Year of the Dragon thoughts and open thread

by liberal japonicus

In my facebook feed, this cover, from 2017 popped up, reminding me I had started a Year of the Dragon post. Probably an appropriate year, given that dragons tend to represent chaos and untamed nature, and in light of the fact that everything seems to be going to hell. Japanese celebrate the New Year's according to the Gregorian calendar, and the 'real' Chinese New Year started on 10 Feb, when it is celebrated in China (春節/Chunjié), Korea (설날/Seollal), and Vietnam (Tết). The lunar calendar has virtually disappeared from Japan, and if you are wondering why, this article is quite good.

Thinking about China, this WSJ piece about how Prigozhin's assassination was connected to Nikolai Patrushev, Putin's right hand man had an interesting anecdote that I can't pry out again, as the piece has slid back behind a paywall, but I think there was an anecdote about how US negotiators brought Patrushev a map showing areas of Russia that China historically claimed and Patrushev replied 'we know who our enemies are'.

Now, it's not clear what was on the map, but the anecdote made it sound like large tracts of land. I've found this article about Bolshoi Ussuriysky Island, all 350 km², which, given the sizes of Russia and China, is like a rounding error. The article points out other countries who China has land disputes with (India is foregrounded as it is an Indian publication), but the thing that caught me was that there seemed to be an assumption that China wanted to gobble up territories. I have to think that this is a fundamental misreading. Certainly, China has issues, a probably incomplete list being: the Spratleys, the Senkaku/Daiyou islands, Aksin Chin, the Paracel Islands and, of course, Tibet. But all of those are based on a narrative that they are part of China's territory. So the idea that China wants to somehow swallow up Russia or other places seems more projection of Western attitudes of imperialism rather than what's actually going on.

This isn't to say that China is somehow innocent in all this. The way China has treated Tibetans and Uyghurs deserves robust condemnation and the smaller issues are things that I feel are ginned up to create nationalist fervor in the Chinese population and equal and opposite reactions being what they are, in the countries affected. Internet nationalism is definitely an issue, though it can be prone to backfire. I agree with the idea that this internet nationalism is responsible for 'brutalising public discourse' and I think that this parallels problems with enshittification. So trying to place a 'they are trying to take over the world' gloss on things isn't really helpful, and obscures what is actually happening.

I thought more about this when I read this piece about Tucker Carlson. The author, Michael Penn, is a friend who started up Shingetsu News Agency while in Japan and has moved to a position in the US as a journalism professor. While he's a friend, I think he's profoundly mistaken in this take on Carlson, but I've been trying to figure out why I think that. However, I think the bolded phrase gets at why there is a problem here.

Carlson is not a progressive and probably never will be; he is more fundamentally an American nationalist. But he is a sincere nationalist who wants to speak for the interests of ordinary blue-collar society and not for the corrupt ruling classes, with which he is now quite antagonistic.

The idea of a 'sincere nationalist' is an interesting one. I imagine that 'sincere nationalism' is at the root of Israel supporting Hamas, Putin invading Ukraine, and stringing razor wire along the Rio Grande. That's where 'sincere nationalism' is going to take you, methinks.

To me, Carlson's evolution is a repetition of Pat Buchanan. Buchanan's 1992 Republican convention speech was the one which Molly Ivin's observed “probably sounded better in the original German.” And while some, maybe not so much here, but in other places, get upset when you start thinking about the f-bomb, but as Johnson said, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. So granting Carlson cover because of 'nationalism' seems to be profoundly mistaken.

While cheering for your country in [obscure sport name here] every four years seems pretty benign, it is hard to see how nationalism can coexist with a solution to problems of the anthropocene era. which include:

...Carbon dioxide emissions, global warming, ocean acidification, habitat destruction, extinction and widescale natural resource extraction are all signs that we have significantly modified our planet.

I always have difficult finding a conclusion to these musings, but this is your invitation to talk about China, Carlson, lunar calendars or whatever else strikes your fancy. A lot of links, none of them required reading, just background.

Comments

[wj]

Crediting Carlson with "sincere" anything seems like a serious misreading of his view of the world.

