Last weekend I spoke at a forum on charter schools, which are inevitable here now even though we were one of the last holdout states. Everyone in the audience seemed white and relatively well-off except the black former chief of police who lost his bid for city council and my white working-class activist friend. But sure, let's let all these people talk about their worries for their kids and what charter schools will mean to children of color with special needs who thus need them most. I think any burning-with-fire will go in the other direction.
(No local politicians were willing to speak in front of constituents and all the pro-charter voices dropped out before the event, so it wasn't the painful big deal I was afraid it would be, and I wasn't one of the official speakers but just a Concerned Parent.)
Devos is also opposed to federal protection for students with special needs. She's not just racist.
If school performance under the SecEd doesn't improve, does that mean she doesn't get paid or is automatically fired? Need to encourage competition and accountability among plutocrats, you know.
I don't think there's anything intrinsically evil about Charter schools as long as there are firm curriculum standards in place, class sizes are regulated, teachers are well paid, etc. The problem with actually existing charter school movements is that they seem bent on destroying public education altogether, using the schools as tools of religious indoctrination, and segregating kids by SES and race.
DeVos got her money through Amway, which is a pyramid scheme crossed with a cult. They promote a weird hybrid of Christian nationalism and libertarian economics. They are nuts.
4.1: Also a fair amount of people just looking for a way to make an easy buck or two or maybe a few million.
DeVos was already wealthy when she married into the Amway family. She is Amway-level nuts, though.
4.1: Yeah, my concern is that it seems unlikely there's any way to implement charters a new thing now and not just have it run completely by grifters instead of some grifters and some legitimate visionaries or at least people with hope, as happened in prior versions.
You should hear that as sung by Kermit the Frog.
If school performance under the SecEd doesn't improve, does that mean she doesn't get paid or is automatically fired?
Someone really should have asked this at the confirmation hearing.
From what I've read, the hearing was such a train wreck for her that she would have probably welcomed the change in topic.
Lordy, and the clown isn't even inaugurated and the policy isn't enacted or implemented yet. Yes, they are fucking evil, history can help tell us how evil the greedy and tribal can be. Genocidally slaving torturing with laughter evil. And the going home and playing with their kids and dogs.
And of course it is important to remember, mostly at the top, the rich fucks and the ambitious. The peasants can be rotten, but the peasants don't demand that much, and can adjust to something more tolerable on a dime. The rich fucks also adjust to different systems, but always instrumentally to use a new system for exploitation and cruelty.
I give you a year before the burning shit is no longer a mere metaphor. I have loathed the right since Nixon, and pretty much keep a distance from people who fraternize with the slavers and mass murderers.
"No red and blue states." Fuck you Obama.
There are a lot of swishy dem charter supporters. Hopefully Devos will end that.
14: While I generally reject "both sides do it" type arguments, education reform grifting is pretty darned entrenched among establishment democrats.
Oh the 19th/20th century idea of mass education was of course to create a mass society, uniform workers and soldiers who understood clocks and had an unconscious investment in civil society etc. Mobilizable.
The point of privatization is to dissolve that civil society, and disperse and dissolve crosscultural affective ties. Localization, combined with the communicative globalization that helps efficiency but makes mass mobilization in effective localities very very difficult. It's an attack on collectivization.
Every rich fuck wants a fiefdom with servants.
Nice factoid I used at Thoma's.
1935 in Britain: 20,000 Butlers
1980: 200
2010: 5000
I keep reading Devos as Davos but that's a different too goddamn rich thing.
I keep reading Devos as Davos
Whereas I keep reading Devos as Devros. "Public schools: exterminate!"
Found myself looking down the page to fave 18.
21st CENTURY POLITICS: END OF CHAPTER TEST.
1. Distinguish forcefully between:
Devo
DeVos
Davos
Davros
DEVGRU
2. Where were you born? (Be quick.)
That's what she said.
Davos, Switzerland or Davos Seaworth?
There is two ways for the rich to improve the realative educational outcomes for their kids. One is to have better education for their own, fancy private schools etc. the second is to ruin the educational system for everyone else. Door #2 doesn't require their idiot spawn to learn anything.
Are we really sure that Door #1 does, Asteele?
ruin the educational system for everyone else
For some reason, I hadn't considered that the motive behind enfeebling teacher unions, siphoning money away from public schools, etc. was to improve the relative advantage for their own children. Rather, I assumed it was part of the ongoing (and increasingly successful) effort at dumbing down the electorate.
I know I always say this, but I think it's telling that the school system overturned in Brown v. Board of Education was one where the black and white students were segregated until high school, at which point the white students who'd had more resources and advantages were able to show their "natural" superiority overall, though individual black students did all right. We've moved this setup pretty thoroughly to the university level by now, I think, and I assume the same sort of motive drives most of these evil plans.
I'm on team burn it all with fire. But my worry is that the other team is also team burn it all with fire. And right now they are lighting torches.
I've read that for them lighting fires just staves off depression. Most of them don't actually enjoy it.
I'm invited to a bonfire/wienie roast on Friday night.
If the person lighting the fire seems to be truly enjoying himself, he's not a pyromaniac.
27: In Devos's case, she's apparently pretty keen on religious education: her motive is to channel public funds to private institutions, including religious ones. Hence her interest in school vouchers.
The particular motivating impulse for any given privatization freak may/will differ in light of his or her special bugaboo, but the unifying theme is privatization.
The potential problem, from the pro-charter Republican wing's view, with vouchers like that is that they make it more easy for poor, black kids to attend the private schools that the white people fled to.
they make it more easy for poor, black kids to attend the private schools
The vouchers wouldn't remotely cover the cost of private school tuition: it's a bait-and-switch on the part of Republicans.
There's a distinction to be made between charter schools and a voucher system: the former remain public schools. Vouchers are outside that.
Primer here: vouchers would replace Title I funding that goes to public schools.
Title I money is meant to help schools that face the challenge of educating a lot of poor students; making it portable means some federal money would also go to schools that are generally wealthy but enroll a handful of kids from poor families. But turning Title I into vouchers wouldn't be enough on its own to start a private school exodus. Dividing $14 billion in federal funding among the 25 million students poor enough to count as "disadvantaged" yields a voucher of $580. Private school tuition costs, on average, nearly $11,000 per year.
Trump's plan, though, wants to go a lot bigger. He'd limit the vouchers to students in poverty (which would mean that 14 million kids from families making between 100 and 185 percent of the federal poverty line would be cut out). He'd cut other federal programs besides Title I to bring the funding to $20 million, though he hasn't said which ones.
But the big idea Trump is touting is that he could get states to kick in enough money to give the vouchers some real buying power.
If states added $110 billion of their own money to the $20 billion the federal government would spend, Trump says, every student living in poverty could get a $12,000 voucher, well over the average cost of private elementary school tuition and slightly under the average cost of private high school.
But that's a little bit like saying if every state somehow passed a law to give students a Porsche, every student would have a Porsche.
35: That's why they like to keep the vouchers small enough that they don't cover tuition at the fancy private schools, just the crappy (usually religious) ones.
the former remain public schools
This has a lot to do with how you define "public."
Sorry for quoting at length, but this just isn't going to happen in any kind of viable way. Instead, there will be a lot of fanfare about how awesome it is that families can carry a voucher around to go to any school they choose, when in fact, no, don't make me laugh. In the meantime, funds have been stripped from Title I programs.
I'm not sure there's any downside to Republicans supporting this in concept: many Americans of all political stripes really like the voucher idea.
38: Oh! Yes, I was looking for some sort of quick primer on charter schools vs. voucher programs, the nature of charters, etc. I heard an hour-long NPR program on the issue sometime in the last day or two, and consensus seemed to be that the real problem was vouchers. Stuff about charter schools having more accountability ... Is it that this differs quite a bit state by state?
35 is only true if voucher recipients are prohibited from discriminating against black kids in admissions/expulsions/etc. If they can discriminate, then this is an easy problem for them to get around.
