« Enough | Main | Who disabled an unmarked unit, with a banana? Op. Thr. »

May 30, 2018

Comments

"I think it's important to be as precise as possible in what we object to."

Now you tell us.

Then, regarding those precision revenue surpluses flowing into the Treasury as a result of the tax cuts and your wish that SS be shored up with them:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gop-social-security-20171130-story.html

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-social-security-20180605-story.html

To be precise, the entire point of the tax cuts is to drown the baby in the bath tub, not merely one precise part of the baby in the bath tub .. those parts of the baby you might find adorable ... the entire baby, including SS and Medicare.

The republican party has been precise about these goals for 50 years. Any attempt to deny that fact is precisely horse manure.


Yever notice how these types never, or very rarely re-enact the Gettysburg Address or the signing of the peace at Appomattox:

I wonder if South Carolina re-enacts the Battle of Fort Sumter? Or, didn't enough humans die in it to make it fun for dumbasses.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/06/civil-war-reenactors-shoot-old-timey-weapons

In coming decades, American conservatives, spurred on by the NRA and the republican party, will precisely re-enact school and church shootings with misty-eyed nostalgia.

if you want to claim you're not picking a side, then don't pick a side...

Marty appear to be more of a Trump loyalist than your average billionaire Republican donor...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/05/daca-dreamers-republican-donors-627698

Y'all do understand the last paragraph of my last comment was "what they say" right?

GftNC, I think there are many legitimate reasons to provide asylum. We have a whole process around it.

to be honest, your point was not clear.

thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it. no snark.

i'm sure we'll be told that this is also an Obama law and practice, and hence all the Dems' fault, but ICE agents are apparently physically stopping people from even being able to request asylum.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17428640/border-families-asylum-illegal

Thanks Marty.

The basic policy to separate children from parents who have been arrested is a perfectly logical policy

Another perfectly logical proposal

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

I think it's important to be as precise as possible in what we object to.

OK, following directions:
I object to treating people who have committed a civil offense** (the equivalent, legally, of a traffic violation) like they are felons. I object even more to treating those who have committed NO offense (i.e. asylum seekers) like they are criminals.

After all, for all you hardened criminals, when you have gotten a traffic ticket, were you clapped in jail (no bail allowed) and your children put into foster care for the duration? It would, after all, be a significant deterrent (as AG Sessions would put it).

** If you think illegal entry ought to be a felony, take it up with your Congressman. Because at the moment, it isn't a felony, or even a misdemeanor -- like it or not, that's the law.

As I said, thanks Marty.

But looking back, what confuses me is this:

"No, the (or, at least, one major) change is that it is now applied to families who have NOT entered illegally, but have merely showed up at a regular border station and duly applied for asylum. They haven't broken they law, they've followed it to the letter.
This is a plain fact."

Marty: Pretty much just what I said. Those people used to just get told to go home. Now they get held. That's the difference. I object. They should just get told to go home.

So what it looked like you were saying was that anyone applying for asylum should just get told to go home (presumably where they came from), thus avoiding the whole cruel mess. Now, I fully understand that my head is full of cotton wool at the moment, and I may not be following this discussion adequately (it wouldn't be the first time), but if you don't mind me asking another question, what do you think should happen to people (and their children) obeying the law and trying to claim asylum?

Marty: Y'all do understand the last paragraph of my last comment was "what they say" right?

Here is that last paragraph in its entirety:

However, every time there is a big to do about a policy that turns out to be not precise HE gets a free pass for ten more lies because, see THEY just exaggerate everything. Besides are we supposed to put these people up in a Holiday Inn? HE already condemned the separation, it isn't his choice, that's all fake news
What I have italicized is obviously the "what they say" part.

What bugs me is the other part. It reads to me like it's in Marty's own voice. And, to be precise, I'm not saying it's wrong. I just want to know (precisely) who it is that "HE gets a free pass for ten more lies" FROM.

Could it be from the same people for whom the most imprecise (not to say inaccurate or fabricated) accusations against Hillary amounted to proof that she was the most corrupt politician in the history of the universe?

Could it be from the rabid right-wing media? The feckless "mainstream" media? The Russian trolls on Facebook? Who?

Could it be from "the American people"? Maybe. But I refuse to believe my fellow Americans are such simpletons as all that.

--TP

HE already condemned the separation

"oh look what you made me go and do" isn't much of a condemnation.

