... and the others should push opinion-based reporting to the side and place journalism-based news in prime time
The McNiel/Lehrer report exists today. Sixty minutes isn't bad. Low ratings though, because journalism-based news is unpleasant and boring.
There are also weekly print outlets that do a better job of setting context than dailies, which do better than TV. Vox started out aiming to provide context, occasionally succeeds.
Fox is a choice, not something that's pushed on unwilling people.
The second half of the article is a day-dreamy fantasy about what it would take to reverse course on this epistemological implosion.
One word: Verritt.
It's not facts, it's affect and in-groups.
That's entirely true, but "facts" is the fig leaf we put over it and then the fig leaf grows into monstrous poison ivy that prevents us even dealing with the emotions associated with the affect and in-group parts.
I'd never heard of Veritt and when I tried to load the website, my browser told me that it wasn't safe.
heebie, were you familiar with this prophetic song?
I want to see those buildings fall
Collapse burning in the street
That's when i'll joke about it all
My friends dying at my feet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2_IKT5sya0
7: I hadn't either - I just googled "Disintegration Nation" because I was curious about the origin/prevalence of the phrase, and it was the first hit.
I mean, I'm no historian but it's useful for me to think of how dis-aggregated "facts" were leading up to the Civil War in order to get a handle on this idea that there's no consensus on reality anymore.
The idea of consensus reality was always oversold. Back in the good old days -- when America was great -- it was well understood in the media that the Negroes were unreasonable, that the Indians weren't even really a thing any more, and that women were happier barefoot and pregnant.
In my Northern Ohio elementary school, I was taught Civil War and Reconstruction history from the Dunning School. I'm old enough to remember when newspapers had Women's sections dedicated to addressing their vital concerns: recipes and whatnot.
For me, the difference nowadays is that I suddenly find myself in an out-group whose reality is being perversely ignored by the serious players in the media and elsewhere. Back in the day, environmental stuff (for example) was treated seriously in the media.
Is it worth complaining about the fact that the first link repeats a lot of those Trump tweets without fact-checking most or all of them? Have people just given up on that or started taking the bullshit for granted? If "people" in general haven't, is Politico particularly bad about it? Reviewing things, I don't see any factual statements that are unambiguously false, but I see several places they IMO should have provided context, and the only time they did, it backed Trump up.
For me, the difference nowadays is that I suddenly find myself in an out-group whose reality is being perversely ignored by the serious players in the media and elsewhere
It is rough these days for white male boomers!
12: Hate speech!
Is there no safe place for us?
9: When was this? Incredibly, I learned about Reconstruction a la the Dunning School at a well-regarded school in the mid-late eighties. It was Dunning light, so it was more in sorrow ("it's sad that freed slaves couldn't manage to govern themselves") than anything else, but still.
I remember very clearly, because it troubled me a lot. I was a tractable/credulous child and so I didn't really feel comfortable questioning the textbook, but it really upset me to read this and at the time I remember thinking that another solution besides destroying Reconstruction should have been found.
It was a huge relief to me in my later teens to discover more history books and to learn that what I'd been taught was wrong. In retrospect, I wonder if I would have particularly left wing politics if I'd been taught in a more liberal manner, because I remember the upsettingness of the tension between what I intuitively believed about people (Reconstruction couldhave worked, we could have what I understood of social democracy at the time, people on welfare weren't lazy and bad) and what I was taught.
I've brought this up here before, but the NYS Regents exam grading, both back when I was in high school in the eighties, and still according to my kids, treated "Slavery" as a wrong answer to "What was the cause of the Civil War." Oversimplified. You had to talk about varying levels of development and tariffs and states rights.
14.1: Pretty sure that versons of the Dunning School are being taught to this day -- and not only in the former Confederate states.
14: I'm probably about 20 years older than you. I bought it completely as a kid, and didn't question it as an adult for a long time. I mean, the guys who wanted to impeach Johnson were Radical Republicans, right? Ulysees S. Grant was grossly incompetent, if not corrupt!