(That's not a joke. Back when I was heavily immersed in that culture (90s), I heard that concern expressed frequently: lots of right wing religious people were very skeptical of vouchers because they feared that if government dollars were involved in private schools, then the government might try to prevent them from discriminating. (And might try to set minimum standards for curriculums, was the other big fear.))
I'm nearing Team Burn Shit Down. I'm firmly on Team Vouchers Are a Cover for Discrimination and Ratfucking Public Schools.
Of course, the concern was always expressed as fear about the government prohibiting schools from discriminating on the basis of religion (i.e. preventing them from having a Christian student body), not preventing them from discriminating on the basis of race. It's entirely just a coincidence that there are no black kids. (There was only one black kid in my entire right-wing Christian high school.)
Theoretically, when the idea was first floated, I think part of the point was that the vouchers could be used by kids in failing public schools to go to not-failing public schools. I think the fears that raised are why this state has charter schools, but no vouchers.
It's not like there are sufficient numbers of private schools for everyone to flee their public school when they get a voucher. So presumably the price goes up to somewhere around (value of voucher)+(additional cost that >=x families can afford) where x is the capacity of the private school system. Or they just reject people in which case what was the point of the damn voucher in the first place?
I am increasingly convinced that this is the big fight and the one to focus on. (i.e. who gives a shit about the media if the education system falls apart?) I don't have the faintest fucking idea what to do. It's so great that we're collectively at the point of deciding how many things we can carry out of the burning house in the next five minutes... speaking of fire.
Or they just reject people in which case what was the point of the damn voucher in the first place?
To blame a subset of schools for general failings of society.
I think part of the point was that the vouchers could be used by kids in failing public schools to go to not-failing public schools.
But this premise always made me livid. WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS WHO DON'T FLEE?
So presumably the price goes up to somewhere around (value of voucher)+(additional cost that >=x families can afford) where x is the capacity of the private school system
Yes, I think this is exactly what ultimately brought the right wing private schools around... it's a giant government subsidy for the industry. They can still figure out some way to keep the undesirable kids out.
48: Same thing that happened on the veldt.
48: obviously you don't understand anything about economics. The kids who don't flee will be much better off because their school will improve tremendously once families have a choice about where to go. The schools aren't failing now because of a lack of money. They are failing because of a lack of competition.
I am increasingly convinced that this is the big fight and the one to focus on.
Go for it. I think the ACA is the big fight, myself. And all the things that fall out from that, e.g. Newt Gingrich calling for eradicating the CBO. That's not just a function of Obamacare repeal, though.
Not to mention 20-30 million people losing health insurance, obvs.
There may be some hope for nixing Tom Price as head of HHS.
Less than 10% of public elementary-secondary spending is federal (page xi in this PDF); federal action helps push in certain directions but the biggest fights are still at the state level, no? Also Trump never focused on the issue too much personally in the campaign. So I'm inclined to think it's a secondary issue when it comes to opposing the Trump admin, despite its massive overall social importance. Depending on what happens next, obviously.
It may be that what happens next is that federal requirements for states to fund programs from kids with disabilities get dropped. That's "free".
54: right, the whole picture, not just as opposition to the Trump administration.
Anybody know Keir's email address?
I'm starting to think that attacking Trump through his private holdings might be the most effective course to block him. I don't think it can just be a boycott by people who don't support Trump, but it would have to be physically impeding business at his hotels. That is, of course, potentially illegal. But having the law enforcement agencies which he heads defending access to the private businesses he owns (at least one of which operates on public property) seems more likely to be effective that pointing out his policies are shit.
58 to 57, but I'm not sure where the '@' goes.
I got the idea from the guy who tried to light himself on fire. But I suggest a different implementation.
Folks, I hate to say it, but blocking Trump isn't really the goal here: it's blocking Congress. Block Trump in terms of his cabinet nominees, sure. But impeaching him, for example, doesn't get anywhere: Pence is still in charge. There's an argument to be made that Trump is actually an ally against the Republican Congress.
I don't buy that argument. It presumes Trump is normal politics.
Um, okay. I'm actually off now, but if you can explain how President Pence with a Republican House and Senate is better, have at it.
Trump is fundamentally attacking democratic norms in a way that hasn't happened since Nixon and Nixon was quieter about it. Somebody like Pence is with a Republican House and Senate is bad, but it's an inevitable kind of bad in a country with two parties and mostly conservative voters.
Hey, it looks like DeVos perjured herself.
63 -- 64 is right, and in addition Pence doesn't have anything like the personal following Trump has. He'd have power, but an agenda that a great many Trump voters don't support.
Disagree with 64. Trump has recently led the charge attacking democratic norms, but in doing so Trump is just continuing a decades-long republican initiative, and Pence and much of the Republican establishment has gleefully followed right along in Trunp's footsteps. No way they move backwards with Pence instead of Trump. And Pence personally has demonstrated he has no problem being every bit as mendacious as Trump.
Trump voters that were ordinary Republican voters in prior elections disgust me. Trump voters that had previously stayed home on election day scare me. I'm sure some of them are low-information voters caught up in voting for a celebrity or whatever, but I think most of them voted this time because Trump was saying the kinds of openly racist things that had largely been driven out of national politics. It's the worst of America and it's gotten a taste of power.
I'm not saying Pence is any good, just that he doesn't have the kind of soft power that Trump has.
And his agenda is different: He's not going to break up the EU, for example.
67: No way Pence would have been that mendacious without Trump having first proved it could work. I'm not saying it will be easy to put the genie back in the bottle, but if Trump serves a full-term and can even get the Republican nomination in 2020, it will be impossible.
It really does strike me as similar to the end of Weimar (which is why I stopped with the "you know who else..." jokes).
Definitely agree with 70. And 66 actually
How many federal regulations are enforced by coercion through federal funding, where they provide only a fraction of the total money spent but dictate how all the money is spent by threatening to withhold the federal portion? Education standards, transportation, Medicaid, environmental/energy rules? So Republicans cut or redirect the federal portion to things they like, and it's a free for all at the state level for the remaining money without any federal oversight or control of policies.
Of course Roberts' new majority, following their Medicaid precedent, might throw out all such laws anyway.
73: Not environment/energy. EPA's power is primarily regulatory rather than fiscal, although it does have some funding programs that serve as incentives for other goals. Energy is more complicated, but there too federal funding doesn't really play the same role it does in something like transportation.
Speaking of EPA, Pruitt's answers in his confirmation hearing are interesting.
Moby speaks for me here. Except for the jokes people don't like. I reject and denounce those.
if you can explain how President Pence with a Republican House and Senate is better, have at it.
I have that concern. But if impeachment is really on the table it has the advantage of helping run out the clock. It would take at least six months during which neither Congress nor Trump would be doing much else and that, by itself, would have value (and I'm not sure that having Pence as president would put him in the pole position for 2020. Particularly if he is seen as having participated in ousting Trump I don't think he'd have an enthusiastic base).
68: Trump was saying the kinds of openly racist things that had largely been driven out of national politics.
I had an otherwise intelligent colleague inform me he planned to vote Trump because "He's not PC." The anti-PC backlash is a real and dangerous thing. Bullies and bully sycophants are far more common than I had imagined. I mean, assholes are everywhere, but that particular flavor is just so far from my circles that I figured they must be rare.
More or less on topic: This is funnier now than when it came out.
78: I honestly think that the reality phenomenon in general, and the Apprentice phenomenon in particular, contributed to this. Not that (wannabe) bullies haven't always been with us, but basically reality TV celebrates the type in a way that scripted TV mostly doesn't: on scripted shows (inc. movies), bullies are:
a. straight-up villains (Biff from BTTF)
b. obstacles to be overcome by the hero (the principal from BTTF)
c. anti-heroes (I'm thinking Eastwood characters, or Mel Gibson from Lethal Weapon).
