« All good things | Main | A paean to diversity in a headline »

November 09, 2020

Comments

Aim for the white vermin of his right eye:

https://www.mediamatters.org/infowars/militia-leader-stewart-rhodes-says-he-has-men-stationed-outside-dc-ready-engage-violence

His genitals are too small for a target.


Subhuman violent Trump dick suckers like a round of golf too, just like their God:

https://juanitajean.com/fun-with-golf-clubs/

Seems like an occasion for semi-automatic vicious self-defense.

Whaddya say, NRA subhumans?

Want abuse of civil forfeiture to stop?
Require that all the money go to Public Defenders and Environmental Protection.


a number of incidents culminating with a police officer murdering a man in broad daylight and taking almost 9 minutes to do it.

How about "eliminate qualified immunity"?

Or "eliminate civil forfeiture"?

Either of those will get to the goal you're calling for faster than "defund the police". Because they actually address the goal you're after.

It is always, always so disheartening to me to see otherwise good people go into "tut, tut, tut" mode in the face of emotional anger by the oppressed.

Meh.

If you want change, you need to be clear about what it is that needs to change.

Is the problem that police departments have money?

Or is the problem that cops are not accountable? Or that they tolerate bigots in their ranks? Or that they are used as a back-door way to raise revenue via forfeitures, property seizures, and harassing fines?

*What is it that you actually want to change*?

Call for that. Use language that expresses your actual goal.

Want abuse of civil forfeiture to stop?
Require that all the money go to Public Defenders and Environmental Protection.

What a beautiful concept!

It’s odd for me in this thread, because AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib are among my favorite politicians and Omar and Tlaib apparently did a lot to increase turnou in their districts and it might have made a real difference. I also have little patience with Lamb on fracking or Spanberger when she tells the socialists to shut up. Warnock takes positions on Palestine and health care that I don’t like and Warnock is retreating from things he said before running for Senate ( The BLM and Palestinian rights movements are close, btw.)

But sorry, “ defund the police” is a vague slogan. Most people don’t know what it means. That matters. Sometimes people I generally disagree with on nearly everything make a valid point. Police brutality was captured on tape, over and over again, But we end up arguing about a slogan. Part of this is just the bad faith of the right, but part of it is just this frustrating thing that activists do. I am not talking about ordinary people— I am talking about activists. They have to be pure.

I used to get into arguments several years ago on pro Palestinian websites. You have what should be, yes, a black and white issue of oppression and brutality and the mainstream (including liberals) ignores it or spouts meaningless fluff about a peace process and it’s all hypocritical bullshit and frankly much of it is racist, smug, complacent and arrogant.. But then the pro Palestinian side attracts the purists who compete to see who can be the most radical. I am pretty sure this is a big chunk of what people are really talking about with Labour in Britain. Purism can get ugly. Really ugly. But I will pull back from getting too deeply into that. The point is that just because you have a good cause doesn’t mean you have no responsibility to make a clear case. If you have a lot of complacency and unconscious bigotry to overcome it just makes it all that much more necessary to be clear.

There is a battle between centrists and leftists about who is responsible for the disappointing results of the election. We were thinking Trump would be slaughtered, having shown his utter incompetence at handling the pandemic, and the Democrats would gain seats in the House and take the Senate. If we are lucky, they might take the Senate, just barely. Lefties say that Biden ran a too cautious uninspiring campaign and centrists say that leftists scared people off.

I suspect it is all of the above.

Did “leftists” cost Biden Georgia and Arizona? Did leftists force Cunningham to not keep his virtual dick in his pants? Were leftists parading around Miami-Dade waving red flags? Howard Dean is vindicated again, fight everywhere, but localize the fight, as best possible.

To back away from the declarative, I am curious about the local vibe in Wisconsin, if anyone can enlighten. Here in Georgia there was intense energy to flip things. The percentage change from 2016 was much more than the change in Wisconsin. Different demographics? Local specifics? The change was less there than here.

The point is that just because you have a good cause doesn’t mean you have no responsibility to make a clear case.

Very well put, Donald.

Although, to be fair, we are both assuming a fact not so much in evidence: that the goal is to actually make something happen. For those who care more about gaining personal status and point scoring, clarity may be an irrelevance.

Also, when it comes to slogans, I'm betting we have "Defund the Police" in part because it was the less scary sounding alternative to "Abolish the Police," which is the position of the actual marxist leftists and anarchist punk activists. Defund was the softer version that would get the beanie wearing, BDS trustafarians on board.

The rest of the coalition is along because they are practicing allyship but figure that what we will actually get is probably a hopelessly watered down non-reform. But any movement on public safety reform that gets wide agreement that the police need to change is a step in the right direction. Take what you can get and keep dragging that Overton left.

Mark your calendars, I have to disagree with Russell here. I guess it is that hard-left Marxist center...

We (and I'm referring to this blog really) are pretty pale, cis-gendery, average age being the mid century mark? So why (and I'm not going to wave anyone's quotes here, most everyone who is speaking in good faith knows what they wrote) do we have posts about how we need to listen to the unemployed rust belt workers grievances and pay them great heed, yet when we see the kind of anger and hurt after the George Floyd case, we say 'errr, can't really go for that'. It's not a surprise that some figure the answer is just to burn the mfer down...

This is not saying you need to crap on white lower class, it's that here is the parallel situation yet for one, we lecture each other about treating them correctly and the other, we feel that we need to caveat things to death. I'm assuming the big push for defund the police was George Floyd's murder, and while the police officers were fired the next day, a Tuesday, Chauvin wasn't arrested until the Friday. So "eliminate qualified immunity"? "eliminate civil forfeiture" doesn't really ring the bell, at least for me. And the Minneapolis police don't seem to have the kind of civil forfeiture rules that were in Missouri, where Michael Brown was shot.

If you were a suspicious sort, you'd almost think that all of these localities with different rules and approaches is a way to institutionalize racism.

wj - I'd be willing to bet that most of the actual activists on the ground are not interested in scoring points, but in ending state violence against their communities. The point scoring is all in the kombucha sipping penumbra of the protest tourists. They are the ones who would grab hold of "defund" in place of "abolish" because it is less messy and threatening.