From what little I know, he comes across as someone who took to heart the advice that "Sincerity is important. If you can fake that, you've got it made." And is now in a position where pretty much everybody sees thru the fake. At which point, he's got nothing.

[Hartmut]

I tend to consider him more of a human equivalent of a toxic slime mold. A nasty spineless opportunist who chose nationalism as simply the most convenient outlet. Good for displaying your digestive rear exit attitude with impunity while making money and feeding your narcissist appetite at the same time.

[JanieM]

Agree with wj and Hartmut about Carlson. He makes slime mold look nice. And this:

who wants to speak for the interests of ordinary blue-collar society and not for the corrupt ruling classes

Carlson is a self-aggrandizing, lying, opportunistic piece of slime. He doesn't give any more of a damn about ordinary blue-collar people than slime mold would. I didn't click through, but on the basis of that one quote I wouldn't trust Penn to tell me whether it was day or night with no clouds in the sky.

[CharlesWT]

China pushes for the Year of the Loong.

"In a commentary published on Friday, state news agency Xinhua said loong was gaining currency over “dragon” among Chinese people because the two words had different, cultural-specific associations.

“Some culture mavens have been calling for a switch to loong, a word coined in the 19th century, to dissociate the Chinese dragon from the formidable monsters of Western myth,” said the commentary “The loong story: China’s zodiac animal is not the fire-breathing dragon”."
The Year of the Loong? China’s dragons ‘are not’ the West’s ‘giant reptiles with wings’: State media says Chinese and Western ideas about the mythical creatures are worlds apart

"There has been a recently renewed debate over whether the Chinese 龙 should be translated into English as "dragon" as it is currently known now, or whether there should be a new translation: “loong”. While there is some historical evidence that “loong” was actually one early translation, perhaps today it might be difficult for it to catch on."
‘Loong’ or dragon?

George Galloway switches from shilling for Russia to shilling for China.

"2024 is the Year of the Dragon. But do you truly perceive this mythical creature the same way that Chinese people have cherished for millennia? Join George Galloway as he unveils the authentic essence of the Chinese dragon."
The Year of the Dragon: Chinese dragon soars despite West's biased caricature

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Slime molds are very unusual and interesting creatures, and have never once tried to push Russian propaganda or baseless conspiracy theories.

[wj]

Slimy molds have ecological virtues. Stick with "toxic waste" as an epithet.

[bobbyp]

Certainly, China has issues, a probably incomplete list being: the Spratleys, the Senkaku/Daiyou islands, Aksin Chin, the Paracel Islands and, of course, Tibet.

What, Taiwan has dropped off the list? They have a bad draft? This will surely upset a large number of our global strategic thinkers (a term I use loosely), but "probably incomplete" might cover that.

[Hartmut]

One could interpret the propaganda and the bogus theories as the equivalent of the digestive secretions. They lead to brain rot in the prey after all.

[Girl from the North Country]

Totally agree with the consensus on Tucker Carlson. And using the word "sincere" in connection with him is laughable. His faux furrowed brow while he pretends to be genuinely trying to understand is sickening - and so unconvincing I am absolutely amazed anyone buys it.

[liberal japonicus]

That's my list rather than the planners, and I'm not sure why I left Taiwan off the list, though I think it is different from the other places on the list. Though I imagine that there are those who view Taiwan as one domino.

[Cheez Whiz]

The "sincere nationalism" likely was intended to translate to "sincerely loves his country" but he made the fatal mistake of focusing on Tucker's "love" when the real question is what he considers "his country" that he loves.

[Hartmut]

As a former German president put it: "A patriot loves his fatherland*, a nationalist despises the fatherlands of others"
I would put Carlson rather in the category of 'patriota arteficialis' as per 'The demagogue's little handbook'(1848)**, i.e. someone who has taken up 'patriotism' for a (usually selfish) purpose not because it comes natural to him('born patriot').
Btw, I would not consider myself a patriot. I like to live where I live (still the city I was born in) but I see that more as a habit than as a particular 'love' for it being German. My feelings would not change, if I had formally a different nationality. I find sentences like 'I am proud to be a [insert nationality]' at best silly. Or, as another German president put it when asked whether he loved his country: "I love my wife".

