« Names Once More | Main

August 10, 2019

Comments

Actually, none of it is out of thin air. Banks are required to have assets. They can loan more money than they have assets but that leverage is limited.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the money isn't created from nothing. What it might mean is that banks can only create a limited amount of money from nothing (i.e. they aren't completely unrestrained in their ability to create money).

What bobbyp (and others) said.

If a bank could create money from nothing, everybody would set up their own bank, and never work again. Which, we observe, doesn't happen. Also, banks would never be in a position where they had to be "rescued" -- you may recall a number of those from the 2008 crash. There's arguments about whether a bank should be considered "to big to fail", but none at all about whether they could if not rescued by the government.

Actually, none of it is out of thin air.

Please read the link on fractional reserve banking.

Banks are required to have assets.

Please read up on double entry bookkeeping. Banks have assets (loans) as a matter of course.

They can loan more money than they have assets but that leverage is limited.

If the bank is a member of the federal reserve system, their leverage is dictated by their reserves (and loan demand), not their loans on the books.

What they have to have is enough assets to cover any losses.

LOL!!!!!!!!!! Well, perhaps. See banking crisis, 2008. A lot of 'assets' simply evaporated.

Then, the assets which are primarily deposits, are insured by the government.

Deposits are liabilities. FDIC insurance on any particular account is limited to $250k. The government does implicitly guarantee the solvency of the system.

the government is the ultimate creator of money

This is true.

based on the its ability to guarantee the money is good through the fed.

This is not true.

Blah blah

Now there is a convincing argument!

It's a banking system, no one in the system is creating money from nothing.

The banking system taken as a whole creates money via loans. The fed no longer attempts to control the money supply directly (sorry Milton), rather it uses the indirect method of targeting interest rates.

Open thread!

I like reading this guy.

But, bobbyp, there are capital requirements for banks (even in countries with no reserve requirements). The reserve requirement in the US is pretty much meaningless, but there are still capital requirements.

Regeneron, a publicly-traded corporation staffed by gloriously incented human beings and a Federal Government agency, staffed by useless, overpaid, vermin federal employees, The National Institutes of Health, together, cure Ebola.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/health/ebola-outbreak-cure.html

Time to gut the latter agency. Send those dead weight scientists to some American Siberia to be closer to the stinking, sniveling, subhuman republicans and conservatives who hate them, ESPECIALLY when the employees cure diseases, which is an unthinkable socialist attainment under the circumstances of their stock optionless, malingering employment, according to conservative dead filth.

https://www.aip.org/fyi/2019/fy20-budget-request-national-institutes-health

I wish an Ebola infection upon every conservative on Earth.

I'd rather use bullets. They aren't infectious, merely sporting.

Ask for the private cure, fuckwads.

What bobbyp (and others) said.

Well, that's embarrassing. When bobby posted a link to an explanation of fractional reserve banking, I innicently assumed he understood how banking actually works. You know, agreeing with the explanation that Marty and others had given. But clearly not. Oops.

Hang in there, John. Eventually they will have slashed all of the government except their own budgets . . . and the military. And you just know they won't be able to stop, and won't be willing to stint themselves. At which points, the "all government is evil" libertarians and the macho reactionaries will discover that allies of convenience aren't friends forever.

And since both are already gun enthusiasts, they'll shoot up each other. No effort on your part required.

Um, "shrieking and shouting"?

Plus, there's this:

One of Epstein's guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night he died was reportedly not a regular corrections officer.

Moving my chips off the square marked "straight up suicide".

I know this is all serious stuff, and it's not very cool to treat anyone's death as a public spectacle, but the weirdness just keeps getting more and more overt.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/13/1878730/-Acting-Director-of-Immigration-Services-offers-the-most-Trumpian-take-on-give-us-your

Cuccinelli, the vermin get of lice, rats, cockroaches, italians, and the irish, all of the creepy crawly disease/pox-ridden foreign shit that could skitter into my country during the 19th and early 20th centuries to set up criminal murderous enterprises and evade taxes while using the public facilities at will, opens his choleric sewer of a right-wing republican mouth.

Antibiotics were invented to fight the scourges his male ancestors carried beneath their foreskins.

Some history about his great grandmother, who blew both of my fine German great grandfathers before they settled down to till the fine Aryan salt of the American Earth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/13/danger-vilifying-poor-immigrants/

My replacement policy: One Cuccinelli, ankles tied together, overboard feet first, muerto.

Replace him with ten Latin American human beings, newly minted Americans. Let's get a little class back into government.

Cuccinelli doesn't care for political correctness, thus my retro vocabulary.

I like to speak their language. English.

Capiche, cocksuckers?

hsh,
Agree. Capital requirements are why everybody can't just open a bank. Is the reserve requirement "pretty meaningless" because it has been superseded by the capital requirements put in place by Dodd-Frank (and subsequent modifications) or because it is rarely used? It is still a tool in the Fed's toolbox. Let me know. Thanks.

wj,
LOL. What did I miss?

Let me know.