I don't claim to be either, but I run in some interesting crowds and know plenty of both.

And what LJ said at 12:17.

“ do we have posts about how we need to listen to the unemployed rust belt workers grievances and pay them great heed, yet when we see the kind of anger and hurt after the George Floyd case, we say 'errr, can't really go for that'.”

I will respond to that. Listening to rust belt workers doesn’t mean endorsing all their views. Why would it? It is also odd that you assume that when talking about rust belt workers that they must be white —in fact, when I read about such people it is usually made clear that they come in various colors. They all suffered. Working class doesn’t mean white. You have heard about the great migration northwards? I don’t really follow the rest of your comment except as an attempt to say that criticism of a slogan is racist. I favor most of the left wing proposals I have actually seen, More money for social workers. Police should not treat communities as occupied territory. The militaristic outlook of many police is outrageous. Quite possibly some police departments need to be uprooted from top to bottom. Be specific, more specific than I am, in your proposals and I will probably agree with them.

As for saying everyone agrees that we should be kind to the working class of all colors, no they don’t. It’s just flatly not true. Sure, maybe here, though you spot the unconscious racism and not classism. But it exists everywhere else. The NYT carried that story about non voters I linked recently. They were largely poor and of both colors. The article specifically said that for these non voters they thought that low pay was one of the biggest issues. They had trouble making ends meet. They didn’t see how voting would help them. Do I agree? No, but yes, we should listen to them. How did the liberal Nyt readers react? Most of the ones I read were a bunch of proud vote shamers.


American politics is really very weird and dysfunctional. The racism and the classism are both blindingly obvious, but in this country they get set against each other, as though if you care about one you have to brush off the other. Part of this has been a moronic side effect of the Democratic primaries in 2016 and 2020.

Incidentally, the I- P conflict is one where the pieties of identity politics are at war with each other in both the US and from what I can tell in Great Britain. Nobody truly concerned about structural racism could avoid seeing it at work in that issue and yet people rarely talk about it. Funny, that. It is what Warnock is running from in his Senate race. He said a couple of “ radical” things in his recent past and now he feels he should recite the usual toothless pieties. There is something fucking structural about that. Try googling BLM and BDS or look up what Angela Davis says on the subject of their relationship.

I don’t really follow the rest of your comment except as an attempt to say that criticism of a slogan is racist

I suppose one could reduce it to that, but that seems like an over-simplification. Why is the grievances of lower class whites taken as something that has to be taken seriously, but a slogan that is clearly the product of anger and poor treatment have to be dissected? Why do they have to be so specific in their proposals, but the general howl of outrage of the Vance's subjects needs to be treated with kid gloves? If you favor most proposals have you have seen, are you just objecting to the tone?

As far as how the NYTimes readers react, I was specifically talking to us here and what people have said here. People can look at what they have written and when they have written and make their own judgements.

Why ... a slogan that is clearly the product of anger and poor treatment have to be dissected?

because if voters don't know what the slogan means, they're unlikely to vote for people who support it.

frankly, 'pay attention to what we mean, not what we say' sounds like a defense of Trump.

and pretending that people who have trouble with confusing messaging are against changing police practices is also pretty gross.

is the GOP going to twist what we say no matter what? yes. do we have to do it for them so that even potential allies can't figure out WTF we're chanting about? apparently, yes.

defund the lift's marketing team. the stuff it's coming up with lately is bananas.

"the lift's"?

The Left's? and the Lyft's?

Bottom Line:

One day, a talented politician, or another terrible demagogue ala Trump, will come along to unite the underclasses in all of their colors and woes and whatever slogan they come up with will cause the blood to drain from the faces of all who expected to keep the former's houses divided, non-unionized, uninsured, and out of the tony suburbs, either to move in or burn them down:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-we-can-learn-from-the-labor-left/

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/losing-the-democratic-habit/568336/

Why, the CCP, the Politburo, and the conservative corporate right powers that control American capital might have to join together in a summit to figure out how to destroy such a movement if it became a cross border phenomenon.

Oilfield workers have been on my mind lately.

Who destroyed the American fracking industry and oilfield worker jobs and pay, by creating an oil price war via vast over-production?

It wasn't Biden. A man can only do so much from his basement zooming next to the water heater.

The Saudis had a hand in it, but only out of desperation with them who started the worldwide price war.

Will it occur to someone to point out to out-of work Permian Basin labor, where drilling is down 60% to 70%, and Brett Bellmore's forced farm field hand low-paid labor, including immigrants, their commonalities as the universally fucked over?

Trump was all over Pennsylvania bloviating about fracking, when it is he and his oil company lobby who cut the bottom out of product prices and worker jobs, while the rest of America spent the summer on cheaply fueled Winnebago Covid tours of the US.

One problem is that a plurality of Americans condemn any type of inflation, particularly wage inflation, while of course throwing their martini in the air celebrating massive inflation in the value of their homes, their financial assets, their various collectibles, and THEIR wages, which the underclasses have not benefited from, by and large.

Yes, there are major structural and probably insurmountable long term problems with the oil and gas industry, EVs, global warming, the cleaner fuel industry.

Unionize those industries too.

While de-unionizing the medical, legal, and financial industries.

And Citizen's United, which is merely a union for politicians and David Bossie's kids.

Burn that to the ground.

You did it again, LJ— you made class about whites. I don’t care about Vance especially. I have only read about him. The problems of poor whites are the problems of class generally, but poor whites sometimes react by not voting or by voting for Trump.. their suffering is real— I don’t have to endorse their solution. Am I dissecting them or brushing off their pain? Apparently so.

I object to slogans that are easily misunderstood. In politics, that matters. If you are condemning police brutality you condemn it. If you have solutions you try not to summarize them in ways that are confusing.

