Objectively intelligent.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Fell today while running in DC. Hurt shoulder and knee and likely broke bones in my palm and cracked a rib. Tomorrow I will run again, as the pain is in my brain only, fuck pain.

The thing I couldn’t ignore is I cracked my iPhone glass, and it was unworkable. Without it I’m fucked as my firm has a dual authentication app for me to access email on my computer.

Went to a mobile phone repair where I got THE LAST replacement glass they had. The industry is running short due to the virus. I’m familiar with an industry that is defense critical. Its manufacturing is in the states. I’ve always wondered how we could let all electronics manufacturing be in China. I was thinking about a war or other crisis, but a little old bug from people eating bats or something might mean I can’t read my email if I fall again?

(pushes Hank)

[Replaced_Texan]

I stumbled on this on Twitter.

THIS is what makes my head spin: The president is not a moral figure in any idiom, any land, any culture, any subculture. I’m not talking about the liberal enlightenment that would make him want the country to take care of the poor and sick. I mean he has no Republican values either. He has no honor among thieves, no cosa nostra loyalty, no Southern code against cheating or lying, none of the openness of New York, rectitude of Boston, expressiveness and kindness of California, no evangelical family values, no Protestant work ethic. No Catholic moral seriousness, no sense of contrition or gratitude. No Jewish moral and intellectual precision, sense of history. He doesn’t care about the life of the mind OR the life of the senses. He is not mandarin, not committed to inquiry or justice, not hospitable. He is not proper. He is not a bon vivant who loves to eat, drink, laugh. There’s nothing he would die for — not American values, obviously, but not the land of Russia or his wife or young son. He has some hollow success creeds from Norman Vincent Peale, but Peale was obsessed with fair-dealing and a Presbyterian pastor; Trump has no fairness or piety. He’s not sentimental; no affection for dogs or babies. No love for mothers, “the common man,” veterans. He has no sense of military valor, and is openly a coward about war. He would have sorely lacked the pagan beauty and capacity to fight required in ancient Greece. He doesn’t care about his wife or wives; he is a philanderer but he’s not a romantic hero with great love for women and sex. He commands loyalty and labor from his children not because he loves them, even; he seems almost to hate them — and if one of them slipped it would be terrifying. He does no philanthropy. He doesn’t — in a more secular key — even seem to have a sense of his enlightened self-interest enough to shake Angela Merkel’s hand. Doesn’t even affect a love for the arts, like most rich New Yorkers. He doesn’t live and die by aesthetics and health practices like some fascists; he’s very ugly and barely mammalian. Am I missing an obscure moral system to which he so much as nods? Also are there other people, living or dead, like him?

Fine writing, I think. I'm similarly perplexed.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I stumbled on this on Twitter.



Fine writing, I think. I'm similarly perplexed.

Insightful. But I think Trump is a bit better than that. Yes, I just said that I think he has some "qualities"?

I'll explain... Trump comes from country club land. He loves those places. Those places are packed with middle class to affluent folks who don't care about much. They aren't bad people generally, or good people generally. Most of them are just looking at life as a consumption game. You work, you accrue things, you make enough to take afternoons off and hit a ball around a huge expanse of grass.

They don't think about the considerations raised in that critique of Trump. The Big Questions are of no interest to these people.

And most of the rest of the country isn't terribly exercised about those concerns, either. People are largely fixated on their own thing. If we'd a booming economy that delivered for all as opposed to the top 10-20%, you'd see even less civic engagement. Recall the internet boom years under Clinton? Nobody cared about anything but money.

Trump is vacant, and defined by his vacancies, as that writing notes. But in one odd regard, he is not vacant. He has decided to jump into the fray of politics and, intentionally or not, become a change catalyst. Say what you will of him, he actually tries to keep the promises he makes (unless it really harms his self interest).

He's selfish, but perhaps out of egomania, he's at least engaged with society. That is bad in a number of regards, but it's also more than most of the apathetic and exclusively narrowly-thinking people like him would do. Most would simply hit that ball around the grass and watch their portfolios on their cell phones.

