I put it to you that this just means you agree with the viewpoint they advocate.
Perhaps. But The Economist has higher ratings from various media rating services than does Scientific American, for example, a publication of a similar age and stature.
Some random thoughts. I don't know all of the gory details about the French cases mentioned here, but we have had all kinds of revelations about various groups who one would imagine would be more introspective to behave badly/act immorally. Those two phrases highlight the problem, either you assign behavior to an immature lapse in judgement or you make a claim about how it is going against all societal values. And given that Foucault was always identifying flaws in societal thinking, one can see how this can seem like society pushing back, which then engenders its own pushback, etc etc.
One thing that I think is operative in the issues in France is that academia and the elite are siloed there to a great extent, maybe much more than in other countries, and it creates structures that make misbehavior more likely. I'm thinking of the issues that have recently arisen in philosophy with McGinn, Searle and others, the issues in classics (we discussed this article about Peralta who has since moved from Princeton to ASU) as well as in other areas. I tend to think that these problems are often defined as sexism or racism, but the underlying issue is the ability to rationalize. The fact that Chomsky appears to be friends with Epstein (and his quote "I’ve met [all] sorts of people, including major war criminals. I don’t regret having met any of them.") seems like instantiations of that urge to rationalization.
I'm not sufficiently up on UK politics to describe their stance beyond "underwhelmed by the currently available options" among politicians and parties. They were appalled by Brexit, but then anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see that would be the fiasco that it has indeed become.
As for the US, they have the same challenge everyone else does: selecting which of each week's insanities to even talk about. They still have a bit of a libertarian lean, but rather less than a couple of decades ago. More like "Surely we can simplify and rationalize the kludge that has grown up over the years."
The Economist does manage some nice turns of phrase.
Lol, I haven't read the Economist in ages. I was to annoyed by every article ending with some call for neo-liberal deregulation as the solution to all our problems. Also, the fawning coverage of US administrations (Bush, not sure about Obama) was getting a bit ridiculous.
That said, they have some of the smartest writers and if you want to know what's going on in, say, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan or Malaysia right now, it's the right address.
Further to my comment about Trump's back and forth about the Chagos deal, there have been reports in various papers that his latest condemnation of it was because Starmer refused permission for the US to launch an attack on Iran from Diego Garcia.
And today, there are reports in the Times about Politico reporting that both BoJo and Liz Truss have been lobbying Trump against the Chagos deal very recently.
O brave new world, that has such leaders (and past leaders) in't.
Where all of this will fail across the US, is on "You let me cheat on my taxes by $10M every year, and you're going to draw a line at sex with 17-year-old?" That this will be largely successful is very depressing to me, even before we get to my granddaughters.
I recently rode in a Tesla in self-driving mode. Impressive but somewhat anticlimactic, having seen several self-driving videos. It would have been more impressive if there had been no one in the driver's seat.
now Stinky says he’s going to do a 10% global tariff.
But no more, anywhere? Last month BYD filed suit at the US Court of International Trade challenging much higher tariffs than that on their EVs. If the tariff on compact EVs is reduced to 10%, they'll be opening dealerships tomorrow and dominating EV sales by next year. I claim there is an enormous unmet demand for well-built compact EVs priced at $20k, and BYD can meet it.
I've already received a benefit from the Court's ruling on Trump's tariffs. On PredictIt, I bet the Court would overturn the tariffs. I've received a 20% return on my investment. :)
novakant, I'm also very sympathetic to what you say. And for clarity's sake, although I often examine this kind of stuff for its effect on women, it is very clear that the kinds of men who can get away with it also take sexual advantage of any group that suits their taste, including children, boys and other men.
But the question of whether to judge such behaviour by today's standards, or the standards of another time, is a different and difficult one. It may, for example, have been acceptable/legal until recently to rape your wife, but if she was trying to resist and in distress that still entails a kind of lack of empathy for the suffering of a fellow human that makes it possible to judge the perpetrator harshly.
