« “Puerto Rico, Our Next State….” | Main | Ur GOP Senate ACA Repeal Bill Open Thread »

June 16, 2017

Comments

HAVING A LEADER WHOSE STAFF HAS TO PROTECT HIM FROM BAD NEWS BECAUSE HE IS AN ILL TEMPERED CHILD IS NOT GOOD.

That is all for today.

AN ILL TEMPERED CHILD

? Or mobster? Looks like mob to me.

maybe not treating people like sh!t would be a good start and exposing those who do instead of making excuses for them - if nobody cares there won't be any new laws to rectify injustice and the laws are only as strong as the will and capabilities to enforce them

That's funny. As I recall, novakant was encouraging not voting for Hillary Clinton ("the hawk," haw haw), and people who listened to him now face the probability that millions of people will die without the ACA, but also without a longstanding safety net program, Medicaid.

Granted, novakant has little clue, but (like Trump) because of that, I don't think I'm going to listen to his/her lectures on "treating people like sh!t". (Oh, right - novakant is advocating private generosity and voting with your feet, and doesn't give a flying f' about what happens to people whose lives have been secure under the law of the USA. Apparently doesn't trust his own system to provide work protections for people either.)

It may look like mob in this particular narrow instance. But a mob boss who "functioned" like this would be toast pretty quick. His own people would find a way to get him out of the way.

Not that I see any signs (yet) that Trump's own people (i.e. Republicans, specifically in Congress) are looking to do so. But then, it appears that it takes more balls to be a mobster than a Congressman.

Trump isn't the boss. Putin, and the Russian mobsters are.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/jared-kushner-knows-nothing-about-technology/

Turns out the nigger beat him to the punch.

Whouda known if it wasn't for a federal agency website, which I'm sure is being wiped as we speak and replaced with the poems of Vladivostok
Vlad.

Count, my wife informs me the speculation is that prohibiting recording of the White House press briefing is to prevent Donald from hearing it.

I'm imagining Spicer doing the briefing while holding up a little sign that says "somebody please get me outta here".

OK, wj and others: will you allow every discussion to be framed through sapient's paranoid rantings chastising people for their lack of love for Clinton? Donald and NV have already left because of sapient and I'm about to, so you have to make a call here.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/06/20/tuesday-morning-open-thread-mitch-mcconnell-may-be-a-worse-person-than-paul-ryan/

Stick with it, novakant.

I do miss Donald Johnson.

Actually, I think NV left because of cleek, but although I thought her viewpoint valuable, I value cleek far more, he seems to me woven into the warp and weft of the place in important ways. novakant, I too hope you stick around, but que sera, up to you.

for the record, i wish NV would come back and that we could find a way to co-exist.

I wish Donald and NV would come back too. I miss them.

novakant,

stick around. that's an order.

regards,

I think that everyone should stick around. I, myself, will take a break.

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/06/19/right-wing-media-figures-declare-first-shots-second-american-civil-war-have-already-been-fired/216966

if you care enough about this stuff to bother participating on a political blog, it's likely that you have strong feelings about a lot of the stuff we talk about.

it's best if we can not personalize things, either in the things we say to each other, or in how we receive what others say. but, that can be a big ask.

i hope all of the folks mentioned above find their way back, because i think we all enjoy their company and appreciate what they have to say.

and, i hope anyone whose on board at the moment, but feels the need to step away, won't be away too long.

sometimes it's hard to be agreeable, but i bet we can do a better job of it if we try.

Re: the Alex Jones stuff in the count's link - what the heck is a "beta"?

I have a subscription to a daily summary of the news done by the Economist. Today, they get the prize for a really great headline:

Voting their Ossoff: Georgia’s election

(I confess to a perverse taste for the occasional bad pun.)

Well, if you like bad puns...

NASA wants to probe Uranus in search of gas

what the heck is a "beta"?

there's the alpha male, and then there's the beta cuck[old].

and now you know all there is to know about alt-right masculinity theory.

The alpha keys on my keyboard are at the top of the pecking order...

Sorry, "betas" just makes me think of Brave New World.

Russell,

'betas' are similar to your classic "nerds" but worse. Way worse. Not only are they weak passive unmanly wimps, they RUN EVERYTHING!!!

How did those wimps pull that off over the manly, manly, men?

Somebody needs to ask Alex Jones.