13 They should declare us a nationality.
Seriously, though, istm that this nationality thing is a pretty good play from the let's destroy Western civilization point of view. Not just a pander and a wedge play re BDS, but the logical next step is saying that Islam is a nationality. There is a large chunk of the Trump coalition that wants to think we're at war with Islam. I don't see Trump going all the way there, what with his special relationships with Saudia and the Gulf. But Trumpism without Trump is going to be missing the key element of bribery from those folks, and will instead go the whole white supremacy hog.
So it's not going to get struck down by the courts?
For me, the difference nowadays is that I suddenly find myself in an out-group whose reality is being perversely ignored by the serious players in the media and elsewhere.
Politicalfootball sounding positively Corey Robins-esque:) For me the difference is the complete capture by right wing propagandists of a party that holds the majority of political power. Anyone want to speculate on how the Civil Rights movement would fare with todays conjunction of disinformation and political imbalance?
I also think there's a difference in degree of misinformation but I'm having a hard time pinning it down so maybe not?
10.1: Might or might not be worth complaining. but I think we are basically done on that front. The Pete Williams interview of Bill Barr yesterday is pretty much the new normal and we are pretty much toast*.(Also the current discussion on the FISA abuses are beyond infuriating. An actually good and necessary thing to happen in some world! But happening in this actual such a fucked up and asymmetric manner** that it is beyond stupefying***.)
10.2 And Politico is also particularly bad at it.
Have a Merry Christmas!
*Yes, yes, my pessimism is a bit overwrought but the last two days have been nearly as depressing to me as election night. Been staying out of political (and other threads) due to rage/despair issues but have now descended into a zone where my futility-(not to mention possible actual active harm)-of -talking-about-my-rankest-fears filter is overwhelmed by the rankness of those fears. So here we are
**The media are in their glory of high moral grounding what is the most commonplace and utterly ignored abuses of process and civil liberties now that it has happened to a few sketchy Republican white men. Ari Melber practically gave Carter fucking Page a blowjob on air yesterday evening.
***Horowitz is a complex person in all of this (and preceding stuff). Clearly a savvy institutional survivor (and "process" believer****) who in the end has been probably a net asset for Trump. but who will undoubtedly be trampled into the earth at some point.
****But on whose adherence to process has been routinely abused by the Admin/DOJ powers that be.
14: "Dunning light" is a terrific way of characterizing it. My NE Ohio experience as well. Really took me a long time to adjust my views on Andrew Johnson and Grant. I get a sick feeling whenever I hear "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" remembering my own credulity.
Bazz fazz.
Politicalfootball sounding positively Corey Robins-esque:)
Yeah, I was weirdly radicalized by a Saturday Night Live skit, of all things -- the one where Dave Chapelle and Chris Rock make fun of the white liberals (my people!) on election night.
In a recent thread, people were running down SNL and I never got around to offering my defense. I mean, I don't much like watching it these days because I get no joy out of anything that invokes Trump, but the pre-Trump years were a golden age for that show. Kate McKinnon is as funny as anyone who has ever done SNL.
For those who want to go deep into the weeds, this is a dissection of the Pete Williams Barr interview by emptywheel.
Bill Barr made big news yesterday saying intemperate things in what has charitably been called an "interview" with NBC's Pete Williams. Those comments have distracted from other details of the so-called interview, which deserve further attention for the way that Williams was utterly useless in guiding the interview towards any of the questions that needed to be answered. Given Barr's assault on the rule of law, garbage interviews like this undermine the Constitution....[much detailed point-by point discussion]...
I have been pointing out increasingly often that many members of the press seem uninterested in defending the parts of the Constitution that don't directly affect press protections. The duty to uphold the rule of law is particularly important for DOJ reporters, who should know enough about how investigations work to identify when something is abnormal (as Barr's direct involvement, generally, is, to say nothing of his international field trip).
