just minutes before the bombs were to be let loose.
Trump acted as the adult in the room???
Or maybe it was just Fox News. 🙂
“‘Look, I said I want to get out of these endless wars, I campaigned on that, I want to get out,’ he told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday, according to Politico. ‘We didn’t have a man or woman in the drone. It would have made a big, big difference.’ The president has reportedly sought counsel from others who are skeptical of additional foreign conflicts, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) and Fox News host Tucker Carlson, even as other Trump allies like Bolton, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) have been beating the drums of war.”
Trump Is Right: Killing Innocent Iranians Would Be a ‘Not Proportionate’ Response to Downed Drone: Trump says he called off a planned airstrike against Iran on Thursday night, just minutes before the bombs were to be let loose.
All the way back to cleek @8:46 on 6/20:
Maybe that’s meant to be 11-dimensional snark, but I’m not getting it.
cleek — it sounds like you’re saying, in two different ways, that people shouldn’t be calling these places “concentration camps.” But surely the right wing noise and outrage machine is going to screech bloody murder regardless of what you call the camps. People shouldn’t police their language in case the loons at Fox and in the White House pounce; they’re going to pounce regardless. Self-censorship sooner because these evil sh!theads might try to shout you down later will mean nothing but shutting up entirely.
I think the mistake (if there was one) was in defending and explaining the label at all. Just keep repeating the truth, it needs no defending. Clickbait’s government is in court (google it) arguing that they don’t have to give the children they have in these places soap, toothbrushes, beds, or warm places to sleep.
Adam Silverman at BJ, who is Jewish, has been particularly pointed on this topic.
All the way back to cleek @8:46 on 6/20:
Maybe that’s meant to be 11-dimensional snark, but I’m not getting it.
cleek — it sounds like you’re saying, in two different ways, that people shouldn’t be calling these places “concentration camps.” But surely the right wing noise and outrage machine is going to screech bloody murder regardless of what you call the camps. People shouldn’t police their language in case the loons at Fox and in the White House pounce; they’re going to pounce regardless. Self-censorship sooner because these evil sh!theads might try to shout you down later will mean nothing but shutting up entirely.
I think the mistake (if there was one) was in defending and explaining the label at all. Just keep repeating the truth, it needs no defending. Clickbait’s government is in court (google it) arguing that they don’t have to give the children they have in these places soap, toothbrushes, beds, or warm places to sleep.
Adam Silverman at BJ, who is Jewish, has been particularly pointed on this topic.
Earlier from Adam: Attention White Christians Who Feel the Need to Tell Everyone What Is Or Is Not Anti-Semitism or Is Or Is Not Like the Holocaust:
Earlier from Adam: Attention White Christians Who Feel the Need to Tell Everyone What Is Or Is Not Anti-Semitism or Is Or Is Not Like the Holocaust:
Crossposted with wj’s 12:44.
Crossposted with wj’s 12:44.
It seems that the term “concentration camps” has been redefined to refer to extermination camps like Auschwitz et al. Actually, the British invented concentration camps in South Africa in the Boer War (probably why my grandfather, who fought on the Boer side, always referred to “England the whore”), so it seems the camps AOC was referring to are concentration camps in the actually correct usage. I would post a link to Wikipedia on “British Concentration Camps”, but as I have said I cannot currently post links and don’t want to be bothered posting again with a complaint!
It seems that the term “concentration camps” has been redefined to refer to extermination camps like Auschwitz et al. Actually, the British invented concentration camps in South Africa in the Boer War (probably why my grandfather, who fought on the Boer side, always referred to “England the whore”), so it seems the camps AOC was referring to are concentration camps in the actually correct usage. I would post a link to Wikipedia on “British Concentration Camps”, but as I have said I cannot currently post links and don’t want to be bothered posting again with a complaint!
Should have said “to refer ONLY to extermination camps”
Should have said “to refer ONLY to extermination camps”
“freaking incoherent mess”
Have any of you ever sat and observed the reptile, raptor, and big man-eating cat enclosures at the zoo?
They move in deceptively slow fashion as they approach their prey and their enemies, who they plan to kill and eat.
It only looks like an incoherent mess, but everything is very rationally organized around feeding time for the subhuman brain stems of the inhabitants.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28134428/clarence-thomas-cross-establishment-of-religion-first-amendment/
https://thinkprogress.org/gorsuch-environmental-regulation-epa-892f82ff3bc3/
The personnel infrastructure is being put in place for the completion of the fascist coup that began November 2016.
Her voice will be one of the those we hear mispronouncing our names as we are disappeared.
https://www.newsweek.com/dhs-press-secretary-katharine-gorka-breitbart-1444651
Only those personally loyal to ONE fucking vermin subhuman corrupt murderer will be permitted to serve in government.
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/white-house-considering-dismantling-the-office-of-personnel-management-1.576421
“The mind boggles”
Keeping ours minds predictably a-boggle, wj, is why, unlike conservative republican vermin, we haven’t been stockpiling military grade weaponry and lethal ammo to bring justice to the reptilian perpetrators of these brutalities.
Yes, I know, there are seemingly reasonable, but isolated nominal republicans who have managed to secure an election here and there who might serve as resistance to these filth, but they seem awfully quiet, like grocery clerks stoically ignoring the rotting, poisonous food they are bagging for us to take home.
What good are they? No good at all.
We note each deplorable instance, we explain our endless ability to be appalled, like the neighbors when the first Jews in the neighborhood were carted off in the wee hours in Germany in the 1930s, and figure these singular events CAN’T possibly be related to a big picture of the future slowly revealing itself in our peripheral vision.
Elections. They will be stolen and if not successfully stolen, ignored.
And even if p loses, there are still 80 million or so of him among the living to fuck us.
But we will note the mind-boggling features of those predations
“required by law”
There is no rule of law. There is no law in these vermin minds, only laws that need to be gotten rid of in their malign self-interest.
All methods are permitted to destroy the monstrosity of the Republican Party.
They are giving us permission.
They want to be victims, like so many self-appointed small-town aryan reichsfuhrers resentful of the OTHER who move among them, but in the former’s ingrown stunted brain stems, it will only be a matter of time before these uppity OTHER get what’s coming to them.
Let’s make their dreams come true.
Things are NOT going to get better.
“freaking incoherent mess”
Have any of you ever sat and observed the reptile, raptor, and big man-eating cat enclosures at the zoo?
They move in deceptively slow fashion as they approach their prey and their enemies, who they plan to kill and eat.
It only looks like an incoherent mess, but everything is very rationally organized around feeding time for the subhuman brain stems of the inhabitants.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28134428/clarence-thomas-cross-establishment-of-religion-first-amendment/
https://thinkprogress.org/gorsuch-environmental-regulation-epa-892f82ff3bc3/
The personnel infrastructure is being put in place for the completion of the fascist coup that began November 2016.
Her voice will be one of the those we hear mispronouncing our names as we are disappeared.
https://www.newsweek.com/dhs-press-secretary-katharine-gorka-breitbart-1444651
Only those personally loyal to ONE fucking vermin subhuman corrupt murderer will be permitted to serve in government.
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/white-house-considering-dismantling-the-office-of-personnel-management-1.576421
“The mind boggles”
Keeping ours minds predictably a-boggle, wj, is why, unlike conservative republican vermin, we haven’t been stockpiling military grade weaponry and lethal ammo to bring justice to the reptilian perpetrators of these brutalities.
Yes, I know, there are seemingly reasonable, but isolated nominal republicans who have managed to secure an election here and there who might serve as resistance to these filth, but they seem awfully quiet, like grocery clerks stoically ignoring the rotting, poisonous food they are bagging for us to take home.
What good are they? No good at all.
We note each deplorable instance, we explain our endless ability to be appalled, like the neighbors when the first Jews in the neighborhood were carted off in the wee hours in Germany in the 1930s, and figure these singular events CAN’T possibly be related to a big picture of the future slowly revealing itself in our peripheral vision.
Elections. They will be stolen and if not successfully stolen, ignored.
And even if p loses, there are still 80 million or so of him among the living to fuck us.
But we will note the mind-boggling features of those predations
“required by law”
There is no rule of law. There is no law in these vermin minds, only laws that need to be gotten rid of in their malign self-interest.
All methods are permitted to destroy the monstrosity of the Republican Party.
They are giving us permission.
They want to be victims, like so many self-appointed small-town aryan reichsfuhrers resentful of the OTHER who move among them, but in the former’s ingrown stunted brain stems, it will only be a matter of time before these uppity OTHER get what’s coming to them.
Let’s make their dreams come true.
Things are NOT going to get better.
“notorious germaphobe.”
Hitler loved his pet dogs, but the only dogs he permitted among the Other he was murdering were to the keep the latter moving along to their fated destinations.
Sadists often subject their victims to the very horrors they themselves fear.
“notorious germaphobe.”
Hitler loved his pet dogs, but the only dogs he permitted among the Other he was murdering were to the keep the latter moving along to their fated destinations.
Sadists often subject their victims to the very horrors they themselves fear.
The precise moment of Trudeau’s cough and the germaphobe’s disgust:
https://twitter.com/MissFuhrerious/status/1141748608867479552
His gorge rises when any decent example of humanity is in his presence, but he manages to choke the bolus down in his throat if his specific personal self-interest is about to be cashed in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98vHt8hKMdk
He is the perfect embodiment of the subhuman vermin who voted for him and those who enabled his election by not voting for the trivially corrupt but serviceable Hillary Clinton.
The precise moment of Trudeau’s cough and the germaphobe’s disgust:
https://twitter.com/MissFuhrerious/status/1141748608867479552
His gorge rises when any decent example of humanity is in his presence, but he manages to choke the bolus down in his throat if his specific personal self-interest is about to be cashed in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98vHt8hKMdk
He is the perfect embodiment of the subhuman vermin who voted for him and those who enabled his election by not voting for the trivially corrupt but serviceable Hillary Clinton.
You see, positive change might occur via normal channels using peaceful but effective thumbscrews to save what’s left:
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3473007-big-u-k-investor-dumps-exxon-climate-change
But the constipated conservative/republican movement sitting athwart our government is immune to anything short of the bloody catastrophe coming down around their heads which they seek to prove and guarantee their authenticity.
You see, positive change might occur via normal channels using peaceful but effective thumbscrews to save what’s left:
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3473007-big-u-k-investor-dumps-exxon-climate-change
But the constipated conservative/republican movement sitting athwart our government is immune to anything short of the bloody catastrophe coming down around their heads which they seek to prove and guarantee their authenticity.
Actually, the British invented concentration camps in South Africa in the Boer War
AFAIK, it was actually the Spanish in Cuba.
Actually, the British invented concentration camps in South Africa in the Boer War
AFAIK, it was actually the Spanish in Cuba.
The precise moment of Trudeau’s cough and the germaphobe’s disgust
Does it seem a pity to you, JDT, that his horror of germs doesn’t turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy? I mean, suppose he ended up seriously ill from one of those coughs….
The precise moment of Trudeau’s cough and the germaphobe’s disgust
Does it seem a pity to you, JDT, that his horror of germs doesn’t turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy? I mean, suppose he ended up seriously ill from one of those coughs….