One of the things coming up with Warnock, or so I have read, is that he allegedly defended Jeremiah Wright back in 2008. People here are as old as dirt — I am—and probably remember the Wright controversy. . Here is a summary—


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

Another Wikipedia piece on him mentions his statements about Jews in 2009.. He has trouble distinguishing antizionism from antisemitism ( so do some people on the other side). But that wasn’t the focus of the 2008 controversy, which was mostly about his claim that America is a vicious white supremacist hypocritical country. He als bashes our foreign policy. He was 12 years ahead of his time on race and still ahead o his time on foreign policy. The facts about America haven’t changed. What is acceptable language in mainstream circles has.

I agreed with about 90 percent of his claims, but even apart from the antisemitism he went too far. I remember he half endorsed the ice people theory about whites. Obama’s reaction to him came in two stages— first he said he was like family even if he didn’t agree with him and then Wright kept being an embarrassment so he threw him under the bus. Most liberals applauded and boarded Obama’s bus.

My feeling was that Wright went too far at times, but I didn’t like the Obama response either. However, he definitely had to distance himself. But it seems to me that virtually all of what Wright said that was shockingly harsh about American race relations in 2008 is standard liberal belief now. But I don’t think a politician could run on it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/amber-n-ford-mistaken-identity/616927/

Why do ya spose?

Maybe the NRA could demand that car keys, cellphones, lipstick dispensers, and wallets have the same legal carry Second Amendment protections as our dumb bitch weapons.

And additionally, that white people are shot down in equal proportion to the OTHERS for packing cigarette lighters.

Or maybe mandate that the police respond in kind: a suspect produces car keys and the officer may fight back with his car keys; a cell phone reached for is countered with speed dialing by the attending officer on his cellphone, a driver's license reached for is countered with a swift move by the officer to produce his kids' photos from HIS or HER wallet.

But seriously, the proliferation of weaponry in the hands of the citizenry has made cops scared shitless of the very citizenry that are paid to protect and serve.

What would the slogan be to address this deadly malfeasance on the part of the rancid pigfucking conservative movement gun lobby?

Disarm America?

Both citizen and law enforcement.

Maybe just shoot Wayne La Pierre.

Slogan: The Wicked Witch is Dead!

Vance has his own Hollywood movie adaptation now, directed by Opie Taylor of all people.

Black Lives Matter, meanwhile, is greeted with their own wanted posters because of a nearly exclusively violent white street presence by both Antifa and neo-Nazis Trumpers.

Sounds about par for the course.

This is a Fox news link, but it seems straight news as best I can tell. There are probably far left links on this too.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/warnock-discusses-reverend-wright-relationship

It’s about the Warnock race and his ties with Jeremiah Wright and his past criticism of Israel. ( past as in from 2019).

Mainstream liberals are not going to be able to brush off the Israeli racism issue for much longer. The Labour controversy is coming to a political party near you. Warnock is handling it in the usual way, by backpedaling to make up for his harsh criticism way back in 2019. I read his long statement where he basically says BDS is antisemitic. Barf. But I don’t blame him much. You run for office in Georgia and the last thing you want to do is get into a deep discussion of the I- P conflict.

But BLM and BDS are the same issue and leftists know it. At the same time some antizionists are in fact antisemitic. And if you propose a solution, a vague one will be misinterpreted, sometimes in bad faith and sometimes not.

I didn’t realize that in 2029 BLM backed off mentioning Israel.

https://www.ijn.com/blm-israel-not-in-new-platform/

why (and I'm not going to wave anyone's quotes here, most everyone who is speaking in good faith knows what they wrote) do we have posts about how we need to listen to the unemployed rust belt workers grievances and pay them great heed, yet when we see the kind of anger and hurt after the George Floyd case, we say 'errr, can't really go for that'.

I'm not sure it's an either/or thing. You can recognize that blue collar working people have legitimate concerns, and also recognize that there are large problems with policing in this country.

Also, I don't really hear anybody dismissing or diminishing the grievances of people who are calling for cops to be defunded. The issue with "defund the police" as a rallying cry is that it's not clear how defunding police forces addresses those grievances, at least in any way that doesn't create 1,000 other problems.

There is definitely a tension - a balance to be struck - between expressing your anger about injustice, and doing the laborious work of making tangible changes actually happen in the world. There is a time and place for both, but the same means may not be equally useful in both contexts.

It's reasonable and legitimate to ask if the way someone is going about something is actually going to create the result they want. Even if, or maybe especially if, it's really important for that result to happen.

It's reasonable and legitimate to ask if the way someone is going about something is actually going to create the result they want.

This is reasonable, but I feel it misses the point. Look (to borrow a Bidenism), this kerfluffle starts with some pols in swing districts berating "defund the police" because they felt it hurt their political prospects, not that it harmed the movement for racial justice.

That whole outburst of political pain strikes me as missing the mark in a deep and meaningful way.

And to throw gas on the flames, the black activist community gets a whole heaping helping of, "You're doing it wrong."

This is an old pattern, and I ask that we give it some thought. Lj's question above @ 01`:44am has not been answered.

Why the difference? Why?

Thanks.

Another take here.

Did the protests set back the movement for racial justice? Maybe not so much as you believe.

Here's hoping the links work for a change!

As far as political slogans go, you win some, you lose some. I leave you with this great hit from Alf Landon's campaign:

Make your wet dreams come true!

Win the battle? LOL. Win the war...well

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/samuel-alito-made-strong-case-for-supreme-court-reform-say-critics-after-justices-controversial-speech/ar-BB1aYFWR?ocid=uxbndlbing

Why the difference? Why?

What difference are we talking about?

The anger of disaffected blue collar whites shows up, among other ways, as a "F*** Your Feelings" T-shirt. I hear their anger, but it doesn't move the ball at all in terms of making their lives better, at all, in any way. If anything, it prompts a response more or less in kind.

Or, you know, they vote for DJT. Which inspires people like, for instance, me, to spend many hours and dollars doing my best to resist them anywhere and any way I can.

Do they want their lives to improve? Or do they just want to flip people like me off?

Right?

So, same dynamic applies to both cases.

I disagree with LJ's characterization of the various threads under discussion here. I don't see people lining up to embrace working class complaints, but dismissing the complaints of people who are being killed by cops in disproportionate numbers.

