LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 94
0 members and 94 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-21-2020, 12:36 PM   #3826
Icky Thump
Registered User
 
Icky Thump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,122
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump View Post
>>This is hilariously bad.
But wait, there's more:

>>I’ve had law students that I’ve given a D to in constitutional law that would do a better job in court than Rudy Giuliani,” Mr. Levitt said. “This would all be very funny if it wasn’t so serious.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/u...gtype=Homepage
__________________
You can breathe, you can blink, you can cry. Hell, you're all gonna be doing that!
Icky Thump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2020, 05:55 PM   #3827
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 85,423
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump View Post
But wait, there's more:

>>I’ve had law students that I’ve given a D to in constitutional law that would do a better job in court than Rudy Giuliani,” Mr. Levitt said. “This would all be very funny if it wasn’t so serious.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/u...gtype=Homepage
I believe Ty did get a D (exceeding his average) in Con Law, and I agree he could do better.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2020, 07:17 PM   #3828
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 85,423
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
I believe Ty did get a D (exceeding his average) in Con Law, and I agree he could do better.
That is he could do better than Rudy.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2020, 10:04 PM   #3829
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,324
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
That is he could do better than Rudy.
Thanks for having my back, brother.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2020, 12:18 AM   #3830
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,517
Re: Objectively intelligent.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/202...eep-your-wits/
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2020, 04:29 AM   #3831
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 85,423
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Thanks for having my back, brother.
De nada!
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2020, 01:32 PM   #3832
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,324
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Maybe if the NYT sends some more reporters to diners to talk to Trump voters -- then we'll understand.

eta:




link
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar

Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 11-23-2020 at 02:20 PM..
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2020, 04:59 PM   #3833
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,517
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Maybe if the NYT sends some more reporters to diners to talk to Trump voters -- then we'll understand.

eta:




link
There's definitely a good bit of that among the lower class populist GOP folks. At the higher tiers, that fades away. And given the Latino GOP vote, sentiment of GOP voters generally is clearly not "white vs. everyone else," as Ayres seems to suggest.

Among GOP business owners and professionals, at least as far as I've seen, there's definitely a sentiment that the Democratic Party caters to people who never took chances, who never took a stab at business. It's the party of teachers' unions, people who work for the govt. You hear this statement a lot: "Democrats care more because they need govt more." (That's not generally true, of course, as these same GOP business owners are happy to feast on govt money via contracts with municipal, state, and fed agencies and entities.)

Hear in the State With No Personality, a common refrain from GOP leaders is that the Democrats are talentless cronyists. And here it's true. This state is quite corrupt and nepotistic, and the old Democratic Party machines remain powerful. There are loads of families who for a couple generations have worked in govt and found ways to get their extended relatives hired into all sorts of positions. (These people are actually contributing to systemic racism in govt by keeping out a lot of better qualified candidates.)

I think Ayres is right that the grubby and sweaty populist GOP is xenophobic. But that only explains part of the effort at voter suppression. A lot of the moderate GOP would welcome minorities. They resent the classes who can't be measured by metrics and are protected, most of whom here are white - the public sector union folk, the bureaucrats who attempt to regulate them (I say attempt because muni and state regulators here are often crooked, or hopelessly incompetent and more irritating than scary, or both).*

Ayres is right that the Democrats are perceived to be the party that gives things to the undeserving. But the different groups within the GOP define undeserving very differently. A lot of the moderate old school GOP views Trump Nation as undeserving. But they're happy to have those useful idiots.

ETA: YMMV. This state has the second biggest legislature behind CA, to cover a fraction of the population. So the perception of govt as a cash trough for losers is more likely to be ubiquitous here than many other places.