Yes, I agree, I wish NV and Donald would come back, and that we could generally cut down the personally unpleasant stuff (in all fairness, they- especially NV - indulged in plenty of that themselves). It's also possible McKinney has scrammed, he ended his last somewhat huffy post "Adios", so we'll have to see. The only person I don't miss is Brett (I wasn't commenting then, but his record of derailing threads was really remarkable). I think it's been so remarkable to have this kind of spread of opinion from left to right, a really valuable thing.

I want to know what happened to the voice of moderation ?

(Excepting what russell said.)

Ah, moderation! The key to wisdom and longevity, according to the lamas of Shangri-La:

"If I were to put it into a very few words, my dear sir, I should say that our prevalent belief is in moderation. We inculcate the virtue of avoiding excess of all kinds - even including, if you will pardon the paradox, excess of virtue itself. .... We rule with moderate strictness, and in return are satisfied with moderate obedience. And I think I can claim that our people are moderately sober, moderately chaste and moderately honest. .... I can add that our community has various faiths and usages, but we are moderately heretical about them" (James Hilton, Lost Horizon, 1934).
The notion of moderation even in moderation has always appealed to me. And I suppose I find ObWi congenial because it is very moderately "moderated".

Still, I have to say: you people must be way more sensitive than I am to insults and perceived insults. If Brett Bellmore got on my nerves almost constantly, it was because of his near-uniform wrongness. It never occured to me that Brett could be wrong about practically everything except in having a low opinion of me.

--TP

Yeah, TP, you just say that because you don't think that the second amendment is moderate enough despite the founders clear intention to create a wall of resistance by arming a free militia.

And you, Marty, appear to think that a free militia is the same as a bunch of unorganized (and, mostly, untrained) individuals with guns. Which is what current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment has given us.

I find nothing objectionable about Sapient taking a 'victory lap' with anyone who somehow thought HRC was an equally negative option to DJT. There was a clear choice, and we are now living the difference. As Sapient implies, many people may not continue to live based on the actual clear difference between the two.

I guess if someone acknowledged that HRC was clearly the better choice given what we know now and wishes she had won instead, maybe he could stop the victory lap.

538 Live Coverage

Huh. Georgia 06 District is shaped like Texas. I mean, it really looks like Texas.

Typical liberal response, wj, just assumes that people are "mostly" untrained. Cite?

Marty,

I cite: America.

Most of America is woefully untrained on weapons. I have spent 30 years training with weapons, and even most of my peers are woefully untrained. You can tell by how many negligent discharges there are, and children shooting each other with someone's unsecured weapon.

I get you think it is a Constitutional right to shoot politicians you disagree with, but that does not make you trained.

jrudkis, 360m people more guns than that, the incidental discharges are a miniscule fraction of gun owners. But it would be good to require more training on some weapons.

'360m people more guns that that,'

Want to hang you hat on that? I have well over 100 weapons, that does not equate to 100 people having weapons.

Incidental discharges is a weak term. The trigger only pulls on purpose, or by negligence.

Ok, I am now officially stopping. I just brought up second amendment stuff because of the Brett conversation above.

He was great at threadjacking everything into a 2nd amendment argument.

So nevermind.

It is an open thread.

Guns? It is a miracle that we survive driving on roads.

Marty, look up what George Washington thought of the militia.

I forgot to ask earlier: can somebody point me to any ObWi comment thread that remained strictly "on topic" and was neither hijacked nor set adrift by about the 7th comment down?

Face it: this is a water-cooler gab-fest among a bunch of regulars who have known each other's opinions for years and who rejoice whenever a new voice pipes up, often to respond to an "off-topic" comment rather than to the initial post. Let's not lament this state of affairs. Let us wallow in it.

--TP

the founders clear intention to create a wall of resistance

James Hodgkinson appreciates your support!

So, Marty, your 8.20 was an excellent, subtle, Brett-related joke! To quote a dearly beloved friend of mine, now a tremendously eminent academic, who when on an exchange teaching semester between his university and an Ivy league university in New England (no names, no pack drill) many years ago, asked his English Literature 101 class to write an essay on a literary classic of their choice. One of the essays was on The Turn of the Screw (which I confess I have not read). I gather there are two spinster ladies in the story, and the burden of the essay was that the subtext of the story is really that these two ladies are in a lesbian relationship. On which essay, my lovely, extremely English friend wrote "Is this a joke? If so, it's a jolly good one!", and gave it an A-. So, to Marty I say, If this was a joke, it's a jolly good one!

Thanks GftNC, inspired entirely by your 5:27 pm.

