I'm pretty sure my taste doesn't qualify as eclectic. But even YouTube doesn't provide video for something like Buddy Holly records.
I've seen videos for other artists' work from similarly far back, where it's obviously added on recently. But some of the "original cast" classics are audio only.
I wonder if a useful approach might be to ask, not why they are afraid, but why they are concerned.
For a lot of people, admitting to being afraid is shameful. (And, for some men, an attack on their manhood.). But there's nothing wrong with being concerned. It might be a way to get the conversation to the place you want it to go. Without getting the reflexive rejection of the whole thing.
I don’t think it really matters that much if Trump is around to be the Dear Leader of MAGA or not. When he is gone, there will still be a whole Republican party that enabled him to the max and the hate/fear propaganda bubble will still be poisoning our political discourse.
I think it will matter. Here's why.
My distinct impression is that the vast majority of MAGAs are made, not born. For those that are born, they can get their dopamine hit from lots of places. They did pre-Trump and they will again when he's gone.
As for those who are made, Trump matters because he is, par excellence, a con man; a salesman for the radical right. Nobody else that they've got can hold a candle to him. When he's gone, there isn't anyone with a real chance of picking up the baton. (Lots who are convinced they can. But none who anybody else thinks can pull it off.)
The thing about the enablers is that they are, at heart, followers. No doubt they would like to keep the whole fear/hate coalition going. But I don't think they can pull it off. The folks around Trump are actually four or five groups with very different agendas, united only by their recognition that they can use Trump to move those agendas forward. And their increasing desperation as MAGAland fragments will only make it fragment faster.
The thing to remember about those groups is that their various agendas are seriously unpopular. Even with the other groups. Without Trump as a useful umbrella to (sort of) unite them, they will crumble.
The problem for those who want to roll on after Trump is the same one that has historically faced autocrats: how to guarantee the succession. The traditional approach, from monarchs throughout history to Kim Il Sung, is to go with the founder's children -- genetics as legitimacy. But Trump's children are jokes. And Trump's ego won't tolerate anybody else stealing his limelight to build a post-Trump coalition ahead of time. And there's really nobody else who can effectively unite them.
As for the question of how to jar the "made" ones back to reality, a few may jump ship as reality (economy tanking, etc.) starts to hit home. But for the rest, I think that, unfortunately, the best that can be done is to prepare the ground for the day when he passes from the scene. Then, but probably only then, can they be brought to see their objections to those who would follow after.
All of which is not to csay that the Democrats couldn't use a charismatic leader (or several) of their own. But so far, nobody has risen significantly above the throng.
I'd be interested to see the corruption index. My sense is that Russia, for example, is at a whole different level from China.
I think it's possible to have a growing economy dispite widespread corruption. But much harder than without that corruption. Also, I'd argue that there is a point where corruption gets so bad that economic growth becomes impossible. Clearly China isn't there. But I'm not sure how close they might be to the limit.
Although, for those who have issues, white on black uses a lot less battery. My phone, at least, swaps to that automatically when the battery gets low.
I think Mayor Pete offers more of this [the media expertise . . . to get the message out effectively] than does Newsom.
Agreed. And he comes across more effectively on social media and on traditional media. I think that we really need both today.
Pete might lose, but at least he would be heard.
I assume you are talking about the 2028 Presidential election. I'd like to think he would have a chance then, but at this point I certainly wouldn't bet the ranch on it. Which we would be doing if the Republicans nominate a MAGA nutcase (but I repeat myself), which seems like a distinct possibility.
I must disagree. There are bad people out there. People who do bad things. But Miller is on a different level. I would say that the correct description is: he is an evil person. Full stop.
As a note, in Kamala Harris’ recent book, she said that she wanted Buttgieg, but thought that it was ‘asking too much of America’ (if I remember the quote correctly). I’m not second guessing that, I’m just imagining an America where it wouldn’t be asking too much.
I agree with her. I, too, would have liked Buttigieg. (Nothing against Walz, who I thought did a great job.). But I also thought that, for too many voters, it would have been too much. Actually, too much even with an old white guy at the top of the ticket.
But good on her for thinking Buttigieg would be a good choice. And for standing up and saying so.
Like lj, I can imagine an America where it wouldn't be. But even before the results came in I was pretty clear that we ain't there yet. Someday. Someday.
Stopping watching them on YouTube is one thing. But it might be more effective if they provided an email (or whatever) that fans use. Because a message that gets specific about what you are upset about might be clearer.
