Here's another chapter of my book, in which I which futilely offered 100+ original or plausible tactics that might have helped win this phase of Civil War. (Last time we had Chapter 2: "Underlying beliefs that most of us share" - And why that may help... even during a 'civil war.')
Now we'll get more confrontational, eviscerating "MAGA" with pure historical and present day facts. Naturally, I could add a lot more ammo to these paragraphs, like in the section answering charges of "socialism!" But I am starting to get the hint. None of our Union generals is at all interested in agility or becoming a Grant or Sherman. We coulda blitzed this, instead of a slog.
Let's pray they at least win.
POLEMICAL JUDO by David Brin A Brazen Guide for Sane Americans To Bypass Trench WarfareAnd Win Our Life or Death Struggle for Civilization
Profiles In Judo - Invoking The Greatest Generation, Jonas Salk, Adam Smith, MLK, Lincoln… and AOC.
The most frustrating recent example of “blue polemical stupidity” is failure to answer MAGA… or the slogan “Make America Great Again.”
A few have tried, using sumo-style opposition, like: “America’s already great!” Oh, that’s a fine counter-slogan, helping our side grunt and shove back at those who demean the nation. But it achieves nothing to undermine MAGA’s power with red masses. It does no judo.
MAGA implies a clear notion of some much better time in the past. So ask a judo question: 'When do you envision that America had its “great” golden age?'
So let Republicans proclaim the 50s! Draw them onto that limb. Get them to charge ahead with oversimplified/romantic notions of a bucolic, better era. This is what judo is for.
Yes, the GGs had greatness. Oh, but there’s a funny thing about those folks in the World War II generation. They voted high taxes on the rich, and the rich patriotically paid. They admired labor unions. They respected teachers and other professionals. They built spectacular universities and infrastructure. Above all, that clade of Americans had one favorite living human, a man venerated by his people, by his fellow citizens. Ask your MAGA cousin who that most-adored 20th Century American was.
The New Lords have spent millions and decades portraying Franklin Delano Roosevelt as satanic. While invoking nostalgia for the “great” American era of the 1940s and 1950s, their propaganda sweeps aside one fact – that every notable aspect of that period was Rooseveltian. A time when - I reiterate - unions thrived, the rich paid taxes, science was admired, and moving forward was in our blood.
Oh, you sour boomers, don’t you dare invoke the Greatest Generation! They were union men, Democrats mostly, held no truck with foppish billionaires, preferred facts over assertions, built giant projects, crafted strong alliances to give the world its first general peace and… oh, yes, can I say it again? Their favorite living human was FDR.
And do you know who followed Roosevelt in that slot? Who was the most-admired American during the 1950s, even more popular than the moderate, FDR-like Dwight Eisenhower? It was a fellow named Dr. Jonas Salk, whose team effort used science and immunization (yes, vaccines) to end a terror that haunted every parent in America. Look it up. The most admired American, in an era that did possess a kind of greatness, at least in potential.
IF NOT THAT GENERATION, WHEN?
Oh, they were far from perfect, my parents and their friends. Their faults were monumental! In fact they were “great” – above all – by overcoming some (not all) of countless ways the fifties etc. sucked! Above all, they emulated the American Founders, and soldiers of a righteous, abolitionist blue Union and others who pushed our fine Experiment forward by not wallowing in nostalgia. Moreover, they raised us to launch from their shoulders, mightily amplifying their accomplishments with creativity, science and rising compassion, while overcoming many of their mistakes and blindnesses. Becoming… greater. And later generations – millennials, Xers etc. – are better still, generally wiser, nicer, calmer, smarter – the best thing we boomers ever did.
No, fanatics, you don’t get the Greatest Generation, who would be appalled by your vague shrill MAGA wails. You must flee from their Rooseveltian era, in search of your earlier “great” time!
How about farther back? Here’s a candidate period – admired by the alt-right and Fox – that’s lauded in a song you might recall:
“Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again!
Didn’t need no Welfare State.
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days!”
Is it 1929 then, that folks at Trump rallies yearn for? Surely oligarchs financing the movement would love to crank-back before FDR. And yet, forget 1929. We all know that’s not it.
It’s 1861, only this time a confederacy that’s victorious. Plantation lords and their fervid vassals and foreign backers finally overcoming the blue forces of science, facts, equality, industry, accountability, abolition and progress. And let’s admit that during this round of civil war (see Chapter 14), with help from a Russian rising czar, the Confederacy took Washington.
Alas, amid dullard ignorance of real history, they ignore the only place where oligarchy’s victory can take us all. To Paris, 1789.
THE ANSWER TO “SOCIALISM!”
Time and again, Blue Leaders have acquiesced to a re-framing of terminology on the political landscape. Fleeing “liberal” into “progressive” for example, then seeing that term equated with “communist.”[2] Of course it’s all ironic, in an era when GOP leaders are in bed with avowed communist dictators and Lenin-raised “ex”-KGB agents who openly mourn the USSR.
A huge and recurring liberal mistake is getting lured into expressing hostility to the markets, enterprises and small businesses and startups that generate the wealth we then use to make things better for all children. Where do the taxes come from that pay for their favorite programs? We’ll get to that apparent contradiction in the next section, and later in Chapter 11.
First, of course the Republican Party plans to use “socialism” against democrats.[3]
A few nationally prominent Democrats, e.g. rising star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have edged toward powerfully invoking the Greatest Generation (GG) with the “Green New Deal.”[4] Later I’ll list 31 reforms that Democrats and decent independents all want, belying press-incited calumnies about ‘bitter division’ between progressives and 'DNC corporatist types' (Chapter 12.) In fact, most items on that list would be covered by saying:
“Let’s bring back much of the social contract that served the white working class so well, in the 40s and 50s! High wages, a rising middle, strong union protections, low wealth disparity, much less cheating-influence by aristocrats, cheap college tuition… infrastructure!... investment in science and so on. Only we’ll update all that to include all races and genders! And yes, while mobilizing against the most deadly enemy threatening our world – looming environmental disaster. And expand the greatest generation’s signature program – Medicare – to at least cover all children till age twenty-five.
“You’d seriously oppose that? The Greatest Generation is spinning in their graves. You aren’t worthy to mention them!”
Oh and let’s be clear – someone please say it aloud – that Dwight Eisenhower made AOC's ‘socialism’ seem tame.[5]
WHO IS BEST FOR ‘FREE ENTERPRISE’?
Now let’s swing from socialism to its purported opposite – enterprise capitalism.
Today’s Blue-Left keeps getting suckered into ceding territory to the Right, allowing them to style themselves as the best friends of creative market economics, the generator of most of the wealth they hope to tax. Among the 2020 candidates, only Elizabeth Warren seemed to grasp what the word “liberal” generally meant, for the last 250 years. She laces her calls for social reforms with this will actually help a competitive market economy to thrive!
In fact, across more than 5000 years of recorded history, far more open-flat-fair-competitive-creative enterprise systems were wrecked by oligarchy – by cheater kings and owner-lords and monopolists – than were ever harmed by moderate, democratic socialism (e.g. Canada or Sweden) or even by murderous Stalinists. Uber-rich cheaters must be denounced as the enemy of enterprise. Which is exactly what Adam Smith said.
Adam Smith? The fellow whose Wealth of Nations (1776) is routinely misquoted by the social darwinist right? Yes, the same sage whose The Theory of Moral Sentimentsdemanded that society’s duty lay in uplifting the poor and enhancing opportunities for talent to thrive. In fact, as I’ll expand in Chapter 11, Democrats should reclaim Adam Smith as one of their own,[6] the core founder of liberalism. (If you actually read him, you’ll understand.) See the point made by Evonomics publisher Steve Roth.[7] We’ll return to Smith several times.
If done right, this could overturn the “libertarian problem” dissected later in the book. But foremost the lesson is: don’t cede any territory to the noxious, undead mad-right.
Especially not the territory of healthy market enterprise, which actually does much better, as a matter of measurable outcomes,[8] across the span of Democratic administrations.
In a reflex that’s encouraged by both left-wing academics and giggling rightist propagandists, young liberals today spurn "capitalism" as a whipping boy term that loses all meaning, though flat-fair-competitive-accountable market enterprise has been the cornucopia goose that's laid our golden eggs, including the confidence to go after ancient crimes like racism and sexism. Yes, there are problems with capitalism! Karl Marx described inherent contradictions that can – unless countered by enlightened rules and referees – lead to the collapse of flat-fair-creative competition.
This was the point when the American Founders seized and redistributed up to one third of the land from lordly grandees. Or take the Progressive Movement circa 1900 whose anti-trust laws shattered a then-looming Gilded Age oligarchy, restoring some competition to American markets. It had to be done again in the 1930s and 1940s, resulting in the flattest and most vibrantly entrepreneurial society and fastest-rising middle class the world ever saw (shocking Marxists!)
Those on the right who scream hate at the word "regulation" are as unwise is the left's reflex to despise "competition." What works is Regulated Competition. And we’ll get into that later.
HATING ON FDR… FROM THE LEFT?
Finally, I expect some of our allies on the far-left to rage at my extolling Franklin Roosevelt. As if even mentioning Adam Smith didn’t cause apoplexy! (That ain’t nothing. Just wait till we get to Chapter 12: “Unreliable Allies.”)
By today’s standards, FDR was bigoted and made some howling-awful decisions, amid a sea of good ones.[9] The same is true of LBJ. And wouldn’t they have recanted mistakes, if informed by the moral advancements we’ve made since? Dig it. What is the best that any leader or citizen can hope for, from posterity?
To be judged as much better than their times. That he or she could see needles had to move, and strenuously helped move them. That they built platforms from which later heroes might climb further. It’s why we (largely) forgive the faults of Washington and Jefferson. It’s what Martin Luther King said of Johnson and Roosevelt… and it’s what we now say about King, knowing many of his then-hidden personal flaws.