ETA2: * More political than overtly crooked. Like, take our Courts. The Superior is run by the GOP. And it delivers for business interests quite predictably. The Supreme is run by the Democrats, and it rules strictly in accordance with the desires of those who butter its justices' bread. In one county, you have to hire a D local counsel to get a project approved smoothly. In another, you have to hire an R. Few people have their actual hands out, but none are shy about who they expect people to donate to in elections in exchange for favorable treatment.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 11-23-2020 at 06:14 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2020, 07:03 PM   #3834
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 85,423
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Michigan certified its election. 3-0 with one abstention. Yesterday's NYT had a bit about one of the 4 board members was unsure whether to certify. I don't know if that was the abstention, but I think so.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2020, 09:57 PM   #3835
Pretty Little Flower
Moderator
 
Pretty Little Flower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Flower
Posts: 8,215
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
I think Ayres is right that the grubby and sweaty populist GOP is xenophobic. But that only explains part of the effort at voter suppression. A lot of the moderate GOP would welcome minorities. They resent the classes who can't be measured by metrics and are protected, most of whom here are white - the public sector union folk, the bureaucrats who attempt to regulate them (I say attempt because muni and state regulators here are often crooked, or hopelessly incompetent and more irritating than scary, or both).
It’s a nice story that we can tell ourselves—that only unwashed redneck masses exhibit that sort of overt hostility for minorities. That the more refined affluent GOP holds its nose and accepts the racism but really just wants lower taxes. My uncle was an executive headhunter Greenwich country club guy. At my father’s funeral earlier this year, he was sitting at the back of the church before the funeral (the day before the churches stopped allowing gatherings) and he called me over and asked me where my family was. I said they were in the front left pew, right in front of his granddaughter Sarah. He said quietly, “I’ve never met Sarah.” The reason he has never met his college-age granddaughter is that he disowned his daughter after she married a black man. He feels exactly the way that blurb says, and is vocal about it. He presumably resented the fact that, at the time of the wedding, his son-in-law was leeching off the state as an AUSA. As far as I can tell, he has suffered few-to-zero ramifications professionally or personally on account of his overt racism. Some of his country club pals may have the good taste to only whisper about their disdain of minorities, but it’s still there. I know you think accusations of racism these days are largely overblown, and I disagree, and I’m not going to argue with you about it.

Oh, and when I say he suffered few ramifications, I of course mean apart from the fact that he had never met his beautiful, mature-beyond-her-years, completely delightful granddaughter who was sitting down in the front of the church at his brother’s funeral. And still hasn’t. What a sad fucking man.
__________________
Inside every man lives the seed of a flower.
If he looks within he finds beauty and power.

I am not sorry.
Pretty Little Flower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2020, 09:59 PM   #3836
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,324
Re: Objectively intelligent.

I missed that Matt Yglesias started his own Substack newsletter. I was just look at something he wrote last week, and learned something, which is that the internal criticism at the NYT about things like the Cotton op-ed wasn't coming from reporters:

Quote:
Reeves Wiedeman’s recent article about internal tensions at The New York Times includes this passage, which gets at a dynamic that I think you see across the media landscape. The vast majority of the people who work at any given publication are not professional political journalists, and generally the further you get from the ~~political journalism~~ section of a media organization the more left-wing things get:

Quote:
Of all the fronts on which the Times was being pushed to change, the strongest insurrectionary energy was coming from legions of newsroom-adjacent employees in digital jobs that didn’t exist a decade ago. The employees responsible for distributing the Times in the past — typesetters, pressmen, delivery drivers — had never been encouraged to speak up about the ethical questions at the heart of the paper’s journalism. But the app developers and software engineers who deliver the Times’ journalism to the world have held their hands up in just as many Ivy League seminars as their editorial peers. They might be too shy to march over to a masthead editor and complain about a clumsy headline, but #newsroom-feedback had opened a digital door to criticism. Reporters found that suddenly it was the Times’ programmers and developers, rather than their editors, who were critiquing their work. During the town hall about the Cotton op-ed, one data engineer said on Slack, “How many such process failures would be tolerated in tech?”

