Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

A buddy has a place in Abiquiu and it's stunning. You can see O'Keeffe's Ghost Ranch across the reservoir.

Re: [I]The People, No./Evil Geniuses[/I]
 

Since you profess to be a cynic and vote on a narrow conception of your own financial self-interest, all of this comes off as concern trolling. Better to say that the problem with our country is selfishness (like yours) that gets in the way of using the government as a way to make people's lives better.

Also, this game of attacking "neoliberals" is a fundamental dodge. It's a dodge of the substantial differences between the political parties, and it's a dodge of the differences between voters and politicians.

I can't tell what you think "neoliberalism" is, which seems deliberate on your part. It's abstract enough to avoid contact with reality. You do say:

[N]either camp of neoliberals, right or left, wants a more fair system that would give the losers more money at cost to their own profits.

That's false. The signature battle of the Obama Administration, which you were around for, was over health care. Democrats enacted the ACA, to provide health coverage for everyone -- i.e., the losers too. As Hank can explain, it cost some people more money. Republicans fought it every step of the way. The ACA was flawed, in large part because of the challenges of getting it passed (and not because "neoliberalism" dictated anything). Since it's enactment, Republicans have tried to roll it back, while Democrats have reacted to its shortcomings (and Republican intransigence) by moving to the left, with more and more people supporting a form of single payer. Pretending that none of this happened, or that somehow the two parties are fundamentally similar, is a lie.

I think I know why you like to pretend that Democrats are no different from Republicans, but if you can't admit that's what you're doing, there's not much point in telling you.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Man, Oregon Trail was a great game back in the day, wasn't it?

Re: [I]The People, No./Evil Geniuses[/I]
 

Bollocks. I'm not arguing the parties are entirely similar. They are not. I am arguing that when it comes to goring the most important ox (profits and future revenue streams accruing from global trade), everyone - everybody - is talking his book.

Business people, including me, are more than willing to do anything to help the losers, just as long as it doesn't involve raising wages to levels that provide dignified lives to those low end workers. We'll give them all sorts of things like health care (of course business likes single payer... it takes a huge cost off the books!), welfare, some BS retraining. We'll fiddle at the margins. But what would really improve those low end workers' lives? Well, I see two things. One is protectionism (but that'd be short lived at best and only accelerate automation). Another is leveling with them. Instead of pretending we'd be willing to forego some profits accruing from labor arbitrage (and automation), people of both parties argue about how much pittance noblesse oblige to shower on the poor fuckers. The victims see a false debate between their betters and don't realize how screwed they are, which if they realized, they might work harder to escape.

Look. I'm not suggesting Ds aren't better for at least giving a hint of a shit about these people. They are. But anyone suggesting that Ds trying to give Old Joe on the Streetcorner a free carton of eggs and some stale white bread is markedly different than the Rs ignoring him is deluded.

And you, a defender of the gig economy, have zero moral standing to call me selfish. I am selfish. The only difference between us is I'm willing to say it. You're pretending you're not harming these people with one hand while throwing them crumbs with the other to placate them.* Bullshit, man, bullshit. We're all doing that.

_______
* If you haven't noticed, we're running out of time to keep placating these people. They're pissed, and though many remain credulous, a lot of them are becoming just smart enough to realize people like you and me are full of shit in most of our explanations for why they are where they are. And that our politicians are terminally full of shit and don't give a fuck about them.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Never been there. Looks like really gorgeous territory.

Re: [I]The People, No./Evil Geniuses[/I]
 

Old Joe is better off with the eggs and bread than nothing. Do I wish we could do better for him? Absolutely. Like health care. The ACA wasn't placating anyone -- it was health insurance for a lot of people who otherwise didn't have it. The major reason why it wasn't better was Republican opposition, not Democrats only pretending to help people. If you don't care to lift a finger to help other people, that's your choice, but if you really believed in your principles you would just defend them instead of pretending that everyone else is as cynical as you are. If you say that you are full of shit, fine -- I won't argue -- but don't tell me that I'm full of shit. I took a pay cut to do government work in the public interest. I work for and give money to progressive candidates and causes. Could I do more? Sure, and change is hard. In large part because of the disinterest and opposition of people like you.

eta: Historically, a lot of the reason that Democrats were neoliberals was that Republicans were market-oriented, and Democrats thought that bipartisan legislation was more likely to get passed and more likely to work well. As Republicans have become uninterested in any bipartisan compromise, a lot of Democrats have moved to the left, figuring that there is no point in compromising with people who don't want to compromise. The fact that this is happening contradicts the theory that Democrats are purely motivated by self-interest. Accordingly, like the ACA, you just ignore it.

eata: I am completely sympathetic to the idea that center-left parties like the Democrats have lost support because they haven't pushed an agenda that will make more of a difference in the lives of real people, and because they haven't done a good job of communicating what they are doing. But I'm not interested in here those criticisms if their point is to absolve selfishness.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Another typical victim of cancel culture.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

TFW a law-school classmate gets national attention for a crackpot legal argument.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

How are there still hand written forms like that?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Going here again, sport? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/u...l-culture.html

ETA: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...hat-comes-next

“One of the few things that Barack Obama and Donald Trump agree on is cancel culture.” https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...culture-377412

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Sorry about that dive in the rankings for your alma mater. Good news, though, I understand a merger with Liberty University may be possible!

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I thought telling Ty to get Listerine because he was going to be sucking a steam trunk full of dicks was a little strong given that all he did was post a link to an article, but once you went there, I think you should have just stayed with it. It was a raw and evocative image, after all.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Shoot me now.

Hard to argue with what Obama actually said, and I'm not sure why you share the NPR article, but you'd have to be blind to miss that many people who act badly are using complaints about "cancel culture" to divert attention from what they've done (for example) or to attack people they disagree with (Trump, Lauren). And then there's Taibbi. Your Politico article:

It was nice of Politico to present Taibbi as an independent expert, rather than someone with a well-documented history of treating people poorly, for which he doesn't seem to be sorry.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I plead gin.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Do you agree that bakery owner should be held to account for a racist ramblings of his teenage daughter over 6 years ago? Really?

I've an in-law one of whose siblings became a skinhead for a few months during a deeply deluded phase. If this person's vile ramblings of old should somehow become of public interest, should the rest of the family be held accountable years later for one dimwit's perverted youthful behavior?

Regarding Taibbi, he has no reason to repent. He's put himself outside the reach of cancel culture by deciding to make any enemy of it. Self-innoculation. But it's interesting you'd dig up his old stuff, which he has said was intended to be rude and offensive humor, but isn't entirely factual. Should the guy who wrote I Can't Breathe have the rest of his canon banished to Cancelledland because he wrote shocking and vile stuff thirty years ago in Russia? Sounds a bit like those attacks on Bernie for having written bizarre and offensive fiction in the 70s. If we run this level of attack to its cuckoo-pants conclusion, we really need to cancel Bret Easton Ellis. He wrote a book, White, about why he refuses to apologize for being white and a horror satire that uncomfortably made fun of the murder and rape of several women.

Do you think Taibbi needs to repent? To ask forgiveness and examine his ways? People fuck up. People engage in humor that offends others. People say things that are insensitive. Get over it. These hall monitors who make a life out of finding grievance with anything that can be portrayed as even slightly offensive are miserable bores who are ruining art.