Anyone condemning them, while ignoring the good, should read Frederick Douglass's eulogy of Abraham Lincoln. Especially this excerpt:
“I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen.
“Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless.[...]
“Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.”
May you be eulogized so fairly… but ultimately so well.
[1] “Was 1957 America Better Than Today?” I answer right wing adoration of the 1950s. http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2011/10/was-1957-america-better-than-today.html
[2] Back in the 1970s I founded UCSD Liberals and Progressives, till frustrated by that campus’s Marcuse-left, who took joy from Nixon and sorrowed at the “system’s” success at nailing him for crimes.
[3] “Is Socialism Still An Effective Political Bogeyman?” https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-socialism-still-an-effective-political-bogeyman
[4] “When Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts introduced their Green New Deal proposal in February, they chose language loaded with nostalgia for one of the country’s most transformative historical moments, urging the country to undertake “a new national, social, industrial and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/opinion/climate-change-mobilization.html
[5] “Accusations of Socialism” http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2019-04-20T12:29:00-07:00&max-results=2
[6] “Liberals, you must reclaim Adam Smith.” http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2013/11/liberals-you-must-reclaim-adam-smith.html
[7] “It’s Simple! Concentrated Wealth and Inequality Crushes Economic Growth More billionaire dollars, slower growth. Full stop.” http://evonomics.com/its-simple-yes-concentrated-wealth-and-inequality-crushes-economic-growth/
[8] Comparing economic outcomes from Democratic vs. Republican administrations: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2014/06/so-do-outcomes-matter-more-than-rhetoric.html
[9] I am of an ethnicity that suffered because FDR made moral and practical mistakes, and I grew up with Japanese-Americans whose parents endured Manzanar. Still, our parents all knew that every alternative to Roosevelt – across the face of the Earth in those days – would have been worse.
116 comments:
The American problem is not getting people out to vote
A bigger problem is getting them REGISTERED
U.S. voter turnout trails most developed countries (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/)
Despite the headline the figures on that graph paint a different picture
In 2016 -
55.7% of the “voting age population” voted
86.8% of the “Registered Voters” voted
86.8% is really really good - only Australia and Luxembourg beat that number
You guys NEED to work on Voter Registration
THAT is where the votes are lost in America
One thing we would do well to remember is that people change. That they can change, and that people are much more complicated than we are all too often willing to admit.
In addition, we would do well to remember that what we've often heard about certain people isn't always true. Sometimes it is, to some extent, but not always entirely true. Lincoln had his prejudices, yet was still willing and able what turned out to be the right thing in the long run. The same with Jefferson and Adams. We are all products of our times and we can't avoid it, but that doesn't mean we can't improve given the chance.
The 1957 vs. 2010/11 posts and links were interesting to read. Some own ideas (will relate to my own country, but the pattern might be clear):
1957: Max bullies a refugee kid (from the former eastern territories). The principal does nothing.
2011: Max bullies a refugee kid (from Syria), is shunned by his classmates and thrown from the school.
1957: Laura falls in love with her classmate Sarah, who returns her feelings. They get caught, indicted and punished (by the same judges who put LGBT people into concentration camps two decades earlier), and later married off to some men.
2011: Laura and Sarah have a lucky relationship.
1957: Christian is physically and sexually abused in a shelter home operated by the Church. He never gets a school degree, is broken and traumatized for the rest of his life, while his tormentors go free.
2011: Christian enjoys a happy childhood in his shelter home, finishes school and becomes a social worker himself. Shelter homes with a past of child abuse are closed and the staff is convicted.
1957: Maria's father is an unionist and social democrat. She is beaten more often in school than other kids, and receives worse grades. Eventually, she quits without a degree.
2011: Maria attends school and finishes with a degree.
1957: It's early autumn. Hans cannot attend school, because he has to help his parents in the fields from dawn to dusk. He will never make a formalized vocational training.
2011: It's early autumn. Hans attends school. He will study agriculture in a few years.
1957: Erika asks her teacher about the time before 1945. She is beaten by her teacher and never asks again.
2011: Erika doesn't have to ask her teacher about the time time before 1945; it will be discussed in length in German, History and Ethics & Norms (or Religion) classes.
1957: Richard will get his school degree and his allowance to study mainly because his family has a "von" in its name, his father was a Wehrmacht Officer and is now a CDU party member.
2011: Richard will have to strive hard to earn his school degree and his allowance to study. (But, perhaps, still less so than his classmates.)
... and so on. It is remarkable for me because the far right in my country depicts the 1950s as the time anything was in order ... they hate the '68 generation and the changes they brought in the subsequent decades with a hot flaming passion.
Something that holds over to these days (again, only an observation from my country, don't know if it is to the same degree in the US or other english-speaking countries) is the stigmatization of people who suffered sexual abuse, and the protection the perpetrators still enjoy by their communities.
I think the biggest reason our former enemies in Germany and Japan became democracies is that they were conquered by a Roosevelt and not, say, a Bush. If George Marshall is the mastermind of much of the postwar order, it is Roosevelt and Truman who let him do it.
And here's a web page I post every now and then: The hidden history of the United Nations by Dan Plesch.
It's practically a state secret nowadays the Roosevelt and Churchill created the UN to fight fascism. What would the last 70 years look like with no Roosevelt? Probably it would look like one long Trumpworld.
Alfred Differ, from the last thread: "It's not the tech that matters. It's the barbarian's belief that they can change the world that does. There is a reason our current explosive growth came out of the Dutch rebellion against the Habsburgs. Only barbarians would think they could self-rule, let alone fight off a Power possessing a great deal of control spanning oceans."
The area I live in - North-Western Europe - once belonged to the Frisian tribes who had proto-democratic councils and elected chieftains until the 15th century. One of their battlecries was "Eala Frya Frisenia" ("Rise, free Frisians"), answered by "Leever Duad us Slav"("Better to be dead than to be a slave". Many historical leaders from this era - were pirate-rebels who fought feudalization and domination by foreign powers.
Barbarians, indeed.
Alfred Differ under the previous comments:
Only barbarians would think they could self-rule, let alone fight off a Power possessing a great deal of control spanning oceans.
I literally dreamed that I researched the section of the Constitution that describes a possible new Constitutional Convention and that it doesn't say what most people think it does. In my dream, I "learned" that it essentially calls for one do-over. That in more Jeffersonian language, it says that if We The People don't like the way this Constitution is working out, we can try again, and if that still doesn't work, we go back to individual states, each with self-rule.
For those few disoriented minutes upon waking, I actually thought I had found such a thing.
Obviously, that was not real, but in looking up Article V again, I find something else that is somewhat enlightening (bolded portion below). If I'm reading that correctly, the Constitution cannot even be amended to alter the allocation of two Senators per State. It would take a revolution to change that.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Dr Brin quoting Fredrick Douglass on Lincoln:
"...
To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen.
Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless.
..."
And that's what the Bernie wing seems not to understand. To get anything accomplished in a democracy, you have to get buy-in, especially from those who actually vote (and these days, from those who donate to campaigns). Compromise is essential to that process. Sure, "compromise" is a derogatory when it means giving up your core principles just to gain support from people who disagree with those core principles. But compromise meaning giving in when you are able so that others will do the same for you--that's an essential component of our system. If you'll only vote for someone who agrees with your position on every issue, you'll probably never vote at all, and it's likely you'll enable the election of the candidate you'd least prefer.
Going off on a tangent, I hear that Joe Biden is losing support in recent polls because of the violence surrounding BLM protests. I can see why that would be, but it seems like an irrational reaction to me. Even ignoring the fact that much of the violence is perpetrated by Trump types themselves--that is, even if all the rioting and looting were being done by actual BLM protesters--that's a reaction to Trump-era policies themselves. Trump can say "Law and Order!" all he wants, but what is he promising to do about it (and why isn't he already doing it)? His voters probably expect a more militarized crackdown, which would have some effect, but would probably simply escalate the confrontations which are already happening in Trump's America.
Biden's America would be less accepting of the systemic brutality which precipitates these protests in the first place. An old punch line has it, "If it hurts when you do that, don't do that." If the public reaction to police brutality is scary to you, try not engaging in (or supporting) police brutality. People who are afraid of BLM protests and ensuing riots should be voting Trump out of office in droves. But of course, that doesn't fit the narrative. More's the pity.
good remarks. A German Nurse. Interesting. And Alfred that aspect to the amendment clause of the Constitution is weird!
So the 2nd Starship hop is slated for tomorrow, and the 1st SuperHeavy hop for October. SpaceX looking at Lunar payloads soon. So they could be ready to start the Mars train by next Mars launch window (or sooner, with that awesome Raptor engine performance).
My question is, what are the political implications for a Mars colony? Does it automatically become American territory?
@Scidata: "My question is, what are the political implications for a Mars colony? Does it automatically become American territory?"
Copy-Pasted from Wikipedia:
'The Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Uses of Outer Space (1963)
All space exploration will be done with good intentions and is equally open to all States that comply with international law. No one nation may claim ownership of outer space or any celestial body. Activities carried out in space must abide by the international law and the nations undergoing these said activities must accept responsibility for the governmental or non-governmental agency involved. Objects launched into space are subject to their nation of belonging, including people. Objects, parts, and components discovered outside the jurisdiction of a nation will be returned upon identification. If a nation launches an object into space, they are
responsible for any damages that occur internationally.'
Since the treaty was signed by the US, it could be considered to be a law of the land, unless, of course, you have an adminstration that does not care about international, multilateral agreements.
Since the treaty was signed by the US, it could be considered to be a law of the land, unless, of course, you have an adminstration that does not care about international, multilateral agreements.
Was it ratified by the US? If not, then they don't consider themselves bound by it. Even with an administration that cares about treaties.