Many of the techsurrectionists had come from Facebook or Uber or Amazon to join the Times out of a sense of mission, leaving the ethical quandaries of the tech industry for what they thought were more virtuous pastures. “I joined the company for one reason, and it’s because I feel a responsibility to be a part of a mission that I believe in,” a product manager who previously worked at Apple wrote in #newsroom-feedback after the Cotton op-ed. “This feels like the rug’s been pulled out from under us — not just because it feels like that mission [has] been severely compromised by the decision to publish this piece, but even more so because the products we’re building were used to do it.”

“It’s like making telephone poles,” one software engineer added, “and finding out they’re being used as battering rams.”
People who cover politics professionally, for better or worse, end up spending a fair amount of time talking to Republicans and trying to understand what conservatives think about public policy issues. If we’re doing our jobs at all correctly we can do stories that bring a mostly-progressive audience a greater understanding of what is happening on the other side. And when a professional political reporter does a bad job it’s often because he or she is taking a dive to maintain relationships with sources on the right, or bending over too far backwards to be fair.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2020, 07:23 AM   #3837
Icky Thump
Registered User
 
Icky Thump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,122
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower View Post
It’s a nice story that we can tell ourselves—that only unwashed redneck masses exhibit that sort of overt hostility for minorities. That the more refined affluent GOP holds its nose and accepts the racism but really just wants lower taxes. My uncle was an executive headhunter Greenwich country club guy. At my father’s funeral earlier this year, he was sitting at the back of the church before the funeral (the day before the churches stopped allowing gatherings) and he called me over and asked me where my family was. I said they were in the front left pew, right in front of his granddaughter Sarah. He said quietly, “I’ve never met Sarah.” The reason he has never met his college-age granddaughter is that he disowned his daughter after she married a black man. He feels exactly the way that blurb says, and is vocal about it. He presumably resented the fact that, at the time of the wedding, his son-in-law was leeching off the state as an AUSA. As far as I can tell, he has suffered few-to-zero ramifications professionally or personally on account of his overt racism. Some of his country club pals may have the good taste to only whisper about their disdain of minorities, but it’s still there. I know you think accusations of racism these days are largely overblown, and I disagree, and I’m not going to argue with you about it.

Oh, and when I say he suffered few ramifications, I of course mean apart from the fact that he had never met his beautiful, mature-beyond-her-years, completely delightful granddaughter who was sitting down in the front of the church at his brother’s funeral. And still hasn’t. What a sad fucking man.
It happens to be present in many of us.

My son's 2 best friends are POC. We were driving along one day with one of his friends when the conversation went over to his dad, who I have met a few times, and he mentioned that hs dad was a ref -- at a hockey rink -- and when I double clutched on that -- I realized it was pure stereotyping.
__________________
You can breathe, you can blink, you can cry. Hell, you're all gonna be doing that!

Last edited by Icky Thump; 11-24-2020 at 07:28 AM..
Icky Thump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2020, 11:25 AM   #3838
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,517
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower View Post
It’s a nice story that we can tell ourselves—that only unwashed redneck masses exhibit that sort of overt hostility for minorities. That the more refined affluent GOP holds its nose and accepts the racism but really just wants lower taxes. My uncle was an executive headhunter Greenwich country club guy. At my father’s funeral earlier this year, he was sitting at the back of the church before the funeral (the day before the churches stopped allowing gatherings) and he called me over and asked me where my family was. I said they were in the front left pew, right in front of his granddaughter Sarah. He said quietly, “I’ve never met Sarah.” The reason he has never met his college-age granddaughter is that he disowned his daughter after she married a black man. He feels exactly the way that blurb says, and is vocal about it. He presumably resented the fact that, at the time of the wedding, his son-in-law was leeching off the state as an AUSA. As far as I can tell, he has suffered few-to-zero ramifications professionally or personally on account of his overt racism. Some of his country club pals may have the good taste to only whisper about their disdain of minorities, but it’s still there. I know you think accusations of racism these days are largely overblown, and I disagree, and I’m not going to argue with you about it.

