HATCH RETIREMENT COULD PUT MISSISSIPPI’S THAD COCHRAN THIRD IN THE LINE FOR THE PRESIDENCY

Thad Cochran barely knows where he is most days. Suffice it to say this would not be ideal.

Tequila Cowboy wrote:HATCH RETIREMENT COULD PUT MISSISSIPPI’S THAD COCHRAN THIRD IN THE LINE FOR THE PRESIDENCY

Thad Cochran barely knows where he is most days. Suffice it to say this would not be ideal.

And yet, it could be a vast improvement.

Tequila Cowboy wrote:HATCH RETIREMENT COULD PUT MISSISSIPPI’S THAD COCHRAN THIRD IN THE LINE FOR THE PRESIDENCY

Thad Cochran barely knows where he is most days. Suffice it to say this would not be ideal.

Yet somehow, universally seen as an improvement.

The names “Thad” and “Chad” need to be curbstomped

From press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders:

Statement from the President of the United States

Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating seventeen candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican party.

Now that he is on his own, Steve is learning that winning isn’t as easy as I make it look. Steve had very little to do with our historic victory, which was delivered by the forgotten men and women of this country. Yet Steve had everything to do with the loss of a Senate seat in Alabama held for more than thirty years by Republicans. Steve doesn’t represent my base—he’s only in it for himself.

Steve pretends to be at war with the media, which he calls the opposition party, yet he spent his time at the White House leaking false information to the media to make himself seem far more important than he was. It is the only thing he does well. Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books.

We have many great Republican members of Congress and candidates who are very supportive of the Make America Great Again agenda. Like me, they love the United States of America and are helping to finally take our country back and build it up, rather than simply seeking to burn it all down.

Bannon lost his mind, not the President, who is hosting an imaginary awards show for the journalists who have wronged him

I hope Trump caught Bannon's leprosy

Zip City wrote:Brannon lost his mind, not the President, who is hosting an imaginary awards show for the journalists who have wronged him

And the Covfefe goes to........

whatwouldcooleydo? wrote:

Zip City wrote:Brannon lost his mind, not the President, who is hosting an imaginary awards show for the journalists who have wronged him

And the Covfefe goes to........

CNN!

Aw, shit. Sorry for the spoiler, guys. My bad.

whatwouldcooleydo? wrote:I hope Trump caught Bannon's leprosy

This could go in the long-form journalism thread, I think, as could the rest of Daniel Engber's articles on the replication crisis in social science. (The tl;dr of that? A lot of those Freakonomics-type studies can't be replicated, and quite a few of them have been refuted.) But given the times we live in, I thought it best to put it here:

LOL Something Matters
We’ve been told that facts have lost their power, that debunking lies only makes them stronger, and that the internet divides us. Don’t believe any of it.

Daniel Engber wrote:But there’s a problem with these stories about the end of facts. In the past few years, social scientists armed with better research methods have been revisiting some classic work on the science of post-truth. Based on their results, the most surprising and important revelations from this research—the real lol-nothing-matters stuff—now seem overstated. It may be that the internet does not divide us, that facts don’t make us dumber than we were before, and that debunking doesn’t really lead to further bunk.

In fact, it may be time that we gave up on the truth-y notion that we’re living in a post-truth age. In fact, it may be time that we debunked the whole idea.

Interesting take...I as well think 2018 is going to be a son-of-a-bitch of a year. 2018 is the 50th Anniversary of 1968.


http://mehlmancastagnetti.com/wp-conten ... op-stories

Well, I don't open this thread anymore but I had to drop by here just to state the obvious. The Roy Moore accuser's house being burned down has got to be a future Truckers song.

As a self-proclaimed libertarian why avoid a political thread?

tinnitus photography wrote:As a self-proclaimed libertarian why avoid a political thread?

What does your political belief have to do with what you like to read about and discuss? I figure a self-proclaimed anything can decide that sort of thing for themselves.

tinnitus photography wrote:As a self-proclaimed libertarian why avoid a political thread?

Political fatigue?

John A Arkansawyer wrote:

tinnitus photography wrote:As a self-proclaimed libertarian why avoid a political thread?

What does your political belief have to do with what you like to read about and discuss? I figure a self-proclaimed anything can decide that sort of thing for themselves.

That's right.

Cole Younger wrote:
Political fatigue?

I'm suffering badly from that.

John A Arkansawyer wrote:

tinnitus photography wrote:As a self-proclaimed libertarian why avoid a political thread?

What does your political belief have to do with what you like to read about and discuss? I figure a self-proclaimed anything can decide that sort of thing for themselves.

yeah, that's true. i guess it would be nice to have some differing views in this predominantly left-leaning population.

tinnitus photography wrote:

John A Arkansawyer wrote:

tinnitus photography wrote:As a self-proclaimed libertarian why avoid a political thread?