The current one would probably break it just to show they could.
Larry,
No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its EQUAL Suffrage in the Senate.
That means we could...
1. Amend to allow for three or more senators for each State.
2. Allow for a State in open rebellion to have no representation.
We've done the second, but not the first.
As for the other two protected clauses, the first one fell to a statute the first day it could fall. The second required and amendment that finally happened in 1913 as we began our 20th century transformation into an empire.
I used to think a Convention would be a good idea to fix a number of things, but I grew up. If we open that door, a lot of batshit crazy stuff will happen. I have little doubt that the final result would have a clause imposed making us formally a Christian nation. People have been trying for that since forever with a BIG push during the Civil War. [It's right afterward that the national motto started showing up on the coins. It was an 1867 concession by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Abolitionists for their support during the Civil War. Damn thing finally got enshrined in 1907. After that, our coinage slowly shifted from depictions of Liberty to God & Presidents.]
scidata,
The Outer Space Treaty (OST) forbids us from claiming celestial bodies as sovereign territory along with many other limitations.
While I favor keeping to the limitation preventing us from claiming other bodies as sovereign territory, I AM in favor of abandoning certain other clauses of the treaty. There is ambiguity caused by OST about whether we can own property out there. I REALLY don't like the notion that my government can trade away my right to own property where it has no sovereign rights. It CAN choose not to recognize by ownership claims, but it should not be able to prevent them without due cause. During the Cold War, I could accept that they had due cause. Not anymore.
I AM willing to support clauses forbidding deployment of nuclear weapons out there, but not forever. If we are going to keep any at all, I'd rather they were mostly out there.
OST is a Cold War treaty made when there was a very real threat of WWIII happening. Times have changed.
A German Nurse:
Since the treaty was signed by the US, it could be considered to be a law of the land, unless, of course, you have an adminstration that does not care about international, multilateral agreements.
Trump will certainly declare it to be a "terrible deal" and try to renegotiate a better one.
TCB under the previous comments:
But, myself, having been born and raised in a pretty right-wing corner of Unistat, and having left for Massachusetts as I came of age (recalling Dr. Brin's oft-repeated comment on colleges stealing the hearts and minds of Middle America's children)... well, I discovered that the coolest and smartest and truest people I met were, ummmm, NOT on the political right... ever...
Historically, the authorities have been enforcers of conformity, even when that is not a requirement written into law. And not just police, but employers and teachers and the like were expected to harshly judge those who deviated even trivially from expected roles. Not to mention religious leaders. The very recent age is more tolerant of petty quirks like "dressing funny" that in other times and/or places could get you arrested or beaten by the gendarmes.
There's a scene in the movie Dial M For Murder--this is probably the only thing I remember about that film--in which a policeman has retrieved a lady's purse, and for some reason I forget, intends to rush down the sidewalk after her with the purse in hand. His partner stops him with the comical line, "You can't walk down the street like that. You'll be arrested!" It's a funny line now, or even when I saw the film in the 80s, but when the film was made, it was probably more "funny because it's true".
I still remember the time when "hard hats" beat up anti-war hippies. These were not even cops--just working stiffs in testosterone-laden jobs, and they felt the social order was getting out of hand, and it was incumbent upon them to enforce social standards. Doubtless, Tucker Carlson would have opined, "Are we surprised that working men take it upon themselves to protect our delicate sensibilities when no one else would?"
Alfred Differ:
I used to think a Convention would be a good idea to fix a number of things, but I grew up. If we open that door, a lot of batshit crazy stuff will happen. I have little doubt that the final result would have a clause imposed making us formally a Christian nation.
I'm worried about worse than that from the right-wing (who almost had enough state legislatures to enact and ratify one, but I think they've thankfully lost some ground).
While calling the US a "Christian Nation" would be a largely symbolic move, like making English the "official language", it would be terrible symbolism which would probably encourage much in the way of extra-legal interpretations. And I've said before that if such an amendment were proposed, it would probably pass ratification in all 50 states. I mean, who would dare publicly vote against it?
https://twitter.com/testamonk/status/1299798765122072577
SCHRODINGER'S LEFTIST
A thought experiment invented by conservatives in which people on the political left are simultaneously a group of cowardly, weak snowflakes AND terrifying, violent thugs
Yes it is very wierd. It is almost as if they feared the opposite - that a state would have its delegation reduced by other states ganging up on it. These parties didn't trust each other.
Larry, are you certain that's a joke?
The terrifying, violent thugs on the right are afraid — one reason for their attacks. One can be a coward, morally/mentally weak, and a violent thug all at the same time.
It hasn't escaped my attention that most of the right-wing protestors in the US make a point of heavily arming themselves before they go out and bravely confront unarmed opponents. They certainly aren't the ones risking their lives for a cause.
@Larry Hart:"And that's what the Bernie wing seems not to understand. To get anything accomplished in a democracy, you have to get buy-in, especially from those who actually vote (and these days, from those who donate to campaigns). Compromise is essential to that process."
I have a slightly different perspective.
In a working, healthy representative democracy, the overwhelming majority of voters should have a meaningful choice. From my perspective, in the US, you have only two meaningful choices: Far Right (Republican) and Everyone Else Led By Center Right Establishment (Democrats). Naturally, there will be a lot of people feeling that they are not represented at all.
Also, I think there is an ideal number of politically relevant parties that have to a exist to form such a democracy. I believe it to be somewhat between 4-8 political parties: Enough to have meaningful choices, but not so many that, later making decisions and forming governments becomes a chore and the compromises become too watered down.
Three parties would make the smallest relevant party to be a kingmaker, giving them more power than they, by representation, should have.
A two-party system might lead to a civil war. (Some examples: the late years of the Roman Republic*; Left vs. Right in Spain and South America; Guelphs and Ghibellines in the medieval Italian republics.) It surely leads to polarization and hinders compromising.
Compromise is important, but you'll actually have to have SOME form of progress, and you'll need to get the water out of the ship before it sinks. And compromises never should lead to agreeing to fix one hole in the hull by opening up another one.
Second, I see a problem in the "The Winner Takes it all" philosophy of determining the results of elections in itself. If 50+X of votes cast determines the outcome of an election, and effectively totally nullifying the voices, grievances and concerns of the remaining 50-X%, you will have problems with achieving an overarching societal support for your policies. Hence, more polarization.
Perhaps a solution would be in selecting electoral college members and legislators by direct vote AND by their relative results in the popular vote, doubling (or tripling?) their number. That would have the side effect that every state suddenly becomes a battleground state, that gerrymandering is pushed back in effectiveness, and that the two big parties would have to make alliances with third parties to obtain the presidency or the majorities to pass laws; I assume third parties would gain more votes if they were a meaningful choice and faithless electors less of a problem.**
Finally, if campaign donations by billionaires (and other countries, so it seems) determine who becomes a political candidate in the first place and who not, can we actually speak of a working, healthy democracy anymore? I doubt so.
*I see more parallels between the Roman Republic civil wars and the American civil war; both happened during a transitional period from an agricultural society to a military hegemony (with the beginning industrialization added to the situation in the US). Perhaps there is even a parallel in the political significance of armed service members and veterans now and then.
** A quick calculation using the results of 2016 showed that Trump would still have won the majority of EV would have been doubled, one half going to the overall victor and the other half divided proportionally by popular vote. Perhaps, just perhaps, if Bernie Sanders would have been the candidate of a social democratic party instead of the Democrats, he could have activated more of the Left, and endorsed Clinton after the election - but this is too much useless speculation.
Jeez, I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this...
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-trump-biden-republican-national-convention-violence-america-huppke-20200828-m2u6fq3f7fadfinyftpusq44dy-story.html
...
Trump’s main campaign argument is this: “You see all this horrible stuff going on right now? If you elect Joe Biden, the horrible things happening in America right now will happen.”
...
Today's Chicago Tribune is full of various reactions to out-of-control protests hurting Democrats' chances.
Resident right-wing columnist John Kass weighs in like Tucker Carlson:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-biden-protests-rand-paul-john-kass-20200829-zvxaz5iotbbp3pssvs7kbwrtna-story.html
President Donald Trump seeks to take advantage, rightfully wrapping urban violence and Democratic calls to defund police around Biden’s candidacy. Will it hurt Biden in key suburban precincts of vital battleground states like Wisconsin?
Resident liberal columnist Eric Zorn correctly warns of tactical stupidity:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/eric-zorn/ct-column-ctu-bezos-trump-health-care-zorn-20200828-7nvq3wfn2bdf5at5kg5shsj5jy-story.html
...
Screaming in the faces of your allies to try to bully them into representing their unquestioning support for you not only risks alienating those who are inclined to be sympathetic, or at least open-minded to the cause, but it also risks energizing those who are skeptical about your agenda. Ditto joking about murdering plutocrats.
...
Lefties have one job in the next two months — to work to vote Trump out of office. If they fail in that, in part by feeding the narrative of chaos and lawlessness peddled by the right, their other efforts will have been in vain.
But the must-read is humor columnist Rex Huppke's decidedly non-humorous column on the elephant in the room. I wish I could post the entire thing here:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-jacob-blake-kenosha-black-lives-matter-huppke-20200827-4u6gfrwbabfl5acgyciveo5bla-story.html
...
So I’m going to write some things I shouldn’t have to write:
I don’t believe a Black man should be shot seven times in the back by a cop. I don’t believe any person should be shot seven times in the back by a cop.
I don’t believe Jacob Blake would have been shot seven times in the back by a cop if he was a white man. Not a chance.
I don’t care if Jacob Blake had, as the Wisconsin Department of Justice reported Wednesday, a knife in his vehicle. Blake had opened the driver’s side door and was leaning in when the officer shot him seven times in the back. That’s neither self-defense nor justice — it’s nearly an execution.