*in German that term is usually neutral and simply stands for '(my) country'
**Handbüchlein für Wühler
https://www.projekt-gutenberg.org/hoffmanh/wuehler/wuehler.html

[Girl from the North Country]

The "sincere nationalism" likely was intended to translate to "sincerely loves his country"

That may (just about) be true of what was intended.

the real question is what he considers "his country" that he loves.

Yes, that is the real question. And since from his previous statements, innuendoes etc, I think we can conclude that "his country" is a) white, b) Republican and c) xenophobic (I may have left some qualities out, but that'll do for starters) I think we can also conclude that it in no way equates to a "country" as understood in the normal sense. One could perhaps call it a tribe. Which would make him, say, "sincerely tribal". But to characterise someone like that as "sincerely loving their country" is not merely somewhat misleading, it is so misleading as to constitute a lie.

[wonkie]

Besides, sincerity is a pretty overrated virtue. If it is a virtue at all.

[wj]

Besides, sincerity is a pretty overrated virtue. If it is a virtue at all.

Well, insincerity is definitely not a virtue.

[Tony P.]

When a Congressman addresses or refers to "my friend from [state name here]" the insincerity is often palpably transparent. Not a virtue?

--TP

[wj]

Sarcasm is somewhat different from insincerity. As when they say "The Honorable Gentleman from [state name]".

I would also distinguish politeness from insincerity. Although that can be a narrow call sometimes.

Hmmm. Perhaps I need to make my "definitely" somewhat less absolute....

[Hartmut]

Isn't the 'Honorable' an obligatory form of address at least in the senate (while it is explicitly forbidden for senators to call any other member a liar inside the chamber)?

[Girl from the North Country]

Terrible news (if unsurprising) about Alexei Navalny. Jesus.

On the "sincerity" question, I don't think I have ever regarded it as any kind of virtue. Why I withheld it from TC was because I think in certain genuine cases it can act like a plea of insanity, i.e. "He did kill her, your honour, but he genuinely did think she had been possessed by a demon who was subjecting her to terrible torture." And in such cases, its effect is to a large extent exculpatory, and would act to reduce e.g. a charge of murder to one of killing under the influence of diminished responsibility.

But in the case of TC, if he "sincerely believes" his views are in the service of what I have defined as his tribe but he probably defines as his country, then on the grounds that his definition is so ugly, racist, snobbish and self-interested that his sincere belief in it is just another manifestation of his selfishness and racism, the exculpatory effect dies.

And actually, I don't believe he is really sincere about any of it. His emails about Trump as revealed in the Dominion case show that there is nothing he will not do, nothing he will not say, no ring he will not kiss, if it benefits him. I cannot adequately express how much I despise him.

[Girl from the North Country]

But, on a lighter note: a story on the subject of parliamentary language (my honourable friend, the honourable member from xxx) this story was told to me by my mother. It sounds too good to be true, but my grandfather was much involved in South African politics and always decamped to Cape Town when the Senate was sitting, so I really hope it happened. I do like (and envy) lightning quick wit!

Apparently, a member of the opposition referred to one of the ruling party as "a snake in the grass", and when the Speaker reproved him for using unparliamentary language, he apologised and said instead "the honourable mamba from xxx".

[JanieM]

I do like (and envy) lightning quick wit!

Me too. I usually think of the perfectly apt thing to say about three days too late.

[Hartmut]

Me too. I usually think of the perfectly apt thing to say about three days too late.

Ditto.

I use 'honorable' as a stealth insult. I get the impression that certain kinds of politeness serve primarily this purpose. Saccharine, purple and liquid nitrogen are the most basic types, I'd say.
In case of doubt just imitate Austrians, Viennese ones in particular. ;-)

[Girl from the North Country]

I use 'honorable' as a stealth insult.

You're in good company.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

GftNC: that speech in Julius Caesar was exactly what I was thinking of re: "honorable".

When performed, I've heard the "honorable" strongly emphasized in the dialog, one of many great examples of how *what* one says can be completely reversed by *how* one says it.

[Hartmut]

Same here. But I use it less blatantly with just a very slight emphasis or none in order not to nullify the stealth.

