Camel notation* from computer programming would possibly be better: InternalCompustionEngine.
It is interesting that it is widely used in domain names, e.g. KaiserPermanente.org Clearly the sales and marketing folks think it will be easier to parse that way.
In Latin one has to invent new words for concepts Cicero&Co. did not yet possess and would probably not understand. Greek (unlike classical Latin) allows composite words that can transport about any meaning with little to no loss.
No offense, but I wonder if being a native speaker of German might be coloring your view here. Composite words being one of the most noticable things (after gendered nouns) for English speakers when learning it.
I admit that I don't have a wide enough base to know how common composite words are in languages generally.
Sorry if I misunderstand you, but are you saying that the use of national languages in the native countries will disappear or be reduced? I don't think that would be realistic.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Not that it will necessarily be quick. But it will happen.
See, for example, the various Native American / First Nations languages. They haven't, quite, died out and there are various efforts to save one or another of them. But the reality is that native speakers are overwhelmingly old. Children may retain some fluency, in order to speak to their grandparents. But for everyday use, they speak English. And the children's children will be straight Anglophones.
We see the same phenomena in immigrants. My wife's immigrant grandparents were functional in English, but spoke Japanese with family and friends. Her parents were fluent in Japanese (from talking to parents and aunts and uncles when growing up), but generally spoke English except when talking to the older generation. My wife and her siblings? Even having lost virtually all of the Japanese I studied in college, I still speak more than they do.**
Granted, there is more inertia when it comes to languages with a big population base. So it will take longer. But modern communications mean that the next generation will be exposed to English far beyond the classroom. And anyone who interacts with the outside world, from academics to taxi drivers, will need to use it routinely. Already do, actually.
** When my wife and I first got together, we made occasional trips half the length of California to see her family. About the third trip, I got taken off to see Grandma. My future mother-in-law gave Grandma an explanation of who was this blue eyed blond, then introduced us. I remembered enough to say Hajimemashte. Grandma just lit up; from that moment, as far as she was concerned, I was in.
I am involved in an international organization (ICANN, if you care). I have a nagging (unspoken) embarrassment because everybody speaks English. Most of them barely distinguishable from native speakers.** Partly that turns out to because they did college or grad school in the US, or perhaps the UK or Australia.
But there I am, speaking only English. The German I learned in high school is mostly gone. The Japanese I studied in grad school is also gone. And, of course, because I grew up in California I know a few bits and pieces of Spanish. (Actually, taking a few Spanish classes is on my Really Need To Get Around To This list.) For the moment, I try to at least learn how to say thank you in the language of wherever we are meeting.
I have the suspicion that English will eventually end up as the world language. There will no doubt be long and bitter fights to preserve the national language. But they will, in eventual history, be seen as futile fighting tetreats.
These days, the world requires a common language to function. One will come: the only question is which one it will be. The Chinese will argue, as their economic power increases, for Chinese (Mandarin), but a tonal language is simply too difficult for anyone not raised in one. Spanish might be a viable option, but it lacks a serious economic power to push it. French might have a chance, except that its spelling is nothing approaching phonetic, which makes it hard to learn.
English, thanks to British and then American economic dominance (plus the fact that India, with its huge population, already uses it because its people speak 5 mutually unintelligible native languages), is already getting there. A lot of countries, not just Japan, start English lessons in grammar school. I won't claim that nothing could displace English. But it would take, at minimum, a couple of centuries of economic and cultural dominance.
** Working groups typically work in English (even if there are no native speakers involved), with a few having simultaneous translations for French and Spanish. For the three major meetings, we get translations in the 5 UN languages (English, French, Spanish, Russian, and Chinese) plus Arabic. And the language of wherever we are meeting, if it isn't one of those.
It's as if someone had deliberately did a lot of work to make it really, Really, REALLY look like a high-level conspiracy.
Of course, it doesn't take much work to make a conspiracy look like a conspiracy. And how likely is it that the incompetents involved could manage to fake one convincingly? Or even do a lot of work to try to?
The evidence could go missing, but to the people who have built influencer careers out of Epstein conspiracies, that would likely just fuel the fires of speculation.