If the person leaning into that vehicle was Kyle Rittenhouse and if the teenager had a knife in the vehicle, I don’t believe for a second that police officer would have shot him seven times in the back. If white people were honest with themselves, they would, to a person, agree.
...
As a white man, I don’t believe for a moment I can grasp what Black people in America are feeling right now.
I don’t believe I’ll ever worry about being shot by a police officer. I don’t believe I’ll ever worry about my children being shot by a police officer.
So I don’t believe it’s my place, in any way, shape or form, to weigh in on how Black people or people of color react after seeing Jacob Blake shot seven times in the back by a cop. Or after seeing George Floyd killed on the street under the knee of a white officer.
...
Stonekettle on Twitter, responding to Ted Cruz posting an image of rioters labeled as "Joe Biden's America" :
You are LITERALLY showing us America under Trump and Republicans like YOU, @tedcruz .
Now, I know you're not stupid. So, the only [way] to interpret this is that you think your supporters ARE.
And on that point, we agree.
A German Nurse:
In a working, healthy representative democracy, the overwhelming majority of voters should have a meaningful choice. From my perspective, in the US, you have only two meaningful choices: Far Right (Republican) and Everyone Else Led By Center Right Establishment (Democrats).
Kinda like the set-up at the start of World War II. Axis powers vs everyone else.
Naturally, there will be a lot of people feeling that they are not represented at all.
I can't disagree with you there. I've often said that in a functional democratic system, if your view is held by 10% of the public, you should expect to get your way approximately 10% of the time. Instead, we've got parties who can get their way either 100% of the time or 0% of the time, and fight each other tooth and nail for the 100% slot.
Democracy works best when people are aligned differently over different issues. You might disagree with your neighbor over tax policy but agree on abortion. You might vote for a candidate who echoes your view on 70% of issues even while disagreeing with him on 30%. The more all issues become aligned with each other so that the same battle lines are drawn on every issue, the less efficient democracy is at enacting public policy. Instead of national consensus, each party aims at eking out just enough individual votes to win without consideration of the concerns of the rest of the population. That's a recipe for eventual revolution--and for fascism as a short-sighted attempt to ward off that revolution.
Would you be surprised to know that I blame the news media for a lot of this mess. Because their money is made in the "horse race", they have a financial interest in the election being a cliff-hanger right down to the wire. So whenever one candidate gets too far ahead in the polls, they start reporting on issues in such a way to bring the margin back down to within five points or so. I first noticed this in the 2008 primary contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton--whenever (say) Obama was too far ahead in the polls, suddenly every story about him was presented in a bad light until (say) Hillary caught up again. Because of that, I used to actively predict the same thing during the Obama-McCain election cycle, and was not surprised to be proven correct.
I'm almost relieved that Biden is starting to lose ground now when there's plenty of time to do something about that. If it had been "Biden leads by 30 points" all the way to October, I'd be more terrified of the inevitable October Surprise that would turn the polls on their heads at the last minute.
From my perspective, law enforcement is taking some heat that should be directed at municipal leadership, that has, apparently, led law enforcement to believe extra judicial shootings are desirable, that those with access to the Government's ears wish it so. If enough business owners decide profits are preferable to white supremacy, we may see change*.
*Not soon enough, if anyone bleeds, we all bleed a little and the Nation's getting anemic.
...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
In my naive, lay interpretation, I always thought amendments were literal, i.e. crossing out a line in the Constitution and/or adding something new.
I don't understand why you suggest this line in particular is safe from that process. AFAICT, the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to declare amendments unconstitutional, though it appears never to have been tested.
Atomsmith:
I don't understand why you suggest this line in particular is safe from that [Constitutional Amendment] process.
Because the line is part of the very clause of the Constitution which authorizes amendments and formally describes the DNA of the amendment process itself. Almost literally: "The Constitution can be amended by 2/3 blah blah blah or by convention blah blah blah as long as such amendments don't mess with A or B."
In the hypothetical case of "What happens if the Senate and the States pass such an amendment anyway?", no court would have to rule the amendment "unconstitutional" as such. Any court in the land could rule that the amendment is as null and void as the Equal Rights Amendment, because it hasn't been passed according to the Constitutional procedure. Not the part of the procedure which says how many Senators and how many states are needed, but the part that says that no amendment can mess with A or B. The question of the amendment's validity would no different from "What happens if only 51% of the states ratify an amendment?"
Tim H:
From my perspective, law enforcement is taking some heat that should be directed at municipal leadership, that has, apparently, led law enforcement to believe extra judicial shootings are desirable,
Perhaps, but there's also a reinforcing feedback loop involved. If municipal leadership desires practices that attract Donald Trump's "tough people" to the police profession, then that's who occupies those jobs, whether or not the municipal leaders change their minds.
Atomsmith:
the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to declare amendments unconstitutional, though it appears never to have been tested.
I think it's pretty well established that they don't have such authority.
However, if they rule that the ACA is unconstitutional on the grounds that its constitutionality rests on the penalty for not signing up, and that the penalty was removed by statute, then they have a sneaky backdoor way of doing something like that.
After all, in rational world, if a duly passed law depends for its constitutionality on a single component (in this case, the penalty), and then Congress passes a law removing that component, the removal should be declared unconstitutional, not the rest of the established law which hasn't been altered.
I know I've said this before, but that doesn't stop anyone else :)
If they'd put frickin nose-cones on those hopping Starships, they might swing enough people to turn Texas blue. I'm sure those beautiful spaceships on 1950s SF magazine and book covers inspired many to look up at the night sky and imagine a non-nihilistic future. It's not enough to dispel fear, one must also inspire hope.
Atomsmith (reprise) :
I don't understand why you suggest this line in particular is safe from that [Constitutional Amendment] process.
I explained that above, but I did think of a loophole which might allow what you are talking about. First, a separate amendment would have to be passed which repealed the part of Article V which prohibits amendments from affecting equal representation in the Senate. Then another amendment could pass affecting equal representation in the Senate.
If the founders had wanted to make that exclusion ironclad, they would have had to specify (bold portion added) :
...Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate; and that no Amendment shall allow changes to these exclusions in the Fifth Article.
Kind of the way a genie doesn't allow your third wish to be for 100 more wishes. :)
I've been reading Thomas Philippon's recent book The Great Reversal: How America Gave Up On Free Markets. He presents some very useful analysis on the difference between the "flat-fair-competitive-accountable market enterprise" and the oligopoly cases that are now so widespread. May be useful in distinguishing between crony capitalism and the real thing.
Rick Ellrod
Okay, I put out a call on FB and no one could recall seeing it, so I gotta ask you brainiacs. WAS THERE A VIDEO REAGAN TRIBUTE AT THE RNC?
There has to have been one! Reagan was their deity. Here's one reason it may have been excluded: 'Reagan Foundation asks Trump campaign and RNC joint fundraising committee to stop using Reagan's likeness in fundraising pitch.'
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/26/politics/reagan-foundation-trump-republican-national-committee-fundraising/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0W1lO4Swpo1FRHebeHsnbGPdxP2pz3Vh36SVCcrm-Do7zyXcg5i-f1QRE
But if it's true (!) then what is more insane? This heresy or... the utter drooling insanity of democrats for not exploiting it?
Seriously, ask around? Maybe there was such a tribut tucked into the wee hours?
Larry,
then they have a sneaky backdoor way of doing something like that
Won't work. One thing that has been tested in Court very early in our history is the power of Congress to limit itself. What one Congress passes, another has the power to alter or repeal. Self imposed limits must pass through amendments to the Constitution.
The SCOTUS decided long ago that it can't use a law passed earlier to limit Congress later when it is clear that the later Congress intends to alter the earlier law. Doing so would cause the Court to be the actual Legislature by power of what gets approved by them.
Also, if you go to the trouble of reading legislation and regulations, you'll find many of them have a section that looks just like the 'separability' clauses you'll find in a lot of private contracts. The point of these clauses is to make clear to a future Court that striking down any one part of a law/regulation/contract does not invalidate other parts. Doesn't always work, but they DO try. Often.
A German Nurse,
Two points…
1. We sorta DO have more than two parties. Look inside any of the major parties and you'll find factions in uneasy alliance. Those factions DO jostle around and occasionally leave one party for the other. Our ACTUAL third parties are the ones unwilling to ally, thus they tend to be small an ineffective most of the time. When your ranks are composed of purists, few political compromises can occur.
2. Don't think of our Executive as the leader of the winning coalition of our Legislature. We aren't a parliamentary system. Through much of our early history, the President was actually pretty weak. Real power was found in Congress. That didn't shift much until after our Civil War as we began to imagine ourselves as a Power to rival any of the European empires. Even then, we were inclined to be isolationists until we had to get involved in Europe's world wars. There is a HUGE difference between Congress and Executive. Don't fall for our current autocrat's desire for this to be otherwise. 8)
We function better as a nation when our Executive is NOT also the leader of the party holding power in Congress. By 'better' I mean we do less as a Government and more as a People. [When that ideal seems far out of reach, we try for 'do less as a collection of disjoint State governments' and more as a frothy market composed of cultural coalitions.]
Regarding Reagan and the Trump campaign, the most recent information I can find is from the Reagan Foundation. It's a cease-and-desist message informing the campaign they may not raise money using Reagan's name or likeness. (Happened in late July)
Since the WH event wasn't the actual GOP convention, it would count as a campaign event. The cease-and-desist would apply... so I'd look to the Reagan Foundation for any reaction to a tribute. They'd know if it happened or not.