We already have a passport in the house with a "J" so we're all set here at least.
but the last two days have been nearly as depressing to me as election night.
What has come into focus recently? The articles of impeachment?
I definitely remember learning that the "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags" were bad people, Reconstruction was a doomed effort that put incompetent people in charge, etc. There was an undercurrent that it was doomed because the Southerners were resisting it with armed insurrection, but that was then interpreted as natural and unavoidable, the reaction you have to expect to outsiders being put in charge. This was in the North in the 90s.
I wasn't surprised to learn later on that Radical Republicans were actually good and it could have been possible to prevent Louisiana from being ruled by warlords, but I was surprised to learn that racism in a lot of ways was worse in the early 20th century than in the late 19th century (more codified and more universally enforced).
26: Combination of futility of impeachment (and that they didn't do what I, massively correct political know-it-all would have had them do), the way the IG report is being spun and covered (and just wait for the Durham report), Bill "Himmler-in training" Barr in general, various aspects of the campaign (in particular the greedy harlot Warren making $2 MILLION DOLLARS over 30 years of consulting coverage), seasonal affective disorder, T rally in Hershey last night, the Judaism thing, and generalized personal malaise, M
And my wife and I both have it bad right now (as does my daughter), so no real respite. We start Mrs. Maisel Season 3 so maybe that will help...
Also fucking Christmas. Always Christmas, never winter.
Heh, I almost used the Chapelle skit as reference. Seconding McKinnon.
28.know-it-all: What would you have done. I would go with Schiff holding hearings until the end of time, passing new articles of impeachment as they come.
28: I've been feeling it lately, too, for whatever reason. And I agree: Mrs. Maisel might help a little.
23, 29: I've come to respect her talent, but I hated her Hillary impression for most of 2016.
For me it was when I started to reconcile myself to a Biden nomination. And, yeah, the impeachment and approval polls.
33: I loved her Hillary, but I can see how people wouldn't like it. It was so meta. It was like she was playing Kate McKinnon playing Hillary.
It reminded me of Keegan-Michael Key's Obama anger translator -- inviting us to be amused the absurd situation that Hillary found herself in throughout the election, a situation that she herself could not openly acknowledge.
So McKinnon's post-election cold open -- Hallelujah -- felt earned to me, and genuinely poignant.
Oh god, I haven't yet reconciled myself to a Biden nomination. Do I have to?
Probably. If it helps, read the old articles in The Onion.
I think there's still time for everyone to realize that Biden is a senile old man and vote for someone else. I'm grimly reconciling myself to Mayor Pete.
I'm not totally reconciled to a Biden nomination. I think Sanders can win (and come on, you don't have to love Sanders, but surely we can agree that he's better than Biden if nothing else).
I still have a faint, faint hope in my heart that Labor will clean the Conservatives' clock tomorrow, augering a step back from the abyss in the US just as Brexit augered our current situation.
I think it's quite possible that the polls are wildly wrong because they rely so heavily on landlines. Even among the terrible, no-good, very bad Boomers in my family, the ones that even have landlines never answer unscreened calls - and they may be Boomers but they'd gnaw off a forearm rather than vote for Trump, so they're missing from the data.
OK. I'm all better now. I like this plan. I like *all* the plans.
I think the "Biden might only serve one term" stuff is the campaign finally blinking in the face of his incapacity. Their confidence can only drop from here, and he will drop out.
43: Maybe. Maybe not. I so wish he had stayed out.
Not my preferred candidate but I was quite saddened by Kamala Harris dropping out (yes I know, earlier thread).
There are still 847 news cycles before the voting starts. We still have no idea how its going to shake out.
22: Can anyone recommend a good book on the Johnson/Grant era? I didn't think my high school education was that Dunning, but I suspect the school of "Ulysses S. Grant was grossly incompetent, if not corrupt" was overrepresented.