…and yesterday Trump was saying that the drone thing just a mistake some Iranian guy made. but then airstrikes?
First it was a mistake, then Pompeo and Bolton got to him by themselves for a while. Then the Joint Chiefs showed up and read them the riot act: “Are you guys insane? We picked a spot very carefully and poked at Iran’s airspace limit with a drone. We got a really good look at their S-300 radar and missiles in action. Their generals are all kicking themselves that they got tricked. But we’ve got to be sneaky about how we call off the strikes.”
And the well-prepped colonel in the background muses, “We could tell them that we’re saving civilian lives. The press always eats that one up.”
…and yesterday Trump was saying that the drone thing just a mistake some Iranian guy made. but then airstrikes?
First it was a mistake, then Pompeo and Bolton got to him by themselves for a while. Then the Joint Chiefs showed up and read them the riot act: “Are you guys insane? We picked a spot very carefully and poked at Iran’s airspace limit with a drone. We got a really good look at their S-300 radar and missiles in action. Their generals are all kicking themselves that they got tricked. But we’ve got to be sneaky about how we call off the strikes.”
And the well-prepped colonel in the background muses, “We could tell them that we’re saving civilian lives. The press always eats that one up.”
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/06/21/nra-rallies-support-oregon-state-senator-who-threatened-shoot-law-enforcement/224006
Whatever happened to those law and order republicans who mourn like sniveling little twats (speaking republicanese here so they don’t require a translator) when law enforcement officers are scragged by swarthy kids?
The NRA encourages the republican chimp to shoot and kill the police.
Find the entire NRA leadership, arrest them, try them in a court of law, since filthy conservatives like to waste my tax money that way, and then execute the NRA fucks with their own weapons.
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/06/21/nra-rallies-support-oregon-state-senator-who-threatened-shoot-law-enforcement/224006
Whatever happened to those law and order republicans who mourn like sniveling little twats (speaking republicanese here so they don’t require a translator) when law enforcement officers are scragged by swarthy kids?
The NRA encourages the republican chimp to shoot and kill the police.
Find the entire NRA leadership, arrest them, try them in a court of law, since filthy conservatives like to waste my tax money that way, and then execute the NRA fucks with their own weapons.
Being an asshole, like p, despite being a full-time preoccupation among conservatives, work, work, work, seems to leave a few spare moments for rape and assault:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/21/boris-johnson-and-donald-trump-have-a-bad-day/
Bad day lying about Brexit gotcha down?
Might as well head home and beat the shit out of the wives, girlfriends, daughters, mothers, and the cleaning lady.
Being an asshole, like p, despite being a full-time preoccupation among conservatives, work, work, work, seems to leave a few spare moments for rape and assault:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/21/boris-johnson-and-donald-trump-have-a-bad-day/
Bad day lying about Brexit gotcha down?
Might as well head home and beat the shit out of the wives, girlfriends, daughters, mothers, and the cleaning lady.
How does Thomas define “demonstrably” ?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomass-astonishing-opinion-on-a-racist-mississippi-prosecutor
How does Thomas define “demonstrably” ?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomass-astonishing-opinion-on-a-racist-mississippi-prosecutor
Thomas demonstrably contradicts himself within a single opinion:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/brett-kavanaugh-clarence-thomas-racist-juries-mississippi.html
Black defendants tried by all-white jurors created by racist prosecutors, Thomas wrote, suffer “no legally cognizable injury.” The accused suffer no equal protection violation when they are tried by a jury selected on the basis of race. Moreover, prosecutors should be permitted to make “generalizations” about black jurors, because “race matters in the courtroom.” …
Thomas demonstrably contradicts himself within a single opinion:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/brett-kavanaugh-clarence-thomas-racist-juries-mississippi.html
Black defendants tried by all-white jurors created by racist prosecutors, Thomas wrote, suffer “no legally cognizable injury.” The accused suffer no equal protection violation when they are tried by a jury selected on the basis of race. Moreover, prosecutors should be permitted to make “generalizations” about black jurors, because “race matters in the courtroom.” …
AFAIK, it was actually the Spanish in Cuba.
Nigel, thanks for this, I didn’t know about it (it seems it is a much less famous example, but since they also seem to have coined the term, they deserve the “credit”).
AFAIK, it was actually the Spanish in Cuba.
Nigel, thanks for this, I didn’t know about it (it seems it is a much less famous example, but since they also seem to have coined the term, they deserve the “credit”).
cleek — it sounds like you’re saying, in two different ways, that people shouldn’t be calling these places “concentration camps.”
in many places, here for example, the use of the term has generated as much discussion what it’s being used to describe.
that’s a problem.
more heat than light.
but maybe that’s the goal.
GFtNC:
It seems that the term “concentration camps” has been redefined to refer to extermination camps like Auschwitz et al.
right.
but a semantic argument isn’t going to help stop Trump.
cleek — it sounds like you’re saying, in two different ways, that people shouldn’t be calling these places “concentration camps.”
in many places, here for example, the use of the term has generated as much discussion what it’s being used to describe.
that’s a problem.
more heat than light.
but maybe that’s the goal.
GFtNC:
It seems that the term “concentration camps” has been redefined to refer to extermination camps like Auschwitz et al.
right.
but a semantic argument isn’t going to help stop Trump.
Race won’t matter in the courtroom Thomas and company are tried in.
Race won’t matter in the courtroom Thomas and company are tried in.
if only Trudeau had barfed on Trump’s lapels.
put me in the same room as Trump, i might be able to do it.
if only Trudeau had barfed on Trump’s lapels.
put me in the same room as Trump, i might be able to do it.
but a semantic argument isn’t going to help stop Trump.
I absolutely agree, cleek. I was just trying to make the point that AOC was being accurate in calling them concentration camps, not whether it was tactically advisable to do so. As to the latter, I rather think that the discussion helps keep the issue alive, so may be a help after all. I hope so, anyway. (As you know, I do not agree to call Trump et al Nazis, for what I think are similar reasons to yours, as well as for reasons of accuracy.)
but a semantic argument isn’t going to help stop Trump.
I absolutely agree, cleek. I was just trying to make the point that AOC was being accurate in calling them concentration camps, not whether it was tactically advisable to do so. As to the latter, I rather think that the discussion helps keep the issue alive, so may be a help after all. I hope so, anyway. (As you know, I do not agree to call Trump et al Nazis, for what I think are similar reasons to yours, as well as for reasons of accuracy.)
but a semantic argument isn’t going to help stop Trump.
What is going to help stop Trump? And what is going to stop the camps?
but a semantic argument isn’t going to help stop Trump.
What is going to help stop Trump? And what is going to stop the camps?
If only p, et al observed the proprieties ….. at all.
If only p, et al observed the proprieties ….. at all.
What is going to help stop Trump?
other than voting him out next November, i don’t know.
And what is going to stop the camps?
stopping Trump.
What is going to help stop Trump?
other than voting him out next November, i don’t know.
And what is going to stop the camps?
stopping Trump.
Nothing will stop him:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-4-eva-tweet
Better to call them Nazis loud and clear now than wait until 2048 for the necessary D-Day and the fire-bombing of Dresden.
Nothing will stop him:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-4-eva-tweet
Better to call them Nazis loud and clear now than wait until 2048 for the necessary D-Day and the fire-bombing of Dresden.
There’s a double bind. Any discussion that tells the truth about the camps, under whatever label, will draw the kind of deflecting BS that the Rs want to keep going in order to keep people busy with anything but getting the camps closed. To me the finger-wagging and faux outrage (Megan McCain? spare me) about the use of a particular label is just another way to muzzle people.
There are no ordinary “tactics” that work with these people, that’s why they’re running the country now. But I do think we could all use a dose of GBS, citing, IIRC, William Morris: “Don’t argue, repeat your assertion.”
Vigils being organized for 7/12 at and against the camps. HT BJ, as usual.
There’s a double bind. Any discussion that tells the truth about the camps, under whatever label, will draw the kind of deflecting BS that the Rs want to keep going in order to keep people busy with anything but getting the camps closed. To me the finger-wagging and faux outrage (Megan McCain? spare me) about the use of a particular label is just another way to muzzle people.
There are no ordinary “tactics” that work with these people, that’s why they’re running the country now. But I do think we could all use a dose of GBS, citing, IIRC, William Morris: “Don’t argue, repeat your assertion.”
Vigils being organized for 7/12 at and against the camps. HT BJ, as usual.
As to the latter, I rather think that the discussion helps keep the issue alive, so may be a help after all. I hope so, anyway.
i hope you’re right.
As to the latter, I rather think that the discussion helps keep the issue alive, so may be a help after all. I hope so, anyway.
i hope you’re right.
But I do think we could all use a dose of GBS, citing, IIRC, William Morris: “Don’t argue, repeat your assertion.”
I think this is excellent advice. From Janie’s lips to all the Dems’ ears.
But I do think we could all use a dose of GBS, citing, IIRC, William Morris: “Don’t argue, repeat your assertion.”
I think this is excellent advice. From Janie’s lips to all the Dems’ ears.
There is no redefinition; concentration camp is a synonym (albeit now a heavily charged one) for internment camp.
The essence of the definition is place of mass confinement, and those confined not having faced criminal charges.
Extermination camps were a quite different thing, even as defined by Nazis – perhaps seventy out of seven hundred thousand survived the extermination camp Treblinka, and that only because they broke out in a prisoner uprising.
There is no redefinition; concentration camp is a synonym (albeit now a heavily charged one) for internment camp.
The essence of the definition is place of mass confinement, and those confined not having faced criminal charges.
Extermination camps were a quite different thing, even as defined by Nazis – perhaps seventy out of seven hundred thousand survived the extermination camp Treblinka, and that only because they broke out in a prisoner uprising.
Well, GBS repeated his assertion in the 1930s, in front of a Soviet audience, in the Soviet Union, that there was nothing to see in the Ukraine, except a few malcontents complaining about stomach pangs because they missed breakfast.
He then told the audience that he was so convinced of his assertion that on his way to the Soviet Union, he threw tins of food out the train window to demonstrate his disbelieve in the scandalous rumors of mass starvation and murder, at which point even some Soviets in the audience, despite their fear, groaned and gasped at the thought of that food wasted and prevented from reaching their tables.
Reading Annie Applebaum’s “Fred Famine” at the moment, from whence that anecdote is lifted.
She’s a conservative, rabidly anti-p, and aghast at the anti-Semitism and right wing filth now ascendant in Poland, which she witnessed arising when she lived there for several recent years.
Here’s my takeaway from the book, however.
p and company’s fake news language framing of current events in these last five years is so like Stalin’s murderous bullshit propaganda regarding the Ukraine in the 1930’s that you might conclude p graduated from the Joe Stalin Seminary for Wayward Despotic Assholes.
He’s Russian by another mother, and fuck his mother.
Nazi, Stalinist, Pol Pot, let it all hang out.
Polite coughing ain’t gonna do it, IMAO.
Well, GBS repeated his assertion in the 1930s, in front of a Soviet audience, in the Soviet Union, that there was nothing to see in the Ukraine, except a few malcontents complaining about stomach pangs because they missed breakfast.