I miss Brett Bellmore.

So many have left us, (Brett via an upstairs window) and yet with a much smaller commentariat, the threads grow longer.

cleek might have a pithy rule for that.

This is a pretty funny one, too:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mccain-hasnt-seen-bill-russia-has

A friend sent me this link from the NYT on Sunday:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?_r=1

I know we've touched on this discussion here several times, but I thought this was quite persuasive. What think others?

For the Count, do not agree with all of this but not bad:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/gallery/all-213-beatles-songs-ranked-from-worst-to-best/ss-BBCTfMp?ocid=spartanntp

What think others?

I think all politics are identity politics.

Liberals tend to advocate more than conservatives do for the interests of people who aren't white, straight, and generally male.

Conservatives tend to advocate more than liberals do in the other direction.

Everybody sucks up to money, because money, but liberal and conservative camps have their specializations in that arena as well.

IMO what's happening now is that the pie is getting smaller, see also my comment about everybody sucking up to money, so the folks who used to be able to assume they'd have a place at the table can't make that assumption any more.

So they're reacting to that.

Anyone who thinks that it's weird to worry about whether trans people can use the bathroom, but it's not weird to worry about whether somebody has to bake a cake for a gay couple, is simply blind to the particular brand of identity politics they subscribe to.

It's all identity politics. It's just that some folks think their identity is better than others.

Anyone who thinks it's weird to worry about whether black folks get shot too much, but not weird to worry about whether a guy can let his cows loose on public land, is blind to their own identity affiliation.

Anyone who worries about what those crazy liberal college kids are up to, but doesn't worry about the f'ing neo-Nazis who have decided it's time to crawl out from under their rock, is blind to their own identity affiliation.

I could do this all day. You get the point.

Sometimes I think I might just abdicate responsibility for my opinions, and just subscribe to whatever russell's opinions are, they are always so clear and decent. And by decent, I mean humane and reasonable. For some reason, this makes me think of the ruler of the universe, in the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, see excerpt below. Not that russell's and the ROTU's attitudes are the same, but still. I think we could do a lot worse than elect russell as the ROTU:

http://www.thedailyzen.org/2015/05/27/the-ruler-of-the-universe/

So that's by way of preface, not to suck up or blow smoke up russell's ass (a marvellous and incomprehensible Americanism for sucking up, the derivation of which I do not know for sure, but which seems to be connected to this old medical practice:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/05/origin-expression-blow-smoke-ass/).

In other words, I find russell's two comments above impossible to disagree with, but what I am curious about is whether russell, given his comments, finds anything at all to agree with, or at least to be persuasive, in the NYT piece, and in particular its hints as to a way forward for liberals in future electoral contests? And, of course, anybody else's opinions on same?

The Lilla piece is all too glib and self-satisfied. I had a page-long diatribe going in response, but I'm supposed to be working, so instead of all that other verbiage I'm just going to say what works every single time:

WRS.

GftNC, my comment was written before I saw yours, so it's not a direct response. I will try to answer your questions later from my own POV.

"Good Day Sunshine" is the worst Beatles song?

that is objectively ridiculous.

It is not their worst song, it is just the 213th best song they recorded.

my first opinion of that Lilla piece was: whining about college kids for not being quite up to speed with how society works is lazy. and whining that today's left isn't Roosevelt's left is nuts.

as far as "appealing to Americans as Americans" ... Trump didn't do that - he set white Americans against black, Hispanic and Muslim Americans. and then he set them against everyone else in the world. he didn't even try to be inclusive. Clinton noticed that Americans aren't homogeneous and pointed it out and as a result, she got the votes of all those non-white Americans.

and of course we got Trump because of the EC, not because Americans love that dumb old racist bankruptcy-addict with creepy sexual ideas about girls (including his own daughter). the EC failed the country twice in the last 16 years. voters in the vast emptiness of WY count several times more than voters in CA. these are problems with the rules of our elections, not with the Democrats' platform.

Clinton got significantly more votes that Trump. in Congress, the Dems received more votes as a percentage of total than percentage of seats (gerrymandering). the Dems gained Senate seats, and won the Senate popular vote too.

the Democratic Party's problem is not that voters don't like the Democratic party, they do like it. over and over, vote totals tell us that. the Dems' problem is that our elections do not reflect what voters like. our elections distort the electorate to weigh certain people more heavily than others: some of this is baked into the ludicrous EC; some of it is intentional gerrymandering by the GOP.

but Lilla, as in every post-mortem i've seen so far, thinks the Dems' problems are that they don't conform to his own personal politics.

