lj, it's all of those things except, as you say, 2. The Tories have got a fucking nerve, after the corruption of BoJo, not to mention the PPE/Covid VIP lane scandal
which is estimated to have cost the nation about £1.4 billion.
CaseyL: hard agree with what you say. Apart from the man that nous so memorably calls the Clementine Caligula, I am still amazed that, for example, Bannon's involvement in trying to rehabilitate Epstein's image has not done more damage to MAGA.
By starting a list like this, I don't mean to be dismissive (except for the Tory complaints, perhaps). Multiple things can be true, so it feels like the attempt to define this as one thing means it doesn't become anything.
I'd say it is critical mass.
In Europe the Epstein associates are a tiny minority while in the US they occupy many positions of power (in and out of official politics) that allow for stonewalling and mutual support. Plus the tradition in the US not to hold the powerful accountable. So, in Europe it does not undermine the system to go after at least some prominent culprits. There simply is no long row of domino pieces to fall. In the US* Epstein seems to have (deliberately) infected the system itself with a rot so widespread that he probably hoped it would forever protect him. He is gone but the rot remains and fully uncovering - let alone thoroughly removing - it would shake the system to the core, which is why it is unlikely to happen.
*and, so some info I've seen but can't judge the veracity of says, in Israel
Apologies in advance for putting a US-centric spin on this, but what has struck me the most is the NON-impact the Epstein case has had on the US politicians and hangers-on who were Epstein intimates... starting, of course, with the complete waste of protoplasm currently occupying the Oval Office.
Seeing how being close to Epstein, or even adjacent to Epstein, is ending political careers all over Europe while Epstein's closest associates in the US are untouched has me seething.
I don't have a ton of time until I get in later tonight, but I was very struck by this piece by Marina Hyde a couple of days ago, and rather think most feminists agree, particularly with this sentence:
I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal.
Obviously, we have all (lefty/liberals that is) been discussing this incessantly. I can tell you that in general the consensus among people I know (several of whom are rather involved in Labour) is this, all of which also reflects my opinion:
We foolishly thought that because Mandelson is gay he must have been unaware of all the disgusting sex abuse stuff. The consorting with Epstein when he knew about the conviction etc was certainly very bad, but we thought maybe he didn't believe it because he'd never seen any sign of it. Ridiculously naive, I now see.
Most of us (not all) reluctantly believed that although Mandelson is a rather brilliant Machiavellian snake, that made him the perfect person to deal with the snake pit in the White House.
Everybody is astounded by the divulging of state economic secrets stuff. None of us would have believed that he was capable of such a thing, given that despite his snakiness we believed that he was, in his way, devoted to Labour and his country (so proud of being Herbert Morrison's grandson etc). The word treason was bandied about between us, but when I looked it up it seems it doesn't apply. He continues to say he has done nothing criminal. We shall see.
All I can say is, now that Morgan McSweeney's gone, I desperately hope this doesn't take Starmer down. There's no obvious successor, and the main alternatives are several orders of magnitude worse (i.e. Tories and Reform). But there's no doubt that Starmer is not in any way cut out to be a politician - it's been very clear for ages that he's no good at it.
I would guess it has no impact on the special relationship. Or what's left of it these days.
Trump has no loyalty to others, so the fact that, in the UK , other Epstein buddies are getting taken down? Not going to matter much.
Provided they don't say anything bad about him. Anyone who does that is beyond the pale. If it's a UK media, he'll maybe trash them. But if it's anyone in government, the UK joins his enemies list.
It's possible that it's as simple as something like Xi asking, "What have you learned from Russia-Ukraine that will make our takeover of Taiwan less costly?" And didn't like the answer.
I'm not sure Xi is exceptionally paranoid. The Chinese Communist Party has always been concerned about alternate loyalties, in business as well as in the military. Although the party may worry a bit more about the military, given how many founders of the PRC were generals.
The age of the guys being replaced at least gives a bit of plausible deniability to speculation about an ideological purge.** And it might be a matter, as suggested, of just wanting younger guys who are more up on the changing military technology. Seeing how inflexible Russian generals have been in Ukraine, and how that has played out, would be a motivator there.
** Mass corruption charges, even if warranted, could be a bad look. When Xi first came in, a "new broom" story might have played. But to have a bunch of cases only now? That could look like he wasn't on top of things.
