Yeah, the David Brooks angle is probably a red herring, but watching it I do think that she's an example of the polarization of politics in action.
Its going to be a long four years and we are going to need the comedians to step up their game. It feels like its taken a while for Trevor Noah to find his footing on The Daily Show, and lord knows it difficult to fill Jon Stewart's shoes. But its nice to see he's finally getting there.
I can't bring myself to watch the interview. I keep veering between exasperation, fury, grief, and energy at these never-ending stories of trying to hear the "other side."
Sounds like Noah did it as responsibly as a person could, but I'm still just speechless that we have gotten to the point as a country where white supremacists are getting fawning articles in liberal media about how cool their clothes are (!) and extraordinarily accomplished POC are having to treat as professional peers* people who have shown nothing but contempt for their very existence (cf PBO having to coach his replacement, who spent five years calling for his birth certificate).
*Not equals; I obviously have no objection to people being treated as equals.
Let's all observe that when you submit to Neb, you get triple-tabbed formatting and no Neb's take. Submit to me, and there is no awkward steeping.
Oh, I guess Neb's take is nested at the very end.
Isn't the last paragraph (plus footnote) neb's take? Granted it isn't identified as such.
I reserve the right to be petty about Neb poaching my guest posts.
Let's all observe that when you submit to Neb, you get triple-tabbed formatting and no Neb's take.
More importantly, you get no heebie's take.
Isn't the last paragraph (plus footnote) neb's take? Granted it isn't identified as such.
It's identified as such by the formatting.
Let's all observe that when you submit to Neb, you get triple-tabbedcorrect formatting and no Neb's take.
FTFY. All the quotations are indented properly.
The goal of proper formatting is to make the innermost nestled thought as narrow as possible. Ideally, it's the Silverstein Lazy lazy lazy lazy lazy lazy Jane poem.
Neb is the matryoshka doll of FPPs.
Has anyone else listened to the interview? Article's about it have been fairly positive; I'm curious if I'm the only person who finds it depressing and infuriating.
I saw a headline somewhere complaining about it, but I forget where.
13 I saw it and found it upsetting. Did anyone else notice that Trevor didn't want to look at her? I got the sense that he was disgusted by her, but I have some young friends who thought she handled herself well.
Also the post title. Are we even trying anymore?
I should add two notes to my position:
First, I do recommend it to people (who are tempted). I thought it was frustrating and says very bad things about the state of American politics. But I was glad that I watched it. It was . . . Interesting and reading a summary wouldn't have captured it.
Secondly, I do have an ulterior motive in that, given the state of contemporary politics, as reflected in that interview, I think it is important for mainstream Democrats to engage with these questions about race and racism (as I argued in the "Everything " thread).
Also the post title. Are we even trying anymore?
Do you have some specific complaint you would like to lodge, Dr. Geebie?
This twitter thread has interesting things to say about the topic: https://twitter.com/pastpunditry/status/805453170919010304
You know what they say about women with big feelings.
You know who else had big feelings?
NMM to the Dakota Pipeline going under that lake the Sioux Nation didn't want it to go under. That's a grammatical car crash. See here for clarity. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/04/dakota-access-pipeline-permit-denied-standing-rock
This interview is a Problem and it was most pronounced, during the campaign, by CNN. Cable news networks need to produce a show, which means two views from opposing ends of the spectrum hashing it out. On the right, that means (here I need to say these guests aren't specific to CNN but typical of cable-news guests) Krauthammer or Juan Williams or Brooks or whomever.
But as Trump became the nominee, the usual lineup of conservative guests was not sufficiently moved by Trump to serve that cable-news role. So the producers abandoned them and found guests who would continue to balance the equation. Corey Lewandowski!
Cable-news parity preserved, but at the expense of centering the debate. Liberal talking heads moved a little in terms of urgency; conservative talking heads were replaced by true extremists (or campaign managers, as the case may be).
Tomi Lahren has no place in the polite conversation and it was an enormous mistake for Trevor Noah to invite her on--I believe some call it "normalizing."