And if I were Bondi, I'd be sure to stash the evidence somewhere that Trump couldn't get to it, rather than destroying it.
And she doesn't even have to stash the evidence. A copy of the evidence would be just as good, maybe even better, for convincing the conspiracy theory enthusiasts that it's real. "The Elites destroyed the original. But we've gotten a copy out and we'll destroy them with it!"
Of course, the minute there's one copy out, there will be a dozen (hey, I said the first minute) variations splashing across the Internet. No doubt Trump will feature in at least some of them.
“It’s much easier to be angry at an immigrant than to wonder whether you’ve been lied to for the last eight years.”
I think this is where the Lewis goes wrong. They don't have to struggle with the idea that they've been lied to. They just have to maintain their outrage at the Elites for covering this up. Doesn't matter that Trump might have lied to them (ya think he might have?). All that matters is that they are heavily invested in the idea of a conspiracy to cover up massive Elite morality. And that now there is a chance to drag it into the open.
In the end, they're more wedded to their conspiracy beliefs than they are to Trump. And massively more so than to anybody else in his administration. Hence the immediate demands for Bondi's removal. I agree with hsh that his best course would be to just shut up about it. Let the ravening hordes focus of the rest of the administration, and throw them to the dogs as necessary. But he's probably incapable of that. His loss is the country's gain.
Just for the benefit of anyone coming to this in the future, the last three entries in the Plus ça change... thread are also on this topic.
Apologies to those here for not making it a thread initially. Unfortunately, I was on my phone and didn't have easy access to create a new thread. (Probably ought to fix that....)
A somewhat different case of Plus ça change...:
One of the favorite obsessions of the MAGA-verse, for the past decade, has been the Epstein Files. Trump used it to smear his opponents. And to demonstrate how he was in sync with the common folks against the Elites. He regularly demanded that they be made public.
But then, Trump's Attorney General, after saying shortly after taking office that she had the file on her desk, announced that there was nothing there that warranted publication. And Trump posted various suggestions that it was old news and people should just move on.
No surprise: while a few cultists followed directions, a substantial majority are having none of it. They want to see those files. They are demanding to see them. (And, incidently, demanding that the AG be fired for not publishing them.)
A lot of us have wondered what would hit the MAGAts hard enough to wake them up. Which, we innocently assumed, was what would get them to abandon Trump. Lots of discussion of economic pain, loved ones dying for lack of medical care, other real stuff. Somehow nobody (that I saw) suggested that one of the conspiracy theories would turn around and bite him.
My guess is that, if they'd just published them, no matter how damning the contents the true believers would have come up with a conspiracy theory to explain it all away. SStereotypically,it's not the crime, it's the cover-up.
That's because you don't have Amazon Prime. Being #2, you aren't prime, which means you have to try harder.**
** For those outside the US, back in the day (and, for all I know, today) Hertz was the biggest car rental company. Avis, the next largest, advertised "We're #2, We try harder."
I can't wait for the ocean to swallow Mar-A-Lago like a bad case of reflux.
Personally, I'd like to see the site become a sewage treatment plant. (A real one, not a metaphor.) Give the cult a focus for pilgrimages.
But your alternative does have merit. Not to mention a high probability.
there are simply no "good" Republicans today, and they need to be politically neutralized root and branch, even the one's who wj avers are "good ones".
If they were "good" they would not be Republicans.
I'd agree with you that there are no good Republicans on the national level, I think the situation is a bit different on the local level. Not that there aren't a lot of terrible local Republican office holders. Just that there are also some good ones.
You suggest that, if they were good, they wouldn't be Republicans. But that's simplistic. In some areas, the Republican primary essentially is the general election. If you want to hold office and do some good, you run as a Republican. (If tilting at windmills is your thing, you run as a Democrat.) Gerrymandering has made that worse. But it would be true in a lot of places even without that.
The other thing is, most people find it hard to change parties. Call it psychological momentum or something. But even if their voting habits in the general election shift, they resist changing their party registration.
It's even harder if you are already an elected official. It can be done; my Congressman was originally elected to the state legislature as a Republican. But it's hard. And you probably need some years in office to build a personal brand to get you through.