The first issue I notice (and it's as much because it's something different) , I supposeis that new comments are entered at the beginning. Rather than at the end.
I think I prefer to write responses, especially in long threads, at the end. If only so I can flip back and forth to check the comment I am responding to.
And just found another. Apparently wj as a name doesn't fit the (not specified) format. Trying variations until I find one that works
In an ideal world, people wouldn’t be looking to him or people like him for leadership, but it may be all we have.
I'd vastly rather look to someone else. But that requires there be someone else who a) is willing to stand up, and b) has the media expertise available to get the message out effectively.
Of course, as soon as the MAGAts notice that people (who are not white people!) are undercutting their precious tariffs, the Native Americans will become targets as well. The treaties that the US government has with the various tribes notwithstanding -- abrogating treaties is a standard MO with these people.
Still, good on them for taking the initiative. I hope it makes them all filthy rich.
to get back to anything like a pre-Trump normal, we’re going to need some kind of national de-MAGA-fication. We will need to root the bastards out, along with their sick ideologies.
Do you see that happening? Do you think we can muster the political will to do it? Do you think a sufficient sector of the population even want it?
Agreed, it will be necessary to root them out. Fortunately, the ones in the Executive Branch are pretty much self-identified by their willingness to accept Presidential appointments from Trump. And, if one President can appoint them, another can fire them. That won't find all of them, but I would guess enough to start turning things around. The bigger challenge will be the massive loss of expertise the various agencies are experiencing.
Rooting them out of the Judiciary will be a lot harder. Easy enough to identify the Federalist Society members; that being, IMHO, a huge red flag. But establishing grounds to impeach and remove them would be an enormous challenge. I'm not sure how we go about neutralizing them otherwise. Beyond making sure none of them are in single judge areas, which makes venue shopping so easy at the moment.
Can we muster the political will? I think so. I think enough of the population will want it. The bigger challenge will be finding the leadership among politicians to step up. A bunch of officeholders are going to need to be primaried, I suspect. On top of those voted out in the General Elections. But I think it can be done.
Will that get us back to the status quo ante? No. That's going to take years of rebuilding the nation's soul. But I expect we will get there. Dispite the best efforts of the Daughters of the neo-Confederacy.
The oath to the Constitution is pretty deeply ingrained in that culture, especially the higher up you go.
And, importantly, the higher up you go in the NCO ranks, not just the officers. Those are the folks that actually make things happen or not happen. As any officer worth his salt realizes.
I'd say the target of the "excuse" is, first, all those people who generally don't pay attention. The military going into an American city is a big enough deal to break thru to a lot of them. And their reaction will be along the lines of "Wait! What??? Why???" The excuse won't satisfy all of them, but he can hope that it satisfies enough.
Another target audience is the portion of the Republican Party that is not MAGA cultists. They have enough contact with reality to know that things can blow up in their faces. And that the necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) defense against that is a justification/excuse which sounds half-way plausible. They'll want to believe it; but they won't be on-board without it.
And the final target audience is the military. Most of them, even the very conservative ones, are clear that their oath includes supporting the Constitution. And, absent some kind of justification, military action inside the country are strictly forbidden there.
No doubt there are some who wouldn't care, even some who are devout MAGA cultists. You would have to put a lot of effort into selecting out those individuals. But if you just send in an existing unit, you need that justification.
the failures of the local authorities to enforce the law and ordinances
So, are you expecting the police to successful arrest every criminal? Because that's nothing we've ever seen in history. Or maybe you want them to somehow prevent any crime from happening?
I assume you have more sense than that. So what standard are you using for doing an acceptable job to "enforce the law and ordinances"?
I think that the constitution could be saved, but it would take another Lincoln or FDR to do it,
....
Of course both ended up having their work undone, and here we are again.
What you're actually saying is that the necessary changes won't be permanent fixes. Which is not that surprising -- the authoritarians, given enough time, will find new weak points.
Still, looking at where we were in, say, the early 1800s, I'd say that we've made significant progress over the last two centuries. The reactionaries are trying to roll all those back. But I expect that, the closer they get to realizing their dream, the more massive will be the resistance.
In the end, they will once again fail. We will, temporarily, lose some ground. But only some. And a lot of people will get hurt along the way.