25: This is good news for pipeline opponents, to be sure, but it isn't over yet. It's possible (though not particularly likely) that the eventual EIS will still recommend the same route, and even if it doesn't, the Trump administration may end up deciding to push forward with that route regardless. Still, this does at least buy some time, and it may have significant effects for the financing of the pipeline given some of the deadlines involved in those agreements.
Ah, OK. The article seems optimistic though. Temporarily Pause from M to the Dakota Access Pipeline following its preferred route?
Are all of the very numerous OP tabs except the first and last supposed to be in italics? Because that's confusing as all hell.
Albeit less confusing than ajay's syntax.
I have no substance to add, so I'm just going to insult people's writing.
||
Apropos of jack shit, there was a dude at the gym today practicing what I believe is ttaM's sport. He was incredible, throwing three, four, and five kick combinations with his feet barely touching the ground, and did it solidly for over an hour. If I ever need the everloving crap beaten out of someone I know who I'm going to call
|>
31 would be a very good mouseover. But just as all ATMs must go to Heebie, only neb can change the mouseover. (At least it seems that way.)
And only Ogged can update the sidebar links.
I used to change the mouseover regularly when I was here more often.
I watched the interview; my wife had heard about it and recommended it. We noticed Trevor not looking at her when we watched; it was a bit weird, but conveyed that there was something particularly off putting. Which was interesting, because as a TV talking head, ignoring her content, she seemed bright and fiery--exactly the kind of person you'd expect to be put on a panel show to attract viewers.
I have no substance to add, so I'm just going to insult people's writing.
I tried to reply to your email but you sent it from a non-reply-to-able address, hoss.
38 is perplexing in light of the numerous people, spambots and FPPs that have successfully mailed and replied to that address.
"Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:"
Working fine for me, multiple tests to and from gmail.
Submit to me
Heebie is always right.
also: 36 for new mouseover.
And ok, the italics were just my weird Scandinavian browser, your formatting was fine. I'll still insult ajay though.
I just got the same delivery error. From gmail.
Are we talking about the same address? mossycharacter at yahoo dot com
Still working here. Geographical?
Apparently that asshole in North Carolina finally conceded. Things have gone so far off the rails that I was worried that he might get away with just plain refusing to acknowledge the result of the election.
I guess there's always next time.
Apparently widespread Yahoo problems. This thread is just fascinating for everyone, right?
45: further investigation of the error message reveals that it's my fault.
ignoring her content, she seemed bright and fiery--exactly the kind of person you'd expect to be put on a panel show to attract viewers.
One of the things that I found depressing was watching it, thinking, "she's going to make a lot of money with that persona/presentation." And then thinking, "there is the 'hack-gap' in action."
It's hard to think of a comparable 24-year-old liberal getting a similar amount of attention, of having the same obviously $bright$future$.
I'm going to save up for bootcamp so that one day I too can experience the glamorous life of the computer science professional.
Have you considered bleaching your hair blond and becoming an ideologically outspoken TV personality?
Sounds easier than bootcamp.Tell me more.
If a 24-year-old can do it, how hard can it be?
First you need to find a left-wing cable channel with 15 million subscribers . . .
Have you considered bleaching your hair blond and becoming an ideologically outspoken TV personality?
Asshole bleaching has come back into fashion I see.
50: Any such 24-year-old liberal, if they're a woman or POC, is a strident stereotype and therefore the media is obliged to ignore or laugh at them. In the media's defense, it's not like the rest of society would take them very seriously either.
If that 24-year-old liberal is a white guy, the best career path for them at this point is to write for Vox, and people here hate Vox almost as much as conservatives do.
Citations are a PITA. I'll just do right-wing.
50: Lena Dunham?
I was real impressed with Trevor Noah on Terri Gross's show. I haven't paid much attention to him before, but wondered if he will end up being one of the valuable speakers for this moment.
Mossy, I don't know about bootcamp, you should certainly consider left-wing guerrilla cyberwarfare. You can telecommute.