The only criticism, such as it is, of the "defund the police" slogan is that it alienates people who aren't already on board with police reform. And even some folks who are on board. Less so than "all cops are bad" or "f*** the police", because it's less blatantly rageful. But it's still not going to win allies, FWIW, because the obvious next question is "OK, and then what?".

People generally don't want no cops at all. So if what you're going for is something other than "no cops at all", that needs to be clear.

Or not, and then the reality is your expression of anger is just going to scare the crap out of a lot of folks and alienate people who might otherwise be interested in what you have to say.

I ain't hating on angry black people, that's for damned sure.

At its heart, this particular debate here at ObWi seems to be fueled by a difference of methodology. "Defund the Police" is a slogan with definite rhetorical drawbacks that create political difficulties. But "Defund the Police" is also something that can be understood in more depth as a cultural response when viewed anthropologically rather than rhetorically.

I understand why someone would think that the slogan is not rhetorically effective. I also understand why someone like Son of Baldwin would look at all the balking on the left *in the moment of mourning* and question his white allies' commitment to pushing hard for change.

The slogan works on both these levels, and there is a disconnect there that needs to be mended if we are to actually achieve lasting , meaningful change.

the protest tourists. They are the ones who would grab hold of "defund" in place of "abolish" because it is less messy and threatening.

nous, I confess that I tend to view anyone who suggests abolishing the police as having the same level of grip on reality as Trump and his fellow fantasists. We have police for a reason, and we have them (or someone doing the same things) pretty much everywhere and every time we have records for.

When we get a situation without police, they quickly get set up. Think of the Capitol Hill part of Seattle last summer. It was a "police free" zone. But in a week or two they had "armed volunteer guards" performing what were essentially police functions.

Now if someone wants to restructure, even drastically restructure, how we perform police functions, fine. I can see that -- I may disagree about details, but that's OK. Lay out the proposal and we can talk. But "abolish" simply isn't connected to reality.

At its heart, this particular debate here at ObWi seems to be fueled by a difference of methodology. "Defund the Police" is a slogan with definite rhetorical drawbacks that create political difficulties. But "Defund the Police" is also something that can be understood in more depth as a cultural response when viewed anthropologically rather than rhetorically....

Which is all very well, but the bottom line is that a policy whose details appear to poll very well indeed ended up being an electoral drag at the last election.

We have police for a reason...

We should be working to eliminate police violence as an urgent priority, but people need police.

There are really no words.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/charles-koch-says-his-partisanship-was-a-mistake-11605286893

nous: You lost me with "Son of Baldwin". What is that about?

russell: "I ain't hating on angry black people, that's for damned sure." Nobody here said you were.

Perhaps the only police that should be abolished are the tone police (I kid), defunding sees out of the question. They work for free.

Have a nice day.

sapient, Amen!

Thanks, wj. Not much to be happy about on this subject generally.

nous: You lost me with "Son of Baldwin". What is that about?

Robert Jones Jr. on FB and Twitter as Son of Baldwin: https://twitter.com/SonofBaldwin

News aggregation and opinions from a black queer perspective. Much reposted by my LGBTQ and BIPOC friends.

NWA was going to use "defund the police" on their debut album, but thought it would be too controversial.

Which is all very well, but the bottom line is that a policy whose details appear to poll very well indeed ended up being an electoral drag at the last election.

It is certainly one narrative about the lack of a wave, and I am sure that it had some effect on the results, but we don't know how solid that appearance is.

We have police for a reason, and we have them (or someone doing the same things) pretty much everywhere and every time we have records for.

Human societies have always created some system of public safety, true, but what we think of as the police are a modern invention.

https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/history-policing-united-states-part-1

And the current form of militarized peacekeepers is only a little older than I am. These are not timeless human institutions.

What we are really arguing over here is how we should brand a paradigm shift for public safety. But what I think we really need first is some public commitment to the necessity of that shift and the willingness to make uncomfortable changes in pursuit of that goal.

And the current form of militarized peacekeepers is only a little older than I am. These are not timeless human institutions.

No argument that we need less militarized police. But I wonder how much of that militarization is a reaction to the ready availability of military grade weapons, not least to criminals, under our gun laws. Perhaps we need to address that insanity first. Just a thought.

but mah rights

But I wonder how much of that militarization is a reaction to the ready availability of military grade weapons, not least to criminals, under our gun laws.

The 1033 program started in 1997 and provides state and local law enforcement with surplus military gear for the cost of shipping. Some of it is life saving: Maricopa County, AZ acquired at least two helicopters that way that are heavily used for search and rescue (eg, lifting people off the roofs of their homes during flash floods). Much of it is simply dangerous.

Just stopping by briefly with a link. I am not entirely happy with the message, but this is something lefties should think about.


https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/latinx-plaining-the-election

interesting article, Donald.

"Defund the police" was a stupid slogan and absolutely everyone knows it, and everyone pretending not to know it is being disingenuous.

If your plan is "spend more money on health care by raising taxes on the wealthy" you don't call it "tax the rich!" You call it, "better healthcare!"

If your plan is to cut back funding for high school athletics in order to spend more on academics, you don't call it, "defund football!" You call it "fund education!"

No one with a brain names a program after the thing they're cutting in order to fund it.

If what you want is more community mediators or whatever, CALL THE PROGRAM THAT.

This is basic, basic stuff.

No one is saying "defund the police" because they have a deep commitment to Things Not Present In This Slogan that they hope to fund with the money they save by cutting police funding. They say "defund the police" in order to either signal animosity towards the police, or to signal allegiance with people who have animosity towards the police.

Which is politically stupid, because the police are very popular and Democrats are less so.

No one is saying "defund the police" because they have a deep commitment to Things Not Present In This Slogan that they hope to fund with the money they save by cutting police funding. They say "defund the police" in order to either signal animosity towards the police, or to signal allegiance with people who have animosity towards the police.

Which is politically stupid, because the police are very popular and Democrats are less so.

You can get political change either by keeping the existing framework in place and convincing fence sitters to move incrementally to your side or by creating enough of a credible crisis or threat to the status quo that they adopt a compromise change to head off the more radical threat. The latter often gets a bigger concession and is how a lot of union bargaining and disaster capitalism function.

It's not politically stupid if it works, but it does have some opportunity costs, so the cost/benefit decisions can be tricky.

It’s a good article, Donald.

As, I think, is this one:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/13/elissa-slotkin-braces-for-a-democratic-civil-war-436301

I guess what both have in common is the message that politics is local. And national messages have to resonate in a lot if very different localities.

the police are very popular and Democrats are less so.

Just to re-center the discussion a bit.

If you're black, you are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a white person is.

Things like that engender animosity. Or at least, mistrust.

Whatever we want to say about the practical or political usefulness of a particular slogan, it doesn't erase the fact that, for a lot of people, cops are not a friendly presence.

That ought to change.

I'm also unsurprised that Hispanic Americans look favorably at (R)'s. They are in general socially conservative, entrepreneurial, more likely to be religious than not, and family oriented. All of the (R) talking points rolled up in one demographic, to the degree that it's fair to characterize Spanish speaking Americans as "one demographic".

I'm only surprised it has ever been any other way, and for that I credit the (R) party's habit of demonizing Spanish-speaking communities and people of color in general.

Not that all Hispanic Americans are "people of color", many if not most identify as white.

I am, however, surprised that so many voted for Trump, specifically, because he is such a freaking bigot. But so be it.

What I'm trying to get my head around, personally, is the whole freak-out about "socialism".

There is nothing in any (D) party platform that I'm aware of that would be anything but normal in the United States that I grew up in. Nothing that would be out of place in this country at any point since at least the New Deal. Nothing that would not have fit perfectly well in a (R) party platform prior to about 1980.

Where are we at, today, in the US?

Working people's real wages have been flat for the last 40 years, while GDP has grown enormously.

Black people continue, 50 and 60 years after the gains of the mid-20th C civil rights movement, to gain a toehold in American life.

People from poorer places would like to come here to work and perhaps to live permanently. We cap visas at something 1/3 of 1 percent of the population per year, then exploit the folks who manage to come anyway. Because they'll work cheap, because they're desperate. And to persuade them not to come, we treat them like animals and take their kids away from them.

100,000 people a day or more are getting infected with COVID-19, and 1,000 a day or more are dying from it. Heart disease - all forms - and cancer - all forms - are the only things that kill more people in this country than COVID-19 right now. And at the national level, we are doing f**-all about it.

Right?

There are probably a dozen other red alert issues that deserve our attention, but I'll leave it with those.

In general, the (R) response to all of this is keep government out of it, let private initiative and the magic of the markets sort it out.

Government is the problem, right?

As far as I can tell, that is a [email protected] response, and an abdication of the proper responsibility of government.

On top of all of that, the Trump years have turned the flaming asshole factor that is always latent in a party oriented toward jingoistic nationalism up to 11.

So I prefer (D)'s.

I've yet to meet somebody yammering about the horrors of socialism that can give me even an approximately accurate definition for what it is. The idea that a guy like Joe Biden represents a slippery slope to Fidel Castro's Cuba is... beyond wacky.

Conversely, the dots from a guy like DJT to Pinochet are pretty easy to follow.

So I prefer (D)'s.

It's cool if we all quibble about the political wisdom of "defund the police", but let's not lose track of what's really on the table here.

The (R) party has become a cabal of authoritarian knuckleheads.

The (D)'s want you to have health insurance.

I prefer the (D)'s.

And suddenly, reality intrudes into what had been an interesting intra-movement debate over issues of interest only in the prog+ wing of the Democratic Party. Donald's article was awesome. A great quote:

If the Democratic Party continues its leftward drift and flirtation with socialist rhetoric, as well as being utterly disconnected from real-world concerns around law enforcement and border security, ‘Latinos’ might just realize where they really stand in the American political duality.

Who the fuck came up with LatinX? That is so Woke and so stupid it isn't even funny. This morning, I drove out to my law partner's father-in-law's ranch to pick up an off-road vehicle. His name is Rigo Flores. He's a bazzillionaire. And very, very much of Mexican extraction.

I have Hispanic friends all over the state, including a lot friends in Starr, Cameron and Hidalgo Counties not to mention Bexar County (San Antonio). Almost all of the Democrats are way more conservative than the Woke Whites would ever imagine. And they like their guns.

My client in my first jury trial was named Ralph DeAyala, a Cuban expat who was at the Bay of Pigs, who fought his way through the Cuban army and was smuggled out of the country six months later by the Argentinians. Argentina is a great place to visit. People there are pretty much white.

My wife was born in Tanzania and is a naturalized American citizen. Does that make her and our children African American? Because she came here on a Venezuelan passport, does that make her LatinX? Or whatever? What if, ethnically and culturally, she's half French and half Spanish?

Yesterday, we hired our newest attorney, a Muslim female. Our next-most recent hire--3 months ago--was an African American female

While y'all are yammering about race vs class and other minutiae of the lefty-left, the rest of the world is doing just fine and, at least in my corner of the world, getting along with each other better and better everyday.

I did my rant last week because y'all seem oblivious to the fact that most of the trendy shit that resonates on the far'ish left is pretty much echo-chamber stuff.

Defund the police, America is fundamentally racist, blah, blah, blah is not a winning argument because it is not true. Everyone who immigrates here does so because, on balance, this is a great place to live.

You want to see poverty--travel in rural Mexico, Central America and South America.

Or, Cuba, the home of universal literacy, free healthcare and food rationing for the hoi poloi.

Also, no one like suspects of any color being killed by the police. That's a no-brainer, so quit acting like your anger is something that no one else understands. Jesus.


To repeat what I said several days ago, if the Dems had run Bernie or Warren, DT would have won for real. Biden's margin was people like me, not newly Woke peeps who hate the police. Only people like Nous and LJ hate the police. Which is cool, since they live and work in places where they are highly unlikely to need the police. In their weird-ass world, the police are white, gunned-up, kevlar-wearing storm troopers. They really need to get out more. If you like diversity, you'll love virtually every urban PD in the country.

In general, the (R) response to all of this is keep government out of it, let private initiative and the magic of the markets sort it out.