Still, 20-30 years from now (yeah, totally just spit balling on the time frame) we will look back on today rather like most of us look back on other periods in our history where the reactionaries made gains. Asking, "What were they thinking???". But naively confident that we won't go there again. Until the generations that live thru it have passed from the scene.
wonkie, I would note that, at least in the US, the pattern has included an additional phase: the group of outsiders is moved into Our Nation, and then a new group of outsiders emerges. Currently the primary group of outsiders seems to be Hispanics. (Arguably it may be more like brown Hispanics. Except that the Spanish language features so prominently.). Before that, it has been Italians, and before that the Irish. At our nation's founding the boogie man was the Germans.
I won't be astounded if, down the road, South Asians replace Hispanics as the outsiders of choice. Aided by the difference in religion; Hispanics, at least, are Christians.
In the example of Afghanistan (and other Islamic countries), a lot of justification of confronting those countries is based on their approach to the rights of women.
And yet somehow that kind of confrontation never seems to get applied to Saudi Arabia. Which, be it noted, has a worse recond on the subject than any other Islamic country (with the possible exception of Afghanistan).
Making Iran under the mullahs, for example, look like a bastion of liberalism is no mean feat. But the Saudis manage it. With impunity.
Reputed to originate regarding air force dog fights. But the most common occurrence, in my experience, regards truckers (or anyone else driving any long distance). Meaning to arrive somewhere and immediately head back in the other direction. In that context, the "turn" is obvious. But the "burn"? Not so much.
They speculate it could be about compensation for the farmer whose land was destroyed, but I also wonder if it isn’t a humorous extension of “plowing” into the ground.
I seem to recall it referencing the 6' by 3' patch out ground for a grave. Ground which wouldn't be built on, and so was forever rural.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Weekend music thread #1”
I'm pretty sure my taste doesn't qualify as eclectic. But even YouTube doesn't provide video for something like Buddy Holly records.
I've seen videos for other artists' work from similarly far back, where it's obviously added on recently. But some of the "original cast" classics are audio only.
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
I wonder if a useful approach might be to ask, not why they are afraid, but why they are concerned.
For a lot of people, admitting to being afraid is shameful. (And, for some men, an attack on their manhood.). But there's nothing wrong with being concerned. It might be a way to get the conversation to the place you want it to go. Without getting the reflexive rejection of the whole thing.
Just a thought.
On “…..”
"Anything that black guy can do, I can do better! Just watch!!"
Anything that black guy WHO LAUGHED AT ME can do, I can do better! Just watch!!
Fixed that for you, including what was really the most infuriating for him.
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
I don’t think it really matters that much if Trump is around to be the Dear Leader of MAGA or not. When he is gone, there will still be a whole Republican party that enabled him to the max and the hate/fear propaganda bubble will still be poisoning our political discourse.
I think it will matter. Here's why.
My distinct impression is that the vast majority of MAGAs are made, not born. For those that are born, they can get their dopamine hit from lots of places. They did pre-Trump and they will again when he's gone.
As for those who are made, Trump matters because he is, par excellence, a con man; a salesman for the radical right. Nobody else that they've got can hold a candle to him. When he's gone, there isn't anyone with a real chance of picking up the baton. (Lots who are convinced they can. But none who anybody else thinks can pull it off.)
The thing about the enablers is that they are, at heart, followers. No doubt they would like to keep the whole fear/hate coalition going. But I don't think they can pull it off. The folks around Trump are actually four or five groups with very different agendas, united only by their recognition that they can use Trump to move those agendas forward. And their increasing desperation as MAGAland fragments will only make it fragment faster.
The thing to remember about those groups is that their various agendas are seriously unpopular. Even with the other groups. Without Trump as a useful umbrella to (sort of) unite them, they will crumble.
The problem for those who want to roll on after Trump is the same one that has historically faced autocrats: how to guarantee the succession. The traditional approach, from monarchs throughout history to Kim Il Sung, is to go with the founder's children -- genetics as legitimacy. But Trump's children are jokes. And Trump's ego won't tolerate anybody else stealing his limelight to build a post-Trump coalition ahead of time. And there's really nobody else who can effectively unite them.
As for the question of how to jar the "made" ones back to reality, a few may jump ship as reality (economy tanking, etc.) starts to hit home. But for the rest, I think that, unfortunately, the best that can be done is to prepare the ground for the day when he passes from the scene. Then, but probably only then, can they be brought to see their objections to those who would follow after.
All of which is not to csay that the Democrats couldn't use a charismatic leader (or several) of their own. But so far, nobody has risen significantly above the throng.