Maybe not moral insanity just brazen bull (I propose the unit of 1 Ph* for this kind of thing, subdivision to be determined)
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-gateway-federal-funds-rename-dulles-penn-station
Now he also wants to rename the already renamed Gulf of Mexico after himself. But will he do after renaming Greenland? How will he call America?
If he was still alive, this guy instead of Kim Jong Un would probably be his role model (although he'd be unable to poperly pronounce the name): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov
*after Phalaris whose main claim to fame was a brazen bull.
This is David French in today's NYT on fairly simple measures that can be taken to protect the midterms, given Trump's "nationalise the election" rhetoric:
W.r.t. renewables vs. fossil, I urge anyone interested to check out the first YouTube clip in cleek's recent post. If you keep watching past the first, fake sign-off, you'll hear a rousing finale, full of words and music, clarifying the difference between politicis and partisanship.
--TP
Badger: In summation, I think you just got to not do it, man. That's all.
Mr. Fox: I understand what you're saying, and your comments are valuable, but I'm gonna ignore your advice.
Badger: The cuss you are.
Mr. Fox: The cuss am I? Are you cussing with me?
Badger: No, you cussing with me?
Mr. Fox: Don't cussing point at me!
Badger: If you're gonna cuss with somebody, you're not gonna cuss with me, you little cuss!
Mr. Fox: You're not gonna cuss with me!
[Both start snarling at each other, and then settle down]
Mr. Fox: Just buy the tree.
Badger: Okay.
On “Separated by a common language”
lj, it's all of those things except, as you say, 2. The Tories have got a fucking nerve, after the corruption of BoJo, not to mention the PPE/Covid VIP lane scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_regarding_COVID-19_contracts_in_the_United_Kingdom
which is estimated to have cost the nation about £1.4 billion.
CaseyL: hard agree with what you say. Apart from the man that nous so memorably calls the Clementine Caligula, I am still amazed that, for example, Bannon's involvement in trying to rehabilitate Epstein's image has not done more damage to MAGA.
"
I feel like this whole thing is like a Rorschach test, pick the thing out that really pisses you off the most and you'll see it. You've got
By starting a list like this, I don't mean to be dismissive (except for the Tory complaints, perhaps). Multiple things can be true, so it feels like the attempt to define this as one thing means it doesn't become anything.
"
I'd say it is critical mass.
In Europe the Epstein associates are a tiny minority while in the US they occupy many positions of power (in and out of official politics) that allow for stonewalling and mutual support. Plus the tradition in the US not to hold the powerful accountable. So, in Europe it does not undermine the system to go after at least some prominent culprits. There simply is no long row of domino pieces to fall. In the US* Epstein seems to have (deliberately) infected the system itself with a rot so widespread that he probably hoped it would forever protect him. He is gone but the rot remains and fully uncovering - let alone thoroughly removing - it would shake the system to the core, which is why it is unlikely to happen.
*and, so some info I've seen but can't judge the veracity of says, in Israel
"
Apologies in advance for putting a US-centric spin on this, but what has struck me the most is the NON-impact the Epstein case has had on the US politicians and hangers-on who were Epstein intimates... starting, of course, with the complete waste of protoplasm currently occupying the Oval Office.
Seeing how being close to Epstein, or even adjacent to Epstein, is ending political careers all over Europe while Epstein's closest associates in the US are untouched has me seething.
"
Props to the UK for at least finding it scandalous.
Here in the US it's more like a national exercise in "la la la la I can't hear you"
"
I don't have a ton of time until I get in later tonight, but I was very struck by this piece by Marina Hyde a couple of days ago, and rather think most feminists agree, particularly with this sentence:
I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/06/jeffrey-epstein-scandal-politics-mass-abuse-women-girls
Obviously, we have all (lefty/liberals that is) been discussing this incessantly. I can tell you that in general the consensus among people I know (several of whom are rather involved in Labour) is this, all of which also reflects my opinion:
All I can say is, now that Morgan McSweeney's gone, I desperately hope this doesn't take Starmer down. There's no obvious successor, and the main alternatives are several orders of magnitude worse (i.e. Tories and Reform). But there's no doubt that Starmer is not in any way cut out to be a politician - it's been very clear for ages that he's no good at it.
"
I would guess it has no impact on the special relationship. Or what's left of it these days.
Trump has no loyalty to others, so the fact that, in the UK , other Epstein buddies are getting taken down? Not going to matter much.