[Frank Wilhoit]

Where nationalism (or religion, or anything) conveys advantage, it cannot possibly be sincere.

[Michael Cain]

Trump has been ordered to pay $355M in the New York financial fraud case. The Trump Organization survives, but Donald is barred from any executive roles for three years, Don Jr. and Eric for two years.

AIUI, New York state law requires that Trump put up $355M in cash or a guaranteed bond in order to appeal the decision. With a time limit of 30 days to file an appeal.

The Trump Organization is something over 500 interlocking LLCs. At least in my state, think of an LLC as a partnership with the members protected from personal liability. Some members of the LLC are managing members, some are passive. Members may bring different assets to the LLC: eg, one may bring money, one may bring relevant management experience, one may bring a brand.

Myself -- didn't that word come up lately? -- I'm inclined to think that unwinding the ownership arrangements to produce $355M will take years.

[Tony P.]

I hear Putin is personally rich enough to post that bond for his little bitch. And SCOTUS would eventually hold that Putin's largesse wasn't bribery because Defendant J. Trump was just an ordinary citizen at the time, MAGAt-QAnon delusions notwithstanding.

Alternatively, neo-MAGAt Elon Musk could probably buy Mar-a-Lago for half a billion in cash (gotta cover E. Jean Carrol's $83M too) and rent it back to Defendant for $1/mo or something. Or just lend He, Trump the money until He can sell enough red hats to His worshipers -- though that would be risky given Defendant's record of serial bankruptcies.

--TP

[JanieM]

@Michael Cain -- Are you saying that he can't possibly find the $ in time to appeal, because he won't be able to isolate his own share soon enough? Or that he won't be able to pay at all in the foreseeable future for the same reason...?

But is there any reason why the $355M has to come from his ownership share of the Trump Organization? And, are you assuming his entire net worth is subsumed under that heading?

Anyhow, myself (heh), I would more readily think that the problem isn't unwinding who owns what share (surely there are specified shares?? no?) -- but rather figuring out whether any of it is worth anything in the first place. How heavily mortaged, etc.....

Here is a bit from a judge about the valuation of Mar-a-Lago, hat tip to a BJ commenter earlier today.

And let's not forget that he's on the hook for a tidy sum he now owes to E. Jean Carroll....

[JanieM]

And there's this....

An army of accountants for a hundred years....will just be getting started on the list of his financial crimes.

[Michael Cain]

@JanieM -- I'm suggesting that coming up with $355M cash from his own holdings in 30 days carries a non-zero risk of setting off a cascading failure. Recall that in 2008-9 the Federal Reserve bought well over a trillion dollars of "worthless" paper (at face value) to avoid cascading failures of all the major banks and financial firms. Over the course of several years they slowly unwound the whole mess and sold that paper at a profit.

[JanieM]

Thanks, Michael.

[JanieM]

But never fear, another charlatan is on the case, or rather, his wife is.

I especially enjoyed "I am a wife of Grant Cardone" -- how many wives does the guy have? (I never heard of him until half an hour ago.)

Do we think one penny of that GoFundMe will get to Clickbait? How can people be so.....

Oh, never mind.

[wj]

I'm suggesting that coming up with $355M cash from his own holdings in 30 days carries a non-zero risk of setting off a cascading failure.

Seems like, for a cascading failure, he'd need to hold those properties free and clear. If they're already mortgaged to the hilt (which is the way I'd bet), he has no equity to access by selling them. The lenders foreclose the minute he tries.

In fact, I could see him declaring bankruptcy because he simply doesn't have assets, never mind liquid funds, to cover the amounts he has been fined. It's not like he hasn't declared bankruptcy before. But then, he didn't face criminal charges back then. For which he'll need competent legal council who will demand to be paid (probably up front, if they've been paying attention). Sure, he's got his pension as ex-president, but that won't come close to covering the legal help he needs.

Alas for some long-suffering Public Defender who gets stuck with him.