He then told the audience that he was so convinced of his assertion that on his way to the Soviet Union, he threw tins of food out the train window to demonstrate his disbelieve in the scandalous rumors of mass starvation and murder, at which point even some Soviets in the audience, despite their fear, groaned and gasped at the thought of that food wasted and prevented from reaching their tables.
Reading Annie Applebaum’s “Fred Famine” at the moment, from whence that anecdote is lifted.
She’s a conservative, rabidly anti-p, and aghast at the anti-Semitism and right wing filth now ascendant in Poland, which she witnessed arising when she lived there for several recent years.
Here’s my takeaway from the book, however.
p and company’s fake news language framing of current events in these last five years is so like Stalin’s murderous bullshit propaganda regarding the Ukraine in the 1930’s that you might conclude p graduated from the Joe Stalin Seminary for Wayward Despotic Assholes.
He’s Russian by another mother, and fuck his mother.
Nazi, Stalinist, Pol Pot, let it all hang out.
Polite coughing ain’t gonna do it, IMAO.
JDT: yes, GBS went off the rails pretty badly as the 20th century progressed.
Having reread the four fat volumes of his collected letters within the last 2-3 years, I see more clearly than I did as a young adult that he was far too full of his own infallibility for his own and everyone else’s good. I — we all, I’m sure — have known people like that in real life, although none of the infallible self-styled geniuses I know have balanced their delusions of grandeur with the actual grandeur and genius of GBS’s positive accomplishments.
The quote still applies. Another quote, unattributed, that applies to the first quote: “An idea isn’t responsible for the people who espouse it.”
And yes, by whatever labels, we have seen this movie before. I don’t know how to stop Clickbait either, all the more since he is just the distillation of a psychic and political strand that is always with us. “Never again” — we don’t know how to do that.
JDT: yes, GBS went off the rails pretty badly as the 20th century progressed.
Having reread the four fat volumes of his collected letters within the last 2-3 years, I see more clearly than I did as a young adult that he was far too full of his own infallibility for his own and everyone else’s good. I — we all, I’m sure — have known people like that in real life, although none of the infallible self-styled geniuses I know have balanced their delusions of grandeur with the actual grandeur and genius of GBS’s positive accomplishments.
The quote still applies. Another quote, unattributed, that applies to the first quote: “An idea isn’t responsible for the people who espouse it.”
And yes, by whatever labels, we have seen this movie before. I don’t know how to stop Clickbait either, all the more since he is just the distillation of a psychic and political strand that is always with us. “Never again” — we don’t know how to do that.
There is no redefinition…Extermination camps were a quite different thing
what do you get if you Google “concentration camp”?
for me, Google gives a definition right at the top of the results:
that reflects the typical usage in America.
the terms have merged.
There is no redefinition…Extermination camps were a quite different thing
what do you get if you Google “concentration camp”?
for me, Google gives a definition right at the top of the results:
that reflects the typical usage in America.
the terms have merged.
There are no fucking conservatives/republicans who give a shit what hairs we split claiming naming rights for these criminal travesties.
In fact, the worse the name is, the more they delight is rolling around in their own feces, and the more they like the fact that liberals are once again wasting time defining terms, when overthrowing this regime violently is the only deserved justice.
But I’m open to spending the week deciding what to call this revolution.
We can decide franchising, residuals, and royalties later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_6tzJmEExw
Sometimes a single gun shot can galvanize the attention and move business along.
There are no fucking conservatives/republicans who give a shit what hairs we split claiming naming rights for these criminal travesties.
In fact, the worse the name is, the more they delight is rolling around in their own feces, and the more they like the fact that liberals are once again wasting time defining terms, when overthrowing this regime violently is the only deserved justice.
But I’m open to spending the week deciding what to call this revolution.
We can decide franchising, residuals, and royalties later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_6tzJmEExw
Sometimes a single gun shot can galvanize the attention and move business along.
“Red Famine”
Fred Rogers, Fred Flintstone, Freddie Mercury, nut not Fred Famine.
“Red Famine”
Fred Rogers, Fred Flintstone, Freddie Mercury, nut not Fred Famine.
But I do think we could all use a dose of GBS, citing, IIRC, William Morris: “Don’t argue, repeat your assertion.”
A biography of GBS reports his describing William Morris as “fond of quoting Robert Owen’s rule: ‘Don’t argue: repeat your assertion'”.
However, Wikiquote has relegated the quotation to its Robert Owen discussion page as unsourced.
But I do think we could all use a dose of GBS, citing, IIRC, William Morris: “Don’t argue, repeat your assertion.”
A biography of GBS reports his describing William Morris as “fond of quoting Robert Owen’s rule: ‘Don’t argue: repeat your assertion'”.
However, Wikiquote has relegated the quotation to its Robert Owen discussion page as unsourced.
I’m the nut.
I’m the nut.
Calling things by their right names is a blow against the forces of chaos and falsehood. I think it is an important weapon in its own right, albeit possibly one with a long fuse.
Calling things by their right names is a blow against the forces of chaos and falsehood. I think it is an important weapon in its own right, albeit possibly one with a long fuse.
he is just the distillation of a psychic and political strand that is always with us.
Yes.
“Never again” — we don’t know how to do that.
No so much “never again” as “not this shit again!”.
But, unfortunately, yes. This same sorry shit, again.
These are my thoughts concerning now, through probably the next 50 or maybe 100 years.
We’re going to grow from 7 billion to at least 10 billion people on the planet. Climate change is going to disrupt established patterns of human settlement and activity. The difference between people who have stuff and live a reasonably secure and comfortable life, and people who do not, is going to be increasingly acute.
People are not going to sit around at home an starve to death, or die of thirst or disease, or live under oppressive exploitative regimes, in order not to disturb people who live comfortably. You wouldn’t, and I wouldn’t, and they won’t either.
We – people who live lives of relative security and comfort – are going to have to figure out how to help all of the people who do not live with those blessings. Either that, or their suffering will become ours, in one way or another.
If we can’t find a way to make that happen out of the goodness of our hearts, we should at least figure it out from pure self-interest.
There are Africans among the Central Americans trying to get across the border to claim asylum. That means they got themselves from Africa to South America, then somehow to Central America, then somehow across Mexico. To show up on our doorstep in TX or AZ.
A fucking wall is not going to make those people stay away. Putting them in an enclosed camp to sleep on a concrete floor is not going to make them stay away.
If we can’t find a way to share our good fortune with the rest of the world, the rest of the world will find a way to change our minds. Or, our refusal to change our minds will turn us into beasts.
The Central American wave is the tip of the iceberg.
That’s what I think.
he is just the distillation of a psychic and political strand that is always with us.
Yes.
“Never again” — we don’t know how to do that.
No so much “never again” as “not this shit again!”.
But, unfortunately, yes. This same sorry shit, again.
These are my thoughts concerning now, through probably the next 50 or maybe 100 years.
We’re going to grow from 7 billion to at least 10 billion people on the planet. Climate change is going to disrupt established patterns of human settlement and activity. The difference between people who have stuff and live a reasonably secure and comfortable life, and people who do not, is going to be increasingly acute.
People are not going to sit around at home an starve to death, or die of thirst or disease, or live under oppressive exploitative regimes, in order not to disturb people who live comfortably. You wouldn’t, and I wouldn’t, and they won’t either.
We – people who live lives of relative security and comfort – are going to have to figure out how to help all of the people who do not live with those blessings. Either that, or their suffering will become ours, in one way or another.
If we can’t find a way to make that happen out of the goodness of our hearts, we should at least figure it out from pure self-interest.
There are Africans among the Central Americans trying to get across the border to claim asylum. That means they got themselves from Africa to South America, then somehow to Central America, then somehow across Mexico. To show up on our doorstep in TX or AZ.
A fucking wall is not going to make those people stay away. Putting them in an enclosed camp to sleep on a concrete floor is not going to make them stay away.
If we can’t find a way to share our good fortune with the rest of the world, the rest of the world will find a way to change our minds. Or, our refusal to change our minds will turn us into beasts.
The Central American wave is the tip of the iceberg.
That’s what I think.
There are Africans among the Central Americans trying to get across the border to claim asylum. That means they got themselves from Africa to South America, then somehow to Central America, then somehow across Mexico. To show up on our doorstep in TX or AZ.
The story of one such family. And another.
There are Africans among the Central Americans trying to get across the border to claim asylum. That means they got themselves from Africa to South America, then somehow to Central America, then somehow across Mexico. To show up on our doorstep in TX or AZ.
The story of one such family. And another.
Cannot disagree with a word of Russell’s 11.50.
Cannot disagree with a word of Russell’s 11.50.
Neither can I.
But I don’t have the audience share of this fascist carrier of conservative rabies.
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/06/21/laura-ingraham-most-migrants-entering-us-could-be-carrying-diseases-which-may-lead-nationwide/224008
She’ll win the hate argument every time given the present political composition of the country.
Quarantine her. At the very least.
Neither can I.
But I don’t have the audience share of this fascist carrier of conservative rabies.
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/06/21/laura-ingraham-most-migrants-entering-us-could-be-carrying-diseases-which-may-lead-nationwide/224008
She’ll win the hate argument every time given the present political composition of the country.
Quarantine her. At the very least.
A fucking wall is not going to make those people stay away. Putting them in an enclosed camp to sleep on a concrete floor is not going to make them stay away.
If we can’t find a way to share our good fortune with the rest of the world, the rest of the world will find a way to change our minds.
But, but . . . I mean, it worked so well for King Canute!**
** Yes, I do know that Canute was making a point to the syncophants around him — he knew damn well it wouldn’t work. Not something Trump would ever consider. But the point remains.
A fucking wall is not going to make those people stay away. Putting them in an enclosed camp to sleep on a concrete floor is not going to make them stay away.
If we can’t find a way to share our good fortune with the rest of the world, the rest of the world will find a way to change our minds.
But, but . . . I mean, it worked so well for King Canute!**
** Yes, I do know that Canute was making a point to the syncophants around him — he knew damn well it wouldn’t work. Not something Trump would ever consider. But the point remains.
Regarding concentration camps, Timothy Snyder is worth reading (I can also recommend his books “Bloodlands” and “Black Earth”):
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/19/opinions/liz-cheney-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camps-snyder/index.html
Regarding concentration camps, Timothy Snyder is worth reading (I can also recommend his books “Bloodlands” and “Black Earth”):
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/19/opinions/liz-cheney-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camps-snyder/index.html
Just to round out the stories of those particular families up to the moment: as russell says, they got themselves from Africa to South America, then somehow to Central America, then somehow across Mexico. To show up on our doorstep in TX or AZ…
…and then through the bureaucracy, and finally somehow to Maine, a journey of the FSM only knows how many bus changes, and how many ICE challenges on buses along the way.
With kids in tow.
Donations to help them accepted here and here. Not an exhaustive list, I’m sure.
I am still giving money to RAICES and the Texas Civil Rights Project, and will continue to do so. But these people who have come to Portland — many of them will be in effect my neighbors, Maine being one big small town. I don’t know what’s the right balance between trying to affect the big picture, and helping to feed the hungry (so to speak) right on my doorstep. There probably is no “right” balance; we do what we can.