Although definitely not when it comes to immigration. There, pandering to bigotry is FAR more important than letting markets work it out. I suppose it's the price their donors feel they have to pay to keep the rubes on board.

What I'm trying to get my head around, personally, is the whole freak-out about "socialism".

Again, Bernie Sanders was the second leading vote getter in the Dem primary. He told everyone he was a Socialist. He honeymooned in the USSR.

No one here ever says anything nice about capitalism or free markets. "Profit" is a bad word for a lot of lefties.

You have lefties wearing their Che' tee shirts and skirts and still finding soft spots in their heart for Castro.

So, why people associate Socialism with a sizeable piece of the Dem party really shouldn't be all that much of a mystery. And, yes, DT is an asshole and is beclowning himself daily and should have been impeached. None of that changes tthe Left's flirtation with Socialism.

Oh, and people caught on to who started BLM and what the platform actually was. So, again, no mystery.

If you think there is a line between DJT and Pinochet, then it's just as reasonable for others to see a line from Bernie to Maduro or Castro, even if you think you're right and they are nuts.

Ok boomer

but the concern trolling is a bit much to be honest

but the concern trolling is a bit much to be honest

Oh yeah, another reason why the left doesn't play well: they can't deal with criticism substantively--for the most part--and instead fall back on snark and name-calling.

Concern trolling. Jesus.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what happened with the LatinX community. Not that I think the community is monolithic, but I would have thought that an admin that has acted the way it does towards people seeking asylum and the undocumented would have at least made most of the members of that community really question supporting Trump.

On the other hand, when you look at the voting, African-Americans were pretty united and have been. There were attempts to split them (like the whole Harris wasn't descended from slaves so she's not really black)

Also, as a teacher, I'm partial to those memes that draw a parallel between defunding the police and what has been going on in education. When they 'defunded' education, they didn't close all the schools. So why does everyone thing defund means that every one in the police force is going to be collecting unemployment?

I wonder why so many people, including people here, equate defunding with abolishing. Like I said, you can look into your own heads and analyze it, but the ferocity that the concept is held is something I'm pointing out.

Obviously fiction, but in WWZ, about a zombie invasion, there is an idea about how a lot of the military response didn't work because the training was incompatible. While they still had to shoot zombies, they adopted different tactics, they changed the uniforms, did different training. Perhaps this is just me fleeing to a fictional world, but I tend to think that real world policing needs a similar rethink.

https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Battle_of_Hope

And the straw flies!

Wrote that as McK was invoking Jesus, so none of that was in response to him. Though the zombie concern trolling is part of the zeitgeist.

Who the fuck came up with LatinX?

This made me laugh out loud.

Yes, it's well-meaning, politically correct dumb-assery. And kind of condescending, because the people it's applied to have no idea what it's supposed to be about.

Yesterday, we hired our newest attorney, a Muslim female. Our next-most recent hire--3 months ago--was an African American female

I appreciate this, and commend you for it, although you don't need any of that from me.

You live in Houston, which is a fairly forward-looking city. You work in a somewhat elite profession, where qualities of personal achievement and credentials may carry more weight than skin color or other demographic marker.

So, it's great, for you, that all of the things we crazy lefties go on about seem beside the point, to you. It's great that your guy Flores is a bazillionaire, it's great that your practice is doing well and that you're hiring women, and people of color, and Muslim Americans.

No snark.

But somehow thousands and thousands of people feel compelled to take to the streets. Because they're angry and afraid.

So, there are other sides to the total picture.

Almost half the people who voted last Tuesday, voted for DJT. That concerns the hell out of me, because it's very hard for me to imagine anybody less well suited to the office of POTUS.

And for some reason they thought he was their best choice.

That is messed up. It tells me we have problems.

Biden's margin was people like me, not newly Woke peeps who hate the police.

You voted for Biden, McKinney? Thank you!

Yes, it's well-meaning, politically correct dumb-assery. And kind of condescending, because the people it's applied to have no idea what it's supposed to be about.

Except that the people who came up with it were Latinas who had gotten sick of the linguistic condescension of "Latino" being used for them collectively. I watched that change happen real time in student papers.

Seems to me that they can absolutely lay claim to being the people it applies to, since they chose it for themselves.

Except that the people who came up with it were Latinas who had gotten sick of the linguistic condescension of "Latino" being used for them collectively.

Interesting that "Latin" wasn't adopted. Just a thought - not 'splaining to anybody.

When they 'defunded' education, they didn't close all the schools. So why does everyone thing defund means that every one in the police force is going to be collecting unemployment?

I find myself in a state of massive ignorance. When (and perhaps where) was education "defunded"?

Almost half the people who voted last Tuesday, voted for DJT.

Apparently people couldn't make up their minds between a ham sandwich and a shit sandwich...

The suggestion I saw recently was "Latine" because it is (according to the folks doing the suggesting) non-gendered while being a sensible construction in Spanish and pronounceable.

Latinx seems more suited to a PornHub subcategory.

Apparently people couldn't make up their minds between a ham sandwich and a shit sandwich...

You AND McKinney, CharlesWT? Made my day.

No one here ever says anything nice about capitalism or free markets.

It's because we're generally pushing back on the idea the capitalism and free markets are the best solutions for many things they aren't the best solutions for. We're swimming in capitalism and what's referred to as the free market (even though it's a market with thumbs on various scales, so not as free as some like to think). I guess the long and short of it is that capitalism and "free markets" (in scare quotes) don't need our help.

When the government starts setting prices for iPhones and Nike sneakers, I'll start advocating for the free market.

If you can't handle Latinx, then I'm not sure you could survive the mind bending power of [email protected]

Yes, the Latinx is primarily a self appellation as I understand it. I’m happy to discuss that, it’s sort of in my wheelhouse. Nous’ comment about it taking place in student papers makes me wonder if it’s being adopted by those who are moving into ‘white’ society (as higher education certainly is) and trying to carve out their identity. We will probably then see it as derided, a way to police identity. Then, anyone saying Latinx can be dismissed as not really representative. Pretty nifty, eh?