And as for whether one can or should enjoy or appreciate the intellectual or artistic work of a moral degenerate, we have discussed that on ObWi many times. There is no easy answer. And whether the French (or any other) intellectual culture makes such behaviour more likely, or more tolerated, this is above my pay grade. It is noticeable, however, that more prominent women in France have found fault with the MeToo movement than those in other countries, so that's a clue. And Macron continuing to staunchly defend Gerard Depardieu in the face of countless allegations is another one. It doesn't stop Depardieu being (or having been) a great actor, however.
A sane decision of any significance by this SCOTUS usually means that something really awful is just around the corner.
Remember, they have things like birthright citizenship on their to-do list.
OK, this is business-friendly and thus right in their lane but I would not be surprised at all, if this is not also rising the shields for some reactionary semisolid digestive final product already in the works.
Kassandra was an optimist with rose.colored glasses.
Turns out, multiple companies already have in progress law suits to require the government to refund the money collected from them by Trump's tariffs. I admit to mixed feelings on that. For me, it comes down to whether, and to what extent, they absorbed the added costs themselves, vs passing them thru to their customers.
If they held the line on prices, absorbing the tariffs by accepting lower profits? No problem at all with them recovering their loss. But if they passed all, or even part, of their tariff-induced cost? I'd have to see from them something on how they proposed to similarly pass along those refunds to those customers.
IANAL, but it looks like it could take multiple cases to establish an equitable answer.
Listening to the radio (old-timey FM), right after they announced the SCOTUS decision against tariffs, they moved to an audio clip of His Orangeness saying the US has pledged $10B to the Bored of Piece (of sh*t).
The radio announcer then said, "The president offered no details on how this would be... (noticeable pause) at all legal." I LOLed in my office at that one.
I'm sooo tempted to read this as some of the justices discovering at least a hint of a spine when it comes to Trump. Doesn't mean they won't continue to be reactionary as hell. But perhaps on stuff where the focus isn't ideology, but just Trumpic insanity...?
But realistically? I want to see several more examples before getting my hopes up.
They noted that before Trump, no president had ever used the statute in question “to impose any tariffs, let alone tariffs of this magnitude and scope.”
To justify the “extraordinary” tariff powers, Trump must “point to clear congressional authorization,” the court wrote. “He cannot.”
No arguments here, novakant. I struggle with the same questions about the institutions and culture. I'm struggling with those things on an ethical level at my own institution in this moment.
On the French front in particular, I've had a ringside seat while my graduate institution dealt with the passing of Derrida, and with the fallout from his having defended a friend and colleague of his for having coerced a grad student to sleep with him. Derrida (and his estate after his passing) threatened to move his archive elsewhere if his friend faced any discipline. I believe his friend ended up taking a position at another university. Meanwhile, his grad student left the program the year before I started my Ph.D.. I don't know if she continued her studies elsewhere or if she left as an ABD. The wrangling and fallout from all that were background noise as I settled into my graduate work. Most of the people I was in class with had known all the involved parties.
Not as problematic as Foucault - at least everyone involved was an adult - but part and parcel of the same culture, and I can't read Derrida without thinking about those things as well.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Thread”
various media rating services
Care to share names?
"
I put it to you that this just means you agree with the viewpoint they advocate.
Perhaps. But The Economist has higher ratings from various media rating services than does Scientific American, for example, a publication of a similar age and stature.
"
The Economist has stayed the course much better than some other major publications that have drifted from journalism to viewpoint advocacy.
I put it to you that this just means you agree with the viewpoint they advocate.
On “Perpwalk Imperial”
Some random thoughts. I don't know all of the gory details about the French cases mentioned here, but we have had all kinds of revelations about various groups who one would imagine would be more introspective to behave badly/act immorally. Those two phrases highlight the problem, either you assign behavior to an immature lapse in judgement or you make a claim about how it is going against all societal values. And given that Foucault was always identifying flaws in societal thinking, one can see how this can seem like society pushing back, which then engenders its own pushback, etc etc.