[GftNC]

For anyone who wants it, this seems like a full, informative piece on the Trump organisation's financial trajectory under first Fred, then Donald. I confess, I could not read it in detail (it's not that long) because at the moment I'm feeling overwhelmed by what seems like the total irrelevance of facts, and the truth. For just one example, the MAGAts seem to have bought Trump's argument that the banks all got paid, and made money, so what's the problem? Whereas, in their everyday life one has to assume they know that fraud consists of lying in order to gain, by deception, a pecuniary advantage. And clearly, if the real value of Trump's assets had been revealed, the banks a) either would not have loaned money, or b) would have made more money in interest on the basis of a less-secured, or riskier, loan. I do know that banks are nobody's idea of a deserving case to make more money, but Trump's supporters seem to have become so absolutely untethered from reality that they no longer have a concept of the same law for everyone (which in practice was always something of a fiction, but not necessarily when the case reached a court).

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/17/trump-hubris-family-empire-new-york

Meanwhile, I see that Tucker Carlson has condemned Navalny's killing as "barbaric". Words fucking fail.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

More normal people, with illiquid assets and needing to come up with cash, would borrow.

But US banks won't lend to Trump, having gotten burned. Deutsche Bank got burned by Trump. Russian banks are under sanctions.

Trump might try borrowing from MBS, but declaring bankruptcy might well get him an appointment with a bone-saw.

So sad; I think I have a microfabricated violin around here somewhere, but they get lost SO easily, and everyone always tells me that violins is not the answer.

[Girl from the North Country]

Whereas, in their everyday life one has to assume they know that fraud consists of lying in order to gain, by deception, a pecuniary advantage.

And to spell it out for any lurkers unclear about what I mean (obviously regulars here hardly need this pointing out): in order to gain, by deception, a pecuniary advantage at someone else's expense. The fact that it was at the expense of the banks should not affect the fact and the finding that it was FRAUD.

[wj]

The fact that it was at the expense of the banks should not affect the fact and the finding that it was FRAUD.

And, at trial, it did not.

There is also the looming specter of tax fraud. A lot of very rich people pay accountants to minimize their tax liability. In some cases, they are merely using obscure bits of the law to their advantage. But others apparently go beyond what the law allows; the IRS (when it isn't starved for funds) recovers hundreds of millions every year.

In TIFG's case, there appears to be not just fraud in the accounting but total fantasy. I recall seeing that the court-appointed supervisor of The Trump Organization's operations came across a $85 million loan (between himself and some bit of the organization) which reduced TIFG's taxes enormously. But the thing is, there is no record of said loan ever existing. Absolutely no paperwork at all, nor any sign of funds changing hands.

Note that a tax fraud case has not, yet, been brought. But at this point the only reason not to would seem to be if he turns out to have no assets left; at that point, better to focus IRS attention on tax evaders who still have money to sieze. (Too bad Alcatraz is no longer in use, he could have gotten Al Capone's cell.)

[Girl from the North Country]

And, at trial, it did not.

Obviously, wj, which was my point: the MAGA people might not think so, but at least in most courts one hopes the actual law prevails.

And, on the non-existent loan, Janie's link @09.47 gives more detail. This is not snark; I often don't follow all links either!

[wj]

This is not snark; I often don't follow all links either!

Likewise and worse. I don't always go back and see whether something I remember is from this blog or somewhere else. No doubt by now folks are getting accustomed to that from me.

[Michael Cain]

Seems like, for a cascading failure, he'd need to hold those properties free and clear. If they're already mortgaged to the hilt (which is the way I'd bet), he has no equity to access by selling them. The lenders foreclose the minute he tries.

The kind of cascading failure I'm thinking about would be triggered by various loans made between Trump's LLCs, shifting assets and debts around in various ways that are advantageous for taxes or collateral for outside loans. Plus leveraging, in the sense of loaning $200M against an asset worth only $100M. Leveraging was the problem in 2008-9: the big banks had effectively loaned each other trillions of dollars based on collateral that wasn't worth anywhere near that much.

JanieM's 9:47 is about a $48M loan between Trump and one of his LLCs that appears to have existed only on Trump's tax returns. Not documented, conflicting stories about which direction the loan was in... Depending on how much of that sort of nonsense there is, unwinding could be difficult. I've been more optimistic than Janie. I've only ever said that it would take the forensic accountants a decade to unravel the mess.