Provided they don't say anything bad about him. Anyone who does that is beyond the pale. If it's a UK media, he'll maybe trash them. But if it's anyone in government, the UK joins his enemies list.
On “Xi and China’s military: an off the wall theory”
It's possible that it's as simple as something like Xi asking, "What have you learned from Russia-Ukraine that will make our takeover of Taiwan less costly?" And didn't like the answer.
On “Separated by a common language”
The Raving Monster Loony Party will finally get a PM!
On “Xi and China’s military: an off the wall theory”
I'm not sure Xi is exceptionally paranoid. The Chinese Communist Party has always been concerned about alternate loyalties, in business as well as in the military. Although the party may worry a bit more about the military, given how many founders of the PRC were generals.
The age of the guys being replaced at least gives a bit of plausible deniability to speculation about an ideological purge.** And it might be a matter, as suggested, of just wanting younger guys who are more up on the changing military technology. Seeing how inflexible Russian generals have been in Ukraine, and how that has played out, would be a motivator there.
** Mass corruption charges, even if warranted, could be a bad look. When Xi first came in, a "new broom" story might have played. But to have a bunch of cases only now? That could look like he wasn't on top of things.
"
If it's only a handful of military brass, then Xi isn't going full Stalin.
Never go full Stalin.
"
It is one thing for a leader to show no mercy to his enemies; it is quite another for him to be so pitiless with his friends.
Civilian authoritarian leaders have no friends in the military.
"
Apparently some big officer guy in Germany is forcing all the men under him to view Melania. We need to do some purging here of wackos and nutcases.
"
Yeah, there is that. But imagine if Xi is splitting the difference between those three and Marshall.
"
Hitler, Mao, and Stalin employed similar, albeit a bit more drastic approach to reforming their officer corps. Results vary.
On “Moral insanity”
Please add a 'what' (without tf) after But and before will.
"
Maybe not moral insanity just brazen bull (I propose the unit of 1 Ph* for this kind of thing, subdivision to be determined)
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-gateway-federal-funds-rename-dulles-penn-station
Now he also wants to rename the already renamed Gulf of Mexico after himself. But will he do after renaming Greenland? How will he call America?
If he was still alive, this guy instead of Kim Jong Un would probably be his role model (although he'd be unable to poperly pronounce the name): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov
*after Phalaris whose main claim to fame was a brazen bull.
"
This is David French in today's NYT on fairly simple measures that can be taken to protect the midterms, given Trump's "nationalise the election" rhetoric:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/opinion/trump-nationalize-elections-midterms.html?unlocked_article_code=1.J1A.41j0.KnVRs-ShXqZm&smid=url-share
On “Bingeing on schadenfreude”
You are dead
cody rudland<████████>
to <jeeproject@yahoo.com>
Aug 13, 2019 6:48 AM
Lol good riddance
"
Wow, when starting to read the post, I was thinking that it was some sort of alternative to gmail that was the subject.
...but then it ALL BECAME CLEAR.
So, not as big as gmail, but much less evil? Please proceed.
On “Moral insanity”
This, from Jamelle Bouie in today's NYT, seems a pretty succinct summing up of the governing idea behind the Trump presidency:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/04/opinion/trump-presidential-power-comments.html?unlocked_article_code=1.J1A.ZFRC.nNClfSmkgGZn&smid=url-share
On “Adam Tooze”
W.r.t. renewables vs. fossil, I urge anyone interested to check out the first YouTube clip in cleek's recent post. If you keep watching past the first, fake sign-off, you'll hear a rousing finale, full of words and music, clarifying the difference between politicis and partisanship.
--TP
On “It is never “Simple as that””
You could go the route of Fantastic Mr. Fox:
Badger: In summation, I think you just got to not do it, man. That's all.
Mr. Fox: I understand what you're saying, and your comments are valuable, but I'm gonna ignore your advice.
Badger: The cuss you are.
Mr. Fox: The cuss am I? Are you cussing with me?
Badger: No, you cussing with me?
Mr. Fox: Don't cussing point at me!
Badger: If you're gonna cuss with somebody, you're not gonna cuss with me, you little cuss!
Mr. Fox: You're not gonna cuss with me!
[Both start snarling at each other, and then settle down]
Mr. Fox: Just buy the tree.
Badger: Okay.
"
nous for the win!
"
That's "Farging ICEholes."
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.