Oh, and when I say he suffered few ramifications, I of course mean apart from the fact that he had never met his beautiful, mature-beyond-her-years, completely delightful granddaughter who was sitting down in the front of the church at his brother’s funeral. And still hasn’t. What a sad fucking man.
Right. But it's also a blunt and incorrect story certain of us want to tell ourselves about Conservatives, or GOP voters. Or even populists.

We like the myth that it's significantly, primarily about race because it neatly explains a lot while at the same time making it very easy to deride all non-progressives.

But seeing Democrats or Republicans as lockstep voters, or even close to monolithic in their views, is delusion.

I agree people like your Uncle are out there. I know them. But they are outliers. I grew up at golf courses (I'd otherwise never have met my father). There are those hardened bigots. But a bigot who'd disown family for marrying a black person? That is a very rare person among middle to upper class Republicans.

Of course YMMV. I was raised among moderate Democrats and Republicans who prided themselves on being logical. When my cousin married a Black person, the only comments offered were well wishes and whispers about how the person marrying into the family must have been daft to marry someone as bizarre as my cousin.

Those are Northeastern/Mid-Atlantic, been-to-university, rational moderates. Bigotry was frowned upon because it's simply dumb. One would be looked upon as a lowlife to engage in racist talk, in public or in private. That was way the poor Archie Bunker sorts with grudges and bad schooling talked to one another in the shitty bars. It'd be a scandal to have a family member disown a child for marrying, or being gay. He'd be reactively disowned.

Further away from the cities you'll find more openly bigoted sorts. So maybe my point doesn't hold for the more educated and affluent GOP in other parts of the nation. But I really and truly doubt, and I say this coming from a school where 70% of my friends seem to come from somewhere in the Greenwich corridor, that there are many people like your uncle still out there.

And I think it's dangerous to use the word "racism" with a broad brush as seems fashionable among progressives today. (I'm not accusing you of this, but it is a problem that is worth raising here, particularly given the country's rejection of such progressive extremism it in the last election.) If one wishes to use a word so freighted, it should be used carefully, surgically. ("Fascism" is another -- there ought to be a Godwin's Law applied to that one, as 9 out of 10 users don't even know what the term actually means.)

There is a "disdain for minorities" I see among better heeled Republicans that's sometimes rooted in racism. But what's often mistaken for a disdain for minorities is actually a disdain for people who are perceived to not have "measured up." To run a small business, as many GOP voters do, or to work as a doctor, lawyer, CPA, engineer, etc., involves a lot of hard work. To ascend a corporate hierarchy often requires extreme sacrifice. It involves risk, stress, suffering. I think a lot of voters who've made a few bucks or have to run a business day to day, dealing with all the stress that brings, resent those they perceive to not be working as hard. There's a lot of classism in it. They forget that often, a lot of their success is due to luck. And they fail to understand that there are simply a lot of people who aren't talented, aren't smart, aren't conscientious, and aren't willing to take risk or sacrifice as much as some others... Far more of them than there are the converse. Most humans aren't leaders, aren't uniquely intelligent, aren't uniquely insightful. They have to be taken care of to some extent.

I think a lot of it is hard-wired Darwinist instinct. Those who've made something of themselves resent being locked into a system with those who need something from the government. In many cases it's only accidentally about race because minorities tend to be disproportionate members of classes to whom the govt is important.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 11-24-2020 at 11:30 AM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2020, 11:59 AM   #3839
Pretty Little Flower
Moderator
 
Pretty Little Flower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Flower
Posts: 8,215
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Those are Northeastern/Mid-Atlantic, been-to-university, rational moderates. Bigotry was frowned upon because it's simply dumb. One would be looked upon as a lowlife to engage in racist talk, in public or in private. That was way the poor Archie Bunker sorts with grudges and bad schooling talked to one another in the shitty bars. It'd be a scandal to have a family member disown a child for marrying, or being gay. He'd be reactively disowned.