50: but TV comedy is one (IMO not very significant) niche where liberals slightly have the edge. The conservative stereotype really is a thin-skinned, uptight asshole. They have exactly one joke: "liberals, REALLY, amirite?" (There is some hedge fund/hedgehog quip that someone can manage here.) Obviously this could change.
Mossy, I don't know about bootcamp, you should certainly consider left-wing guerrilla cyberwarfare.
I've been considering something like this, actually. The Resistance is going to need tech support.
The Hedge Fund Manager Can't Be Buggered At All?
Bay Area Tech Solidarity yo. Started by Maciej Cegłowski.
Take an economic perspective when evaluating your risk exposure: is the thing you're doing worth the $3M it costs to get an iPhone 0day?
Good heavens what people will pay just to get an I-Phone the day before it comes out I had no idea
We'll think it over.
In more general terms maybe we should hold a somber Bay Area meetup? Can you think of any suitably dire venues?
63: Do you need to be technically in tech to sign up?
67: I initially read venues as ventures.
63: Do you need to be technically in tech to sign up?
No. Email maciej (maciej at ceglowski dot org).
I was thinking I might spend some time learning about security in field communications. Mesh networks, encrypted packet radio, things like that. Things to fall back on when the cell network is compromised, as may have occurred quite recently.
It's hard to think of a comparable 24-year-old liberal getting a similar amount of attention, of having the same obviously $bright$future$.
Surely Yglesias and Klein are 24 or younger?
37: as a TV talking head, ignoring her content, she seemed bright and fiery--exactly the kind of person you'd expect to be put on a panel show to attract viewers.
Yes. I wouldn't call Tomi what's-her-name a conservative, really: she's been showing up here and there on cable TV panels because she's promoting herself, skillfully. I suspect her positions change with the wind.
26: Tomi Lahren has no place in the polite conversation and it was an enormous mistake for Trevor Noah to invite her on--I believe some call it "normalizing."
This is interesting. I admit I was surprised to see her as a guest. Re: normalizing, well, the thing is, her rhetoric is normal for far too many people. I don't know how well ignoring people like her works.
Surely Yglesias and Klein are 24 or younger?
IIRC Klein is my age (32), and Yglesias is a couple years older.
72: They just sound youthful what with the "never had a real job" thing.
Yglesias is the class below me, so he's 35ish.
To be fair, they were in their early twenties when they first became blogging celebrities who didn't need to get real jobs.
Writing every goddamn day and making a living doing it strikes me as a real job. However grievous the consequences for others may be.
Not when that's what you would be doing with all your free time anyway, which seems to be true of Yglesias. (Not sure about Klein.)
Resolved: It is impossible to have a Real Job doing something you are intrinsically motivated to do.
I mean, maybe not totally impossible. But it does make it harder to convince someone to pay you for it.
In a Real Job you are either at the mercy of your boss, or you are the boss. Jobs without a chain of command aren't real. I think there's some loophole for successful sole proprietorships, but it somehow involves the customers being the boss.
72 cracked me up. I also feel like the last ten years weren't real years.
In a Real Job you are either at the mercy of your boss, or you are the boss.
Well, in that sense both Klein and Yglesias have had Real Jobs. The way they haven't is that they've never had to do anything that has an impact on the world aside from whatever impact they make from pontificating about it.
83: well, if a Real Job has to have a measurable impact on the world that doesn't occur through writing and talking about it, I'm not sure how many if any of us qualify.
I suppose one way of measuring impact is "how much would my opponents be willing to pay me not to do my job, or to do it badly" and I suspect that Yglesias probably ranks higher on that scale than most of us, even gswift, because Yglesias' opponents have a lot more cash at hand.
I'm guess I'm not appreciating this endless pool of writers and journalists whose entire adult life experience prior to writing about the world consists of going to school to be a journalist and their internship. Every time that crowd writes about something I have knowledge of I almost always end up wanting to hit the author in the throat. It's the electronic age and I don't have to put up with this shit. I can go find a blog or article from someone with relevant experience who actually knows what they're talking about.
even gswift
Definitely, at least in my current spot. If I wanted to have a chance at real bribe money I'd put in to be a TFO (task force officer) up at the DEA.