Just to round out the stories of those particular families up to the moment: as russell says, they got themselves from Africa to South America, then somehow to Central America, then somehow across Mexico. To show up on our doorstep in TX or AZ…
…and then through the bureaucracy, and finally somehow to Maine, a journey of the FSM only knows how many bus changes, and how many ICE challenges on buses along the way.
With kids in tow.
Donations to help them accepted here and here. Not an exhaustive list, I’m sure.
I am still giving money to RAICES and the Texas Civil Rights Project, and will continue to do so. But these people who have come to Portland — many of them will be in effect my neighbors, Maine being one big small town. I don’t know what’s the right balance between trying to affect the big picture, and helping to feed the hungry (so to speak) right on my doorstep. There probably is no “right” balance; we do what we can.
something is more than nothing. always.
something is more than nothing. always.
and may I also say, bugger this noise.
violence and threats of violence to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion constitute terrorism under the US Code.
who the hell do these guys think they are? how long are the rest of us supposed to put up with this BS?
If you don’t like the laws where you live, work to change the law. If you can’t change the law, suck it up and try harder next time. God knows the rest of us do.
If none of that works, move. If you can’t find anyplace to move to that is congenial to your particular point of view, maybe a look in the mirror is warranted.
Children with guns. Full-grown children, but children. Who never learned the part about getting along with others. With guns.
Not a good combination.
and may I also say, bugger this noise.
violence and threats of violence to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion constitute terrorism under the US Code.
who the hell do these guys think they are? how long are the rest of us supposed to put up with this BS?
If you don’t like the laws where you live, work to change the law. If you can’t change the law, suck it up and try harder next time. God knows the rest of us do.
If none of that works, move. If you can’t find anyplace to move to that is congenial to your particular point of view, maybe a look in the mirror is warranted.
Children with guns. Full-grown children, but children. Who never learned the part about getting along with others. With guns.
Not a good combination.
who the hell do these guys think they are?
Trump’s base.
it’s a shame domestic terrorism isn’t a crime on its own.
who the hell do these guys think they are?
Trump’s base.
it’s a shame domestic terrorism isn’t a crime on its own.
who the hell do these guys think they are? how long are the rest of us supposed to put up with this BS?
The states are laboratories, where new ideas can be tried out. Not just for possible future Federal implementation, but for implementation in other states as well. It appears the Oregon’s Republican state senators are following the example of Wisconsin’s Democratic legislators a couple of years ago.
In a similar vein (If you do it today, your opponents may do similarly tomorrow) I wonder if the Supreme Court’s conservatives will rue their new habit of throwing stare decisis to the winds. Actually, I don’t doubt it will come back to haunt them, the only question is, How soon?
who the hell do these guys think they are? how long are the rest of us supposed to put up with this BS?
The states are laboratories, where new ideas can be tried out. Not just for possible future Federal implementation, but for implementation in other states as well. It appears the Oregon’s Republican state senators are following the example of Wisconsin’s Democratic legislators a couple of years ago.
In a similar vein (If you do it today, your opponents may do similarly tomorrow) I wonder if the Supreme Court’s conservatives will rue their new habit of throwing stare decisis to the winds. Actually, I don’t doubt it will come back to haunt them, the only question is, How soon?
Do we remember when Wisconsin Democratic legislators fled their state in 2011, was it, and then armed liberal militia shot up the State Capitol, killing every republican and conservative in the area when their runt republican governor threatened to haul the Dem legislators back against their will.
I don’t either, but I have a feeling p and conservative putin vomit radio will.
For Janie:
https://www.pressherald.com/2019/06/16/paul-lepage-has-a-new-job-tending-bar-in-maine/
I’m pretty sure he’s not responsible enough for that job either.
Do we remember when Wisconsin Democratic legislators fled their state in 2011, was it, and then armed liberal militia shot up the State Capitol, killing every republican and conservative in the area when their runt republican governor threatened to haul the Dem legislators back against their will.
I don’t either, but I have a feeling p and conservative putin vomit radio will.
For Janie:
https://www.pressherald.com/2019/06/16/paul-lepage-has-a-new-job-tending-bar-in-maine/
I’m pretty sure he’s not responsible enough for that job either.
I agree with the Snyder recommendation.
He’s a fine historian – though, as he has a conscience, a controversial one.
I agree with the Snyder recommendation.
He’s a fine historian – though, as he has a conscience, a controversial one.
that reflects the typical usage in America.
the terms have merged.
Fair enough.
I’m not enough of a pedant to insist on the original meaning, but Snyder is much closer to the essential point – they are effectively lawless places for those interned.
The consequences for internees depend on the regime in charge, not the precise definition.
that reflects the typical usage in America.
the terms have merged.
Fair enough.
I’m not enough of a pedant to insist on the original meaning, but Snyder is much closer to the essential point – they are effectively lawless places for those interned.
The consequences for internees depend on the regime in charge, not the precise definition.
it appears the Oregon’s Republican state senators are following the example of Wisconsin’s Democratic legislators a couple of years ago.
I don’t have a big problem with the (R) senators hiding to avoid the vote. Nor with the state trying to round them up.
I have a problem with self-appointed “patriots” threatening violence to make sure things go the way they want.
it appears the Oregon’s Republican state senators are following the example of Wisconsin’s Democratic legislators a couple of years ago.
I don’t have a big problem with the (R) senators hiding to avoid the vote. Nor with the state trying to round them up.
I have a problem with self-appointed “patriots” threatening violence to make sure things go the way they want.
they are effectively lawless places for those interned.
no question.
The consequences for internees depend on the regime in charge, not the precise definition.
indeed
they are effectively lawless places for those interned.
no question.
The consequences for internees depend on the regime in charge, not the precise definition.
indeed
just for clarification: the above was not a “both sides”. things really did turn out differently for immigrants when Obama put them in Ft Sill.
just for clarification: the above was not a “both sides”. things really did turn out differently for immigrants when Obama put them in Ft Sill.
The paper tiger backs off at home as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2019/06/22/trump-says-some-cities-are-going-fight-planned-ice-raids-major-cities-vow-resist/
Suddenly, a 2 week delay in the raids. By then, he may have totally forgotten about the whole idea….
The paper tiger backs off at home as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2019/06/22/trump-says-some-cities-are-going-fight-planned-ice-raids-major-cities-vow-resist/
Suddenly, a 2 week delay in the raids. By then, he may have totally forgotten about the whole idea….
China and the US and world trade, the big picture from a very smart person:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-new-world-order-will-have-china-on-top-51560513601
Regarding the 2-week delay in immigration fascism, this is p’s MO. Stop, start, feint, duck, lie, cheat, bullshit, bully …. all in a house of mirrors and cross echos.
It’s how he manipulates and fakes control over his environment.
It keeps all of the flaming torches, axes, and bowling balls in the air and all eyes on HE, who fakes juggling them while lighting the fuse on the sticks of dynamite he himself sticks in the world’s mouth with a canister of nitro glycerin while he rides a unicycle with no brakes and a bent wheel.
No one can move because no one can guess where everything else in their world is going to move next. He’s got everyone coming and going with a smirk and a scowl, dead turtle doves secreted in his waistcoat.
It’s mere entertainment for him.
He likes fucking with, jagging off, everyone.
He’s like this guy, always the first at the scene of the mayhem, setting the fires and rigging the exlposions and then reneging on the insurance payment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gucpp2X5lwo
That his comely lady assistant actually does get sawed in half when the the halves of the box are separated is beside the point.
He’s the most dangerous individual world in the world.
This ends with him dead, or us, or the entire country.
It’s up to his admirers whether they follow him into savage Hell.
China and the US and world trade, the big picture from a very smart person:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-new-world-order-will-have-china-on-top-51560513601
Regarding the 2-week delay in immigration fascism, this is p’s MO. Stop, start, feint, duck, lie, cheat, bullshit, bully …. all in a house of mirrors and cross echos.
It’s how he manipulates and fakes control over his environment.
It keeps all of the flaming torches, axes, and bowling balls in the air and all eyes on HE, who fakes juggling them while lighting the fuse on the sticks of dynamite he himself sticks in the world’s mouth with a canister of nitro glycerin while he rides a unicycle with no brakes and a bent wheel.
No one can move because no one can guess where everything else in their world is going to move next. He’s got everyone coming and going with a smirk and a scowl, dead turtle doves secreted in his waistcoat.
It’s mere entertainment for him.
He likes fucking with, jagging off, everyone.
He’s like this guy, always the first at the scene of the mayhem, setting the fires and rigging the exlposions and then reneging on the insurance payment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gucpp2X5lwo
That his comely lady assistant actually does get sawed in half when the the halves of the box are separated is beside the point.
He’s the most dangerous individual world in the world.
This ends with him dead, or us, or the entire country.
It’s up to his admirers whether they follow him into savage Hell.
What America sounds like when it reaches peak greatness:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/06/22/open-thread-whatever-makes-it-better/
Except for Ben Franklin, I don’t think any of the other Founders had the wits to foresee this particular apex of what they wrought.
What America sounds like when it reaches peak greatness:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/06/22/open-thread-whatever-makes-it-better/
Except for Ben Franklin, I don’t think any of the other Founders had the wits to foresee this particular apex of what they wrought.
Lotta stuff on climate change:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/22/1788032/-Spotlight-on-green-news-amp-views-Permafrost-melting-sooner-than-thought-gray-whale-toll
We mustn’t do anything.
Rest easy in the fact that if the worst happens, conservatives and republicans the world over will die off like the dodo bird.
Lotta stuff on climate change:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/22/1788032/-Spotlight-on-green-news-amp-views-Permafrost-melting-sooner-than-thought-gray-whale-toll
We mustn’t do anything.
Rest easy in the fact that if the worst happens, conservatives and republicans the world over will die off like the dodo bird.
“paper tiger”
It’s so suspenseful waiting for the explosions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyepdtx_UI4
Wait, does this thing work?
“paper tiger”
It’s so suspenseful waiting for the explosions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyepdtx_UI4
Wait, does this thing work?
For ongoing reasons of health (mine and my wife’s) I have not participated much in, or even followed, Obsidian Wings lately. My loss.
I’ve just skimmed through this thread, and have nothing germane to add except perhaps to correct the attribution of “Anything worth doing is worth doing badly” to George Will.
I don’t know when GW is supposed to have said this, but the phrase was quoted in a review in The Times London in 1965, and attributed there to Gustav Holst, so I suspect it predates Will by some time.
Oh yes – the review was of a production (of Offenbach’s La Perichole in which I was in the chorus. Which is why I remember it.
For ongoing reasons of health (mine and my wife’s) I have not participated much in, or even followed, Obsidian Wings lately. My loss.
I’ve just skimmed through this thread, and have nothing germane to add except perhaps to correct the attribution of “Anything worth doing is worth doing badly” to George Will.
I don’t know when GW is supposed to have said this, but the phrase was quoted in a review in The Times London in 1965, and attributed there to Gustav Holst, so I suspect it predates Will by some time.
Oh yes – the review was of a production (of Offenbach’s La Perichole in which I was in the chorus. Which is why I remember it.
Our loss, too, dr n.
I hope circumstances improve, and allow you to visit more frequently.
Our loss, too, dr n.
I hope circumstances improve, and allow you to visit more frequently.
Seconded, dr ngo.
Seconded, dr ngo.
Can someone explain the 7-2 vote in Flowers v Mississippi?
Thomas makes quite a good case that the prosecutor had legally acceptable reasons for his peremptory challenges. The rest of the Federalist Society Justices could have gone along with that without its being another plainly wrong ruling. But they didn’t.
Of course I or you would rule that the prosecutor in this case has amply demonstrated his intention to make any trial as unfair as possible, and not concern ourselves much with how procedurally he managed to arrive at a nearly all-white jury. But we are not the ones who got Dunn v Ray wrong.
Another question: the part of Thomas’s dissent which Gorsuch didn’t join was his rant against the whole principle of Batson. He’s got history for that. His argument is based on the bizarre claim that Batson is intended to protect the rights of jurors, rather than the Supreme Court’s stated intention that prosecutors should not be able to use peremptory challenges in order to empanel an all-white jury. He makes that ridiculous claim that by reversing Batson he “would return the Court’s focus to the fairness of trials for the defendant whose liberty is at stake”. Why is Thomas so wilfully obtuse about this?
Can someone explain the 7-2 vote in Flowers v Mississippi?
Thomas makes quite a good case that the prosecutor had legally acceptable reasons for his peremptory challenges. The rest of the Federalist Society Justices could have gone along with that without its being another plainly wrong ruling. But they didn’t.
Of course I or you would rule that the prosecutor in this case has amply demonstrated his intention to make any trial as unfair as possible, and not concern ourselves much with how procedurally he managed to arrive at a nearly all-white jury. But we are not the ones who got Dunn v Ray wrong.
Another question: the part of Thomas’s dissent which Gorsuch didn’t join was his rant against the whole principle of Batson. He’s got history for that. His argument is based on the bizarre claim that Batson is intended to protect the rights of jurors, rather than the Supreme Court’s stated intention that prosecutors should not be able to use peremptory challenges in order to empanel an all-white jury. He makes that ridiculous claim that by reversing Batson he “would return the Court’s focus to the fairness of trials for the defendant whose liberty is at stake”. Why is Thomas so wilfully obtuse about this?
Thomas makes quite a good case that the prosecutor had legally acceptable reasons for his peremptory challenges.
Can you clarify that ?
(Not saying it’s untrue – just seems odd.)
Thomas makes quite a good case that the prosecutor had legally acceptable reasons for his peremptory challenges.
Can you clarify that ?
(Not saying it’s untrue – just seems odd.)
Here‘s the opinion and dissent.
Here‘s the opinion and dissent.
What term would you use for it ?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/inside-a-texas-building-where-the-government-is-holding-immigrant-children
What term would you use for it ?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/inside-a-texas-building-where-the-government-is-holding-immigrant-children
Mar-a-Sado.
Mar-a-Sado.
I expect Trump’s furious about that Texas holding facility. How could we have something so tied to his (successful, of course) immigration policies and not have his name on it??
I suppose it’s just more of the deep state being out to get him….
I expect Trump’s furious about that Texas holding facility. How could we have something so tied to his (successful, of course) immigration policies and not have his name on it??
I suppose it’s just more of the deep state being out to get him….
Sometimes, the good guys win one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/opposition-candidate-wins-in-do-over-of-istanbuls-mayoral-race-dealing-setback-to-erdogans-ruling-party/2019/06/23/3a59c3cc-92d1-11e9-956a-88c291ab5c38_story.html
I particularly like the story at the end of a whole family (some 30 people) who voted for Erdogan’s party in March. But were so irritated by the forced do-over that they all voted to the opposition candidate this time. Part of why he got a much bigger margin.
Sometimes, the good guys win one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/opposition-candidate-wins-in-do-over-of-istanbuls-mayoral-race-dealing-setback-to-erdogans-ruling-party/2019/06/23/3a59c3cc-92d1-11e9-956a-88c291ab5c38_story.html
I particularly like the story at the end of a whole family (some 30 people) who voted for Erdogan’s party in March. But were so irritated by the forced do-over that they all voted to the opposition candidate this time. Part of why he got a much bigger margin.
Background:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/why-sarah-fabian-argued-against-giving-kids-toothbrushes/592366/
Incinerate and wipe America off the face of the Earth.
All of us are complicit. I’m just as guilty as this fascist c*nt.
These Mexican and Central and Central American should escape their confines, grow up undercover, become heavily armed, and seek me out and murder me for my refusal to seek extraordinary cruel and violent vengeance against the entire American edifice.
At the very least, Social Services should be sicced on one Sarah Fabian’s household to examine and interrogate her children and her pets for signs of physical abuse and neglect, though no doubt their mother has coached them well in Nazi and Stalinist legal dodges.
“Mommy dearest was merely doing her job as a mother when she set the hot iron on sissy’s flesh numerous times..”
Does she keep toilet paper in her house? Do her children have adult human bite mark acars on their bodies.
I haven’t heard Filipina illegal immigrant Michelle Malkin, still loose within our borders committing verbal conservative terrorism daily, make a fucking fascist peep about Fabian the child abuser’s kitchen counter tops, which probably sport instruments of child torture posing as blenders, food processors, and microwave ovens.
Fabian should be reassigned to prosecute the Oregon Republican legislative vermin who are enlisting conservative militias to murder decent liberals in their state.
She could get her legalistic sadist jones on condemning the oregon filth to savage executions, but natch, it’s America and nothing happens to those conservative subhumans.
But it is going to.
The vengeance backlog agaisnt the conservative movement is legion and unquenchable. To the extent that so-called Democrats participated in these activities thru the years, maybe they should emigrate to escape the same fate.
Background:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/why-sarah-fabian-argued-against-giving-kids-toothbrushes/592366/
Incinerate and wipe America off the face of the Earth.
All of us are complicit. I’m just as guilty as this fascist c*nt.
These Mexican and Central and Central American should escape their confines, grow up undercover, become heavily armed, and seek me out and murder me for my refusal to seek extraordinary cruel and violent vengeance against the entire American edifice.
At the very least, Social Services should be sicced on one Sarah Fabian’s household to examine and interrogate her children and her pets for signs of physical abuse and neglect, though no doubt their mother has coached them well in Nazi and Stalinist legal dodges.
“Mommy dearest was merely doing her job as a mother when she set the hot iron on sissy’s flesh numerous times..”
Does she keep toilet paper in her house? Do her children have adult human bite mark acars on their bodies.
I haven’t heard Filipina illegal immigrant Michelle Malkin, still loose within our borders committing verbal conservative terrorism daily, make a fucking fascist peep about Fabian the child abuser’s kitchen counter tops, which probably sport instruments of child torture posing as blenders, food processors, and microwave ovens.
Fabian should be reassigned to prosecute the Oregon Republican legislative vermin who are enlisting conservative militias to murder decent liberals in their state.
She could get her legalistic sadist jones on condemning the oregon filth to savage executions, but natch, it’s America and nothing happens to those conservative subhumans.
But it is going to.
The vengeance backlog agaisnt the conservative movement is legion and unquenchable. To the extent that so-called Democrats participated in these activities thru the years, maybe they should emigrate to escape the same fate.
The only upside of letting the Federal government prohibit soap for the immigrant kids to bathe themselves is that perhaps at least conservative murderous vermin aren’t considering MAKING soap out of them.
On the other hand, neither practice would raise a conservative constitutional eyebrow like EVERYTHING else these bugs hate about the Federal government, which they WILL declare unconstitutional:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/06/more-on-the-coming-war-on-the-regulatory-state
No Federally-mandated soap for American-born kids either.
Murderous Civil War against the conservative movement.
The only upside of letting the Federal government prohibit soap for the immigrant kids to bathe themselves is that perhaps at least conservative murderous vermin aren’t considering MAKING soap out of them.
On the other hand, neither practice would raise a conservative constitutional eyebrow like EVERYTHING else these bugs hate about the Federal government, which they WILL declare unconstitutional:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/06/more-on-the-coming-war-on-the-regulatory-state
No Federally-mandated soap for American-born kids either.
Murderous Civil War against the conservative movement.
This is pretty interesting. The most interesting thing was that 3 in 10 Democrats support open borders. Not really the most interesting.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/
This is pretty interesting. The most interesting thing was that 3 in 10 Democrats support open borders. Not really the most interesting.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/
I’ve been thinking about that Simpson’s knock-off glide down the elevator p made (too identical, too pat, too perfectly ridiculous not to be planned) to announce his candidacy.
If it is learned that p and his candidacy and administration is a Hillary Clinton-controlled plant on the subhuman republican side, which went horribly wrong when the oaf cuck won the election only after defeating the other stinking conservatives in the republican primary … the latter which is why Clinton paid him to run as a Republican ..
… I might laugh at the sheer diabolical chops of it:
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/06/what-is-this-vetting-process-you-speak.html
He chose the dregs of the very worst corrupt conservative fools he could find in the muck of the conservative movement to ruin our government, even when he KNEW all of them had his number, but nevertheless would jump at the chance to smooch his butt hole for eight years to carry out the malignant conservative ruination of this country.
Maybe America can get away with a simple canned laugh track to go with the historical record of this era …. including the Nobel Prize for Hillary Clinton for planning and choreographing the bloody self-immolation of the republican party by hiring p … and dispense with killing all conservatives in a prolonged, all encompassing savage civil war, because they committed suicide by their own hand and let us off the hook.
Hope for the funny ending.
Pray even.
On our knees, so we’ll already be down there to suck p’s cock for four more years if I’m wrong.
I’ve been thinking about that Simpson’s knock-off glide down the elevator p made (too identical, too pat, too perfectly ridiculous not to be planned) to announce his candidacy.
If it is learned that p and his candidacy and administration is a Hillary Clinton-controlled plant on the subhuman republican side, which went horribly wrong when the oaf cuck won the election only after defeating the other stinking conservatives in the republican primary … the latter which is why Clinton paid him to run as a Republican ..
… I might laugh at the sheer diabolical chops of it:
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/06/what-is-this-vetting-process-you-speak.html
He chose the dregs of the very worst corrupt conservative fools he could find in the muck of the conservative movement to ruin our government, even when he KNEW all of them had his number, but nevertheless would jump at the chance to smooch his butt hole for eight years to carry out the malignant conservative ruination of this country.
Maybe America can get away with a simple canned laugh track to go with the historical record of this era …. including the Nobel Prize for Hillary Clinton for planning and choreographing the bloody self-immolation of the republican party by hiring p … and dispense with killing all conservatives in a prolonged, all encompassing savage civil war, because they committed suicide by their own hand and let us off the hook.
Hope for the funny ending.
Pray even.
On our knees, so we’ll already be down there to suck p’s cock for four more years if I’m wrong.
Odd that the 3-out-of-10 Democrats(liberals) who support open borders count in that poll is not replicated among the many diverse liberals here at Obsidian Wings who have never expressed support for open borders, if we are using the real meaning of “open”.
It could be that three out of ten Democrats on the street are just as dumb and ill-informed about immigration as their counterparts to the right who profess that they want “closed” borders.