Particularly now, and for the last decade or so, because the excess reserves in the system are so great, anyone can borrow whatever they need to shore up there reserves, be it from the Fed or another bank. (Of course, few banks would need to do that, as the amount of excess reserves would indicate.)

And the reserve ratio only applies to certain kinds of deposits, also, too.

"One of Epstein's guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night he died was reportedly not a regular corrections officer."

Dollars to donuts that said "not a regular corrections officer" turns out to be impossible to track down.

THEIR!!! Emmeffin' dammit!

From Russell's link:

"In an interview with our West Palm Beach affiliate WPEC, a former Florida corrections worker said Epstein was "treated like a celebrity" during his 13-month stint in a county jail after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to charges of soliciting a minor for prostitution. She claims his cell was regularly left unlocked and she saw him move freely through the dormitory area – sometimes completely naked – without repercussions."

The niggers in Florida wish they'd received that treatment from conservative republican and democratic party vermin government.

Hillary Clinton expressly requested a silent execution, I'll bet FOX News will report.

I mean, you didn't hear a peep out of Vince Foster didja?

Nope, the soft fruity sound of a melon being thunked was all.

This lacks the flair of JDT's comments, but it's actually a better discussion than I expected when I first came across it.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-banks-dont-need-your-money-make-loans.asp

Excerpts:

In today’s modern economy most money takes the form of deposits, but rather than being created by a group of savers entrusting the bank withholding their money, deposits are actually created when banks extend credit (i.e., create new loans). As Joseph Schumpeter once wrote, “It is much more realistic to say that the banks 'create credit,' that is, that they create deposits in their act of lending than to say that they lend the deposits that have been entrusted to them.”

(...)

If bank lending is constrained by anything at all, it is capital requirements, not reserve requirements. However, since capital requirements are specified as a ratio whose denominator consists of risk-weighted assets (RWAs), they are dependent on how risk is measured, which in turn is dependent on the subjective human judgment. Subjective judgment combined with ever-increasing profit-hungriness may lead some banks to underestimate the riskiness of their assets. Thus, even with regulatory capital requirements, there remains a significant amount of flexibility in the constraint imposed on banks’ ability to lend.

William Barr's father was once Epstein's employer.

The non-regular corrections officer being sought will be detained. The killing itself was the least important part of his job.

He will frame Hillary Clinton for ordering and financing the hit.

Your Republican Criminal Despotic Government at work, doing more with less.

Remember the NYC Office of the Justice Department and their affection for Clinton during the campaign.

Returning to flairlessness: US Banks Capital Requirements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_requirement

https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2011/11-01-03-dodd-frank-act-regulations-minimum-capital-requirements.pdf

Alexander Hamilton created the United States of America out of thin air.

For which conservative Aaron Burr shot him dead.

Thus encapulates American History, excluding later adjustments.

Thanks, hsh. I read the entry. I was trying to convey the "expectations of profitability" part.

As banks "lend first and look for reserves later" what happens when reserves become scarce? A Volcker moment?

:)

Thank God for the Italians! Sans Columbus, of course.

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1161081413120090113?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1161100636995407872&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketwatch.com%2Fstory%2Ffox-news-host-sean-hannity-in-rare-split-from-trump-defends-cnns-chris-cuomo-2019-08-13

That's how you deal with fucking conservatives.

Get Cuomo on the stage with p for the Presidential debates, and watch some vermin shit get in-their-face fucked up, with violence.

I'd say, at this point, that the circle jerk called America is about kaputnik:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowROiw

Hat tip to a commenter at LGM for reminding me of my duty.

thanks to Trump, of our politics is a nationwide meta-discussion of tweets and memes.

As banks "lend first and look for reserves later" what happens when reserves become scarce? A Volcker moment?

My naïve guess is that, assuming reserves wouldn't become scarce too quickly, banks would, over time, become less likely to lend first. Wouldn't that be nice?

Sure, the economy would slow down, but it would be better than a catastrophic *systemic failure.*

I'd say, at this point, that the circle jerk called America is about kaputnik:

It's all too easy to get focused on how far we still have to go, and on how much we have backslid recently. And lose track of how far we have actually come -- just in my lifetime.

When I was born, most states still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books. When I was in college, it was routine for kids of East Asian ancestry to be told when they left for school "We know you'll me meeting lots of people from other groups. And that's OK. Just don't bring home any (Chinese or Japanese, whichever the family wasn't); they're inferior!" Around the same time, a young white woman who married a black pro football star (Gene Upshaw) could get cut off by her family and never communicated with again.

Do we still have a long ways to go? Absolutely. But despair comes when you lose track of how far we have actually managed to come. In spite of everything.

Duly noted and appreciated, wj.

Same here in my life experience.

All the more reason to turn back all retrenchment, foot dragging, backsliding and reactionary, revanchist, deplorable hate.

Stand athwart all those who belligerently stand athwart and yell "No!" over the painful, slow progress that has been accomplished for two and a half centuries to realize the Founders words, despite the Founders actions, and give not an inch of ground.