Wj, Im out and on my phone so I’ll try to get some links for you in a few days

I saw Latinx first adopted by my feminist Latina students who wanted to write about both themselves and LGBTQ people who were pushing back against (what they called) the patriarchal machismo of the Latino identity. Some of them used [email protected] for a while, but that seemed to be tied most deeply to Mexican-Americans, so they tried to widen the net a bit. Hispanic was a possibility, but the anti-colonialist among them thought that it was better to tie themselves to a dead language than to the colonizers.

My only role in any of it is to listen and to respect their self-identification.

All the people that talk about PC snowflakes and their language silliness have never seen the fierce resilience of the first gen college Latinx trans woman who has just come out to her family and friends and gone home for the holidays for the first time in full makeup. That's a study in courage.

Why be a dick to her?

lj, no worries.

Except that the people who came up with it were Latinas who had gotten sick of the linguistic condescension of "Latino" being used for them collectively.

All the people that talk about PC snowflakes and their language silliness have never seen the fierce resilience of the first gen college Latinx trans woman who has just come out to her family and friends and gone home for the holidays for the first time in full makeup. That's a study in courage.

OK, so my first rule about stuff like this is that people are entitled to be called by the names they prefer and choose.

So if people want to be called Latinx, I am happy to refer to them as such.

My general understanding is that, for a lot of the Spanish-speaking population, Latinx is not a term that they relate to. My general understanding is that, Spanish being a gendered language, the need for a gender-neutral name is less pressing than it might be in other contexts.

And, my understanding is, at best, second-hand. So I'm not the expert. If the kids in your classes speak for the Spanish speaking population as a whole, Latinx it is.

And if they don't, I'm happy to call them Latinx anyway.

Whatever they prefer.

That's a study in courage.

No doubt. And not an ounce of snark there, either.

Bernie Sanders was the second leading vote getter in the Dem primary. He told everyone he was a Socialist. He honeymooned in the USSR.

OK. All true. Bernie calls himself a socialist and he honeymooned in the USSR.

If you ask 100 people who are bent out of shape about America "becoming a socialist country", my money says 95 of them will not be able to tell you what socialism is.

As far as they know, socialism means you don't comb your hair, because Bernie's a socialist and he doesn't comb his hair.

No one here ever says anything nice about capitalism or free markets. "Profit" is a bad word for a lot of lefties.

Profit pays my bills. How's that?

You have lefties wearing their Che' tee shirts and skirts and still finding soft spots in their heart for Castro.

There are probably some Cubans in Miami with a soft spot for Batista.

No accounting for taste.

Show me something in the (D) platform that calls for the public seizure of the means of production. Anything to the left of the New Deal will do.

Here's the platform. Lemme know what you find.

If you ask 100 people who are bent out of shape about America "becoming a socialist country", my money says 95 of them will not be able to tell you what socialism is.

Actually, while Senator Sanders labels himself a socialist, the fact that he does so suggests to me that he's a bit vague on what the word means, too. Just being to the left of most of the Democratic Party isn't actually sufficient.

Slightly OT, but certainly related to the topic of Black Lives, I've been watching The Good Lord Bird, the Showtime miniseries based on the book by James McBride. (I meant to read the book, and when I found out about the series, meant to read it sooner, and watch later, but didn't get around to it, so whatever.)

Anyway, John Brown. If anyone is watching the series (which isn't yet finished airing), I found this interview with one of his descendants, Marty Brown, fascinating.

Don't mean to threadjack. Please carry on.

MxTX: ... DT is an asshole and is beclowning himself daily and should have been impeached ...

He, Trump WAS impeached.

He was acquitted by the pro-capitalist cabal led by Mitch McConnell. Capitalism has its good points, but its most vocal proponents often turn out to be assholes.

--TP

He was acquitted by the pro-capitalist cabal led by Mitch McConnell

He was acquitted by the cabal led by Mitch McConnell, no question. But that said cabal is any more pro-capitalist than, for example, the Democrats is not obvious. Sure, they shout more about being pro-capitalist, or at least claiming that their opponents are not. But if you look at the actions of both sides?

Pro-capitalism? Capitalists are often anti-capitalism.

Capitalists are often anti-capitalism

I don't see much anti-capitalism in the USA. But I see a lot of opposition to free markets.

It's absurd for Rs to claim to be the party of free markets when they campaign on protectionism.

Biden's margin was people like me, not newly Woke peeps who hate the police.

some votes count more than others.

Bernie Sanders was the second leading vote getter in the Dem primary.

and Trump was the second leading vote getter in the Presidential election.

fix your own fucking party.

Just putting this out there.

If you want to change policy, you have to win. If you don't show up, you don't win.

If (D)'s want to expand their reach - and they should - they need to show up.

If for no other reason than showing up means the other side doesn't get to paint you as the Che T-shirt wearing antifa cadre of McK's imagination.

It is beyond good that Biden won. Trump is more than a clown, he is a menace. But (D)'s are losing in places they should not be losing.

When they show up and do the work, they win. See also Georgia, surprising blue patch in a sea of red, and that largely due to the hard work of Abrams and her crew.

If you don't show up and do the work, you lose. If you lose, you don't get to make policy. Making and implementing law and policy is where the rubber meets the road. It's where talk becomes reality. It's what governing is.

The (D) party needs to get its head out of its @ss and start showing up. Run everywhere, for everything. They'll win some and lose some, but they'll win some.

When you win, you actually get to do stuff.

I was just looking back over this, and my eye had skipped over Donald's article about Latinx, which seems to have gotten McT in a tizzy (I thought it was me, but I guess it isn't). That article is interesting, but is written from the standpoint of 'I am one of them, so here's what I think', which brings with it its own problems.

Here's a more historically minded article about the various terms used.
https://www.history.com/news/hispanic-latino-latinx-chicano-background

This article also tracks with my understanding.
https://www.motherjones.com/media/2019/06/digging-into-the-messy-history-of-latinx-helped-me-embrace-my-complex-identity/

What most of the American left favors is social democracy, though people furthest to the left favor socialism. I can’t tell what exactly the most extreme Jacobin writers really want, but the more moderate far lefties want a Green New Deal and single payer. Basically Bernie is FDR. And yeah, lefties in the 30’s flirted with communism and the really stupid ones ended up spying for the Soviets.

