Over half a century ago, Robert Heinlein's "Future History" included a period where the United States was in the grip of a totalitarian theocracy. Sadly, the only part he seems to have missed was that it is not (yet) religion based. At least as far as its initial leader is concerned.** Sadly, the only question yet to be answered is how the succession will be determined.
I realize that, as the resident optimist, I should be talking about how we will bounce back once Trump leaves the scene. Certainly I hope that happens. But it's increasingly difficult to expect it. Alas, Carney is probably correct about where the world goes from here.
** Well, he also predicted the US would be totally isolationist (as in cutting off all interaction with the rest of the world) throughout this. The rest of the world, at this point, probably hopes it works out that way. And sooner rather than later.
Carney’s speech was great, in part because he admits that the old order was both useful and also a sham and a lie. They supported it because of its many benefits and ignored the hypocrisy and double standards.
Here is Assal Rad, an Iranian- American who mostly tweets about Gaza, who has family in Iran, doesn’t like the regime, feared for her family’s safety during the recent slaughter by the government but also hates the sanctions that cratered the economy, as Bessent bragged in Davos—
“To be clear, “this bargain no longer works” because it’s targeting them.
They had no problem with a false international order that targeted and subjugated brown people.”
She is absolutely right.
The NYT had an analysis of the speech which totally ignored that aspect. I give Carney a lot of credit for admitting it but any new rules based order should stop pretending this crap is acceptable.
Or in other words, no more genocides and crimes against humanity committed by the self- proclaimed good guys. Hold all war criminals to account to the extent possible and stop this lying.
If we rebuild from the ashes of Trump, let’s not go back to the happy days where we murder people and it doesn’t matter because we aren’t crass about it.
Back to lurking. Any further comments from me would just be more of the same.
it's shocking how fragile all of this is: that a single dimwitted blowhard like Trump could knock it all down. and that nobody in the US has both the power and the inclination to rein him in.
First Ursula von der Leyen tells it like it is, now Mark Carney. It has taken too long, but world leaders are finally realizing that appeasement works exactly as well today as it did in the 1930s (and as well as it ever has in the schoolyard, when bullies stand with their expectant hands out).
This speech is a barnburner. Though not the perfect politician we all wish for, Carney is the leader Canada needs right now. Hard to remember that Canadians were thiiiis close to electing a Trump-wannabe candidate until His Orangeness blathered about the 51st state and Canadian voters reacted with rage. Had they not done so, Canada would now be a footstool for the US to rest its dirty jackboots on. Instead, their PM is telling the rest of the world: there is a path forward, we are choosing it, and we invite you to join us on it. And with a literate metaphor, no less!
(Give it five minutes or so, and you'll hear US Republicans zeroing in on a single word in that entire speech -- communist -- and firing up their outrage engines accordingly.)
GftNC -- he has enriched himself to the tune of $1.5 billion. Wow, brazen corruption in full view. It’s almost funny after the accusations about the Biden Crime Family:
Well, it's been true since the beginning of his first campaign for President that every accusation he made was actually a confession. This is just a small addition to an enormous pile. He simply cannot imagine that anyone would fail to exploit anyone and anything they could, just like he does.
Oh, and by the way, the NYT editorial board today say that during his administration he has enriched himself to the tune of $1.5 billion. Wow, brazen corruption in full view. It's almost funny after the accusations about the Biden Crime Family:
Biden's cabinet was qualified and within normal parameters, and he at least was competent in his lucid moments. Trump's are all Project 2025 dictator wannabes and Coup Cuck Clansmen, and he himself has always been awful.
But the overwhelming impression is of a crazy old guy with dementia just going on, and on and on in a totally uncontrolled, rambling fashion with zero sense and concept of a message.
when a political party loves power more than anything, it can excuse almost anything.
Oh my God, I'm just listening to Trump's press conference. It's one of the most extraordinary things I've ever seen. He's currently boasting about how many ICE guys are "hispanics", and how great hispanics are. But the overwhelming impression is of a crazy old guy with dementia just going on, and on and on in a totally uncontrolled, rambling fashion with zero sense and concept of a message. Jesus Christ. How is it possible that anyone can see this and not think this man has to be removed from the presidency?
