« Papers | Main | Bomb bomb bomb... Act of war? »

September 11, 2019

Comments

Trump's accomplishments:

1. The "Tax Cuts & Jobs Act"
2. Stoking fear and desperation in the Hispanic community, to the delight of his base.
3. Hating on the libtards.

but his base loves him.

they don't care about anything but the fact that he fights the enemy they hate the most: the fictitious left that lives in their heads. he could, i dunno, invite the Taliban to come hang out with him on the week of 9/11 (lol. could you imagine?) and they'd worship him and sing his praises in their churches.

With increasing deficit spending (tax cuts!), one economic gas pedal is already pressed in a manner normally associated with alleviating a recession, and he wants the other pressed even further than it currently is.

It's not like interest rates are high. They're still historically low, just not as low as they might have been recently.

He's even made a few calls for quantitative easing, which is even more extraordinary than large-volume deficit spending or low interest rates. (I'm not sure he really knows what QE actually is, mind you, but still.)

If something goes wrong economically, we'll be left pushing on strings, with little to no room to make adjustments. It will be the next guy's fault by then, or so he hopes.

he could, i dunno, invite the Taliban to come hang out with him on the week of 9/11 (lol. could you imagine?) and they'd worship him and sing his praises in their churches.

But suppose, just totally off the wall, that he appointed some pro-choice judges. THAT might be a deal breaker for them.

Not that I think he would. There's nobody to go on Fox News and put the idea in his head. But hypothetically....

he could, i dunno, invite the Taliban to come hang out with him on the week of 9/11 (lol. could you imagine?)

Yup. And still 90% of Republicans persist (in worshipping him). Thus proving the first part:

they don't care about anything but the fact that he fights the enemy they hate the most: the fictitious left that lives in their heads.

cleek's law is entering the realms of the completely surreal looking-glass world.

Funnily enough, the one thing which might productively juice the economy would be a serious effort to address climate change...

Though probably not in a quite short enough time frame to save the sorry @rse’s re-election prospects.

But he is dangling the prospect of new large tax cuts to be enacted after his reelection. This time targeted more at the middle class.
Of course this will not happen or be changed to one exclusively benefitting the rich again but it may fool some to keep in his camp despite rising doubts whether voting him in the first time was that good an idea.

"Common perception is that Russia and Saudi Arabia support President Trump, but that should be reconsidered. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin as well as Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed have many more reasons to oppose Trump and support the Democrat challenger in 2020. In fact, their countries’ economic fortunes and their own political futures may depend on whether a Democrat can beat the president next year."
Why Russia And Saudi Arabia Secretly Want The Democrats To Beat Trump

Why Russia And Saudi Arabia Secretly Want The Democrats To Beat Trump

lol

wtf

Why Russia And Saudi Arabia Secretly Want The Democrats To Beat Trump

Are we sure that isn't from the Onion?

ROTFLOL
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/11/did-john-bolton-go-out-with-whimper/

Wtf indeed, Chas. But there are other factors to consider that can alter the demand and supply curves for petroleum. Evidence? They (Russia, the Saudi’s) still support Trump. Perhaps they actually know their interests better than the lunatic editors at Forbes, folks who have demonstrated repeatedly over the years that they know nothing and have learned nothing.

Homemade sign spotted in the yard of a little house amidst the cornfields, grape vines, and goldenrod of rural western NY state:

Trump is love.

Words fail.

It's Orwell. Words don't mean what's in the dictionary -- that's just elitism. They mean whatever you want.

They mean whatever you want.

That would be Humpty Dumpty (or Trumpy Gumby in this case?).
Hm, how about a topical Jabberwocky parody?

"'Twas twitcarl' means 10pm", said Trumpy Gumby, "when Trump has watched Tucker Carlson and prepares his first round of evening tweets. 'slimbcile' is a portmanteau of slimy and imbecile. 'waoves' is a species of pundit, oafish and always on the warpath."...