Yes, judging the societal behavior and attitudes of those in the far past by today's standards after all of the battles that have been fought and won is pointless.

But those who today behave as those in the past and harbor hate for the Other will be judged by today's standards, not the excuse-making of the past 240 years.

They've got til Friday noon.

Then we come back Monday and put up with the same old sorry shit, now trickled down in a torrent from our fucking institutions that once stood for something other than an infestation of cynical bullshit.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/epstein-suicide-jail-4chan-medic-emergency

But those who today behave as those in the past and harbor hate for the Other will be judged by today's standards, not the excuse-making of the past 240 years.

They've got til Friday noon.

Perhaps a slightly optimistic deadline. But consider that (occasionally disgusting anomalies like Stephen Miller aside) most of the worst of them are at an age where they will be dying off unassisted. The next generation is far less bigoted -- which is, of course, part of the source of their hysteria.

p's hiring freeze across federal prisons led to major staff shortages at the gulag where epstein checked out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49322050

Anything to force federal contract payoffs to the republican party's Citizens Benighted donors in the private prison "industry" in the form of privatization, where you can be snuffed without transparency and accountability.

I've been hearing about this demographic "dying off" forever.

Unless these fresh-faced conservative white nationalists recently recruited by the conservative movement start dying off as teenagers, and soon, I'm going to be dead before the dying off is complete.

I'm going to be dead before the dying off is complete.

I hear they have lots of reserves.

Here's how conservatism works.

When Stephen Miller is executed for his crimes, the conservative white Christian movement will credit his demise to liberal, Democratic Party anti-Semitism, not his malignant white nationalist conservatism.

Conservatives always claim the ultimate victim hood.

Miller hates secular, liberal Jews in America and Israel, but he's the fucking victim.

I heard Rush Limbaugh excoriating Kamala Harris for not really being black, or African, etc. the other week.

No, he's the victim. In fact, he will strip Harris of her melanin and claim it for himself and his majority white conservative victimhood.

Conservatives* take everything from their victims for themselves, including the latter's well-earned multi-generational victimhood.

Gimme that, that's mine too.

Miller and Limbaugh are correct.

They will be victims.

For what they chose to be.

What the fuck?

What demographic die off?

They are coming out of the woodwork. It's a fucking democraphic baby boomlet of white nationalist mouth breathers.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/jonathan-weisman-demoted-nyt

https://www.theroot.com/please-allow-jonathan-weisman-of-the-new-york-times-to-1836872477

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FOD1jZr-S4

It was the most prophetic, cautionary movie of the late 20th Century.

A literate warning label.

But conservatives corporations, as they do with warning labels for industrial poisons, reworded the label to tell us it was good for us, and used it as an instructional manual, a blueprint, for killing America.

What demographic die off?

Look at pictures from a Trump rally. Pretty much any Trump rally. How many 20 year olds do you see, vs how many folks with grey hair? Contrast that with events for pretty much any of the would-be Democratic candidates.

It's not that there are NO young reactionaries, just as there are some ancient liberals. But it's pretty clear how things are going. And even advances in geriatric medicine won't stall it forever.

Yes, the banking system creates money more or less out of thin air.

I create an account at 1st National and put $100 cash in it, which they put in the vault.

Marty goes to 1st National to borrow some money. They can lend him a big chunk of that $100, say $95, by simply creating an account for him with $95 in it. So it looks like they have my $100 and his $95, but Marty didn't borrow the money to leave in his checking account, so he takes it out and spends it on whatever he intended to buy all along.

The bank started with $100 in assets, my C-note, and $100 in liabilities - its obligation to me. It now has the same liability, but its assets consist of $5 cash and the loan to Marty. For a brief moment it had $195 in assets, the cash plus the loan, and the same in liabilities - the two deposits - but that didn't last. Mysteriously, $95 has appeared in the economy.

It has to keep the $5 because there is some chance I will turn up and demand my $100 - there's a reason it's called a demand deposit. Of course they're screwed anyway if I do, but of course there's lots of depositers, and it's a good bet that no more than a small percentage will show up any given day.

Move on to bank runs, deposit insurance - socialism!!! - etc.

But Marty has whatever he bought . . . and a $95 liability, in the form of that loan. He has, if you will, made money disappear. So net in the economy: $0.

You can't just look at the bank's assets liabilities. You have to look at them for everybody in the economy.

What demographic die off?

I remember the sitcom "All In The Family" and hearing all the talk about the forthcoming inevitable die-off of the Archie Bunkers of the world.

But somehow, we became him. All that "New Age" and "New Left" stuff? Nah.

But Marty got a tax cut, so he's up 50 cents, and the next time we have a run on the financial system, the federal experts on what goes where and to whom have to be tracked via a phone booth down a path from an unmarked building on the edge of the high prairie with tumbleweed piled up on its windward side.

Suppose Marty paid the $95 to Bernie for a half hour of consultation on photography. (Cheap at twice the price.) Bernie then deposits it in his account at 1st National. The bank now has assets of $100 cash plus Marty's $95 note, balanced against its $195 liability to Bernie. If Marty is good for the money, the bank is exactly as solvent as it was at the get-go. If not, not.