Weimar was also far progressed beyond imperial Germany in cultural things (including full equal rights for minorities, in particular Jews, and full equality for women seeming just around the corner).
Then came the Nazis and after WW2 a conservative restauration under Adenauer. Women reached de jure equality not before the 1970ies (before that husbands still had veto power despite nominally equal rights as per the West German constitution).
A throwback of a half or even a full century is thus easily possible and the US reactionaries have imo a fair chance to achieve that in our lifetimes.
lj -- I’m not sure how much we can bang that drum to indicate our inherent goodness. The fact that he was the first nominated (by a major political party) and went directly on to being elected makes him seem more like an outlier than a true indicator.
I'm not arguing for inherent goodness. Just that we've gotten better. Or less bad, if you prefer.
As for Obama being an outlier, I wouldn't dispute that. He's definitely an exceptionally gifted politician. I'd say the most gifted in my lifetime. But within (my) living memory, no black man, no matter how gifted, could have done what he did. Or even gotten within a thousand miles of getting the opportunity to try. That's a solid indication of progress. IMHO, of course.
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. “Inconceivable” is the word.
I'm not sure how much we can bang that drum to indicate our inherent goodness. The fact that he was the first nominated (by a major political party) and went directly on to being elected makes him seem more like an outlier than a true indicator.
wj - I think that, as a nation, we are in the process of moving past it. I say “as a nation” because, while I think that more and more of us have moved past it, clearly there are still a huge number who have not.
As a nation I think we have been here before, which is to say that as a nation we are currently in the midst of the sort of self-sorting that leads to us actually being two nations mixed up in one sack. We have two very different nationalisms facing off and in open conflict with each other.
The question is whether this leads to a forced reunification (as in the Civil War) or into some form of collapse, or just a prolonged dysfunction and are supplanted on the world stage.
I am not optimistic that we can put the toothpaste back into the tube this time.
russell -- I’d like to think we have somehow moved past the white supremacist legacy of our history, but I don’t think we have. I’m not sure if it’s a matter of re-remembering, I don’t think it ever went away. Trump just gives it permission to come back out in the light of day.
I think that, as a nation, we are in the process of moving past it. I say "as a nation" because, while I think that more and more of us have moved past it, clearly there are still a huge number who have not. A huge but decreasing number, which is why I say "in the process." Still huge, but decreasing -- not just as a portion of the population, but as a portion of the white population. That's what has people like Miller frantic.
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. "Inconceivable" is the word.
"would we have the same time for the person who points to accepting white South Africans to the US as springing from the same sort of impulse?"
Russia is not dropping bombs on the heads of white South Africans.
And I'm not sure it's accurate to say there isn't a humanitarian motivation to let those Asian, black, and brown people in, then or now. The safety concern wjca mentions is tangible for many of those folks.
I think the Reagan administration was a negative tipping point for this country, but I absolutely give him credit for the amnesty he granted to folks who were here and contributing. I was living in a predominantly Dominican neighborhood in Salem at the time, and folks were getting booted out who were contributing to the commnity in huge ways.
I'd like to think we have somehow moved past the white supremacist legacy of our history, but I don't think we have. I'm not sure if it's a matter of re-remembering, I don't think it ever went away. Trump just gives it permission to come back out in the light of day.
This is by no means to suggest we not make heroic efforts regarding climate change. Just to say, when it comes to immigration, that’s not going to be part of the solution (supposing that we need one). Economics and safety will. And addressing those is the right thing to do, regardless of your views on immigration.
In a better world, we would be putting our resources into the Global South to help them address climate change. Reducing desertification, creating off grid power, mangrove and rain forest protection and restoration would all have an impact. Unfortunately, the Western model has us look at these sorts of things as extractive, and to be accepted, they have to generate a profit for the people putting money into them.
On “Carney’s speech”
Over half a century ago, Robert Heinlein's "Future History" included a period where the United States was in the grip of a totalitarian theocracy. Sadly, the only part he seems to have missed was that it is not (yet) religion based. At least as far as its initial leader is concerned.** Sadly, the only question yet to be answered is how the succession will be determined.