What does your political belief have to do with what you like to read about and discuss? I figure a self-proclaimed anything can decide that sort of thing for themselves.

yeah, that's true. i guess it would be nice to have some differing views in this predominantly left-leaning population.

I’d welcome it....if it’s civil and reasoned. If someone comes in here and starts calling me a libtard cuck snowflake, I’ll chase them out before they can get going

tinnitus photography wrote:

John A Arkansawyer wrote:

tinnitus photography wrote:As a self-proclaimed libertarian why avoid a political thread?

What does your political belief have to do with what you like to read about and discuss? I figure a self-proclaimed anything can decide that sort of thing for themselves.

yeah, that's true. i guess it would be nice to have some differing views in this predominantly left-leaning population.

I'm that guy in another place or two, where I uphold a more traditional style of leftism, one that's first about class and money and power and all, and only secondarily about identity. Let me tell you, it sucks. There's a particular style to identitarian politics that is deeply toxic in ways those who express it would recognize, if it were aimed at the right targets.

So now that I've very slightly changed the subject (to me!), this fell into my view yesterday:

As part of my reading and thinking to help me prepare to write my Sunday address this week I went back to look at a couple of pieces written by Mark Fisher (1968-2017)...

Anyway, the piece that struck me as most powerfully relevant during this week's re-reading was something Fisher wrote for "The North Star" back in November 2013 called "Exiting the Vampire Castle".

It is a sustained reflection on how someone like me – and perhaps, if you regularly read this blog anyway, someone like you – might best be able to resist succumbing to the feeling that for our own well-being we need to disengage from politics entirely. Do please consider reading the whole piece (found at the link above and at the end of this post) but, to whet your appetite, here are Fisher's Five Laws of the Vampire's Castle . . .

If you were to click above and just read that short bit-with-excerpt, I think you'd get the bulk of the value. I had some quarrels with the longer piece it's yanked from, but it's worth reading if you like reading this sort of thing: Exiting the Vampire Castle. (And yeah, don't read the comments this time, either.)

And if you don't like reading that sort of thing, I don't blame you. This is the world I expected to live my twenties and thirties in, not my fifties and sixties. I'm too old for this shit.

whatwouldcooleydo? wrote:

Zip City wrote:Brannon lost his mind, not the President, who is hosting an imaginary awards show for the journalists who have wronged him

And the Covfefe goes to........

fuck! Now we have to wait until the 17th

I'm that guy in another place or two, where I uphold a more traditional style of leftism, one that's first about class and money and power and all, and only secondarily about identity. Let me tell you, it sucks. There's a particular style to identitarian politics that is deeply toxic in ways those who express it would recognize, if it were aimed at the right targets.

So now that I've very slightly changed the subject (to me!), this fell into my view yesterday:

Is it not possible that the left has kind of naturally evolved into its current state and that it has been headed in this direction for a long time, possibly the whole time? And that it's not going to go back?

Is it not also possible that traditional left leaning views which focus more on class and economics and less on human rights are really just a form of white guy identity politics? Though in my mind, typical left wing subjects such as class, economics and power, massively affect minorities, women, the LGBTQ community, etc. Maybe "traditional leftism" is considered by some to be out-dated because of its exclusionary nature and conventional power dynamic?

I also don't really understand why people have to approach it as a zero sum game either because it isn't one.

Anyway, I read the piece you linked to and found it to be convoluted, self-indulgent, self-serving, heavy handed and directionless, as well as containing more info on Russell Brand than I for one, would ever care to read. It also seemed to be entirely about the identity of its author, ironically, the basic premise being that those who do not buy what he's selling are monsters.

We all know that political discourse, or any debate really, is not for the faint of heart. I find it really helps to have a sense of humour and to know how to both win and concede gracefully. And when you describe people as being toxic, I think you are referring to those who when it's time for them to concede, have a hissy and then decide to call those who are not on their side names, the very worst of which include such indictments as racist, sexist, homophobic or privileged. It's a cheap tactic and the quickest way to ruin a good exchange. But we also need to keep in mind that times do arise during which one or more of those is the appropriate response, though we have to be very careful when we go there. We don't want those words to lose their meaning and nothing valuable comes from alienating and discouraging people who are actually trying.

As for vampires? I think go with crosses and garlic.

PonyGirl wrote:Is it not possible that the left has kind of naturally evolved into its current state and that it has been headed in this direction for a long time, possibly the whole time? And that it's not going to go back?

Yes. It's possible there is no left any more in any meaningful sense of the word, that people have given up on anything beyond capitalism and market-based society. I don't accept that, but it could be.

PonyGirl wrote:Maybe "traditional leftism" is considered by some to be out-dated because of its exclusionary nature and conventional power dynamic?

By traditional leftism do you mean theory (for convenience let's call it socialism) or practice (the structure and operation of organizations that advocate socialism or analyze and interpret events through a socialist lens) or both?

PonyGirl wrote:I also don't really understand why people have to approach it as a zero sum game either because it isn't one.

?

At least in the US, I believe that a major cultural shift towards viewing politics as a zero sum game is one of the largest factors explaining the current level of divisiveness, anger and paralysis.

PonyGirl wrote: convoluted, self-indulgent, self-serving, heavy handed and directionless

Re-posted to highlight and savor.

beantownbubba wrote:

PonyGirl wrote:I also don't really understand why people have to approach it as a zero sum game either because it isn't one.

?

At least in the US, I believe that a major cultural shift towards viewing politics as a zero sum game is one of the largest factors explaining the current level of divisiveness, anger and paralysis.

Some things truly are zero-sum games. If there are X number of good jobs, and .87X of them went to half the population because of discrimination, then getting to a level of reasonable parity means .37X of the people with those jobs because someone else got discriminated against have to lose their jobs at some point. If there are five nominees for the Golden Globes Best Director awards, then having some go to women means some men losing their nominations. People know better than to believe zero sum games aren't, and the bad faith from those who pretend otherwise--usually corporate HR people spreading happy horseshit--is apparent. Telling people honestly that resources are limited and discussing openly how to divvy them up is at the heart of honest politics.

That's why this particular little shibboleth grinds my gears so badly:

PonyGirl wrote:Is it not also possible that traditional left leaning views which focus more on class and economics and less on human rights are really just a form of white guy identity politics?

In other words, those white guys got what we all deserve, through a mixture of labor activism and a relatively privileged position. We are now defining that as pure privilege and denying that people deserve the good things in life. Instead, we criticize those damn white guys to pull them down with the rest of us. The fat rich fucks that run the world love it when we play crabs in a bucket.

This is what happens when you let a political agenda be set by the same people who do diversity trainings for major corporations: Corporatnu crushes Thisisyou.

John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Some things truly are zero-sum games. If there are X number of good jobs, and .87X of them went to half the population because of discrimination, then getting to a level of reasonable parity means .37X of the people with those jobs because someone else got discriminated against have to lose their jobs at some point. If there are five nominees for the Golden Globes Best Director awards, then having some go to women means some men losing their nominations. People know better than to believe zero sum games aren't, and the bad faith from those who pretend otherwise--usually corporate HR people spreading happy horseshit--is apparent. Telling people honestly that resources are limited and discussing openly how to divvy them up is at the heart of honest politics.

That's why this particular little shibboleth grinds my gears so badly:

PonyGirl wrote:Is it not also possible that traditional left leaning views which focus more on class and economics and less on human rights are really just a form of white guy identity politics?

In other words, those white guys got what we all deserve, through a mixture of labor activism and a relatively privileged position. We are now defining that as pure privilege and denying that people deserve the good things in life. Instead, we criticize those damn white guys to pull them down with the rest of us. The fat rich fucks that run the world love it when we play crabs in a bucket.

This is what happens when you let a political agenda be set by the same people who do diversity trainings for major corporations: Corporatnu crushes Thisisyou.

Yes some things are zero sum but I'll stick by the shift to a "zero sum mentality" being hugely detrimental to the body politic.

JohnA, I won't say your statements are mutually exclusive but there seems to be a fair amount of cognitive dissonance there: Some [and if I'm reading you right, implicitly many] things are zero sum and we need to recognize that and act accordingly, yet acting like white guys are the beneficiaries of pure privilege and tearing them down, i.e. acting like it's a zero sum game, is simply doing The Man's job for him.

beantownbubba wrote:JohnA, I won't say your statements are mutually exclusive but there seems to be a fair amount of cognitive dissonance there: Some [and if I'm reading you right, implicitly many] things are zero sum and we need to recognize that and act accordingly, yet acting like white guys are the beneficiaries of pure privilege and tearing them down, i.e. acting like it's a zero sum game, is simply doing The Man's job for him.

Pretty much, because white guys aren't "the beneficiaries of pure privilege". It's a mixture of privilege and hard-earned gains by labor. Rather than eliminating the privilege, or framing privilege as differential access to good things rather than simply good things, we aim at the gains of labor. Corporatnu feeds well on those intersected into insignificance.

John A Arkansawyer wrote: If there are X number of good jobs,

Big if, my friend.