On “…..”
From what little I've seen, it appears that this is an achievement of the President of Egypt. Certainly far more his than Trump's.
If Trump deserves any credit at all, it is for being so utterly inconsistent, even on a day to day basis, that Bibi got nervous.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Comments about Trump Derangement Syndrome put me in mind of this old saw:
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Similarly, its not TDS to say that he's deranged. Not to mention demented and amoral and childish and vindictive and....
On “Chinese corruption”
I'd be interested to see the corruption index. My sense is that Russia, for example, is at a whole different level from China.
I think it's possible to have a growing economy dispite widespread corruption. But much harder than without that corruption. Also, I'd argue that there is a point where corruption gets so bad that economic growth becomes impossible. Clearly China isn't there. But I'm not sure how close they might be to the limit.
On “Excelsior 2.1”
Although, for those who have issues, white on black uses a lot less battery. My phone, at least, swaps to that automatically when the battery gets low.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
I think Mayor Pete offers more of this [the media expertise . . . to get the message out effectively] than does Newsom.
Agreed. And he comes across more effectively on social media and on traditional media. I think that we really need both today.
Pete might lose, but at least he would be heard.
I assume you are talking about the 2028 Presidential election. I'd like to think he would have a chance then, but at this point I certainly wouldn't bet the ranch on it. Which we would be doing if the Republicans nominate a MAGA nutcase (but I repeat myself), which seems like a distinct possibility.
"
Stephen Miller. He’s a bad person, full stop.
I must disagree. There are bad people out there. People who do bad things. But Miller is on a different level. I would say that the correct description is: he is an evil person. Full stop.
"
As a note, in Kamala Harris’ recent book, she said that she wanted Buttgieg, but thought that it was ‘asking too much of America’ (if I remember the quote correctly). I’m not second guessing that, I’m just imagining an America where it wouldn’t be asking too much.
I agree with her. I, too, would have liked Buttigieg. (Nothing against Walz, who I thought did a great job.). But I also thought that, for too many voters, it would have been too much. Actually, too much even with an old white guy at the top of the ticket.
But good on her for thinking Buttigieg would be a good choice. And for standing up and saying so.
Like lj, I can imagine an America where it wouldn't be. But even before the results came in I was pretty clear that we ain't there yet. Someday. Someday.
On “Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk”
Stopping watching them on YouTube is one thing. But it might be more effective if they provided an email (or whatever) that fans use. Because a message that gets specific about what you are upset about might be clearer.
On “Excelsior 2.1”
The first issue I notice (and it's as much because it's something different) , I supposeis that new comments are entered at the beginning. Rather than at the end.
I think I prefer to write responses, especially in long threads, at the end. If only so I can flip back and forth to check the comment I am responding to.
And just found another. Apparently wj as a name doesn't fit the (not specified) format. Trying variations until I find one that works
On “Where are the 5 words?”
In an ideal world, people wouldn’t be looking to him or people like him for leadership, but it may be all we have.
I'd vastly rather look to someone else. But that requires there be someone else who a) is willing to stand up, and b) has the media expertise available to get the message out effectively.
On “What do you mean ‘we’, kemosabe?”
For the benefit of the non-Americans, you might want to add a footnote explaining the quote that is the title. Just a thought
"
Always great to see people standing up.
Of course, as soon as the MAGAts notice that people (who are not white people!) are undercutting their precious tariffs, the Native Americans will become targets as well. The treaties that the US government has with the various tribes notwithstanding -- abrogating treaties is a standard MO with these people.
Still, good on them for taking the initiative. I hope it makes them all filthy rich.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
to get back to anything like a pre-Trump normal, we’re going to need some kind of national de-MAGA-fication. We will need to root the bastards out, along with their sick ideologies.
Do you see that happening? Do you think we can muster the political will to do it? Do you think a sufficient sector of the population even want it?
Agreed, it will be necessary to root them out. Fortunately, the ones in the Executive Branch are pretty much self-identified by their willingness to accept Presidential appointments from Trump. And, if one President can appoint them, another can fire them. That won't find all of them, but I would guess enough to start turning things around. The bigger challenge will be the massive loss of expertise the various agencies are experiencing.
Rooting them out of the Judiciary will be a lot harder. Easy enough to identify the Federalist Society members; that being, IMHO, a huge red flag. But establishing grounds to impeach and remove them would be an enormous challenge. I'm not sure how we go about neutralizing them otherwise. Beyond making sure none of them are in single judge areas, which makes venue shopping so easy at the moment.
Can we muster the political will? I think so. I think enough of the population will want it. The bigger challenge will be finding the leadership among politicians to step up. A bunch of officeholders are going to need to be primaried, I suspect. On top of those voted out in the General Elections. But I think it can be done.
Will that get us back to the status quo ante? No. That's going to take years of rebuilding the nation's soul. But I expect we will get there. Dispite the best efforts of the Daughters of the neo-Confederacy.
"
The oath to the Constitution is pretty deeply ingrained in that culture, especially the higher up you go.
And, importantly, the higher up you go in the NCO ranks, not just the officers. Those are the folks that actually make things happen or not happen. As any officer worth his salt realizes.
"
I'd say the target of the "excuse" is, first, all those people who generally don't pay attention. The military going into an American city is a big enough deal to break thru to a lot of them. And their reaction will be along the lines of "Wait! What??? Why???" The excuse won't satisfy all of them, but he can hope that it satisfies enough.
Another target audience is the portion of the Republican Party that is not MAGA cultists. They have enough contact with reality to know that things can blow up in their faces. And that the necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) defense against that is a justification/excuse which sounds half-way plausible. They'll want to believe it; but they won't be on-board without it.
And the final target audience is the military. Most of them, even the very conservative ones, are clear that their oath includes supporting the Constitution. And, absent some kind of justification, military action inside the country are strictly forbidden there.
No doubt there are some who wouldn't care, even some who are devout MAGA cultists. You would have to put a lot of effort into selecting out those individuals. But if you just send in an existing unit, you need that justification.
"
the failures of the local authorities to enforce the law and ordinances
So, are you expecting the police to successful arrest every criminal? Because that's nothing we've ever seen in history. Or maybe you want them to somehow prevent any crime from happening?
I assume you have more sense than that. So what standard are you using for doing an acceptable job to "enforce the law and ordinances"?
"
I think that the constitution could be saved, but it would take another Lincoln or FDR to do it,
....
Of course both ended up having their work undone, and here we are again.
What you're actually saying is that the necessary changes won't be permanent fixes. Which is not that surprising -- the authoritarians, given enough time, will find new weak points.
Still, looking at where we were in, say, the early 1800s, I'd say that we've made significant progress over the last two centuries. The reactionaries are trying to roll all those back. But I expect that, the closer they get to realizing their dream, the more massive will be the resistance.
In the end, they will once again fail. We will, temporarily, lose some ground. But only some. And a lot of people will get hurt along the way.
Still, 20-30 years from now (yeah, totally just spit balling on the time frame) we will look back on today rather like most of us look back on other periods in our history where the reactionaries made gains. Asking, "What were they thinking???". But naively confident that we won't go there again. Until the generations that live thru it have passed from the scene.
On “The DIY party”
wonkie, I would note that, at least in the US, the pattern has included an additional phase: the group of outsiders is moved into Our Nation, and then a new group of outsiders emerges. Currently the primary group of outsiders seems to be Hispanics. (Arguably it may be more like brown Hispanics. Except that the Spanish language features so prominently.). Before that, it has been Italians, and before that the Irish. At our nation's founding the boogie man was the Germans.
I won't be astounded if, down the road, South Asians replace Hispanics as the outsiders of choice. Aided by the difference in religion; Hispanics, at least, are Christians.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
In the example of Afghanistan (and other Islamic countries), a lot of justification of confronting those countries is based on their approach to the rights of women.
And yet somehow that kind of confrontation never seems to get applied to Saudi Arabia. Which, be it noted, has a worse recond on the subject than any other Islamic country (with the possible exception of Afghanistan).
Making Iran under the mullahs, for example, look like a bastion of liberalism is no mean feat. But the Saudis manage it. With impunity.
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
Another oddity: "turn and burn."
Reputed to originate regarding air force dog fights. But the most common occurrence, in my experience, regards truckers (or anyone else driving any long distance). Meaning to arrive somewhere and immediately head back in the other direction. In that context, the "turn" is obvious. But the "burn"? Not so much.
"
They speculate it could be about compensation for the farmer whose land was destroyed, but I also wonder if it isn’t a humorous extension of “plowing” into the ground.
I seem to recall it referencing the 6' by 3' patch out ground for a grave. Ground which wouldn't be built on, and so was forever rural.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.