One thing that I think is operative in the issues in France is that academia and the elite are siloed there to a great extent, maybe much more than in other countries, and it creates structures that make misbehavior more likely. I'm thinking of the issues that have recently arisen in philosophy with McGinn, Searle and others, the issues in classics (we discussed this article about Peralta who has since moved from Princeton to ASU) as well as in other areas. I tend to think that these problems are often defined as sexism or racism, but the underlying issue is the ability to rationalize. The fact that Chomsky appears to be friends with Epstein (and his quote "I’ve met [all] sorts of people, including major war criminals. I don’t regret having met any of them.") seems like instantiations of that urge to rationalization.
On “Open Thread”
"They still have a bit of a libertarian lean, but rather less than a couple of decades ago."
Decades ago, I subscribed to The Economist when, for me at least, subscribing to magazines was a thing.
The Economist has stayed the course much better than some other major publications that have drifted from journalism to viewpoint advocacy.
"
I'm not sufficiently up on UK politics to describe their stance beyond "underwhelmed by the currently available options" among politicians and parties. They were appalled by Brexit, but then anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see that would be the fiasco that it has indeed become.
As for the US, they have the same challenge everyone else does: selecting which of each week's insanities to even talk about. They still have a bit of a libertarian lean, but rather less than a couple of decades ago. More like "Surely we can simplify and rationalize the kludge that has grown up over the years."
"
novacant, like you I haven't read The Economist in ages.
At least, back then, they were tots for "gun control".
"
The Economist does manage some nice turns of phrase.
Lol, I haven't read the Economist in ages. I was to annoyed by every article ending with some call for neo-liberal deregulation as the solution to all our problems. Also, the fawning coverage of US administrations (Bush, not sure about Obama) was getting a bit ridiculous.
That said, they have some of the smartest writers and if you want to know what's going on in, say, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan or Malaysia right now, it's the right address.
What is their editorial stance now?
"
O brave new world, that has such leaders (and past leaders) in’t.
Trump is, no doubt inadvertently, accomplishing one thing: a lot of previously covert misbehavior is moving into the open.
Where, down the line, the perpetrators can be dealt with. Probably an improvement over them remaining in the shadows.
"
Further to my comment about Trump's back and forth about the Chagos deal, there have been reports in various papers that his latest condemnation of it was because Starmer refused permission for the US to launch an attack on Iran from Diego Garcia.
And today, there are reports in the Times about Politico reporting that both BoJo and Liz Truss have been lobbying Trump against the Chagos deal very recently.
O brave new world, that has such leaders (and past leaders) in't.
"
Yeah, kids of Tres. Sec Bessant have bought up lots of "tariff refund claims", for 20% of face value.
Corruption. MASSIVE corruption.
Of the kind that requires tumbril-rides to fix.
"
I've heard that some companies have already sold off the legal claims for tariff refunds. I'm waiting for the scam emails related to that.
On “Perpwalk Imperial”
Where all of this will fail across the US, is on "You let me cheat on my taxes by $10M every year, and you're going to draw a line at sex with 17-year-old?" That this will be largely successful is very depressing to me, even before we get to my granddaughters.
On “Open Thread”
I recently rode in a Tesla in self-driving mode. Impressive but somewhat anticlimactic, having seen several self-driving videos. It would have been more impressive if there had been no one in the driver's seat.
"
now Stinky says he’s going to do a 10% global tariff.
But no more, anywhere? Last month BYD filed suit at the US Court of International Trade challenging much higher tariffs than that on their EVs. If the tariff on compact EVs is reduced to 10%, they'll be opening dealerships tomorrow and dominating EV sales by next year. I claim there is an enormous unmet demand for well-built compact EVs priced at $20k, and BYD can meet it.
"
now Stinky says he's going to do a 10% global tariff.
because he's a moron.
