This forum is for talking about non-music-related stuff that the DBT fanbase might be interested in. This is not the place for inside jokes and BS. Take that crap to some other board.
Because the simple fact is that TX just isn't that good at doing all the shit it brags about and insists upon doing its own way.
I'm telling you, you can't make this shit up. Gov. Abbott probably doesn't care because his actions are all performative, no substance (dare I say all hat, no cattle?), but his immigrant arrest initiative is quickly running up against reality. Just in the past 24 hours:
1. Despite TX's apparent victory in the Supreme Court, before the end of the day, the federal appeals court once again stopped enforcement of the TX law. This is legally and procedurally confusing at best, but bottom line, the law is still not in effect.
2. Mexico has said that it will not accept immigrants deported from the US by TX (it does take those deported by the federal government). What now, governor? You can't send them all to Martha's Vineyard. Ummm, can you?
3. A number of localities and police departments in TX have expressed reluctance to enforce the law should it go into effect both because of the demands it will put on already strained resources and because it may well interfere with police efforts to reach out to and build support among various constituencies.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
Not to argue about any of those smart takes, but the frustrating thing to me is that it's even a topic of discussion. Assume he never said it. Or assume he said it and what he said is best interpreted as some genius insight into business, the economy, politics and/or the state of the world. How can we still be talking about this man at all? How can he be a major party nominee for the presidency of the United States of America? Not only has he said and done dozens of things that would be immediately disqualifying for anybody else, we've actually already seen him in action for 4 years and nobody's better off than they were 4 years ago. That we are in this situation is not news to anyone but even so, it continues to baffle me.
The number of Trump Administration officials who have warned against electing this guy again is truly unprecedented in American history, up to and including the Vice President! While that story seems to be gaining a little traction, it's not getting anywhere near the attention it deserves. Why would anyone listen to, say, Sean Hannity or the non-endorsement endorsement from McConnell when a substantial portion of Trump's own Cabinet warns against electing him? Well, duh! Obviously because criticizing Trump self-defines those people as RINOs. What a horrible state of affairs when actual knowledge and substantive analysis is dismissed as fake news or propaganda while the-crazier-the-better conspiracy theories are welcomed with open arms and closed minds.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
Whether Congress ultimately approves a spending bill and whether that happens before or after the partial shutdown deadline, this is one fucking stupid way to run a government. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham and as always we the people are the losers. But hopefully Mike Johnson will also be a loser and we can move on to the next turkey on the "s/he can't be worse than the last one" theory.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
The thing about being in the middle of historic events is that it's really difficult if not downright impossible to see the forest for the trees. So, for example, i suspect that there aren't a lot of people who can confidently predict what's going to happen in Israel/Palestine. But we can see a little better on a smaller scale and we are witnessing something rare in American history: the implosion of one of the major political parties. Time to dust off those history books and remind ourselves who the Whigs were and what happened to them.
This is really extraordinary. If one accepts that rank and file congresspeople are relatively high in a party's hierarchy, it is astonishing how many high ranking Republicans are voting "no confidence" in their leadership and their party by leaving and not just leaving, but leaving in the middle of a term. At least in my lifetime there have never been numbers like this in either party and really not many retirements at all that weren't illness related. By their actions they are reducing on an almost weekly basis their party's majority to the point where it may literally disappear before the end of the congressional session which to my knowledge would be an absolutely unprecedented event. Talk about shooting one's self in the face!
Trump is stealing in plain sight the party's money, the infection that is the House is now starting to have more and more impact on the Senate, their majority is literally shrinking and possibly disappearing and there is no obvious scenario that leads to the party accomplishing anything between now and November. That presumably suits the anarchist wing, but taking another lesson from history, anarchists are not the best organizers and without organization and leadership there is no political party. *
*PS no party means no money. Whoops.
Here's one example of the chaos caused by anarchy: The "Freedom" Caucus has intentionally screwed up the functioning of government in important ways like holding up the passage of a budget in order to force changes it wants. But the net result of their actions is that there is a budget which reflects very few if any of their goals, and certainly not the biggest ones. This is not quite the law of unintended consequences because the likely consequences have been obvious to anyone paying attention, but OTOH these are not the consequences they intended.
How it all shakes out is anybody's guess (and my guess is that we end up with 3 or 4 diminished parties) but for right now it is fascinating to watch history unfold in front of our eyes (screens?).