I might accept that good young people, in a lot of places, would find it hard to look at the current Republican Party (especially as the national party is so high profile) and register with them. Twenty years down the line, that will make your observation more true. But there will still be places where you can't get elected and do good, especially the first few times, without the label.
But we're still a prosperous country. People aren't pushing wheelbarrows full of cash to the grocery store because of hyperinflation. Unemployment remains low.
We're still a prosperous country for now. Whether we remain one rather depends on how Trump's trade wars play out. But individual areas are going to get hit hard, and sooner rather than later.
To take just one example, without USAid, the prairie states are going to get hammered starting next year. The silos are still pretty full from last year's harvest. This fall, they're not going to be able to buy what the farmers produce. Of course some of the grain might be diverted to cattle feed. Except that, with ICE rounding up all the workers from the slaughter houses, the market for cattle will be tanking also. Those states are going to be hurting big-time -- and while Trump might talk about "family farms" on the campaign trail, he's basically a city boy who just doesn't really relate.
Between that and the damage to the vegetable farming here and tariffs on imports from (mostly) Mexico, food prices will be going up. Probably not to hyperinflation levels, but enough that discretionary spending will drop, which will hurt industries far beyond the farm.
That, in turn, will join with the other side of the trade wars (why should they, or can they, buy our stuff if we won't buy theirs?) to kick unemployment up. Some of those unemployed might try some of the agriculture jobs that ICE is opening up. "Try" being the operative word. Farm work is nothing like office work -- I've done it, and I know. Some of the unemployed might eventually get in shape to do it. But even if you spend a lot of time in the gym, that's nothing like doing hard work 40+ hours a week.
Short story shorter, it's going to get ugly. Republican Congress critters may not feel the impact next year. But by 2028, they're going to join the ranks of the unemployed. (And their usual post-Congress positions as lobbyists aren't going to be interested -- few members to the next Congress are going to go anywhere near them.)
So, there's your summary predictions from the resident optimist.
I sincerely appreciate, as always, your unflagging optimism, wj
I truly wish I was optimistic at this point. But, while I have hopes, I don't really have expectations. (At least, not positive ones. :-)
I suspect that the question is just how bad it will get, and how long it will take us to repair the damage.
The US doesn't really have a single, common, consensus culture or history. New Englanders are not the same as folks in the Pacific Northwest, or the Southwest, or the Southeast, or the Plains. And none of those folks are the same as each other.
I think we actually do have a common culture. Or did. Certainly we have different subcultures, both regional and otherwise. But there is, or was, far less difference from one region to another than there is from anywhere in the US to, for example, Australia.
Even now, I don't think the biggest cultural divide is geographic. As a first approximation, the difference is between those who get their information primarily from Fox News and those who don't. (There are newer, more disconnected from reality, news sources. As I said, a first approximation.). That's why I don't see partition as a viable future; the two groups are just too intertwined geographically.
I'm not sure how we restore some kind of national unity. What I hope is (and I know it's a faint hope) is that the Fox News aficionados get burned enough, personally, by this administration that they recoil back to reality. Many are all in unto death, as we saw during covid. But if anywhere near half come to their senses, we're back to a single culture with variations.
Mr. Fuentes, 26, is a white supremacist, Hitler fan and vocal antisemite. A far-right influencer who hosts a weeknight streaming show called “America First,”
Fuentes?!?!? Somebody alert Stephen Miller that there's a Hispanic in our midst! Get him on the next flight to South Sudan!
For all I know, the guy's family has been in the US a couple of centuries. Does anyone think Miller cares?
I don't think it is realistic to expect nations to simply stay with cash money.
These days the vast majority of currency transactions are electronic. I doubt anyone (outside the looney far right, and not most even there) expect or want that to change. Cash (paper) can be handy for small transactions. But nobody uses it much for legal transactions over $100.
But crypto is a whole different deal. It's great for illegal transactions, or for evading taxes. And, if you get in early, it's an effective "bigger idiot" vehicle. But legitimate uses? No so much.
It may be possible to regulate it to the point that it's useful. But I haven't seen any even halfway plausible ideas for doing so.