I’m perfectly aware that there are at least three out of ten conservatives who disapprove of the government keeping soap away from these kids, but they are peep-less in this debate, probably because they love them tax cuts and don’t want anyone else to share the falling apples on the tax cut cart that would be upset if they made any kind of noise about their tyrant torturing the kids.
Odd that the 3-out-of-10 Democrats(liberals) who support open borders count in that poll is not replicated among the many diverse liberals here at Obsidian Wings who have never expressed support for open borders, if we are using the real meaning of “open”.
It could be that three out of ten Democrats on the street are just as dumb and ill-informed about immigration as their counterparts to the right who profess that they want “closed” borders.
I’m perfectly aware that there are at least three out of ten conservatives who disapprove of the government keeping soap away from these kids, but they are peep-less in this debate, probably because they love them tax cuts and don’t want anyone else to share the falling apples on the tax cut cart that would be upset if they made any kind of noise about their tyrant torturing the kids.
The most interesting thing was that 3 in 10 Democrats support open borders.
To you.
What was interesting about that, to you? What made it, to you, worthy of mention? Do you agree that 3 out of 10 Democrats support open borders? Where did that statistic come from? What did “open borders” mean, in whatever context that statistic came from?
What point do you wish to make by bringing this up?
People think all kinds of things. Very few people fit into a neat little box. None of that should surprise anyone.
I suspect that the number of (D)’s who support “open borders”, in the sense of utterly unregulated entry and exit to the United State by non-citizens, is vanishingly small. not 3 out of 10, but more like 3 out of 1000. If that.
My data points are the small army of people I know who are on the social justice warrior spectrum. The only person, literally the only person, I have ever heard advocate for open borders, in any context, in any place, at any time, is CharlesWT, here on ObWi.
Not one other person, ever.
So I call bullshit on that particular factoid.
As far as the “more in common” mantra, I do not recognize any common ground with anyone who supports the current president. If you voted for him, if you approve of his performance in office, if you plan to vote for him or are even considering voting for him in 2020, I’m not really interested in a conversation with you.
From my point of view, you are in need of what I can only describe as a social and political metanoia. A conversion. A transformative change of heart and mind.
Go do that, and maybe we can have a conversation. Short of that, I don’t see the point. You go your way, I’ll go mine, and I’ll see you at the ballot box, and in the street as needed.
The most interesting thing was that 3 in 10 Democrats support open borders.
To you.
What was interesting about that, to you? What made it, to you, worthy of mention? Do you agree that 3 out of 10 Democrats support open borders? Where did that statistic come from? What did “open borders” mean, in whatever context that statistic came from?
What point do you wish to make by bringing this up?
People think all kinds of things. Very few people fit into a neat little box. None of that should surprise anyone.
I suspect that the number of (D)’s who support “open borders”, in the sense of utterly unregulated entry and exit to the United State by non-citizens, is vanishingly small. not 3 out of 10, but more like 3 out of 1000. If that.
My data points are the small army of people I know who are on the social justice warrior spectrum. The only person, literally the only person, I have ever heard advocate for open borders, in any context, in any place, at any time, is CharlesWT, here on ObWi.
Not one other person, ever.
So I call bullshit on that particular factoid.
As far as the “more in common” mantra, I do not recognize any common ground with anyone who supports the current president. If you voted for him, if you approve of his performance in office, if you plan to vote for him or are even considering voting for him in 2020, I’m not really interested in a conversation with you.
From my point of view, you are in need of what I can only describe as a social and political metanoia. A conversion. A transformative change of heart and mind.
Go do that, and maybe we can have a conversation. Short of that, I don’t see the point. You go your way, I’ll go mine, and I’ll see you at the ballot box, and in the street as needed.
The only person, literally the only person, I have ever heard advocate for open borders, in any context, in any place, at any time, is CharlesWT, here on ObWi.
I may have previously misspoken, but my stance is that it should be as easy as possible for non-citizens to come to the US to work. As long as they come through the front door and make their identity and presence officially known. And some procedure set up for those here illegally to qualify for legal status.
The only person, literally the only person, I have ever heard advocate for open borders, in any context, in any place, at any time, is CharlesWT, here on ObWi.
I may have previously misspoken, but my stance is that it should be as easy as possible for non-citizens to come to the US to work. As long as they come through the front door and make their identity and presence officially known. And some procedure set up for those here illegally to qualify for legal status.
Thank you for the clarification, charles. My apologies for mischaracterizing your position.
Thank you for the clarification, charles. My apologies for mischaracterizing your position.
Well my data point was in the article I linked. Perhaps you missed that?
Well my data point was in the article I linked. Perhaps you missed that?
I went looking for a source for the statistic, and found this poll.
The 70th question is “Do you think we should have basically open borders or do you think we need secure borders?”.
Myself, I wouldn’t have lasted 70 questions. But if I somehow had, having been primed by question after question about whether I approve of various Trump idiocies, I’d probably treat it as asking whether I agreed with his profoundly stupid immigration policy: I don’t.
I went looking for a source for the statistic, and found this poll.
The 70th question is “Do you think we should have basically open borders or do you think we need secure borders?”.
Myself, I wouldn’t have lasted 70 questions. But if I somehow had, having been primed by question after question about whether I approve of various Trump idiocies, I’d probably treat it as asking whether I agreed with his profoundly stupid immigration policy: I don’t.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/06/23/poverty-kills-so-does-the-color-bar/
Try to treat robots that way and see what happens:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/23/1865937/-Automation-and-robotics-are-bigger-threats-to-American-jobs-than-outsourcing
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/06/23/poverty-kills-so-does-the-color-bar/
Try to treat robots that way and see what happens:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/23/1865937/-Automation-and-robotics-are-bigger-threats-to-American-jobs-than-outsourcing
Why a Government Lawyer Argued Against Giving Immigrant Kids Toothbrushes
I think we might want to cut the lady a break. Suppose you are a lawyer. It’s your job to present the best case you can for your client. Even when the best case is utterly ridiculous — and can you think of a better case she could have made? Definitely not a position any sensible person would want to be in, but sometimes you get stuck with a client who has no redeeming value whatsoever.
In fact, by making such a totally ridiculous argument, she probably increased the chances of the court finding against the government. Which has to be all to the good.
Why a Government Lawyer Argued Against Giving Immigrant Kids Toothbrushes
I think we might want to cut the lady a break. Suppose you are a lawyer. It’s your job to present the best case you can for your client. Even when the best case is utterly ridiculous — and can you think of a better case she could have made? Definitely not a position any sensible person would want to be in, but sometimes you get stuck with a client who has no redeeming value whatsoever.
In fact, by making such a totally ridiculous argument, she probably increased the chances of the court finding against the government. Which has to be all to the good.
Since the OP made reference to college, an aside on a rad name.
“After a life spent being mocked for having an unusual name, the 46-year-old seized on her experience to earn a Ph.D. in higher education leadership. Her dissertation focused on unusual names, naturally.”
Dr. Marijuana Pepsi Won’t Change Her Name ‘To Make Other People Happy’
Since the OP made reference to college, an aside on a rad name.
“After a life spent being mocked for having an unusual name, the 46-year-old seized on her experience to earn a Ph.D. in higher education leadership. Her dissertation focused on unusual names, naturally.”
Dr. Marijuana Pepsi Won’t Change Her Name ‘To Make Other People Happy’
I can see why the lady might resist changing her name. That can be a wrenching experience in any circumstances.
On the other hand, there is no excuse for the parents who inflict names like this on their kids. Mind, I’m not talking about unusual ethnic names, etc. But this isn’t that.
I can see why the lady might resist changing her name. That can be a wrenching experience in any circumstances.
On the other hand, there is no excuse for the parents who inflict names like this on their kids. Mind, I’m not talking about unusual ethnic names, etc. But this isn’t that.
Well my data point was in the article I linked.
Yes, I read it. I find it unconvincing.
The article also says 1 out of 3 (R)’s don’t think Muslims can be good Americans. True? Hope not, cause if so, we have a problem.
Or maybe the reality is more complex than that.
What I’m mostly curious about is what your point is in bringing that specific tidbit up.
Are you interested in an actual discussion about immigration policy?
Well my data point was in the article I linked.
Yes, I read it. I find it unconvincing.
The article also says 1 out of 3 (R)’s don’t think Muslims can be good Americans. True? Hope not, cause if so, we have a problem.
Or maybe the reality is more complex than that.
What I’m mostly curious about is what your point is in bringing that specific tidbit up.
Are you interested in an actual discussion about immigration policy?
I suppose fame and fortune may have softened the blows for Dweezil, Moon Unit, Ahmet Emuukha Rodan, and Diva Muffin.
I suppose fame and fortune may have softened the blows for Dweezil, Moon Unit, Ahmet Emuukha Rodan, and Diva Muffin.
I’m interested that you are unconvinced by the point of the article. The ridiculous assumption by a huge number of people that the others have actually become the caricature in your mind.
I’m pretty sure I have no need for a conversion, but you thinking that certainly matches the point.
My view that Democrats cant come up with any positive immigration policy short of just letting everyone in means I am surprised that ONLY 3 in 10 are consciously for open borders.
But that reinforces the point also doesn’t it?
I’m interested that you are unconvinced by the point of the article. The ridiculous assumption by a huge number of people that the others have actually become the caricature in your mind.
I’m pretty sure I have no need for a conversion, but you thinking that certainly matches the point.
My view that Democrats cant come up with any positive immigration policy short of just letting everyone in means I am surprised that ONLY 3 in 10 are consciously for open borders.
But that reinforces the point also doesn’t it?
I find most of the “facts” presented in the piece unconvincing. And I have no need of being convinced that people see each other in cartoonish ways, nothing is more obvious.
Nobody has a good immigration policy. It’s a hard problem, and nobody has figured it out yet. My issue with the (R) approach so far is it’s deliberate cruelty and it’s demonization of would-be immigrants.
If you didnt vote for Trump, don’t support him, and don’t plan to vote for him in 2020, then you’re not “in need of conversion” by my lights. I don’t hate Trump supporters, don’t wish them ill. I will and do work with them, break bread with them. I’m happy to talk to them, just not about politicAL economy or anything related.
And hell yeah, IMO they are in need of a change of heart. Trump is a toxic and malicious individual, and that infects everything he touches. You can’t separate that from his policies and smile away. Support him and you align yourself with that.
Trump has excluded the wiggle room. For me, anyway.
I find most of the “facts” presented in the piece unconvincing. And I have no need of being convinced that people see each other in cartoonish ways, nothing is more obvious.
Nobody has a good immigration policy. It’s a hard problem, and nobody has figured it out yet. My issue with the (R) approach so far is it’s deliberate cruelty and it’s demonization of would-be immigrants.
If you didnt vote for Trump, don’t support him, and don’t plan to vote for him in 2020, then you’re not “in need of conversion” by my lights. I don’t hate Trump supporters, don’t wish them ill. I will and do work with them, break bread with them. I’m happy to talk to them, just not about politicAL economy or anything related.
And hell yeah, IMO they are in need of a change of heart. Trump is a toxic and malicious individual, and that infects everything he touches. You can’t separate that from his policies and smile away. Support him and you align yourself with that.
Trump has excluded the wiggle room. For me, anyway.
My view that Democrats cant come up with any positive immigration policy short of just letting everyone in means I am surprised that ONLY 3 in 10 are consciously for open borders.