Well, you can fool 29% of the people all of the time...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/06/rudy-giuliani-approval-rating-quinnipiac-poll-629248

What the Supreme Court Masterpiece cake decision means to pigfucking racist mp republican hunks of rotting subhuman dead meat who happen to hold public office.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/macron-defines-good-citizenship-by-defying-the-pc-left/

The War of 1812:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/06/06/omfg-open-thread/

World War III, the killing of republican mp America:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJe7fY-yowk

HE already condemned the separation????

Marty,

That's as bad as the tax cut surplus.

Will someone explain again why I'm supposed to be nice and respectful of these views?

From the TAC piece:

We might note that such martial meritocracy is common to this day. According to a 2009 report, some 119 service members, having fought for the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, received their citizenship posthumously.

If I wasn't depressed before, I am now.

byomtov: Will someone explain again why I'm supposed to be nice and respectful of these views?

Because you can't call a spade a spade in the Voice of Moderation, Bernie. You have to coldly symbolize it as a snow shovel.

Actually, seriously: "views" deserve no respect whatever. "Views" have no feelings to hurt. "Views" have no inalienable rights. "Views" stand or fall on their own factual and logical merits. Affording respect to noxious "views" is nutty, not moderate.

Persons do deserve respect. (Even animals do, though some might argue not.) The trouble on the internet is that it's hard to separate persons from their "views" because their "views" are all we see. Nonetheless, I suggest that "respect" is NOT what we give to persons when we shrink from condemning their deplorable "views".

--TP

The first cite at 521 pm should have been

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/06/06/todays-racism-is-long-distance/

"Will someone explain again why I'm supposed to be nice and respectful of these views?"

Because the Commander of Cheese and his Cheetos, Cheese Whizzes, and politically correct Curds and Whey can't effing handle anything but constant and slavish crotch shampooing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYQaP3rfhXY

The worldwide conservative infestation steals everything not nailed down:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cambridge-analytica-ceo-reportedly-embezzled-144600630.html

When it's not the public they rip off, it's their "colleagues".

Nothing will be right with the world again until all of these ilk are dead.

Even republican shitheads like this woman are on the run because they won't shampoo mp's crotch on demand:

\https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a21096967/alabama-primary-roby-trump-2018/

Commander of Cheese

the term "Freudian slip" was invented for just such an occasion as this

Blessed are the cheese makers.

meanwhile...

there seems to be a widespread belief that poor people sit around spending Our Hard-Earned Money on gummy bears and Colt 45, and making their lives just that much more difficult will spur them to get up offa their @sses and get jobs.

we call it "making them free".

You know how you’re always saying that (some) people should be paid more, russell, particularly the working poor? Yeah...

This was my thought as well:

I'm actually impressed Trump knew anything about the war of 1812. https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1004408894301593600

Oh, Canada...

I was mildly surprised he even remembered that there was as War in 1812. That he knew that the White House got burned was even more surprising. But that he didn't know who we were fighting? Not so much.

Maybe there's a memorial/picture/plaque somewhere in the White House commemorating the burning, and he sees it every day. Or maybe he heard it once upon a time and since he never forgets an injury.........

maybe it was on Fox

Maybe he didn't know anything about it and just talked shit.

Marty makes an excellent point. And a high probability one.

OK Tony,

Persons do deserve respect. (Even animals do, though some might argue not.) The trouble on the internet is that it's hard to separate persons from their "views" because their "views" are all we see. Nonetheless, I suggest that "respect" is NOT what we give to persons when we shrink from condemning their deplorable "views".

I agree that people deserve respect, so I'm not going to just randomly call them names.

But when they start self-assuredly citing all sorts of bogus facts to defend Trump and Republicans, then I'm going to be critical. And if I call someone's views idiotic, then it's not going to take too long before they conclude I must think they are idiots - an accurate conclusion.

I refuse to believe my fellow Americans are such simpletons as all that.

But the fact is that Trump has an approval rating around 42%. Forty two out of every hundred of your fellow Americans are willing to say that the approve of the job he's doing as president.

One of those forty two realises what a slug he is, but they're rich, he's acting for the rich, they don't care what he's like.

Another one realises what a slug Trump is, but although they're not rich, some of his stupid policies, on coal mining say, are benefiting them, so they don't care what he's like either.

Another four or five realise what Trump is like, but they've got some absurd notion that increasing the deficit creates a surplus, or that the mad US system for funding healthcare could be made to work if only it weren't for Obama. It doesn't matter that much to them how vile he is because they think enough of his policies are a good idea.

Some few more have noticed that Trump is a lying, bullying, self-aggrandising ignoramus, but they think that doesn't matter because some of his opponents are sometimes insufficiently precise when pointing out his deficiencies. I'm going to assume that, despite what Marty says, this group is statistically insignificant.