The headline leaves out the even more scandalous part: ONLY churches, not other tax exempt entities. Those still have to obey the rule of either partisan or tax exempt but not both at the same time.
In the other hand, getting yourself officially designated as a church is pretty straightforward. And the requirements are far less than you might imagine. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if most PACs could pull it off -- given some of the organizations I've seen do so in the past. And any kind of charitable organization would be a shoo-in. For sure you don't need to express believe in any kind of diety(s).
I like GftNC's idea of checking that someone is connected to the real world. Just two details:
-- while most of us are in the US, and therefore closely attuned to events here, not everyone is. In addition to the several folks in the UK (and lj domiciled in Japan) I seem to recall that Lurker is in Finland. There might well be others, either currently or in the future. Do we need a question or two for reality checks of those elsewhere?
-- Just for equity, we probably ought to have a question or two that would reality check those on the left. (Maybe acknowledgement that such a category exists...? ;-)
It's long been pretty clear that the Neanderthals were every bit as intelligent, and culturally complex, as homo sapiens. Just earlier. And were similar enough to us that interbreeding took place. Most of us have chunks of Neanderthal DNA in our genome.
It's not (that I know of) clear why/how we replaced them. Presumably we had an advantage of some kind. Higher birth rates? Better or more focused disease resistance? More effective aggressive behavior? Something.
I've long since resigned myself to the reality that anything and everything that I have ever written on the Internet is available to someone willing to expend the effort to track it down. Including stuff I have long since forgotten, which I wrote when the Internet was new, and the preserve of a very small number of geeks. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
I figure I'm still better off than those today who (apparently compulsively) write every detail of pretty much every they do. I expect it will come back to haunt a significant number of them.
In 50 years or so our culture may have adapted to the Internet. We'll make use of its strengths where appropriate. And kids will be taught, about the time they learn to read and write, how to use it safely and responsibly. Until then, about the best we can do is damage limitation.
conversations with them tend to devolve into unanswerable arguments from authority. I.e., if "the Bible says" is not part of your epistemology, there isn't really a basis for conversation. It can be kind of a dead end.
Thus my discussion of what constitutes an "authority". I, too, would not be optimistic about a useful conversation with someone whose approach starts and ends with "the Bible [or other scriptures of their choice] says". In the other hand, someone who starts with "I believe that" or "My faith holds that", but then goes on to discuss how that particular tenet has positive impacts for those outside their faith community, or for society at large?** That could be fine.
To take one example, suppose someone starts from"Thou shalt not steal.". Not a whole lot of arguments from people here. But there might be a useful discussion of what, beyond the obvious, constitutes "stealing." Is open pit mining necessarily stealing? How about various stock/bond trading strategies? How about various tax regimes? And, in each case, what's the evidence for how it works out in the real world? In short, it's possible to take a fundamentalist precept and look at it, or at least its impact, objectively.
** And, tiny reality check, I have personal experience of a few such people. No idea how common that view is, but we're not looking at a null set.
For those who would like to see a greater diversity of views here (diversity! What a concept!), it might be useful to ask a couple of questions:
How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate? Full on MAGA cultists? (I'm guessing generally not, but I suppose that could be projection.) Religious fundamentalists, of whichever religion? (Not, I think, those demanding that society generally conform to their views, but perhaps those who think the world would be a better place if more people embraced some of their views. Again, that could be projection.) Straight up conservatives: "I don't much care for change, but can be convinced that it's necessary in specific instances"? Moderate conservatives: "There are things that need changing, but I'd generally prefer gradual changes, small changes that can be reality checked as we go, to sweeping changes"? Centerists-- those who see merits in both liberal and conservative views, and want to create compromises between them? New voices even further left than what we have now?
What ideas do you have for reality checking, both of new and existing commenters? Which mostly comes down to What is an authorative sourse? Does it have to be reliable across the board, or just in some areas? How much agreement do we need for something to be accepted as authorative?
Yes, I realize that I'm assuming a general preference for reality. Challenge that if you wish.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The law of the letter”
Camel notation* from computer programming would possibly be better: InternalCompustionEngine.
It is interesting that it is widely used in domain names, e.g. KaiserPermanente.org Clearly the sales and marketing folks think it will be easier to parse that way.
