I have some sympathy for the folks who, a year ago, were just doing their routine jobs as customs inspectors. And now are tarred by association with the horrific thugs Trump, Noem, and Miller have recruited and unleashed.
Opening up oil is a good idea if the government is going to lose drug revenue and get the economy going again. If the plan includes pressure for a free and fair election in the immediate to near future, and it actually happens, and there is a peaceful transition of power, that would obviously be amazing.
It would be amazing if any US administration could pull it off.** But the massive incompetents we actually have? Even assuming the massive counterfactual that it would even occur to them to try, there's zero probability that the attempt would be anything but an epic failure.
** We did manage something like this with Germany and Japan in the mid-20th century. But we had also just utterly, overwhelmingly, defeated them in war. We had huge armies in place to conrol the places. And we had a few people in positions of authority (e.g. Marshall) with both the desire and the wit to make it happen. None of which conditions apply.
“Maduro is a narcoterrorist and was illegally importing cocaine”
What acts of terrorism has he committed?
The users of the term "narcoterrorism" argue that anyone who traffics narcotics is, ipso facto, a terrorist. Regardless of where the narcotics are from or where they are going to. (Except US manufacturers, e.g. the Sackler family, of course.)
GftNC,
Re editing: I have found that, once I post something, I can tap on the text of the post and then (but only then) a little gear wheel appears at the bottom right of the post. Click on that to get to edit mode.
The US has wanted Greenland for a long time. We occupied it during WWII invoking the Monroe Doctrine.
That's kind of a stretch. During World War II, you will recall that Denmark had been conquered the Nazi Germany. Holding Greenland was merely keeping the Germans from establishing a base from which to attack the North Atlantic convoys. When Denmark was liberated, Greenland immediately returned to Danish rule. The US maintains bases there still, but it has bases on lots of countries around the world.
Certainly Greenland still has strategic value. But while there have been contingency plans to keep it out of hostile hands for a century, that's quite a ways from just flat out wanting to take it over. (I'm not willing to concede Trump might be capable of strategic thinking to the point of considering Denmark a future hostile power. No matter how much he bad-mouths the EU.)
I see the our Secretary of State is already talking about doing something similar in Cuba (totally no surprise) and Nicaragua. Perhaps he wants to move quickly, to get it done before it becomes obvious what a total cock-up this is.
I suppose the Canadians and the Danes feel some temporary relief that the crazies are still looking south for the moment.
What jurisdiction does the SDNY have over the president of another country?
Well, they can apply to have him extradited. (Good luck with that.)
Or, if he travels to the US without diplomatic immunity, they could have him arrested while he was here. Whether being kidnapped and brought into the US counts is dubious. Certainly having the US government do the kidnapping, as in this case, seems like cause to throw the case out of court. Even before the (low) quality of the actual case is addressed.
“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said
Consider the level of ineptitude he has demonstrated running this country. Figure that he will likely to send the worst of the worst (albeit pretty on camera) to supposedly run a country where, inevitably, none of them speak the language.
People with appropriate linguistic expertise are requested to find a word we can use when "fiasco" is just way too mild.
I note that, not only has there been no Declaration of War. There hasn't even been any sign of a Congressional resolution, such has provided a fig leaf for our various wars since World War II.
How long before Trump emulates his hero and calls it a Special Military Operation? Or will he go all in, and call it a spetsoperatsiya? (No chance he can manage спецопера́ция.)
Is there a cadre of old school (R)’s ready and able to turn the GOP around in 2008? I don’t see it. I don’t know how they would do it.
Is there a cadre of old school Republicans? I'm sure there is. Willing to turn the GOP around? That, too. Able? I beg leave to doubt it. Like russell, I don't see how anyone could.
The closest I can picture is explicitly splitting the party (with the old school guys willing to abandon the name, which I expect them to hate). But that would leave them with too small a base to compete effectively. They would do better to wait for the Democrats to fission, and join one of the pieces. But that's not a turn-around.
Vance is a pail of lukewarm dog vomit and naked ambition. I don’t think he can hold any of it together for long.
What still terrifies me, though, is what comes after. I’m not convinced that the US Constitution can keep this place running with just another patch.
I completely agree on Vance. To hold their current coalition together post-Trump, they would need a figure who, among other things, is a showman like Trump is. Vance not only isn't, he not even vaguely close. And while there are doubtless would-be demagogues out there, there isn't one who seems likely to be the necessary unifying figure.
I see how the US and its Constitution could continue (with some modifications/Amendments, but recognizably a continuation). What my imagination is not adequate for is envisioning a path from here to there.
The Christianist nationalists can get pushed back into their former condition of minimal relevance. Just one more group of wierdos in a country which has long had a plethora of them. That's not the real challenge.
While other countries manage just fine with multiple parties, the US seems to favor a two party norm. The parties don't have to agree on much policy-wise, just be willing to accept that the majority of voters will sometimes favor one and other times the other. (That's a big piece of what is driving the Republicans into irrelevance: the voters overall like pieceful transfers of power. )
A third party can arise, but in a relatively short time it will either replace one of the two major parties or join the ranks of the essentially irrelevant minor parties (think Greens or American Independence Party). How does that happen? It's difficult to say, since there are only a couple of examples:
circa 1830 (partly as fallout from their stance on the War of 1812) the Federalists fell into irrelevance, and the Republicans (usually referred to, these days, as the "Democratic Republicans" for clarity) split into the Democrats and the Whigs,
In the 1850s (over the issue of slavery) the Whigs got displaced by the Republicans.
I doubt that the current Republican Party is salvageable. But will a new party arise (probably including many ex-Republicans, like the Whigs in the early Republican Party)? I'm not seeing any sign of that, at least not yet. Or will the Democrats split, and on what basis? I'm not seeing any glimmers of that either. There are places (e.g. California) where the Republicans have embraced irrelevance for decades, but the Democrats here are still divided by individual personalities, rather than by anything resembling groups.
As I say, I can see something of where we could get to, but not how to get there.
On the other hand, where else we might go is not obvious either. The mechanics are clear -- the Constitution provides for piecemeal amendment or complete replacement. But what would get hammered out in a Constitutional Convention, should we go that route? And how would it be able to satisfy the majority required to ratify the new one? "Prediction is difficult, especially about the future."
I'd say the biggest epiphantic sign is that the cultists, while they don't appear to be leaving the faith, are much less willing to flaunt it. The signs and banners and hats are far less in evidence than they a year ago, or during his first term. Might it be that they are, perhaps not entirely consciously, preparing themselves to bury their past?
P.S. I'm not sure the lack of turnover in Trump's cabinet reflects any concern about getting replacements approved. That would require a firmer grasp of reality than we see elsewhere. Instead, I think it reflects the fact that they are all shameless toadies who constantly tell him how wonderful he is, and feed him fantasies about how successfully they are doing what he wants. As opposed to last term, where there was a lot of turnover from people telling him No . . . and failing to lie about what was actually going on.
There were lots of disparaging comments, during the first term, about the so-called "adults in the room." Mostly reflecting the view that they didn't seem to be stopping him from creating one mess after another. Having now seen what happens without them, it's pretty apparent that a lot of restraint was, in fact, happening. It seems like some apoligies are in order. Not that I expect to see any.
In Northern California we got serious rain Tuesday. But Christmas Eve was merely mostly cloudy. And today is down to partly cloudy.
The notable weather feature is that we've had almost a week of daily highs of 57-58, with overnight lows of 54-56. I can't remember a time when the temperature has been so constant.
Considering what Ukraine is doing to Russia, not necessarily impossible. The most surprising part is that it hasn't been front page news around the world. Where is the MSM in this??? Looks like a cover-up.
😝
Trump's suit against the BBC looks like turning into an own goal. The BBC has filed discovery motions demanding Trump disclosure his taxes for the last decade or more (to substantiate, or not, his claims of financial harm), his medical records (to substantiate or not his claims of other kinds of harm). All that information he has been desperately trying to keep concealed.
nous is spot on with this, and it looks like a perfect description of Buttigieg. Too bad that being gay is almost certainly as big an electoral disadvantage as being female or black.
A decade or two ago, it was probably a worse handicap. But the country has changed. Not as much as one might hope, but substantially nonetheless.
Legalizing gay marriage looks (from where I sit anyway) to have brought a lot of gays out of the closet. With the result that a lot of people discovered that their friends and relatives included gay people. And the heavens did not fall. Buttigieg, himself, took things further. High profile (thanks to his Presidential run), "young-ish, charismatic, and a good communicator" -- and not particularly scary; not hitting any of the primary bigotry hot buttons.
You can argue that the country still isn't ready. But the country wasn't ready for a black President either. Obama won anyway. The bigots predictably freaked out, but he won anyway. Twice. I could see Buttigieg doing the same.
I observe that it's the Soviet/Red Army Chorus. Not a Russian Army Chorus (assuming there even is one these days).
Putin may dream of restoring the supposed glory of the Soviet Union. But his vision doesn't seem to extend beyond territory and military power. The idea that anything else might matter seems to be outside his comprehension. Economic welfare for the people? Anything resembling culture? Just no.
The challenge will be for such a person to get thru the primaries. Those tend to have a far higher concentration of, for lack of a better term, activists -- people who do care, often passionately, about policy. At least some policies.
Convincing primary voters that "someone who can win a general election" should be a necessary criteria (not sufficient, but necessary) will be a non-trivial task. Not least because they, too, tend to live in an information bubble populated by others who care about policy.
Kinda sounds like Vance has been cast for that position. He probably wouldn't have won if the cultists stayed home. (In a snit because their god-king wasn't nominated in this alternate history.) But as a post-Trump successor, especially if he succeeded a deceased Trump? I can see them believing that could work. And, with a little help from the Democrats, it might.
I harbor the optimistic hope that the Democrats will resist the temptation to nominate someone who self-brands as progressive. A candidate who holds those positions is fine. But in the current culture, brand is going to be important. So, Pritzker could work, but Newsom would not -- California's image is just too radical in too much of the country.
I have been assuming that he wrote his own posts on the assumption that even his core supporters in his top admin aren’t dumb enough to write that shit.
Seems like a bad assumption. At least based on the stuff they say in public on their own behalf.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
I have some sympathy for the folks who, a year ago, were just doing their routine jobs as customs inspectors. And now are tarred by association with the horrific thugs Trump, Noem, and Miller have recruited and unleashed.
"
Fake headline from social media:
Maduro says he’s in the country illegally, asks ICE to deport him.
Kinda appalling that, if he did, it might even work. (Although being deported to South Sudan would be only a small improvement for him.)
"
It would be amazing if any US administration could pull it off.** But the massive incompetents we actually have? Even assuming the massive counterfactual that it would even occur to them to try, there's zero probability that the attempt would be anything but an epic failure.
** We did manage something like this with Germany and Japan in the mid-20th century. But we had also just utterly, overwhelmingly, defeated them in war. We had huge armies in place to conrol the places. And we had a few people in positions of authority (e.g. Marshall) with both the desire and the wit to make it happen. None of which conditions apply.
"
Because it is so much more difficult to hide resistance groups in heavy jungle than it is in the desert. Riiiiight....
"
The users of the term "narcoterrorism" argue that anyone who traffics narcotics is, ipso facto, a terrorist. Regardless of where the narcotics are from or where they are going to. (Except US manufacturers, e.g. the Sackler family, of course.)
"
GftNC,
Re editing: I have found that, once I post something, I can tap on the text of the post and then (but only then) a little gear wheel appears at the bottom right of the post. Click on that to get to edit mode.
"
That's kind of a stretch. During World War II, you will recall that Denmark had been conquered the Nazi Germany. Holding Greenland was merely keeping the Germans from establishing a base from which to attack the North Atlantic convoys. When Denmark was liberated, Greenland immediately returned to Danish rule. The US maintains bases there still, but it has bases on lots of countries around the world.
Certainly Greenland still has strategic value. But while there have been contingency plans to keep it out of hostile hands for a century, that's quite a ways from just flat out wanting to take it over. (I'm not willing to concede Trump might be capable of strategic thinking to the point of considering Denmark a future hostile power. No matter how much he bad-mouths the EU.)
"
I see the our Secretary of State is already talking about doing something similar in Cuba (totally no surprise) and Nicaragua. Perhaps he wants to move quickly, to get it done before it becomes obvious what a total cock-up this is.
I suppose the Canadians and the Danes feel some temporary relief that the crazies are still looking south for the moment.
"
What jurisdiction does the SDNY have over the president of another country?
Well, they can apply to have him extradited. (Good luck with that.)
Or, if he travels to the US without diplomatic immunity, they could have him arrested while he was here. Whether being kidnapped and brought into the US counts is dubious. Certainly having the US government do the kidnapping, as in this case, seems like cause to throw the case out of court. Even before the (low) quality of the actual case is addressed.
"
Consider the level of ineptitude he has demonstrated running this country. Figure that he will likely to send the worst of the worst (albeit pretty on camera) to supposedly run a country where, inevitably, none of them speak the language.
People with appropriate linguistic expertise are requested to find a word we can use when "fiasco" is just way too mild.
"
No, no! 2026, far more f*cked up than 2025!
I note that, not only has there been no Declaration of War. There hasn't even been any sign of a Congressional resolution, such has provided a fig leaf for our various wars since World War II.
How long before Trump emulates his hero and calls it a Special Military Operation? Or will he go all in, and call it a spetsoperatsiya? (No chance he can manage спецопера́ция.)
On “Moving towards Epiphany”
I guess now we have the answer to the 2025 Question of the Year:
Which will Trump invade first, Canada or Greenland?
"
Is there a cadre of old school Republicans? I'm sure there is. Willing to turn the GOP around? That, too. Able? I beg leave to doubt it. Like russell, I don't see how anyone could.
The closest I can picture is explicitly splitting the party (with the old school guys willing to abandon the name, which I expect them to hate). But that would leave them with too small a base to compete effectively. They would do better to wait for the Democrats to fission, and join one of the pieces. But that's not a turn-around.
"
Of course not. That's why McCain won in 2008. Well, that and the Democratic base picked a candidate they should have known was unelectable.
/s
"
I completely agree on Vance. To hold their current coalition together post-Trump, they would need a figure who, among other things, is a showman like Trump is. Vance not only isn't, he not even vaguely close. And while there are doubtless would-be demagogues out there, there isn't one who seems likely to be the necessary unifying figure.
I see how the US and its Constitution could continue (with some modifications/Amendments, but recognizably a continuation). What my imagination is not adequate for is envisioning a path from here to there.
The Christianist nationalists can get pushed back into their former condition of minimal relevance. Just one more group of wierdos in a country which has long had a plethora of them. That's not the real challenge.
While other countries manage just fine with multiple parties, the US seems to favor a two party norm. The parties don't have to agree on much policy-wise, just be willing to accept that the majority of voters will sometimes favor one and other times the other. (That's a big piece of what is driving the Republicans into irrelevance: the voters overall like pieceful transfers of power. )
A third party can arise, but in a relatively short time it will either replace one of the two major parties or join the ranks of the essentially irrelevant minor parties (think Greens or American Independence Party). How does that happen? It's difficult to say, since there are only a couple of examples:
I doubt that the current Republican Party is salvageable. But will a new party arise (probably including many ex-Republicans, like the Whigs in the early Republican Party)? I'm not seeing any sign of that, at least not yet. Or will the Democrats split, and on what basis? I'm not seeing any glimmers of that either. There are places (e.g. California) where the Republicans have embraced irrelevance for decades, but the Democrats here are still divided by individual personalities, rather than by anything resembling groups.
As I say, I can see something of where we could get to, but not how to get there.
On the other hand, where else we might go is not obvious either. The mechanics are clear -- the Constitution provides for piecemeal amendment or complete replacement. But what would get hammered out in a Constitutional Convention, should we go that route? And how would it be able to satisfy the majority required to ratify the new one? "Prediction is difficult, especially about the future."
"
I'd say the biggest epiphantic sign is that the cultists, while they don't appear to be leaving the faith, are much less willing to flaunt it. The signs and banners and hats are far less in evidence than they a year ago, or during his first term. Might it be that they are, perhaps not entirely consciously, preparing themselves to bury their past?
P.S. I'm not sure the lack of turnover in Trump's cabinet reflects any concern about getting replacements approved. That would require a firmer grasp of reality than we see elsewhere. Instead, I think it reflects the fact that they are all shameless toadies who constantly tell him how wonderful he is, and feed him fantasies about how successfully they are doing what he wants. As opposed to last term, where there was a lot of turnover from people telling him No . . . and failing to lie about what was actually going on.
There were lots of disparaging comments, during the first term, about the so-called "adults in the room." Mostly reflecting the view that they didn't seem to be stopping him from creating one mess after another. Having now seen what happens without them, it's pretty apparent that a lot of restraint was, in fact, happening. It seems like some apoligies are in order. Not that I expect to see any.
On “An inscrutable Merry Christmas”
In Northern California we got serious rain Tuesday. But Christmas Eve was merely mostly cloudy. And today is down to partly cloudy.
The notable weather feature is that we've had almost a week of daily highs of 57-58, with overnight lows of 54-56. I can't remember a time when the temperature has been so constant.
On “Weekend music thread #08 How do you get to Carnagie Hall?”
GREENLAND DESTROYS RUSSIA
Considering what Ukraine is doing to Russia, not necessarily impossible. The most surprising part is that it hasn't been front page news around the world. Where is the MSM in this??? Looks like a cover-up.
😝
On “The Wiles Interview”
That's my perception of Buttigeig.
On “Author, author?”
Trump's suit against the BBC looks like turning into an own goal. The BBC has filed discovery motions demanding Trump disclosure his taxes for the last decade or more (to substantiate, or not, his claims of financial harm), his medical records (to substantiate or not his claims of other kinds of harm). All that information he has been desperately trying to keep concealed.
Oops.
On “The Wiles Interview”
nous is spot on with this, and it looks like a perfect description of Buttigieg. Too bad that being gay is almost certainly as big an electoral disadvantage as being female or black.
A decade or two ago, it was probably a worse handicap. But the country has changed. Not as much as one might hope, but substantially nonetheless.
Legalizing gay marriage looks (from where I sit anyway) to have brought a lot of gays out of the closet. With the result that a lot of people discovered that their friends and relatives included gay people. And the heavens did not fall. Buttigieg, himself, took things further. High profile (thanks to his Presidential run), "young-ish, charismatic, and a good communicator" -- and not particularly scary; not hitting any of the primary bigotry hot buttons.
You can argue that the country still isn't ready. But the country wasn't ready for a black President either. Obama won anyway. The bigots predictably freaked out, but he won anyway. Twice. I could see Buttigieg doing the same.
On “Weekend Music Thread music thread #09 In Russia, Christmas music sings you!”
I observe that it's the Soviet/Red Army Chorus. Not a Russian Army Chorus (assuming there even is one these days).
Putin may dream of restoring the supposed glory of the Soviet Union. But his vision doesn't seem to extend beyond territory and military power. The idea that anything else might matter seems to be outside his comprehension. Economic welfare for the people? Anything resembling culture? Just no.
On “The Wiles Interview”
The challenge will be for such a person to get thru the primaries. Those tend to have a far higher concentration of, for lack of a better term, activists -- people who do care, often passionately, about policy. At least some policies.
Convincing primary voters that "someone who can win a general election" should be a necessary criteria (not sufficient, but necessary) will be a non-trivial task. Not least because they, too, tend to live in an information bubble populated by others who care about policy.
"
Kinda sounds like Vance has been cast for that position. He probably wouldn't have won if the cultists stayed home. (In a snit because their god-king wasn't nominated in this alternate history.) But as a post-Trump successor, especially if he succeeded a deceased Trump? I can see them believing that could work. And, with a little help from the Democrats, it might.
I harbor the optimistic hope that the Democrats will resist the temptation to nominate someone who self-brands as progressive. A candidate who holds those positions is fine. But in the current culture, brand is going to be important. So, Pritzker could work, but Newsom would not -- California's image is just too radical in too much of the country.
On “Author, author?”
I have been assuming that he wrote his own posts on the assumption that even his core supporters in his top admin aren’t dumb enough to write that shit.
Seems like a bad assumption. At least based on the stuff they say in public on their own behalf.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.