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.
I believe this comes from accounts (probably even a film, most likely 8 mm) of chimpanzees (or maybe gorillas?). This behavior seems to occur where humans would shout insults, without reaching the point of physical altercation. But naturally American viewers would see anything but stuff being thrown and hitting others -- i.e. a physical altercation, and with weapons.
A couple of (practically off topic) thoughts occurred to me while reading this:
First, how many here (who weren't already familiar with her) read Sanae Takaichi's name and immediately thought "female". I'm aware that anyone with a Japanese first name ending with a vowel followed by e (or, especially, ending in ko) will be female. But then, I have friends and family who are ethnic Japanese, so I'm hardly typical.
Second, the whole definition of "immigrant" varies. Even though it consistently carries the connotation of "not from here." For example (sorry, Hartmut!) someone of Turkish ancestry in Germany will tend to be viewed as not-German, even if the family has been there for several generations. Then there's California.
Growing up (perhaps still today), you were a real Californian if you were born here, or even moved here with you family when young. Everybody who moved here as an adult was, not exactly "foreign", but close. Definitely "not from here." Even if they came here from elsewhere in the US. If you were Hispanic? Hispanics were here a couple of centuries before the first Anglos showed up. So it still depended on whether you were born in California. East Asian? There were still Issei (immigrants from Japan) around, but most ethnic Japanese, and pretty much all ethnic Chinese, were born here -- so, all real Californians.
One quick test: there is a city just north of San Diego-- La Jolla. Any real Californians will unthinkingly read that as La Hoy-ya. Wereas recent arrivals tend to say La Jol-la. And that applies even to those of us who don't speak Spanish. We learn to pronounce Spanish words at least approximately correctly just from constant exposure growing up.
Perhaps that has something to do with climate. In Germany, untended ground tends to sprout grass pretty quickly. In the US, especially the western US, untended ground tends to be dust. For quite a while across the Great Plains; pretty much permanently in the Southwest.
On the street, sure. But consider the recent case of ICE busting into an apartment building and effectively taking everyone inside into custody. With getting back out of custody being a matter of having to prove your innocence. Being an old white guy like you or me not being any protection against finding yourself in cuffs (more likely zip ties), lying in the street for a couple of hours wearing whatever you happened to be using for sleep wear.
Granted, being in a single family dwelling would tend to avoid that scenario. But there's no reason that I can see that the same treatment might not be visited on, for example, everybody who happened to be in a particular store or restaurant.
I confess that I have considered the merits of routinely carrying my passport with me. Just to have some sort of proof of citizenship readily to hand.
"Papers, please!". (Except that there's no way these thugs say "please".)
The big picture is that, at best, Trump and his cronies are a bunch of idiots.
In December, you could have made that argument. Plausibly, if not particularly persuasively. Today? Not so much.
At this point, it's pretty clear that they are not merely a bunch of idiots. At minimum they are a bunch of armed and dangerous psychopaths and sociopaths. Many of them are also idiots. But that is rather beside the point.
Tony, it might be worth consulting an immigration attorney. Just to find out what constitutes "lawful authority". The law being how it is, it's possible that you (but nobody else) are lawfully authorized. Worth checking out these days.
I have been known to complain bitterly that US business management has gotten incredibly lazy and cheap, unwilling to be flexible or invest in education and productivity tools.
US business management has gotten utterly short-term focused. Investing, for all too many, is anathema unless it can be done with zero impact on quarterly earnings. I suspect that MBA programs are a significant contributor. But vulture capital asset stripping firms, waiting to attack any form which dates to deviate.
There are exceptions, of course. But they are just that: exceptions. Unfortunately.
Pretty much every developed country is looking at a shrinking population -- absent immigration, which seems like a rather temporary solution. Given that, over time, development (at least that feature of development) is spreading.
Now reducing the total world population may well be a good thing. But working out how to manage the transition seems to be an imperative.
Every time someone argues against citizenship for anyone except those whose parents are citizens, I feel moved to ask a couple questions. First, what of those who have one parent who is a citizen and the other not? Or one (or three) grandparents citizens and the others not?
Second, how many generations back do you go in demanding parents' citizenship? And how do you justify that number? Because, of course, everybody (even Steven Miller) has ancestors at some remove who were immigrants.