Obviously c. is a problematic category, but it was always ambivalent, and the bullying was generally directed at authority*, while the powerless were protected/valorized. That is, even if the bully-hero was being an asshole to someone, he was simultaneously defending someone else.
But the Apprentice model is just pure bully. And that applies as well to every other show in which "I'm not here to make friends."
Again, bullying is deep in the race. But IMO the valorization of bullying is a particular phenomenon of reality shows, not of drama and comedy** historically
*even if, in the '70s at least, that "authority" tended to be embodied by humorless feminists and the like
**not that bullying comedy hasn't always had a position; I just don't think it was always the dominant one
IMO the valorization of bullying is a particular phenomenon of reality shows, not of drama and comedy** historically
Two words: "Gregory House"
I mean, I agree with the broad strokes of your argument but I don't think the exceptions are as rare as you make them out to be.
82: Fair enough. Although I guess I could counter that "House" came out 10+ years into the reality phenomenon.
The more interesting exception would be Archie Bunker, who was viewed by his fellow bully/blowhards as the hero of the show.
I've only seen one episode of House, and mostly what I remember is that his boss seemed to have way more cleavage-revealing happening than any other person I'd ever seen working a hospital, but the bully-because-I'm-too-talented-doctor shtick goes back to M.A.S.H.
Although I guess I could counter that "House" came out 10+ years into the reality phenomenon.
According to IMDB "Survivor" started in 2000 and "House" started in 2004. But, really, the trope goes back to Sherlock Holmes . . .
For that matter, thinking about 80s TV shows, Hannibal of the A-Team seemed like a bit of a bully, in the couple of episodes that I've seen.
But this is a good opportunity to re-read, "The Case For Columbo"
I have a specific axe to grind; I will not attempt to disguise my motives. It is my belief that we live in an era of entirely too many Sherlock Holmes adaptations and not nearly enough Columbo adaptations. Moreover, I believe that this modern proliferation of Sherlocks -- the BBC's Sherlock, of course, but also the recent Robert Downey, Jr. films and Elementary -- is the reason we have no Columbo film franchises, no new Columbo TV series, no Columbo-Cons. If you will pardon the colloquialism, it is the Cumberbitches who are holding down the Columbros. I say this as someone who still enjoys a good trip to Baker Street every now and again: we must love Sherlock a little less, that we might love Columbo a little more.
I suppose I'm burying the lead in that excerpt. Here's the most important part of the Case For Columbo:
There was always a subtle level of class warfare in each Columbo. The killers were usually rich, powerful, and openly disdainful of this blue-collar bumbler who just wouldn't go away. To watch each of them slowly come to realize, in horror and desperation, that Columbo was smarter than they had ever imagined was pure joy.
Betsy DeVos "billionaire philanthropist" as NPR styled it.
I bet she is very giving to needy billionaires.
64-65 exactly right which is why it is on US to create the mass movement on the streets and demand e.g. reps and senators boycott the inauguration in order to create the political conditions for impeachment. There is precisely no other way.
64
Both parties are rotten with contempt for "democratic norms." You can pick any of them and both will tell you "the other side did it first!" in an endless recursion of blame and finger-pointing. The only thing new about Trump is he's totally open about it, which is itself a watershed. Even Maduro pretends it isn't happening or there is a totally legal precedent.
Everything that doesn't go back to Aristophanes is in Moliere: Misanthrope, Tartuffe
The more interesting exception would be Archie Bunker, who was viewed by his fellow bully/blowhards as the hero of the show.
AFAIK that came as a total surprise to the makers of All In The Family, who initially took it for granted that everyone would see Archie Bunker as a bigot and a blowhard, just like they did.
I think the idea in 80 is that the producers of reality shows are quite consciously appealing to the pro-bully demographic.
I don't suppose anybody remembers Maude the first AiTF spinoff, very early, about the domineering overbearing liberal feminist.
92: No I doubt very much they were shocked by the reception, in any case politics wasn't at all the point, as Maude shows. Or Sanford and Son or any number of tropey shows that involve a jerk/fool/bully getting a weekly comeuppance
"Bang Zoom...You are going to the moon, Alice!"
Anyway, in any case, all these shows get complicated as actors insist on softening the character
I remember when I finally realized that House's sidekick was named Watson. It only took me about 20 episodes to figure it out.
And House and Holmes are not exactly typical American bullies. Their bullying, such as it is, is clever and usually motivated by a desire to either a) do the right thing b) determine the truth or c) be left alone. This is 100% opposite to standard American bullying (which is prevalent in reality shows because reality shows are basically a rehash of high school power plays), which is proud of its ignorance and devoted exclusively to winning power over others.
Oh, looking it up I see that the Holmes analogy was not quite as blatant as I thought: House's sidekick is named Wilson, not Watson. Still.
Okay, can we spend just a little time thinking about how this shit works?
1) Norman Lear certainly grew up in the Borsch Belt era, the age of the insult comic
2) The jerk, insulter in chief, how does he/she get away with it? Usually the best and most experienced actor, obviously the "bad guy" can't get away with a rape, a lynching, beating somebody up, driving someone to suicide. We "know" who Jackie Gleason and Fred Sanford and Don Rickles are, they are not such bad guys, and don't really mean it. Heart of gold was shown regularly if not weekly by Archie. Married With Children tried to subvert this, for a little while, I was bored with this shit by the sixties.
3) What can the frame be, where do the insults come from? Soccer scores? Sex, politics, and money help a fuckton in coming up with 25 minutes of material every week for years.
But the Humour That Dare Not Speak Its Names is Class Sometimes a Thorsten Howell III gets to be the jerk, but very often it is Jeeves mocking his social superiors. But saying the forbidden words is usually about Class.
I'd also like to offer the rest of my readers another bit of advice that, again, I hope will prove helpful. As Donald Trump becomes the forty-fifth president of the United States and begins to push the agenda that got him into the White House, it may be useful to have a convenient way to sort through the mix of signals and noise from the opposition. When you hear people raising reasoned objections to Trump's policies and appointments, odds are that you're listening to the sort of thoughtful dissent that's essential to any semblance of democracy, and it may be worth taking seriously. When you hear people criticizing Trump and his appointees for doing the same thing his rivals would have done, or his predecessors did, odds are that you're getting the normal hypocrisy of partisan politics, and you can roll your eyes and stroll on.But when you hear people shrieking that Donald Trump is the illegitimate result of a one-night stand between Ming the Merciless and Cruella de Vil, that he cackles in Russian while barbecuing babies on a bonfire, that everyone who voted for him must be a card-carrying Nazi who hates the human race, or whatever other bit of over-the-top hate speech happens to be fashionable among the chattering classes at the moment--why, then, dear reader, you're hearing a phenomenon as omnipresent and unmentionable in today's America as sex was in Victorian England. You're hearing the voice of class bigotry: the hate that dare not speak its name.
Yes, it is "PC," but PC has to be understood sociologically, as the rituals and ritual language that gets you acceptance in a social milieu.
I didn't argue, but when I was told just a while ago that Trump got his Inauguration Day schedule and said he wasn't going to the lunch with Congressional Leaders and this showed he was insane I am thinking wtf not wanting to sit for a pointless hour with McConnell and Ryan makes you certifiable? I bet Obama did it.
Is Trump a phony, a liar, pretending to be low-class? I don't know, solid gold toilets?
He seems to like to break "The Rules" and flaunt his defiance. Resentment at being excluded from Westside?
Whatever.
98/99: good but not nearly as good as this (which I assume has already been linked here but it cheered me up a little watching it again just now).
I should have learned more about computers.
What did House have? Forgot the detection, that is just the frame.
House had his anti-sociality, and his compassion.
Colombo was well ref'd above with his rumpled raincoat. But Peter Falk always carried the egalitarianism, just watched both the Wim Wenders.
Colombo had his egalitarianism, his anti-sociality, his refusal to be impressed by class and accomplishment, his dedication to justice, and his consistent subtle sarcasm.