/harrumph

that said, it does kindof look like pandering to see politicians drop in on this or that minority, drop some lingo, then motor off to the next.

209. “Dig a Pony”
204. “She’s Leaving Home”

vs

114. “Revolution 9”

madness.

Typical liberal response, wj, just assumes that people are "mostly" untrained. Cite?

No cite. Just a conservative with some first hand observations. Plus watching a lot of self-styled militiamen, and seeing them handling their weapons in a manner that is beyond casual. I would expect anyone with even minimal training in firearms safety to know better.

JanieM, I will be very interested in your opinion, as always.

209. “Dig a Pony” 204. “She’s Leaving Home”

vs

114. “Revolution 9”

madness.

I completely agree with this.

Cite?

DOJ survey from 1997 says:

Slightly more than half of firearms of either type were stored unlocked, but handguns were much more likely to be loaded. Reflecting their predominant use in self-defense, handguns were likely to be stored in bedrooms or vehicles of owners or even on their person, while most long guns were kept in gun closets or other out-of-the-way places (exhibit 6).

Although training programs usually include
suggestions on how to store guns
safely, it does not appear that trainees
are paying attention. More than half
(56 percent) of owners had received
some form of "formal" training from
the military, law enforcement, National
Rifle Association, National Safety
Council, or other source. As a group,
owners who received such training
were no less likely than others to keep
guns loaded and unlocked. This surprising
result is consistent with other
recent studies.

However, a more detailed analysis of
NSPOF data that examined the effects
of different formal training programs
separately indicated one exception:
training programs such as those offered
by local affiliates of the National
Safety Council were associated with a
significant reduction in the likelihood
of keeping a gun unlocked and loaded.
This result speaks well of that training,
the trainees, or both.

let's pretend i formatted that to look like a pistol

what I am curious about is whether russell, given his comments, finds anything at all to agree with, or at least to be persuasive, in the NYT piece

I've probably read the Lilla piece 10 times since it was written. Here is what I think.

IMO one of the most significant American political narratives, and most pressing issues, over the last 40 years is the degree to which every aspect of life has come to be dominated by the interests of investment capital. Full stop.

The (D)'s used to be pretty good on that issue, by which I mean they used to offer a reliable counter to that tendency. With some notable exceptions, they no longer do. The rhetoric is still there, mostly, but the teeth are not.

So, I sort of find common ground with Lilla there.

An equally important American political narrative, and one that extends back to the very origins of the nation if not beyond, is our agonizingly slow progress from being a society based on a common belief in straight white male supremacy, to one in which other folks get a seat at the table.

Furthering that progress used to be a pretty bi-partisan agenda, and in fact historical the (R)'s probably have a better record than the (D)'s. They basically handed that mantle to the (D)'s in the mid-20th C as part of the famous "southern strategy". Bigots vote, the (R)'s saw an opportunity, and took it.

Lilla seems to think it's time for the (D)'s to do likewise.

IMO Lilla can piss up a rope.

And that's everything I think about it.

I like the ruler of the universe, he actually seems to be Samuel Beckett. I appreciate the kind words, but it is not a gig I have the chops for.

Trust me, I doubt you would enjoy russell as ROTU for more than about three minutes.

I do, sincerely, thank you for the kind thoughts.

I haven't looked at the song list and based on what I see here I won't bother (agreeing as I do with GftNC and cleek).

Here is a great instrumental cover of "She's Leaving Home" by Brad Mehldau.

guns:

if I were ROTU, if you carried your firearm in public and handled it in any way that did not comply with the NRA rules for gun safety, you would no longer be allowed to carry your firearm in public.

If you want to shoot up your own house, live it up. go with god. If the bullets exit your premises, you go to jail, and are never allowed to own a firearm again.

that, plus a ten round limit on automatic magazines, and I'm all good on the guns topic.

not much to ask, I'd think. opinions vary, apparently.

Beatles:

choosing "best" Beatles songs is like trying to choose the most beautiful blossom in a 100 acre field of wildflowers.

just enjoy the beauty.

If you want to shoot up your own house, live it up. go with god. If the bullets exit your premises, you go to jail, and are never allowed to own a firearm again.

For once I'm going to quibble with russell. What if kids live there? What if *anyone* else lives there? What is our collective responsibility for each other in a case like that? (Rarely a question with an easy answer, IMO.)