Dr. Brin: The following NYT article says that there was barely any mention of Ronald Reagan during the RNC convention. In fact, it suggests that Trump doesn’t like to acknowledge any president preceding him. I also read recently that he had Clinton’s and G.W. Bush’s presidential portraits moved recently from a main hall to a storage room.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/politics/trump-rnc-missing-former-presidents.html
Larry, Larry, Larry... then Alfy, Alfy, Alfy
that is what comments in your blog would look like... without us, anonimuses. ;P
You need us. Davy. ;P Admit it. Can you? Really, can you admit at least one undeniable factual truth, today? ;P
How SAD that we live in a time when the snarky last sentence below is "funny because it's true". And that one of our major parties is probably saying to itself without shame or irony, "Yup. Cheating is our Plan A", and plotting strategies on how to suppress the vote.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Aug31.html#item-1
The bottom line is that Trump needed a big bounce and didn't get it. He either got a small one, or no bounce at all. He'll get one more big shot at it at the first debate, in Cleveland on Sept. 29. If that doesn't work, then cheating in one form or another (e.g., shutting down the Postal Service on Oct. 15) is all that's left.
the hanged man:
The following NYT article says that there was barely any mention of Ronald Reagan during the RNC convention. In fact, it suggests that Trump doesn’t like to acknowledge any president preceding him.
Appropriately enough, since Reagan was president in 1984. "We have always been against the policies of Ronald Reagan. We have always revered Donald Trump."
Dr Brin:
what is more insane? This heresy or... the utter drooling insanity of democrats for not exploiting it?
In the world we live in, not the one we wish we lived in, I think it's long past time to accept that the Democratic Party is not capable of getting themselves elected by virtue of their campaigning skills. If we want to oust Trump and Republicans, we've got to get Democrats elected in their place, despite the Democrats' own half-assed attempts at their own campaigns.
Democrats are like the Chicago Cubs, in that they often seem like they're trying sabotage their own chances, and when they do manage to win the big event, they wait 108 years to do it again.
What more needs to be said?
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Aug31.html#item-2
Trump knows that his base of non-college white men just lap this [attack tweets] up like a kitten in front of a saucer of cream. They hate protesters and Black activists and liberal Democratic mayors, and having the president screaming at them doesn't erase the fact that they have lost their job, can't make next month's rent, or feed their family, but the psychological gratification of watching him go after people they hate makes them feel better. Who needs food when you can live off hate?
@Larry Hart, I have some confidence that municipal leadership is likely to have limits to the financial suffering they're willing to endure for the sake of neo-fascism, and they're unlikely to be reticent when the line is crossed. Liability insurance policies may play a role there.
Serious question--Why is it so expected that putting Kanye West on the ballot will take votes away from Biden when Kanye is a known Trumpist? If they like Kanye for his stand on issues, wouldn't they have otherwise voted for Trump? If they like Kanye because he's trying to help Trump, wouldn't they already have not been voting for Biden?
I can almost see it as an attempt to split the black vote, but I'd also think that any black voters who would cast a vote for Trump-loving Kanye probably would have stayed home otherwise. That is, they wouldn't have been Biden voters in the first place, and they still won't be Trump voters.
But then I also didn't understand how Gary Johnson supposedly siphoned votes away from Hillary last time. So can someone please explain the reasoning?
Dr. Brin, I have no details on Reagan @RNC, but it's likely their Overton window has spun past Reagan. Which suggests another issue, they've been purging the "Insufficiently conservative" the last several years, to the extant that they are no longer in possession of a deep bench and are substituting compliant apparatchiks, rather than accept the risk of appointing, for instance, a "Paleocon".
I would say that the instigators of the conservative movement forgot about humanities habit of taking a concept and running with it, far beyond the point where it stops making sense.
@Alfred Differ: "When your ranks are composed of purists, few political compromises can occur."
I agree with you. But on the other hand, the dominance of the great parties due to "Winner takes it all" might lead to a system that hinders inter-party diversity of opinions and the formation of "Wings"* within these small parties. Most people want their vote to count somehow, and thus side with a more influential party. Small parties thus have a greater chance to become echo chambers.
Parties can change over the time, especially if they have to participate in governing the country. Take the German Greens, for example. They started as a civil rights movement during the 1968s, and attracted quite a bunch of radical environmentalists, aged hippies, pacifists, esoterics and social utopians. That slowly changed when they participated first in state government in the 80's and in the federal government from 98-05; the party most opposed to warfare by principle agreed to participate in the NATO wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan. It nearly destroyed the party from the inside.
*As we call those inter-party coalitions in Germany. As of now, all parties represented in the Bundestag except for the Libertarians have 2-4 visible wings with opposing views and philosophies, 13 to 15 in total.
Kinda like the set-up at the start of World War II. Axis powers vs everyone else.
From Grandeour Bustard History level of knowledge?
Yep. Sure. :)
Most people here probably saw this years ago, but as a refresher, here is CGP Grey's nice video on how First Past The Post aka Winner Take All elections end up with just two parties. The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
Just when you thought you knew all the ugly details of Trump/Russia, and how the investigation of Trumps treason was botched: Rod Rosenstein, NY Times reports, made sure the DOJ did not 'follow the money' and he did not tell the FBI he was kneecapping the probe.
There are indeed No Good Republicans.
A German Nurse:
From Grandeour Bustard History level of knowledge?
I'm not familiar with the expression, but if you mean anything close to "From an insular American level of historical knowledge", then I'd have to cop to it. :)
Dr. Brin:
This post ...
Anonymous A German Nurse said...
Kinda like the set-up at the start of World War II. Axis powers vs everyone else.
From Grandeour Bustard History level of knowledge?
Yep. Sure. :)
7:38 AM
was not made by me. A troll captured my moniker. Hope no one is offended.
Tim H:
I have no details on Reagan @RNC, but it's likely their Overton window has spun past Reagan.
In a way, that's so obvious as to go without saying.
But given that the entire Republican campaign strategy for decades now has been to portray oneself as the heir apparent to Ronald Reagan*, the fact that they can assert the unimportance of the Gipper to themselves is very 1984ish.
* As recently as 2012, every single Republican candidate at the debates asserted how he agreed on all policies with Ronald Reagan. In fact, it wasn't really a "debate" because they weren't disagreeing on anything.
And who can forget Mike Pence in 2016 telling an evangelical crowd that of all people, Donald Trump reminded him of...Ronald Reagan?
This post: "Larry, Larry, Larry... then Alfy, Alfy, Alfy…"
Not made by me. From the style, the same pathetic troll who used "A German Nurse" just now.
Der Oger hi, are you the earlier "A German Nurse" and shall I spam that moniker from now on? Too bad, I liked it. The obsessive self-justifying desperation of nasty people is one of the human traits that might deny us the stars.
In other matters, I have been seeing reports of recent Trump stumbles and physical signs of deterioration. It is vital that dems game out what to do if he martyrs himself: "They were so mean to me and I have worked so hard on your behalf that I am on the verge of collapse. Blame the libs. Avenge me!"
Dr Brin:
It is vital that dems game out what to do if he martyrs himself
The Attorney General for New York State might have a solution to that. If--and I mean if we really know for certain--he's terminal or at least about to be enfeebled into harmlessness, New York State could offer immunity to his kids on the various crimes they're about to be indicted for, conditioned upon his not calling for armed insurgency while in office and his public acceptance of a peaceful transition. The fine legal wording to be worked out by those who have actually passed the bar.
Der Oger, i.e., the real German Nurse:
Hope no one is offended.
Heck, I was willing to accept the criticism even if it was from you.
Ordinarily on this date, I'd be waxing wistful about transitioning from the six consecutive months that have fewer-than-seven letters in their (English language) names into the six consecutive months with seven-or-more letters.
However, it's a bit hard to be nostalgic for these particular past six months, and if the next six provide us a new president and (even better!) Senate, then it's worth forging ahead. The world is upside down, and we're living in the age of the unprecedented, so why not?
Dr Brin:
...and shall I spam that moniker from now on? Too bad, I liked it.
The same troll would probably just pretend to be someone else here. He probably already does that every so often with a different name each time.
Banning a particular pseudonym is a little like...well, remember that Deep Space Nine episode where Changelings had infiltrated earth and replaced influential earthers with shape-shifters pretending to be them? And the panicked earth authorities were forcing everyone to have their blood tested to see if they were in fact Changelings? And I was shouting at my tv screen, "Just because someone is not a Changeling today doesn't mean they won't be replaced tomorrow! Or next week! You can't just test everyone once and be done with it."?
It's the same with a self-selected pseudonym.
Also with a negative COVID-19 test, but that's another rant.
The right-wing in a country that has COVID largely under control wants the countries who can't accomplish that to "save" them in a bizarro-world reenactment of WWII in which the neo-Nazis in Germany side with the US and Russia.
Words fail me.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/31/opinion/germany-covid-lockdown-protests.html
On Saturday, around 38,000 people marched in Berlin, calling for an end to pandemic restrictions. It was a bizarre mix of people: families and senior citizens were joined by right-wing extremists, some sporting swastika tattoos. Protesters brandished signs reading “Take off the slave masks,” while others held up peace flags. Many shouted “We are the people” and others called on President Trump and President Vladimir Putin of Russia to “liberate” Germany.
Alfred - your statement that divided government (Presidency in the hands of one party, Congress in the other party) is better for our nation demands proof. So, what is the evidence for your (loony) assertion? On what basis do you define "better for our nation" as gridlock?
It is vital that dems game out what to do if he martyrs himself: "They were so mean to me and I have worked so hard on your behalf that I am on the verge of collapse. Blame the libs. Avenge me!"
I would think the answer would be, "If you weren't tough enough to take on the toughest job in the world, with all the pushback and criticism that comes with it, why did you run for it in the first place? I thought you were a 'stable genius.'" :)
Dr. Brin, I am almost convinced that Trump martyring himself is actually not a worst-case scenario. It begins to look as if the Grim Reaper is the only legal authority he cannot buy. Trump's knack for chaos magick is unusually powerful, and whichever Republican inherits his throne might be a little less good at it, and a little less completely owned by Vlad Putin.