If you're a banker, you might say the bank's balance sheet has expanded by $195. If you're an economist, you might say that $95 of GDP was created thanks to fractional reserve banking. If you're a Republican, you'll give the banker a tax cut and be done with it, because that's what money is for.

--TP

Yeah, Meathead wears a MAGA hat now, having lost two careers, his university pension, and his kids addicted to opioids, plus Archie's old union down at the loading dock now outsourced to cheap foreign labor.

Actually Rob Reiner and Carroll O'Conner were both politically liberal in their personal lives, so by my count we're down one liberal.

If you throw in George Jefferson, the TV character, he'd be declaring his freedom to be belligerent by going full-on MAGA, and casting a suspicious arch-eyebrow Soros-ward.

And don't ask if Sammy Davis Jr takes cream and sugar in his eye, whatevah you do, Edit.

Food for thought
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/13/are-democrats-missing-most-important-fight/

But Marty has whatever he bought . . . and a $95 liability, in the form of that loan. He has, if you will, made money disappear. So net in the economy: $0.

You can't just look at the bank's assets liabilities. You have to look at them for everybody in the economy.

Well, presumably whatever he bought is worth $95, or he got $95 worth of pleasure out of consuming it. And the seller has the $95.

"It's not that there are NO young reactionaries, just as there are some ancient liberals. But it's pretty clear how things are going. And even advances in geriatric medicine won't stall it forever."

This was true when I was 18, yet here we are. The average age of the McGovern voter was pretty young, I bet Carter too. The youngsters loved Clinton.

This [the old reactionary voters will die off] was true when I was 18, yet here we are.

Indeed. I have heard, "the current tranche of oldsters will die off and the next tranche of oldsters will vote like they did when they were 20-somethings" for as long as I can remember. Hasn't happened. In round numbers, nearly two generations have passed and... It. Hasn't. Happened.

There has finally been a bunch of political analysis showing up about Arizona and Georgia and Texas that says "If you win the suburbs you win the state!" I've lived in Colorado for 30 years now and can say exactly why the state has turned blue enough it's not even considered a battleground state any more: the Republicans went crazy and lost the suburbs.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but for my particular policy concerns, the Democrats need to kick the hardcore urbanists out of the party and find a bunch of people who look at the problems in terms of how efficient can suburbs become?

What's a suburb without its urb, I ask myself?

--TP

I have heard, "the current tranche of oldsters will die off and the next tranche of oldsters will vote like they did when they were 20-somethings" for as long as I can remember. Hasn't happened. In round numbers, nearly two generations have passed and... It. Hasn't. Happened.

Hasn't it? Certainly those oldstets are on the conservative side by today's standards. But by the standards of their youth? Many of them (not all, certainly, but many) hold many of the views that they did then. They haven't gotten more conservative; society has gotten more liberal.

Don't believe it? Consider this. One of the commons appellations for President Reagan, from liberals (fairly extreme liberals even) was "Ronnie b*ttf*ck." Yup, for a liberal to imply that an opponent was a homosexual was not considered even a little untoward at the time. Anybody know a liberal today who would publicly do that? Even an extremely conservative politician would be cautious about saying it too publicly.

Society has moved, to the point that a homosexual running for President isn't seen as insane. He may not get the nomination, but nobody argues he isn't a serious candidate. (More serious than a dozen of the others still claiming to be in the contest.)

In my youth, the Supreme Court had a (single) "Jewish seat" and, less explicitly, a Catholic seat. Otherwise, Supreme Court Justices were routinely Protestants. Today, there is only one (1) Protestant Justice; in 2015 there were none. The Court is wall-to-wall Catholics and Jews. And nobody raises an eyebrow. Even Trump doesn't find it worthwhile to rant to his base about it.

The list could go on and on. I recall serious concerns being raised about JFK, just because he was Catholic. A Muslim candidate today might face something like that in some circles. But a Catholic?

Things change so much that we even lose track of how much. Or that once we, and people like us, held quite different views than what is considered normal today.

....and find a bunch of people who look at the problems in terms of how efficient can suburbs become?

Perhaps suburbs are inherently inefficient to begin with?

<>What's a suburb without its urb, I ask myself?

Phoenix?

So much for tags. Using a phone.

People have become much more liberal on social issues, but arguably more conservative on economic issues, after literally decades of propaganda about how inefficient government always is compared to the private sector.

On racial and religious and ethic prejudice it’s been two steps forward and a pretty gigantic step backwards, especially with Trump. But the anti- Muslim stuff started slowly taking off after 9-11. Dubya was actually sort of half decent on this in a very limited way— I mean the man might be a war criminal but he didn’t want people thinking Muslims in genera were evil. But there was a backlash against the “ Islam is a religion of peace” meme and not all of it came from conservatives. I remember Martin Amis saying some nasty Islamophobic things and IIRC the NYT Sunday magazine had a sympathetic piece ( to Amis) on the controversy. Bill Maher, who sometimes is seen as a liberal by people with very low standards, was a Muslim basher.

Islamophobia started to become a more obviously partisan issue when Barack Hussein Obama became President and some conservatives started saying he was a sekrit Muslim. McCain famously came to his defense, but in a way that inadvertently gave the impression that being a Muslim might be bad. The concern over immigration, as always, had a racist tinge apart from whatever else one might say.

Then Trump came along and all the suppressed nastiness came out in full force.

The Martin Amis flap. That was British, of course, but it spilled over here a bit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/books/review/Donadio-t.html

Amis sounded like an articulate literary version of Trump.

On racial and religious and ethic prejudice it’s been two steps forward and a pretty gigantic step backwards, especially with Trump.

Overall, I'd say that it's been more like a half dozen steps forward, often followed by a big step (amounting to perhaps two, or sometimes three, of the others) backwards. The size of the step backwards tends to obscure the overall trend.

Trump has been exceptional in that he has contrived 4-5 steps worth of backward. Not enough to negate recent, let alone long term, progress. But certainly enough to be both concerning and irritating.

However, my belief is that he represents an anomaly born of a conflation of special circumstances. Had he lost (not to mention failed to get the nomination, which in most circumstances he would have), the damage he did would have been in the 1-2 steps backwards range. As it is, we will be a decade or so recovering as a society** from his tenure.

** The damage to the government, to our foreign relations, and to the planet will be harded to recover from. To the extent that they can be.

....and find a bunch of people who look at the problems in terms of how efficient can suburbs become?

Perhaps suburbs are inherently inefficient to begin with?

Perhaps they are - but that doesn’t mean they can’t be ameliorated, and they are not going away.
And Michael is right about it being a key electoral battleground. Even the Republicans are starting to wake up to that.

Some things change:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/13/texas-anti-mexican-racism-voces

And some things stay much the same:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/after-ice-raids-mass-firing-at-ph-food-in-morton-mississippi.html

Beyond meat, but back to dodgy meat inspection:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/meatpacking-giant-tyson-wants-fewer-government-inspectors-the-usda-is-listening/ar-AAFMZSZ

Unlike conservatives proudly fucking over immigrants, this is being done on the down low, natch.

How did Hillary Clinton dose those guards with sleeping potions?

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/guards-epstein-asleep-cover-up-death

Aye, she's a sly one.

They'll be inspecting meat for Tyson Foods, where sleeping on the job while tainted carcasses get through IS the job, at minimum wage before this is over.

In the request, Tyson Fresh Meats proposes using its own employees, rather than independent Department of Agriculture inspectors, to take a first look at the meat being prepared at its factory in Holcomb, Kansas.

Look how well that worked for Boeing.

Diana, you can't be serious.

https://www.mediamatters.org/pbs/white-supremacist-pat-buchanan-will-co-star-public-televisions-relaunched-mclaughlin-group

I demand that both sides be represented to maintain fairness.

I want Lorraine Hobbs to shoot white supremacist and racist Pat Buchanan in his conservative fucking head on the first rebooted Mclaughlin Group show.

On next week's show, Sybil the Soothsayer will oraculate on the possibility of slaughtering and butchering every conservative and republican on the planet and providing warnings on the packaging to severely overcook the meat to avoid uninspected offal and prion disease.

It's OK to eat the uninspected mystery meat on uninspected overseas flights, because as Paul Newman explained:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sdlUad38xU

This is typical Dreher:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-great-out-doors-pattie-gonia/

Next thing you know, Liberace will be skeet-shooting, RuPaul will be cage fighting, and Elton John will be rock climbing.

The queering of the woods, it sez.

As it happens, I'll be backpacking and camping in the Never Summer Range in Northern Colorado in two weeks and if I run into that guy on the trail, I'll tell him Dreher is spreading the news.

I read Dreher to receive the latest on this type of stuff because he's on it faster than Jenna Jameson can hype her new Keto diet.

When Bolsonaro of Brazil, who will be assassinated, tweeted during his fascist campaign for President that a couple of gay dudes were rogering each other on a balcony overlooking a street during Brazil festival, Dreher picked that up pronto and publicized it.

Who needs internet porn when Dreher delectates over every sex act between consenting adults?

I think more impressionable undecided men decided on the basis of Dreher's jones-on to give the lifestyle a try than dropped to their knees in prayer.

I simply wouldn't be looking for this stuff on my own, so I'm glad Dreher waves it around in my face so I can take notice.

His commentariat goes into full circle jerk high dudgeon P.T. Barnum paroxyms of joy over this stuff.

Bolsonaro doesn't fuck men. He murders them.

Which is why Dreher would be forced to vote for Bolsonaro if he was a Brazilian citizen. See how it works?

Dreher has a kink.

I'm doing a ten-mile hike to a waterfall west of Denver today.

Hope to see some endangered species before they disappear.

Dreher tells me that as a white male heterosexual I'm on the hit list.

He's got books to sell.

Dreher tells me that as a white male heterosexual I'm on the hit list.

Does that mean your next book/record will be a hit?