Trump is love.

it could be a reference to this ? (NSFW, not kid-friendly)

Jabba-Monkey

Twas twitcarl and the slimbcile waoaves
Did volpone and whisdog in the bimb
All ginmys were the incelovs
And the maga outbrimb

Beware the jabba-Monkey, lass
The kissing maw the pussy grab
... (tbc)

to volpone = spreading sly lies
to whisdog = to dogwhistle as an ensemble (aka liejazz)
bimb = a bimbotron disguised as a TV news studio
ginmys = in the state of gin filled sorrow about the mystery of the female
incelov = a Russian incel
maga (needs no explanation)
to outbrimb = to be filled with ourage to the brim

Hope you don't mind a bit of constructive criticism, Hartmut, from an admirer:

I think you (or maybe we, if anybody else is interested in making this a joint project) can improve on the first quatrain (with the exception of "incelovs" and "outbrimb" - particularly "incelov" which cannot be bettered), but in my opinion the last two lines are a triumph. Also, I'm not sure about Jabba Monkey, when orangutans (much though I love them) are at least orange. What about the Jabborang?

Figures that this is missing the target...

Interesting the the article characterizes the discoverer as a "Ukrainian amateur astronomer." While giving his location as the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory.

I guess science is political elsewhere as well....

GftNC, I was looking for a similar sound to Jabberwocky and my vocabulary is necessarily limited compared to a native speaker (at least a British one). Unfortunately Jabba-wonk would not do because The Donald is the polar opposite of a wonk. Jabba-mongo would carry too much racist baggage. Pongo would go right towards orangutans but I have too much respect for these apes (even those that are not librarians) to compare them to The Donald. I am generally open to suggestions though.

Beware of reapish moss cow midge
Shun linseed gray hame scab

I am thinking about making AOC and The Squad the hero(ine)s of the tale. Looking for a good replacement for 'vorpal'

I was thinking you might call the poem The Jabborangey and the creature the Jabborang, (and hast thou slain the Jabborang? Come to my arms my beamish boy - or girls in the case of the squad) but I take your point about the sound. Vorpal, hmmm. I keep being distracted by thinking of the sort of things that would slay the real Jabborang, like the tax returns went snicker-snack - something tells me I'm not cut out for this sort of thing....As you were, Hartmut, I'd better leave it to you!

Just after I logged off to take a bath I got the word I sought: Jabba-bonk

AOC tagged the Teigen tweet
The bloatful foe there to deflate
With her cool squad for the orange sod
She congressed then in wait

Open thread, huh... Trump's EPA rolled back the changes made in 2015 to the definition of "waters of the United States", which determines if the EPA has jurisdiction. I admit that I was torn when Obama's EPA made the change. Colorado (where I live) has thousands of miles of irrigation ditch that satisfy all of the Obama definition's criteria to fall under EPA rules. At the time, the EPA made a point of saying that they had no intention of applying their rules to most irrigation ditches. Lots of people thought they heard an unspoken "at this time" in the EPA statement. There was considerable fear that if the EPA chose to they could, for example, make maintenance of the wetlands created by a century-plus of ditch leakage the ditches' primary purpose.

The reason given for the rollback is to allow states more say in deciding when and how to regulate water pollution. Interesting that the same argument is not made with regard to California's use of their statutory authority to do tougher-than-federal air pollution standards, authority the Trump administration is trying to do away with.

Interesting that the same argument is not made with regard to California's use of their statutory authority to do tougher-than-federal air pollution standards, authority the Trump administration is trying to do away with.

Huh. Not even surprising.

With Trump (and hence with his administration) every argument or justification is strictly a matter of convenience. Consistency across cases isn't even on their radar screen. (Possibly because they can't remember what they did previously.) Indeed, they seem perfactly willing to make mutually contradictory arguments in the same case -- apparently on the theory that, no matter how bogus they all are, perhaps one of them will stick.

Re: Jabberwocky

My theory (which is mine) is that the poem Jabberwocky is the first (only?) example of 'impressionism' applied to the poetry art form: the words give an overall impression of a particular meaning, without the detailed definitions.

Predating painting impressionism, also, too.

Lewis Carroll was ahead of his time in many ways.

Lewis Carroll was ahead of his time in many ways.

True. I love his work, and have loved it for my whole lifetime. Sad about his proclivities.

Following 538's blogging the debate tonight. Came across this (at 10:15)

According to a Quinnipiac University Poll conducted in April, 52 percent of Americans oppose making all public colleges in the United States free to attend, while 45 percent support it. However, 68 percent of Democrats support the idea, while only 14 percent of Republicans do.
As ever, the devil is in the details. In particular, what does "free to attend" mean exactly? Is it just zero tuition (and "fees")? Does it cover things like books, too? How about room and board -- and at what level?