"
In Latin one has to invent new words for concepts Cicero&Co. did not yet possess and would probably not understand. Greek (unlike classical Latin) allows composite words that can transport about any meaning with little to no loss.
No offense, but I wonder if being a native speaker of German might be coloring your view here. Composite words being one of the most noticable things (after gendered nouns) for English speakers when learning it.
I admit that I don't have a wide enough base to know how common composite words are in languages generally.
"
Sorry if I misunderstand you, but are you saying that the use of national languages in the native countries will disappear or be reduced? I don't think that would be realistic.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Not that it will necessarily be quick. But it will happen.
See, for example, the various Native American / First Nations languages. They haven't, quite, died out and there are various efforts to save one or another of them. But the reality is that native speakers are overwhelmingly old. Children may retain some fluency, in order to speak to their grandparents. But for everyday use, they speak English. And the children's children will be straight Anglophones.
We see the same phenomena in immigrants. My wife's immigrant grandparents were functional in English, but spoke Japanese with family and friends. Her parents were fluent in Japanese (from talking to parents and aunts and uncles when growing up), but generally spoke English except when talking to the older generation. My wife and her siblings? Even having lost virtually all of the Japanese I studied in college, I still speak more than they do.**
Granted, there is more inertia when it comes to languages with a big population base. So it will take longer. But modern communications mean that the next generation will be exposed to English far beyond the classroom. And anyone who interacts with the outside world, from academics to taxi drivers, will need to use it routinely. Already do, actually.
** When my wife and I first got together, we made occasional trips half the length of California to see her family. About the third trip, I got taken off to see Grandma. My future mother-in-law gave Grandma an explanation of who was this blue eyed blond, then introduced us. I remembered enough to say Hajimemashte. Grandma just lit up; from that moment, as far as she was concerned, I was in.
"
I am involved in an international organization (ICANN, if you care). I have a nagging (unspoken) embarrassment because everybody speaks English. Most of them barely distinguishable from native speakers.** Partly that turns out to because they did college or grad school in the US, or perhaps the UK or Australia.
But there I am, speaking only English. The German I learned in high school is mostly gone. The Japanese I studied in grad school is also gone. And, of course, because I grew up in California I know a few bits and pieces of Spanish. (Actually, taking a few Spanish classes is on my Really Need To Get Around To This list.) For the moment, I try to at least learn how to say thank you in the language of wherever we are meeting.
I have the suspicion that English will eventually end up as the world language. There will no doubt be long and bitter fights to preserve the national language. But they will, in eventual history, be seen as futile fighting tetreats.
These days, the world requires a common language to function. One will come: the only question is which one it will be. The Chinese will argue, as their economic power increases, for Chinese (Mandarin), but a tonal language is simply too difficult for anyone not raised in one. Spanish might be a viable option, but it lacks a serious economic power to push it. French might have a chance, except that its spelling is nothing approaching phonetic, which makes it hard to learn.
English, thanks to British and then American economic dominance (plus the fact that India, with its huge population, already uses it because its people speak 5 mutually unintelligible native languages), is already getting there. A lot of countries, not just Japan, start English lessons in grammar school. I won't claim that nothing could displace English. But it would take, at minimum, a couple of centuries of economic and cultural dominance.
** Working groups typically work in English (even if there are no native speakers involved), with a few having simultaneous translations for French and Spanish. For the three major meetings, we get translations in the 5 UN languages (English, French, Spanish, Russian, and Chinese) plus Arabic. And the language of wherever we are meeting, if it isn't one of those.
On “Your Schadenfreude monitoring open thread”
It's as if someone had deliberately did a lot of work to make it really, Really, REALLY look like a high-level conspiracy.
Of course, it doesn't take much work to make a conspiracy look like a conspiracy. And how likely is it that the incompetents involved could manage to fake one convincingly? Or even do a lot of work to try to?
"
The evidence could go missing, but to the people who have built influencer careers out of Epstein conspiracies, that would likely just fuel the fires of speculation.
And if I were Bondi, I'd be sure to stash the evidence somewhere that Trump couldn't get to it, rather than destroying it.