Or just that you will go 3 for 3 at the plate in your next game?

Either way, congratulations!

Overconfidence is always a concern. Not least after 2016. But this may provide some relief from depression:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/trumps-state-by-state-approval-ratings-should-scare-him.html

to take offense at the 'queering of the woods' somewhat begs the question that the woods are actually the exclusive domain of the heterosexual human male.

for that matter, Dreher's entire oeuvre begs that same question.

Heterosexual and male are two of the defaults when discussing humans, cleek. Using them as modifiers is redundant.

Using them as modifiers is redundant.

Perhaps even repetitively redundant.

You really, really have to wonder about his family and his social circle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rep-steve-king-says-humanity-might-not-exist-if-not-for-rape-and-incest/2019/08/14/0b60357a-beb8-11e9-9b73-fd3c65ef8f9c_story.html

I've just got back from being in the North Country for 3 days, and without broadband, so I'm having to catch up quickly and without reading many links. But I just wanted to point out, on the Martin Amis stuff, that he and Christopher Hitchens were famously best friends, and although in some ways they could amplify the best and cleverest in each other, I think this issue was an example of how they could sometimes amplify the worst in their own private echo chamber (in which Ian McEwan, quoted in the piece, was also a participant). Also, I think both enjoyed the opportunity to epater la bourgeoisie (or the soi-disant liberal right-on, anyway).

I don't read American Conservative. Looking at the Dreher link above reinforces my opinion that this behavior is utterly sane, rational, and eminently justifiable. If this is any indication, the rag is pure unadulterated crap. Catch a load of this quote:

The Sasquatches are running scared.

Har. Har. Har. This is juvenile assholery. It has no place in a discussion conducted as between actual grown up human beings. It is projection on a grand scale.

Dreher's writings should not be read. They should be spat upon.

He needs to be laughed out of the public square.

As for this rag's isolationist view on American foreign policy...well, recall Bobby Taft was all for isolationism, too. Bobby Taft was an asshole.

The Donalds of this world* need to be very wary when they read crap spouted by these fascist thugs. They may be espousing some particular position you may agree with, but rest assured they are doing it for all the wrong reasons.

*our donald is a good guy, whom I generally agree with-mostly because he sets sapient off :)

“The Donalds of this world* need to be very wary when they read crap spouted by these fascist thugs. They may be espousing some particular position you may agree with, but rest assured they are doing it for all the wrong reasons.”

I don’t agree with you with respect to Larison. I’ve been reading him for several years and the moral outrage he expresses about the cruelty of American foreign policy is as real as anything I have ever read by any lefty. He also bashed Trump for his treatment of Puerto Rico— I doubt you’d find Pat Buchanan giving a crap about that.

Larison wrote more than one piece about Puerto Rico, but here is one—

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/trumps-pathetic-denial-of-puerto-ricos-massive-loss-of-life/

People don’t all fall into neat little ideological boxes. Some of the writers at TAC defend Trump. Dreher is disgusted by him while constructing arguments for voting for him in 2020. I have never read a single post by Larison that was favorable to Trump— most were as contemptuous as the one above.

Um, as for setting sapient off, sapient and I have rather strong disagreements on some issues, but I think it is safe to say neither of us took much pleasure in the fights we’ve had.

Facial recognition technology is all the rage. But there are serious doubts about whether it is ready for prime time. There is a bill pending in the Califirnia legislature to ban use of the technology with police body cams. At least until its reliability improves.

How unreliable is it?

A picture of every California state legislator was run through a facial-recognition program that matches facial images to a database of 25,000 criminal mugshots . . . .

The program falsely flagged 26 legislators as criminal

Well, at least that's 26 likely votes for the bill.

I don't read American Conservative. Looking at the Dreher link above reinforces my opinion that this behavior is utterly sane, rational, and eminently justifiable

Pretty much where I'm at.

Larison is fine, but he isn't telling me anything I can't figure out without his help. The rest of them just seem barking mad, in one form or other.

Honestly, I just don't see that conservatives have brought anything useful to the table in 50 years.

Heavy shit is going on. "Stand athwart" is not a useful strategy.

Adapt or die. It's the iron law of life, just ask Darwin.

If folks want to get left in the dust, that is their prerogative. I just ask that they get out of everybody else's way.

On a possibly related topic, when are people going to figure out that (R)'s plus economic policy equals recession.

Reliably. For my entire adult life, and while I'm not old-old, I'm old.

Their economic policies are also a leading indicator for the worst stock market crashes and bear markets in history.

They are the Genghis Khan's of portfolio drubbings.

Speaking of Genghis Khan:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28701130/steve-king-abortion-rape-incest-exception/

McKinney unwittingly started a meme, and that started the whole world crying.

Never play a game Limbo with a conservative republican (not McKinney). No matter how low the bar gets set, they get under with room to spare.

I don't why a conservative woman hasn't shot King
in his rapey face.

Appreciate the reply, Donald. But again, I stress, folks like Larison may espouse positions that may align with yours, but I am quite suspicious of their, for lack of a better term, "motivational world view".