Ah, I just saw cleek's 11.35, with much of which I also agree. Nor do I wish the Dems to sup with the devil to win an election, no matter how long the spoon. I have only read the Lilla piece once, and that quickly, because the last 7 days have been a bit of a clusterfuck for various reasons, but although hungover with exhaustion today, I will have more leisure from tomorrow, so will read more attentively then and possibly change my somewhat more favourable impression, not to mention catch up on everything else that's been happening in the world. Will also look at the actual listing of "best Beatles songs" if only for the craic!

An equally important American political narrative, and one that extends back to the very origins of the nation if not beyond, is our agonizingly slow progress from being a society based on a common belief in straight white male supremacy, to one in which other folks get a seat at the table.

Well, the country is finally catching up to where libertarians were ~50 years ago. :)

I found the Lilla editorial to be quite offputting.

Basically, Lilla asks that Democrats dump the actual work of building coalitions and doing politics, which is rather insane, because you know it is a political party.

Telling the party to shut up, shut up, shut up about the priorities of vital elements of the Democratic Party coalition is simply a non-starter.

And what cleek wrote @ 11:35 above.

Well, the country is finally catching up to where libertarians were ~50 years ago. :)

Ludicrous. Libertarians are still not 'caught up' even now. And where were they 50 years ago? Why opposing the Civil Rights Act....that's where they were.

Whether or not there is a viable libertarian solution to discrimination depends entirely on the existence of real world alternatives. If there are lots of options, the libertarian approach can be (or at least appear) workable. But when discrimination is pervasive, it just doesn't work.

In my experience, most libertarians will argue that either discrimination isn't a problem, or at least not a problem for government, so long as it isn't institutionalized. Or that the solution to institutional discrimination is persuading everyone (because naturally it would never do to force anyone) to withdraw the institutional support. The fact that such persuasion is notably unsuccessful in the real world appears to count for nothing.

The Libertarian Party, at its inception almost 50 years ago, advocated for gay rights, same-sex marriages. The party has always been against the various wars on sex, drugs, gambling and other non-victim crimes.

The LP has also been a catchall for various kinds of nutcases that couldn't find ideological homes elsewhere. Most libertarians are not members of the LP and don't want to be.

Why opposing the Civil Rights Act....that's where they were.

Which is consistent with libertarian principles of treating everyone as individuals, not shoehorning them into various kinds of collectives.

Minorities have suffered more from government enforced discrimination; from the federal government, states' Jim Crow laws, to white city regulations; than from white business owners, without the backing of governments, refusing to do business with them.

However, some libertarians would agree that there initially needed to be some kind of pressure applied to private business to accommodate minorities. But they think that the country has progressed enough that government force is no longer needed.

In universities, civil rights seem to privilege middle-class blacks over other groups including Asians.

Minorities have suffered more from government enforced discrimination....than from white business owners, without the backing of governments, refusing to do business with them.

Really? Because we all know that governments are sui generis? This assertion is not only not backed up by any evidence, it is patently absurd on its face.

However, some libertarians would agree that there initially needed to be some kind of pressure applied to private business to accommodate minorities.

Some? How generous of them!

But they think that the country has progressed enough that government force is no longer needed.

Just like the Roberts Court! They can think what they want, but that doesn't make them right. The evidence for ongoing racial discrimination is pervasive.

What is our collective responsibility for each other in a case like that?

I know what my answer is to that question. I'm just tired of arguing with people about it.

Folks not infrequently handle their firearms in an irresponsible way. If we want to try to regulate that, they tell us they are going to kill us all.

It's hard for me to know how to make a remotely reasonable reply to that. So I've sort of stopped trying to figure it out.

Yet again, just when I thought we'd cornered the market in screwing up our political process, you just go ahead and outdo us....
https://slate.com/business/2017/06/how-mitch-mcconnell-wins.html

In a huge victory today the Trump administration undid 7 regulations requiring documentation that systems meet Y2k preparedness requirements.

This is what can be accomplished when the government is at a standstill otherwise.

Russell,

I don't have a clue as to how it feels to be, or to behave as, trans-gender. But I bet it's a lot of fuss and bother to change gender, so I'm guessing people doing it on a whim are negligibly few. (As few as women seeking late-term abortions on a whim, I suspect.) It may be hopelessly, tribaly liberal to say so, but I assume that there's something neuro-biologically real about the sense that "you" and your body are not the same gender -- as real, though not as visible, as dark skin.