And that leaves thirty five out of every hundred Americans who actually think well of Trump. Simpletons, they must be.

And that leaves thirty five out of every hundred Americans who actually think well of Trump. Simpletons, they must be.

A year ago, 24% of Americans still believed that the Bible is the literal word of God. And per the headline, that's a record low.

Broadly speaking, I am not militantly, or even mildly, anti-religion; in fact, there are a couple of spiritual traditions that I would be very tempted by if I weren't such an utter anti-social old crank.

But I think anyone who is sure she knows what's going on in the universe is by definition delusional. (Yes, I know the feeling is mutual. But wait 1,000 years, if we haven't destroyed ourselves by then, and see what physics, medicine, and biology say about the quaint scientific beliefs of the 21st century.) The % of the population that believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is for me a pretty good floor for judging delusion.

When I think of it that way, the level of approval for President Clickbait in this country is a little less surprising, if no less depressing or disappointing.

Yes, but children are indoctrinated in religion by their parents
Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man.

Simpletons, they must be.

most people don't think about politics all that much. to a lot of folks it just seems like a bunch of people shouting at each other about bullshit. politicians as a class rate somewhere just below used car salesmen in the public mind.

people have other stuff to do. if the situation is not actively biting them on the behind, politics is background noise. these days, loud background noise, which just adds to the annoyance level.

if the situation *is* biting them on the behind, they are most likely just going to vote for the other guy, whoever that is.

trump is just being trump, and the lights still come when they flip the switch. do you approve of trump? yeah, sure, whatever.

i'll also say that my thinking lately is that six more years of Trump is more likely than not. which I find profoundly disturbing, and which I think will be highly damaging to the nation.

but it is what it is.

whatever mueller comes out with will either lead to his impeachment, or not. if it does not, must folks will just be glad it's over and done with, and will be happy to move on.

if the economy continues to not suck, he'll get another four.

if the (D)'s can find a truly charismatic candidate - another Bill Clinton or Barack Obama - maybe different story. I'm not sure who that would be.

I really have no idea what the country looks like after 8 years of Trump. once that level of clownish malice and venality becomes acceptable, I'm not sure how you walk it back.

we should have sent Nixon to jail, and we should have surrendered Bush and Cheney et al to the Hague.

we did not, and did not want to. it was "time for healing". so now we have trump.

Just as an aside, if we had surrendered Bush to the Hague we would probably be in the 6th year of Romney.

Yes, but children are indoctrinated in religion by their parents

Who ever said otherwise? I don't get the logic of "yes, but..." as a response to what I wrote.

On the other hand, I know an awful lot of people for who the indoctrination slipped off like a loose-fitting glove once people got to adulthood. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a minority overall, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it's a sizable one.

Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man. That might have been true for Ignatius, but no one in the Catholic world I grew up in was quite up to Ignatius's standard. Even the Jesuits I know aren't that good in these degenerate times.

"for whoM the indoctrination" .... grrr typos .... time for breakfast and tea

Just as an aside, if we had surrendered Bush to the Hague we would probably be in the 6th year of Romney.

If we had surrendered Bush to the Hague, there would have been a much bigger mess than two terms of Mitt Romney. Coup, widespread violence, whatever.

So, a "time for healing" was probably the best available option at the time.

My point overall is that most people don't give enough of a shit about the public institutions they live under to care all that much about what Trump does. If they're making their bills and the lights are on, he's as good as anyone else.

We'll see what happens.

We'll see what happens.

Yeah. A big problem is that many of the effects of what he's doing (or isn't doing) won't show up in a timeframe or with sufficiently obvious causality for there to be much in the way of electoral consequences. For example, undermining the DOS or the EPA isn't going to affect people in their daily lives soon enough or in ways that they'll be able to connect the dots. Or, if there is an observable, short-term causation, the people who support Trump will largely accept a Fox News, alternative facts-based narrative that absolves him of any responsibility. It will still be Obama's fault or some such bullsh*t.

Just as an aside, if we had surrendered Bush to the Hague we would probably be in the 6th year of Romney.

My alternative history is Hillary wins the 2008 Dem primary and Presidency, then loses to Romney in 2012, who then loses to Obama in 2016.

This, on the other hand, should be fairly obvious:

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/rekha-basu/2018/06/07/deportation-death-des-moines-high-school-dreamer-daca-mexico-drug-cartels/680234002/

I hope Trump and Sessions sleep well.

the people who support Trump will largely accept a Fox News, alternative facts-based narrative that absolves him of any responsibility.

the biggest problem facing the country right now, IMO, is that we do not share a common understanding of basic, factual information.

not just different opinions, but different realities.

the biggest problem facing the country right now, IMO, is that we do not share a common understanding of basic, factual information.

Agreed. We have lost track of the old truth: you are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

I suspect that, unfortunately, we will continue to have problems until reality up and smacks one group up side the head and forces them to pay attention. Which, sooner or later, it will.

"the biggest problem facing the country right now, IMO, is that we do not share a common understanding of basic, factual information."

This is true, but mostly we don't have a common acceptance of who the sources of authoritative information are, and aren't.

Fact based decisions are rare in politics, and even in life. Data is processed, statistics are created, the conclusions from those statistics are treated as facts when, too often, the conclusions are subjective.


Just an example: the climate is changing is a fact, by how much is a conclusion from data gathered, what we need to do about it, at what pace, is an opinion. Most people state the opinion as fact, and when questioned quote the conclusion and never actually get to the data.

The argument, with "science deniers", is about the opinion, and, sometimes, the conclusion using a number of scientists as the authority.

But they are the authority only as far as the data model goes. When the study says that z outcome has x probability with y confidence then the next discussion steps into conclusions and opinion where the appeal to authority is less relevant.

So people pick the conclusion that supports their world view.

wj: We have lost track of the old truth: you are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

That's YOUR opinion, of course.

Marty: ... the climate is changing is a fact, by how much is a conclusion from data gathered ...

I am honestly unable to figure out the limits of this distinction. Data gathered by my eyes, looking at an array of pixels, lead me to conclude that Marty is a fact. But I could be wrong, I suppose.

Seriously, Marty, I do agree that it's worth distinguishing between data, inferences, and values. But it's worth noting that "inferences" at one level become "data" at a higher level. That the world is made of atoms is an inference from certain data, for physicists; taking the inference as data is what allows chemists to infer how CO2 is formed; that becomes a "fact" for biologists, engineers, climate scientists and so forth. Someday, even "values" may be reduced to "inferences" from "data" -- if the world really is made of atoms, of course.

--TP

mostly we don't have a common acceptance of who the sources of authoritative information are

Yes, the two phenomena are related. They may even be the same thing, i.e. we have different understandings of what things are factual, because we have different understandings of who is in a position to accurately determine what is so.

Either way, it's FUBAR.

Regarding climate science, my OPINION is that we don't do anything about it because (a) it's scary and we don't want to think about it, (b) humans are basically lazy in the sense of being prone to inertia, and (c) people who are at risk of losing a whole lot of money have placed a very large finger on the scale.

We'll see who is right. Or, more likely, we won't, our grandkids and their kids will.

In the short term, there will be opportunities to monetize the situation in any of a number of ways, and no doubt folks are hard at work running the numbers even now.

So people pick the conclusion that supports their world view.

This conclusion does not negate the "fact" that some conclusions are, in my opinion, "wrong". Frex, most would agree that racism is wrong. Solutions range from "do nothing" to reparations.

Somewhere in there, somebody is "right".

Similarly with global warming. Finally, after decades of argument, it would seem that carbon fed global change is a reality. Ask the DOD. Ask any insurance underwriter. Again, solutions range from "shrugs shoulders" to radically lower our standard of living.

Global warming is the mother of all collective action problems.

Come what may, somebody shall be proven right, and it will become a "fact".

The death and destruction in the interim is, apparently, just noise.

The argument, with "science deniers", is about the opinion, and, sometimes, the conclusion using a number of scientists as the authority.

In the olden days the deniers tried to argue their own "facts"....I mean, I once had a discussion with a person who claimed that we don't have excessive carbon pollution since carbon is heavier than oxygen, and therefore we would all be suffocating...but we aren't...SO TAKE THAT, LIBS!

You don't see that so much any more. Inhofe didn't hold up a snowball in the Senate chamber last year. CHECKMATE, CONSERVASUCKS!

The facts (you know, actual data) also show that this trend is accelerating.

The hypothesis is we shall observe X, Y, and Z (rising sea levels, warmer temperatures, mass execution of conservatives). This hypothesis is a prediction, not an opinion. It is a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis(it will happen or or won't).

We could do something about this. Tragically, we most likely will not.

That's my opinion.

JanieM: my point, in so far as I had one, was that belief in fantastically implausible religious tenets is something drummed into people from an early age. (Any believers who cleave to whatever happens to be the one true faith, I don't mean yours, I mean all the others.)

Whereas no one polled has been taught as a young child to believe in Trump. They've come to it of their own accord.

Pro Bono: (Any believers who cleave to whatever happens to be the one true faith, I don't mean yours, I mean all the others.)

I am SO stealing that.

--TP

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad