Chief of Staff John Kelly has apparently learned from his boss to never let go of a losing proposition. He's once again decided to rag on Congresswoman Frederika Wilson, after having been so thoroughly discredited last time. Politico.Com Part of me suspects that he realizes what he's already done, and is doing, to his own reputation, but has decided that he needs to continue to cultivate Shorthands' favor. What's done is done; now what's important is that he keep his job and keep on good terms with Shorthands.
It may be worth noting that Team Trump and their media have slowly begun trying to remind everyone that ‛collusion’ with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton isn't actually a criminal offense. So, if Mueller does come upon proof that Trump was working with the Russians, it's still not indictable, in and of itself. They want folks to start getting used to that idea, just in case Mueller knows more than they hope he knows.
(Depending on what assistance he may have accepted from the Russians without disclosing it, that might amount to an illegal campaign contribution. But ‛collusion’ with an enemy power to win the Presidency isn't actually a crime, in and of itself.)
Perhaps I should clarify that last post. Russia is actually a ‛hostile’ power, not an ‛enemy’ power. There is currently no state of war between the United States and Russia. Colluding with an enemy power, i.e. one with which we were in a state of war would be treason, and that would be a criminal offense.
Halloween IMO is a merchendise holiday store owners in the USA cooked up to sell stuff, whith a slight basis in European cultural history.
Anywho, it's spread back across the Atlantic now and we have to suffer this damned thing here too.
Funny story: a haloweener in Norway last weekend decided to dress up as an ISIS terrorist, head scarfe, bomb belt and all. He got himself detained and was given a 12.000 NOK (bout $1600) fine for his innovative dress-up.
Speaking about the history it's about one culture appropiating the significant rituals of a former one.
The USA (sellers of goods) creates Halloween on the carcass of All Halloewed Eve, a European Christian holiday, which was in turn an appropiation of the ancient Pagan rituals to honour saintlike forebears in authumn ceremonies.
So now we in the West have gone from honoring our forebears to dressing up in scary or slutty uniforms and buying lots of stuff we do not really need and feeding our kids crap that's bad for them. Progress? I guess you'd call it that.
- Did you go out this past weekend to attend a bondfire and think of how the generations that came before you were your kin and give praise to them for your own being?
- No, I bought a slut-suite for my 5 YO boy so he could dress like a whore and go around the block begging for the candy that will make him a diabetic in his tweens.
The White House has been claiming credit today for ‘helping’ Mueller's office bust George Popadopolous by turning over a stash of e-mails, including some sent by Popadopolous, this past August.
Popadopolous had been indicted and arrested in July.
[Marcus]: "Halloween IMO is a merchendise holiday store owners in the USA cooked up to sell stuff, whith a slight basis in European cultural history. Anywho, it's spread back across the Atlantic now and we have to suffer this damned thing here too."
Yup. I will never forgive the USA. The "little Fanta-filled fuckers" (as they are lovingly referred to by one of the local comedians ... and I checked Wikipedia's International availability of Fanta(!!!) page so I know you know what it means) at the door used to say "Happy Halloween". Now it's the totally Americanised "trick or treat". They don't get any chocolate at my house unless they say "Happy Halloween" (which they always do, once prompted, of course).
It's all a fiasco anyway. There's no possibility of any "tricks" as their parents are standing at the end of the driveway. When I was a nipper we went around as proper marauding gangs, not hand-held wusses.
It wouldn't be such an offence if we Irish hadn't invented Halloween in the first place. For us it is still called Oíche Shamhna -- the eve of Samhain when the souls of the dead or sídhe are out and about. The worse of these is a female ghost, the ban sí, or banshee. This is serious stuff, not to be made light of with trick-or-treating nonsense! ;-)
Anyway, all the youngsters seemed to be off the streets within an hour of nightfall. A few older diehards let off some fireworks for a while more, and they certainly seem more affluent than in former years as we could never afford such purchased firepower. But now, at 2am I don't hear a peep, whereas we'd just be settling down to round 2 of bonfire building with a wood stash begged or stolen from the locality, and waiting for the inevitable showdown with the fire brigade or local cops.
Speaking of which, I know different folk count the seasons differently, but for us Oíche Shamhna is the last night of autumn, so post-midnight we are officially in winter. And right on cue we have an air flow from the north bringing the first frosts of the season this week. But then it's due to warm up again, and in typical Irish style I expect the grass I just cut "for the last time" will get all the wrong signals and be long but uncuttably soggy by mid-December.
Crap! Just taking a break from work to write that idle banter, and now seeing what looks like a terror attack in New York on the news sites. I'm off to watch some TV news :-(
Halloween IMO is a merchendise holiday store owners in the USA cooked up to sell stuff, whith a slight basis in European cultural history.
Indeed, we are a nation of shopkeepers. In this case it is the candy companies who are reaping the windfall, as well as the costumers who are keeping all the ghosts, witches and various other creatures well dressed. We actually have temporary Halloween stores popping up in vacant retail spaces. Those I find rather annoying.
It feels like the middle of December here. We had a hard freeze last night and it never really warmed up again. But we still had 80 intrepid souls knock at the door. I have some candy left over, which I will try to get rid of at work tomorrow.
...n typical Irish style I expect the grass I just cut "for the last time" will get all the wrong signals and be long but uncuttably soggy by mid-December.
I doubt I will be done with cleaning up the yard until mid to late November. While my leaves are mostly down, except for an apple tree, which insists on keeping its leaves until almost December, I still have neighbor's trees with leaves yet to fall. There are usually strays that end up drifting into my yard.
The Republicans' plan to roll out their tax cuts for the rich, 2017 version, has hit a bit of a snag. They let out word last night that they won't be doing the big reveal today. Now they're shooting for tomorrow, but their confidence level on hitting that deadline seems to be down somewhat.
The accused immigrated here in 2010 and was notably not from any of the suspect nations on Trump's list.
No, but apparently he was linked to the same group that did an attack in Stockholm.
Seven years he's been in the US. Question. Was he radicalized after he came here, as some in the media are suggesting, or was he part of a sleeper cell that was napping a rather long time?
And, really, is there any extreme vetting, as the Trump administration is suggesting, that could weed out those who are clever enough to hide their true feelings? Nor would that weed out those who are actually radicalized here, both foreign or native born. We still have domestic terrorism in the form of mass school shootings as a real threat.
Don't get me wrong, I still don't believe that a wall, or some kind of mechanism that excludes foreigners from coming to this country, is the answer. We have always been stronger as a society with newcomers revitalizing our country. I still feel part of the answer lies within other countries and with our maintaining the ideals our country was founded upon.
Imppossible to tell when he was radicalized if he didn't keep a journal of sorts. I'm sure the FBI is looking into that right now but there might not be an answer.
In any case, what's this whole deal with an "immigrant lottery" that gives 50K people from (almost only) the third world a residency permit in the USA, as this Uzbek got?
Why is that a good thing? Do you need an additional 50K immigrants, on top of all the ones who sneak in, that do not come based on a job-application?
What is this lottery supposed to do for the USA?
And, as our previous viewing of the "gum ball vs. immigration" video explains it does nothing for the thirld world either, so that's not an argument.
Trump is, again, correct. Permits for residency should of course be merit based. A freaking lottery is just foolishness.
Pete: "It wouldn't be such an offence if we Irish hadn't invented Halloween in the first place. For us it is still called Oíche Shamhna -- the eve of Samhain when the souls of the dead or sídhe are out and about. The worse of these is a female ghost, the ban sí, or banshee. This is serious stuff, not to be made light of with trick-or-treating nonsense! ;-)"
Interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing.
Here in Sweden the traditional holiday and the one that's still in our calendars is "Alla Helgons Natt" translating into "All Saint's Eve". But of course nowadays it's all 'bout Halloween instead, even if I feel that hype has somewhat diminished lately. But then I live in a city where 'bout 60% of kids are muslim so maybe that's why. They don't seem to do Halloween and they sure as hell don't celebrate All Saint's Eve.
We're big on Eid Al Fitr though. Might need them yanks to monetize that into a spending-spree-holiday come soon.
"…that gives 50K people from (almost only) the third world a residency permit in the USA, as this Uzbek got?"
Shorthands' assertions notwithstanding, we don't know that this particular Uzbek came in under the ‛visa lottery’. That's not been established yet, Shorthands' uninformed tweets notwithstanding.
I stand corrected. Homeland Security has confirmed, apparently within the last hour, that the accused did enter under the ‛diversity visa’ lottery system.
Lee: "The accused immigrated here in 2010 and was notably not from any of the suspect nations on Trump's list."
So if/when an attack occurrs from an individual from one of the countries on that list your stance will be that "it was notably from a country on Trump's list".
OK. Great. I'll hold you to that then. Let's file that into the "Lee said" file, for future use.
Lee: "Homeland Security has confirmed, apparently within the last hour, that the accused did enter under the ‛diversity visa’ lottery system."
Be that as it may, I didn't really question this particular program on account of this this specific individual who turned out to be a terrorist. I questioned the program all together. WHY does the USA hand out 50K recidency permits a year based on a fucking lottery scheme? Is that a scheme you advocate?
"WHY does the USA hand out 50K recidency permits a year based on a fucking lottery scheme…"
Best I can tell it was adopted back in the early 90's to try to squelch whining from Euroweenies that our immigration system was racist, slanted to white, western Europeans. They figured that a max of 50,000, compared to overall immigration numbers, wasn't much of a lift, and it would help squelch Euroweenie bitchi’ (didn't help, of course). It was up for cancellation in the last ‘gang of eight’ immigration reform package put together under Dubya, but that couldn't clear the teabagger rebellion in the House of Representatives.
#1 Typos - don't bother pointin' that out. I spelled merchandise as merchendise just yesterday and first of all most of ya'll know that I prolly just misspelled and second you knew what I meant. There's no need to make a huge deal 'bout spellin' so there's no reason to apologise or even to mention it.
#2 "Best I can tell it was adopted back in the early 90's to try to squelch whining from Euroweenies that our immigration system was racist, slanted to white, western Europeans."
Really. I find that seriously questinable. So in your story Euro governments in the 90's claim that the USA is too soft on European immigration and that ya'll should do more 3'd world immigration instead and you decided that "of course then Euros have the moral highground so we'll take in 50 K lottery allotted povers to appease them Euros".
I find that highly unlikely. And if it IS a truth I think ya'll should've said FUCK THAT even before Trump came in and said it for ya.
I was browsing books today and came across one that looks rather interesting, The Rage, by Julia Ebner. The author spent time with both right wing and Islamic extremists, attending marches and rallies and simply talking to people about their beliefs. Of course, she did this undercover. If you click on the book you can read the preface and introduction. Very illuminating.
In what appears to be an attempt to embrace every bad idea of the last fifty years, Shorthands has indicated a desire to label the New York Jihadi an ‘enemy combatant’ and send him to Guantánamo. Politico.Com I think even with Gorsuch, his newest picked Justice on the bench, the Supreme Court will slap him down for this one if he tries it.
[Marcus]: "Here in Sweden the traditional holiday and the one that's still in our calendars is "Alla Helgons Natt" translating into "All Saint's Eve". But of course nowadays it's all 'bout Halloween instead, even if I feel that hype has somewhat diminished lately."
You do realise that All Saints Eve = Halloween?
Halloween = short for for All Hallows Evening. Hallows = now archaic English for Saints / Holies, from German Heiligen, same word as your Alla Helgons. Indeed, I spent some time in a monastery in the Schwarzwald called Aller Heiligen. And there are colleges called All Hallows in the UK and Ireland.
All Saints day has been a major date in the Christian calendar for well over a millenium. It's a mandatory Mass day for us Catholics. Halloween is the so-called "vigil" of the feast, usually meaning the feast starts after sunset and you can break your fast. (Islam didn't come up with Ramadan and Eid all on its own, you know ;-). We've had the religious Halloween in Ireland forever ... but somehow in Irish we retained the name Oíche Shamhna and hung onto a few pre-Christian traditions along with it.
Oh yeah, and, oíche = night, Shamhna = genitive case of Samhain (harvest festival, pronounced SOU-IN). So, Oíche Shamhna (pronounced EE-HEH HOW-NA) = the night of Samhain.
Sayfullo Saipov is reportedly not showing a lot of remorse in his hospital bed. I don't think Trump can conjure up the legal wherewithal to consign him to Gitmo. But it does leave the question of where you lock up an unrepentant terrorist for the rest of his days. Prisons in the UK have become hotbeds of Islamic radicalisation. And total isolation is inhumane (as argued by none other than Anders Breivik in a Norwegian court). I oppose the death penalty but can't help wondering if it has its place in cases like this, but that is not an option either in a New York court.
I suppose you could stick "DEATH", "GITMO", and "PERMANENT SOLITARY CONFINMENT" on little pieces of paper and pull one out of a hat. Call it a "diversity lottery".
"[death] is not an option either in a New York court."
The feds have already filed federal terrorism charges. Death penalty is an option there. In addition, there are a few prisons known as super-max federal prisons intended to hold just this sort of fellow. Not solitary confinement, but no need to worry ‛bout the jihadi corrupting anybody ‛cause none of them are ever gettin’ out.
I decided to look it up. There's currently only one true super-max prison running; it's in Colorado. There's been talk of putting another one on the ground in Indiana at or near where they keep the federal death row prisoners, but it's not been authorized yet. (Was talked up during the Obama administration, but never got built because the Republicans were afraid Obama would use it.)
Getting late in the evening and the Republicans are still talkin’ ‛bout rolling out their tax cuts for the rich plan tomorrow. We shall have to wait and see. Meanwhile: Putin Part 2 starts in eight minutes.
The House Republicans have released their proposed tax cut plan on schedule this morning. It does have some fairly massive tax cuts, along with some repeal of some deductions, but not nearly enough to match the tax cuts. That means they'll need to either make massive spending cuts or they'll need to make massive increases in the national debt. They figure to try to get the tax cuts passed first, then figure out what comes after that.
It can be real hard to believe that Shorthands wasn't fully coöperative.
This is true.
While I don't believe that we can blame Putin for all of our divisions, I do feel that the Russians have been trying to do what they can to encourage them. I also feel that there are those in our political establishment who have been riding on their coattails to try to force through their agenda with little regard for what is really best for their own country. Using the Russians as their as their allies, in effect. Those people who are doing that need to be gone. They are more of a danger than any Islamic terrorist.
Misusing the ‛T’ word is more like it. As I've mentioned earlier, there's no blanket prohibition against Trump (or anyone else) working with the Russians in an effort to win an American election, even the Presidential election. There are laws about taking campaign contributions from foreign sources, and what constitutes a ‘contribution’ can get defined rather broadly, but so far I'm not seeing anything that qualifies.
"A bit like some wanted for the ACA repeal and not replace bill."
I still give ‛em a 50/50 shot at getting their tax cuts through. After that they're probably going to have a government shutdown over the notion of whether to cut spending or go deeper into debt. Thing is, they can't really go on to the ‛cut spending or go deeper into debt’ question because they'd lock up and then never be able to agree on the tax cuts. (Or, at least, chances of getting the tax cuts through go way below 50%.)
I've been trying to figure out why Trump is pushing so hard to get on the record about the New York jihadi driver (knowing that his advisors are telling him that he's screwing up the death penalty play for the prosecution--maybe not fatally, but making it much harder than it needs to be).
It occurs to me that he needs a replacement outrage to cover for when he backs away from the fight he's currently losing to the NFL players (‛balltossers’ in Marcus’ parlance).
Lee: "Shorthands has indicated a desire to label the New York Jihadi an ‘enemy combatant’ and send him to Guantánamo."
Yeah and he twittered 'bout the death penalty also. I'm not sure if that would even be possible. Does NY do the death penalty? If not do Trump think this terrorist act can somehow be decided in another jurisdiction?
This is one more (and there have been a few) of the cases where even I think Trump would best shut the fuck up, but he just won't.
Anywho, my best guess is that this latest terrorist is aimed for that supermax in Colorado where Sheik-Mohammed and that Boston bomber are kept along with some truly insane local talents. And, having looked over some vids about that place I'm not sure, if it was me, on wether I'd preferr to go there or get the needle.
It's a seriously bleak future to go to that place. As well it should be for those kinds of occupants. Guantanamo might even be a preferable option really. Cause that place in Colorado is no joke.
"It occurs to me that he needs a replacement outrage to cover for when he backs away from the fight he's currently losing to the NFL players (‛balltossers’ in Marcus’ parlance)."
Nope. That's a fight he cannot lose. He can however keep it in his pocket to play when he feels squeezed on other topics. Apparently he's OK for the moment and does not need to run with agitating against them balltossers (and arguably he can't keep beating that horse forever), but that still remains a sore point he can poke at and win while poking at. He for sure did NOT lose on that one.
They defied him and got away with it. However, just as you've moved the goalposts from where they were to where he ended up, so's to be able to claim it as a ‛win’ for Shorthands, his American Trumpkins are also quite capable of pretending to forget that he ever made demands that the NFL blatantly defied.
But, just as you pretend he won that one, they'll only be pretending to forget.
"Prominent Egyptian lawyer Nabih al-Wahsh believes that men have a "patriotic duty to sexually harass and national duty to rape" any girl who chooses to dress in revealing clothes."
Contrast that to Egypt under Nasser. Look at this vid where he and his entire audience LOL @ women being forced into Hijabs:
https://youtu.be/_ZIqdrFeFBk
What the hell happened in the ME? (This would be an opening for Zeyad if he still lingers here)
It was never about that. It was and is about optics. And Trump really had little to lose and lost nothing. Them balltossers though... highly paid, much more so than their audience, and they kept on keeping on with a spectacle a large portion of their audience disagree with. They will not win. Bet that.
They already won. The league owners had their meeting and would not go along with Trump and try to impose a new rule on their players. Players won. Owners lost--they're down some revenue (would have probably lost even more revenue if they'd gone along with Trump, which is why they didn't). The owners supported Trump, by and large, and he screwed them over. Trump's other moneyed supporters will have noticed. His dedicated Trumpkins will pretend not to notice, but it's just a pretense. They'll notice too, if they haven't already. Some, like you, will pretend he won. Most will just pretend to forget it ever happened; it'll just fade away.
But, pretenses aside, the dedicated Trumpkins will remember this one. A couple more losses on the culture wars and that 38% favorable number may start heading down into the 35% danger territory. (If the Republicans don't blow their run at tax cuts in the meantime, which may start him down even quicker.)
I'd personally rank the Republican tax cuts as a greater danger to The Republic than Trump, or the Trumpkins, or the Islamists.
The tax cut is simply a symptom of poor governance on the part of the Republicans currently in office. It was tried under Reagan and then, at least in part, reversed when it was obvious it was hurting more than helping. If it is actually enacted it can be reversed again. Trump is a symptom of our divisions, which have been exacerbated by the Russians. It is those divisions that are the most hurtful. But even they are not impossible to heal. We managed to do so, for the most part, after our Civil War.
I don't know what Zeyad would say, but I think it is the same extremist reaction that is sweeping the West. It's just that in our case it is right wing, rather than Islamic. It probably has to do with the changes we have been seeing with globalization, and perhaps the beginnings of climate change stresses. The internet has also helped to bring together diverse people of like minds, for good or bad.
"If it is actually enacted it can be reversed again."
I'm not sure it'll be reversed in time to avoid it doing us some serious, long term damage. (Trump is a short term phenomenon.) I'm likewise not sure but what the Republicans will, in the end, pay a higher price for passing their tax cuts than they will for failing to pass them.
Well, largely agree… I do think that the effects of climate change haven't really kicked in yet, and what we're seeing so far as ecological stresses has more to do with the availability of antibiotics in areas where they never had the resources to support the population numbers they're now experiencing. Climate change stresses will kick in eventually, but I'm not sure they're a major factor just yet.
[Lynnette]: "While I don't believe that we can blame Putin for all of our divisions, I do feel that the Russians have been trying to do what they can to encourage them."
The Russkis are certainly up to mischief. But there's nothing illegal about that in the US apparently, where even an organ of Russian state propaganda like the RT channel can broadcast freely, even though it has to register as a foreign agent in the US.
[Lynnette]: "I also feel that there are those in our political establishment who have been riding on their coattails to try to force through their agenda with little regard for what is really best for their own country. Using the Russians as their as their allies, in effect."
But this is where I think the US has gone totally hysterical. Blaming the Russians for your own homegrown divisions. It wasn't the Russians that turned Hillary into a sleazeball that the majority distrusted.
[Lynnette]: "Those people who are doing that need to be gone. They are more of a danger than any Islamic terrorist."
They are gone. The elitist progressives trying to force through their agenda by emphasising divisions and identity politics -- they've been cast into outer darkness for the time being. This is a good time for the US. Although it's a pity it needed an unclassy populist like Trump to spearhead it. But you can't win 'em all. ;-)
And, of course, we have to put up with the clamour from the MSM and the endless whinge fest from certain quarters who simply won't accept the outcome of a democratic election -- and thereby doing little to improve their chances in the next one.
Interesting piece in the NYT last month about Germany's renewable energy programme. After spending €200 billion, their carbon emissions are rising.
They also have some serious imbalances in their grid, with 30% of electricity provided by wind. Recently they had to pay customers to use electricity to avoid damaging surges. And because of the integrated grid in mainland Europe, their neighbours also have to install surge protection. The Czech power grid operator has had to install phase shifting transformers to regulate disruptive electricity flows on the Czech-German border.
Germany's move away from nuclear after Fukushima also means that its baseload power is increasingly coming from coal generators which cannot be spun down quickly just because the wind is blowing. Germany's indigenous lignite ("brown coal") is the dirtiest coal going.
On the subject of dangers to The Republic, Trump has been trying real hard to get himself ranked back into first place. He gave a radio interview yesterday to one of the Radio-Right-Wing outlets (Larry O'Connor) wherein he lamented his inability to use the Justice Department as his personal legal persecutors. AudioBoom In normal times I'd expect a bipartisan denunciation of this sort of talk, but these are not normal times.
(He babbles on for about 10 minutes, making various misstatements of both fact on several subjects, but the part I'm talking about starts at about 7 minutes 30 seconds, says it's "the saddest thing".)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "But this is where I think the US has gone totally hysterical. Blaming the Russians for your own homegrown divisions."
You appear to be having another one of your too frequent fantasy attacks. I'm not even going to bother asking where you come up with this shit; obviously you dream it up in your own peat-addled mind. Virtually nobody blames the Russians for creating our political polarizations. (Worries about them exploiting those polarizations is another matter entirely.)
Fellow at the Brookings Institute suggests that Steve Bannon might need to be investigated for violations of federal lobbying laws, for his reported contacts with Shorthands and his lobbying him to fire Mueller, after he was dismissed from his White House job. Politico.Com This is the standard anti-lobbying restriction applicable to all federal employees, but I don't know that it was intended to cover this sort of thing.
Still, by a strict letter-of-the-law reading, it would seem to apply.
"…from certain quarters who simply won't accept the outcome of a democratic election…"
Perhaps this would be a good time to point out once again to our peat-addled Irishman that if it had indeed been a ‛democratic’ election, Hillary Clinton would be President instead of Shorthands. She outpolled him by nearly 3 million votes in that last election.
What we've got is a remnant of slavery. The electoral college and the outsized political clout it gives to the Old South and to rural areas (like mine) were instituted at the insistence of the slave states because the slaveholders were fearful that a true democracy would end up freeing their slaves over their objections. Well, the slaves got free anyway, but the outsized political clout of the Old South and now the newer rural states of the high plains remains.
For some reason the Irishman seems to think this failure of democracy is a good thing. To wit:
By the way… This might also be a good time to remind our peat-addled Irishman that Trump's campaign was managed during a crucial period by a man who's now up on charges for being a foreign agent (a secret, unreported foreign agent). And that this man was let go only because that information happened to become public knowledge.
Lynnette: "I don't know what Zeyad would say, but I think it is the same extremist reaction that is sweeping the West. It's just that in our case it is right wing, rather than Islamic. It probably has to do with the changes we have been seeing with globalization, and perhaps the beginnings of climate change stresses. "
I don't think it has anything to do with climate stresses. I do think "globalization" is part of the answer. As I think this current trend is a backlash against neo-liberal politics, where globalization is one aspect, that many people see as in effect benefitting only an elite and not people as a whole. I am of that mind myself (no surprise there).
However: I do not agree that the rise of the right in the west in opposition to this globalization has anything in common with the rise of Islamism in muslim nations.
First of all the rise of Islamism got going way earlier. I'd say the cold war might have been the incubator for that. Given that the two world powers propped up their selected strongmen in the Islamic world with NO regard to the people in those nations. And also actually encouraged fanatics against the other super-power as the USA did in Afghanistan to bleed the russkies.
Also of course the creation of Israel and the west's support for that nation state cannot be underestimated when debating Islamism. That too happened well before the rise of the right in "white countries", actually even before the rise of the left in most places.
"I do not agree that the rise of the right in the west in opposition to this globalization has anything in common…"
History will tell you that rapid or extensive social changes usually lead to an increase in reactionary ideologies. Right-wingers in The West, and jihadi in the Middle-East are both nursing reactionary ideologies.
And Israel has been a convenient scapegoat for the old guard among the Muslim Arab nations. It's not really been a cause of the rise of the radicals. Bin Laden had to be brought around to adopting a hostile stance toward Israel (not that approved of Israel; he merely thought it a minor matter at best; one which could be taken care of in due time, after the revolution). Al-Qaeda's initial ambivalence towards the minor land holdings of the Jews tended to limit its appeal among many Arabs raised on a doctrine of hatred for the Jews, and so he eventually formally adopted a more aggressive anti-Israeli stance, but only to help with recruitment.
[Lynnette]: "I don't know what Zeyad would say, but I think it is the same extremist reaction that is sweeping the West. It's just that in our case it is right wing, rather than Islamic."
You're not normally given to outrageous statements, but that one is ... well, frankly outrageous. Especially in response to Marcus's question about Egyptians being told to rape women! Islamism is nothing whatsoever like the right wing in the west, nor is it even a reaction to the same sort of things. I'm going to guess that the similarity is that you consider both reactions "extreme".
Running around all day yesterday and frantically picking up the yard in between to try to beat the coming snow. Yes, snow...again. It's all white out there again. At least I got most of the leaves picked up and lowered the mower to trim the grass shorter for the winter.
A nice chilly morning to nestle in and read comments.
...and perhaps the beginnings of climate change stresses.
All of you seemed to disagree with this statement. As you see I did qualify it with "perhaps". What I am thinking about here is Africa. We have seen quite a large migration from countries within that continent. As Marcus has pointed out they seem to be more economic refugees rather than political, despite the fact that so many countries there are not what one would refer to as democratic. What we seem to see there is corruption and government mismanagement, as well as an inability to deal with issues arising from things such as drought, which may be exacerbated by climate change.
There have been those who have also speculated that the civil war in Syria has also been due partly to climate abnormalities there.
Marcus: However: I do not agree that the rise of the right in the west in opposition to this globalization has anything in common with the rise of Islamism in muslim nations.
Petes: Islamism is nothing whatsoever like the right wing in the west, nor is it even a reaction to the same sort of things.
Are you sure? Look more closely.
Both tend to use religion as a crutch to further their agendas. Both tend to be intolerant of other ideas. Both tend to use authoritarian methods to further their agendas, without any room for dissent. Both, at times, use violence to enforce their policies.
First of all the rise of Islamism got going way earlier.
Earlier than any religion that is used to hide behind by extreme elements in the West?
. It wasn't the Russians that turned Hillary into a sleazeball that the majority distrusted.
First of all, I'm not sure why you think she is any more sleazy than any other politician out there?
As for the Russians, I think they tried their best to use false information to sway American voters. I well remember talking to a younger co-worker who repeated a story about Hillary Clinton that she saw on Facebook that was supposedly about Hillary Clinton's behavior as an attorney in Arkansas. It was very derogatory. I asked my co-worker what the source of the story was and she just said it was all over Facebook. She seemed to think that made it true. So, when you say the Russians did not make Hillary into a sleazeball I have to beg to differ. I think they did their best to plant derogatory stories about her in the hopes that no one would actually look to see if they were true or not.
You might also mention that both claim the right to declare apostasies. We could compare Sarah Palin's ‘real Americans’ to the Islamists declarations of apostasy for Muslims who oppose them. Might also mention that both harken back to an imaginary ahistorical time when things were supposedly right and proper. The right-wingers imagine a ‘Leave it to Beaver’ idyllic world circa 1950s when black folks and queers didn't exist to trouble their thoughts and women stayed home in their proper roles and often in an apron if not actually barefoot. The Islamists harken back a little further.
Africa had not come to mind for me, but, now that you mention it… Africa is seemingly more strongly affected earlier than most other areas of the globe.
[Lynnette]: "Yes, snow...again. It's all white out there again."
You have my commiserations! ;-)
[Me]: "Islamism is nothing whatsoever like the right wing in the west, nor is it even a reaction to the same sort of things."
[Lynnette]: "Are you sure? Look more closely. Both tend to use religion as a crutch to further their agendas. Both tend to be intolerant of other ideas. Both tend to use authoritarian methods to further their agendas, without any room for dissent. Both, at times, use violence to enforce their policies."
With respect, this is a crazy caricature. Are you talking about a handful of losers goose-stepping at some recent neo-Nazi parade, or are you talking about, say, the party that has been in power in the UK for two thirds of the time since the second world war? Both would be referred to as "right wing" in some quarters.
For that matter, since we tend to talk mostly about American politics here, both your main parties would count as far right (economically, at least) in large parts of Europe. And not just economically -- Presidents from both parties regularly invoke religion in political speeches in ways that would be completely unheard of in most of Europe.
The right wing doesn't have to be authoritarian either, as you know from your own right-libertarians. So I suspect you need to qualify what you mean by "right wing". It is an exceedingly broad church.
Islamism, on the other hand, while not exactly synonymous with jihadism can still be fairly narrowly defined. It can certainly be identified with political Islam, and strongly overlaps with Islamic fundamentalism. It is statist and authoritarian which, if your intention was to liken it to Nazism rather than conservatism, is its main resemblance to that ideology. But then, I would consider those aspects of both ideologies to be left wing, not right wing. (But let's face it, left and right aren't really very good descriptors of anything these days).
[Lynnette]: "First of all, I'm not sure why you think she [Hillary] is any more sleazy than any other politician out there?"
She probably isn't but she's definitely more sanctimonious. And she and the Democrats made the mistake of getting caught being sleazy on multiple occasions. The Dems need to get it through their heads that a sleazy candidate promising more of the status quo is not going to cut it with the electorate anymore.
She lost to Donald Trump, for god's sake! And now the Dems are pretending it's because half the American electorate turned out to be either dumb crackers or Adolf Hitler's grandchildren. The resulting whinge fest, it seems to me, is where the divisions in American society stem from. Not from interfering Russians -- they are only driving a wedge into existing cracks. The GOP are, of course, equally responsible for the wedge politics. Basically, your society has become alarmingly intolerant in recent decades (which it genuinely pains me to say as I still hold it in high regard).
"…half the American electorate turned out to be either dumb crackers or Adolf Hitler's grandchildren."
26% actually. One of these days I'll maybe take pity on you and teach you some math to replace whatever that is that you use in trying to sustain the misbegotten belief that you know math.
[Lynnette]: "I asked my co-worker what the source of the story was and she just said it was all over Facebook. She seemed to think that made it true. So, when you say the Russians did not make Hillary into a sleazeball I have to beg to differ."
Well that is as much a result of the lack of discernment of the internet generation as anything else. I think we are in a transitional stage where people haven't caught up yet with the idea that online journalism has none of the checks and balances of the traditional print medium. This is not a recent development -- long before the term "fake news" was coined, the American right was incensed by misleading information (as it saw it) on sites like The Daily Kos.
To take a less political anecdote, I've been truly astounded by acquaintances who've fallen for all sorts of mad conspiracy theories, junk science, and assorted nonsense that they've come across online. Perhaps it has always been thus, but the internet has a much wider reach than traditional media and is much less controlled. That is both good and bad, but it calls for a level of discernment that is sorely lacking.
And perhaps even more worrying than the fact that every nutjob can get an airing on the net, is the large internet companies who make their money out of promoting confirmation bias. Whatever you tend to read or watch, Youtube and Reddit and others will feed you more of the same. Actually, that reminds me again of this sometimes hilarious but pointed talk on that topic, worth a watch (apologies if I posted it already).
Petes: Are you talking about a handful of losers goose-stepping at some recent neo-Nazi parade, or are you talking about, say, the party that has been in power in the UK for two thirds of the time since the second world war? Both would be referred to as "right wing" in some quarters.
When I made the original statement I characterized it as the rise of extremes. So, yes, when I talk about the rise of the right in the West I am referring to people like those who participated in the march in Charlottesville, one of whom thought it perfectly okay to ram a car into innocent people. Or I am referring to the firefighters who thought it okay to hang a noose around the photos of a black co-workers family. Or I am talking about those who feel that sexual orientation is a reason to remove brave people who have been fighting in our military. Or I am talking about those who seem to see all immigrants as a threat to our country, when in fact, for the most part, they are simply people who are fleeing the same kind of intolerance.
All of those things I have seen as one of our political parties has moved farther and farther to the right. Yes, there are extremes on the left, but, while I don't care for people like Code Pink, they do not seem to be as soul destroying as those people I have mentioned above.
This kind of intolerance, which fosters a violent reaction by some, even as it is cloaked in religion or some kind of nationalist fervor is, yes, very reminiscent of Nazi Germany. That is the similarity I see between the extreme right in the West and the Islamist rise of groups such as AQ or Daesh in the Middle East. And to not speak out, or whinge about it, is to remain silent in the face of a real threat to our democracy.
I don't know enough about the right wing government in the UK to know if they evince the same kind of intolerance as does our current president, but if they do, then, yes, they may be part of the problem as well. Perhaps the Brexit vote is an answer to that?
There were a number of reasons Hillary Clinton lost to Trump, not least of which is our system of using the Electoral College. Lee is right, she did win the popular vote, despite Donald Trump's misleading claims of voter fraud. There is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud that could have swung the popular vote to elect Donald Trump.
She was also hurt by the email issue, which was exacerbated by hacking by the Russians, who used Wikileaks as a conduit. Comey did not help when he talked about re-opening the investigation at the last minute.
And now the Dems are pretending it's because half the American electorate turned out to be either dumb crackers or Adolf Hitler's grandchildren.
And that is unfair to those who voted purely for economic reasons or as a protest vote against what they saw as a status quo system that wasn't helping them. Unfortunately, though, they will not get any better from Trump & Co. They have been sold a bill of goods. Because as far as I can tell his policies, whether they be deregulation or this tax reform bill, will benefit more the wealthier segments of society rather than the poorer.
The resulting whinge fest, it seems to me, is where the divisions in American society stem from. Not from interfering Russians -- they are only driving a wedge into existing cracks.
Well, of course they are. That is what I meant by their encouraging our divisions. We, obviously, still have a racial divide that has never really healed. Now, with the current government, we will only increase our economic divide.
Well that is as much a result of the lack of discernment of the internet generation as anything else.
This co-worker was early twenties. It was like talking to someone who reads the National Enquirer and believes it is hard news. She was taken for a ride and didn't even know it.
What is unfortunate is those who read these things and should know to double check facts, but don't, because it just reinforces what they want to believe.
TrumpTweets: Shorthands is telling us this morning that he's going into 12 days of negotiations in East Asia with ‛great negotiating strength’. My guess is that he comes back in two weeks with squat to show for it.
This is the guy who has been running the impeach Trump ads, apparently on Fox News as well as CNN. At least until they pulled it.
Fox News has pulled an ad by San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer calling for President Donald Trump to be impeached, prompting questions about the motivation for Fox's decision.
The ads having been running across the U.S. for two weeks, and Steyer bought a second week of advertising in a prime time Fox News slot on October 27 as part of the $11 million ad buy.
I'm curious as to what will be FoxNews' explanation for why those ads can't run on FoxNews. This may lead to an interesting discussion of FoxNews' editorial position and its bleed-over into their news coverage.
"BOMBSHELL "Massive Leak Reveals New Ties Between Trump Administration and Russia, Implicating Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Jared Kushner "The so-called ‘Paradise Papers’ have revealed secrets of politicians worldwide, including new links between the Trump administration and Russia." DailyBeast
I suspect this one may complicate Shorthands' life a little bit in the not too distant future.
[Lynnette]: "When I made the original statement I characterized it as the rise of extremes. So, yes, when I talk about the rise of the right in the West I am referring to people like those who participated in the march in Charlottesville, one of whom thought it perfectly okay to ram a car into innocent people... Or I am talking about those who seem to see all immigrants as a threat to our country..."
So let me get this straight. Are you lumping murdering Nazis into the same category as someone who is afraid that an immigrant might turn out to be a radical, or maybe just compete for their job? Even if those fears are exaggerated, it hardly makes someone a Nazi. The Charlottesville nutters are a microscopic minority -- perhaps smaller than the dangerous leftists and anarchists in extreme groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa. (I share your distaste for Code Pink, but there are much more dangerous groups on the left).
"All of those things I have seen as one of our political parties has moved farther and farther to the right."
This sounds like post hoc reasoning. Maybe it's because your other political party has moved so far to the left? Whatever the reason, the demonisation of political opponents has reached farcical levels. Even though I watch far more British TV than American, the Trump whinge fest has reached around the globe. It is impossible to avoid.
It would be laughable if it weren't so indicative of such a serious political malaise. People are seeing bogeymen everywhere. "Reds under the bed" doesn't even come close. Why are so many Americans having such a hard time accepting that Trump is the president legitimately elected by the American people? The mass hysteria about Russians is unbecoming and a distraction. Interference in foreign elections is standard practice for many countries, including the USA.
In any event, I don't think you need Russians to polarise the debate. The cheerleaders of the Trump whinge fest who are already doing a fine job of that.
[Lynnette] "There were a number of reasons Hillary Clinton lost to Trump, not least of which is our system of using the Electoral College."
There is no perfect electoral system. If the one you've got is defective, it can be changed. What you can't do is blame the electoral system only when it doesn't produce the result you want.
"And that is unfair to those who voted purely for economic reasons or as a protest vote against what they saw as a status quo system that wasn't helping them. Unfortunately, though, they will not get any better from Trump & Co. They have been sold a bill of goods."
Pointing out that Trump is merely as bad as Hillary is not a very good recommendation for the latter.
"What you can't do is blame the electoral system only when it doesn't produce the result you want."
Totally unwarranted assumption you make there. But, it's probably necessary for you to make totally unwarranted assumptions fairly regularly in order for you to maintain your belief system.
"This is such a horrible thing for that community."
Indeed it is. Unfortunately mass shootings seems to be an endemic problem in the US. As horrible as it is, this one will be mostly forgotten in a week. There was a mass shooting in the US nearly every day in October (by some definition of mass shooting). The same old arguments about gun control will be rehearsed (though maybe not in Texas). Nothing will change. It is a problem as inevitable as death and taxes, as intractable as Palestinians vs. Jews.
"Nothing will change. It is a problem as inevitable as death and taxes…"
You are wrong. It will change suddenly, and within your expected lifespan. (You're recently retired, so we've got a rough guess on your age.) As gay marriage wasn't viable in America until suddenly it was, so this will be.
The difference has already begun to be made. The last two mass shootings have been in Nevada and now Texas. That will no longer be a new thing; the mass shootings are moving out from amongst the ‛damned liberals’ homes and now they're settling in amongst Sarah Palin's ‘real Americans’; that change will not reverse itself. They will come around when it's them getting killed.
And it will be quick when it happens. Like gay marriage.
Our gun nuts will be attempting to claim credit for a gun owner stopping yesterday's shooting in Texas. However, we now know that the gunman had already finished his run through the church congregation and had already left the scene of the slaughter, come back out of the church on his own, before the neighbor confronted him. This knowledge will not deter them from claiming that the armed neighbor had put a halt to the slaughter that had, in fact, already halted by itself.
[Lynnette]: "The dead ranged in age from 5 to 72."
The latest I'm reading is that the range is now 18 months to 77 years. That's not counting the unborn child of a woman who was five months pregnant.
Trump has already come out and said "this wasn't a gun thing"(!) Also, that things would have been much worse if there hadn't been "someone with a gun pointing the other direction". Strikes me as bullshit on both counts.
How much worse could it have been? The regular attendance at the church was fifty people. Twenty-six were shot dead and twenty injured. The gunman managed to shoot pretty much everybody there, before he was tackled on leaving the building. It is cold comfort that some local gap-toothed yahoo with tattoos on his tattoos was on hand after the event to take potshots back at him. (No disrespect to the gentleman in question, but I wouldn't feel all that comfortable with him toting a gun either).
But it's good to know that "guns don't kill people, bad people with guns kill people". Now all we need is a magic crystal ball to figure out when people are about to turn bad. Actually, scratch that -- the shooter has already been dishonorably discharged from the military for assaulting his wife and child, and had threatened his mother-in-law who attended at the church where he rampaged. None of that disqualified him from buying a gun, although he was already a "bad person".
So what you actually need is a diagnostic test for "bad people imminently about to do bad things with guns". Good luck with that, America.
Oh, nearly forgot: Trump also said that the guy had "mental health problems" and that "[the US] has a lot of mental health problems, like a lot of countries". Apart from the implausibility of Trump remotely diagnosing the guy's mental state immediately after the incident from six thousand miles away, it doesn't actually address the problem.
Disgruntled men taking out their problems on others is nothing new. We've had a spate of murder-suicides where men take their own lives but decide that their family is going down with them. Suicide is a tragedy, its victims mostly males overwhelmed by situations they can't bring themselves to talk about.
A man who decides to take other people with him stops being a tragic victim and becomes an evil shitbag. Perhaps it is a fine line between not seeing value in your own life, and not seeing value in others. I reckon the decline in traditional morality makes that line easier to cross. Whether that's true or not, one thing's for sure: putting guns in people's hands makes it a helluva lot easier to take people with you.
Are you lumping murdering Nazis into the same category as someone who is afraid that an immigrant might turn out to be a radical, or maybe just compete for their job?
No. What I am saying is that I believe some of the current government's policies, such as the ban on travel from some countries, for the most part originally Muslim majority countries until someone told Trump that may give rise to discrimination lawsuits, is encouraging intolerance and possibly violence, like the Nazis. There was just recently graffiti depicting the Nazi swastika and anti-Muslim comments at one of our colleges here. Granted, this stuff has been around before the advent of Trump, but his reaction to Charlottesville was wishy washy at best and just appeared to appease the extremists on the far right.
The Charlottesville nutters are a microscopic minority -- perhaps smaller than the dangerous leftists and anarchists in extreme groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa.
But it is not the far left that is currently in power in the US. It is a president and a party that has shown, by the policies they wish to enact, that they have little care for the lower income segment of the populace, the health of our environment, the health of our citizens and the inequality of economic means.
The farther they move toward the right the more they encourage a leftist backlash.
Maybe it's because your other political party has moved so far to the left?
Oh, certainly. I think there are those who very much dislike legalizing gay marriage, for example. But to vote based entirely on one issue is to ignore the danger that may arise from other issues. Unfortunately, I think there are many people who vote based on only one issue, though.
Whatever the reason, the demonisation of political opponents has reached farcical levels.
And this really isn't right. In fact, I know many people who voted for Trump that I would not consider extremists. I just think they were getting something other than what they bargained for. So many people don't realize the ramifications of some things, such as to the environment by some deregulation. I also believe that the current administration is out of step with the majority of Americans with regard to climate change.
Why are so many Americans having such a hard time accepting that Trump is the president legitimately elected by the American people?
Because he really did lose the popular vote? And that being the case there are far more people out here who don't support him or his policies? You will see more division when the president and his party try to make major changes without a mandate.
But this really has nothing to do with the Russian investigation. That stands on its own and needs to be seen through to the end, whatever the result is.
What you can't do is blame the electoral system only when it doesn't produce the result you want.
I'm really not. I'm just trying to explain why someone who is elected president within that system may not actually have the backing of the American people.
Pointing out that Trump is merely as bad as Hillary is not a very good recommendation for the latter.
Oh, no, no, what I meant was that Hillary would have maintained the status quo. At least to a certain extent. Trump's policies, if actually enacted, will not improve the status quo, but likely will make it worse.
As a president, or person, I believe that Hillary far outshines Donald Trump.
None of that disqualified him from buying a gun, although he was already a "bad person".
Last I read it did. He wasn't licensed to carry.
Trump has already come out and said "this wasn't a gun thing"(!) Also, that things would have been much worse if there hadn't been "someone with a gun pointing the other direction". Strikes me as bullshit on both counts.
No argument there. One of those issues I disagree with our president on.
"But it is not the far left that is currently in power in the US."
Nor are the ‛nutters’ as Petes calls them ‛a microscopic minority’ as he alleges. He just made that part up because that's what he wants to think (or, wants us to think), but it's not true. There are folks out on the left every bit as radical and noxious as the right-wingers, but there's not near as many of them.
I think they're talking about concealed. I believe Texas is an open carry state--generally legal to carry a weapon as long as it's not concealed. Exceptions for in churches (irony there) or schools, federal buildings, county courthouses, et al., but, oddly, usually not illegal to carry a gun in bars or taverns.
"And, of course, we have to put up with the clamour from the MSM and the endless whinge fest from certain quarters who simply won't accept the outcome of a democratic election…"
And, let's get one last thing straightened out here.
Even if Trump had won a democratic election (he did not, the American Presidential election is quasi-democratic at best), that wouldn't justify his attempts (and Petes' attempts in support of Trump) to shut down inquiry into his potential connections to the Russian meddling on his behalf that occurred in our last election. We have every right to pursue those suspicions, indeed we have an obligation to pursue those suspicions, whether or not Trump was democratically elected (which he was not).
Petes has never displayed any real affinity for democracy. He's always been something of an autocrat. His attitude here, i.e. that winning the election somehow makes how one won the election irrelevant, seems to be just another manifestation of his general disdain for democratic norms.
"We have every right to pursue those suspicions, indeed we have an obligation to pursue those suspicions…"
We have a further right and duty to inquire as to what the hell he's doing with the powers he's managed to acquire, and to complain when complaints are warranted.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” Theodore Roosevelt -- Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918
Writer in TheAtlantic suggests that American mass shootings, like the recent ones in Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, and Orlando are both contagions and share characteristics with more structured antisocial activities such as jihadi activity.
[Lynnette]: "What I am saying is that I believe some of the current government's policies, such as the ban on travel from some countries, for the most part originally Muslim majority countries until someone told Trump that may give rise to discrimination lawsuits, is encouraging intolerance and possibly violence, like the Nazis."
And when Obama brought in travel restrictions mentioning the same list of countries, was that also like the Nazis? Or was their something qualitatively different about Obama's restrictions? Or was it just not Nazi-like because it was Obama and not Trump?
"There was just recently graffiti depicting the Nazi swastika and anti-Muslim comments at one of our colleges here. Granted, this stuff has been around before the advent of Trump, but his reaction to Charlottesville was wishy washy at best and just appeared to appease the extremists on the far right."
Extremists on the far right do not take solace from Trump. That is one of the many fabrications of the hysterical left, though it is one of the more patently ridiculous ones. Trump is despised by the far right. Anyone who gave it one nanosecond's rational thought would realise that no swastika-toting thug is a fan of a president with a Jewish daughter.
"But it is not the far left that is currently in power in the US."
And it is not the far right either.
"Oh, certainly. I think there are those who very much dislike legalizing gay marriage, for example. But to vote based entirely on one issue is to ignore the danger that may arise from other issues. Unfortunately, I think there are many people who vote based on only one issue, though."
I don't think Trump got elected by people voting on the single issue of gay marriage.
"Because he really did lose the popular vote? And that being the case there are far more people out here who don't support him or his policies? You will see more division when the president and his party try to make major changes without a mandate."
Ok, I take that point. He has a weaker mandate than if he'd achieved a bigger electoral majority.
"...what I meant was that Hillary would have maintained the status quo."
That's her problem right there. That's why she lost. The status quo isn't working for enough people anymore.
"As a president, or person, I believe that Hillary far outshines Donald Trump."
The people beg to differ ;-) (Enough people to get Trump elected, at any rate).
And, just for the record… Obama didn't ‛bring in’ the travel restrictions in question. Arguably he might have vetoed the legislation imposing those restrictions, but that's another question entirely, whether he should or should not have vetoed that legislation; and it might have passed over his veto anyway.
That is one of the many fabrications of a fat, hysterical, Catholic Irishman. Only a very small portion of the American ‛far right’ still gets bent ‛bout Jews. Most of them have have transferred their ethnic animosity almost seamlessly from Jews to Muslims.
It's beginning to look like the Texas church shooter ran out of ammo before Mr. Willeford showed up to shoot him as he tried to escape the scene. This isn't preventing the pro-shooters lobby from making Mr. Willeford into the hero of the hour all over their conservative media outlets.
Hilarious. That idiot lady who gave Trump the finger in a photo that went viral was a "communications specialist" for a government contractor. The responsible mother of two proudly used the photo as her Facebook profile pic. Needless to say, her employer was not best pleased. I'm sure prospective new employers will be very receptive of her little tantrum, which might be why she's considering Planned Parenthood and PETA -- they probably have better opportunities for leftwing extremists. ;-)
Lynnette: "All of you seemed to disagree with this [climate change] statement. As you see I did qualify it with "perhaps". What I am thinking about here is Africa. We have seen quite a large migration from countries within that continent. As Marcus has pointed out they seem to be more economic refugees rather than political, despite the fact that so many countries there are not what one would refer to as democratic. What we seem to see there is corruption and government mismanagement, as well as an inability to deal with issues arising from things such as drought, which may be exacerbated by climate change."
I still say "climate change" has not (at least not yet) played any large part. Droughts are nothing new you know. Remember Ethiopia in the 80's?
Africa has it well within it's means to feed that whole continent a few times over. Hell, drop a seed, turn around, turn back around and there's a plant growing! It's as a whole one of the very most fertile regions on earth.
Their problem is man-made. Insane over-population for one. 5-7 children per family is COMPLETELY unsustainable in todays world. If we did that all across the world we would likely breed ourselves into extinction within a century.
Then the poor governance, the corruption, that's most likely one of the main factors as well.
Genociding the whites outta Rhodesia and creating the Shono-homeland of Zimbabwe was prolly not such a hot idea either, all things considered.
Pete: "Well that is as much a result of the lack of discernment of the internet generation as anything else. I think we are in a transitional stage where people haven't caught up yet with the idea that online journalism has none of the checks and balances of the traditional print medium."
Maybe if "respectable" journalism actually adhered to fair and balanced (not in the FOX sence, in the actual sence) news and reported NEWS and HAPPENINGS without an agenda, we the people wouldn't find a reason to look for the truth (and sometimes getting it, sometimes being duped) elsewhere.
The MSM is IMO largely to blame for this themselves. And the "traditional print medium" has succumbed to politization and "outrage journalism" to the extent they are no longer trustworthy. Not by a longshot.
-----------------------
Just take this latest instance of Trump and Abe feeding Koi-fish in Japan. Here's an updated CNN report:
The original report that originated from ABC had it thus:
Abe and Trump was at this pond feeding Koi fish. Abe scooped out some feed, Trump scooped out some feed and THEN, THEN because Trump is an impatient CHILD he poured the whole canister of food into the water and now animal rights groups are hollering for his treatment of them poor fish!!!111
That was actually reported by the ABC. It got picked up all over, across the globe. And it was published with a pic of Trump looking like a dumbass while emptying the fishfood into that pond.
TRUTH:
Abe scooped out some fish-food. Trump did the same. Abe then emptied his canister of fish food. Trump did the same. And anyone whose been to any Koi feeding place knows emptying a can of food is just normal.
So: a major US news outlet DELIBERATLY took a complete non-event and used it to make Trump look like a stupid buffoon, when in fact he did nothing wrong, and it went world wide.
So, speking bout Fake News, we might not ONLY look at "alternative media" or "internet journalism" or "Russians".
"Needless to say, her employer was not best pleased."
They will be even less pleased if she accepts any of the offers she'll be getting for free legal help to sue her ex-employer.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "The original report that originated from ABC had it thus:"
The original report that I read on ABC's website had it differently. They reported that Trump drew laughter when he poured out his fish food. (I presume the laughter ensued because he did it with a grand ‘flourish’.) The dedicated Trumpkins took immediate umbrage. (I presume they took offense to the report of Trump being laughed at. I also presume you've taken your description of the ABC coverage off of the umbrage reports.)
Writer in TheAtlantic suggests that American mass shootings, like the recent ones in Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, and Orlando are both contagions and share characteristics with more structured antisocial activities such as jihadi activity.
I know people have characterized those who wage jihad as being ideologically motivated and not crazy, but I have to wonder if that is not entirely true. And perhaps "crazy" isn't quite the correct term either. Perhaps "broken" would work better. For those who feel that there is no where to turn, or that the world has it in form them, finding something to hold onto, even something as dark as Daesh is, gives them something to identify with. To belong. This might explain why you see people from all economic strata, even those with monetary advantages can have emotional problems.
Extremists on the far right do not take solace from Trump.
This I will disagree with. There have been enough pictures of rallies of the extreme right praising Trump to imply that they do.
Anyone who gave it one nanosecond's rational thought would realise that no swastika-toting thug is a fan of a president with a Jewish daughter.
I don't know that they like her, but they will take any Trump policy that furthers their agenda.
I don't think Trump got elected by people voting on the single issue of gay marriage.
I believe he got elected for multiple reasons, that being only one. I just meant that there are many people out there who vote on a single issue. The anti-abortion crowd probably like him too.
The status quo isn't working for enough people anymore.
I understand. Those are the people who voted out of protest. They are the ones who will be sadly disappointed, because, as I said, Trump won't fix any of their concerns. At least not judging by the legislation the Republicans have tried to push through Congress.
What is rather interesting, though, is that perhaps Trump has achieved something that will in the end really make our country greater. We have an election for local races today. From an article in my paper yesterday it appears that many of the candidates who have been knocking on doors are finding a more engaged electorate who are interested in not just national but local politics. It's not just the older voters, but the younger ones as well.
Millennials "are starting to get more involved," said Craig Angrimson, who's running for the Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan school board. "They want to be precinct chairs. They're saying, 'We have a stake in this. This is our future. It's our country, too.'"
I ran across a report the other day that said that the number of women running for office, first time, was also way up since Trump took office. His evident misogyny seems to have motivated many.
Rich Lowry professional conservative, makes Stephen Willeford (who basically shot an unarmed man) and ‘local gap-toothed yahoo with tattoos’, Johnnie Langendorff, into the heroes of the hour.
Mr. Lowry is careful to imply things he will not actually write out in clear, and to not mention that Willeford shot and killed an unarmed man.
Guess that's wrong, Willeford killing him that is. The church shooter decided not to wait for Willeford's shots to finish him off (he'd already telephoned his father saying that he was dying, texted maybe, I forget which). But he decided to not wait for that end, and is said to have hurried the end with his own head shot.
[Lynnette]: "I know people have characterized those who wage jihad as being ideologically motivated and not crazy, but I have to wonder if that is not entirely true. And perhaps "crazy" isn't quite the correct term either. Perhaps "broken" would work better. For those who feel that there is no where to turn, or that the world has it in form them, finding something to hold onto, even something as dark as Daesh is, gives them something to identify with. To belong. This might explain why you see people from all economic strata, even those with monetary advantages can have emotional problems."
I think you are 100% correct. This is well born out by the profiles of French and Belgian so-called jihadis, as well as some British ones. They are predominantly low-grade criminals who have reflexively latched onto jihadism as a way to make their lives meaningful. By "meaningful" I mean they get to pretend to themselves that vile and cowardly attacks on unarmed civilians will give them the notoriety and kudos that they feel they must deserve, but have failed to garner as low-life thugs. Killers like the Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs shooters just leave out the intermediate step of latching onto a notorious cause. Those are more likely people who did make something of themselves, but threw it away in the pursuit of a grudge.
[Lynnette]: "This I will disagree with [that "extremists on the far right do not take solace from Trump"]. There have been enough pictures of rallies of the extreme right praising Trump to imply that they do. I don't know that they like her [Ivanka], but they will take any Trump policy that furthers their agenda."
You're kind of making my point for me. These people may have temporarily latched onto Trump as a temporary travelling companion, but they are headed nothing like the same direction. Don't take my word for it, listen to Richard Spencer's own words. I'll admit Trump's immigration policy was indeed music to their ears, but it doesn't mean that agree with it for anything like the reasons that Trump proposed it. They quite clearly don't.
If anything I blame the media for giving these fringe low-lifes the oxygen of publicity. As Spencer himself says, they were pretty much unheard of for their first ten years of existence. Now the media have given him the notoriety he so dearly craves. Spencer is the quintessential attention-seeking troll.
As for the Jewish thing, I can assure you that Ivanka and Kushner are a blot they are willing to turn a blind eye to for the sake of expedience. The leopard doesn't change his spots, and the "alt-" part of alt-right does not extend to ditching the fascist disdain for Judaism. Just listen to Spencer's fellow idiot, "Millennial Woes".
All this said, Spencer's alt-right are extremely fringe elements. I don't see that Trump has to apologise for them any more than Obama had to apologise for the idiot black girl who slapped a white cop at his inaugural celebrations because "things had changed now". The people who think otherwise are the ones cheerleading the whinge fest for their own purposes.
[Lynnette]: "Remember the Great American Dust Bowl of the 30's?"
Decadal drought in the American Plains is as old as the hills. There were half a dozen of them in the 19th century. Many people were fooled by a wetter period just around the height of homesteading in the plains. The 30's Dust Bowl was a combination of the climate doing what it had always done, and unsustainable farming practices. The only thing that has changed since is the farming practices.
"…but it doesn't mean that agree with it for anything like the reasons that Trump proposed it."
You are making the totally unwarranted assumption that Trump publicly admits to his real reason for proposing a travel ban.
"As for the Jewish thing…"
As for the Jewish thing, it's become a part of the standard dogma of the Christian Right Wing support for Israel (and thus tolerance for Jews) is decreed by God. (They even have a name for it, ‛Christian Zionists’.) You can rattle on about Spencer and his best buddies all you want; they represent a distinct minority among the right-wing crazies. There are still a few who originalist Nazis who still hold to the paleo-Nazi hatred of the Jews; Spencer and his besties are among them, but, in America that sentiment has been almost seamlessly replaced by and morphed into hatred of Muslims. I understand this is not true in Europe, but we're not talking ‛bout Europe.
[Marcus]: "Maybe if "respectable" journalism actually adhered to fair and balanced (not in the FOX sence, in the actual sence) news and reported NEWS and HAPPENINGS without an agenda, we the people wouldn't find a reason to look for the truth (and sometimes getting it, sometimes being duped) elsewhere."
Agreed. However, there is even less reason to trust the new online media. I think we have to improve our critical faculties with regard to all of them.
(It doesn't hurt the Jews among the right-wingers that they've kinda had a falling out with the black activists since the heydays of the Civil Rights Movement back in the 60s and 70s.)
I would point out that the invitation of Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress and assail Obama and Obama's foreign policy was considered a delightfully successful public insult to Obama by the Republicans in Congress and by their favored media outlets and by their right-wing crazy wing in particular.
American Nazis aren't generally down on the Jews anymore; they've filled that space with antipathy towards Muslims.
Now here's a new battery technology that has been silently building up an actual track record and seems ready for prime time. The vanadium redox-flow battery is a US invention that is making a big splash in China. I would take this article by one of its main developers with a pinch of salt ... except that it seems the Chinese are in the process of actually deploying it at utility scale for grid storage. The battery can be completely charged and discharged without damage, can deliver power over a four hour period, has a lifetime of 20 years, is more scalable than lithium and is already approaching the price of lithium batteries.
The Virginia Governor's election has been called. Ralph Northam, the Democrat, is the winner. That means Virginia should have a Democratic governor next time they reapportion electoral districts.
I told a lie -- the vanadium flow battery is an Autralian, not a US, invention. Couple of youtube vids about it, from before the current US refinement, and Chinese deployment -- one, two.
It seems that Petes has been cured of his previously dour attitude towards battery innovation. All that was required was for him to find a battery he liked instead of me mentioning a candidate. Whodda thunk it?
Didn't take long for Shorthands, to deny responsibility for the losing candidate for Governor, Republican Ed Gillespie. Earlier today Shorthands was all over twitter and doing voice-over for robo-calls across Virginia in support of the loser, but now it's all Gillespie's fault for ‛not embracing’ Shorthands with sufficient enthsiasm. Trumptweets Not Shorthands' fault; never Shorthands' fault.
Yesterday's elections in New Jersey and Virginia are going to be excessively over analyzed for weeks if not months, to come, so I thought I'd get my contribution to that excess in early. According to the exit polls, fifty-one percent (51%) of the Virginia voters intended their vote as either express opposition to Trump or as support for Trump. That split came down two to one against Trump. (34% to 17%). This will not change Trump's direction. He will continue to play to his base, to that 17%. It may make him a little louder and more frantic, but that's about the extent of the change he'll adopt.
The more important question for now is, "What effect will these results have on Republicans in Congress?" Right now they're afraid of Trump again. Jeff Flake fought him and lost; Flake isn't even running again. Bob Corker fought him and lost; Corker isn't running again either. Guys who wanted to keep their jobs in Congress (Republicans anyway) decided they were scared of Trump all over again. Now they have something else to fear. If they cross Trump they're in trouble in their own primaries; if they don't cross Trump they may be in trouble in the general elections.
Of course, they have to survive the primaries before they have to worry about the general elections. So, I'm guessing the play along with Trump just as they have been doing, and they worry about the general elections when they have to face the general elections.
The Texas shooter was in a mental facility. Maybe Trump knew something we didn't after all. He also had form, threatening his military chain of command and smuggling weapons onto his base. Nice to know the system of background checks works so well to stop nutters buying guns (not!).
Interesting piece here if you've got a little time to kill. Writer for Politico.Com spends a few days among the dedicated Trumpkins of Cambria County, Pennsylvania.
They've given up on Trump delivering anything except public malice towards their enemies. That's gonna be enough to keep ‛em loyal.
Pete: "Agreed. However, there is even less reason to trust the new online media. I think we have to improve our critical faculties with regard to all of them."
Yes there might be even less reason to trust random web-pages claiming to be news outlets. But I think it's way more important to hold so called "serious" sources, especially Public Service sources that we are forced to pay for to ethical and non-biased standards.
In Sweden we have a "Public Service" we are forced to pay for. It's divided into SR (swedish radio) and SVT (swedish television). They did a poll a while ago on their staff and found that 55% of 'em went for our "green" party: Miljöpartiet. That party is in government today with about a 5% vote but polls at about 3% now. Mlost of the rest polled as other leftist parties.
And they DO let their party affiliation or general worldview impact on their reporting. Complete cultural marxists the lot of 'em.
Just the other day one of their "journalists" was convicted in court of human trafficking here. He brought a syrian back after a report he did from Syria, against all laws. Still he remains employed and I am one of the ones forced to pay his salary.
Why should I trust that lot any more than I trust a rightwing blogger? They clearly operate about at the same levels of journalistic integrity.
The BBC covered up the Rotherham rape scandals for quite some time. Tens of young white british girls being groomed, gangraped and sold between gangs of (mostly) Pakistani men and both ya'lls police and Public Service put a lid on it so as not to inflame "racism". You know all that now, you still have any faith in your "public service news outlets"?
Those agressors and even more so their protectors should be lined up and shot if you ask me.
"Trumpism without Trump": In the hours leading up to polls closing in Virginia, the idea -- floated by former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon -- that Gillespie would prove you could run and win on Trump's idea if you took Trump's personality out of the equation was rampant. Then Gillespie got trounced. What Tuesday night in Virginia showed is that most voters outside of the GOP base simply don't distinguish between support for Trump personally and support for Trump's agenda. It's all the same to them. And it's bad.
Petes: If anything I blame the media for giving these fringe low-lifes the oxygen of publicity.
As long as these people identify with Trump, even if it is only temporary, the media will cover it. He is the President of the United States and it is their job to track his performance, his connections if they are questionable, his policy shifts and whatever else is needed to keep the American public informed.
It is up to that public to determine the veracity, or bias if there is any, of the reporting of the events or circumstances. I think you made that point with regard to the Russian propaganda floating around during the 2016 election. It is a buyer beware kind of thing.
And it is up to Congress to deal with anything illegal that may turn up because of any investigation.
Lee C: Didn't take long for Shorthands, to deny responsibility for the losing candidate for Governor, Republican Ed Gillespie.
He can deny all he wants, but the only thing that will matter in the end is the motivation of voters. If he can't read that correctly, then he, or the GOP, is in trouble.
Lee C: Now they have something else to fear. If they cross Trump they're in trouble in their own primaries; if they don't cross Trump they may be in trouble in the general elections.
They are between a rock and a hard place, indeed. The only solution may be running as an Independent, possibly hastening the break up of the Repbulican Party as we know it.
"Now the media have given him the notoriety he so dearly craves."
Both of you seem to have missed the distinguishing feature here. This time the right wing crazies managed to get hundreds of right-wingers to attend, mixing neo-Nazi regalia with Trump's MAGA hats and Klansmen's hoods. Plus they brought their own armed militia. Nazi regalia, Trump regalia, a militia armed with assault weapons.
And, since they were wearing his trademarked wearing apparel it would have been proper for him to have disassociated himself from them (maybe needn't have apologized as such, but a public disassociation was called for; instead he afforded them the cover of ‛good people’).
"The only solution may be running as an Independent…"
There is another solution; the list of Republicans who're opting out instead is growing rapidly. Seems like there's a new announcement of a Republican not running for reelection to the Congress just about every week now.
It looks to me like the Republicans spent most of the day getting deep into a process for convincing themselves that the solution to their current voter woes is to pass an unpopular ‘tax cut for the rich’ plan. This is unlikely to actually work, but it's reasonably likely that they'll convince themselves anyway.
[Marcus]: "Tens of young white british girls being groomed, gangraped and sold between gangs of (mostly) Pakistani men..."
[Lynnette]: "You do realize that claims of rape are made by many jihadist recruiters, only about us? "
I don't know if you're familiar with the cases Marcus is talking about. They aren't rumours or allegations. A long list of perpetrators are in jail. It is widespread and systemic. The local authorities and police had to apologise for dragging their heels on investigations for years, for fear of racist accusations. Pretty horrific stuff.
Channel 4 in the UK are airing a documentary tonight about the roots of white anxiety in the US, called Angry, White and American. I'm not sure how balanced I expect it to be, but I doubt I'll be in any disagreement about Richard Spencer who was interviewed for the program. Gary Younge's interview in a carpark full of Nazis was pretty brave, I thought. Spencer didn't deal well with being interviewed by an intelligent black guy. It didn't take long for the mask to slip on his profound ignorance and bigotry. I think Younge has the right idea -- stick a Nazi in front of a camera and let him expose himself. Spencer shows himself to be less intellectual than a sack of shit. Guardian article here.
I don't know if you're familiar with the cases Marcus is talking about. They aren't rumours or allegations. A long list of perpetrators are in jail. It is widespread and systemic.
I am not. My apologies to Marcus. This type of thing sounds a lot like some of the Asian gang activity that you may find here, except it is usually the girls within that community who are the targets. They are less likely to come forward to testify against attackers.
If the media did cover up something like this, then they are not doing their jobs.
There is a book out, Hillbilly Elegy which is a story of our white working class. I am waiting to get it in paperback. I think it might give some insights into the problems some people are facing that we don't all see.
"This type of thing sounds a lot like some of the Asian gang activity that you may find here…. They are less likely to come forward to testify against attackers."
And yet, you've read about it anyway. I find it inconceivable that our press would cover up such offenses except, maybe, in isolated cases (and almost always it'd be the rich and powerful, and white who'd benefit from the press looking the other way). And yet we have a better track record on integrating minorities than the Europeans whose media is accused of overlooking such transgressions by their minorities. I think these things may be related. We expect, even demand, compliance with our social norms, and we punish deviations. We get compliance and integration as a result.
I'm familiar with the book, and the author, and the subject matter. Haven't read it yet, but have been treated to (subjected to?) several summaries and reviews.
I'm familiar with the book, and the author, and the subject matter. Haven't read it yet, but have been treated to (subjected to?) several summaries and reviews.
That sounds like you have formed an opinion on the book already. Or are you just tired of the play it, and its author, have received?
I was going to let this one slide on by, but Shorthands decided to get in on the story from his Southeast Asia trip. Roy Moore, the Republican nominee to replace Jeff Sessions as Senator from Alabama has been accused of being a pervert and child molester on the basis incidents supposedly occurring some thirty years ago. (For our foreign readers, Roy Moore is a self-righteous Bible Thumper in addition to being a reactionary Republican and an assertive Trumpkin.) Almost all of the Republicans already in Washington D.C. have said that Moore should withdraw from the race if the allegations are true. Now Shorthands has weighed in with the exact same prescription. Moore should drop out of the race for the Senate seat if the allegations are true.
Well, now Moore can't drop out of the election without it looking like he's admitting that the allegations are true. He's a self-righteous Bible Thumper; he's never going to admit that unless there's overwhelming evidence of his guilt, and, with 30 year old accusations, there's no chance of legal proceedings (the statute of limitations has long since run out). Without cops and prosecutors digging up evidence there's virtually no chance of anything popping up that Republican partisans will accept as ‘overwhelming evidence’. So, there's virtually no chance that he'll drop out now.
So, all those Republicans who wanted him to drop out have effectively arranged things so he won't drop out. Now they get to explain why they're okay with sitting by and working with a child molester, not a good look. (Any chance they could make headway of the Democrats' Senator Menendez's corruption trial has just been shot to hell.)
Speaking of Shorthands, now that I've broached the subject again today…
Trump advisor and advance man, Carter Page, has recently been obliged to acknowledge that he met with ‘high level’ Russians, ‘senior government officials’ while on his visits to Moscow. And Trump's ‘body man’ (i.e. personal assistant and bodyguard combined), Keith Schiller, has been obliged to acknowledge that the Russians offered Trump women (multiple women at once) for his overnights in Moscow. Schiller says he turned the Russians down.
We now know that the Russians were eager to make contact with Trump in the run-up to the 2016 elections. We know that Trump's people were eager to reciprocate.
Does anybody here really believe that Trump is too patriotic or too moral to have hooked up with the Russians to try to get help in defeating Hillary Clinton? Does anybody here really believe that Putin would have allowed that opportunity to go unfulfilled?
Whether or not Robert Mueller can get proof is another question entirely, but those questions are still out there.
Yes indeed there ARE rapist gangs of (mostly Paki) muslims who gangrape, trade, sell and abuse white girls there. The Rotherham gang was the most notorious.
And YES the police and local authorities in those places HAVE downplayed these crimes for fear of being racists. And for the same reason they've been letting these crimes go on.
And YES, for that they should be lined up and shot. IMO.
Lee asks: "by who?"
My only answer is by the people.
I doubt it will ever happen, but they really should get lined up and just shot.
If you're an elected official whose job it is to serve your own people and you turn a blind eye to young girls of your own people being gangraped by invading hordes from another people, then you deserve a bullet to the back of your head and nothing less. Very simple.
Lee: "You mean to abandon the rule of law in favor of vigilante action? Whomever takes the notion gets to make the kill?"
Well, Lee, in France pre revolution there was a tale (it was prolly just a tale but it got traction) of how Marie Antoinette was told sitting in Versailles luxury "the people are hungry, they can't afford bread" and she answered "well, let them eat cake". I'm sure you've heard 'bout that supposed episode.
That was one example of a then Royal elite, surrounded by whores and sychophants who cared NOTHING for their own people, as best demonstrated by Marie Antoinettes callous remark.
That, then, led to the people eventually rising up and Madame Lé Guillotine having her thirst for blood quenched. The blood around the Bastillé then ran ancle deep from the headchopped traitors to their own people.
It happened then, it can and probably will happen again. Maybe not in my lifetime but it's far from inconceivable. You're prolly too old to be around though.
And the officials who covered up Rotherham are exctly the sort of folks who would and should have their heads on the chopping block if and when the next peoples' revolution come 'round.
It will be on that axis though. Our new cultural marxist elites are flooding us with problems and strife both in the real world and in the world of ideas and we will eventually fight back violently. Courts will be held, scentences will be meted out, and heads will fall.
Also do note that the betrayal of the supposed rule of law was precisely what made this particular scandal into a many year long saga of abuse of the innocents, so to decry solutions outside that "rule of law" is pretty rich, even coming from you.
I don't think the French Revolution is probably your best analogy. I'm thinkin’ that equality and brotherhood ain't exactly high on your list of favored attributes for your New Order in Sweden.
No but Lee you are of the Boomer generation that lets small girls get raped and killed all for the "greater good" of your warped way of believing, despite all evidnce, that the human kind is one race and that we are all the same.
You will soon be dead, and Gen-Z is much more woke.
Your inheritance will be like:
"There was a short period in time where sickening fools for their own emotional well being sold out our children and our people's future. They were dispicable and we must never get their in the future."
Lee: "So you're looking more for an anti-Arab kristallnacht, rather than just small scale vigilante escapades?"
You're dumber than a box of rocks. The main enemy I portray in the enemy from within.
Like the sainted Corneieani Corneandru said: "If I'm faced with one enemy and one traitor and I have just one bullet, I would shoot the traitor first".
"The main enemy I portray in the enemy from within."
Ah, well, you led with the ‘gangs of (mostly Paki) muslims’, so you managed to conceal your ‘main enemy’ from detection by listing them in a secondary position. (Marcus @ Wed Nov 08, 11:30:00 am and Fri Nov 10, 10:26:00 pm ↑↑) I will therefore not feel chastened by your current elevation of the second listed enemy to first position. (Although, it appears you think that I should.)
More to the point though… In America we do not ‘lets small girls get raped and killed all for the "greater good"’. We pretty much disapprove of that sort of thing all around, even when such offenses committed by immigrants.
206 comments:
1 – 200 of 206 Newer› Newest»??
Chief of Staff John Kelly has apparently learned from his boss to never let go of a losing proposition. He's once again decided to rag on Congresswoman Frederika Wilson, after having been so thoroughly discredited last time. Politico.Com
Part of me suspects that he realizes what he's already done, and is doing, to his own reputation, but has decided that he needs to continue to cultivate Shorthands' favor. What's done is done; now what's important is that he keep his job and keep on good terms with Shorthands.
??
Lol! Going for a lighter moment. I do actually have a thought for another post that I am working on, but have been a little busy with fall cleanup.
And it is Halloween!
Looks like tomorrow is still the designated roll-out day for the House Republicans' tax-cuts bill (ostensibly a ‛tax reform’ package, but not really).
That's a rather more immediate problem than is Mueller's investigations.
It may be worth noting that Team Trump and their media have slowly begun trying to remind everyone that ‛collusion’ with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton isn't actually a criminal offense. So, if Mueller does come upon proof that Trump was working with the Russians, it's still not indictable, in and of itself. They want folks to start getting used to that idea, just in case Mueller knows more than they hope he knows.
(Depending on what assistance he may have accepted from the Russians without disclosing it, that might amount to an illegal campaign contribution. But ‛collusion’ with an enemy power to win the Presidency isn't actually a crime, in and of itself.)
Perhaps I should clarify that last post. Russia is actually a ‛hostile’ power, not an ‛enemy’ power. There is currently no state of war between the United States and Russia. Colluding with an enemy power, i.e. one with which we were in a state of war would be treason, and that would be a criminal offense.
Halloween IMO is a merchendise holiday store owners in the USA cooked up to sell stuff, whith a slight basis in European cultural history.
Anywho, it's spread back across the Atlantic now and we have to suffer this damned thing here too.
Funny story: a haloweener in Norway last weekend decided to dress up as an ISIS terrorist, head scarfe, bomb belt and all. He got himself detained and was given a 12.000 NOK (bout $1600) fine for his innovative dress-up.
Speaking about the history it's about one culture appropiating the significant rituals of a former one.
The USA (sellers of goods) creates Halloween on the carcass of All Halloewed Eve, a European Christian holiday, which was in turn an appropiation of the ancient Pagan rituals to honour saintlike forebears in authumn ceremonies.
So now we in the West have gone from honoring our forebears to dressing up in scary or slutty uniforms and buying lots of stuff we do not really need and feeding our kids crap that's bad for them. Progress? I guess you'd call it that.
- Did you go out this past weekend to attend a bondfire and think of how the generations that came before you were your kin and give praise to them for your own being?
- No, I bought a slut-suite for my 5 YO boy so he could dress like a whore and go around the block begging for the candy that will make him a diabetic in his tweens.
Progress.
The White House has been claiming credit today for ‘helping’ Mueller's office bust George Popadopolous by turning over a stash of e-mails, including some sent by Popadopolous, this past August.
Popadopolous had been indicted and arrested in July.
[Marcus]: "Halloween IMO is a merchendise holiday store owners in the USA cooked up to sell stuff, whith a slight basis in European cultural history. Anywho, it's spread back across the Atlantic now and we have to suffer this damned thing here too."
Yup. I will never forgive the USA. The "little Fanta-filled fuckers" (as they are lovingly referred to by one of the local comedians ... and I checked Wikipedia's International availability of Fanta(!!!) page so I know you know what it means) at the door used to say "Happy Halloween". Now it's the totally Americanised "trick or treat". They don't get any chocolate at my house unless they say "Happy Halloween" (which they always do, once prompted, of course).
It's all a fiasco anyway. There's no possibility of any "tricks" as their parents are standing at the end of the driveway. When I was a nipper we went around as proper marauding gangs, not hand-held wusses.
It wouldn't be such an offence if we Irish hadn't invented Halloween in the first place. For us it is still called Oíche Shamhna -- the eve of Samhain when the souls of the dead or sídhe are out and about. The worse of these is a female ghost, the ban sí, or banshee. This is serious stuff, not to be made light of with trick-or-treating nonsense! ;-)
Anyway, all the youngsters seemed to be off the streets within an hour of nightfall. A few older diehards let off some fireworks for a while more, and they certainly seem more affluent than in former years as we could never afford such purchased firepower. But now, at 2am I don't hear a peep, whereas we'd just be settling down to round 2 of bonfire building with a wood stash begged or stolen from the locality, and waiting for the inevitable showdown with the fire brigade or local cops.
Speaking of which, I know different folk count the seasons differently, but for us Oíche Shamhna is the last night of autumn, so post-midnight we are officially in winter. And right on cue we have an air flow from the north bringing the first frosts of the season this week. But then it's due to warm up again, and in typical Irish style I expect the grass I just cut "for the last time" will get all the wrong signals and be long but uncuttably soggy by mid-December.
Crap! Just taking a break from work to write that idle banter, and now seeing what looks like a terror attack in New York on the news sites. I'm off to watch some TV news :-(
Halloween IMO is a merchendise holiday store owners in the USA cooked up to sell stuff, whith a slight basis in European cultural history.
Indeed, we are a nation of shopkeepers. In this case it is the candy companies who are reaping the windfall, as well as the costumers who are keeping all the ghosts, witches and various other creatures well dressed. We actually have temporary Halloween stores popping up in vacant retail spaces. Those I find rather annoying.
It feels like the middle of December here. We had a hard freeze last night and it never really warmed up again. But we still had 80 intrepid souls knock at the door. I have some candy left over, which I will try to get rid of at work tomorrow.
Yes, it looks like someone proclaiming support for Daesh has driven a truck into a crowd of people on a Manhattan sidewalk, killing 8.
Five of the victims were from Argentina and one from Belgium.
Another sad day for my country and the world.
...n typical Irish style I expect the grass I just cut "for the last time" will get all the wrong signals and be long but uncuttably soggy by mid-December.
I doubt I will be done with cleaning up the yard until mid to late November. While my leaves are mostly down, except for an apple tree, which insists on keeping its leaves until almost December, I still have neighbor's trees with leaves yet to fall. There are usually strays that end up drifting into my yard.
The accused immigrated here in 2010 and was notably not from any of the suspect nations on Trump's list.
The Republicans' plan to roll out their tax cuts for the rich, 2017 version, has hit a bit of a snag. They let out word last night that they won't be doing the big reveal today. Now they're shooting for tomorrow, but their confidence level on hitting that deadline seems to be down somewhat.
"…someone proclaiming support for Daesh…"
It occurs to me to wonder… How long before they change names again to reflect their new, non-territorial status?
The accused immigrated here in 2010 and was notably not from any of the suspect nations on Trump's list.
No, but apparently he was linked to the same group that did an attack in Stockholm.
Seven years he's been in the US. Question. Was he radicalized after he came here, as some in the media are suggesting, or was he part of a sleeper cell that was napping a rather long time?
And, really, is there any extreme vetting, as the Trump administration is suggesting, that could weed out those who are clever enough to hide their true feelings? Nor would that weed out those who are actually radicalized here, both foreign or native born. We still have domestic terrorism in the form of mass school shootings as a real threat.
Don't get me wrong, I still don't believe that a wall, or some kind of mechanism that excludes foreigners from coming to this country, is the answer. We have always been stronger as a society with newcomers revitalizing our country. I still feel part of the answer lies within other countries and with our maintaining the ideals our country was founded upon.
How long before they change names again to reflect their new, non-territorial status?
Perhaps that is really in the eyes of the beholders?
"…was he part of a sleeper cell…"
All indications are that he was a true ‛lone wolf’ type of terrorist. That doesn't tell us when he became radicalized.
Imppossible to tell when he was radicalized if he didn't keep a journal of sorts. I'm sure the FBI is looking into that right now but there might not be an answer.
In any case, what's this whole deal with an "immigrant lottery" that gives 50K people from (almost only) the third world a residency permit in the USA, as this Uzbek got?
Why is that a good thing? Do you need an additional 50K immigrants, on top of all the ones who sneak in, that do not come based on a job-application?
What is this lottery supposed to do for the USA?
And, as our previous viewing of the "gum ball vs. immigration" video explains it does nothing for the thirld world either, so that's not an argument.
Trump is, again, correct. Permits for residency should of course be merit based. A freaking lottery is just foolishness.
Pete: "It wouldn't be such an offence if we Irish hadn't invented Halloween in the first place. For us it is still called Oíche Shamhna -- the eve of Samhain when the souls of the dead or sídhe are out and about. The worse of these is a female ghost, the ban sí, or banshee. This is serious stuff, not to be made light of with trick-or-treating nonsense! ;-)"
Interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing.
Here in Sweden the traditional holiday and the one that's still in our calendars is "Alla Helgons Natt" translating into "All Saint's Eve". But of course nowadays it's all 'bout Halloween instead, even if I feel that hype has somewhat diminished lately. But then I live in a city where 'bout 60% of kids are muslim so maybe that's why. They don't seem to do Halloween and they sure as hell don't celebrate All Saint's Eve.
We're big on Eid Al Fitr though. Might need them yanks to monetize that into a spending-spree-holiday come soon.
"…that gives 50K people from (almost only) the third world
a residency permit in the USA, as this Uzbek got?"
Shorthands' assertions notwithstanding, we don't know that this particular Uzbek came in under the ‛visa lottery’. That's not been established yet, Shorthands' uninformed tweets notwithstanding.
I stand corrected. Homeland Security has confirmed, apparently within the last hour, that the accused did enter under the ‛diversity visa’ lottery system.
Lee: "The accused immigrated here in 2010 and was notably not from any of the suspect nations on Trump's list."
So if/when an attack occurrs from an individual from one of the countries on that list your stance will be that "it was notably from a country on Trump's list".
OK. Great. I'll hold you to that then. Let's file that into the "Lee said" file, for future use.
"…it was notably from a country on Trump's list…"
Perhaps it'll be said that Trump ‛finally’ got a terrorist more in keeping with his prejudices.
Lee: "Homeland Security has confirmed, apparently within the last hour, that the accused did enter under the ‛diversity visa’ lottery system."
Be that as it may, I didn't really question this particular program on account of this this specific individual who turned out to be a terrorist. I questioned the program all together. WHY does the USA hand out 50K recidency permits a year based on a fucking lottery scheme? Is that a scheme you advocate?
"WHY does the USA hand out 50K recidency permits a year based
on a fucking lottery scheme…"
Best I can tell it was adopted back in the early 90's to try to squelch whining from Euroweenies that our immigration system was racist, slanted to white, western Europeans. They figured that a max of 50,000, compared to overall immigration numbers, wasn't much of a lift, and it would help squelch Euroweenie bitchi’ (didn't help, of course). It was up for cancellation in the last ‘gang of eight’ immigration reform package put together under Dubya, but that couldn't clear the teabagger rebellion in the House of Representatives.
typos, typos…
#1 Typos - don't bother pointin' that out. I spelled merchandise as merchendise just yesterday and first of all most of ya'll know that I prolly just misspelled and second you knew what I meant. There's no need to make a huge deal 'bout spellin' so there's no reason to apologise or even to mention it.
#2 "Best I can tell it was adopted back in the early 90's to try to squelch whining from Euroweenies that our immigration system was racist, slanted to white, western Europeans."
Really. I find that seriously questinable. So in your story Euro governments in the 90's claim that the USA is too soft on European immigration and that ya'll should do more 3'd world immigration instead and you decided that "of course then Euros have the moral highground so we'll take in 50 K lottery allotted povers to appease them Euros".
I find that highly unlikely. And if it IS a truth I think ya'll should've said FUCK THAT even before Trump came in and said it for ya.
#1 Petes lurks about.
#2 Tryin’ to suppress Euroweenie bitchin’ is a totally different thing than agreeing with their bitchin’.
#3 Tryin’ to suppress Euroweenie bitchin’ is an exercise in futility; Euroweenies gonna bitch. But, they've occasionally tried it anyway.
I was browsing books today and came across one that looks rather interesting, The Rage, by Julia Ebner. The author spent time with both right wing and Islamic extremists, attending marches and rallies and simply talking to people about their beliefs. Of course, she did this undercover. If you click on the book you can read the preface and introduction. Very illuminating.
The Rage
It does look interesting.
In what appears to be an attempt to embrace every bad idea of the last fifty years, Shorthands has indicated a desire to label the New York Jihadi an ‘enemy combatant’ and send him to Guantánamo. Politico.Com I think even with Gorsuch, his newest picked Justice on the bench, the Supreme Court will slap him down for this one if he tries it.
Putin's Revenge, Part 2, tonight.
Feds are saying that they think the New York Jihadi was ‛radicalized’ after he came to the United States.
[Marcus]: "Here in Sweden the traditional holiday and the one that's still in our calendars is "Alla Helgons Natt" translating into "All Saint's Eve". But of course nowadays it's all 'bout Halloween instead, even if I feel that hype has somewhat diminished lately."
You do realise that All Saints Eve = Halloween?
Halloween = short for for All Hallows Evening. Hallows = now archaic English for Saints / Holies, from German Heiligen, same word as your Alla Helgons. Indeed, I spent some time in a monastery in the Schwarzwald called Aller Heiligen. And there are colleges called All Hallows in the UK and Ireland.
All Saints day has been a major date in the Christian calendar for well over a millenium. It's a mandatory Mass day for us Catholics. Halloween is the so-called "vigil" of the feast, usually meaning the feast starts after sunset and you can break your fast. (Islam didn't come up with Ramadan and Eid all on its own, you know ;-). We've had the religious Halloween in Ireland forever ... but somehow in Irish we retained the name Oíche Shamhna and hung onto a few pre-Christian traditions along with it.
Oh yeah, and, oíche = night, Shamhna = genitive case of Samhain (harvest festival, pronounced SOU-IN). So, Oíche Shamhna (pronounced EE-HEH HOW-NA) = the night of Samhain.
Sayfullo Saipov is reportedly not showing a lot of remorse in his hospital bed. I don't think Trump can conjure up the legal wherewithal to consign him to Gitmo. But it does leave the question of where you lock up an unrepentant terrorist for the rest of his days. Prisons in the UK have become hotbeds of Islamic radicalisation. And total isolation is inhumane (as argued by none other than Anders Breivik in a Norwegian court). I oppose the death penalty but can't help wondering if it has its place in cases like this, but that is not an option either in a New York court.
I suppose you could stick "DEATH", "GITMO", and "PERMANENT SOLITARY CONFINMENT" on little pieces of paper and pull one out of a hat. Call it a "diversity lottery".
"[death] is not an option either in a New York court."
The feds have already filed federal terrorism charges. Death penalty is an option there. In addition, there are a few prisons known as super-max federal prisons intended to hold just this sort of fellow. Not solitary confinement, but no need to worry ‛bout the jihadi corrupting anybody ‛cause none of them are ever gettin’ out.
I decided to look it up. There's currently only one true super-max prison running; it's in Colorado. There's been talk of putting another one on the ground in Indiana at or near where they keep the federal death row prisoners, but it's not been authorized yet. (Was talked up during the Obama administration, but never got built because the Republicans were afraid Obama would use it.)
Getting late in the evening and the Republicans are still talkin’ ‛bout rolling out their tax cuts for the rich plan tomorrow. We shall have to wait and see. Meanwhile: Putin Part 2 starts in eight minutes.
Putin's Revenge, Part 2, tonight.
Watching now.
"Watching now."
It can be real hard to believe that Shorthands wasn't fully coöperative.
The House Republicans have released their proposed tax cut plan on schedule this morning. It does have some fairly massive tax cuts, along with some repeal of some deductions, but not nearly enough to match the tax cuts. That means they'll need to either make massive spending cuts or they'll need to make massive increases in the national debt. They figure to try to get the tax cuts passed first, then figure out what comes after that.
They figure to try to get the tax cuts passed first, then figure out what comes after that.
A bit like some wanted for the ACA repeal and not replace bill.
It seems someone is already using the "T" word.
It can be real hard to believe that Shorthands wasn't fully coöperative.
This is true.
While I don't believe that we can blame Putin for all of our divisions, I do feel that the Russians have been trying to do what they can to encourage them. I also feel that there are those in our political establishment who have been riding on their coattails to try to force through their agenda with little regard for what is really best for their own country. Using the Russians as their as their allies, in effect. Those people who are doing that need to be gone. They are more of a danger than any Islamic terrorist.
"It seems someone is already using the 'T' word."
Misusing the ‛T’ word is more like it. As I've mentioned earlier, there's no blanket prohibition against Trump (or anyone else) working with the Russians in an effort to win an American election, even the Presidential election. There are laws about taking campaign contributions from foreign sources, and what constitutes a ‘contribution’ can get defined rather broadly, but so far I'm not seeing anything that qualifies.
"A bit like some wanted for the ACA repeal and not replace bill."
I still give ‛em a 50/50 shot at getting their tax cuts through. After that they're probably going to have a government shutdown over the notion of whether to cut spending or go deeper into debt. Thing is, they can't really go on to the ‛cut spending or go deeper into debt’ question because they'd lock up and then never be able to agree on the tax cuts. (Or, at least, chances of getting the tax cuts through go way below 50%.)
"They are more of a danger than any Islamic terrorist."
I'd personally rank the Republican tax cuts as a greater danger to The Republic than Trump, or the Trumpkins, or the Islamists.
I've been trying to figure out why Trump is pushing so hard to get on the record about the New York jihadi driver (knowing that his advisors are telling him that he's screwing up the death penalty play for the prosecution--maybe not fatally, but making it much harder than it needs to be).
It occurs to me that he needs a replacement outrage to cover for when he backs away from the fight he's currently losing to the NFL players (‛balltossers’ in Marcus’ parlance).
Lee: "Shorthands has indicated a desire to label the New York Jihadi an ‘enemy combatant’ and send him to Guantánamo."
Yeah and he twittered 'bout the death penalty also. I'm not sure if that would even be possible. Does NY do the death penalty? If not do Trump think this terrorist act can somehow be decided in another jurisdiction?
This is one more (and there have been a few) of the cases where even I think Trump would best shut the fuck up, but he just won't.
Anywho, my best guess is that this latest terrorist is aimed for that supermax in Colorado where Sheik-Mohammed and that Boston bomber are kept along with some truly insane local talents. And, having looked over some vids about that place I'm not sure, if it was me, on wether I'd preferr to go there or get the needle.
It's a seriously bleak future to go to that place. As well it should be for those kinds of occupants. Guantanamo might even be a preferable option really. Cause that place in Colorado is no joke.
Lee:
"It occurs to me that he needs a replacement outrage to cover for when he backs away from the fight he's currently losing to the NFL players (‛balltossers’ in Marcus’ parlance)."
Nope. That's a fight he cannot lose. He can however keep it in his pocket to play when he feels squeezed on other topics. Apparently he's OK for the moment and does not need to run with agitating against them balltossers (and arguably he can't keep beating that horse forever), but that still remains a sore point he can poke at and win while poking at. He for sure did NOT lose on that one.
"He for sure did NOT lose on that one."
They defied him and got away with it. However, just as you've moved the goalposts from where they were to where he ended up, so's to be able to claim it as a ‛win’ for Shorthands, his American Trumpkins are also quite capable of pretending to forget that he ever made demands that the NFL blatantly defied.
But, just as you pretend he won that one, they'll only be pretending to forget.
Take a look at this:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/rita-panahi/egyptian-lawyer-and-tv-commentator-says-men-have-a-duty-to-rape-immodestly-dressed-girls/news-story/67f0b6ae034b9f8b4e5e59df35b8fbbb
"Prominent Egyptian lawyer Nabih al-Wahsh believes that men have a "patriotic duty to sexually harass and national duty to rape" any girl who chooses to dress in revealing clothes."
Contrast that to Egypt under Nasser. Look at this vid where he and his entire audience LOL @ women being forced into Hijabs:
https://youtu.be/_ZIqdrFeFBk
What the hell happened in the ME? (This would be an opening for Zeyad if he still lingers here)
Lee:
"They defied him and got away with it."
It was never about that. It was and is about optics. And Trump really had little to lose and lost nothing. Them balltossers though... highly paid, much more so than their audience, and they kept on keeping on with a spectacle a large portion of their audience disagree with. They will not win. Bet that.
"They will not win. Bet that."
They already won. The league owners had their meeting and would not go along with Trump and try to impose a new rule on their players. Players won.
Owners lost--they're down some revenue (would have probably lost even more revenue if they'd gone along with Trump, which is why they didn't). The owners supported Trump, by and large, and he screwed them over. Trump's other moneyed supporters will have noticed. His dedicated Trumpkins will pretend not to notice, but it's just a pretense. They'll notice too, if they haven't already.
Some, like you, will pretend he won. Most will just pretend to forget it ever happened; it'll just fade away.
"…it'll just fade away."
But, pretenses aside, the dedicated Trumpkins will remember this one. A couple more losses on the culture wars and that 38% favorable number may start heading down into the 35% danger territory. (If the Republicans don't blow their run at tax cuts in the meantime, which may start him down even quicker.)
I'd personally rank the Republican tax cuts as a greater danger to The Republic than Trump, or the Trumpkins, or the Islamists.
The tax cut is simply a symptom of poor governance on the part of the Republicans currently in office. It was tried under Reagan and then, at least in part, reversed when it was obvious it was hurting more than helping. If it is actually enacted it can be reversed again. Trump is a symptom of our divisions, which have been exacerbated by the Russians. It is those divisions that are the most hurtful. But even they are not impossible to heal. We managed to do so, for the most part, after our Civil War.
"…it'll just fade away."
I tend to agree.
What the hell happened in the ME?
I don't know what Zeyad would say, but I think it is the same extremist reaction that is sweeping the West. It's just that in our case it is right wing, rather than Islamic. It probably has to do with the changes we have been seeing with globalization, and perhaps the beginnings of climate change stresses. The internet has also helped to bring together diverse people of like minds, for good or bad.
"If it is actually enacted it can be reversed again."
I'm not sure it'll be reversed in time to avoid it doing us some serious, long term damage. (Trump is a short term phenomenon.)
I'm likewise not sure but what the Republicans will, in the end, pay a higher price for passing their tax cuts than they will for failing to pass them.
Lynnette @ Fri Nov 03, 12:19:00 am ↑↑
I largely agree.
Well, largely agree… I do think that the effects of climate change haven't really kicked in yet, and what we're seeing so far as ecological stresses has more to do with the availability of antibiotics in areas where they never had the resources to support the population numbers they're now experiencing. Climate change stresses will kick in eventually, but I'm not sure they're a major factor just yet.
[Lynnette]: "While I don't believe that we can blame Putin for all of our divisions, I do feel that the Russians have been trying to do what they can to encourage them."
The Russkis are certainly up to mischief. But there's nothing illegal about that in the US apparently, where even an organ of Russian state propaganda like the RT channel can broadcast freely, even though it has to register as a foreign agent in the US.
[Lynnette]: "I also feel that there are those in our political establishment who have been riding on their coattails to try to force through their agenda with little regard for what is really best for their own country. Using the Russians as their as their allies, in effect."
But this is where I think the US has gone totally hysterical. Blaming the Russians for your own homegrown divisions. It wasn't the Russians that turned Hillary into a sleazeball that the majority distrusted.
[Lynnette]: "Those people who are doing that need to be gone. They are more of a danger than any Islamic terrorist."
They are gone. The elitist progressives trying to force through their agenda by emphasising divisions and identity politics -- they've been cast into outer darkness for the time being. This is a good time for the US. Although it's a pity it needed an unclassy populist like Trump to spearhead it. But you can't win 'em all. ;-)
And, of course, we have to put up with the clamour from the MSM and the endless whinge fest from certain quarters who simply won't accept the outcome of a democratic election -- and thereby doing little to improve their chances in the next one.
Interesting piece in the NYT last month about Germany's renewable energy programme. After spending €200 billion, their carbon emissions are rising.
They also have some serious imbalances in their grid, with 30% of electricity provided by wind. Recently they had to pay customers to use electricity to avoid damaging surges. And because of the integrated grid in mainland Europe, their neighbours also have to install surge protection. The Czech power grid operator has had to install phase shifting transformers to regulate disruptive electricity flows on the Czech-German border.
Germany's move away from nuclear after Fukushima also means that its baseload power is increasingly coming from coal generators which cannot be spun down quickly just because the wind is blowing. Germany's indigenous lignite ("brown coal") is the dirtiest coal going.
On the subject of dangers to The Republic, Trump has been trying real hard to get himself ranked back into first place.
He gave a radio interview yesterday to one of the Radio-Right-Wing outlets (Larry O'Connor) wherein he lamented his inability to use the Justice Department as his personal legal persecutors. AudioBoom In normal times I'd expect a bipartisan denunciation of this sort of talk, but these are not normal times.
(He babbles on for about 10 minutes, making various misstatements of both fact on several subjects, but the part I'm talking about starts at about 7 minutes 30 seconds, says it's "the saddest thing".)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"But this is where I think the US has gone totally hysterical.
Blaming the Russians for your own homegrown divisions."
You appear to be having another one of your too frequent fantasy attacks. I'm not even going to bother asking where you come up with this shit; obviously you dream it up in your own peat-addled mind.
Virtually nobody blames the Russians for creating our political polarizations. (Worries about them exploiting those polarizations is another matter entirely.)
The Germans dump nuclear base-load electricity generation in favor coal, and you think it remarkable that their carbon emissions are rising?
How does that happen to surprise you?
Fellow at the Brookings Institute suggests that Steve Bannon might need to be investigated for violations of federal lobbying laws, for his reported contacts with Shorthands and his lobbying him to fire Mueller, after he was dismissed from his White House job. Politico.Com This is the standard anti-lobbying restriction applicable to all federal employees, but I don't know that it was intended to cover this sort of thing.
Still, by a strict letter-of-the-law reading, it would seem to apply.
"…from certain quarters who simply won't accept the outcome of a
democratic election…"
Perhaps this would be a good time to point out once again to our peat-addled Irishman that if it had indeed been a ‛democratic’ election, Hillary Clinton would be President instead of Shorthands. She outpolled him by nearly 3 million votes in that last election.
What we've got is a remnant of slavery. The electoral college and the outsized political clout it gives to the Old South and to rural areas (like mine) were instituted at the insistence of the slave states because the slaveholders were fearful that a true democracy would end up freeing their slaves over their objections. Well, the slaves got free anyway, but the outsized political clout of the Old South and now the newer rural states of the high plains remains.
For some reason the Irishman seems to think this failure of democracy is a good thing. To wit:
"This is a good time for the US."
By the way… This might also be a good time to remind our peat-addled Irishman that Trump's campaign was managed during a crucial period by a man who's now up on charges for being a foreign agent (a secret, unreported foreign agent). And that this man was let go only because that information happened to become public knowledge.
Lynnette: "I don't know what Zeyad would say, but I think it is the same extremist reaction that is sweeping the West. It's just that in our case it is right wing, rather than Islamic. It probably has to do with the changes we have been seeing with globalization, and perhaps the beginnings of climate change stresses. "
I don't think it has anything to do with climate stresses. I do think "globalization" is part of the answer. As I think this current trend is a backlash against neo-liberal politics, where globalization is one aspect, that many people see as in effect benefitting only an elite and not people as a whole. I am of that mind myself (no surprise there).
However: I do not agree that the rise of the right in the west in opposition to this globalization has anything in common with the rise of Islamism in muslim nations.
First of all the rise of Islamism got going way earlier. I'd say the cold war might have been the incubator for that. Given that the two world powers propped up their selected strongmen in the Islamic world with NO regard to the people in those nations. And also actually encouraged fanatics against the other super-power as the USA did in Afghanistan to bleed the russkies.
Also of course the creation of Israel and the west's support for that nation state cannot be underestimated when debating Islamism. That too happened well before the rise of the right in "white countries", actually even before the rise of the left in most places.
"I do not agree that the rise of the right in the west in
opposition to this globalization has anything in common…"
History will tell you that rapid or extensive social changes usually lead to an increase in reactionary ideologies. Right-wingers in The West, and jihadi in the Middle-East are both nursing reactionary ideologies.
And Israel has been a convenient scapegoat for the old guard among the Muslim Arab nations. It's not really been a cause of the rise of the radicals. Bin Laden had to be brought around to adopting a hostile stance toward Israel (not that approved of Israel; he merely thought it a minor matter at best; one which could be taken care of in due time, after the revolution). Al-Qaeda's initial ambivalence towards the minor land holdings of the Jews tended to limit its appeal among many Arabs raised on a doctrine of hatred for the Jews, and so he eventually formally adopted a more aggressive anti-Israeli stance, but only to help with recruitment.
[Lynnette]: "I don't know what Zeyad would say, but I think it is the same extremist reaction that is sweeping the West. It's just that in our case it is right wing, rather than Islamic."
You're not normally given to outrageous statements, but that one is ... well, frankly outrageous. Especially in response to Marcus's question about Egyptians being told to rape women! Islamism is nothing whatsoever like the right wing in the west, nor is it even a reaction to the same sort of things. I'm going to guess that the similarity is that you consider both reactions "extreme".
"Islamism is nothing whatsoever like the right wing in the west…"
You might wanna rethink that one.
Here are some intolerant western religious extremists ... of the left, as it happens.
Just ‘cause they're flamboyant queers don't mean they're ‘of the left’. Milos Yiannopoulos is a case in point.
*sigh*
Running around all day yesterday and frantically picking up the yard in between to try to beat the coming snow. Yes, snow...again. It's all white out there again. At least I got most of the leaves picked up and lowered the mower to trim the grass shorter for the winter.
A nice chilly morning to nestle in and read comments.
...and perhaps the beginnings of climate change stresses.
All of you seemed to disagree with this statement. As you see I did qualify it with "perhaps". What I am thinking about here is Africa. We have seen quite a large migration from countries within that continent. As Marcus has pointed out they seem to be more economic refugees rather than political, despite the fact that so many countries there are not what one would refer to as democratic. What we seem to see there is corruption and government mismanagement, as well as an inability to deal with issues arising from things such as drought, which may be exacerbated by climate change.
There have been those who have also speculated that the civil war in Syria has also been due partly to climate abnormalities there.
Marcus: However: I do not agree that the rise of the right in the west in opposition to this globalization has anything in common with the rise of Islamism in muslim nations.
Petes: Islamism is nothing whatsoever like the right wing in the west, nor is it even a reaction to the same sort of things.
Are you sure? Look more closely.
Both tend to use religion as a crutch to further their agendas. Both tend to be intolerant of other ideas. Both tend to use authoritarian methods to further their agendas, without any room for dissent. Both, at times, use violence to enforce their policies.
First of all the rise of Islamism got going way earlier.
Earlier than any religion that is used to hide behind by extreme elements in the West?