And she doesn't even have to stash the evidence. A copy of the evidence would be just as good, maybe even better, for convincing the conspiracy theory enthusiasts that it's real. "The Elites destroyed the original. But we've gotten a copy out and we'll destroy them with it!"
Of course, the minute there's one copy out, there will be a dozen (hey, I said the first minute) variations splashing across the Internet. No doubt Trump will feature in at least some of them.
"
“It’s much easier to be angry at an immigrant than to wonder whether you’ve been lied to for the last eight years.”
I think this is where the Lewis goes wrong. They don't have to struggle with the idea that they've been lied to. They just have to maintain their outrage at the Elites for covering this up. Doesn't matter that Trump might have lied to them (ya think he might have?). All that matters is that they are heavily invested in the idea of a conspiracy to cover up massive Elite morality. And that now there is a chance to drag it into the open.
In the end, they're more wedded to their conspiracy beliefs than they are to Trump. And massively more so than to anybody else in his administration. Hence the immediate demands for Bondi's removal. I agree with hsh that his best course would be to just shut up about it. Let the ravening hordes focus of the rest of the administration, and throw them to the dogs as necessary. But he's probably incapable of that. His loss is the country's gain.
"
Just for the benefit of anyone coming to this in the future, the last three entries in the Plus ça change... thread are also on this topic.
Apologies to those here for not making it a thread initially. Unfortunately, I was on my phone and didn't have easy access to create a new thread. (Probably ought to fix that....)
On “Plus ça change…”
A somewhat different case of Plus ça change...:
One of the favorite obsessions of the MAGA-verse, for the past decade, has been the Epstein Files. Trump used it to smear his opponents. And to demonstrate how he was in sync with the common folks against the Elites. He regularly demanded that they be made public.
But then, Trump's Attorney General, after saying shortly after taking office that she had the file on her desk, announced that there was nothing there that warranted publication. And Trump posted various suggestions that it was old news and people should just move on.
No surprise: while a few cultists followed directions, a substantial majority are having none of it. They want to see those files. They are demanding to see them. (And, incidently, demanding that the AG be fired for not publishing them.)
A lot of us have wondered what would hit the MAGAts hard enough to wake them up. Which, we innocently assumed, was what would get them to abandon Trump. Lots of discussion of economic pain, loved ones dying for lack of medical care, other real stuff. Somehow nobody (that I saw) suggested that one of the conspiracy theories would turn around and bite him.
My guess is that, if they'd just published them, no matter how damning the contents the true believers would have come up with a conspiracy theory to explain it all away. SStereotypically,it's not the crime, it's the cover-up.
On “Like encountering stone age tribes in the Amazon”
I'm confident that 2 is, in fact, prime.
“This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.”
"
That's because you don't have Amazon Prime. Being #2, you aren't prime, which means you have to try harder.**
** For those outside the US, back in the day (and, for all I know, today) Hertz was the biggest car rental company. Avis, the next largest, advertised "We're #2, We try harder."
On “Plus ça change…”
I can't wait for the ocean to swallow Mar-A-Lago like a bad case of reflux.
Personally, I'd like to see the site become a sewage treatment plant. (A real one, not a metaphor.) Give the cult a focus for pilgrimages.
But your alternative does have merit. Not to mention a high probability.
On “An open thread on July 4th”
there are simply no "good" Republicans today, and they need to be politically neutralized root and branch, even the one's who wj avers are "good ones".
If they were "good" they would not be Republicans.
I'd agree with you that there are no good Republicans on the national level, I think the situation is a bit different on the local level. Not that there aren't a lot of terrible local Republican office holders. Just that there are also some good ones.
You suggest that, if they were good, they wouldn't be Republicans. But that's simplistic. In some areas, the Republican primary essentially is the general election. If you want to hold office and do some good, you run as a Republican. (If tilting at windmills is your thing, you run as a Democrat.) Gerrymandering has made that worse. But it would be true in a lot of places even without that.
The other thing is, most people find it hard to change parties. Call it psychological momentum or something. But even if their voting habits in the general election shift, they resist changing their party registration.