Personally, I'd incline (based on my personal experience, naturally) to zero tuition, but leave other expenses to the student. That is, it's not just a way to live, i.e. get room and board, without having to work.

waters of the United States

I understand why farmers and ranchers, having been used to building irrigation ditches and ponds using available water on their property, found the WOTUS stuff objectionable.

That said, whose water is it? Water is one of the classic common goods, in the Samuelson sense.

How should decisions about such goods be decided? Who owns the decision?

To what degree is water a local, or even state level, resource? Who is affected by a drainage ditch or an artificial pond?

The EPA has taken actions against property owners egregious enough that the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against it.

And while they femproud held their place
The Jabba-bonk atwit in flame
Covfefed through the moran space
And race-broaled without shame

6-9! 6-9! Let's brine the swine!
The Teigen tweet went hashatag
So viral smooth with words uncouth
Deliverslams its smack

And havt youse smacked the Jabba-bonk?
Embrace we now the lassies brave
Oh fringy time!Good clime! Bells chime!
In frant they tapped the clave

The EPA has taken actions against property owners egregious enough that the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against it.

Which is an interesting comment that completely fails to address any of my questions.

Whose water is it?

My take would be, while it's on your property, it's yours to do with as you like. Drink it, irrigate with it, put it in a swimming pool.

BUT, when it leaves your property, either as surface water or as ground water**, that's a different story. You can still legitimately be required to have it as unpolluted as you got it. And possibly even more so -- if, for example, you are drawing from a contaminated groundwater source.

I'd even add a caveat of some form to the effect that, if you are drawing from a passing stream, you can have limits put on what fraction of the flow you can divert. And limits on how much groundwater you can pull from the aquifer as well, since that's not just under your land.

** And if you are pumping it into the ground, it will be leaving your property.

It's not really a QAuestion of whose water is it, the question is whose pollution is it. The water is yours, but you cant use it as a delivery system for your pollution. Once you deliver the pollution, in any way, its subject to regulatory review.

The limitations on what and how much water is yours(damming and pumping) confuse the pollution issue.

That said, whose water is it? Water is one of the classic common goods, in the Samuelson sense.

Fine questions. Ever lived in a western state? There's generally a definitive answer to "Who owns the water?" for every drop.

In Texas, for example, the State of Texas owns every single drop of surface water. If you wish to divert from a river, or build a pond that captures rain runoff, you need a permit from the state. Texas changes their priorities from time to time; during the last big drought, the state put a bunch of long-time cotton farmers out of business in order to keep some power plants running.

Colorado is subject to nine different interstate water compacts. We have cases in front of the Supreme Court almost continuously where we're being sued over not delivering enough water, or are suing over some receiving state violating the terms of use of the water we delivered. We (and New Mexico) are currently being sued by Texas over deliveries of Rio Grande water. It's an interesting case. Texas has asked the Supremes to make a ruling that would force major changes in water law in most western states.

Some of the traditional animosity between western states and the federal government goes back to a series of Supreme Court decisions that give the feds rights to water that have not historically been exercised (reserved water rights). In California currently, the feds are threatening to divert water they had previously agreed to let flow through the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta for environmental support to Central Valley farmers. If they do that, things will ripple down through California's complex rights system with the likely result that Southern California's water supplies will be decreased.

support to Central Valley farmers

Who, be it noted,
a) are living in what is, climate-wise, basically semi-desert, and
b) have chosen to raise water-intensive crops (cotton, almonds - lots and lots of almonds in the last 20 years) totally unsuited to the climate.

They've mostly drained the underlying aquifer (with inevitable subsidence, which is causing them more problems) so now they're desperate to grap water from somewhere, anywhere, else. My sympathy is seriously limited.

The best line, I thought, in last night's debate was Buttigieg asking Sanders (and, by implication, Warren): “I trust the American people to make the right choice for them. Why don’t you?”

It will be interesting to see if they ever come up with an answer, explaining why Medicare-for-All is better than an opt in.

For M. Cain and Sapient.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/09/make-water-dirty-again

Enjoy.

It will be interesting to see if they ever come up with an answer, explaining why Medicare-for-All is better than an opt in.

My answer:

"Well Pete, you wet-behind-the-e