Any decent professional script doctor could have written Trump into the White House.
Does this mean Trump has a Heart of Gold? Absolutely not, but it does mean Trump knows how to work the tropes. His fans think he does because they think they do.
100- Last; I'm not saying you are wrong exactly bob, there is a lot of class bigotry, but when I compare Trump to Hitler it is in the knowledge that Trump may make Hitler's 100 mil body count look paltry. Trump was elected precisely because he promised to do worse than water boarding, because he promised to kill the terrorist's families, because when he talks about nuclear weapons he says the devastation is very important to him, because he was always the biggest bully in the room. When I say I think Trump is the Anti-Christ it is because class markers aside, Trump became ruler of the most powerful nation in the world, because he was the worst person I've ever seen in my life.
I think you're nuts. We'll find out.
Obama dropped 27000 bombs last year, but he sure talked pretty. That's what 3 every hour?
And apparently the pretty talk is what is important to you, more important than the bouncing baby bodies, since Trump has dropped zero bombs so far, but talks ugly.
I can't tell you what I think of the people who love the mass murderer who dresses and acts way cool.
I think I don't care if the place blows up.
Obama has done it, Obama has targeted and killed the families of whatever, what he tells me are "terrorists."
Obama has killed kids, and you know it, and he whimpers about "regrettable" and wipes a mantear and you say what a great guy.
Who's the worst person in the world?
Maybe me. Really.
I haven't exactly been entirely sympathetic to the claim made here by some but 100 is some pure Republican talking points.
Hitler killed 40m last I heard.
109: Did you mean the blockquoted paragraphs by Arch Druid or "Norman Lear certainly grew up in the Borsch Belt era" you using indefiniteness as a weapon fuck. Or maybe you couldn't tell the difference between my words and his, even with the blockquoting to lead you like a leash.
I am not sure of the Archdruid's politics. He writes novels sympathetic to Cthulhu. Really. Ian Welch has him on his blogroll. You could follow the link to check him, but you seem very web illiterate.
Clearly.
I'm talking about the risible claims of class bigotry. Towards a fucking billionaire.
I have no sympathy for Trump. I don't think I have ever heard a word he has spoken, and I read his tweets because people quote them.
The above is mostly about how Trump is playing his fans, and how he played the Democrats; about how Obama played the Democratic Party and apparently the people here; about groupthink and social conformity, which I despise.
I guess Roger has solidified his position and gained new fans.
I like Ian Welch well enough.
26171 bombs in 2016. (Maybe every one of them was tightly targeted and only killed, well, people Obama tells us are bad.)
"So what, he's our guy."
Archdruid divides the social into four classes.
Poor, wage class, salaried class, and rich and claims most public battles are between the middle two. This isn't entirely new.
Have a little more, since you don't know how to follow links.
Skin color, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability--these are the divisions that the American left likes to talk about these days, to the exclusion of all other social divisions, and especially to the exclusion of social class. Since the left has dominated public discourse in the United States for many decades now, those have become the divisions that the American right talks about, too. (Please note, by the way, the last four words in the paragraph above: "some basis in biology." I'm not saying that these categories are purely biological in nature; every one of them is defined in practice by a galaxy of cultural constructs and presuppositions, and the link to biology is an ostensive category marker rather than a definition. I insert this caveat because I've noticed that a great many people go out of their way to misunderstand the point I'm trying to make here.)Are the divisions listed above important when it comes to discriminatory treatment in America today? Of course they are--but social class is also important. It's by way of the erasure of social class as a major factor in American injustice that we wind up in the absurd situation in which a woman of color who makes a quarter million dollars a year plus benefits as a New York stockbroker can claim to be oppressed by a white guy in Indiana who's working three part time jobs at minimum wage with no benefits in a desperate effort to keep his kids fed, when the political candidates that she supports and the economic policies from which she profits are largely responsible for his plight.
Saying Trump can't represent the working class is very similar to saying Obama/Clinton can't represent blacks or the poor. The point is rather do these groups think these candidates represent them, and why.
Your memory going on you? Fisher's Exiting Vampire Castle is all about the obfuscation of class from contemporary leftist discourse or don't you remember me linking it here. Hand rolled that HTML too.
107-8 Whether I'm right or not is orthogonal to any sanity issues I have, only time will tell. I'm not defending Obama when I point out much worse is possible.
Hitler triggered a world war which killed ~100 mil. A similarly total war today including the use of nuclear weapons could kill billions.
I was following the Archdruid pretty well for a few years. His use of feckless with reference to Obama has me thinking he might be one of the scumbags. Maybe I was dumb to take him so seriously.
WWII killed closer to 60m, and the Pacific really can't be pinned on Hitler. Japan started on that road in 1931.
106 needs to calm down a bit. The worst person you've seen in your life? Really? So an arrogant, snobbish, ignorant real estate developer, who has AFAIK never killed another human being in his life, is worse than Saddam Hussein? Ruhollah Khomeini? Pol Pot? Augusto Pinochet? Leopoldo Galtieri? Bashar al-Assad?
What, because none of those guys ever harmed anyone who actually matters to you?
119 seems to rely heavily on a certain definition of "seen." How many of those other guys had access to a massive nuclear arsenal?
Come on, Trump's entire campaign has been marked by slavish subservience to Russia. He's less likely to launch on Russia than literally any president since 1945.
119 seems to rely heavily on a certain definition of "seen."
Yes, the common-sense one. Unless roger is going to come back and say "aha! But I've actually laid eyes on Trump, and the rest I've only seen on TV or read about in the newspapers! So HA HA!"
119 I would feel comfortable saying the worst possible person in American public life.
121 Stumble stupidly into a shooting war with China does not seem so far-fetched.
119: I'm not even sure about that, to be honest. Remember back in the primaries we were all seriously discussing who the worst in the Republican field was, and the answer wasn't always "Trump". Remember Ted Cruz? Creepy Dominionist Ted Cruz?
Go outside the primaries and the field widens. Is Trump worse - inherently worse, not just worse because he's president and they aren't and therefore he can do more harm - than John Bolton? Donald Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? David Duke?
123.2: China's different, though. Russia will go nuclear early because its conventional forces are very weak. That's not the case with China. Chinese nuclear doctrine includes no-first-use. I grant you that Trump is more likely to get into a conventional war with China than any president since Clinton - though I doubt he'll come remotely as close as Clinton did.
123: Jeez Freed has topped roger with something Ontological or something
"the worst possible person in American public life."
The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition[1] was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind; even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible -- one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality.
Uhh, the person so bad no other person as bad or worse can ever be conceived
-- Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
-- Apes don't read philosophy.
-- Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.
I'll concede David Duke but you have to go pretty far out to an actual KKK Imperial Wizard. Bolton's a closer call, with Bolton we'd almost certainly get war with Iran but we may get that anyway and much else besides. Rumsfeld and Cheney were certainly committed to the US going it alone but not to dismantling the post-WWII global order. They just wanted to ignore it when convenient.
I'll concede David Duke but you have to go pretty far out to an actual KKK Imperial Wizard. Bolton's a closer call, with Bolton we'd almost certainly get war with Iran but we may get that anyway and much else besides. Rumsfeld and Cheney were certainly committed to the US going it alone but not to dismantling the post-WWII global order. They just wanted to ignore it when convenient.
125 It's just so unfortunate that Trump's likely to get into it with China over the one thing we know China will go to the wall over.
Bolton would be pretty bad on China too, granted; but he's not likely to tweet us into armed conflict with the PLAN.
As a general rule, the US is not going to go to war with Iran. Since spring 2004 people have been assuring me that the US is poised to attack Iran (because they have CARRIERS, people! in the GULF! And, and, and SASQUATCH ISRAEL!), and every time they have been wrong. So, there's that.