I realize that, as the resident optimist, I should be talking about how we will bounce back once Trump leaves the scene. Certainly I hope that happens. But it's increasingly difficult to expect it. Alas, Carney is probably correct about where the world goes from here.
** Well, he also predicted the US would be totally isolationist (as in cutting off all interaction with the rest of the world) throughout this. The rest of the world, at this point, probably hopes it works out that way. And sooner rather than later.
"
Okay, delurking.
Carney’s speech was great, in part because he admits that the old order was both useful and also a sham and a lie. They supported it because of its many benefits and ignored the hypocrisy and double standards.
Here is Assal Rad, an Iranian- American who mostly tweets about Gaza, who has family in Iran, doesn’t like the regime, feared for her family’s safety during the recent slaughter by the government but also hates the sanctions that cratered the economy, as Bessent bragged in Davos—
“To be clear, “this bargain no longer works” because it’s targeting them.
They had no problem with a false international order that targeted and subjugated brown people.”
She is absolutely right.
The NYT had an analysis of the speech which totally ignored that aspect. I give Carney a lot of credit for admitting it but any new rules based order should stop pretending this crap is acceptable.
Or in other words, no more genocides and crimes against humanity committed by the self- proclaimed good guys. Hold all war criminals to account to the extent possible and stop this lying.
If we rebuild from the ashes of Trump, let’s not go back to the happy days where we murder people and it doesn’t matter because we aren’t crass about it.
Back to lurking. Any further comments from me would just be more of the same.
"
Testing first.
"
Here is von der Leyen's speech
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_26_150
"
it's shocking how fragile all of this is: that a single dimwitted blowhard like Trump could knock it all down. and that nobody in the US has both the power and the inclination to rein him in.
heckofajob, Framers.
"
First Ursula von der Leyen tells it like it is, now Mark Carney. It has taken too long, but world leaders are finally realizing that appeasement works exactly as well today as it did in the 1930s (and as well as it ever has in the schoolyard, when bullies stand with their expectant hands out).
This speech is a barnburner. Though not the perfect politician we all wish for, Carney is the leader Canada needs right now. Hard to remember that Canadians were thiiiis close to electing a Trump-wannabe candidate until His Orangeness blathered about the 51st state and Canadian voters reacted with rage. Had they not done so, Canada would now be a footstool for the US to rest its dirty jackboots on. Instead, their PM is telling the rest of the world: there is a path forward, we are choosing it, and we invite you to join us on it. And with a literate metaphor, no less!
(Give it five minutes or so, and you'll hear US Republicans zeroing in on a single word in that entire speech -- communist -- and firing up their outrage engines accordingly.)
On “Talarico”
whoa! blast from the past! I've dropped you an email!
"
I like Talarico. He is good at speaking plainly, which is a skill that I had to develop. There is a lot of value in that, IMHO.
BTW, LJ -- I'm von.
On “Rememory”
Well, it's been true since the beginning of his first campaign for President that every accusation he made was actually a confession. This is just a small addition to an enormous pile. He simply cannot imagine that anyone would fail to exploit anyone and anything they could, just like he does.
"
Oh, and by the way, the NYT editorial board today say that during his administration he has enriched himself to the tune of $1.5 billion. Wow, brazen corruption in full view. It's almost funny after the accusations about the Biden Crime Family:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/20/opinion/editorials/trump-wealth-crypto-graft.html?unlocked_article_code=1.F1A.0fka.QvU7sikLo6lz&smid=url-share
"
Biden's cabinet was qualified and within normal parameters, and he at least was competent in his lucid moments. Trump's are all Project 2025 dictator wannabes and Coup Cuck Clansmen, and he himself has always been awful.
"
Maybe one shouldn't start with the baseline assumption that immigration is a problem.
"
ask Grok to make you a list of all the times Biden threatened to blow up NATO because one of our allies wouldn't give us part of its territory.
"
But the overwhelming impression is of a crazy old guy with dementia just going on, and on and on in a totally uncontrolled, rambling fashion with zero sense and concept of a message.
when a political party loves power more than anything, it can excuse almost anything.
Déjà vu all over again.
"
when a political party loves power more than anything, it can excuse almost anything.
"
Oh my God, I'm just listening to Trump's press conference. It's one of the most extraordinary things I've ever seen. He's currently boasting about how many ICE guys are "hispanics", and how great hispanics are. But the overwhelming impression is of a crazy old guy with dementia just going on, and on and on in a totally uncontrolled, rambling fashion with zero sense and concept of a message. Jesus Christ. How is it possible that anyone can see this and not think this man has to be removed from the presidency?
"
Weimar was also far progressed beyond imperial Germany in cultural things (including full equal rights for minorities, in particular Jews, and full equality for women seeming just around the corner).
Then came the Nazis and after WW2 a conservative restauration under Adenauer. Women reached de jure equality not before the 1970ies (before that husbands still had veto power despite nominally equal rights as per the West German constitution).
A throwback of a half or even a full century is thus easily possible and the US reactionaries have imo a fair chance to achieve that in our lifetimes.
"
I'm not arguing for inherent goodness. Just that we've gotten better. Or less bad, if you prefer.
As for Obama being an outlier, I wouldn't dispute that. He's definitely an exceptionally gifted politician. I'd say the most gifted in my lifetime. But within (my) living memory, no black man, no matter how gifted, could have done what he did. Or even gotten within a thousand miles of getting the opportunity to try. That's a solid indication of progress. IMHO, of course.
"
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. “Inconceivable” is the word.
I'm not sure how much we can bang that drum to indicate our inherent goodness. The fact that he was the first nominated (by a major political party) and went directly on to being elected makes him seem more like an outlier than a true indicator.
"
wj - I think that, as a nation, we are in the process of moving past it. I say “as a nation” because, while I think that more and more of us have moved past it, clearly there are still a huge number who have not.
As a nation I think we have been here before, which is to say that as a nation we are currently in the midst of the sort of self-sorting that leads to us actually being two nations mixed up in one sack. We have two very different nationalisms facing off and in open conflict with each other.
The question is whether this leads to a forced reunification (as in the Civil War) or into some form of collapse, or just a prolonged dysfunction and are supplanted on the world stage.
I am not optimistic that we can put the toothpaste back into the tube this time.
"
I think that, as a nation, we are in the process of moving past it. I say "as a nation" because, while I think that more and more of us have moved past it, clearly there are still a huge number who have not. A huge but decreasing number, which is why I say "in the process." Still huge, but decreasing -- not just as a portion of the population, but as a portion of the white population. That's what has people like Miller frantic.
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. "Inconceivable" is the word.
"
"would we have the same time for the person who points to accepting white South Africans to the US as springing from the same sort of impulse?"
Russia is not dropping bombs on the heads of white South Africans.
And I'm not sure it's accurate to say there isn't a humanitarian motivation to let those Asian, black, and brown people in, then or now. The safety concern wjca mentions is tangible for many of those folks.
I think the Reagan administration was a negative tipping point for this country, but I absolutely give him credit for the amnesty he granted to folks who were here and contributing. I was living in a predominantly Dominican neighborhood in Salem at the time, and folks were getting booted out who were contributing to the commnity in huge ways.
I'd like to think we have somehow moved past the white supremacist legacy of our history, but I don't think we have. I'm not sure if it's a matter of re-remembering, I don't think it ever went away. Trump just gives it permission to come back out in the light of day.
"
But would we have the same time for the person who points to accepting white South Africans to the US as springing from the same sort of impulse?
No. There is no rational justification for making that case, unlike the Ukraine example.
"
This is by no means to suggest we not make heroic efforts regarding climate change. Just to say, when it comes to immigration, that’s not going to be part of the solution (supposing that we need one). Economics and safety will. And addressing those is the right thing to do, regardless of your views on immigration.
In a better world, we would be putting our resources into the Global South to help them address climate change. Reducing desertification, creating off grid power, mangrove and rain forest protection and restoration would all have an impact. Unfortunately, the Western model has us look at these sorts of things as extractive, and to be accepted, they have to generate a profit for the people putting money into them.
"
Edited a comment a second time, and got a note I was going to Spam/moderation. Sorry
[ed: been approved]
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.