I do not, in any event, buy arguments of the form "X must not happen because then the Bad Guys will be able to use it to justify their actions." This is a realization I came to in re: tax exemptions for churches. The warning I have heard a hundred times was that "We must not tax churches because then they can get involved in politics." But the churches, especially the evangelical right wing, have flouted this agreement with increasing impunity and impudence. Not only do many of them politick from the pulpit, and pay no taxes, but in recent years religious institutions and parochial schools have been lining up to receive taxpayer money, which they are not supposed to be able to get. This year that gimme-grabbing included at least $6 billion in COVID relief, and they're hoping for more.
So, as I see it, bad actors don't need excuses, they will fabricate them if needed. If we should not do a thing for other, better reasons, then so be it. But if the reason is merely "Don't provoke them!" then that's inoperative. They don't need provoking to do what they will anyway. In my example case, tax exemptions for churches, the given reason is merely "Don't provoke them!" and I say "Yes, provoke them! To hell with them! Tax the fillings out of their teeth!"
@ Larry Hart, re: Kanye. Maybe it doesn't matter if the Kanye gambit works at taking away Biden votes or not. It still serves a couple of purposes: it could sow an extra quantum of FUD about the true vote count, and it also eats up some column inches and news minutes that might have been spent on TrumpGOP's many scandals, such as the new Rosenstein revelations.
Dr. Brin: Yes, I am "A German Nurse". I'd like to keep that moniker, but haven't figured it out how to create a second blogger identity, it is somehow tied to my Google account. The one I currently use is my alias in the gaming sub-cyberspace, and I normally keep my various online identities separated.
Don't spam it. If an impostor will rise again, I'll use this account to clarify what I said and what not .
If I do not react in time, and something ugly happens, and people get offended, please feel free to spam it, though.
Great Idea Biden / Harris should claim to be the real heirs to the Regan Legacy, I mean they already have the neocon torture using, war mongering a-holes on board with the Biden / Harris ticket. And the Russia gate stuff brought in the old cold warriors. Now that the republicans have repudiated their past it is time for the corporate democrats to claim it. There are suburban security mom's out there and the corporate dems are going for them.
Unite Professional Managerial Class and keep the unclean working class out government! (they are just dumb racists anyway)
While the German Nurse hijacking took my auto filter by surprise, it is now flagging even hijackings. (It's very good!) But I let through the faked "Robert" to show you what our pathetic obsessive-compulsive tries to do almost daily, taking vastly more time than I take to glance at the spam filter and flush. That he would consider himself justified to steal from other people only proves our rightness in not wanting his pollution here. Alas, since at the very beginning, I actually found some perspectives interesting! I hope he will get the help he needs and maybe someday return to adult society.
Jim, just because the rats who have deserted the Trumpian ship say "vote Biden so we all can live!" that does not mean reciprocal endorsement by Biden. Seriously? You actually went down that path? Good lord. What a Yoda you are. And that's no compliment.
We allied with the USSR against the far worse Nazis. Did that make us commies? Drivel.
jim:
Now that the republicans have repudiated their past it is time for the corporate democrats to claim it.
Whatever works.
TCB:
I do not, in any event, buy arguments of the form "X must not happen because then the Bad Guys will be able to use it to justify their actions." This is a realization I came to in re: tax exemptions for churches.
The realization came for me when Harry Reid left the filibuster for supreme court nominees intact only to watch Mitch McConnell blow it up when it suited him. There is absolutely no reason to cede any power to Republicans on the grounds that one day we'll need to use it ourselves, when they have no compunction about undermining that very justification.
If a Democratic Senate is elected this time, I expect the filibuster to be eliminated entirely on Day 1. There is absolutely no reason not to do so and every reason to do so.
I wonder what it's like to be inside NOAA, NASA, the CDC, the FDA, etc, etc these days. Leadership's sudden collapse of scientific integrity is well beyond disgusting. The temple of Athena has been replaced by a vat of jellyfish.
Hands up everyone who's going to be first in line for the Dear Leader's rushed, untested vaccine. An interesting conundrum for the orange one:
1) take it and hope there are no "I am Legend" effects
2) don't take it but lie and say you did and hope that you don't get sick (bigly awkward)
3) don't take it and hope no one cares about the flagrant hypocrisy
4) delay and equivocate until after the election
matthew,
Dude. If you need that explained, you aren't a liberal.
Most of what our nation does comes from The People.
Larry,
If a Democratic Senate is elected this time, I expect the filibuster to be eliminated entirely on Day 1. There is absolutely no reason not to do so and every reason to do so.
I think they should say so before the election.
Biden has already made a statement concerning election interference and what his administration will do about it.
I think Senate Democrats should do something similar... NOW.
@Larry Hart: "The right-wing in a country that has COVID largely under control wants the countries who can't accomplish that to "save" them in a bizarro-world reenactment of WWII in which the neo-Nazis in Germany side with the US and Russia."
Yes, it is disturbing. But not surprising. It is a weird mixture of conspiracy theories (my favored one: Bill Gates initiated the pandemy, via G5 transmitters, he wants us all being chipped with tracking devices under the guise of a vaccination.), esoteric anti-vaxers and the usual right-wing stuff.
They have had strong ties to the Neonazi scene in the US and in Russia even before Trump and Q-Anon. Free Speech, access to weapons and forbidden paraphernalia etc. Putin invests in these fringe groups and parties, so, no surprise here, too.
The Berlin state administration tried to forbid the protests, but the courts rescinded the order. So much for living in a dictatorship, as they shout out time and again.
There were essentially two Protests. The larger one was peaceful, the smaller one was the attempt to storm the Bundestag. This second one worried me more.
I wonder why the no-protest zone law around government buildings was not enforced by the police (an offense punishable by up to 20.000 €), or why the police only deployed a few men and women to protect the Reichstag Building. Maybe the time between the court's decisions and the ability to activate reserves was to short. Maybe it was an error in decision making and intelligence gathering on the level of the Hamburg riots in 2017. Who knows.
I wonder what it's like to be inside NOAA, NASA, the CDC, the FDA, etc, etc these days.
Having worked for Alberta Environment I suspect I know… with possibly more despair, as in Alberta we knew going in that our job was subject to political micromanaging :-(
matthew said...
"Alfred - your statement that divided government (Presidency in the hands of one party, Congress in the other party) is better for our nation demands proof. So, what is the evidence for your (loony) assertion? On what basis do you define "better for our nation" as gridlock?"
Alfred Differ responded...
"matthew,
Dude. If you need that explained, you aren't a liberal.
Most of what our nation does comes from The People."
At the risk of being completely wrong, I'm gonna drop my $.02 into this conversation.
The point matthew may have been trying to make is that for most of the past 20 years or more divided government has not worked worth a shit in the US because 1 of the 2 major parties that constitute our government has had 0 interest in participating in government with the other party. To the contrary 1 party has been united in faithless, dishonest, unethical and selfish behavior to one end, unimpeded control of government at all levels. In order to be accurate the claim that divided government is better for the US requires the parties to have a certain degree of commitment to participating in the processes of government in good faith. The past 20 years this claim has, very arguably, been completely inaccurate. There are mountains of compelling evidence to support that. The reality we actually inhabit hasn't allowed for that for at least the past 20 years. And to not beat around the bush, 1 of the 2 parties is entirely at fault. It starts with an "R" followed by "epublican."
The point Alfred may have been trying to make is that in principle, supposing that both parties do participate together in government in good faith, then divided government is better for the US. This does seem plausible, almost self evident. It sounds rational and even noble. It is a principle that we learn growing up as we learn the history of our nation. Being a product of my time I sometimes wonder though, is this a moral prescription or is it a description of real behavior?
If I'm mistaken, happens with some frequency, please correct me.
@ scidata, The Russians already have announced a rushed, untested COVID vaccine.
Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly endorsed the use of the vaccine, which is dubbed “Sputnik V,” saying it had “passed all necessary steps” and noting that one of his adult daughters had received it. (Putin has not clearly acknowledged his children in public, but he does sometimes refer to them; one is a medical doctor in Moscow.) Putin, who apparently made these comments at a government meeting, added, “I hope we can start a massive release of this vaccine soon.”
That's it, Rick, I'm pulling the lever.
Meanwhile, all discussions about herd immunity and vaccination suddenly become less important: Apparently, you can get reinfected with the virus.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-reinfection-idUSKBN25O2L9
Describing a case in Nevada, but Hong Kong, Belgium and the Netherlands also reported reinfections. Still it is too early to say if they are the exception or the rule ... but scary, still. There might be no cure for it except rigorous identification and isolation of cases, and general preventive measures.
A Trump tweet commented on by Stonekettle:
The only way you will stop the violence in the high crime Democrat run cities is through strength!
Sounds an awful lot like Holnism to me.
Oooh, speaking of COVID, a single Biogen management conference in Boston in late February appears to have been responsible for tens of thousands of infections.
From Slate: The Best Way to Vote in Every State: An extremely comprehensive guide to making sure your ballot gets counted, no matter where in America you live.
Reinfection does not worry mas AS much as residual hidden organic damage.
Darrell E:
Alfred Differ responded...
"matthew,
Dude. If you need that explained, you aren't a liberal.
Most of what our nation does comes from The People."
At the risk of being completely wrong, I'm gonna drop my $.02 into this conversation.
The point matthew may have been trying to make is that for most of the past 20 years or more divided government has not worked worth a shit in the US because 1 of the 2 major parties that constitute our government has had 0 interest in participating in government with the other party.
While I agree with your assertion, I think Alfred was making a slightly different point. It's not even about "divided government"--president and congress of different parties--as it is about the role of the Executive Branch vis a vis the Legislative Branch.