The reality, of course, is that those people don't care about parents being citizens. They care about race. (Occasionally ethnicity as well, i.e. nobody from Eastern and/or Southern Europe.). If they finally admit it, ask a) are you advocating going back to the "one drop" standard? And b) if so, what genetic criteria do you propose to establish that? Because there aren't (written) records to establish an answer.
A's for those planning to outsource to AI, perhaps they ought to consider just how much of the stuff on the Internet (where most LLMs are trained) are basically spam from bots set up to push either an ideology or the foreign policy of one group or another. A's contributions to thoughtful discussion they are useless.
As far as I can tell, the major infraction of Iran is being Shia rather than Sunni.** And therefore a rival of Saudi Arabia. We remain allies of the Saudis, and adamant goes of Iran. This despite Saudi Arabia also being a theocracy (albeit with a subservient monarchy as cover), and a far more fundamentalist and repressive one. Iranian women, for example, have rights and freedoms that Saudi women can only dream of.
Once upon a time, the Saudis controlled the price of oil, and that gave them a bargaining chip. We ignored little details like the oil price shock of the mid-70s, and continued the relationship because we felt we had to, lest they ramp up the price of oil on us again. (We also ignore the fact that the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudis. Iranians have never done anything like that to us.)
Now, of course, we are a net oil exporter. If the price of oil goes up, we make money. But inertia is a powerful force. Someday, I hope, we cut the Saudis off. Not to switch to allying with Iran necessarily. But at least shifting to neutrality in their theological dispute.
** Not that most Americans know. Or have the least clue what the difference is. (For comparison, think Catholics and Protestants during the wars of religion.)
We just got the materials for the Special Election November 4. I'm working this one, not just because I usually try to work elections, but because these days it's an affirmation that elections will happen.
The only item on the ballot is Proposition 50: AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS' PARTISAN REDISTRICTING. Talk about brutally honest proposition titles! (Something that has not been universal here, in my observation). The ads are already starting to run. On one side, Governor Newsom talking about defending democracy from Trump. On the other, arguments for preserving the nonpartisan redistricting that we established, for excellent reasons, back in 2010. Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I note that this doesn't abolish the Redistricting Commission, just allows a one-time redistricting outside the usual process. The Con ads (deliberately) make it sound like a permanent change.
I am personally strongly in favor of our nonpartisan approach. In fact, at one point I applied to be on tthe commission. But, "circumstances alter cases." I suspect that the economy will be sufficiently trashed by 2026 that the Democrats end up with a majority in the House regardless of Republican efforts elsewhere. Especially as some of the hardest hit places are already being deep red rural areas. But I'm also in belt-and-suspenders mode these days.
He make an excellent point that, among those with whom we massively disagree, there are (pardon me) nuances. Some had the virtue of opposing his being cancelled and the courage to stand up and say so. Others either supported it, or at least lacked the courage to say so.
Oppose those you disagree with, sure. But acknowledge it when they get something right.
I can relate to the "can't go home again" simply because California has grown so dramatically since I was young. I grew up on a ranch 5 miles out of town. Now, that ranch, and everything for an additional 5 miles, is all houses.
It's not that I physically can't go there. I can. It's not just that the specific house we live in is no longer there, although it's not. It's that the open space that was all around is no longer anything like open.
I expect that the situation for people who can't even get back to the physical location, and the culture that was there, is far worse. But I at least have a glimmer.
At this point, the best hope for anyone with a small boat in the southern Caribbean is probably the short attention spans of the people in this administration. They'll likely move on to the next shiny thing soon. Especially since, after they first couple of outrageous instances, it will no longer be generating the media attention they crave.
At some point, with any luck at all, an administration which actually believes in the law may try to arrest and try those responsible. Not holding my breath, especially given the statute of limitations. But as I recall (IANAL either), there is no limitation on murder, so....
From the Ministry of Truth link: "the Secretary of Labor will personally certify the initiation of investigations for the first time in the department’s history."
This could only seem like a good idea to someone who had never worked in an organization with more than a dozen people.
Governments, at least successful ones, all run bureaucracies. Big bureaucracies. Everybody loves to trash bureaucracy. But the reason that they are pervasive is that they are the best solution mankind has so far developed to manage large groups of people. And there are narrow limits on how much you can accomplish without involving large groups of people.
To put it bluntly, if the Secretary of Labor really is personally certifying the starting of every investigation then either 1) he doesn't have time left to do his actual job, or 2) there are only going to be a handful of (no doubt extravagantly publicized) investigations. Or, considering this administration, probably both.
lj, I rather doubt that there would be an amendment about tariffs. The Constitution already gives power over them exclusively to Congress. The problem we face is that we have an administr3which cares not at all about what the law or the Constitution says. Well, except when it is convenient to use as a cudgel. Otherwise, they just do as they please, confident that neither the Supreme Court nore the Congress will try to stop them -- nor could do so if they tried.
Just as we see with "Originalism", if you don't care what they explicit constraints on you are, and if nobody has the power (or perhaps the willingness) to stop you, then anything goes.
real St.Ronnie (as vile as many of his policies were) would be hunted out of the party these days as a RINO
Or, given half a chance, purge most of the "Christian nationalists" (and pretty much all of the Trumpys) from the party. The left has demonized Reagan so long** that it's easy to lose track of the fact that he actually cared about this country. And not just some delusional image of what it actually never was. Also, when some piece of ideology turned out to work in the real world, he would accept that reality and change. Something the current Republican Party is either unwilling or flat unable to do.
** Mind, I had little use for him. Not as President. Not when he was Governor here.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
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.
"
Going ape-shit
I have no idea regarding the etymology…
I believe this comes from accounts (probably even a film, most likely 8 mm) of chimpanzees (or maybe gorillas?). This behavior seems to occur where humans would shout insults, without reaching the point of physical altercation. But naturally American viewers would see anything but stuff being thrown and hitting others -- i.e. a physical altercation, and with weapons.
On “The DIY party”
A couple of (practically off topic) thoughts occurred to me while reading this:
First, how many here (who weren't already familiar with her) read Sanae Takaichi's name and immediately thought "female". I'm aware that anyone with a Japanese first name ending with a vowel followed by e (or, especially, ending in ko) will be female. But then, I have friends and family who are ethnic Japanese, so I'm hardly typical.
Second, the whole definition of "immigrant" varies. Even though it consistently carries the connotation of "not from here." For example (sorry, Hartmut!) someone of Turkish ancestry in Germany will tend to be viewed as not-German, even if the family has been there for several generations. Then there's California.
Growing up (perhaps still today), you were a real Californian if you were born here, or even moved here with you family when young. Everybody who moved here as an adult was, not exactly "foreign", but close. Definitely "not from here." Even if they came here from elsewhere in the US. If you were Hispanic? Hispanics were here a couple of centuries before the first Anglos showed up. So it still depended on whether you were born in California. East Asian? There were still Issei (immigrants from Japan) around, but most ethnic Japanese, and pretty much all ethnic Chinese, were born here -- so, all real Californians.
One quick test: there is a city just north of San Diego-- La Jolla. Any real Californians will unthinkingly read that as La Hoy-ya. Wereas recent arrivals tend to say La Jol-la. And that applies even to those of us who don't speak Spanish. We learn to pronounce Spanish words at least approximately correctly just from constant exposure growing up.
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
Perhaps that has something to do with climate. In Germany, untended ground tends to sprout grass pretty quickly. In the US, especially the western US, untended ground tends to be dust. For quite a while across the Great Plains; pretty much permanently in the Southwest.
On “Citizenship”
On the street, sure. But consider the recent case of ICE busting into an apartment building and effectively taking everyone inside into custody. With getting back out of custody being a matter of having to prove your innocence. Being an old white guy like you or me not being any protection against finding yourself in cuffs (more likely zip ties), lying in the street for a couple of hours wearing whatever you happened to be using for sleep wear.
Granted, being in a single family dwelling would tend to avoid that scenario. But there's no reason that I can see that the same treatment might not be visited on, for example, everybody who happened to be in a particular store or restaurant.
I confess that I have considered the merits of routinely carrying my passport with me. Just to have some sort of proof of citizenship readily to hand.
"Papers, please!". (Except that there's no way these thugs say "please".)
On “Where are the 5 words?”
The big picture is that, at best, Trump and his cronies are a bunch of idiots.
In December, you could have made that argument. Plausibly, if not particularly persuasively. Today? Not so much.
At this point, it's pretty clear that they are not merely a bunch of idiots. At minimum they are a bunch of armed and dangerous psychopaths and sociopaths. Many of them are also idiots. But that is rather beside the point.
On “Citizenship”
Tony, it might be worth consulting an immigration attorney. Just to find out what constitutes "lawful authority". The law being how it is, it's possible that you (but nobody else) are lawfully authorized. Worth checking out these days.
On “Japan unleashed”
russell, immigration is a temporary solution to falling birth rates simply because falling birth rates are spreading. The sources are not permanent.
"
I have been known to complain bitterly that US business management has gotten incredibly lazy and cheap, unwilling to be flexible or invest in education and productivity tools.
US business management has gotten utterly short-term focused. Investing, for all too many, is anathema unless it can be done with zero impact on quarterly earnings. I suspect that MBA programs are a significant contributor. But vulture capital asset stripping firms, waiting to attack any form which dates to deviate.
There are exceptions, of course. But they are just that: exceptions. Unfortunately.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Tony, I think you missed the heavy dose of sarcasm in Charles' comment
On “Japan unleashed”
Pretty much every developed country is looking at a shrinking population -- absent immigration, which seems like a rather temporary solution. Given that, over time, development (at least that feature of development) is spreading.
Now reducing the total world population may well be a good thing. But working out how to manage the transition seems to be an imperative.
On “Citizenship”
Every time someone argues against citizenship for anyone except those whose parents are citizens, I feel moved to ask a couple questions. First, what of those who have one parent who is a citizen and the other not? Or one (or three) grandparents citizens and the others not?
Second, how many generations back do you go in demanding parents' citizenship? And how do you justify that number? Because, of course, everybody (even Steven Miller) has ancestors at some remove who were immigrants.
The reality, of course, is that those people don't care about parents being citizens. They care about race. (Occasionally ethnicity as well, i.e. nobody from Eastern and/or Southern Europe.). If they finally admit it, ask a) are you advocating going back to the "one drop" standard? And b) if so, what genetic criteria do you propose to establish that? Because there aren't (written) records to establish an answer.
On “Ad futurum”
A's for those planning to outsource to AI, perhaps they ought to consider just how much of the stuff on the Internet (where most LLMs are trained) are basically spam from bots set up to push either an ideology or the foreign policy of one group or another. A's contributions to thoughtful discussion they are useless.
"
I can't speak for others, but this is working just fine on my phone.
On “Ran, ran, ran, I blog Iran”
As far as I can tell, the major infraction of Iran is being Shia rather than Sunni.** And therefore a rival of Saudi Arabia. We remain allies of the Saudis, and adamant goes of Iran. This despite Saudi Arabia also being a theocracy (albeit with a subservient monarchy as cover), and a far more fundamentalist and repressive one. Iranian women, for example, have rights and freedoms that Saudi women can only dream of.
Once upon a time, the Saudis controlled the price of oil, and that gave them a bargaining chip. We ignored little details like the oil price shock of the mid-70s, and continued the relationship because we felt we had to, lest they ramp up the price of oil on us again. (We also ignore the fact that the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudis. Iranians have never done anything like that to us.)
Now, of course, we are a net oil exporter. If the price of oil goes up, we make money. But inertia is a powerful force. Someday, I hope, we cut the Saudis off. Not to switch to allying with Iran necessarily. But at least shifting to neutrality in their theological dispute.
** Not that most Americans know. Or have the least clue what the difference is. (For comparison, think Catholics and Protestants during the wars of religion.)
On “Where are the 5 words?”
We just got the materials for the Special Election November 4. I'm working this one, not just because I usually try to work elections, but because these days it's an affirmation that elections will happen.
The only item on the ballot is Proposition 50: AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS' PARTISAN REDISTRICTING. Talk about brutally honest proposition titles! (Something that has not been universal here, in my observation). The ads are already starting to run. On one side, Governor Newsom talking about defending democracy from Trump. On the other, arguments for preserving the nonpartisan redistricting that we established, for excellent reasons, back in 2010. Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I note that this doesn't abolish the Redistricting Commission, just allows a one-time redistricting outside the usual process. The Con ads (deliberately) make it sound like a permanent change.
I am personally strongly in favor of our nonpartisan approach. In fact, at one point I applied to be on tthe commission. But, "circumstances alter cases." I suspect that the economy will be sufficiently trashed by 2026 that the Democrats end up with a majority in the House regardless of Republican efforts elsewhere. Especially as some of the hardest hit places are already being deep red rural areas. But I'm also in belt-and-suspenders mode these days.
On “Rule Six, there is NO … Rule Six!…”
"Home is where you hang your clothes."
Or, if you're an engineer, "Home is where your toolbox is."
On “Indefinitely isn’t what it used to be”
He make an excellent point that, among those with whom we massively disagree, there are (pardon me) nuances. Some had the virtue of opposing his being cancelled and the courage to stand up and say so. Others either supported it, or at least lacked the courage to say so.
Oppose those you disagree with, sure. But acknowledge it when they get something right.
On “Rule Six, there is NO … Rule Six!…”
Bruce (Pete): "I vaguely recall a conversation a while back about relocating Israel to a carve-out in Baja California."
You would probably have a better (nothing like good, but better) chance selling it as a relocated Palestine.
"
I can relate to the "can't go home again" simply because California has grown so dramatically since I was young. I grew up on a ranch 5 miles out of town. Now, that ranch, and everything for an additional 5 miles, is all houses.
It's not that I physically can't go there. I can. It's not just that the specific house we live in is no longer there, although it's not. It's that the open space that was all around is no longer anything like open.
I expect that the situation for people who can't even get back to the physical location, and the culture that was there, is far worse. But I at least have a glimmer.
On “IANAL, but…”
At this point, the best hope for anyone with a small boat in the southern Caribbean is probably the short attention spans of the people in this administration. They'll likely move on to the next shiny thing soon. Especially since, after they first couple of outrageous instances, it will no longer be generating the media attention they crave.
At some point, with any luck at all, an administration which actually believes in the law may try to arrest and try those responsible. Not holding my breath, especially given the statute of limitations. But as I recall (IANAL either), there is no limitation on murder, so....
On “To H-1B or not to H-1B (or leopards eating multiple faces)”
From the Ministry of Truth link: "the Secretary of Labor will personally certify the initiation of investigations for the first time in the department’s history."
This could only seem like a good idea to someone who had never worked in an organization with more than a dozen people.
Governments, at least successful ones, all run bureaucracies. Big bureaucracies. Everybody loves to trash bureaucracy. But the reason that they are pervasive is that they are the best solution mankind has so far developed to manage large groups of people. And there are narrow limits on how much you can accomplish without involving large groups of people.
To put it bluntly, if the Secretary of Labor really is personally certifying the starting of every investigation then either 1) he doesn't have time left to do his actual job, or 2) there are only going to be a handful of (no doubt extravagantly publicized) investigations. Or, considering this administration, probably both.
On “An experimental first post”
lj, I rather doubt that there would be an amendment about tariffs. The Constitution already gives power over them exclusively to Congress. The problem we face is that we have an administr3which cares not at all about what the law or the Constitution says. Well, except when it is convenient to use as a cudgel. Otherwise, they just do as they please, confident that neither the Supreme Court nore the Congress will try to stop them -- nor could do so if they tried.
Just as we see with "Originalism", if you don't care what they explicit constraints on you are, and if nobody has the power (or perhaps the willingness) to stop you, then anything goes.
On “Precursors”
real St.Ronnie (as vile as many of his policies were) would be hunted out of the party these days as a RINO
Or, given half a chance, purge most of the "Christian nationalists" (and pretty much all of the Trumpys) from the party. The left has demonized Reagan so long** that it's easy to lose track of the fact that he actually cared about this country. And not just some delusional image of what it actually never was. Also, when some piece of ideology turned out to work in the real world, he would accept that reality and change. Something the current Republican Party is either unwilling or flat unable to do.
** Mind, I had little use for him. Not as President. Not when he was Governor here.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.