It's even harder if you are already an elected official. It can be done; my Congressman was originally elected to the state legislature as a Republican. But it's hard. And you probably need some years in office to build a personal brand to get you through.
I might accept that good young people, in a lot of places, would find it hard to look at the current Republican Party (especially as the national party is so high profile) and register with them. Twenty years down the line, that will make your observation more true. But there will still be places where you can't get elected and do good, especially the first few times, without the label.
"
But we're still a prosperous country. People aren't pushing wheelbarrows full of cash to the grocery store because of hyperinflation. Unemployment remains low.
We're still a prosperous country for now. Whether we remain one rather depends on how Trump's trade wars play out. But individual areas are going to get hit hard, and sooner rather than later.
To take just one example, without USAid, the prairie states are going to get hammered starting next year. The silos are still pretty full from last year's harvest. This fall, they're not going to be able to buy what the farmers produce. Of course some of the grain might be diverted to cattle feed. Except that, with ICE rounding up all the workers from the slaughter houses, the market for cattle will be tanking also. Those states are going to be hurting big-time -- and while Trump might talk about "family farms" on the campaign trail, he's basically a city boy who just doesn't really relate.
Between that and the damage to the vegetable farming here and tariffs on imports from (mostly) Mexico, food prices will be going up. Probably not to hyperinflation levels, but enough that discretionary spending will drop, which will hurt industries far beyond the farm.
That, in turn, will join with the other side of the trade wars (why should they, or can they, buy our stuff if we won't buy theirs?) to kick unemployment up. Some of those unemployed might try some of the agriculture jobs that ICE is opening up. "Try" being the operative word. Farm work is nothing like office work -- I've done it, and I know. Some of the unemployed might eventually get in shape to do it. But even if you spend a lot of time in the gym, that's nothing like doing hard work 40+ hours a week.
Short story shorter, it's going to get ugly. Republican Congress critters may not feel the impact next year. But by 2028, they're going to join the ranks of the unemployed. (And their usual post-Congress positions as lobbyists aren't going to be interested -- few members to the next Congress are going to go anywhere near them.)
So, there's your summary predictions from the resident optimist.
"
I sincerely appreciate, as always, your unflagging optimism, wj
I truly wish I was optimistic at this point. But, while I have hopes, I don't really have expectations. (At least, not positive ones. :-)
I suspect that the question is just how bad it will get, and how long it will take us to repair the damage.
"
The US doesn't really have a single, common, consensus culture or history. New Englanders are not the same as folks in the Pacific Northwest, or the Southwest, or the Southeast, or the Plains. And none of those folks are the same as each other.
I think we actually do have a common culture. Or did. Certainly we have different subcultures, both regional and otherwise. But there is, or was, far less difference from one region to another than there is from anywhere in the US to, for example, Australia.
Even now, I don't think the biggest cultural divide is geographic. As a first approximation, the difference is between those who get their information primarily from Fox News and those who don't. (There are newer, more disconnected from reality, news sources. As I said, a first approximation.). That's why I don't see partition as a viable future; the two groups are just too intertwined geographically.
I'm not sure how we restore some kind of national unity. What I hope is (and I know it's a faint hope) is that the Fox News aficionados get burned enough, personally, by this administration that they recoil back to reality. Many are all in unto death, as we saw during covid. But if anywhere near half come to their senses, we're back to a single culture with variations.
"
From the article bobbyp links to:
Fuentes?!?!? Somebody alert Stephen Miller that there's a Hispanic in our midst! Get him on the next flight to South Sudan!
For all I know, the guy's family has been in the US a couple of centuries. Does anyone think Miller cares?
"
I don't think it is realistic to expect nations to simply stay with cash money.
These days the vast majority of currency transactions are electronic. I doubt anyone (outside the looney far right, and not most even there) expect or want that to change. Cash (paper) can be handy for small transactions. But nobody uses it much for legal transactions over $100.
But crypto is a whole different deal. It's great for illegal transactions, or for evading taxes. And, if you get in early, it's an effective "bigger idiot" vehicle. But legitimate uses? No so much.
It may be possible to regulate it to the point that it's useful. But I haven't seen any even halfway plausible ideas for doing so.