And I think the question to ask is:
now that the president of the US is slavishly subservient to Russia;
and given that Russia's most important foreign ally is Iran;
does this make a war between the US and Iran more likely, or less likely?
132.2 I agree with that and it's been my thinking as well. The silver lining in the Russian imbroglio. Though that doesn't mean there won't be a serious push for it by some in the WH who have Trump's ear.
I worry that Trump is too dumb to understand that Russia and Iran policies are related.
I told y'all, the possible cataclysm that has the Deep State all aflutter is Trump + Putin going after Saudi Arabia & Gulf monarchies.
I suppose that might even fit Roger's intuition of Trump as anti-Christ, with armies converging on Megiddo.
Would it go nuclear? Depends on how Israel and Pakistan respond. Erdogan? Shia Iran?
Anybody remember Bandar Bush going to Moscow trying to scare Putin?
And then there's 9/11 and SA/Qatar funding terrorism, Chechen rebels, oil, European dependency on Russian natural gas. Bannon and the Clash of Civilization nuts
Even without war, I would expect Trump to shake some very comfy relationships up in the ME.
Is Emirate Airlines Running Out of Sky
Trump, in the Big Hotel World, might know and be fed up with these arrogant fucks
Female cabin crew, referred to invariably as "girls," are to tie their hair back in tight buns, preferably secured by a scrunchie in Emirates-brand red. For makeup, a seven-step process is recommended, starting with foundation and concealer, then moving on to lipstick, also in preauthorized shades of crimson. At the back of Mizzi's classroom are two display racks of Emirates-approved emollients for "body shaping," "firming," "wrinkle control," and "luminosity.""We have standards in regards to nail care," Mizzi says. The same is true for weight. If a crew member looks too heavy, his or her superiors are to report their suspicions to a central fitness and nutrition department. "And they follow up," she says. Little escapes scrutiny. By the time crew members reach Mizzi's classroom, they have moved into Emirates-managed apartments with Emirates-imposed curfews, travel to work in Emirates-branded minibuses, and see Emirates-employed doctors at in-house Emirates clinics.
I told y'all, the possible cataclysm that has the Deep State all aflutter
No, you told us all that we were all stupid for worrying about Trump because the Deep State would make sure that the Republican nominee was Jeb Bush.
that doesn't mean there won't be a serious push for it by some in the WH who have Trump's ear.
I dunno, though. There are certainly going to be some people in the White House who think Iran's a threat. (Support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and even early seed funding for ISI in Iraq - though that was shut down after the Samarra attack in 2006.) And there are certainly some people (not always the same people) who like to talk tough about the Iran bogeyman because it appeals to their aged, low-information supporters who (like bob) started to lose their grip on world events due to encroaching senility at some point in the Reagan administration. But people who actually want to go to war with Iran? Not many of those. Mattis doesn't, for one.
Trump has at least 13 major properties in the UAE alone. FFS his ugly leering mug was on a giant billboard on Sheikh Zayed Road outside the Mall of the Emirates in Dubai and was only taken down last July after he said some shit about banning Muslims from the US . I drove by his golf resort on the outskirts of the city a couple of weeks ago. The Gulf monarchies are going to be just fine, at least as far as Trump is concerned.
And have you looked at his gaudy living quarters? Gulf monarchy is his entire aesthetic.
138 last: Michael Flynn does, and he'll talk to Trump last.
"Trump will split with the Gulf states because he is enraged at the way that Emirates demeans its female cabin crew as nothing more than objects of aesthetic appeal" is, well, it's, it's a hypothesis, I suppose.
Because he's a feminist! He is the BEST feminist.
138 Mattis is one of the few sane ones. Flynn on the other hand. ..And there are other crazies.
Isn't Iranian outreach to the Taliban fairly recent? They were bitter enemies in the past and provided one of the few occasions when Iran fought on US side.
Jeb! disappointed us all.
And fuck, as if I was the only one in the world to misunderestimate Trump.
I wish Obama had been the President to decide to stop being the Saud's poodle.
The Clinton's were totally owned. But hell, the Clinton's took money from anybody. Google "Clinton Russia uranium."
New York Times: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Jesus I've flown Emirates plenty and that's hilarious (nb I didn't read the linked story because I don't know how web works so I'm not excusing any sexual harrassment reported therin which I'm sure takes place on all carriers).
Meant to add to my last that Iranian outreach to the Taliban is potentially a good thing. There needs to be a wide political settlement to end the war.
Also posted before I saw Mossy's above. Tappping shit out on my phone is tedious. OTOH it autocorrect "shitshow" to "shitdhow" earlier which is oddly appropriate for my circumstances.
I would really like someone to start a Radical Feminist Trump Twitter feed.
"Just met with Congressional delegation. Only 2 women out of 18! Why is Congress stuck in 19th century? SAD."
Jeb! disappointed us all.
No, just you.
AFAIK that came as a total surprise to the makers of All In The Family, who initially took it for granted that everyone would see Archie Bunker as a bigot and a blowhard, just like they did.
The same thing was observed in the case of the British original, Till Death Us Do Part, the difference being that in the case of TDUDP the writer and the BBC defended it in the last ditch, because it was terrifyingly successful and they didn't dare kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.
143.2 It must be. Iran backed its own favorites in the west from the Soviet war down to at least the mid 2000s.
So Trump's nominee for the department of labor is guilty of wage theft. I hope they crucify the son of a bitch in the hearings. Wage theft should be a central Democratic issue: It hits the poorest and weakest hardest and it's simply indefensible. Unfortunately too many in the middle class are indoctrinated into the idea that having your employer treat you like cattle is somehow just the way things are and people need to suck it up. The 40 hour work week should be strictly enforced for everyone - if you want to work more, by all means do, but get paid time and a half or double time for it. Otherwise you are simply subsidizing your employer at your own expense and creating an unreasonable expectation for other people's work.
112 I'm talking about the risible claims of class bigotry. Towards a fucking billionaire.
Do some reading on class distinctions in America. Trump may be a billionaire but he is a nouveau riche and shows all the flaws of such. There is no class snobbery greater than that from the upper class against people like Trump, unless it is those of upper class wannabees (those who try to present upper class behaviors and values but aren't upper class) toward their "inferiors." Socially, Trump is an inferior.
121 Come on, Trump's entire campaign has been marked by slavish subservience to Russia.
Trump's foreign policy as articulated during his campaign would (IMHO) be a disaster. Still, it is not long since the idea of expanding NATO to the former Soviet "captive nations" was disapproved of by the left. It is not an inherently disreputable position. Similarly, the idea that NATO is obsolete was widespread during the "holiday from history" in the 90's. How many of us would get into a shooting war with Russia over the Crimea? Over Estonia?
The best case scenario is that Trump is buttering up the Russians before making a deal, in his best real estate developer mode. I doubt any deal he makes with Putin would be one I'd want to accept, but then I don't think a war in Eastern Europe is a good outcome either. American foreign policy under Obama has been based on the idea that Putin is bluffing and a few Americans on the ground and some sharp words to stop him, but then he's bluffed his way back into Georgia, Crimea, eastern Ukraine, etc. Pro-Putin parties are gaining strength in the former Warsaw Pact.
What is the proper policy towards Russia? Putin's response to Obama was further destabilization of Eastern European states, both in and out of NATO. He can do this cheaply via (implausibly) deniable local "insurgents," as in Ukraine, as well as bribery, fake news, etc. These are fairly weak states that really don't need smoldering civil war on top of their other problems.
Trump isn't considered inferior because he's new money. It's because he's an openly practicing asshole in a way that isn't tolerated in the upper classes.
Also, fuck the best case scenario stuff on Trump. There's absolutely no reason to extend any benefit of doubt. Trump is the only major party candidate in 50 years to refuse to release his tax returns, his opponents were hacked by the Russians while he wasn't. If a Democrat did this kind of things, Republicans would scream treason and they'd be right.
153.1: yes. Trump inherited his money from his father, Fred Trump the Slum Klandlord (not to be confused with his father, Fred Trump Sr. the Alaskan Pimp). Can you really be second-generation nouveau riche?
How many of us would get into a shooting war with Russia over the Crimea? Over Estonia?
Sidenote: I really, really hate Americans saying things like "oh it's not like anyone seriously cares about what happens to Poland chortle chortle. It's like thousands of miles away!"
Putin's response to Obama was further destabilization of Eastern European states, both in and out of NATO. He can do this cheaply via (implausibly) deniable local "insurgents," as in Ukraine, as well as bribery, fake news, etc. These are fairly weak states that really don't need smoldering civil war on top of their other problems.
Another thing they don't need on top of their other problems - being turned into the personal fiefdoms of amazingly corrupt oligarchs who are kept in place by Russian military force, because their allies have left them in the shit when they needed them most.
Today in Spanish class we learned the word hortera, which means tacky, and I got to give Trump as an example. Then the teacher said, "did you know he made his money from his grandfather selling prostitutes?" Who says the US is no longer respected in the world. Also we talked about constitutional monarchies and I got to say that as of tomorrow the US would be more like a monarchy too.
154.last: Endorsed in Spades
155.last: But constitutional?
That was part of the discussion, how what's on paper and reality are different. She said Spanish and British monarchy are nominally ceremonial but that the monarch still has power to push an agenda if they want.
We discussed Juan Carlos and elephants and broken hips and German mistresses.
"What are four things that have never delayed my commute?"
"What are the only pre-existing conditions Paul Ryan wants to have covered?"
157 may become a big deal in Britain once Charlie boy takes over. A man with opinions, mostly crackpot.
I'm with ajay. I wouldn't bear any burden for Estonia, but I can't believe so many people willing to say it's worth nothing, that it's none of our business if another country falls under foreign domination. It's one thing to say "peace is the answer," but it's another to say "Dictators can do whatever they want -- it's no business of ours." I don't understand how the second one because the nominal left position.
I missed that becoming the nominal left position. Not mine.
How many of us would get into a shooting war with Russia over the Crimea? Over Estonia?
Me. I'd get into a shooting war with Russia over Estonia. I'd rather it didn't come to that, of course; I'd rather Russia just gave up on its long-running habit of brutalising large chunks of Europe as a way of self-medicating its national anxiety disorder; but if necessary, yes.
I don't think any of us can even guess what happens if Trump concludes that Putin doesn't respect him and has played him for the fool he is.
Cruz would be bad, but there's no reason to think he'd be on board with breaking up the EU. I mean, we all know this is the best way to bring coal mining back to West Virginia, but sheesh.
I didn't support extending NATO to Estonia, but precisely because I didn't think we should be taking on that obligation. My side was overruled, and now we either act like we're going to honor it, or the whole thing unravels.
Did folks read that New York Magazine piece on Kushner? I'm not going to shed any tears for Chris Christie, but it really is madness to put the massive power of the American state into the hands of such petty people as this gang.
154 Sidenote: I really, really hate Americans saying things like "oh it's not like anyone seriously cares about what happens to Poland chortle chortle. It's like thousands of miles away!"
I personally care a lot about the fate of Poland, Estonia, etc. I just don't think a lot of other Americans do, on the left or the right. For that matter, how many English, French, etc. care a lot about them? How many would fight a war for them?
I am overwhelmingly depressed by the trend towards right-wing, oligarchic, panopticon, nationalist governments world-wide. The Chinese and Russians have made this "respectable" and "successful." The US has mostly stood by while China did it, and now Trump is likely to do the same with Russia.
168 and 166 crossed streams. At least Ajay would fight for Estonia: good.
167. Putin's whole goal is to get the "whole thing" to unravel. Trump is going to help him, whether out of sincere conviction or idiocy or treason. Hard to tell. How many people were 167.3 ("didn't support") but haven't added "we ... act"? CC is a grownup; Trump is not.
Standing by while nuclear-armed sovereigns abuse their people is a necessary evil. Standing by while they abuse other countries is different.
169 -- Yes, this is certainly what Putin wants. I'm not clear why Bannon and Flynn want it as well -- do they really think it's the price for getting Russia to oppose ISIS?
Is Trump willing to kill the EU because he thinks elimination of a rival economy is some sort of "Victory" for the US?
Important grammar/style question:
My sign for tomorrow uses the @1aprildaniels quote:
"First they came for the Muslims, and we said, 'not this time, motherfucker.'"
If I want to make it a little cleaner for The Children, what's the best way to write "motherfucker"?
m*th*rf*ck*r
m*#th#r@*f@$#%ckr
some other #@(#*@& kind of thing
or just cut it off?
I would also say mofo.
I'm planning to make a Saturday sign - any suggestions? One of my ideas is "Richard Hatch - Dr. House - Trump - Stop Idolizing Open Assholes". Maybe too disconnected to actual people in danger though.
I'm not clear why Bannon and Flynn want it as well -- do they really think it's the price for getting Russia to oppose ISIS? Is Trump willing to kill the EU because he thinks elimination of a rival economy is some sort of "Victory" for the US?
Various reasons come to mind.
1) The EU is a big trading bloc; it's not unreasonable to assume that the US could get more leverage over its members were it to negotiate with them one at a time.
2) The EU is a multilateral organisation. This is disturbing and unpleasant if you hate concepts like consensus and common rules, and prefer to treat every interaction as a zero sum game in which there is a clear winner.
3) The EU is explicitly intended to prevent war. Some people quite like war. They find it exciting and liberating.
4) Russia (with the enthusiastic support of the Orthodox Church) has made a huge domestic and foreign propaganda push over the last few years based on the idea that the EU is incredibly gay, unlike Russia, which is the defender of all things hetero*. A lot of Russians sincerely believe, for example, that if Ukraine joins the EU then Ukrainian children will be forced to become gay. It's possible that Flynn et al believe this as well.
(*This may seem odd to us, coming as it does from a man who shaves his chest in order to pose topless for photos in various sorts of military paraphernalia, and an organisation of large, hairy committed bachelors whose main interests are highly ornate clothing and communal singing, but apparently the Russian people find it all fairly credible.)
Shaves his chest? I assumed he was able to afford laser hair removal.
Richard Hatch? I'd have to google to be sure, but was that the guy who won the first season of Survivor? If I've got it right, way too obscure.
182: Insufficiently heroic. He shaves his chest with a cavalry sabre, recovered from the body of a Polish hussar at the battle of Borodino and on loan from the Museum of the Russian Armed Forces.
It is a custom, a tradition. If the sword were not sharp enough for one to shave with, one would be ashamed to bear it. And if it is sharp enough, what need does one have of a razor? And though it is awkward, holding such a heavy blade up like that, the exercise strengthens one's arms.
A friend of mine in NYC has a sign that says, "We're all Rockettes who refuse to dance." I like having a mixture of signs in any protest -- angry, obvious, funny, charming, obscure, more about us, more about them -- and I find that one charming.
Bannon wants to burn shit down. He's a self-identified Leninist, in the weird rightwing version where Lenin was basically a nihilist.
It's still worthwhile showing up for the NYC march even without a sign, right? I can't quite face making one.
Kraabniece #1, who isn't generally confrontational or profane, made a sign that says: "Bannon can burn in hell." She and about 100 of her high school classmates are walking out tomorrow to come to the protest. I'm super proud of her.
179: Aren't all the EU countries also WTO countries and don't they therefore have MFN status? The only "benefit" I can see to breaking up the EU is to fuck with Germany, if you view Germany as a zero-sum competitor and don't mind making it an enemy.
But really, all of Trump's foreign policies so far are explained by Russian interests and none of them contravene them. You have to go pretty far out of your way to explain why breaking up the EU and NATO is a good idea for the United States, and what we get out of having a Taiwanese delegation attend the inauguration.
Aren't all the EU countries also WTO countries and don't they therefore have MFN status
What makes you think the WTO isn't next on the chopping block?
Also on my list for consideration: "Donny You're Out Of Your Element", and a condensed version of Matthew 25:41-45.
152.1 I'm not buying that for the reasons MH and ajay mentioned above and for the reasons I didn't buy GWB's brush clearing down home Texan bullshit. He was born into wealth.
I hate the American empire as much as the next lefty (fight me bob!) but I'll note that the Baltic states answered their obligation to come to the defense of the United States when the US invoked Article 5 after 9/11. They have troops in Afghanistan (still IIRC) and even sent troops to Iraq. They've suffered casualties in Afghanistan including 8 (+1) Estonian KIA. They've honored their NATO treaty obligations to us. How could we not do the same?
The more chaos there is, the more points where connected people can fuck with things (exchange rates, border controls, market volatility) the better it is for the existing plutocrats who can take a cut of every transaction. The more markets move the more chance there is for traders with inside info to make money at every turn of the numbers.
I'm going to the march here in LA. It seems pretty futile, but I guess maybe it will feel better than staying home? Blech.
195.1: He was born into B&T wealth, and he tried and failed to break into the world of classy Manhattan wealth, which his father never tried. I'm willing to believe he was disdained for some good reasons (incidents like these) and some bad ones reflecting pure snobbery.
I think 197 nails it, really. There's a certain mindset that wants chaos thinks they will thrive in it. (Of course, they often end up near the front of the line at the tumbrils in real life.)
Well, sure I guess if Russian tanks cross the Latvian border we have huge problems. I would frankly expect the cold war to heat up elsewhere first. (I do not expect it to happen)
But a firm NATO commitment almost necessitates tossing nukes at first shot, and I would prefer to have an option of doing something like we did for Afghanistan. And God, the bloodthirsty ones who are calling for thermonuclear war at the first signs of political interference or subversion are nuts. The Cold War always had such power games, win some lose some, win it back.
I do not extend this to Ukraine.
I think 197 and similar assign to the Trump administration and coalition vastly more consciousness and coherence than they have.
Again, since we made the NATO commitment, Latvia or fascistic Hungary are not anything like Angola or other Cold War battlegrounds, fuck Clinton forever.
I don't consider the former Eastern Bloc entirely sane or stable, certainly not like Germany or France, and the nuclear commitment to right wing regimes who carry resentment, dreams of revenge, and excessive nationalisms one of the worst mistakes in recent history.
Thermonuclear War if fucking Erdogan gets frisky?
I'd rather dissolve NATO.
Godwinning, something I don't know enough about is Nazi Germany as a 'polyarchy': the rulers were so incoherent, so amateurish and so egomaniacal that the government became a set of factions which eventually reduced the state itself to a cluster of improvised organizations pursuing often incompatible policies. A 'non-state' with no governing principle at all but Hitler's whims.
Speaking of the Fuhrer's whims has everyone seen this?
It's very good.
Bob Mcmanus: soft on Russia, tough as nails on the tsunami threat.
The tsunami threat is very real fm.
Foolishmortal. Unless your're trying to help Sir Kraab above.
167.1 does preoccupy me, as I've said here before. Kompromat? What, are the Russians going to leak his tax returns? What does Trump fear most?
the rulers were so incoherent, so amateurish and so egomaniacal
Not quite the same topic, but I recently read and enjoyed Hitler's Thirty Days to Power by Ashby Turner, which gave me a picture of a similarly incoherent executive power in the year or two before Hitler - the executive branch reflected very little democracy at that point, the chancellors were military men who despised the Republic and had their positions because they happened to have the confidence of Hindenburg and shuffled in and out on that basis, and Ashby thinks if the semi-random events that led to them putting Hitler up next had not happened, a more predictable outcome would have been a more conventional military dictatorship. (Also the Socialists assumed Hitler's elevation was a conspiracy orchestrated by capitalists, when in fact it was highly contingent.)
209 As I ranted on Twitter a week ago, I think the only thing that makes sense is sex with an obviously underage girl. Maybe they found some poor child who bears a striking resemblance to Ivanka. The Russians certainly seem to have sized him up very well. I don't think anything else makes sense. No one cares if he has had sex with prostitutes, least of all his supporters. But raping a child. That's something else.
I just read, or at least skimmed, that interview, and I still don't know the answer. I mean, whoever said months ago here that they have a video of him failing to get it up was on the right track, but I've been more inclined to say money rather than sex.
Do I want to know what's going on in the minds of French voters atm? Bleah.
I expect it means he'll never acknowledge he's been had by Putin no matter how obvious it becomes.
"Pegged by Putin" is the latest offering from Chuck Tingle.
215 Although that's implying something about Putin as well.
I suspect a lot of people forget just how much time, CIA shenanigans, and billions of dollars were spent keeping the weaker NATO members stable and reliable exactly to prevent eg the Greek junta from getting us into a shooting war
The Baltics got really fucked by the 2008 crisis, and under Obama's Arms Emporium*, only got 67 mill in military aid. little economic aid or FDI
You don't run an empire on the cheap.
*Obama's Final Arms-Export Tally More than Doubles Bush's
A little less than half to SA. Nobel Peace President more Saud Poodle than shrub.
I don't think Trump is into Putin because of the kompromat. Sure, there is kompromat, but the broader reason, I think, is that Putin is just his kind of people.
I'm going to the march here in LA. It seems pretty futile, but I guess maybe it will feel better than staying home? Blech.
It's not futile. We're building a mass movement* and millions of people across the country protesting at one time is a piece of that. I may have already said this here, but big marches are great for radicalizing people.
*In fits and starts, with thousands of missteps and defeats, but that's the only way it happens.
Clusterbombs in Yemen December 14, 2016
"A report by the group Cluster Munitions Monitor found that civilians made up 97 percent of all worldwide cluster bomb casualties, primarily due to their use by the Assad government in Syria and the U.S.-backed bombing coalition in Yemen."
Besides the anti-Trump movement, not at all a distraction if we don't let it be, the Democratic Party is also choosing its new leadership. We should make sure Party Members understand the horrific monster Obama was, and the kind of people who worked under him and admire him.
218, 220: They are both just anti-liberal in pretty much every sense of the word. But the issue for me with the hidden tax returns and all isn't that I think that Trump was bought outright. I think he's been getting hidden support without which he would have been unable to seriously contend for office (e.g. to prevent a bankruptcy or some other public failure).
218, 220: oh obviously. Explicitly, my concern is that at some point Trump is going to have a falling-out with Putin and turn on him -- he has a whole lot of reasons to do so even now -- and I can only imagine how that will go. He's extremely vengeful and spiteful and hates to look like anyone's bitch. I hope Moby's right about the cognitive dissonance winning. However, this is not terribly important at the moment. I'm stressed about the general perception that Marine Le Pen is a fait accompli, as we say in English.
I didn't mean for that to be optimistic, but on reflection you may be right.
223. FWIW, Arthur Goldhammer doesn't think she's a fait(e) accompli(e), even to get into the run-off:
Thanks to Arun Kapil, I bring to your attention two recent polls. The first brings the surprising news that if the stars align just right, Emmanuel Macron could edge past Marine Le Pen to confront François Fillon in the second round. The stars that need to align include: 1) a Montebourg victory in the left primary and 2) a decision by Bayrou not to run. Unfortunately for 1), this poll shows Valls running well ahead in the left primary. But the first debate (scheduled for Jan 12) hasn't even taken place yet. So a lot could change.
222: Kept afloat by loans from Russian oligarchs who use him to launder their purchases of foreign real estate is my guess. Why else would they have bothered compromising someone who was such a non-factor for so many years?
Habit or shits and giggles, I suppose.
I was disturbed to learn recently that Gulf money has been flooding into Le Pen's coffers. This bothered me much more than allegations of support for various extremist Sunni groups in the region. WTF do they think they're playing at?
In the latest polls, Fillon crushes Le Pen in the second round. Le Pen picks up very little support in the second round.