"Conservatives" as a tribe disagree. They'd have us think that being a "Christian", let alone a baker, is somehow in-born and immutable, and thus deserving of public sympathy and legal protection.

If the "conservative" tribe were correct, I'd be more inclined to agree with the relevant paragraph of your 10:22AM comment.

--TP

"Liberals tend to advocate more than conservatives do for the interests of people who aren't white, straight, and generally male.

Conservatives tend to advocate more than liberals do in the other direction."

This is a fact. Because liberals never advocate for white males(straight ones anyway) it would have to be. Perhaps if liberals/Democrats did not dismiss all white males as having no problem worthy of concern, 30 mil might be enough to buy a congressional district.

russell: "Liberals tend to advocate more than...."

Marty: "Because liberals never advocate for..."

The construction of straw men is a sight to behold.

Gosh, what do liberals stand for? Well, in a nutshell they stand for a somewhat activist federal government that implements policy goals desired by We The People such as good public schools, sound infrastructure, full employment, the reining in of private market excess, an effective social safety net, social and legal equality, public safety, etc., etc., and etc.

These are things that, I believe, even straight white males, even a few of the saner Republican white males would see as desirable from a public policy perspective.

As a straight white male myself, I fully concur with these policy goals, and the Democratic Party is, in my humble opinion, the best current fit as effective political entities go toward meeting my concerns.

The "problem" of understanding "any problem worthy of concern" of white males is that I have yet to hear one. Are they discriminated against? No. Are they poorer than blacks, women or the LBGT community? No. Do they suffer disproportionately at the hands of our justice system? No.

Perhaps Marty can help me "get it", but I don't.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-white-black-hispanic-numbers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html

http://axisphilly.org/article/despite-pledges-to-change-phillys-building-trades-still-dominated-by-white-males/

Tomorrow, McConnell will unveil his plan to murder straight white men.

Thank you for the Beatle song rankings. I'll have a comment, maybe tomorrow.

Marty,

There's at least one liberal who only dismisses stupid straight white males. Not-stupid straight white males are potentially winnable for Democrats, but the stupid ones will vote Republican until (and beyond) the day that a few rich straight white males own their asses and control their livelihoods.

If the Democrats would listen to me, I'd advise them to tell the stupid straight white males, loudly and publicly, to vote Republican. The only thing that can educate the stupid straight white males is a few years of living under a Republican regime whose core belief is that poor people have too much money and rich people don't have enough. That Republican regime will screw them financially while protecting their daughters' right to own guns but restricting their daughters' right to abort a pregnancy; screw them financially while stroking their "pride" in being white and straight and male; screw them financially while celebrating their stupidity.

You can't get a mule to join forces wih a donkey until he has been hit upside the head with a 2x4 enough times by an elephant.

--TP

"Minorities have suffered more from government enforced discrimination; from the federal government, states' Jim Crow laws, to white city regulations; than from white business owners, without the backing of governments, refusing to do business with them."

That is one peculiar paragraph.

It is true that most governments in this country before Brown v Board of Education were run by albino lapdogs, talking parrots, copperheads, and domesticated seals.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-rep-collins-have-insurance-for-gun.html

Fuck off, conservatives.

Republicans should be forced to carry insurance to cover the cost of killing the rest of us.

count, I am not saying that there are no programs that positively impact poor white males. The problem is they are not considered a meaningful advocacy group by liberals, even though they and their families make up the majority of EVERY financial strata in the US. The desperately poor, the technically poor, the working poor, the barely middle class on the verge of being poor. It isn't that the programs exclude them, but everyone tells them they are privileged, they look in the mirror and wonder how much poorer they could be?

Lots of them vote Democrat anyway, but the lower middle class on up can't see any value for them in what the Democrats are selling.

Until you get to the 1-3% where they consider voting Democrat akin to giving to the United Way. Except they believe they should sign everyone else up for it with them, so it isn't just their donation they're giving. And even then, the rhetoric is focused on helping everyone that isn't white and male.

Its hard when you're game plan, as TP points out, is to immediately exclude 25 or 30% of the country from your big tent by constantly making them the problem.

"It isn't that the programs exclude them, but everyone tells them they are privileged, they look in the mirror and wonder how much poorer they could be?"

I think a good many middle class white people look in the mirror and wonder why so many poor white people who depend on the programs are so black and Mexican.