[JanieM]

@Michael: well, maybe I was exaggerating for effect, just a teensy tiny bit. :-)

But I do wonder sometimes if the spaghetti-ish nature of the mess is even amenable to being unraveled.

Regardless of that, it doesn't seem like Clickbait's shenanigans are on the scale of the trillions from 2008-9, especially if it's all smoke and mirrors.

And I haven't read enough to know what happens if he simply can't come up with the money. They'll garnish his McDonald's wages from here to eternity? Take his golf clubs as collateral?

[nous]

The Orange Menace will likely be dead long before they sort through the finances enough to unwind things. His kids, however, may be in for some really rough going as they try to recoup from this.

So sad.

[Michael Cain]

His kids, however, may be in for some really rough going as they try to recoup from this.

Ivanka and Jared, at least, seem to have their own money separated. Estimates are that between them there's a billion dollars in net worth completely outside of the Trump Organization.

[wj]

The kind of cascading failure I'm thinking about would be triggered by various loans made between Trump's LLCs, shifting assets and debts around in various ways that are advantageous for taxes or collateral for outside loans. Plus leveraging, in the sense of loaning $200M against an asset worth only $100M. Leveraging was the problem in 2008-9: the big banks had effectively loaned each other trillions of dollars based on collateral that wasn't worth anywhere near that much.

The banks cascading failure would have been an economy-wide problem. But I'm not so sure a cascading failure among the various Trump Org entities would hurt much outside the Organization.

Admittedly, some banks might have mortgages for more than the underlying property is worth. But is there enough shortfall there, after selling off the property**, to jeopardize more than the size of their dividends and the worth of the CEO's stock options?

** Although they might be stuck with fire sale prices if they couldn't wait a few months while they scrub his name off the buildings.

[wj]

And I haven't read enough to know what happens if he simply can't come up with the money. They'll garnish his McDonald's wages from here to eternity?

Well, they could probably garnish his presidential pension (~$225,000 per year). Not much (relatively speaking), but it's a start.

[Michael Cain]

But I'm not so sure a cascading failure among the various Trump Org entities would hurt much outside the Organization.

If I gave the impression that I thought the Trump Organization failing was a threat to the economy overall, I apologize for not being clear. Just that once one of the LLCs goes belly up, or has its note called, that may trigger the failure of other LLCs. As you note, some banks might take a loss on a mortgage, and LLC members outside the Trump family might take a loss on the partnership, but the TO just isn't that big.

[wj]

Ah, then we're on the same page. At most, I'd go so far as to say will, not may, cause cascading failures. Because, from what I read, there is an amazing amount of intra-group lending.

[GftNC]

You might think I'm a sap, but I found the end of this short piece by David French headlined MAGA’s Violent Threats Are Warping Life in America moving:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/opinion/magas-violent-threats-are-warping-life-in-america.html?unlocked_article_code=1.WU0.nEm1.QYAZ5OaukC2l&smid=url-share

It reminds me of this:

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/434399-man-goes-viral-after-standing-outside-his-local-mosque-to-keep/

I need to be reminded, and to remember that in the midst of all this horror (Gaza, Navalny, MAGA etc) there are still good people, and there is still decency to be found.

[Priest]

The end of the French piece hit me as well.

[Michael Cain]

I need to be reminded... there are still good people, and there is still decency to be found.

On a smaller scale, last fall I took my two oldest granddaughters to their grade school's Harvest Festival. (The 10-year-old called and asked, explaining that mom was dealing with 18-month-old granddaughter #3's cold and dad had a rush order from an important customer come into the shop.)

Hundreds of K-6 kids running around like they had not a care in the world doing the activities and eating junk food. Parents representative of the city's overall demographics all mixed together. You couldn't watch it and not think, "Here are a whole bunch of people, from kindergartners to grandparents, who are all optimistic that things will somehow work out okay."

[wj]

"Here are a whole bunch of people, from kindergartners to grandparents, who are all optimistic that things will somehow work out okay."

To my mind, that optimism is what really defines the American character. The people who are convinced that the world has gone to hell, that we are on the road to imminent disaster, are NOT (whatever they may tell themselves) real Americans.