This isn't what you asked for, but Grant's Memoirs are terrifically readable and give you a sense of his personality. I just read "The Impeachers", by Brenda Wineapple, which was good on the Johnson impeachment. Eric Foner's The Second Founding covers the passage of the Civil Rights Amendments. I don't have something good to cover Grant's presidency though -- maybe the new Chernow bio is good? But I haven't read it.
I agree with 35 (and the sketch linked in 23 is very good).
Warren is still my preferred candidate; I'd prefer Sanders or Pete to Biden. I'm perfectly capable of reconciling myself to Biden but disturbed that nothing he's done in the campaign has made me feel better about him.
That said, if Biden wins because African-Americans overwhelmingly support him, who am I to argue with that. If anything I'd say that it would be a bad sign if there was a candidate who was overwhelmingly supported by African-Americans and _lost_ the nomination. That would be a problem for the Democratic party. I just wish I felt better about the candidate in question.
Maybe the billionaires will take enough votes from Biden to let Sanders get through.
I'm not sure what happens to the followers of Yang and Booker. Presumably, all of Gabbard's go to Sanders, but then why are they with her in the first place?
There was a chart about how much the candidates are spending on TV. OK, yeah, the billionaires are off the charts, but Sanders is spending like 4 times what Biden and Warren are spending. If it's in California, that's pretty smart.
How come no mention of grant being a drunk? I think I was taught that.
I'm thinking of rereading Profiles in Courage. JFK's ghostwriter is totally on the side of racists, as I recall.
1. The House votes to impeach. The Senate doesn't. Having failed to vote to impeach is a net detriment to Republican Senators in 2020 and Democrats take both houses of Congress and the White House, albeit narrowly.
2. RBG survives long enough that Trump can't appoint her replacement.
3. The Democrats' signature issue isn't a milquetoast half-measure-from-the-start like the ACA, it's a genuinely whole-hearted effort at electoral reform.
I don't even care who the Democratic nominee is, as long as they get elected. Those three points individually seem plausible - I won't say "likely", definitely not this far in advance, but they aren't complete fantasy-land territory - and taken together they'd leave our democracy in a better situation than it had from 2010 to 2016.
I often indulge in pessimism myself, but I'm not completely despairing yet.
I'm not sure I learned much of anything about Reconstruction in school. In elementary/middle, it could be that after the Alamo, we went back to the Romans.
That's an exaggeration, because we definitely learned about San Jacinto.
And Sam Houston thinking secession was going to turn out to be a really bad idea.
And then the Romans again?
45. Richard White's Republic for which it Stands is 85% great. I'm about halfway through. It is a lot of book though (that is a kilopage brick), but the great parts are genuinely great. I found Foner very hard to get into myself, maybe he presupposes more background than I had, and my interest in 19th century factions and regional identities, at least the way he laid them out, was not that high though.
White though-- did you know that there was armed conflict between Philly and Pittsburgh in 1877? Fatalities, destroyed railyards...
(Secession from the US, that is. Houston was all in with secession from Mexico.)
though though
funny how tics of diction are noticeable only when frozen and uneditable.
How come no mention of grant being a drunk? I think I was taught that.
That was all Animaniacs thought worth relating about Grant ca. 1995.
It looks like he did have well-documented problems with alcohol which dogged him his whole career, but the problems were episodic, primarily in boring downtimes when he was away from his family, so it didn't seem to interfere with his generalling or presidenting.
35.1: The McKinnon as Hillary sketch that made me hate her, was one in which Hillary was going up to people on the beach and nagging them to vote for her. She seemed like the most annoying and unlikable person in all of history.
By the election I had softened on her, and then the Hallelujah cold open was genuinely poignant for me as well.
The Hallelujah cold open was touching, and the Hillary Actually sketch is well done and still funny (I just re-watched it recently). I only watch SNL sketches that I see recommended so I may have missed one which were less good.
56.1: Yeah, I don't remember the specific sketch, but I agree that the writing was sometimes lazy and they sometimes played on the "unlikable" cliche/stereotype in a dumb way.