228: Huh. Cultivating a backup protector? Russia has demonstrated America isn't the only game in town anymore. France already has a base in UAE. Alternatively, looking to buy off the French war on IS?
In fact, I would say that the general perception is that Le Pen has no chance. On paper, Fillion matches up badly on paper against Le Pen (she's considerably to his left on economics), but the polls are 2/3 Fillion to 1/3 for Le Pen. Likewise for Macron, in the unlikely event he and Le Pen are the two that make it to the second round.
I think he's been getting hidden support without which he would have been unable to seriously contend for office (e.g. to prevent a bankruptcy or some other public failure).
I happened to look up the summary of Casino Royale yesterday, and I had forgotten this line:
The game soon turns into an intense confrontation between Le Chiffre and Bond; Le Chiffre wins the first round, cleaning Bond out of his funds. As Bond contemplates the prospect of reporting his failure to M, the CIA agent, Felix Leiter, gives him an envelope of money and a note: "Marshall Aid. Thirty-two million francs. With the compliments of the USA."
The rest of it was just wasted on infrastructure and sending U.S. college students abroad.
Ah, I had merely glanced at headlines:
215, 216 - actually, it's "Domald Tromp Pounded In The Butt By The Handsome Russian T-Rex Who Also Peed On His Butt And Then Blackmailed Him With The Videos Of His Butt Getting Peed On"
235 God bless Chuck Tingle.
230 Is really weird. It's UAE money specifically that's been going to Le Pen.
That recent Tingle AMA is amazing.
OTOH...
In fact, I would say that the general perception is that Le Pen has no chance.
... sounds strangely familiar.
238: That's true, but the poll differences are astounding. They have Fillon or Macron getting twice as many votes as Le Pen. Also, Trump won because the US election system is stupid.
Honestly, I'm up for a DTPITBBTHRT-RWAPOHB&TBHWTVOHBGPO reading group.
All right, but I warn you that you, personally, will get an earful from me for false soothing/soothsaying if this doesn't go well. Yes, you, Mr. Someguy, if that is your real name.
Eggplant, you should volunteer to take a TF&S chapter and then... whoa, maybe you didn't read the same book as everyone else?
I'll take that chance. I'd hate for my chapter summary to go to waste.
All right, but I warn you that you, personally, will get an earful from me for false soothing/soothsaying if this doesn't go well.
Yeah, nobody better pull a Megan.
I was on Stack Overflow for work and fell victim to Fired by an Intoxicated Boss in the sidebar, and now I'm glad I clicked through because I needed something like that today.
Poor Megan. It's always the optimists who are hit hardest by events. At least we premature realists get a grim affirmation.
I like the cut of your reading group, Eggplant. But could any summary do it justice?
That is, could any summary other than the already masterful title do it justice? The title is really pretty good.
It's great for an e-book, but on a regular paperback it would require kind of small print.
It adds something to the experience of reading political dinosaur/watersports porn if you have to get your face really close to the cover art to read the title.
The original plan was to use the compromising info to get Putin on Celebrity Apprentice and win.
Putin is still a little disappointed at how things turned out.
If Putin's idea is more to sow chaos than to coerce Trump in particular, I could totally see him releasing whatever he may have regardless of Trump's actions.
Good news about France. Well, better than Le Pen, but not good.
Ezra Klein interviews Keith Ellison at great length. Ellison says the right things, offending few. I don't know why Schumer likes him, but I will ignore it. Both Klein and Ellison like Vance Hillbilly Elegy even though it is by a conservative. I'm still wary. Hochschild and Kathryn Cramer first, if at all.
Meanwhile Obama's guy, Tom Perez, refuses to constrain corporate or lobbyist contributions
sorry for not previewing; guess you coulda found it
Best offense against Trumpism is a bigger and better Left, as always
ajay's 2) @ 179 explains trump personally I suspect, with his advisors being into all the other myriad of reasons.
I am super worried that Sarko, Copé and others on the right killed any opportunity to expect a front républicain in the second ballot.
I actually had convinced myself that Le Pen would win, because Fillon is such an unappetizing figure for all of the non-right to have to rally around. But then I googled polls, and was shocked by how bad she was still doing in second-round polling.
Also read a medium-length analysis of Bannon, Breitbart, and the alt-right by someone named Daniel Gordon. Amherst, UMass, work on French Revolution, wife Catherine Epstein whose work is on Nazi Germany. Just felt informed, but a little politically iffy. Anybody know them?
251. Putin is still a little disappointed at how things turned out.
Isn't failing his tryout for the Washington Senators what turned Fidel Castro to revolution? (One of his slogans was surely "Death to Calvin Griffith!") Be careful who you vote off the island.
Sorry to come back to this so late, but developments today add to my argument in 63. Which was countered by:
64: Trump is fundamentally attacking democratic norms in a way that hasn't happened since Nixon and Nixon was quieter about it. Somebody like Pence is with a Republican House and Senate is bad, but it's an inevitable kind of bad in a country with two parties and mostly conservative voters.
66: 64 is right, and in addition Pence doesn't have anything like the personal following Trump has. He'd have power, but an agenda that a great many Trump voters don't support.
Here's why I think President Pence is just as much a danger. You've seen today's report that Trump's transition team is putting forward a plan to cut the federal budget by $10.5 trillion over ten years?
Two members of Trump's transition team are discussing the cuts at the White House budget office: Russ Vought, a former aide to Vice President-elect Mike Pence and the former executive director of the RSC, and John Gray, who previously worked for Pence, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) when Ryan headed the House Budget Committee.
Vought and Gray, who both worked for the Heritage Foundation, are laying the groundwork for the so-called skinny budget
Both these guys worked for Pence. And Ryan. I see no reason at all to suppose that a President Pence would dial this back if Trump were out of the picture.
N.B. There are plenty of reasons to think such a budget plan is dead in the water no matter who's in charge. Nonetheless. You can argue with some persuasiveness that Trump's personal, uh, charisma gives him a better chance than Pence, but the agenda isn't Trump's.
That said, I do understand that at least a President Pence might not be such a danger on foreign policy. Might not.
64 is scary. They could actually get most of the way there by killing Medicaid, which this congress presumably wouldn't even think about. The rest they could take out of discretionary programs without touching SS or Medicare which are presumably the only federal services their voters are aware of.
Kevin Drum looked at the Heritage Foundation report that seems to be behind this. Quite scary on the Medicare/Medicaid/SS front.
Cutting Medicare by 41% over 10 years is probably why it's a non-starter. A somewhat similar plan, with less draconian cuts, lost a House vote a few years ago by a pretty good margin.
It's still very concerning that they're still on this; and this is Trump's transition team. He hasn't even taken office. And to repeat: it's Pence, not Trump.
Wait my numbers are all wrong. I was thinking 0.5tr/yr in cuts, actually they want 1tr. That makes it impossible without major cuts to some combination of Medicare, SS and defense, even if they cut Medicaid and everything else to zero. OTOH, if 1tr/yr is their initial bargaining position, something like 0.5tr/yr could conceivably come out the other side.
An object lesson in why the "$a over b years" formulation is obfuscating bullshit.
How I fucked up division by 10 I don't know, but fuck it up I did. And I'm not even a low-information voter.
I don't think Pence stands any chance of getting this past Congress. Trump can fuck-up stuff that doesn't require Congress to agree.
There are going to be painful cuts, of course. But writing plans with 40% cuts in Medicare is just how the Heritage Foundation masturbates.
At least you didn't say "Overton Window."
Ever since I read about it while researching for a review of TF&S in the style of Chuck Tingle.
I think this approach could profitably be retrofitted (IYKWIM) onto earlier reading groups. Just saying.
The Deluge: The Great Boar, T-Rex, and the Remaking of the Global Order, 2016-2020.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
We need a word even worse than anchoring to make anchoring an acceptable replacement for Overton window.