My sense was that the entire exercise reported in the article was intended to have people of one faith (party) interact with those of the other party. Thereby to discover the reality that the guys on the other side aren’t quite like the characterture they hold. And it worked.
Perhaps I have encountered different Democrats than Marty. But my sense is that their views run to:
— no, unrestricted open borders (like we have between states) are NOT a good idea.
— that said, we need more immigration, not less. How we select which would-be immigrants to accept is going to need discussion. But that’s about qualifications, whether we allow “come to work, but not to stay” immigrants, etc.
— there’s a lot of problems with our current handling of immigrants and asylum seekers. The vast majority of those being lack of resources to process them. If, for example, we had an adequate number of immigration judges, people applying for asylum would have years before their cases get heard.
— Further securing of the border isn’t anywhere near the top of the problem list. Especially since overstayed visas, not illegal entries, are by far the biggest source of illegal immigrants. I haven’t heard much, from either side, on how that might be addressed.
My view that Democrats cant come up with any positive immigration policy short of just letting everyone in means I am surprised that ONLY 3 in 10 are consciously for open borders.
My sense was that the entire exercise reported in the article was intended to have people of one faith (party) interact with those of the other party. Thereby to discover the reality that the guys on the other side aren’t quite like the characterture they hold. And it worked.
Perhaps I have encountered different Democrats than Marty. But my sense is that their views run to:
— no, unrestricted open borders (like we have between states) are NOT a good idea.
— that said, we need more immigration, not less. How we select which would-be immigrants to accept is going to need discussion. But that’s about qualifications, whether we allow “come to work, but not to stay” immigrants, etc.
— there’s a lot of problems with our current handling of immigrants and asylum seekers. The vast majority of those being lack of resources to process them. If, for example, we had an adequate number of immigration judges, people applying for asylum would have years before their cases get heard.
— Further securing of the border isn’t anywhere near the top of the problem list. Especially since overstayed visas, not illegal entries, are by far the biggest source of illegal immigrants. I haven’t heard much, from either side, on how that might be addressed.
I’m fine with people needing passports to enter the country, and visas for long-term stays. But why is immigration control a national priority?
If we’re worried about crime, perhaps we need to deport native-born residents.
Immigration helps the economy, and that doesn’t just mean immigration by educated elites.
We’ve got more pressing problems than catering to xenophobes. The cruelty in these camps (and, yes, they are concentration camps) is an exercise in sadism to please white supremacists, nothing more.
I’m fine with people needing passports to enter the country, and visas for long-term stays. But why is immigration control a national priority?
If we’re worried about crime, perhaps we need to deport native-born residents.
Immigration helps the economy, and that doesn’t just mean immigration by educated elites.
We’ve got more pressing problems than catering to xenophobes. The cruelty in these camps (and, yes, they are concentration camps) is an exercise in sadism to please white supremacists, nothing more.
8.9/10 Republicans approve of Trump.
that’s exactly where it was the first week he took office.
that’s a cartoonish level of support for a cartoonishly bad President.
that’s the GOP’s biggest problem.
8.9/10 Republicans approve of Trump.
that’s exactly where it was the first week he took office.
that’s a cartoonish level of support for a cartoonishly bad President.
that’s the GOP’s biggest problem.
Marty,
Until you demand a national ID card, for maternity-ward immigrants as well as port-of-entry immigrants, your nativist bleating is just noise.
When ONLY “card-carrying Americans” (whatever their birthplace, color, language, or fealty to He, Trump) can take a job, get a loan, buy insurance or electricity or a gun, register a car, board a plane, or cast a vote — and not until then — I will be willing to take seriously the pleas for “border security” and arguments for “merit-based immigration” which are nothing but librul-bashing at the moment.
–TP
Marty,
Until you demand a national ID card, for maternity-ward immigrants as well as port-of-entry immigrants, your nativist bleating is just noise.
When ONLY “card-carrying Americans” (whatever their birthplace, color, language, or fealty to He, Trump) can take a job, get a loan, buy insurance or electricity or a gun, register a car, board a plane, or cast a vote — and not until then — I will be willing to take seriously the pleas for “border security” and arguments for “merit-based immigration” which are nothing but librul-bashing at the moment.
–TP
“My view that Democrats cant come up with any positive immigration policy short of just letting everyone in means I am surprised that ONLY 3 in 10 are consciously for open borders.”
Your view is utter ill-informed bullshit.
I’d supply cites but they have been out there for 30 years so if you haven’t found them on your own by now it’s obvious why.
Ted Kennedy authored the 1990 Immigration Bill and President George H. W. Bush signed it.
Did everyone like it? Of course not.
Since then, there have been at least three major bipartisan Congressional attempts with Presidential support to bring major immigration reform to the table.
Did everyone like everything in the bills? Of course not.
Every fucking time, for mere electoral advantage, the demagogues in one Party torpedoed the attempts by walking away (Cuban immigrant shitheel Rubio walked real fast, the brown little coward) so they could scare the shit out of their dumbass constituents at election about invading brown hordes voting illegally for the Democratic Party, which doesn’t even make sense as a meme.
The signal went out to FOX (though now, remarkably, the hate signals are now generated by the propaganda networks and directed orders to the current set of vermin) and the other legion fascist propaganda outlets to generalize and demagogue about disease-carrying terrorists in baby carriages bringing contagion, mass murder, and worst … possibly a few more Democratic voters, the latter also otherwise known as contagion and mass murder to right wing filth.
OK, here’s one cite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_(immigration)
Put it where the sun don’t shine.
Maybe there is room up there for another one:
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jan/26/ronald-brownstein/did-senators-pass-immigration-reform-bills-2006-20/
The key to getting rational, sensible immigration reform is first, killing the Republican Party dead.
And Russell and others have pointed out, here’s another reason for mass migrations. But as with Stalin during the 1930s as he covered up his own self-induced crop failures in the Ukraine, we taxpayers, we so-called pigfucking obedient citizens, are not permitted to see the evidence.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/usda-under-trump-hides-studies-proving-effects-of-climate-change-politico
Make America free again: Kill the Republican Party.
“My view that Democrats cant come up with any positive immigration policy short of just letting everyone in means I am surprised that ONLY 3 in 10 are consciously for open borders.”
Your view is utter ill-informed bullshit.
I’d supply cites but they have been out there for 30 years so if you haven’t found them on your own by now it’s obvious why.
Ted Kennedy authored the 1990 Immigration Bill and President George H. W. Bush signed it.
Did everyone like it? Of course not.
Since then, there have been at least three major bipartisan Congressional attempts with Presidential support to bring major immigration reform to the table.
Did everyone like everything in the bills? Of course not.
Every fucking time, for mere electoral advantage, the demagogues in one Party torpedoed the attempts by walking away (Cuban immigrant shitheel Rubio walked real fast, the brown little coward) so they could scare the shit out of their dumbass constituents at election about invading brown hordes voting illegally for the Democratic Party, which doesn’t even make sense as a meme.
The signal went out to FOX (though now, remarkably, the hate signals are now generated by the propaganda networks and directed orders to the current set of vermin) and the other legion fascist propaganda outlets to generalize and demagogue about disease-carrying terrorists in baby carriages bringing contagion, mass murder, and worst … possibly a few more Democratic voters, the latter also otherwise known as contagion and mass murder to right wing filth.
OK, here’s one cite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_(immigration)
Put it where the sun don’t shine.
Maybe there is room up there for another one:
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jan/26/ronald-brownstein/did-senators-pass-immigration-reform-bills-2006-20/
The key to getting rational, sensible immigration reform is first, killing the Republican Party dead.
And Russell and others have pointed out, here’s another reason for mass migrations. But as with Stalin during the 1930s as he covered up his own self-induced crop failures in the Ukraine, we taxpayers, we so-called pigfucking obedient citizens, are not permitted to see the evidence.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/usda-under-trump-hides-studies-proving-effects-of-climate-change-politico
Make America free again: Kill the Republican Party.
“That’s the GOP’s biggest problem.”
They view is as a Godsend. As in literally, a tax cut from God.
“That’s the GOP’s biggest problem.”
They view is as a Godsend. As in literally, a tax cut from God.
The GOP bullshit regarding immigration is so utterly cynical that I am hereby joining the fake three in ten Democrats who believe totally open borders are the way to go, as my way of performing a dipsydoodle backfield reversal of Cleek’s Law.
Whatever pisses off Republicans, double down on it and smirk.
When dealing with pigs, get right down in the muck with them.
The more diseased, criminal, and terrorist the potential immigrant arriving at the border, they go to the front of the line, hopefully to get their contagions, criminality, and terrorism right in the faces and all over the children of the entire republican infrastructure.
Once they come thru the gate, pick them up in limousines, containing ice buckets full of welcoming champagne, and transport them to the nearest polling place so they can immediately participate in this exceptional experiment we call America.
Then hire them at above prevailing wages, with benefits, to construct gerrymandering walls around red states.
The GOP bullshit regarding immigration is so utterly cynical that I am hereby joining the fake three in ten Democrats who believe totally open borders are the way to go, as my way of performing a dipsydoodle backfield reversal of Cleek’s Law.
Whatever pisses off Republicans, double down on it and smirk.
When dealing with pigs, get right down in the muck with them.
The more diseased, criminal, and terrorist the potential immigrant arriving at the border, they go to the front of the line, hopefully to get their contagions, criminality, and terrorism right in the faces and all over the children of the entire republican infrastructure.
Once they come thru the gate, pick them up in limousines, containing ice buckets full of welcoming champagne, and transport them to the nearest polling place so they can immediately participate in this exceptional experiment we call America.
Then hire them at above prevailing wages, with benefits, to construct gerrymandering walls around red states.
The Dreamers already in the country should change their name to the NightMarers and behave accordingly.
The Dreamers already in the country should change their name to the NightMarers and behave accordingly.
Attacking to one’s non-public knitting is not a First Amendment issue:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/06/banning-trump-supporters-from-non-political-sites
How do I know this?
Because conservatives lead by example:
https://www.newsweek.com/cathedral-high-school-indianapolis-gay-teacher-fired-1445450
I won’t be knitting any wedding cakes for certain people.
Because Lester Maddox is my hero.
Attacking to one’s non-public knitting is not a First Amendment issue:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/06/banning-trump-supporters-from-non-political-sites
How do I know this?
Because conservatives lead by example:
https://www.newsweek.com/cathedral-high-school-indianapolis-gay-teacher-fired-1445450
I won’t be knitting any wedding cakes for certain people.
Because Lester Maddox is my hero.
“Sticking to one’s …:
Then attack.
“Sticking to one’s …:
Then attack.
The people coming here from Central America are likely either Catholic or evangelical. Quite a number of the Africans, likewise. They are famously entrepreneurial. They work their behinds off. They are generally socially conservative and have strong family bonds and community cohesion.
They are, according to what (R)’s would have us believe, a shoo-in (R) constituency.
If the (R)’s wanted to stop being a minority party desperately hanging on to power, they’d issue a bunch of visas, sponsor programs to get immigrants settled and assimilated, and then sit back and reap the benefits of a generation or two of loyal (R) votes. Millions of them.