I have the feeling towards the “ socialism” word that Nous has towards “ defund the olive” — it’s a politically high risk attempt at shifting the Overton Window. I think it needs to be shifted pretty far economically and also on foreign policy. A big part of me wants a leftist takeover in the Democratic Party, but the war should wait until January.

On the article, I think Miami Cubans who are reflexively hostile to socialism are a lost cause for AOC types. There was a similar article in the NYT which had this very strange phrase— the writer said that many in Florida were from Central America and had seen governments imposed from the outside and were consequently very conservative. The implication was that they hated authoritarian governments and sided with a Republicans. But the only Central American government that fit the stereotype was Nicaragua under the Sandinistas. The others were death squad, fascist, and even genocidal governments of the right, and from what I have read some of the right wing Cuban community in Miami were up to their eyeballs in supporting right wing extremism.

So I want to understand the POV of people who don’t fall neatly into simpleminded left wing notions of who should be on our side but that doesn’t mean admiring or even respecting all of their views.

On LatinX, Russell is right, Call people what they want to be called. From what I have read, it is an unpopular label for most in that community, but wildly popular in academia. But if someone wants to be called that, russell’s rule applies.

I think the link also said some in the Hispanic community in Texas work in the oil industry and don’t like to hear that we need to move away from fossil fuels. That came up with fracking in PA and Conor Lamb complained about that. I don’t think there is an easy answer—actually, there is. A massive investment in environmentally friendly infrastructure that would fight global warming and provide jobs. It needs a catchy slogan. Something that conveys the spirit of providing jobs with the idea of being green. Or not. Sometimes catchy slogans just become a target for attacks. Maybe they are usually more trouble than they are worth.

“Defund the olive” was one of the more creative spell check decisions I have seen.

“Defund the olive” was one of the more creative spell check decisions I have seen.

I'm for it!

You can defund my olive when you pry it from my cold dead hands!!

Btw, MkT’s workplace reminds me of what Adolph Reed says about the race side in the race vs class debate.

Paraphrasing, some folks want a utopia where the very well paid professional classes look exactly like America. The Gini coefficient stays right where it is.

( I am not criticizing MkT’s firm. It sounds like they are doing the right thing.)

Poll on LatinX

https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/

#NotAllPimentos

I just read Nigel’s link about Slotkin. Here it is again—

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/13/elissa-slotkin-braces-for-a-democratic-civil-war-436301

It’s pretty good. Not saying I agree with everything, but most of her criticisms are things that even a lefty could either embrace or grudgingly acknowledge.

there will be no "civil war" between Democrats.

no Democrats are going to start killing each other over any of this.

I guess 'Green is the new Black' doesn't cut it. ;-)
Sick of black lung? Green New Deal may be the thing for you!

from Donald's civil war link:

Republicans, for better or worse, have embraced Trumpism up and down the ballot, whereas Democrats remain fractured and largely incapable of presenting a coherent pitch to the electorate.

Will Rogers agrees.

maybe that's part of the nature of being a Democrat, whatever that is.

Civil war just means name calling in this context.

Btw, the last line in the LatinX link rang a little false to me. It seems overstated—

“ Race is just this immense Anglo American hang-up that even Hispanic new arrivals can’t quite manage to escape: they’ve got to decide on a racial label for themselves too, even if it’s largely nonsensical.”

I haven’t traveled much, but I was in Bolivia decades ago and the correlation between race and class was about as obvious as anything could be. And I am not sure Cuba before the revolution was some sort of racist free zone. I vaguely recall reading otherwise. I don’t doubt that racism in the Anglo world is different and probably worse.

this immense Anglo American hang-up that even Hispanic new arrivals can’t quite manage to escape: they’ve got to decide on a racial label for themselves too, even if it’s largely nonsensical.

On the other hand, Hispanic immigrants pretty much get to choose which racial label they will use. Without any particular reference to what their actual ancestry is -- white, black, Native American, mixed in various proportions, etc. If they don't make a choice, "Hispanic," as far as I can see, generally defaults to White. Whatever that actually means.

I agree with Slotkin's description of how many people in the rural midwest feel stupid and demeaned, and why they respond to that feeling the way that they do. I just don't see how any of what she describes has a solution that both includes them and relieves the deep insecurity that is driving the hostility.

Every time I have visited friends and family in the midwest since starting grad school I have engaged them in conversations where I ask them questions about their work and listen to them talk with obvious pride and expertise. I appreciate that in them. I learn a lot from them. And the conversations are really good when we are talking about things with which I have some practical experience or we have worked together in the past and I can ask good questions that give them the opportunity to show their own experience and skill.

Only a couple of them have ever asked me any similar questions about how universities work or what I do. And any question that does even begin to touch on my expertise is usually met with a joke and a change of subject the moment they hit the limits of their own understanding. And more than a few of them have spent our time telling me how they think my world works and ranting about what is wrong with it without once asking any questions or trying to get a deeper understanding of how my world works.

I'm not the source of that block that makes them shut down. I am the occasion for their insecurity, not the cause.

Race is just this immense Anglo American hang-up

yeah. that's just plain bonkers.

racism is a human failing, not an Anglo American failing.

there was a lot of good stuff in there, but it was also full of of attacks on liberals caricatures who were caricaturing of people from central and south America. come on.

racism is a human failing, not an Anglo American failing.

I'm betting lj can give us some striking examples of racism in Japan.

Certainly the Asian Americans I have known over the years are no more or less likely to exhibit it than the Anglos I know.

I find the idea that Trump "doesn’t talk down to anybody" quite laughable. He demeans disabled people, calls immigrants rapists and criminals, talks about his predecessor as someone who isn't a real citizen, maligns women's appearance as dogs, describes the military as losers.

Maybe he doesn't talk down to the audience at his rallies, but really?

It's not that Trump doesn't talk down to anybody, it's that Trump doesn't make them personally feel small or stupid.

Meanwhile, everyone else is just too sensitive and easily offended.

Or perhaps it's that Trump makes them see everybody else as small and stupid. And therefore better about themselves in comparison.

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.)