"
I've already received a benefit from the Court's ruling on Trump's tariffs. On PredictIt, I bet the Court would overturn the tariffs. I've received a 20% return on my investment. :)
On “Perpwalk Imperial”
novakant, I'm also very sympathetic to what you say. And for clarity's sake, although I often examine this kind of stuff for its effect on women, it is very clear that the kinds of men who can get away with it also take sexual advantage of any group that suits their taste, including children, boys and other men.
But the question of whether to judge such behaviour by today's standards, or the standards of another time, is a different and difficult one. It may, for example, have been acceptable/legal until recently to rape your wife, but if she was trying to resist and in distress that still entails a kind of lack of empathy for the suffering of a fellow human that makes it possible to judge the perpetrator harshly.
And as for whether one can or should enjoy or appreciate the intellectual or artistic work of a moral degenerate, we have discussed that on ObWi many times. There is no easy answer. And whether the French (or any other) intellectual culture makes such behaviour more likely, or more tolerated, this is above my pay grade. It is noticeable, however, that more prominent women in France have found fault with the MeToo movement than those in other countries, so that's a clue. And Macron continuing to staunchly defend Gerard Depardieu in the face of countless allegations is another one. It doesn't stop Depardieu being (or having been) a great actor, however.
On “Open Thread”
Veering off in a different direction, here's the title of today's Economist podcast:
And the Arrest is History: Andrew Mountbatten Windsor
The Economist does manage some nice turns of phrase.
"
A sane decision of any significance by this SCOTUS usually means that something really awful is just around the corner.
Remember, they have things like birthright citizenship on their to-do list.
OK, this is business-friendly and thus right in their lane but I would not be surprised at all, if this is not also rising the shields for some reactionary semisolid digestive final product already in the works.
Kassandra was an optimist with rose.colored glasses.
"
Turns out, multiple companies already have in progress law suits to require the government to refund the money collected from them by Trump's tariffs. I admit to mixed feelings on that. For me, it comes down to whether, and to what extent, they absorbed the added costs themselves, vs passing them thru to their customers.
If they held the line on prices, absorbing the tariffs by accepting lower profits? No problem at all with them recovering their loss. But if they passed all, or even part, of their tariff-induced cost? I'd have to see from them something on how they proposed to similarly pass along those refunds to those customers.
IANAL, but it looks like it could take multiple cases to establish an equitable answer.
"
Listening to the radio (old-timey FM), right after they announced the SCOTUS decision against tariffs, they moved to an audio clip of His Orangeness saying the US has pledged $10B to the Bored of Piece (of sh*t).
The radio announcer then said, "The president offered no details on how this would be... (noticeable pause) at all legal." I LOLed in my office at that one.
F**king clown show.
"
I'm sooo tempted to read this as some of the justices discovering at least a hint of a spine when it comes to Trump. Doesn't mean they won't continue to be reactionary as hell. But perhaps on stuff where the focus isn't ideology, but just Trumpic insanity...?
But realistically? I want to see several more examples before getting my hopes up.
"
SCOTUS knocks down Stinky's tariffs ?
there is some justice in the world ?
this is a freaky Friday.
On “Perpwalk Imperial”
No arguments here, novakant. I struggle with the same questions about the institutions and culture. I'm struggling with those things on an ethical level at my own institution in this moment.
On the French front in particular, I've had a ringside seat while my graduate institution dealt with the passing of Derrida, and with the fallout from his having defended a friend and colleague of his for having coerced a grad student to sleep with him. Derrida (and his estate after his passing) threatened to move his archive elsewhere if his friend faced any discipline. I believe his friend ended up taking a position at another university. Meanwhile, his grad student left the program the year before I started my Ph.D.. I don't know if she continued her studies elsewhere or if she left as an ABD. The wrangling and fallout from all that were background noise as I settled into my graduate work. Most of the people I was in class with had known all the involved parties.
Not as problematic as Foucault - at least everyone involved was an adult - but part and parcel of the same culture, and I can't read Derrida without thinking about those things as well.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.