In a parliamentary system, the chief executive is the leader of the majority party in the legislature, so essentially the executive tells the legislature what to do. In America, it's supposed to be the other way around. Congress gives the marching orders and the president carries them out.
Of course, that has also not been the reality for quite some time. "Mandates" and all.
As someone who will not be happy regardless of how this election turns out, this is my take on how it is likely to turn out.
House – looks like it will stay in the hands of the Democrats.
President – still looks like Biden will win, although it is way closer than it should be given a bungled pandemic response, economic depression levels of unemployment and rioting in the streets.
Senate – this is one still up in the air. It looks like the floor for democrats in 2021 is 47 and the ceiling is 53. So even in the cases where the Democrats win the majority in the senate it will be a slim one. That will probably kill the chances of enacting any type of sweeping progressive change (one crap sack of democratic senator could give the democrats the excuse they need for their collective inaction.)
As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure not all the democratic senators are on board with eliminating the filibuster let alone enacting an effective Green New Deal, or the public option for healthcare.
So even if the Democrats keep the house and take the presidency and the senate they are unlikely to enact significant legislation that actually helps the American people. Meanwhile the republicans will be treating Biden as an illegitimate president and the painting the democratic party as useless and traitors to America.
In the election of 2022, folks who expected the Democratic party to actually do some important stuff will sit at home (because the elected Dems didn’t) and the republicans will be motivated to come out in force and retake the county. They may take back the Senate and or the house.
And then in 2024 Tucker Carlson gets elected president. And genuine American Fascism arrives carrying a cross and waving the flag.
Thanks, Darrell for trying to rephrase my challenge to Alfred regarding divided government.
Alfred totally misses the point, though.
Data ranks the effectiveness of our government, by party in control of the three branches, toward the goals of maximized competitors in various types of markets (commercial, judicial, scientific, etc.). The data does *not* show a preference for a divided government, though.
It shows that potential is maximized under unified Democratic rule, followed by a divided government, followed by absolute GOP rule. Look back at the data from all our host's posts on "who does it better?" Dem->Divided->GOP for almost all outcomes. Our period of greatest growth in opportunity in all those types of markets occurred during the rare periods where all three branches of government were in Democratic hands. Try to find a counter-example. It is difficult to do.
Alfred was, to my reading, repeating a litany that we hear quite often from libertarians and conservatives - that is to be at its best, governmental control must be divided between two poles. It is a position that bears no relation to the data.
Outcomes argue that, no, having the people that believe good governance is important in charge is in fact the optimal situation. Having those that are trying to actively sabotage governmental action in charge or as an absent negotiating partner is not the optimal situation.
Obviously, residual organ damage AND reinfection would be a booger of a tag team.
Aaaaaand yet again I cite facts about the 111th Congress and the rate of bill passage in CA and other blue states, all listed here… without any hope whatsopever that jim will ever… ever… have the honesty and curiosity to consider that things are more complex than his dyspeptic sanctimony insists.
But he does make a strong prediction: “In the election of 2022, folks who expected the Democratic party to actually do some important stuff will sit at home (because the elected Dems didn’t) and the republicans will be motivated to come out in force and retake the county. They may take back the Senate and or the house.”
Yes, that is what Putin et al are counting on. If we judge by 94 and 2010, guys like jim WILL sit at home. Not because Congress did nothing, but because in their insanityh and drooling sanctimony and utter laziness, they will convince themselves of that delusion. And make no mistake, it is folks like jim who gave us this current era, betraying Clinton and Obama and allowing in Hastert, GW Bush and this travesty crowd.
Ironically, Putin's sureness that 2022 WILL be like that may save us from a spasm attack or civil war incitement, when/if the GOP goes down in flames. He may decide to wait.
jim:
As someone who will not be happy regardless of how this election turns out, ...
That Life of Brian line about "There's no pleasing some people" was written for you.
So even if the Democrats keep the house and take the presidency and the senate they are unlikely to enact significant legislation that actually helps the American people.
Even if true, that's still better than what we've got now, or what we will have if Trump and a Republican Senate are re-elected. I'm totally serious when I say that my cat would make a better president than Trump, because he'd do less harm. And no matter Biden's flaws, he'd make an even better president than my cat.
We Don’t Know How to Warn You Any Harder. America is Dying.
We Survivors of Authoritarianism Have a Message America Needs to Hear: This is Exactly How it Happens, and It’s Happening Here.
And on a souvellience note:
Hacked documents suggest that the FBI is concerned some people may be using Ring or other smart doorbells to watch the police.
The document in question is a technical analysis bulletin, offering an overview of the opportunities and challenges for police from home security systems and smart doorbells.
It is an interesting twist on the smart doorbell story. Previously there have been concerns about how much information from private cameras is being shared with police.
Amazon was criticised last year for partnering with at least 200 US law enforcement agencies to allow surveillance via its Ring doorbells.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53985418
Cynically, I wonder how many security cameras are shipped in a condition that allows them to be used by the polizei without requiring their owners permission.
Requiring owner permission is entirely the difference between a despotism and a place with lateral, citizen-based accountability.
If Biden did just four things:
1) appointed 10,000 skilled adults to replace corrupt traitor loonies
2) signed a bill ending electoral cheating across a broad front
3) created a Truth & Reconsiliation commission with major incentives for the blackmailed and henchmen to step up...
4) passed my FACT ACT
...then the rest would happen (or not) based on FACTUAL MERITS. And we know the factual merits support at minimum Medicare for all youths to 25 plus sustainables push, plus ending racism and all that. If lies and cheating vanished, the jims could make their case and help AOC build her caucus.
"Serious question--Why is it so expected that putting Kanye West on the ballot will take votes away from Biden when Kanye is a known Trumpist? If they like Kanye for his stand on issues, wouldn't they have otherwise voted for Trump? If they like Kanye because he's trying to help Trump, wouldn't they already have not been voting for Biden?"
You must not know many quiet racists, Larry. The assumption made here is that Black people will just automatically vote for the Black candidate, no matter what his policies might be. (Of course, they'd be wrong - I don't know anyone of any ethnicity who wants Yeye to be in control of his own car, much less the nation.)
"Cynically, I wonder how many security cameras are shipped in a condition that allows them to be used by the polizei without requiring their owners permission."
None. That road is paved with lawsuits - not against the cops, obviously, but against the providing companies.
Darrel E,
That's a valiant attempt to paraphrase my position. I didn't offer a lot to go by, though, so I'll add a bit more to show what you missed.
I consider it a GIVEN that a 'loyal opposition' party improves democratic government. We don't have that right now at the federal level and in many States. It might exist in a few States. but I'm not sure.
I also consider it a GIVEN that 'loyal opposition' third parties improve on a two party system described earlier. These third parties provide shelter for political factions that are currently out of any of the major alliances, but could influence them at a future date.
I expect both to be granted with no debate, so I mostly move on to what is best for the nation… which need not be the same as what is best for governing it.
Old School Liberals generally agreed that it was better to have action taken at the 'lowest level' possible when it came to activity supported by a community. The lowest level is 'just us' in the sense that government doesn't do anything because we do. For example, during this pandemic, many people have suffered a loss of income. One musician appears outside the coffee shop I still visit and plays for us with her tip jar in plain sight. She has all her equipment with her when she does, so it's obvious she is no slouch. In her time of need, who is responsible for providing the social safety net she obviously needs? I have no idea whether she is drawing money from unemployment insurance, but the tip jar makes it clear she thinks that responsibility lies at least partially with us 'people'. We don't HAVE to, of course, but we all recognize her unspoken expectation.
When I argue that we are better off doing less as a Government and more as a People, I'm pointing to things like this where individuals with local knowledge CAN and DO act on it. The musician I used as an example could rely on cash from the government instead of us, but she's the one in the best position to know what her actual needs are and what actually works. Those of us who pass by are in the best position to know what condition she is in and whether we can do anything about it. There is literally no way to centralize this information for a government body to do it better than we can, let alone a federal government body. Distance filters information for a variety of reasons. For the maximal amount of information to get used, WE have to act at the individual level. WE are better off when WE do… on average.
matthew,
The data does *not* show a preference for a divided government, though.
Yah. Maximal competitors in various markets.
I agree with that, but there is one serious problem.
It is an ideal. It is NOT measurable.
Try it and you'll go down quite a rabbit hole of scientism.
Weak definitions, huge numbers of dimensions in the domain and range, heuristic 'rules', and a disturbing lack of ex ante prediction successes all haunt this house.
Our host pings on the maximal competitor line too, but rarely takes that next slippery step.
_________
As for me repeating the litany, you (again) should know better. I generally favor good governance, but I recognize that it is rare and settle for inefficient governance because 'the people' generally fill in. Not always and not on every issue a Progressive wants covered. Often enough to make up most of the difference, though.
One example I remember from years ago was a measure of how various nations came to the aid of others after disaster strikes. Whether it's a hurricane or earthquake or whatever, many nations pull together efforts to help people in need. We don't have to ask why since everyone seems to get that it's a good idea. By one metric, though, the US appears to lag. Our national contributions often suck. Fortunately for those in need, it is the metric that sucks. Most American's who contribute don't do so through a national effort. We are more likely to donate to NGO's or through some other method that fails to get counted as a US contribution. Many of us don't feel the need to have our government do this work for us. THAT's the point!
For many years now I've advocated for efforts to open the space frontier so we become a space-faring civilization. Most of my life I've worked at this. In my early years, I imagined myself as a NASA employee. Got the education I needed to succeed at that too, but then chose a different course after grad school. See… it turns out that I realized I could do more if I did NOT work for the government. I had local knowledge they did not. Even if they had, they could not act upon it. So… I took a different course. I didn't get rich at it, but I DID have a positive impact. When Death finally arrives for me, I'll have no real regrets about that.