Further away from the cities you'll find more openly bigoted sorts. So maybe my point doesn't hold for the more educated and affluent GOP in other parts of the nation. But I really and truly doubt, and I say this coming from a school where 70% of my friends seem to come from somewhere in the Greenwich corridor, that there are many people like your uncle still out there.
My uncle and his two brothers are the Northeastern/Mid-Atlantic, been-to-university types you describe. All three went to a Catholic university on the Main Line. My other uncle also went to law school there, whereas my father went to business school at a prominent Massachusetts university mostly associated around here with Hank. Both of my uncles are/were hardened bigots and, as I mentioned, my uncle who disowned his daughter was not ostracized or shamed in his professional or personal circles, either when he was in the Greenwich corridor or now (he is in a different Mid-Atlantic state). My father, while far from being proponent of progressive politics, thankfully never exhibited any overt racism that I was aware of, but nor did he challenge his brothers on their racism. I understand that these facts do not fit into your narrative of the world, so you will dismiss them as being outliers. I disagree.
__________________
Inside every man lives the seed of a flower.
If he looks within he finds beauty and power.

I am not sorry.
Pretty Little Flower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2020, 12:01 PM   #3840
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,517
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
I missed that Matt Yglesias started his own Substack newsletter. I was just look at something he wrote last week, and learned something, which is that the internal criticism at the NYT about things like the Cotton op-ed wasn't coming from reporters:
Since the election I've traveling between three worlds.

World One is occupied by moderates who quickly acknowledged Biden unsurprisingly won the election. They acknowledge the media is generally slanted and anti-Trump, but they also could see through it and realized Trump was always likely to be a one term President. He'd been down in the polls all along and barely won in 2016. They're consuming "mainstream media" but taking with a grain of salt.

World Two is occupied by people who are buying every conspiracy theory about the election being stolen. They're reading these bizarre studies of voting anomalies and imagining warehouses full of ballots being filled out by nefarious fixers. You can dismantle their math at every turn, but they're reading right wing news sites, and they're on Parler, and your facts Just Don't Matter.

I tour One and Two. They're surreal.

World Three is where I live, reading Taibbi, Greenwald, Yglesias, Sullivan, watching Maher, listening to Harris, Rogan, Altchuler, Galloway, Zakaria, some Quillette, Swisher, Al Jazeera, Reason, perusing some selected bits of NYTimes. I very much like this world because it discusses all of the facts that World One offers, but instead of slanting them and editorializing them in favor of one side, it offers them unvarnished and then, where it does editorialize, it explains how the creators of World One and World Two media slant, lie, and foist agendas on the public.

World Three is fun also because it's destroying the others. Joe Rogan gets more listeners in a week than Brietbart and Ezra Klein together get in a year. Yglesias just demoralized Klein by leaving the platform he'd founded, and Greenwald punctured the Intercept. The gains of World Three directly tack along with public distrust for Worlds One and Two. While the right and left struggle to manufacture consent (hat tip, McLuhan and Chomsky), the audience flees. Worlds One and Two are increasingly left with tribal audiences - consolidating fellow travelers. (If you don't believe this, check out the comments on any NYTimes or WSJ Oped -- they're entirely old liberals and progressives arguing amongst each other in re: the former, conservatives and populists arguing amongst each other in re: the latter.)

The fourth estate is crumbling before our eyes, but not in a bad way. The tribal right and left will increasingly silo themselves, but those silos will become smaller and smaller as consolidations of shrinking markets do, while the "Wild West" of thinkers who cannot be categorized because they share a mix of views that don't fit under the legacy party or ideology umbrellas gain traction.

World Three is highly entertaining. Just yesterday I listened to Taibbi interview Roger Waters about everything from Israel to Cormac McCarthy to climate change to Native American sovereign rights. And Rogan's guests? Holy shit. Trevor Noah couldn't book half of those people, or go deep with them on topics like Rogan. And Galloway is dismantling higher education's business model like a man on a mission.

Fuck World One and World Two. They can't collapse quickly enough.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:15 PM.