[Michael Cain]

To my mind, that optimism is what really defines the American character.

Regular readers know my interest in regional differences in the US. Somewhere along the way I read this paper and tucked away a copy. The authors identify three broad personality types and map out the prevalence of each type in different states. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the states tend to fall into regional groups.

One of their types is "relaxed and creative". Compared to other groups, they score much lower in neuroticism and much higher in openness. Of the three, that probably comes closest to "optimistic". That type is most prevalent in the Rockies and West Coast states. The authors go on to spend a lot of words talking about reasons why that region would tend in that direction.

[Pro Bono]

I'm with Gramsci.

[nous]

It's not Gramsci, but it is Fanon-adjacent:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/opinion/israel-gaza-palestine-decolonization.html?unlocked_article_code=1.W00.n_iy.foZjp4kqZNuP&smid=url-share

Lydia Polgreen op ed on Israel/Palestine, Decolonization, and violence. I especially appreciate her critical intervention with regard to agency vs violence. Much to think about there.

I'd be interested in reading the bio of Fanon that she mentions. Too bad my stack of books to-be-read is growing faster than my time-available-for-reading.

That, and I'm back looking for a good research focus for my writing class. I don't think most of them are ready to do much synthesis at the seams of overlapping problems. They've been too compartmentalized in their education for that.

Work for the summer.

[JanieM]

Thanks for that essay, nous.

I remember reading an article long ago by some radical environmentalists who suggested that this continent should be given back to the indigenous peoples, as the best environmental stewards it had ever had. The rest of us were supposed to go "back" to...where, exactly, wasn't clear. (Especially to a mongrel like me.)

I asked google how many humans are multi-ethnic, and it just gave me entries about race. I liked the Polgreen essay in part because (to vastly oversimplify) it suggests that we look forward and not back. If the past is mythical and impracticable in relation to people+land, it's certainly also mythical in relation to purity of "blood." ...

[wj]

I asked google how many humans are multi-ethnic, and it just gave me entries about race.

Not to gloss over Google's shortcomings, but one difficulty is in defining who counts as "multi-ethnic". If your parents are from different groups, that's easy. But if there's just one ancestor from a different group, how far back do you go before ceasing to be multi-ethnic? 4 generations? 8? More? After all, if you go back far enough, nobody is pure [whatever] -- no matter how hard the bigots wish otherwise.

[JanieM]

wj -- that was kind of my point. It's an impossible question to answer, for the reasons you state. Even if we had everyone's DNA, the "how far back" question, never mind the "how much" question, would just mean there was yet another thing to fight about and never settle.

That hasn't stopped bigots from systematizing groups legally, obviously. E.g. Blood quantum laws or Indian blood laws are laws in the United States that define Native American status by fractions of Native American ancestry. These laws were enacted by the federal government and state governments as a way to establish legally defined racial population groups. (From Wikipedia.)

Cans of worms...whole warehouses full of cans of worms.

[Hartmut]

When Hitler used his prison time to write his book, 1-drop-laws were at the height of their popularity in the US. Hitler found the idea intriguing but far too radical to apply in Germany. The Nuremberg race laws were extremly watered down versions of those, going back just 3 to at maximum 4 generations (only the SS looked a bit further). The Führer would have had trouble to get enough people to run his show, if he had driven 'racial purity' anywhere near as far as the US tried.
Well, if the very Nazis think that your ideas about racial purity are too radical...

A popular joke a the time was that a proper Aryan had to be blond like Hitler, slim as Göring, tall as Goebbels*, sober as Ley** and chaste as Röhm***.

* aka the clubfooted poison dwarf
**known as a notorious alcoholic
***known as gay

[hairshirthedonist]

I vote for one of these places. Everyone should go back - and I mean everyone. It might get crowded, but we'll all do a little hunting and a little gathering. Think of it as a camping trip! Make Humanity Great Again!!!

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

Among the oldest known remains of Homo sapiens are those found at the Omo-Kibish I archaeological site in south-western Ethiopia, dating to about 233,000[2] to 196,000 years ago,[3] the Florisbad site in South Africa, dating to about 259,000 years ago, and the Jebel Irhoud site in Morocco, dated about 315,000 years ago.