If it becomes Biden vs. Bloomberg, I'll probably send money to Biden.
but the problems were episodic, primarily in boring downtimes when he was away from his family
It's downtimes when I'm with my family that give me trouble.
We learned the three S for civil war causes- slavery, state's rights, sectionalism. Also has MAIN as acronym for WWI causes- militarism, alliances, imperialism, nationalism. This was early 90s NY.
57: I hadn't seen the Hillary Actually sketch before. It's good!
But that was after the election. My hatred for Kate
McKinnon's Hillary was all related to my anxieties about the election.
McKinnon, Comey, the NYT, all too many of us let our confidence that there was no way the people would elect Trump excuse a certain cruel obsession with trivialities. My one hope for 2020 is that enough of us have learned the lesson that once Sanders, Biden, Buttigieg, or Gabbard have won the nomination, we cheerlead our way to victory.
What do you mean by "cheerlead"? I'm not sure what lesson you're indicating.
What I mean is to do no harm. None at all. No theatrical holding of noses, no lamentation that the two party system hasn't given us better choices, not utterly idiotic 's/he's just Republican light,' none of it. No participation in any sort of narrative contradictory of or inconsistent with that that our nominee is the goddamn savior of civilization. Every single voter should feel like saving democracy is up to them, because it is.
Yes, definitely. My trash tweeting of Biden will cease if he wins the nomination.
Back in the good old days -- when America was great -- it was well understood in the media that the Negroes were unreasonable, that the Indians weren't even really a thing any more, and that women were happier barefoot and pregnant.
This was especially not true of Reconstruction while it was happening, though.
I haven't read Foner's recent book(s) but he wrote a general history of Reconstruction that I'm sure is somewhat dated now but still probably solid. There's a short version of it too. White's book is probably the most recent synthesis written for a general audience. I just bought a copy but haven't read it.
Thanks for the recs, all! White's Railroaded has been discussed here before, I think?
Also, for anyone hardcore into historiography, Kenneth Stampp's book on Reconstruction is basically a response to the Dunning school, and you can compare what you learned in school to how long ago it was published to get a sense of the lag between the latest research and what gets into curricula.
27: This is not what we were taught. I think that tariffs were covered and we did talk about States Rights in the context of slavery, but the failure of the Radical Republicans was always portrayed as a kind of tragedy. Grant's administration came off as a failure of corruption but there was no love of Andrew Johnson. (I feel like Andrew Jackson got off too easily - particularly with regard to his killing off The Second Bank of the United Ststes.)
We also read Howard Zinn. There was a great little book with excerpts from famous primary sources, and I remember reading Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" against Polk and the Mexican War. In Massachusetts the Concord Transcendentalists loom large, so their views and those of figures like John Brown got a lot of play - at least in the early 90's.
Even in south Louisiana in the mid-80s we got Thoreau and various Transcendentalists.
Whatever we got in 11th grade American History was very fast, and very geared toward the AP test. Our teacher was unaware, or pretended to be unaware, of Schoolhouse Rock when she set "Write as much as you can of the Preamble to the Constitution" as an extra-credit question for the test covering that period.
I'm more understanding of the English teacher who was not familiar with the musical "Hair" when she did something similar for the "What a piece of work is man" speech from Hamlet.
Anyway, my main recollection of HS teaching about Reconstruction is that governance was a mess. Which I am sure it was; when has post-war government ever been less than that. Also too, the notion that Louisiana might not be ruled by warlords/corrupt oligarchy/pirates overlooks a lot of its history outside the Reconstruction era. And by "a lot of" I might mean "all of."
66/67: Yeah, this. I'm going to be throwing a lot of side-eye at the politically involved people who can't get on board with it. But in the mean time, I'm going to be complaining a lot!
As for the shittiness of the two party system, I'm thankful for NYC moving away from FPTP. (And Maine too, but NYC is a bigger domino, despite being sub-state.) The next mayoral election there will be very interesting.
Maybe Bloomberg could do that again?