I think a good many wealthy white people look in the mirror and ask "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the most deservedly privileged of them all and while we're here, how can we prevent middle class people who are dunned out of their livelihoods and health insurance by "innovation", "disruption", and "right-sizing" from acting like those lazy blacks and Mexicans who we're giving it all away to.

As for the poor white unprivileged, I think some of them look in the mirror, and think, "Medicaid and Obamacare were pretty good programs until they let the darkies and wetbacks in on the deal."

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2017/06/middle-class-white-people-are-racists.html

I assume that there's something neuro-biologically real about the sense that "you" and your body are not the same gender

one of my niece's daughters basically lives her life as a boy. she's 6, she's been doing this for a couple of years now.

nobody pushed her in that direction, it's just what she wants to do.

people should be able to be who they are. this is not a big ask.

This is a fact

I don't dispute it. Liberals in general don't single out straight white males as a demographic whose interests need special attention.

maybe that's a mistake.

liberals tend to advocate for lots of policies that are to the benefit of lots of folks who are straight, white, and/or male. It could be that those folks don't grasp that, because they aren't presented as being for the particular benefit of straights, whites, or males.

and maybe that's a mistake, on their part.

given the trends so far, I expect straight white males who aren't wealthy, or at least wealthy-ish, to be thoroughly rogered by this administration and this Congress.

and I expect those straight white males to blame everyone in the world but this administration, this Congress, and themselves.

we'll see where it all ends up. it could all go totally sideways.

at least JD Vance made a pile out of it.

good luck everyone.

Apparently there's another U.S. Presidential election coming up next month:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-hotel-re-election-fundraiser-washington-dc

Violence, but only by the privileged, wins every time:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gianforte-sent-orange-jumpsuit-first-day

I notice dems aren't running Hodgkinson's disease for office. Now, there was a straight white male who knew exactly who was fucking him.

Of course, the racist KKK empathizer lives to see his murder plot become law, probably within weeks according to McConnell's calendar.

some libertarians would agree that there initially needed to be some kind of pressure applied to private business to accommodate minorities. But they think that the country has progressed enough that government force is no longer needed.

Why does this put me in mind of the Supreme Court ruling that the South had changed enough that it no longer required Federal pre-approval to keep it from drawing district boundaries which discriminated against blacks? And I think we all recall how that turned out in practice.

Apparently, according to this court, racial discrimination doesn't require that the victim be non-white.

"Rarely have we seen such manifest and open evidence of racial discrimination", a three-judge panel at the Missouri Court of Appeals said in their ruling, as they upheld a 2015 jury verdict in favour of Beverly Wilkins.

White professor was fired from predominantly black university due to colour of skin, court rules: The $5m awarded to Beverly Wilkins by a jury will also remain in place

"Because liberals never advocate for..."

trollin, trollin, trollin.

Its hard when you're game plan, as TP points out, is to immediately exclude 25 or 30% of the country from your big tent by constantly making them the problem.

not big on self-reflection are ye?

OK, I have now read the Lilla piece for the second time, and at the risk of making a bunch of people (ObWi) whose opinions I value despise me, I still find much of it persuasive. It's not like he doesn't agree with many of the "liberal" developments most of us hold dear:

The moral energy surrounding identity has, of course, had many good effects. Affirmative action has reshaped and improved corporate life. Black Lives Matter has delivered a wake-up call to every American with a conscience. Hollywood’s efforts to normalize homosexuality in our popular culture helped to normalize it in American families and public life.

But one of his main points seems to me vitally important, and the current story about McConnell gaming the legislative system totally supports it:

We need a post-identity liberalism............Teachers committed to such a liberalism would refocus attention on their main political responsibility in a democracy: to form committed citizens aware of their system of government and the major forces and events in our history. A post-identity liberalism would also emphasize that democracy is not only about rights; it also confers duties on its citizens, such as the duties to keep informed and vote.

I'm not saying I agree with him about everything, particularly about how this is to be achieved, I don't, but I think some parts of this need to be digested and acted upon if such (still) unbelievable outcomes as a Trump presidency (or worse) are to be avoided in the future.

if white privilege doesn't exist, how can this attempted murderer be a member of the White Privilege Club?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/motorcyclist-detained-after-riding-through-san-francisco-heath-care-protest/

I'm gratified Beverly Wilkins received justice and reparations.

GFNTC, I haven't read the Lilla piece yet either, but I highly doubt anyone's reaction here will be to despise you.

"if white privilege doesn't exist, how can this attempted murderer be a member of the White Privilege Club?