Larison may be a prime example.

Also, isolationism as foreign policy has a well known history in this country. So the question is, from whence does such an analysis arise in conservative circles? When you consider what they believe with respect to the real of private power, I offer you will begin to see some commonalities.

Thanks.

real = realm.

-ed.

An interesting article on US prison reform, and violent crime:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/14/what-democrats-get-wrong-about-prison-reform-227623

I have to admit that I wasn't aware of the figures, either.

Yes, I know what Larison was writing about the Confederacy about ten years ago— he denounces slavery as a repugnant institution but has a romanticized and wrong view of how the Confederate soldiers were fighting for the principle of secession. He rejects war as a solution to slavery.

I think he is genuine in his revulsion against war but in this case wrong wrong and this is an example where his anti- interventionist principles combined with what was presumably his upbringing have led him to say and believe stupid things. And no, this doesn’t mean that Larison is really a surreptitious neofascist who has been faking his humanitarian outrage for the past several years.

This is what makes political discussions so irritating. People of good will can be dead wrong about some issues, even extremely important ones, but it doesn’t mean they are terrible people, lying about everything they say. If I thought that there might not be anybody on the left that I would read. I value Chomsky more than every mainstream liberal put together, but he has been spectacularly wrong at times and not just on the standard issues people bring up. At one time, because of Chomsky and Orwell, I had a romantic view of the Spanish anarchists. It turns out that in the opening months of the Spanish Civil War they slaughtered thousands of priests and nuns. Of course the Catholic Church as an institution was on the fascist side, but still, that took the shine off my feelings about the Spanish anarchists. People on the far left have a history of this. They might be very good on many issues, fighting for human rights at home and abroad and yet you often find them defending groups with horrific human rights records. This is why I wasn’t that upset with MkT’s attacks recently. Liberals think this only applies to far left extremists, but liberals have their own blindspots when it comes to atrocities, tending only to notice American ones when a convenient Republican can be blamed and sometimes not even then. That doesn’t mean they should be distrusted on everything they say.

Larison says he is a Christian and I believe him. Nowadays that often doesn’t mean much, but I have read him for several years and it is impossible for me to think he is faking his outrage about Trump’s horrible policies in Puerto Rico and other places. Note that he is saying that the federal government should have done more to save its citizens there and then tell me how that fits into whatever demon portrait you want to paint. A few weeks ago he defended Ilhan Omar against Trump’s racism— fine, Dreher did that much— and then he went further and defended her from her own party. I will post the link in a minute. The point is that actually defending Omar and not just attacking Trump’s racism put him in a different category from everyone else at TAC. That happens a lot with him.

It boils down to this. I can’t prove he hasn’t been lying about his humanitarian outage for the several years I have been reading him, but I find it much more convincing than your assurance to me that it is all a big fake.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/trumps-hateful-lies-about-ilhan-omar/

I am going to stop talking about this because I think his words in the Puerto Rico post and the one above speak for themselves.

People of good will can be dead wrong about some issues, even extremely important ones, but it doesn’t mean they are terrible people, lying about everything they say.

That's true. But the issues they are "dead wrong" about can be enormously consequential, to the point where their good will, however sincere, doesn't really help much.

If a not-terrible person does terrible things, how does that mitigate the consequences of the terrible things? And, are we obliged to give them a pass - are we obliged to not make judgements about their actions - because they're well-meaning in other contexts?

I'm not specifically talking about Larison here, I'm not sure he's done anything particularly terrible. I'm asking how we can discuss the realities of political behavior - how we can *make judgements about* the realities of political behavior - if we are also obliged to account for people's good intentions.

If your point is that we don't have to demonize people to make critical judgements about their words or deeds, I don't disagree. But, to use Larison as an example, publicly stated nostalgia for the "good old Southland" - for the Confederacy - is not a harmless point of view, and I'm not sure that his anger at the harm done to modern day Puerto Ricans wipes that off of the ledger.

People can be lovely in some contexts and utter beasts in others. When we talk about politics, we are inherently talking about the public sphere - what people actually *do*, including their public statements, and how that affects others. Their good intentions are worth noting, but I'm not sure they are, for lack of a better word, exculpatory. I'm not sure they mitigate, or the degree to which they mitigate, their public actions and statements.

when are people going to figure out that (R)'s plus economic policy equals recession

never.

the GOP is a cult.

People of good will can be dead wrong about some issues, even extremely important ones, but it doesn’t mean they are terrible people, lying about everything they say.

This is true, but you seem to be assuming that Larison is a person of good will.

Whatever his views of Trump and Puerto Rico his decision to associate himself with the likes of Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos calls that into serious question.

Shorter version: Yet some people actually are terrible.

People of good will can be dead wrong about some issues, even extremely important ones, but it doesn’t mean they are terrible people, lying about everything they say.

This is very true, important to keep in mind, and a perfect example of why you are a most valuable commenter, Donald. But I agree with russell, one must also judge people on their actions, or the foreseeable consequences of their (persuasive) speeches/arguments. And also, what hsh said.