He clearly needs something to do and I bet people who aren't me would love to see TV commercials about him.
I guess the probably won't let you vote on Brexit.
I don't get to vote on Brexit either, but in a couple of weeks I can boycott Israel i unless someone offers me money not to again.
As with Clinton, I don't think I can honestly advocate for Biden without a little nose-holding theatre and I'm not a good enough actor to convince anyone dishonestly.
When I was in school, in the near-South, we got the standard view of Reconstruction (more or less what was in "Birth of a Nation," minus the cheerleading for the KKK). Some of my fellow students had encountered more progressive views, but they were more or less dismissed as weirdos. I didn't truly encounter pushback on the received wisdom until I was in college (not that I got it in college courses, which didn't cover American History at all, I got from friends and books they recommended).
On the other hand, my kids got the full-court press in school on progressive views via Zinn and others, and still more in college. As bostoniangirl mentions, MA public education is super-huge on Thoreau, the Transcendentalists, the Abolitionists, and so on. There was little or no support or even mention for the "conventional wisdom" views I was taught as a kid. I doubt they push those any more where I grew up, either.
I wonder if the current governor of Nebraska, Mr. Used Dad's Money to Gain Office, still allows Nebraska History classes to be so effusive in praising George Norris?
Maybe I should try to get the Lincoln Airport named after him since La Guardia has an airport named after him and he didn't even get his name first on the labor act.
You know that joke about the doctor and the lawyer spitting in shoes/pissing in drinks? Pakistan really topped that. No link because it's too hard to do on my phone.
80: "MA public education is super-huge on Thoreau, the Transcendentalists, the Abolitionists"
How was it on where all the fiber in those mills of the industrial revolution came from?
83: You're trying to piss into a shoe in Pakistan on your phone?
It's easier than walking down the hall.
I don't think I can honestly advocate for Biden without a little nose-holding theatre
It's pretty inevitable that if you're trying to be part of a majority (or super-majority) coalition in the US, you're going to be associated with some rather unsavory folks. I was conflicted about this at one time in my life, but not any more. I will be able to enthusiastically support Joe against Trump if that becomes necessary.
||
Literally burning books.
|>
90: I guess those officials are in trouble because they were supposed to destroy the books in a more discreet way?
Re: nose-holding and supporting a candidate.
The time when Clinton fainted at the September 11th event was when I switched emotionally from, "I'm glad she'll win and holding my nose slightly. " to "she _has_ to win and that's much more important than any reservations I may have. "
Here's my comment at the time. Re-reading that thread is depressing.
http://www.unfogged.com/archives/comments_15632.html#1912468
Actually, I quite like Hillary Clinton.
84. That's a good question. I don't know how well it is covered in MA public schools. There was a lot more to the industrial revolution in MA (and New England in general) than slavery-produced cotton processed in textile mills. For example, there were a lot of woolen mills, and shoe factories, and so on. Many of the buildings still exist and are now either museums, condos, or the home of tech startups. I don't know what percentage of southern cotton was exported versus processed in the US, either. Certainly one hell of a lot of it was exported (mostly to the UK).
When they cover the industrial revolution, they talk more about "mill girls" and child labor than they do about where the cotton came from, IIRC. (I just looked at a short article from a UK site about cotton mills which has an identical viewpoint. No mention of where the cotton comes from and a focus on the welfare of the laborers in the mills.)
||
A brief glimmer of sanity. I'm sure it will be snuffed out somehow.
|>
Nobody has even come close to getting rid of baseball despite how demonstrably boring it is.
That rumbling sound you might soon hear is a political earthquake. Sen. Daines and Sen. Tester introduced a bill yesterday to (a) ratify the MT/CSKT water compact and (b) turn over the National Bison Range to the CSKT.
Older white evangelicals hate the Compact,* mostly because it is a direct repudiation of the Dred Scott logic that is their actual religion. Passing it was a big priority for Gov. Bullock in the 2015 legislature, and he squeaked it through with the help of just a few Republican renegades. Congressional ratification was widely thought to be impossible.
I don't think turning over the Bison Range was really on anyone's radar. There have been efforts to give CSKT management authority, but the new bill says basically that the land was stolen from the CSKT back in 1908, and gives the whole thing back, lock, stock, barrel, and bison. We're at the Bison Range pretty often (4 or 5 times this year for me, maybe a dozen for the wife) so this might have a small impact on us. (Her federal pass won't work there after the transition, but we buy CSKT passes every year anyway . . .) The precedent is quite a thing to see.**
These issues are huge priorities for the CSKT. You may recall that I played a small role in helping get high CSKT turnout for Tester last year, and everyone understood that Native support was a big factor in his victory. What does this mean for 2020? There's no way that white people turning out for Trump are going to turn their backs on Daines over this. Can he get some Native folks to ticket split? I bet he can. (This isn't Daines' only Native issue going right now: with his active involvement the Little Shell Chippewa are about to succeed in their decades-long quest for federal recognition -- as a rider to the Defense Appropriations bill.)
Whatever would Chief Justice Taney say?
* I'm sure all the rest of you know this stuff, but for the benefit of Mossy, I'll give a short explanation. In the western US, we allocate scarce water based on a priority system, that is based on when the water was first used. The person who is first on the list for the stream gets all the water they need, and the second, on down the list, until the water is gone. If there is only enough water for the first 8 users, and you're number 10, too bad so sad, you get nothing. OK, so what's the priority position for the Native nations, as they seek to develop and use water? They say absolutely first, period. Just a little more than a century ago, in a case arising from a reservation over east of the divide, the US Supreme Court said that when Congress creates an Indian reservation, it is implicitly reserving for the use of Natives sufficient water to accomplish the purposes of the reservation, as of the date the reservation is created. (In most places in Montana, there's no priority difference between the treaty date and 'time immemorial' because settlement followed treaties. This isn't perfectly the case, but widely so.) How much water is that, really? And what do you do with a treaty right to fish in all the usual places -- doesn't this include an implied right to have enough water in the rivers for fish to live?
Anyway, in Montana we've been settling the question of priority and amount by compact over the last 40+ years. A negotiated contract between the state and each tribe, that has to be ratified by the state legislature, the tribal legislature, and Congress. CSKT is the last of the 7 tribes to enter into a compact, in part because of the complexity of various land issues. Also because, unlike plains tribes, CSKT has fishing rights, the compact gives them instream flow rights in rivers far from the reservation. Is this a big goddamn deal to people afraid that the Indians are going to "steal" "their" water?
** Will the Blackfeet be able to recover the eastern third of Glacier National Park? The Badger-Two Medicine area (in the Lewis&Clark National Forest)? You don't have to look far to find people who will tell you that the 1895 deal that took that land from the tribe was no damn good.
Here's a thing from Wiki about the Little Shell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Shell_Tribe_of_Chippewa_Indians_of_Montana#Esens/Little_Shell
Michelle Goldberg gives me permission to feel as bad as I do about everything.
101: Yes, that summarized my pessimistic rants of the other day quite well (21, 24, 25, 28).
To me this is the nut of it
To those who recognize the Trump administration's official lies as such, the scale of dishonesty can be destabilizing. It's a psychic tax on the population, who must parse an avalanche of untruths to understand current events.Bush II admin approached this in several important areas (and arguably more consequentially in the moment ), but I think the complete detachment from any factual anchor and the craven defeat of the press* in the face of that is much more psychologically debilitating debilitating.
*The fracking NYTimes outdid themselves this weekend with multiple utterly unhinged pieces on impeachment and a Peter Baker special Dems in Disarray piece. Fuckers.
Trump's lies, that is. I do know that if I want a blood pressure reading that is close to normal, I need to not read the news for at least an hour prior.
105.last I have doctor's appointment in 45 minutes. And potentially will be lowering my BP medicine dose which I would like so no news for me.