And so yes, I am saying a lot of Americans, and an exceedingly large number of the top 20%, are actually more vacant than Trump.

If you gave what I wrote right here to them they'd say it was deeply uncool and even self defeating (because it would make one unhappy or cause one to think about a complex problem beyond the scope of any one person's abilities) to consider such things. And one certainly should never discuss such things aloud.

I know this because I've lived my life in that thin band of people, as many of you have, and we can recognize them, can't we? They're the rule, and those who care and think about these complex issues thoughtfully are the exception. Trump decided to do something. As much out of self interest as anything else, but he did decide to do something. In this regard, he deserves a bit of a defense.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I stumbled on this on Twitter.



Fine writing, I think. I'm similarly perplexed.

Yup. Nailed it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

This is a good piece: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...bernie/606688/

"Democratic insiders tend to be institutionalists. They are more likely than ordinary voters to care about the fact that Sanders hasn’t always been a registered Democrat, that he often criticizes party officials, and that he didn’t do more to help Clinton in 2016. Masket told me that many of the party bigwigs he interviewed resented Sanders for “being a spoiler for 2016” by supposedly undermining Clinton, and for “sticking his finger in the eye of the Democratic establishment.”

The other reason Democratic insiders disproportionately oppose Sanders is that party elites and the journalists with whom they interact tend to distrust radicals of any stripe. “A quarter-century covering national politics has convinced me that the more pervasive force shaping coverage of Washington and elections is what might be thought of as centrist bias, flowing from reporters and sources alike,” the former Politico editor John Harris recently observed."

Democrats seem to developing a wing of the party that is markedly conservative about institutional preservation. They decry anything they see as violating norms. Granted, in regard to Trump, they have good reason - he may be violating norms in a way that emboldens future presidents to act like autocrats.

But there's also a reverence for institutions, and it's built on some stale thinking that'd fit right at home in National Review. Old school conservatism sought to "stand athwart" change, to keep things as they were, with only the smallest of incremental change from year to year.

When Democrats go nuts over Trump fooling around with the Justice Department, or thumbing his nose at Congressional oversight, they're doing something similar. They're asserting that the institutions are doing things the right way, and any challenge to that is invalid and dangerous. But at the same time, they'll acknowledge that our justice system is deeply fucked up and desperately in need of an overhaul. And everyone admits the current gridlock in government has rendered it dysfunctional.

These things don't change unless some radical shakeup occurs. Trump seems to be providing that shakeup. Instead of taking the conservative position that our justice system is properly running and should be protected, might the better response to Trump's efforts to delegitimize it be, "Yes, our justice system needs to be totally rebooted, but not the way Trump would reboot it... Here are ways we can strip it down to the studs and start all over, and it begins with less incarceration and less prosecutions of non-violent crime." Instead of sanctifying Congress, a group of people half comprised of craven political idiots, and crying that it's a victim of Executive bullying, might the better response be, "Enough with the endless politics. Congress, act like fucking adults. No more Benghazis, no more silly votes to repeal ACA, and no more purely political hearings where you waste time grandstanding. Shut up and work with the other two branches to get something done."

I think Trump might be a lost opportunity. He's taking a wrecking ball to things that need some significant repair. Instead of protecting these fucked up institutions, we should all agree they need to ripped apart and rebuilt. Just in a different way than he wants to rebuild them.

Let him disrupt and then swoop in and do the rebuilding. Lord knows he won't do it. It's hard work, and it requires discipline and foresight. And he can't build anything.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is a good piece: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...bernie/606688/

"Democratic insiders tend to be institutionalists. They are more likely than ordinary voters to care about the fact that Sanders hasn’t always been a registered Democrat, that he often criticizes party officials, and that he didn’t do more to help Clinton in 2016. Masket told me that many of the party bigwigs he interviewed resented Sanders for “being a spoiler for 2016” by supposedly undermining Clinton, and for “sticking his finger in the eye of the Democratic establishment.”

The other reason Democratic insiders disproportionately oppose Sanders is that party elites and the journalists with whom they interact tend to distrust radicals of any stripe. “A quarter-century covering national politics has convinced me that the more pervasive force shaping coverage of Washington and elections is what might be thought of as centrist bias, flowing from reporters and sources alike,” the former Politico editor John Harris recently observed."

Democrats seem to developing a wing of the party that is markedly conservative about institutional preservation. They decry anything they see as violating norms. Granted, in regard to Trump, they have good reason - he may be violating norms in a way that emboldens future presidents to act like autocrats.

But there's also a reverence for institutions, and it's built on some stale thinking that'd fit right at home in National Review. Old school conservatism sought to "stand athwart" change, to keep things as they were, with only the smallest of incremental change from year to year.

When Democrats go nuts over Trump fooling around with the Justice Department, or thumbing his nose at Congressional oversight, they're doing something similar. They're asserting that the institutions are doing things the right way, and any challenge to that is invalid and dangerous. But at the same time, they'll acknowledge that our justice system is deeply fucked up and desperately in need of an overhaul. And everyone admits the current gridlock in government has rendered it dysfunctional.

These things don't change unless some radical shakeup occurs. Trump seems to be providing that shakeup. Instead of taking the conservative position that our justice system is properly running and should be protected, might the better response to Trump's efforts to delegitimize it be, "Yes, our justice system needs to be totally rebooted, but not the way Trump would reboot it... Here are ways we can strip it down to the studs and start all over, and it begins with less incarceration and less prosecutions of non-violent crime." Instead of sanctifying Congress, a group of people half comprised of craven political idiots, and crying that it's a victim of Executive bullying, might the better response be, "Enough with the endless politics. Congress, act like fucking adults. No more Benghazis, no more silly votes to repeal ACA, and no more purely political hearings where you waste time grandstanding. Shut up and work with the other two branches to get something done."

I think Trump might be a lost opportunity. He's taking a wrecking ball to things that need some significant repair. Instead of protecting these fucked up institutions, we should all agree they need to ripped apart and rebuilt. Just in a different way than he wants to rebuild them.

Let him disrupt and then swoop in and do the rebuilding. Lord knows he won't do it. It's hard work, and it requires discipline and foresight. And he can't build anything.

You don't actually know a lot of Democrats, do you?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You don't actually know a lot of Democrats, do you?

The wife read about a TV show the Bern did when he was Mayor or, I guess Burlington? It is available. We watched a lot of it. He interviewed citizens, including kids. He was right out of his mind. I feel quite strongly that whoever runs against Trump needs to be mentally quick and capable of dispatching his nonsense. Our insane v. their issane is no choice.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You don't actually know a lot of Democrats, do you?

As I noted, most of the people I know socially don't really care much about politics. They hit balls around big expanses of grass and talk about kids' lacrosse practice and their sun room renovation.

They don't seem to like or be terribly annoyed by or even much interested in any of what's going on in politics. If you ask them, they'll say they don't care for Trump's behavior, but their solution is to avoid being exposed to it by ignoring it.

They seem to live a consumerist version of Leary's suggestion: Turned on (to what interests them), tuned in (to their narrow circle or class), and dropped out (of all civic engagement).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The wife read about a TV show the Bern did when he was Mayor or, I guess Burlington? It is available. We watched a lot of it. He interviewed citizens, including kids. He was right out of his mind. I feel quite strongly that whoever runs against Trump needs to be mentally quick and capable of dispatching his nonsense. Our insane v. their issane is no choice.

Bernie and Warren are the only two out there who can withstand Trump. Bernie's blunt and he gets straight to the point. His economy with words and the brashness of delivery is perfect to counter Trump. As is Warren's surgical form of attack. She bit into Bloomberg last night and didn't give him a moment to catch his breath before topping her previous insult. He went from would-be President to Liz's pinata in less than a minute of exposure to her.

Klobuchar can't tackle Trump. She's got a perfect profile, appealing to all the right voters, but that fake smile and reluctance to attack for apparent fear of seeming unlikable (because she is actually unlikable in person and is worried she appears unlikable on stage) makes her appear another Hillary. Overthought.

Pete's going to get killed by Trump. Five minutes of Trump hammering him on what McKinsey does, and how that's "elitist" job elimination, and how he's "Corporate Pete," and he's done.

Biden could win a debate with Trump by hammering Trump on how indecent Trump is and how debased the Presidency has been since his election. But he's going to have to handle an onslaught about Hunter and his brother's govt contracting profits. This neutralizes the decency card/moral pedestal for Biden.

Bernie's the only guy on the stage who can call Trump a lunatic and liar in a short soundbite that will resonate. And Trump cannot call Bernie a liar in reply. Bernie may be crazy and unrealistic, but Bernie never comes off as anything but authentic. That's his special sauce. He's the rare politician who's exactly what he says he is. Warren is close to that, but she's been caught bullshitting on a few minor things.

Bernie only sounds crazy because bullshit has become so normalized in politics that somebody saying things everyone knows are true but most politicians will never say (because they'd alienate donors) sounds crazy.

Here's Bernie's core message: Domestic labor is getting fucked under neoliberal economic policies supported almost to the exact same extent by both parties.

That's irrefutable. That's resonating. That's what got Trump elected. If that sounds crazy or dangerous it's only because to say that invites a conversation on how to fix that which a lot of people really Do Not Want to Have. The conversation they'd rather have - in both parties - is how we might assuage the pain of that fucking for the lower classes (moar safety nets!) just enough to keep things stable, and keep that status quo that delivers for us humming along, as unchanged as possible.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Your acquaintance is cherry picking a few sentences at the end of the first Stone memo and emphasizing their importance over the pages and pages of arguments for a maximum sentence preceding them. He’s also stretching to find evenhandedness, mercy even, in his characterization of words which offer neither of those things.

My friend was a supervisor in the USAO for the DDC, which is the office that brought that prosecution. If one of the two of you is misreading that document, it is is you. Thanks for playing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

My friend was a supervisor in the USAO for the DDC, which is the office that brought that prosecution. If one of the two of you is misreading that document, it is is you. Thanks for playing.

I didn’t say the author was misreading it. I said he was characterizing it to make the prosecutors look evenhanded.

As you note, there’s a bit of bias here.

You may pat yourself on the back when it’s due. Here, you’re close, but shy. The article’s linkage of the behavior with the Sessions memo is great. But “cherry picking” isn’t misreading.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I stumbled on this on Twitter.



Fine writing, I think. I'm similarly perplexed.

He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which endeared him to 40 million fundamentalists because it is a step towards armageddon and the end days.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which endeared him to 40 million fundamentalists because it is a step towards armageddon and the end days.

If. As a rational person, you think that cannot be true, LessinSF is full of shit, trolling. Then, you dont know anything. The book series mentioned in this article - Left Behind - has topped the best seller lists. Sold over 80 million PRINT copies. You are surrounded by ignorant idiots who you dont see and dont understand.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Judge Berman Jackson during the Stone sentencing:

“He was not prosecuted, as some have claimed, for standing up for the president," she said. "He was prosecuted for covering up for the president."

Okay, so to say this, there must have been something to cover up (no underlying act that needed to be covered up, no cover-up). And Trump was not found to have engaged in anything that needed to be covered-up.

So how is this not demonstration of bias?

I'm not an appellate lawyer, particularly regarding sentencing issues, but I've filed a few here and there and even won a couple. It seems to me that a judge assuming there was something to cover-up has a bit of bias in favor of the proposition Trump was engaged in something Stone covered up. Okay. What was it? Oh, that's right... we don't know. So then how can anyone, including Judge Berman, know that there was something to cover up?

She goofed in stating her point the way she did. I think what she really meant to say was "You were running interference for the President, muddying the waters to make it more difficult to find out if there was something to cover-up."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

If. As a rational person, you think that cannot be true, LessinSF is full of shit, trolling. Then, you dont know anything. The book series mentioned in this article - Left Behind - has topped the best seller lists. Sold over 80 million PRINT copies. You are surrounded by ignorant idiots who you dont see and dont understand.

The Rapture has good and bad elements. The good? Everyone in Heaven is nude. The bad? Everyone in Heaven is nude.