Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I
The Kochs are about to dump half a billion into keeping the houses red.

I think that announcement had more to do with stemming the wave of departing Republicans than with a real commitment to fund. Let's see if it works.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You mean like suggesting white folks shouldn't give a shit about civil rights?

Yeah, that's the basic core value of white supremacy. That's what I meant.

No. I meant exactly the words I wrote. When you assume all members of a certain group should or must have the same views and grievances, you’re engaging in identity politics.

An example of this would be white males who think other white males should like what Trump is doing.

Another example would be someone thinking all Hispanics, Middle Easterners, or women should vote against Trump and be primarily focused on his past sex abuse or policies on immigration. This assumes these groups are monolithic, and that within them there aren’t divergent views.

Identity politics is not necessarily a terrible thing. The problem is, the groupings are too broad. You can’t say “All of X race feels this way” or “All of X sex feels this way,” etc. You have to break people down into much smaller groups. And even then, it misses many exceptions.

I understand we have no better measure for predicting votes. But when the broadest generalizations are treated as fact, and bitterly defended as truth (“No Hispanic may validly vote for Trump, and they will all vote against him based on immigration”) you’re letting a predictive tool become a moral totem. And that’s really divisive, and pretty dumb.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think that announcement had more to do with stemming the wave of departing Republicans than with a real commitment to fund. Let's see if it works.

Agreed. But a half a billion is a half a billion. And that’s just the Kochs’ machine.

There’s also that issue of a lot of people feeling a few extra bucks in their checks as withholding has been adjusted.

Ty is right that angry white folks like to talk about social issues. (If I have to listen to another old white codger bitch about the NFL knee thing...). But the people the Dems need to energize, outside the blue states, are the Democratic working class. My suspicion is, these people can be bought off enough to become apathetic, and a small bump in the paycheck, or an increase in their standard deduction that doesn’t make renting seem like such a shaft, might do the trick.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So through decades of burned couches I’ve never been ashamed of my college, until this Nassar horror. Still I think the attack on basketball and football unfair. Nothing was hidden with either. Any thoughts?

I think if it were basketball or football, there would be a lot more attempts to justify or make it seem not as bad or otherwise try to prevent from upsetting the status quo. (see: Penn State) I think that Nassar is probably the tip of the iceberg with regard to doctors/coaches/trainers abusing the hell out of the athletes under their care, and that universities and high schools and private clubs do everything they can to avoid looking too deeply into it because athletics are so profitable.

Also, many athletic programs, and gymnastics seems to have been really bad at this, foster a culture of making athletes afraid to complain or raise concerns because they risk being cut from the team if they do so. So athletes mask injuries or do things that they find risky or uncomfortable or exhausting without complaint in order to stay on the team and "follow their dream." I think this is environment is ripe for all sorts of abuse, and people like Nassar, especially after a few years of legitimacy, can thrive.

I also know that pretty much every educational institution in the country has spent at least the last three or four years working on developing more robust Title IX policies and then had the feds come down last year and rescind some of the protections and send everyone back to the drawing board. I imagine that Michigan State will be used as a case study going forward. For example, stop billing for services where sexual assault is alleged.

The rage is justified, and the inclination to burn it all down is understandable. I think that Michigan State will probably be ok in the end if they're not stupid and get their trustees to shut the fuck up. And I know that other institutions are looking at how to prevent something like this from happening.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Man, she really liked the Black Crowes, didn't she? She really did. A lot. She was all about talking the Crowes with us lawtalkers instead of talking law.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I think if it were basketball or football, there would be a lot more attempts to justify or make it seem not as bad or otherwise try to prevent from upsetting the status quo. (see: Penn State) I think that Nassar is probably the tip of the iceberg with regard to doctors/coaches/trainers abusing the hell out of the athletes under their care, and that universities and high schools and private clubs do everything they can to avoid looking too deeply into it because athletics are so profitable.

Also, many athletic programs, and gymnastics seems to have been really bad at this, foster a culture of making athletes afraid to complain or raise concerns because they risk being cut from the team if they do so. So athletes mask injuries or do things that they find risky or uncomfortable or exhausting without complaint in order to stay on the team and "follow their dream." I think this is environment is ripe for all sorts of abuse, and people like Nassar, especially after a few years of legitimacy, can thrive.

I also know that pretty much every educational institution in the country has spent at least the last three or four years working on developing more robust Title IX policies and then had the feds come down last year and rescind some of the protections and send everyone back to the drawing board. I imagine that Michigan State will be used as a case study going forward. For example, stop billing for services where sexual assault is alleged.

The rage is justified, and the inclination to burn it all down is understandable. I think that Michigan State will probably be ok in the end if they're not stupid and get their trustees to shut the fuck up. And I know that other institutions are looking at how to prevent something like this from happening.

Well Nassar is an ugly vile thing. But the football/basketball stuff was public, just didn't get traction 10 years ago.

The scariest thing about Nassar is that it wasn't just MSU, but also he did private consulting and the Olympic work and NONE of those turned him in.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I expected some babbling crap.

Which is what you got. There was zero substance on anything except immigration. "Make drugs prices lower" is not a policy proposal. "Make the VA better" is not a policy proposal. "Make it easier to fire federal workers" is, but it's a nonsense policy proposal.

If he does anything related to those issues, it will be to make things worse.

He pitched a generally positive vision last night, and just like Reagan, he never once explained how much added debt it would involve.

Aside from $1.5 trillion on infrastructure he didn't propose spending anything. That's one reason it was empty.

I'll give him credit, though, that on infrastructure it sounded like he was expecting actual federal spending and not only PPP fantasies.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Man, she really liked the Black Crowes, didn't she? She really did. A lot. She was all about talking the Crowes with us lawtalkers instead of talking law.

Here's the thing about Paigow, she had high standards. Like when I met her she insisted we meet at the bar in the Algonquin Hotel where the Round Table used to be.

Also, minor trivia, I was FB friends with her and her sister. While Paigow wears her crazy on her face the sister is actually crazier- semi wealthy suburban mom who actually nuts in a dark way.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Look, I turned the lying fucker off about 10 minutes in, but followed some of the commentary on twitter and saw a couple clips from when he got to immigration. That was dark, dark stuff.

One doesn't want to be too hard on victims' families, but that those people would sit there any let him use them like that was disappointing.

Had they not been there, though, I would have been in favor of the Dems walking out over the MS13 harangue.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Man, she really liked the Black Crowes, didn't she? She really did. A lot. She was all about talking the Crowes with us lawtalkers instead of talking law.

She did. A lot. But this made perfect sense. They fit right into her aesthetic sensibility, and say what you will about their recorded oeuvre, their live show was straight up rawk.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

the most condescending way possible

You do understand that that's Adder schtick, don't you?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You do understand that that's Adder schtick, don't you?

I do, which is part of what I think I was subconsciously responding to. Hey Sebastian, get off Adder's corner, ho.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You mean like suggesting white folks shouldn't give a shit about civil rights?

Yeah, that's the basic core value of white supremacy. That's what I meant.

In our country, being white means you don't have an ethnic identity, being male means you don't have a gender identity, and being straight means you don't have a preference identity. Engaging in politics when you have an identity is identity politics.

eta: I didn't watch the SOTU or the response, but this seems like good commentary. Not having watched Trump, people's reactions make it seem like he didn't say much of anything unusual and so everyone gets a chance to repeat their priors, and in a few days the speech will have been forgotten and we will move on to whatever is next.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

She did. A lot. But this made perfect sense. They fit right into her aesthetic sensibility, and say what you will about their recorded oeuvre, their live show was straight up rawk.

I think if I had the choice, I'd rather receive a wet willie rather than give one. I just don't want to stick my finger in anyone's ear.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Which is what you got. There was zero substance on anything except immigration. "Make drugs prices lower" is not a policy proposal. "Make the VA better" is not a policy proposal. "Make it easier to fire federal workers" is, but it's a nonsense policy proposal.

Agreed on drug prices.

Disagree on firing federal workers. Why shouldn't they be as fireable as everybody else? And what efficiency is gained by making that workforce (or any workforce, for that matter) immune to performance based culling? (Fed career service workers are already protected from political firing.)

Aside from $1.5 trillion on infrastructure he didn't propose spending anything. That's one reason it was empty.

It's $200 bil or so in direct cash, the rest is guarantees. It's like a giant infrastructure SBA.

He can't explain it because he didn't have the time, and nobody in the audience, including most of Congress, would understand it. Most of the public/private marketers use a 20 or so page booklet to explain how those things work.

Streamlining the permitting process is also a brilliant idea. The media is bullshitting about how this is all relaxing of environmental regs. It's actually focused on speeding up the permitting issues at the local and state levels. The feds are punctual. The municipalities and states move at the speed of molasses.

I'll give him credit, though, that on infrastructure it sounded like he was expecting actual federal spending and not only PPP fantasies.

Do yourself a favor. If you discuss this shit with someone who actually knows it, don't say, "But what about tolls?" or "They're selling highways to hedge funds!" Those are the questions from the cub reporter at the local newspaper. Don't be that guy.