Hillary Clinton's detailed familiarity with the small bones in the human neck and the ambiguity of diagnosing the causation leading to their fracture is simply diabolical.

Those missing emails must read like chapters out of Agatha Christie.

If Clinton had not passed away of advanced pulmonary pneumonia days prior to the 2016 election, she could be interviewed by William Barr about his Dad's friend's untimely end.

hard to believe the Great Trump is letting a criminal mastermind like HRC run around murdering people.

maybe if he spent less time locking up chicken pluckers, he could get the real criminals.

I had a romantic view of the Spanish anarchists. It turns out that in the opening months of the Spanish Civil War they slaughtered thousands of priests and nuns.

Not exactly. About four thousand priests were killed in the Terror Rojo, probably few of them by actual anarchists. And something short of three hundred nuns. The priests were seen, for substantial reasons, as agents of the Fascist coup.

I don't mean to defend the killings. Every man's death diminishes us.

Regarding Dreher, he reminds me of the Association of German National Jews "forced" to support Hitler because if not for the Fuhrer, they'd be subjected to the depredations of Weimar lesbians, out-of-towners, and such like.

"We have always held the well-being of the German people and the fatherland, to which we feel inextricably linked, above our own well-being. Thus we greeted the results of January, 1933, even though it has brought hardship for us personally."

The ashes of both Weimar lesbians and Jews intermingled and settled over Europe.

I started reading The American Conservative after Slarti mentioned Larison. I like to mosey around behind enemy lines to see what they are up to and Redstate became boring after awhile.

I haven't found much on which to disagree with Larison, though I wasn't aware of his sentimental attachment to the Confederacy, something I tolerate in Walker Percy (he's coy about it) and other writers, but still, thank you for the Mint Julep, and now fuck off.

Dreher is a hysterical freak (he's the Jim Cramer of alleged Orthodox religious persecution in America), and a dangerous one to my mind, many times more so than any transsexual exhibitionist cavorting thru high-altitude wildflowers shod inappropriately, and I read him for the same reason he does does what he does, because I like a good train wreck.

maybe if he spent less time locking up chicken pluckers, he could get the real criminals.

You'd think they would first go after all those criminals in the country illegally they're always talking about. Instead, they go after peaceful people working hard at productive jobs and taking care of their families.

It's all policial theater that's expensive for taxpayers and very expensive for the communities in which the raids occurred.

our President is a child

Netanyahu is a giant asshole. I think that he is destructive to Israel's long-term interests, and mostly just interested in maintaining power.

You want Tlaib and Omar to see your side of things, let them have a look.

Israel, whose existence as a Nation I fully support, just committed an act of War against America at the behest of the Orthodox conservative right wing filth running that country and this fucked up one.

Embargo all aid, military and otherwise, to Israel.

Disallow all travel by Americans to Israel and toss the entire Israeli embassy and consular personnel out on their ear.

Anyone wanna call me an anti-Semite?

Include your address in the accusation so I can find you and kick your fucking conservative asses.

"Donald Trump launched his presidential campaign by warning that America had become a 'dumping ground' for immigrants and that Mexico, in particular, was sending criminals and people with 'lots of problems.' His presidency has been marked by anti-immigrant rhetoric.

In the summer of 2019, President Trump previewed sweeping immigration raids, tweeting that 'Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States.'"
How To Understand Trump's Immigration Raids: ProPublica’s Dara Lind on how the president’s workplace raids affect consumers, employers, and immigrants.

Subhuman right wing republicans hate everyone, including their fellow right wing republicans.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kentucky-hampton-sue-governor-bevin-fire-top-aides

p sends ICE thugs to run over Jews in America:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/watch-this-video-6

Insane subhuman right wing gun vermin who finances armed home break-ins and mass killings across America requires mansion with swimming pool to protect himself against armed home invasions and mass killings.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nra-promised-6-5-million-to-buy-mansion-for-ceo-wayne-lapierre-document-shows-11565714149

Mysteriously, same man walks around in public and addresses crowds without a single bullet wound.

Experts question America's collective firearms aim.

What byomtov said.

Netanyahu is doing as much damage to Isreal as Trump is doing to the US. (Perhaps that's why they get along so well.) The only real difference is that Netanyahu is only damaging the Middle East as well, whereas Trump is managing to damage the world.

Beyond Meat stock craters:

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=BYND&insttype=Stock

Shareholders and Milton Friedman demand company reallocate capital from public offering, most of which now resides in private offshore bank accounts, and diversify company portfolio into ..... MEAT.

Company issues a trillion dollars worth of low-grade bonds and tenders for the outstanding stock of Tyson Foods, Nathan's Hot Dogs, and Hormel Inc.

Satellite footage of Earth indicates sudden increase in the growth of the gigantic cloud of bullshit kicked up and hovering over America.

anyone got the numbers on how much damage right-wing jingoism has done to the world over the millennia ?

had my first Impossible Burger yesterday. i was impressed. tasted like an unremarkable cafeteria burger - which is what our cafeteria burgers always taste like. so... success.

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