Because each night as we sleep, the staff of The Onion examines the previous day's events and all of its political commentary and then writes the punchline for the coming day?

I marvel at the number of times someone in the news commits some offense or utters some imbecility and their very name convicts them.

"A Yonkers man, identified as Peter I. Lyer, was apprehended today after he set an entire warehouse of men's trousers on fyer.

His attorney, the right honorable Abigail Purjury of the law firm Smirk, Smirk, Prevarication and Likearug, said her client was innocent of all charges in the preliminary hearing.

Teachers committed to such a liberalism would refocus attention on their main political responsibility in a democracy: to form committed citizens aware of their system of government and the major forces and events in our history.

This is what makes some of us nervous: That teachers have a "political responsibility". And that it is to indoctrinate students.

Here's my most recent favorite headline:

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ai-could-lead-to-4-hour-workdays-and-world-war-iii-says-alibabas-jack-ma/#ftag=YHF87e0214?yptr=yahoo

With our current luck, our first new day off (probably declared by conservative businessmen who just the day before were leaning out their car windows telling us to get off our asses and find a full time job) will be the very day they drop the hydrogen bomb on us.

And to think we thought we might sleep in for once.

Teachers committed to such a liberalism would refocus attention on their main political responsibility in a democracy: to form committed citizens aware of their system of government and the major forces and events in our history.

that's not even a liberalism thing: we desperately need more and better civics education. if people actually knew how our government works, maybe we could stop obsessing about the President and start paying attention to Congress.

A post-identity liberalism would also emphasize that democracy is not only about rights; it also confers duties on its citizens, such as the duties to keep informed and vote.

i don't find anything wrong with this. but it seems to me that this is already part of the pitch.

this is essentially what Obama based his presidency on: "Be The Change...", "It's On Us", etc.. Obama counted on people to keep informed, to vote, to vote for people who could help him achieve the things people voted him wanted. but of course, we didn't do any of that; we sat on our thumbs in election after election and boohooed when he didn't deliver the ponies.

we don't want the responsibility of having to pay attention. we deign to grudgingly trudge to the polls once every four years to elect the person who will just fix everything. we want someone who will takes the reigns and drive us to the promised land. Make America Great [Again]. Trump promised he would do it, he promised that only he could do it, and he asked nothing of the public in return - elect him and he would fix everything; we won't have to worry our pretty little heads about the details. Big Alpha Daddy will make it all better. it's entirely contrary to how our government works, but people don't care about that. they want what they want, what's possible is boring.

so, yes to all of that stuff. but it seems like a big lift.

Seconds pass, and I already have a new favorite headline:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ethereum-crashed-from-dollar319-to-10-cents-in-seconds-on-one-exchange-after-%e2%80%98multimillion-dollar%e2%80%99-trade/ar-BBD1Csf

Libertarians flee into the crypto-currencies to escape the debasement of the manipulated real currencies.

This is what makes some of us nervous: That teachers have a"political responsibility". And that it is to indoctrinate students.

And yet, isn't that exactly what our teachers of civics classes have been doing for decades? They teach how our form of government works, in theory and, hopefully, in practice. That's both their political and professional responsibility.

Or are you suggesting that all political systems are of equal merit, so no teacher should favor one over another?

As long as they don't get the summers off, receive tenure, or form a union.

Or take sides when teaching the events of the Civil War.

And can field questions like "Yeah, so where in your Constitution does it say we can't smoke in the bathroom?" without excusing themselves for a desperate smoke in the teacher's lounge, or now, outside in the parking lot as brainwashing takes its long term toll.

"or now, outside in the parking lot as brainwashing takes its long term toll. "

Now the campus is no smoking so they have to smoke in the Circle K parking lot across the street, or duck down in their cars to avoid suspension. In the meantime the students smoke pot while walking between classes.

In the meantime the students smoke pot while walking between classes.

same as it ever was.

we don't want the responsibility of having to pay attention.

Now there's a grand theme with many possible riffs - marx's concept of alienation for one (cue mcmanus).

GFNC - the first thing we do at our local Democratic Party LD meeting each month is recite the pledge of allegiance (lots of mumble mumble at the point of 'under god', but I digress). The meetings are infused with an overwhelming passion for public participation and civic virtue. I'd wager dollars to donuts that GOP LD meetings are similar in this respect.

Lille is just dead wrong, and basically puts all the burden on "liberals". It is a standard concern troll dodge.

He needs to get out of his office more and actually speak with people who are directly engaged in the political process.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad