Homophobia is seasonal. Imo most people do not think about the topic unless some group (political and/or religious) is pushing it.
The challege I have with this thesis is this: I can remember growing up, when (not serious but still) accusations of homosexuality were a fairly common slur among my peers. Even though none of us knew anyone who was homosexual. (Statistically, there must have been at least a handful in my high school class, since it was around 250 kids. But they were pretty thoroughly closeted.)
Nobody saw homosexuals as any kind of threat. Nobody was pushing them as a threat. It was just a "bad thing."
All of which is to say that, I suspect, a gay man would have a better chance at winning the Presidency than a woman. Basically, misogyny is now more pervasive than homophobia. Not a turn of events one would have predicted a few decades ago.
I too like Buttigieg, but I’m scared. It’s so obvious to me (and probably to most of us) that he has the right stuff, but one has to think about the prejudices of the electorate.
The prejudice against gays continues. But it is far, far decreased over the past decade or two. (Not to mention the change since I was young!**). To the point that I'm not sure how significant it is for those under 45 -- excepting those reactionaries who are out of reach already.
In addition, I think Buttigieg's run for the nomination broke down the barriers even further. It gave a high profile to a gay man who simply wasn't scary. Somewhat similar to how discovering that friends, family, and coworkers included gays broke down barriers, even with people who had been pretty strongly negative before.
2020 was never going to be his time. But it broke open a door that I think he could successfully walk thru next time. Wails about "But he's gay!!!" would, next time, get a LOT of responses like "Yeah, we know that. So what?". Simply from increased familiarity.
** For those too young to remember, one of the standard epithets used by LIBERALS *against* Ronald Reagan was "Ronnie Buttf*ck". How the world has changed!
I rather like wonkie's "anti-jingoism" idea for a label. Even if a big chunk of the population has to look up the word, it at least avoids hitting any hot buttons.
Plus, it sums up the Democratic position (including the flat out anti-war faction). Not to mention the popular mood.
P.S. Pity America First [But Not America Only] is already taken. Ah well, nobody said it was a perfect world.
Rather than anti-war, I’d say that the Dems need to beRather than anti-war, I’d say that the Dems need to be anti-militarist, and anti-adventurist. I think Buttigieg would be the ideal sort of messenger for something like this.. I think Buttigieg would be the ideal sort of messenger for something like this.
I'm not sure that the average voter could comprehend, let alone explain, the difference between anti-war and Rather than anti-war, I’d say that the Dems need to be anti-militarist, and anti-adventurist. The politically active might understand, but they aren't the critical target audience.
Buttigieg would be the ideal sort of messenger for pretty much anything you care to name. He's going to be a dynamite President/Vice President candidate at some point. I, for one, am definitely looking forward to it.
“If the Democratic Party is to flourish in the future,” Mr. Platner told me, “it needs to be an antiwar party.” As talks to end the latest disastrous war focus on reopening a narrow strait of water that was open before the war began, this seems like an obvious conclusion. And yet many Democratic politicians would most likely be wary of embracing it.
The thing is, most of the Democrats' leadership in Congress belong to my generation. They vividly remember their youth, where the Democratic Party being anti-war (or at least perceived so) led to a decade plus of Republican presidencies. It's probably fair to say that they were traumatized by that experience.
So what's obvious to those without that personal history is less obvious to them.
It seems to me that, for a great many people not just Jefferson, they can create and embrace great ideas in principle, without necessarily grasping how those ideas apply to their own lives. Or, at least, not grasping it completely.
Of course, we can just become purity ponies, and trash anyone who fails of perfection. A lot of fans of that approach, on both the left and the right. But personally, I'd rather applaud people for what they got right. Not to ignore what they got wrong. Just not to let it overshadow the rest.
And finally, the Onion succeeds in taking over Infowars! Hip hip hooray!
The challenge for the Onion will be to create stuff that is sufficiently over the top that the usual readers of InfoWars will realize that they are reading a parody. Even getting that across to half of InfoWars'readers may not be possible.
The folks at the Onion are brilliant. But this may well be beyond even them.
Always have to wait until pretty late to file, because we each get a K-1 form, and hers is always late.
I can definitely relate. I spent years where the boss took forever to get the information together, so the company taxes got filed at the maximum extension. Which was OK for her, since the same guy did her personal taxes and could file them both at once. A bit challenging for those of us who had to either clear a day (i.e. 24 hours) right at the (extension) deadline, or convince our own accountant to do so. So very relieved by the transition from an S Corp to a C Corp!
I'm Hungary for the new government to succeed, in the face of all the defenses that Orban put in place against the possibility of a loss. It's going to be a major mountain to climb. Especially working with a coalition united by little more than hatred of Orban.
The challenge for the new Hungarian government will be all the Orban partisans in lifetime appointments to government positions. They may have to reverse out the legal and constitutional changes that made those people untouchable.
It looks to be a massive enough loss (like 2/3 against him) that even major shenanigans weren't going to change the result. Conceding is probably a matter of staying out of prison.
I don’t want to discount the possibility that Trump might send a few missiles into the negotiations, cause that seems to be what he does. [sarcasm]
Forthe moment, he seems to be going for an arguably less locally drastic (locally) option of blockading the Hormuz Strait himself. It will, however, be far more damaging, in and of itself, for the world economy. That will definitely earn us friends around the world. So, totally in character [/sarcasm]
I point out from time to time that we have an extensive system of IP monopolies.
Otherwise known as patents -- from the original meaning of the term "make patent" meaning "to make public."
The whole point of the patent system is to encourage innovation by granting inventors a legally enforceable temporary monopoly in exchange for disclosing how they do something. How long "temporary" ought to last is subject to debate. But the aim is "long enough to turn a profit, but not so long as to discourage further innovation." (Copyright has a similar goal, although the duration of a copyright has long since passed all reason. The caustic reference to the various extensions as The Mickey Mouse Protection Act tells you what drove that.)
The alternative is a lot of "trade secrets." Those create monopolies as well, which sometimes outlast patents. We still see those, of course. But nowhere near to the extent of in pre-patent times.
It appears that, so far, the Pakistanis are keeping things going. Maybe not moving forward noticably yet, but at least still talking, albeit indirectly.
It does seem a bit odd that the Secretary of State isn't involved. I can guess why (he's a long time Iran hawk), but it still seems odd. Then again, the State Department having been gutted of it's area experts, he might not have a team to support him if he was there.
One can understand the donors position, even while disliking it intensely. Citizens United has been a disaster. The sooner it goes the way of the Dread Scott decision the better.
I hadn't seen (let alone done!) that kind of analysis of the MAGA, and allied, new right. But even so, it's been pretty obvious that the only way that coalition survives Trump is if a new charismatic figure arises to replace him -- because whatever the intellectual/emotional roots of MAGA, the bilk of the followers/voters simply don't care about those details. They really do appear to view politics as reality TV, leavened with bits of whatever bigotry they ubscribe to.
Vance definitely isn't such a leader. Negative charisma is more like his style. In a structured authoritarianism, he could rise to the to as an organization man. But so long as even sham elections remain, even if only among the MAGA elite, he hasn't got what it takes. And my limited insight into others there doesn't reveal anyone else.
Overall, I think the prediction of the new right devolving into bitter factionalism is correct. Whether they will be able to craft the occasional tactical electoral alliance against the libs? Not sure, but "occasional" is the operative word. And whichever faction gets the top slot in that alliance seems likely to enthusiastically embrace purity purges.
None of which should make the left feel smug. It's got it's own purity ponies and factions. Not as badly split overall, perhaps. But enough to manage to lose to a post-MAGA alliance on the right, just as they lost to Trump. The left's ability to focus on grand schemes, while ignoring the local groundwork needed for success, is quite impressive. Not, apparently, bothering to focus on local races on 2010, in advance of redistricting, did damage which is still being felt.
Absolutely. It's another instance of "Everything Trump Touches Dies."** If you want a peace deal that even sort-of works, having Trump nowhere near it, visibly nowhere near it, is critical.
** Manifestly in progress with the Republican Party. I'm eagerly awaiting its appearance with Putin/Russia.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Your choice: an open thread”
The challege I have with this thesis is this: I can remember growing up, when (not serious but still) accusations of homosexuality were a fairly common slur among my peers. Even though none of us knew anyone who was homosexual. (Statistically, there must have been at least a handful in my high school class, since it was around 250 kids. But they were pretty thoroughly closeted.)
Nobody saw homosexuals as any kind of threat. Nobody was pushing them as a threat. It was just a "bad thing."
"
All of which is to say that, I suspect, a gay man would have a better chance at winning the Presidency than a woman. Basically, misogyny is now more pervasive than homophobia. Not a turn of events one would have predicted a few decades ago.
"
Was there some reason I’m innocently unaware of for this epithet?
Perhaps it was only in use amongst Berkeley California radicals, and I encountered it verbally. But my memory is that it was pervasive here.
"
I too like Buttigieg, but I’m scared. It’s so obvious to me (and probably to most of us) that he has the right stuff, but one has to think about the prejudices of the electorate.
The prejudice against gays continues. But it is far, far decreased over the past decade or two. (Not to mention the change since I was young!**). To the point that I'm not sure how significant it is for those under 45 -- excepting those reactionaries who are out of reach already.
In addition, I think Buttigieg's run for the nomination broke down the barriers even further. It gave a high profile to a gay man who simply wasn't scary. Somewhat similar to how discovering that friends, family, and coworkers included gays broke down barriers, even with people who had been pretty strongly negative before.
2020 was never going to be his time. But it broke open a door that I think he could successfully walk thru next time. Wails about "But he's gay!!!" would, next time, get a LOT of responses like "Yeah, we know that. So what?". Simply from increased familiarity.
** For those too young to remember, one of the standard epithets used by LIBERALS *against* Ronald Reagan was "Ronnie Buttf*ck". How the world has changed!
"
Thread hijack!
Gerrymandered districts summed up by, of course, xkcd:
https://xkcd.com/3236/
"
I rather like wonkie's "anti-jingoism" idea for a label. Even if a big chunk of the population has to look up the word, it at least avoids hitting any hot buttons.
Plus, it sums up the Democratic position (including the flat out anti-war faction). Not to mention the popular mood.
P.S. Pity America First [But Not America Only] is already taken. Ah well, nobody said it was a perfect world.
"
Rather than anti-war, I’d say that the Dems need to beRather than anti-war, I’d say that the Dems need to be anti-militarist, and anti-adventurist. I think Buttigieg would be the ideal sort of messenger for something like this.. I think Buttigieg would be the ideal sort of messenger for something like this.
I'm not sure that the average voter could comprehend, let alone explain, the difference between anti-war and Rather than anti-war, I’d say that the Dems need to be anti-militarist, and anti-adventurist. The politically active might understand, but they aren't the critical target audience.
Buttigieg would be the ideal sort of messenger for pretty much anything you care to name. He's going to be a dynamite President/Vice President candidate at some point. I, for one, am definitely looking forward to it.
"
“If the Democratic Party is to flourish in the future,” Mr. Platner told me, “it needs to be an antiwar party.” As talks to end the latest disastrous war focus on reopening a narrow strait of water that was open before the war began, this seems like an obvious conclusion. And yet many Democratic politicians would most likely be wary of embracing it.
The thing is, most of the Democrats' leadership in Congress belong to my generation. They vividly remember their youth, where the Democratic Party being anti-war (or at least perceived so) led to a decade plus of Republican presidencies. It's probably fair to say that they were traumatized by that experience.
So what's obvious to those without that personal history is less obvious to them.
On “Jefferson’s shadow”
It seems to me that, for a great many people not just Jefferson, they can create and embrace great ideas in principle, without necessarily grasping how those ideas apply to their own lives. Or, at least, not grasping it completely.
Of course, we can just become purity ponies, and trash anyone who fails of perfection. A lot of fans of that approach, on both the left and the right. But personally, I'd rather applaud people for what they got right. Not to ignore what they got wrong. Just not to let it overshadow the rest.
On “Imagining a mad king”
The challenge for the Onion will be to create stuff that is sufficiently over the top that the usual readers of InfoWars will realize that they are reading a parody. Even getting that across to half of InfoWars'readers may not be possible.
The folks at the Onion are brilliant. But this may well be beyond even them.
"
Thanks, nooneithinkisinnytree. It is, as you say, a lonely position sometimes. But, I think, a battle worth fighting.
"now branded commie gay Jew leftist by the fascist right"
Haven't gotten branded like that. Yet. Obviously I have some work to do. Sigh -- so much to do, so little time.
On “Your choice: an open thread”
For those without a NYT subscription:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl1441816po
(Of course the Brits here cite the NYT, while a Yank links to the BBC.)
"
I can definitely relate. I spent years where the boss took forever to get the information together, so the company taxes got filed at the maximum extension. Which was OK for her, since the same guy did her personal taxes and could file them both at once. A bit challenging for those of us who had to either clear a day (i.e. 24 hours) right at the (extension) deadline, or convince our own accountant to do so. So very relieved by the transition from an S Corp to a C Corp!
"
No offense, lj, but I'm having trouble seeing you as a Bud[dh]a either.
"
I'm Hungary for the new government to succeed, in the face of all the defenses that Orban put in place against the possibility of a loss. It's going to be a major mountain to climb. Especially working with a coalition united by little more than hatred of Orban.
On “What exactly did William Wallace say?”
The challenge for the new Hungarian government will be all the Orban partisans in lifetime appointments to government positions. They may have to reverse out the legal and constitutional changes that made those people untouchable.
On “That beacon of peace, China, errr, I mean Pakistan…”
It looks to be a massive enough loss (like 2/3 against him) that even major shenanigans weren't going to change the result. Conceding is probably a matter of staying out of prison.
On “What exactly did William Wallace say?”
Those outside the UK can find it a challenge to keep track of just which paper is the (unofficial?) propaganda arm for which party or political view.
On “That beacon of peace, China, errr, I mean Pakistan…”
Forthe moment, he seems to be going for an arguably less locally drastic (locally) option of blockading the Hormuz Strait himself. It will, however, be far more damaging, in and of itself, for the world economy. That will definitely earn us friends around the world. So, totally in character [/sarcasm]
On “Maybe time for an Open Thread”
Otherwise known as patents -- from the original meaning of the term "make patent" meaning "to make public."
The whole point of the patent system is to encourage innovation by granting inventors a legally enforceable temporary monopoly in exchange for disclosing how they do something. How long "temporary" ought to last is subject to debate. But the aim is "long enough to turn a profit, but not so long as to discourage further innovation." (Copyright has a similar goal, although the duration of a copyright has long since passed all reason. The caustic reference to the various extensions as The Mickey Mouse Protection Act tells you what drove that.)
The alternative is a lot of "trade secrets." Those create monopolies as well, which sometimes outlast patents. We still see those, of course. But nowhere near to the extent of in pre-patent times.
On “That beacon of peace, China, errr, I mean Pakistan…”
It appears that, so far, the Pakistanis are keeping things going. Maybe not moving forward noticably yet, but at least still talking, albeit indirectly.
It does seem a bit odd that the Secretary of State isn't involved. I can guess why (he's a long time Iran hawk), but it still seems odd. Then again, the State Department having been gutted of it's area experts, he might not have a team to support him if he was there.
On “Maybe time for an Open Thread”
That's Dred, not Dread
Autocorrect strikes again!
"
One can understand the donors position, even while disliking it intensely. Citizens United has been a disaster. The sooner it goes the way of the Dread Scott decision the better.
"
Definitely some interesting stuff there GftNC.
I hadn't seen (let alone done!) that kind of analysis of the MAGA, and allied, new right. But even so, it's been pretty obvious that the only way that coalition survives Trump is if a new charismatic figure arises to replace him -- because whatever the intellectual/emotional roots of MAGA, the bilk of the followers/voters simply don't care about those details. They really do appear to view politics as reality TV, leavened with bits of whatever bigotry they ubscribe to.
Vance definitely isn't such a leader. Negative charisma is more like his style. In a structured authoritarianism, he could rise to the to as an organization man. But so long as even sham elections remain, even if only among the MAGA elite, he hasn't got what it takes. And my limited insight into others there doesn't reveal anyone else.
Overall, I think the prediction of the new right devolving into bitter factionalism is correct. Whether they will be able to craft the occasional tactical electoral alliance against the libs? Not sure, but "occasional" is the operative word. And whichever faction gets the top slot in that alliance seems likely to enthusiastically embrace purity purges.
None of which should make the left feel smug. It's got it's own purity ponies and factions. Not as badly split overall, perhaps. But enough to manage to lose to a post-MAGA alliance on the right, just as they lost to Trump. The left's ability to focus on grand schemes, while ignoring the local groundwork needed for success, is quite impressive. Not, apparently, bothering to focus on local races on 2010, in advance of redistricting, did damage which is still being felt.
On “That beacon of peace, China, errr, I mean Pakistan…”
Absolutely. It's another instance of "Everything Trump Touches Dies."** If you want a peace deal that even sort-of works, having Trump nowhere near it, visibly nowhere near it, is critical.
** Manifestly in progress with the Republican Party. I'm eagerly awaiting its appearance with Putin/Russia.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.