_________
In general, we don't get to have government lead by the most angelic of us. We populate the civil service with people just like us. Good, Bad, and Ugly. All of the above except for the non-existence of unicorns. Best we plan for that.
To do that, recognize that you cannot centralize the information government needs to govern ideally, so plan for inefficiency and the need for most actions to remain at 'the lowest level possible.' Many of us know when we have to kick something up a level, so live with the possibility that they actually DO know better.
Jon S,
None. That road is paved with lawsuits
Well... except for the usual security bugs that allow for remote execution/access.
At my last place, the landlady wanted to install one of those doorbells AND connect it to my WIFI. I asked her who was responsible for software upgrades since the device acted as a mini web server. She looked at me blankly, so I let her install it and then unplugged the part that connected to my outbound WIFI making it a doorbell I could access only on a disconnected network.
"Honestly... I don't know what's wrong with it." 8)
Alfred what I find frustrating is that we have all the data we need, in order to classify --
- which things government does well (if proper rules are executed by honest/competent officials properly audited & accountable.)
- which things government does very badly.
- which things government can do as a short term intervention, with a writ to get out of the way - or wither away - once either alternatives (competing companies/NGOs or ad hoc citizen action) show they can be effective.
Each of those categories (and many sub variants) is filled with examples and proved successes/failures that would be instructive, if we weren't so kneejerk simplistic... And boundaries evolve! e.g I've long pointed out that only the vast public education system could have created a vast technological economy... and result in so many libertarians!
Dogma should not guide this chart, but OUTCOMES... plus an over all priciple that all else being equal, the non-government choice should win out... and the small business choice over large.
Kanye appeals to cynical young Blacks who think it's cool to stick it to liberals, since they are the whites who will notince and care what they do. Where's the fun in stymieing republicans?
Jon S says: "Cynically, I wonder how many security cameras are shipped in a condition that allows them to be used by the polizei without requiring their owners permission." None. That road is paved with lawsuits - not against the cops, obviously, but against the providing companies.
I say: almost certainly all, if they are wireless and unencrypted. Getting it directly from the camera requires getting close, of course. Then the signal goes over the cell towers to the owner's smartphone. Again, if it's not encrypted, assume the polizei can vaccuum it up and save it for later.
Dr. Brin, I truly doubt most young Blacks are as foolish as that. Perverse, shoot-your-own-foot folly is a luxury young whites can afford, Black people not so much. One thing different about 2020 is that even a lot of the white kids, and even a lot of the white parents, are learning how that feels.
Dr Brin:
Kanye appeals to cynical young Blacks who think it's cool to stick it to liberals, since they are the whites who will notince and care what they do.
Well, they probably wouldn't have been voting for Biden anyway.
I feel I must be missing something that the entire pundit class takes for granted, but I don't see any harm to Biden from Kanye being on the ballot. If anything, he gives Trumpian black voters a black alternative to vote for.
If the expectation is that he'll woo black Biden voters away, I'll say again that any black voters who find Trump-loving Kanye palatable probably weren't going to vote for Biden in the first place. They might have been voting for Trump, or they might have been staying home, but in either case Kanye is not draining a vote from Biden. At worst, he's giving otherwise-non-voters a reason to vote (albeit throwing that vote away).
TCB I never said "most." But you're foolish to assume that Self-interest overcomes sanctimony+slylish cynicism. Above all, Americans or all colors are raised to believe they are savvy individualists who say F-you to any herd. That conceit is exactly what Fox nutures among its own dittohead-bobblehead herd.
No, I promise you that where he appears on the ballot, Kanye will pull many thousands from Biden.
The question one of you raised is whether he'll draw MORE goppers who suddenly find they just can't vote for Trump.
Good for Markey defeating that Kennedy scion. I tire of that family's myth of royal entitlement. Ted's betrayal of Carter was unforgivable. I say that while avowing that the death of Bobby, while my dad was 30 feet away, was arguably the worst night of my life.
Alfred, you are ignoring 70 years of American data in favor of your political bias.
Also, you certainly did not start out arguing from where you're standing in your last statement.
I'm not talking ideals. I'm talking American history. And a mountain of measurable data belies your assertions. Your attempt to make the measurable into vapor is a sign that you know the weakness of your arguments here. We have a historical record. We can judge outcomes in markets with hindsight.
Alfred,
If I understand you it looks like I should have gone with my 2nd idea about what your view was. My 1st was basically that you were stating an ideal. That does seem to be the case too but more importantly you seem to be saying that divided government is best because it inhibits government from governing thereby leaving things up to the people. Is that a fair nutshell?
"If you agree with me politically, vote for Trump. If you disagree with me politically, vote for me. - Kanye"
In the world I wish we lived in, that wouldn't be a winning slogan.
David said
“ And make no mistake, it is folks like jim who gave us this current era, betraying Clinton and Obama and allowing in Hastert, GW Bush and this travesty crowd.”
That is just too funny, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.
I mean the loss in 2016 couldn’t have anything to do with the democrats nominating Hilary Clinton – the most hated politician in America, to run for president and then wonder why she lost? (because of racists, and Russians obviously )
David also said this: “ yet again I cite facts about the 111th Congress “
You mean when Obama low balled the funds to deal with the great recession by about 500 billion dollars and hung the cities and states out to dry, doubled down on war in Afghanistan, pushed through a hated republican health care plan, and refused prosecute war criminals, banksters and other rich law breakers?
And you still wonder why progressives would not want to vote for more of that?
And then David suggests:
“If Biden did just four things:
1) appointed 10,000 skilled adults to replace corrupt traitor loonies
2) signed a bill ending electoral cheating across a broad front
3) created a Truth & Reconsiliation commission with major incentives for the blackmailed and henchmen to step up...
4) passed my FACT ACT”
Well if Biden wins he will get to appoint ~4000 people to the federal government, so number 1 will sort of happen, but I see no evidence that the democrats will do 2,3,or 4. They may be very good ideas I don’t see any evidence that they will do anything like what David wants them to do.
jim:
As someone who will not be happy regardless of how this election turns out,...
Serious question: Is there anything a political party--either the Democrats or some hypothetical new party--could do after taking power that would make you feel it was worth electing them?
Well no LarryHart, tat does sorta invite him so say - "Do everything on my list now or you suck!"
Larry,
I see the fundamental predicament that we face is: we have run face first into the limits to growth yet our basic institutions of banking, business and government are set up to work well only in periods of growth.
And if there was a political party that advocated taking the predicament seriously and proposed a purposeful strategy of de-growth they might be able to get elected on Vulcan but not on Earth. That is why I am calling the period we have just entered the Time of Troubles. We are being forced to change by events and processes beyond our ability to handle and this is and will continue to be a fairly unpleasant experience for the vast majority people. Especially because so many people will want to return to the Age of Abundance and that is not an option.
Concerning Jim's discontents, the incremental progress of Biden-Harris sounds like a vastly better prospect than Trump-Pence and the "Expess elevator to Hell".
BTW, @TCB, thanks for the link, powerful stuff there.
Dr Brin:
Well no LarryHart, tat does sorta invite him so say - "Do everything on my list now or you suck!"
Well, unless someone wants their complaints to be mere background noise that is always there, there should be some goal in mind that would--even theoretically--cause the complainer to be satisfied enough to stop complaining. So I'm curious what that goal looks like.
Otherwise, it's just like my cat whining to go outside, and then whining to go outside again. I tell the cat, "If you're going to meow at me no matter what I do, that's not a good way to get me to do what you want." The cat doesn't understand, but he's a cat (And would still make a better president than the one we've got).
jim:
We are being forced to change by events and processes beyond our ability to handle and this is and will continue to be a fairly unpleasant experience for the vast majority people.
If so, won't it be just that much less unpleasant if we can live through it without Donald Trump as president?
If you were lying in a hospice bed knowing you only had a short time to live, and your choice of company was a loving and comforting family member or a Gestapo prison guard, would you assert that since neither can extend your life, they're equally bad choices?
The implication is "better that billions die quickly, so we can equilibrate to a sustainable level fast enough for the survivors to have a soft landing." We've seen this in movie villains lately. (One BIG one.) In that light, I wonder that jim has not studied hard to become a genetic (disease) designer. But I don't wonder very hard. This is about personality, not comparison of facts.
David I just have to say WOW.
I say we are facing hard times without good options
But somehow you hear
“The implication is "better that billions die quickly, so we can equilibrate to a sustainable level fast enough for the survivors to have a soft landing.”
I have previously linked to this site as a model of what successful adaptation to the limits to growth could look like:
https://www.humanpowerplant.be/2020/06/the-fire.html
in it there is no global genocide, but the people not only had to give up flying, they gave up their own personal kitchens and bathrooms for communal ones. There are big changes to diet, mobility, and relationships to manufactured products.
It would be way better than some Mad Max hellscape but really tough to get middle class Americans to willingly adopt.
The probable futures are neither Star Trek nor Mad Max.
I apologize for the "wishing for mass death" snark, though that is certainly among the ways jim could be interpreted.
Essentially, what I find frustrating is not jim's cynicism or diagnosis, but how relentlessly it seems based on ignorance. e.g. his utter refusal to either admit or refute the five challenges that show how busy the 111th Congress was and how left and middle dems negotiate and take strong action in blue states like CA.
Is he aware that energy use and CO2 emissions have plummeted during covid? And no, we have not entirely abandoned the skies. Or that before Covid there were huge... not marginal... effects from the mass replacement of lighting with LEDs? Has he looked at what effects it would have on the world's utterly nonexistent mass or persistent famines if we simply cut meat use in half? Or that trends in the developed world are already heading that way?
We already have communal kirtchens in take-out restaurants. What's needed is vast improvements in packaging, not just there but across all products.
Ah well. Moving on.
onward
onward
Post a Comment