Please don’t tell them.
The people coming here from Central America are likely either Catholic or evangelical. Quite a number of the Africans, likewise. They are famously entrepreneurial. They work their behinds off. They are generally socially conservative and have strong family bonds and community cohesion.
They are, according to what (R)’s would have us believe, a shoo-in (R) constituency.
If the (R)’s wanted to stop being a minority party desperately hanging on to power, they’d issue a bunch of visas, sponsor programs to get immigrants settled and assimilated, and then sit back and reap the benefits of a generation or two of loyal (R) votes. Millions of them.
Please don’t tell them.
Here’s yet another nominal liberal buying into the if only both sides would agree even though one side has no intention of ever agreeing on anything crap:
https://www.eschatonblog.com/2019/06/stupid-shithead-of-day.html
Same shithead stuff in the immigration debate.
If only both sides would agree.
Wait, the other side just blew up the negotiations and walked out because no agreement is surefire gold at the ballot box for turning out vermin haters in the base.
No more.
Here’s yet another nominal liberal buying into the if only both sides would agree even though one side has no intention of ever agreeing on anything crap:
https://www.eschatonblog.com/2019/06/stupid-shithead-of-day.html
Same shithead stuff in the immigration debate.
If only both sides would agree.
Wait, the other side just blew up the negotiations and walked out because no agreement is surefire gold at the ballot box for turning out vermin haters in the base.
No more.
“Please don’t tell them.”
Oh, they know.
Hitler knew Jews were stable, intellectually-capable, family-devoted, spiritual beings.
He had other fish to fry and not just on Fridays.
“Please don’t tell them.”
Oh, they know.
Hitler knew Jews were stable, intellectually-capable, family-devoted, spiritual beings.
He had other fish to fry and not just on Fridays.
“Please don’t tell them.”
Oh, they know.
Yes and No. What they don’t do is understand. Specifically, they don’t get why all those socially conservative, family oriented, religious folks (Hispanic, black, immigrant, etc.) aren’t thronging to support them. I mean, why would a few decades of being demonized put anyone off?
The good news (for Democrats) is that they are unlikely to have a collective epiphany. And even if they did, the demonizing is just too baked is at this point. The Autopsy Report after the 2012 election may well have been the last chance to turn things around for a generation or two.
“Please don’t tell them.”
Oh, they know.
Yes and No. What they don’t do is understand. Specifically, they don’t get why all those socially conservative, family oriented, religious folks (Hispanic, black, immigrant, etc.) aren’t thronging to support them. I mean, why would a few decades of being demonized put anyone off?
The good news (for Democrats) is that they are unlikely to have a collective epiphany. And even if they did, the demonizing is just too baked is at this point. The Autopsy Report after the 2012 election may well have been the last chance to turn things around for a generation or two.
i’m sure shouting about The Democratic Plantation every chance they get will help them turn things around.
i’m sure shouting about The Democratic Plantation every chance they get will help them turn things around.
At least three out of ten republicans/conservatives in the country murdered these children.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/06/24/look-at-their-faces-learn-their-names-never-forget-them/
The other seven out of ten stood by and watched, deciding this was one, perhaps the only action by government they weren’t going to whine about, even question, let alone protest.
At least three out of ten republicans/conservatives in the country murdered these children.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/06/24/look-at-their-faces-learn-their-names-never-forget-them/
The other seven out of ten stood by and watched, deciding this was one, perhaps the only action by government they weren’t going to whine about, even question, let alone protest.
JDT beat me to it.
From the link: Look at their faces! Learn their names! Never forget them and what is being done to others like them in the name of the United States.
JDT beat me to it.
From the link: Look at their faces! Learn their names! Never forget them and what is being done to others like them in the name of the United States.
p speaks the truth, for once, when he claimed he never MET this person in his life:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/dean-baquet-new-york-times-trump-assault
Rapists never really MEET their victims, do they?
Rape is clearly a very different transaction than an introductory MEETING, right?
Do they end the “transaction” by saying: “It was so very nice to meet you. Perhaps we could do this again some time.”
Three out of ten republicans’ mileage may vary, I don’t know.
p speaks the truth, for once, when he claimed he never MET this person in his life:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/dean-baquet-new-york-times-trump-assault
Rapists never really MEET their victims, do they?
Rape is clearly a very different transaction than an introductory MEETING, right?
Do they end the “transaction” by saying: “It was so very nice to meet you. Perhaps we could do this again some time.”
Three out of ten republicans’ mileage may vary, I don’t know.
Unspeakable and horrible. I said it almost as a joke about Sarah Huckabee Sanders (not much of one) but it is really the truth about this: it will live in infamy.
On a separate subject, I discover I still can’t post links, so this is a story from the Guardian about Boris Johnson by a former employer of his. Tony P might enjoy it as an example of current British civil invective:
Unspeakable and horrible. I said it almost as a joke about Sarah Huckabee Sanders (not much of one) but it is really the truth about this: it will live in infamy.
On a separate subject, I discover I still can’t post links, so this is a story from the Guardian about Boris Johnson by a former employer of his. Tony P might enjoy it as an example of current British civil invective:
“Unspeakable and horrible” referred to the children dead in the concentration camps.
“Unspeakable and horrible” referred to the children dead in the concentration camps.
Erick Erickson apparently hasn’t been shot dead in self-defense by a Census taker yet, so he lives to ask (scroll down for his twatty tweet) a question in all innocence:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/06/24/gop-venality-open-thread-kiddie-concentration-camps-not-polling-well/
Answer: Yeah, it’s called paying your fucking taxes you self-righteous vermin.
Erick Erickson apparently hasn’t been shot dead in self-defense by a Census taker yet, so he lives to ask (scroll down for his twatty tweet) a question in all innocence:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/06/24/gop-venality-open-thread-kiddie-concentration-camps-not-polling-well/
Answer: Yeah, it’s called paying your fucking taxes you self-righteous vermin.
This quote regarding Boris Johnson from GFTNC’s link is one for the ages and provides some hope that England lives and shall flourish again once the conservative movement is wiped off the face of the Earth:
“We can scarcely strip the emperor’s clothes from a man who has built a career, or at least a lurid love life, out of strutting without them.”
This quote regarding Boris Johnson from GFTNC’s link is one for the ages and provides some hope that England lives and shall flourish again once the conservative movement is wiped off the face of the Earth:
“We can scarcely strip the emperor’s clothes from a man who has built a career, or at least a lurid love life, out of strutting without them.”
So, I guess if children are being murdered in the “concentration camps”, may we pretty please ask filthy butthurt conservatives if we may transition to the more accurate “Death Camp”, or “Extermination Camp” nomenclature.
Fucking language police.
So, I guess if children are being murdered in the “concentration camps”, may we pretty please ask filthy butthurt conservatives if we may transition to the more accurate “Death Camp”, or “Extermination Camp” nomenclature.
Fucking language police.
Speaking of the Census Bureau, the Nazi Party, in their perpetual role modeling for the modern conservative movement, cam up with a cracksure name for their Census
Hollerith Machine
A machine developed to make the taking of the census much more efficient. The one used by the Nazis was developed by the German branch of IBM. Adolf Eichmann used it to gather data on Jews living in Germany, Austria and later Czechoslovakia.
Speaking of the Census Bureau, the Nazi Party, in their perpetual role modeling for the modern conservative movement, cam up with a cracksure name for their Census
Hollerith Machine
A machine developed to make the taking of the census much more efficient. The one used by the Nazis was developed by the German branch of IBM. Adolf Eichmann used it to gather data on Jews living in Germany, Austria and later Czechoslovakia.
erickson is not my favorite guy, but props for at least wanting to help.
baby steps, y’all.
one thing I take away from that thread is that Save The Children is now involved. we are now right up there with the third world.
I don’t really give a crap if people have a legitimate claim to asylum or not. That’s what the courts are for. When somebody shows up on your doorstep and places themselves in your custody, you are obliged to treat them with decency.
This mess is on us.
erickson is not my favorite guy, but props for at least wanting to help.
baby steps, y’all.
one thing I take away from that thread is that Save The Children is now involved. we are now right up there with the third world.
I don’t really give a crap if people have a legitimate claim to asylum or not. That’s what the courts are for. When somebody shows up on your doorstep and places themselves in your custody, you are obliged to treat them with decency.
This mess is on us.
Here is a twitter thread from the Texas Tribune regarding people donating supplies that are being turned away. If you read the responses to the thread, there are some neo-Nazi types commenting, and I’ve seen this in many of the informative journalism twitter threads that I’ve read.
We need to do something right away. There are protests planned for July 12, but that’s too little and too late (although, of course, I’ll join). What are we going to do now?
Here is a twitter thread from the Texas Tribune regarding people donating supplies that are being turned away. If you read the responses to the thread, there are some neo-Nazi types commenting, and I’ve seen this in many of the informative journalism twitter threads that I’ve read.
We need to do something right away. There are protests planned for July 12, but that’s too little and too late (although, of course, I’ll join). What are we going to do now?
Catching up after a weekend of dealing with aged-Greek-mother problems:
GftNC,
I appreciate your examples of current British invective. But I must say it seems tame compared to the Greatest Hits of a bygone age. The rapier wit of Disraeli and Churchill is what I long for. I admit that I have never made a systematic comparison between rapiers and meat-axes as instruments for popping balloons like Boris Johnson and He, Trump. It may well be that, in a US full of Martys and a UK full of his British equivalents, rapiers are as outmoded as whalebone corsets, of course.
dr ngo,
When I brought up George Will, I was of two minds: should I cite him as my source of the “worth doing badly” quote, or should I mention that most of the (to me) memorable George Will aphorisms are in fact Will quoting (generally with attribution) wittier people? For the sake of brevity, I went with the first thing. I am fairly certain that
and
just like
are gags that George Will attributed to some (possibly not original) other author. So, much as I generally despise George Will, I hope I did not leave you with the impression that blatant plagiarism is among his faults — like climate denialism for example.
Marty,
I still want to know where you stand on a national ID card.
All,
TRUCK FUMP and his princelings and lickspittles. Tell your friends.
–TP
Catching up after a weekend of dealing with aged-Greek-mother problems:
GftNC,
I appreciate your examples of current British invective. But I must say it seems tame compared to the Greatest Hits of a bygone age. The rapier wit of Disraeli and Churchill is what I long for. I admit that I have never made a systematic comparison between rapiers and meat-axes as instruments for popping balloons like Boris Johnson and He, Trump. It may well be that, in a US full of Martys and a UK full of his British equivalents, rapiers are as outmoded as whalebone corsets, of course.
dr ngo,
When I brought up George Will, I was of two minds: should I cite him as my source of the “worth doing badly” quote, or should I mention that most of the (to me) memorable George Will aphorisms are in fact Will quoting (generally with attribution) wittier people? For the sake of brevity, I went with the first thing. I am fairly certain that
and
just like
are gags that George Will attributed to some (possibly not original) other author. So, much as I generally despise George Will, I hope I did not leave you with the impression that blatant plagiarism is among his faults — like climate denialism for example.
Marty,
I still want to know where you stand on a national ID card.
All,
TRUCK FUMP and his princelings and lickspittles. Tell your friends.
–TP