But just behind the headlines, one word stands out: UKRAINE. Failing to fund Ukraine's defense is a blunder of unimaginable consequence and stupidity. History, if there is one, will not look kindly on those who are preventing that aid from being delivered, but even before history has a chance to weigh in, if the Putinists prevail we will be paying the consequences for the rest of our lives.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
So it turns out that earlier this month the US warned Russia of the likelihood of a terrorist attack on a concert hall or similar venue. Putin's response? As quoted by Jonathan V. Last in the Bulwark,
"TASS reported that Putin said on March 19* the aim of "the recent provocative statements of a number of official Western structures about the possibility of terrorist attacks in Russia" was harming Russian society.
"All this resembles outright blackmail and the intention to intimidate and destabilize our society," Putin said, state media covering his remarks reported."
*The attack occurred on March 22nd.
100+ deaths and who knows how many injuries later...
That being an apologist for or even supporter of Putin has become fashionable in certain disreputable circles is, well, extremely disreputable, but can we now stop pretending that there is any legitimacy to this nonsense?
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
Which part is the good news, which part is the bad?
Congress is in recess yet again, for an additional 2 weeks. I don't know if it's always been like this but since I started paying attention it amazes me how little these people actually work. But now I wonder, is it good or bad news that they're not at the Capitol creating all kinds of mayhem and chaos? It's bad that aid for Ukraine still hangs in the balance but if Congress were in session is it clear that the aid will be approved? I guess that in the end I come down on the side that says that if I even have to ask the question and can seriously wonder about the answer says all that needs to be said. We definitely live in interesting times.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
Which part is the good news, which part is the bad?
Congress is in recess yet again, for an additional 2 weeks. I don't know if it's always been like this but since I started paying attention it amazes me how little these people actually work. But now I wonder, is it good or bad news that they're not at the Capitol creating all kinds of mayhem and chaos? It's bad that aid for Ukraine still hangs in the balance but if Congress were in session is it clear that the aid will be approved? I guess that in the end I come down on the side that says that if I even have to ask the question and can seriously wonder about the answer says all that needs to be said. We definitely live in interesting times.
I am beginning to believe that the Jan 6 insurrectionists were right for all the wrong reasons.
The cost of some private colleges will now top $90,000/yr starting with the fall '24 semester. NINETY THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS PER YEAR FOR FOUR YEARS!! Yes, this was inevitable, but still...
Trump's public social media company started trading yesterday. It closed its first day of trading selling at about two thousand times projected annual revenues. Plus it's losing millions of dollars. It's not a question of if, only when this thing crashes and when it does I don't want to hear any whining from the swashbuckling capitalists out there who think Trump knows how to make money.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
"Voters’ frustration with the extremists who have captured the Republican Party appeared to be behind the results in today’s special election for a seat in the Alabama legislature. There, voters in a swing district elected a Democrat, who ran on protecting abortion access, to replace a Republican. In 2022 that Democrat, Marilyn Lands, won about 45% of the vote. Today she won almost 65% of it."
All I know about this election is what's in the paragraph above but it seems fairly amazing. The win is surprising enough, but 65%? Maybe it was just an anomalous off cycle "get out the vote" result or maybe it signals something important. I guess we'll find out in a few months.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
Based on the stories that pass by my screen, I think "we have to save Social Security" is going to be back on the public agenda soon if it's not already. And inevitably there will be calls to raise the retirement age. I think a careful raising of the retirement age (i.e. geared to those who statistically actually live longer and away from those who tend to die earlier) is probably a necessary part of any reform package but what we get is likely to reflect memes much more than careful policy analysis.
In any case, imho there is no raising the retirement age w/out actually doing something to attack and reduce age discrimination. The changes probably won't affect me, but i am more or less in the target group so FWIW, I wouldn't mind having to work a couple of years longer if appropriate employment opportunities were available, which they are not and are unlikely to be. This is already very frustrating, but age discrimination in employment combined w/ a higher retirement age is more like punishment than policy.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
Based on the stories that pass by my screen, I think "we have to save Social Security" is going to be back on the public agenda soon if it's not already. And inevitably there will be calls to raise the retirement age. I think a careful raising of the retirement age (i.e. geared to those who statistically actually live longer and away from those who tend to die earlier) is probably a necessary part of any reform package but what we get is likely to reflect memes much more than careful policy analysis.
In any case, imho there is no raising the retirement age w/out actually doing something to attack and reduce age discrimination. The changes probably won't affect me, but i am more or less in the target group so FWIW, I wouldn't mind having to work a couple of years longer if appropriate employment opportunities were available, which they are not and are unlikely to be. This is already very frustrating, but age discrimination in employment combined w/ a higher retirement age is more like punishment than policy.
I never approached the issue like this. To me, it is a no-brainer policy decision to raise it. Clearly, a very unpopular position from a political perspective, but seemingly necessary from a financial standpoint. The age discrimination angle certainly changes the lens through which I now view it. I was of the impression that 40 is the new thirty, fifty the new forty, etc., etc. is the prevailing view in 2024, but perhaps that loses significant steam as one approaches the big seven-zero.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
- DPM
I never approached the issue like this. To me, it is a no-brainer policy decision to raise it. Clearly, a very unpopular position from a political perspective, but seemingly necessary from a financial standpoint. The age discrimination angle certainly changes the lens through which I now view it. I was of the impression that 40 is the new thirty, fifty the new forty, etc., etc. is the prevailing view in 2024, but perhaps that loses significant steam as one approaches the big seven-zero.
I agree that raising the retirement age is a no brainer, with the important caveat that I think that any changes ought to recognize the very real demographic disparities based on class, geography, type of work, etc that affect longevity and financial stability.
Interesting point about "X being the new Y." No doubt you're correct about the general idea and societal norms in pop culture, dating, fashion and so forth but based on arguably too few data points I'd still argue that those changes have not filtered into the employment sphere. And by data points I mean my personal experiences and those of my friends, colleagues and peers. I admit that my personal experiences mostly occurred in my 50's which is a while ago but also not all that long ago and at that time there was no question that older employees would not receive serious consideration from most white collar, professional employers. Except for the extremely odd case of the presidency (!) I have no doubt that it's still true at the older ages we're talking about when we talk about raising the retirement age. Whether it's still true of people in their 40's and 50's is an interesting question I haven't revisited since my own experiences and I'd love to hear what "younger old people" think is the current state of things.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
I never approached the issue like this. To me, it is a no-brainer policy decision to raise it. Clearly, a very unpopular position from a political perspective, but seemingly necessary from a financial standpoint. The age discrimination angle certainly changes the lens through which I now view it. I was of the impression that 40 is the new thirty, fifty the new forty, etc., etc. is the prevailing view in 2024, but perhaps that loses significant steam as one approaches the big seven-zero.
I agree that raising the retirement age is a no brainer, with the important caveat that I think that any changes ought to recognize the very real demographic disparities based on class, geography, type of work, etc that affect longevity and financial stability.
Practically, I tend to agree with these statements, but until we begin to close the massive wealth disparity, I would prefer to refuse any cuts to social programs. Wealth is concentrated (and kept) in the hands of a few, forcing the masses to continue to receive fewer and fewer social benefits. Happiness in our country is rapidly declining and being told, "fuck you, work harder for longer" isn't going to help.
I never approached the issue like this. To me, it is a no-brainer policy decision to raise it. Clearly, a very unpopular position from a political perspective, but seemingly necessary from a financial standpoint. The age discrimination angle certainly changes the lens through which I now view it. I was of the impression that 40 is the new thirty, fifty the new forty, etc., etc. is the prevailing view in 2024, but perhaps that loses significant steam as one approaches the big seven-zero.
I agree that raising the retirement age is a no brainer, with the important caveat that I think that any changes ought to recognize the very real demographic disparities based on class, geography, type of work, etc that affect longevity and financial stability.
Practically, I tend to agree with these statements, but until we begin to close the massive wealth disparity, I would prefer to refuse any cuts to social programs. Wealth is concentrated (and kept) in the hands of a few, forcing the masses to continue to receive fewer and fewer social benefits. Happiness in our country is rapidly declining and being told, "fuck you, work harder for longer" isn't going to help.
No shit. Raise the retirement age? Fuck that. Raise taxes. The answer is right there but let's work poor old people even further into the ground. This country is so fucked that this is the "I'm a very smart person" take. I'm going to be 40 in a couple months and my goal is to retire at 50. My dad died at 62. I'll be fucking goddamned if I'm going to work til I die. We are the richest country in the history of the world and unconscionably broken. We should be doing things like looking at shortening the work week, establishing more paid leave, and actually building a social safety net, not forcing people to work. If someone wants to work longer, have at it.
Wound up bleeding on the bar floor
We don't bet on the ball no more
Trump's public social media company started trading yesterday. It closed its first day of trading selling at about two thousand times projected annual revenues. Plus it's losing millions of dollars. It's not a question of if, only when this thing crashes and when it does I don't want to hear any whining from the swashbuckling capitalists out there who think Trump knows how to make money.
I give it 48 hours max before the first securities law class actions lawsuit is filed against the company. i don't follow the company at all and have not even read its public offering prospectus, but from where i'm sitting that company is nothing but a walking, talking securities law violation.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
Jonathan V. Last has an interesting column in today's Bulwark. He asks whether Trump is, in quantum physics terms, a particle or a wave, i.e. a symptom or a cause of the threats to the Republic associated with him, and concludes that he's both, which is imho the easy and correct answer. In the course of speculating about if and how the country might survive Trump once he finally leaves the stage he provides reasons why the country might emerge relatively healthy or more troubled Among the reasons supporting the latter result he observes,
"Maybe once we see that all this democracy stuff is transacted on the honor system, it can’t be unseen."
That is exactly, precisely 100% correct. A few years ago I was shocked to realize just how fragile and non-substantive the "guardrails of democracy" are and that fragility remains the biggest threat going forward Trump or no Trump. It turns out that democracy as practiced in this country depends a whole lot on the voluntary, honorable actions of a whole lot of people who believe in the system, its norms and its highest goals and values. There are any number of bad actors independent of Trump and Trumpists, domestic and foreign, observing and taking notes on those vulnerabilities and they will not forget them so quickly even if "the Trump era" itself ends with a whimper.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
Trump's public social media company started trading yesterday. It closed its first day of trading selling at about two thousand times projected annual revenues. Plus it's losing millions of dollars. It's not a question of if, only when this thing crashes and when it does I don't want to hear any whining from the swashbuckling capitalists out there who think Trump knows how to make money.
I give it 48 hours max before the first securities law class actions lawsuit is filed against the company. i don't follow the company at all and have not even read its public offering prospectus, but from where i'm sitting that company is nothing but a walking, talking securities law violation.
Looks like a classic overvaluation of a tech company, coupled with a public 'meme stock' buy. Likely driven by non-institutional investors buying to support their "cause". See:Gamestop.
The problem is, DJT now sits at at $6B+ valuation with revenues at around $5m. 1000x valuation, when 'hot' tech stocks are trading at about a 10x multiple. It isn't sustainable unless the public continues to buy shares. They are already on the decline, so the drop could be pretty quick.
Trump and the remainder of the execs and the board will have a lockup agreement of at least six months - meaning they can't sell at all until that period of time has passed. The stock will very likely continue to drop and a lot of dumb people will lose a lot of dumb money.
There isn't really a good potential revenue model here - low advertising, small(ish) user base, no real subscription model.
While I'd never defend Orangeman's business acumen or integrity, I'm doubtful of any funny business going on. It will drop, and he owns a whole lot of the company, so when he is allowed to sell, he will be in a pickle to get much money out - he sells, the stock drops further. Then the real bitch of an IPO comes into play...quarterly earnings reports and SEC fillings. The over valuation will get exposed pretty quickly.
I do not understand this business of the bond Trump posted in the NY fraud case. According to reports and filings by the NY Attorney General, the bonding company is not licensed in NY, the bonding company does not meet the liquidity requirements to be a licensed bonding company in NY and the terms of the bond do not meet the legal requirements. Maybe all of this is true, maybe it's not (although given Trump's track record I think one has to give the benefit of the doubt to the bond is invalid side). But they're going to hold a hearing on these issues in 2 weeks. Huh?
This bizarre twilight zone of maybe it is/maybe it isn't reminds me in different ways of the Obama birther controversy and the recent kerfuffle over whether the 14th Amendment bars Trump from running for president. Aren't there procedures in place to determine the validity of a bond before it is given effect? Could I just walk up to the court clerk's office with a piece of paper saying my bond is being posted by the corner convenience store and have no consequences attach for several weeks while the court determines whether the bond is adequate? This makes no sense to me.
In the meantime, chaos, uncertainty and the absence of consequences continue to define our trumpian political moment.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
In these times of the generally accepted reality that we as a society are unable to come to consensus agreement on just about anything, there was almost unanimous agreement back in 2022/23 that the Republican failure in the '22 elections was down primarily to abortion politics (i.e. the Dobbs decision and the blame/credit Republicans took for it). I mean Republicans, all kinds of Republicans, KNEW this. They acknowledged this. They talked about the need to figure a way around it for 2024.
And yet they keep shooting themselves in the gonads on abortion related matters. In addition to all the state level battles, most of which Republicans have lost even in states like Kansas, we now have the Alabama IVF decision quickly followed by the Arizona ban on abortion decision. I would say, "what are they thinking?" if i thought they were thinking at all. How can they continue down this path, which finds them limited to trying to say that they disagree with these decisions without saying they disagree with these decisions (or without explaining why the decisions are not actually consistent with everything they've been saying about abortion for decades)?
I understand that all these various moving parts are not centrally coordinated but one would think that obvious self-interest would be obvious. From my perspective the short-term pain for some people (i.e. residents of the relevant states) is worth the long-term gain that I expect to result from the effect of these decisions on the upcoming elections. But I still wonder how they can be doing this to themselves so consistently.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
The pathetic human being known as JD Vance just wrote a (not surprisingly) pathetic defense of the no aid to Ukraine position in the Washington Post. Unfortunately the comments section was closed by the time I got around to it. It's not like I think that JD or even any of his staff will read or care about what I have to say but sometimes it's good to be able to let off steam in a way that at least theoretically is directed to the writer of the offending piece.
If I didn't know JD was a lawyer I could guess just from the structure of his post. There is an old lawyer's maxim that if you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you don't have the law but have the facts on your side, argue the facts. And if you don't have either the law or the facts, baffle 'em with bullshit*, which is just what JD tries to do. He tries to baffle, dazzle and distract us by bombarding us with irrelevant statistics without once addressing the strategic issues presented by Russia's invasion of Ukraine or the strategic costs of not helping Ukraine nor does he propose anything that could be labeled a solution (unless you consider letting Ukraine be crushed a solution).
It is hard to understand how WWII and the post-war world didn't put an end to isolationism once and for all, yet here we are yet again. Feh.
* Given OJ Simpson's recent reemergence in the headlines it may be timely to point out that Johnny Cochrane was a master at this.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
The pathetic human being known as JD Vance just wrote a (not surprisingly) pathetic defense of the no aid to Ukraine position in the Washington Post. Unfortunately the comments section was closed by the time I got around to it. It's not like I think that JD or even any of his staff will read or care about what I have to say but sometimes it's good to be able to let off steam in a way that at least theoretically is directed to the writer of the offending piece.
If I didn't know JD was a lawyer I could guess just from the structure of his post. There is an old lawyer's maxim that if you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you don't have the law but have the facts on your side, argue the facts. And if you don't have either the law or the facts, baffle 'em with bullshit*, which is just what JD tries to do. He tries to baffle, dazzle and distract us by bombarding us with irrelevant statistics without once addressing the strategic issues presented by Russia's invasion of Ukraine or the strategic costs of not helping Ukraine nor does he propose anything that could be labeled a solution (unless you consider letting Ukraine be crushed a solution).
It is hard to understand how WWII and the post-war world didn't put an end to isolationism once and for all, yet here we are yet again. Feh.
* Given OJ Simpson's recent reemergence in the headlines it may be timely to point out that Johnny Cochrane was a master at this.
Read that and glad it was published. Totally baffling. He strategy is basically, “it could be hard so…give up”.
Glad this asshole wasn’t around 70 or so years ago or we’d all be speaking German.
Always remember that these assholes fly the “PATRIOT” flag at all times.
The WaPo reported today that "It’s budget week on Capitol Hill, with many cabinet officials and agency heads set to testify before the House and Senate appropriations committees about the fiscal year 2025 budget..."
The article failed to mention that there is still no budget for 2024 which would seem to create both practical and strategic difficulties for the 2025 budgeting process, to say nothing of the irony of it all, but what do I know?
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
The WaPo reported today that "It’s budget week on Capitol Hill, with many cabinet officials and agency heads set to testify before the House and Senate appropriations committees about the fiscal year 2025 budget..."
The article failed to mention that there is still no budget for 2024 which would seem to create both practical and strategic difficulties for the 2025 budgeting process, to say nothing of the irony of it all, but what do I know?
Well, they have to impeach something too. Something. Anything!
Is it really possible for 12 (or really 18) sentient American citizens to be able to judge Trump objectively? If not, what does that say about whatever they're telling the court and about the legitimacy of the ultimate outcome (however it's decided). If so, are those people really a jury of anyone's peers? Are they really capable of performing the function of jurors? Or put another way, how can anyone alive be objective about Trump?
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
Yes, this was inevitable, but still...