The irony about the whole Real Job thing is that I would think it is very difficult to imagine a job that insulates you more from the day-to-day concerns of the average working American (while admittedly substituting a whole other series of more esoteric concerns) than "soldier". You get free health care. You can live in subsidised or even free housing. You have a minimal commute. You have pretty much total job security; in fact, they won't even let you leave if you want to. Your boss is responsible for your welfare in pretty much every part of your life, from your car purchase financing to the health of your marriage to whether you're washing your feet properly. I mean, say what you want about Yglesias but at least he has to worry about his mortgage every month like the rest of us. But you won't get far saying "oh, he's been an Army Ranger since he was 18, he's never had a real job."
There was a guy staying at a hostel I stayed in years ago in Italy, who said he was going to study architecture, who described his previous work for the Israeli military on a team involved in defusing mines and bombs in a way that suggested he didn't really think it was a "real job", just something he did for a while until he could move on to something he wanted to do.
I am seriously pissed off that Cracked - Cracked! - didn't make any use of the comic potential of the DIRTBOX. All through the hearings about that thing I was cracking up laughing at the ultra-earnest staffers and their PROBE OF THE DIRTBOX EQUIPMENT.
(It's almost certain the UK originally devised the gadget - the name is a tell.)
The Register wouldn't have dropped the ball like that.
Say what you will, and I've criticized him plenty, but Yglesias has really been doing some damn fine work in this Trumpian hellhole of a timeline we find ourselves in lately.
My impression of Yglesias is that he's best at laying out clearly in a few paragraphs "Here's why this particular thing that conservatives are proposing is idiotic".
On the other hand, when he ventures original opinions of his own, he's pretty consistently terrible.
I'm mostly reading his tweets and finding him on point. Only occasionally reading his vox stuff.
93: That's a good analysis, and explains why he's so much better in opposition. (He is good on monetary policy, though.)
Gswift, say it ain't so. Are you telling me all those Fast and Furious movies aren't realistic depictions of the world of vehicular crime?
93 has been the diagnosis for awhile now. When he moved to Slate to do the egregious Moneybox thing, there was even some talk that it was a semi-intentional removal of him from his most effective role.
I am reassured to know that (ugh this cliche) he's still got it. He's very much a happy warrior on this stuff: his pleasure at ripping apart Jonah G back in the day was palpable. The new crew is very different, so it'll be interesting to see how that part of the dynamic plays out.
If
in a Real Job you are either at the mercy of your boss, or you are the boss. Jobs without a chain of command aren't real.
then
you won't get far saying "Oh, he's been an Army Ranger since he was 18, he's never had a real job."
makes perfect sense - what could have a more clearly defined chain of command? As ajay notes, army personnel are insulated from many of the concerns of "average" Americans, but it's not for lack of a real job. By lurid's metric, soldiers have the most real job possible. It's just that they lack a lot of the real life that goes alongside the job.
98: true - but I think the point about the Real Job thing is that it's about knowledge of the world (normally said about politicians as well).
re: 33
Being able to throw fluent and complicated ad-hoc (not pre-planned) combinations of techniques in frenchy boxing is highly favoured -- enchaînement is the term, exactly like ballet -- and you drill that stuff. Specifically all the small shifts of footwork and balance that let you do that basically endlessly, and then all kinds of structured drills that work on it.* Lots of bits of footwork have names and someone starting as a beginner would be doing simple enchainement type drills from week 3 or 4.
The training in that stuff is why two frenchy box people playing around in a demo can look like they are running an entirely pre-rehearsed set of combos, when it's entirely impromptu.
Sadly I haven't done any frenchy boxing in 18 months.
* e.g. you'll throw, say, a random 5 kick combination and your partner has to repeat the same combo back, full speed, etc, repeat. Or you'll work round someone in a spiral pattern, which means that every step or move puts you at a different distance or starting at a different angle or height, etc
Sepaking of "Real Jobs" Kevin Drum has a brutal post about McKinsey consultants today.
101: Too bad Knecht isn't around to defend them.