"
The headline leaves out the even more scandalous part: ONLY churches, not other tax exempt entities. Those still have to obey the rule of either partisan or tax exempt but not both at the same time.
In the other hand, getting yourself officially designated as a church is pretty straightforward. And the requirements are far less than you might imagine. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if most PACs could pull it off -- given some of the organizations I've seen do so in the past. And any kind of charitable organization would be a shoo-in. For sure you don't need to express believe in any kind of diety(s).
"
I like GftNC's idea of checking that someone is connected to the real world. Just two details:
-- while most of us are in the US, and therefore closely attuned to events here, not everyone is. In addition to the several folks in the UK (and lj domiciled in Japan) I seem to recall that Lurker is in Finland. There might well be others, either currently or in the future. Do we need a question or two for reality checks of those elsewhere?
-- Just for equity, we probably ought to have a question or two that would reality check those on the left. (Maybe acknowledgement that such a category exists...? ;-)
On “Plus ça change…”
It's long been pretty clear that the Neanderthals were every bit as intelligent, and culturally complex, as homo sapiens. Just earlier. And were similar enough to us that interbreeding took place. Most of us have chunks of Neanderthal DNA in our genome.
It's not (that I know of) clear why/how we replaced them. Presumably we had an advantage of some kind. Higher birth rates? Better or more focused disease resistance? More effective aggressive behavior? Something.
On “An open thread on July 4th”
I've long since resigned myself to the reality that anything and everything that I have ever written on the Internet is available to someone willing to expend the effort to track it down. Including stuff I have long since forgotten, which I wrote when the Internet was new, and the preserve of a very small number of geeks. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
I figure I'm still better off than those today who (apparently compulsively) write every detail of pretty much every they do. I expect it will come back to haunt a significant number of them.
In 50 years or so our culture may have adapted to the Internet. We'll make use of its strengths where appropriate. And kids will be taught, about the time they learn to read and write, how to use it safely and responsibly. Until then, about the best we can do is damage limitation.
"
It's also possible that I hallucinated the whole thing.
Nah. More likely the alien space bats purged it.
"
conversations with them tend to devolve into unanswerable arguments from authority. I.e., if "the Bible says" is not part of your epistemology, there isn't really a basis for conversation. It can be kind of a dead end.
Thus my discussion of what constitutes an "authority". I, too, would not be optimistic about a useful conversation with someone whose approach starts and ends with "the Bible [or other scriptures of their choice] says". In the other hand, someone who starts with "I believe that" or "My faith holds that", but then goes on to discuss how that particular tenet has positive impacts for those outside their faith community, or for society at large?** That could be fine.
To take one example, suppose someone starts from"Thou shalt not steal.". Not a whole lot of arguments from people here. But there might be a useful discussion of what, beyond the obvious, constitutes "stealing." Is open pit mining necessarily stealing? How about various stock/bond trading strategies? How about various tax regimes? And, in each case, what's the evidence for how it works out in the real world? In short, it's possible to take a fundamentalist precept and look at it, or at least its impact, objectively.
** And, tiny reality check, I have personal experience of a few such people. No idea how common that view is, but we're not looking at a null set.
"
For those who would like to see a greater diversity of views here (diversity! What a concept!), it might be useful to ask a couple of questions:
How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate? Full on MAGA cultists? (I'm guessing generally not, but I suppose that could be projection.) Religious fundamentalists, of whichever religion? (Not, I think, those demanding that society generally conform to their views, but perhaps those who think the world would be a better place if more people embraced some of their views. Again, that could be projection.) Straight up conservatives: "I don't much care for change, but can be convinced that it's necessary in specific instances"? Moderate conservatives: "There are things that need changing, but I'd generally prefer gradual changes, small changes that can be reality checked as we go, to sweeping changes"? Centerists-- those who see merits in both liberal and conservative views, and want to create compromises between them? New voices even further left than what we have now?
What ideas do you have for reality checking, both of new and existing commenters? Which mostly comes down to What is an authorative sourse? Does it have to be reliable across the board, or just in some areas? How much agreement do we need for something to be accepted as authorative?
Yes, I realize that I'm assuming a general preference for reality. Challenge that if you wish.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.