. It wasn't the Russians that turned Hillary into a sleazeball that the majority distrusted.
First of all, I'm not sure why you think she is any more sleazy than any other politician out there?
As for the Russians, I think they tried their best to use false information to sway American voters. I well remember talking to a younger co-worker who repeated a story about Hillary Clinton that she saw on Facebook that was supposedly about Hillary Clinton's behavior as an attorney in Arkansas. It was very derogatory. I asked my co-worker what the source of the story was and she just said it was all over Facebook. She seemed to think that made it true. So, when you say the Russians did not make Hillary into a sleazeball I have to beg to differ. I think they did their best to plant derogatory stories about her in the hopes that no one would actually look to see if they were true or not.
"Look more closely."
You might also mention that both claim the right to declare apostasies. We could compare Sarah Palin's ‘real Americans’ to the Islamists declarations of apostasy for Muslims who oppose them.
Might also mention that both harken back to an imaginary ahistorical time when things were supposedly right and proper. The right-wingers imagine a ‘Leave it to Beaver’ idyllic world circa 1950s when black folks and queers didn't exist to trouble their thoughts and women stayed home in their proper roles and often in an apron if not actually barefoot. The Islamists harken back a little further.
We could continue, but….
"What I am thinking about here is Africa."
Africa had not come to mind for me, but, now that you mention it… Africa is seemingly more strongly affected earlier than most other areas of the globe.
effected…
[Lynnette]: "Yes, snow...again. It's all white out there again."
You have my commiserations! ;-)
[Me]: "Islamism is nothing whatsoever like the right wing in the west, nor is it even a reaction to the same sort of things."
[Lynnette]: "Are you sure? Look more closely. Both tend to use religion as a crutch to further their agendas. Both tend to be intolerant of other ideas. Both tend to use authoritarian methods to further their agendas, without any room for dissent. Both, at times, use violence to enforce their policies."
With respect, this is a crazy caricature. Are you talking about a handful of losers goose-stepping at some recent neo-Nazi parade, or are you talking about, say, the party that has been in power in the UK for two thirds of the time since the second world war? Both would be referred to as "right wing" in some quarters.
For that matter, since we tend to talk mostly about American politics here, both your main parties would count as far right (economically, at least) in large parts of Europe. And not just economically -- Presidents from both parties regularly invoke religion in political speeches in ways that would be completely unheard of in most of Europe.
The right wing doesn't have to be authoritarian either, as you know from your own right-libertarians. So I suspect you need to qualify what you mean by "right wing". It is an exceedingly broad church.
Islamism, on the other hand, while not exactly synonymous with jihadism can still be fairly narrowly defined. It can certainly be identified with political Islam, and strongly overlaps with Islamic fundamentalism. It is statist and authoritarian which, if your intention was to liken it to Nazism rather than conservatism, is its main resemblance to that ideology. But then, I would consider those aspects of both ideologies to be left wing, not right wing. (But let's face it, left and right aren't really very good descriptors of anything these days).
[Lynnette]: "First of all, I'm not sure why you think she [Hillary] is any more sleazy than any other politician out there?"
She probably isn't but she's definitely more sanctimonious. And she and the Democrats made the mistake of getting caught being sleazy on multiple occasions. The Dems need to get it through their heads that a sleazy candidate promising more of the status quo is not going to cut it with the electorate anymore.
She lost to Donald Trump, for god's sake! And now the Dems are pretending it's because half the American electorate turned out to be either dumb crackers or Adolf Hitler's grandchildren. The resulting whinge fest, it seems to me, is where the divisions in American society stem from. Not from interfering Russians -- they are only driving a wedge into existing cracks. The GOP are, of course, equally responsible for the wedge politics. Basically, your society has become alarmingly intolerant in recent decades (which it genuinely pains me to say as I still hold it in high regard).
"…half the American electorate turned out to be either dumb
crackers or Adolf Hitler's grandchildren."
26% actually. One of these days I'll maybe take pity on you and teach you some math to replace whatever that is that you use in trying to sustain the misbegotten belief that you know math.
[Lynnette]: "I asked my co-worker what the source of the story was and she just said it was all over Facebook. She seemed to think that made it true. So, when you say the Russians did not make Hillary into a sleazeball I have to beg to differ."
Well that is as much a result of the lack of discernment of the internet generation as anything else. I think we are in a transitional stage where people haven't caught up yet with the idea that online journalism has none of the checks and balances of the traditional print medium. This is not a recent development -- long before the term "fake news" was coined, the American right was incensed by misleading information (as it saw it) on sites like The Daily Kos.
To take a less political anecdote, I've been truly astounded by acquaintances who've fallen for all sorts of mad conspiracy theories, junk science, and assorted nonsense that they've come across online. Perhaps it has always been thus, but the internet has a much wider reach than traditional media and is much less controlled. That is both good and bad, but it calls for a level of discernment that is sorely lacking.
And perhaps even more worrying than the fact that every nutjob can get an airing on the net, is the large internet companies who make their money out of promoting confirmation bias. Whatever you tend to read or watch, Youtube and Reddit and others will feed you more of the same. Actually, that reminds me again of this sometimes hilarious but pointed talk on that topic, worth a watch (apologies if I posted it already).
Petes: Are you talking about a handful of losers goose-stepping at some recent neo-Nazi parade, or are you talking about, say, the party that has been in power in the UK for two thirds of the time since the second world war? Both would be referred to as "right wing" in some quarters.
When I made the original statement I characterized it as the rise of extremes. So, yes, when I talk about the rise of the right in the West I am referring to people like those who participated in the march in Charlottesville, one of whom thought it perfectly okay to ram a car into innocent people. Or I am referring to the firefighters who thought it okay to hang a noose around the photos of a black co-workers family. Or I am talking about those who feel that sexual orientation is a reason to remove brave people who have been fighting in our military. Or I am talking about those who seem to see all immigrants as a threat to our country, when in fact, for the most part, they are simply people who are fleeing the same kind of intolerance.
All of those things I have seen as one of our political parties has moved farther and farther to the right. Yes, there are extremes on the left, but, while I don't care for people like Code Pink, they do not seem to be as soul destroying as those people I have mentioned above.
This kind of intolerance, which fosters a violent reaction by some, even as it is cloaked in religion or some kind of nationalist fervor is, yes, very reminiscent of Nazi Germany. That is the similarity I see between the extreme right in the West and the Islamist rise of groups such as AQ or Daesh in the Middle East. And to not speak out, or whinge about it, is to remain silent in the face of a real threat to our democracy.
I don't know enough about the right wing government in the UK to know if they evince the same kind of intolerance as does our current president, but if they do, then, yes, they may be part of the problem as well. Perhaps the Brexit vote is an answer to that?
She lost to Donald Trump, for god's sake!
There were a number of reasons Hillary Clinton lost to Trump, not least of which is our system of using the Electoral College. Lee is right, she did win the popular vote, despite Donald Trump's misleading claims of voter fraud. There is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud that could have swung the popular vote to elect Donald Trump.
She was also hurt by the email issue, which was exacerbated by hacking by the Russians, who used Wikileaks as a conduit. Comey did not help when he talked about re-opening the investigation at the last minute.
And now the Dems are pretending it's because half the American electorate turned out to be either dumb crackers or Adolf Hitler's grandchildren.
And that is unfair to those who voted purely for economic reasons or as a protest vote against what they saw as a status quo system that wasn't helping them. Unfortunately, though, they will not get any better from Trump & Co. They have been sold a bill of goods. Because as far as I can tell his policies, whether they be deregulation or this tax reform bill, will benefit more the wealthier segments of society rather than the poorer.
The resulting whinge fest, it seems to me, is where the divisions in American society stem from. Not from interfering Russians -- they are only driving a wedge into existing cracks.
Well, of course they are. That is what I meant by their encouraging our divisions. We, obviously, still have a racial divide that has never really healed. Now, with the current government, we will only increase our economic divide.
Well that is as much a result of the lack of discernment of the internet generation as anything else.
This co-worker was early twenties. It was like talking to someone who reads the National Enquirer and believes it is hard news. She was taken for a ride and didn't even know it.
What is unfortunate is those who read these things and should know to double check facts, but don't, because it just reinforces what they want to believe.
N.B.
Petes had to be corrected before he noticed that the Russians were merely exploiting the existing polarizations. (Lee C. @ Fri Nov 03, 10:01:00 am ↑↑)
Correction (bad editing):
"…before he noticed that the Russians were merely accused
of exploiting the [already] existing polarizations…"
TrumpTweets: Shorthands is telling us this morning that he's going into 12 days of negotiations in East Asia with ‛great negotiating strength’. My guess is that he comes back in two weeks with squat to show for it.
That wouldn't surprise me.
MMMM...Preet Bharara is on Fareed Zakaria's show today.
Some insights from Bharara.
This is the guy who has been running the impeach Trump ads, apparently on Fox News as well as CNN. At least until they pulled it.
Fox News has pulled an ad by San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer calling for President Donald Trump to be impeached, prompting questions about the motivation for Fox's decision.
The ads having been running across the U.S. for two weeks, and Steyer bought a second week of advertising in a prime time Fox News slot on October 27 as part of the $11 million ad buy.
Bharara's take is basically that Mueller is not done. He is very circumspect. Probably what made him good at his job.
I'm curious as to what will be FoxNews' explanation for why those ads can't run on FoxNews. This may lead to an interesting discussion of FoxNews' editorial position and its bleed-over into their news coverage.
28 known dead, plus the shooter. This is Texas, so if the shooter hadn't been white we'd have been hearing about that already.
Headline:
"BOMBSHELL
"Massive Leak Reveals New Ties Between Trump Administration
and Russia, Implicating Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and
Jared Kushner
"The so-called ‘Paradise Papers’ have revealed secrets of politicians
worldwide, including new links between the Trump administration and
Russia."
DailyBeast
I suspect this one may complicate Shorthands' life a little bit in the not too distant future.
They have identified the shooter as 26 year old Devin Patrick Kelley. Yes, he was white.
I think all of the crazies have come crawling out of the woodwork.
This is such a horrible thing for that community. The dead ranged in age from 5 to 72. A sad day.
[Lynnette]: "When I made the original statement I characterized it as the rise of extremes. So, yes, when I talk about the rise of the right in the West I am referring to people like those who participated in the march in Charlottesville, one of whom thought it perfectly okay to ram a car into innocent people... Or I am talking about those who seem to see all immigrants as a threat to our country..."
So let me get this straight. Are you lumping murdering Nazis into the same category as someone who is afraid that an immigrant might turn out to be a radical, or maybe just compete for their job? Even if those fears are exaggerated, it hardly makes someone a Nazi. The Charlottesville nutters are a microscopic minority -- perhaps smaller than the dangerous leftists and anarchists in extreme groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa. (I share your distaste for Code Pink, but there are much more dangerous groups on the left).
"All of those things I have seen as one of our political parties has moved farther and farther to the right."
This sounds like post hoc reasoning. Maybe it's because your other political party has moved so far to the left? Whatever the reason, the demonisation of political opponents has reached farcical levels. Even though I watch far more British TV than American, the Trump whinge fest has reached around the globe. It is impossible to avoid.
It would be laughable if it weren't so indicative of such a serious political malaise. People are seeing bogeymen everywhere. "Reds under the bed" doesn't even come close. Why are so many Americans having such a hard time accepting that Trump is the president legitimately elected by the American people? The mass hysteria about Russians is unbecoming and a distraction. Interference in foreign elections is standard practice for many countries, including the USA.
In any event, I don't think you need Russians to polarise the debate. The cheerleaders of the Trump whinge fest who are already doing a fine job of that.
[Lynnette] "There were a number of reasons Hillary Clinton lost to Trump, not least of which is our system of using the Electoral College."
There is no perfect electoral system. If the one you've got is defective, it can be changed. What you can't do is blame the electoral system only when it doesn't produce the result you want.
"And that is unfair to those who voted purely for economic reasons or as a protest vote against what they saw as a status quo system that wasn't helping them. Unfortunately, though, they will not get any better from Trump & Co. They have been sold a bill of goods."
Pointing out that Trump is merely as bad as Hillary is not a very good recommendation for the latter.
"What you can't do is blame the electoral system only when it
doesn't produce the result you want."
Totally unwarranted assumption you make there. But, it's probably necessary for you to make totally unwarranted assumptions fairly regularly in order for you to maintain your belief system.
"This is such a horrible thing for that community."
Indeed it is. Unfortunately mass shootings seems to be an endemic problem in the US. As horrible as it is, this one will be mostly forgotten in a week. There was a mass shooting in the US nearly every day in October (by some definition of mass shooting). The same old arguments about gun control will be rehearsed (though maybe not in Texas). Nothing will change. It is a problem as inevitable as death and taxes, as intractable as Palestinians vs. Jews.
"Nothing will change. It is a problem as inevitable as death
and taxes…"
You are wrong. It will change suddenly, and within your expected lifespan. (You're recently retired, so we've got a rough guess on your age.)
As gay marriage wasn't viable in America until suddenly it was, so this will be.
The difference has already begun to be made. The last two mass shootings have been in Nevada and now Texas. That will no longer be a new thing; the mass shootings are moving out from amongst the ‛damned liberals’ homes and now they're settling in amongst Sarah Palin's ‘real Americans’; that change will not reverse itself. They will come around when it's them getting killed.
And it will be quick when it happens. Like gay marriage.
Our gun nuts will be attempting to claim credit for a gun owner stopping yesterday's shooting in Texas. However, we now know that the gunman had already finished his run through the church congregation and had already left the scene of the slaughter, come back out of the church on his own, before the neighbor confronted him. This knowledge will not deter them from claiming that the armed neighbor had put a halt to the slaughter that had, in fact, already halted by itself.
[Lynnette]: "The dead ranged in age from 5 to 72."
The latest I'm reading is that the range is now 18 months to 77 years. That's not counting the unborn child of a woman who was five months pregnant.
Trump has already come out and said "this wasn't a gun thing"(!) Also, that things would have been much worse if there hadn't been "someone with a gun pointing the other direction". Strikes me as bullshit on both counts.
How much worse could it have been? The regular attendance at the church was fifty people. Twenty-six were shot dead and twenty injured. The gunman managed to shoot pretty much everybody there, before he was tackled on leaving the building. It is cold comfort that some local gap-toothed yahoo with tattoos on his tattoos was on hand after the event to take potshots back at him. (No disrespect to the gentleman in question, but I wouldn't feel all that comfortable with him toting a gun either).
But it's good to know that "guns don't kill people, bad people with guns kill people". Now all we need is a magic crystal ball to figure out when people are about to turn bad. Actually, scratch that -- the shooter has already been dishonorably discharged from the military for assaulting his wife and child, and had threatened his mother-in-law who attended at the church where he rampaged. None of that disqualified him from buying a gun, although he was already a "bad person".
So what you actually need is a diagnostic test for "bad people imminently about to do bad things with guns". Good luck with that, America.
Oh, nearly forgot: Trump also said that the guy had "mental health problems" and that "[the US] has a lot of mental health problems, like a lot of countries". Apart from the implausibility of Trump remotely diagnosing the guy's mental state immediately after the incident from six thousand miles away, it doesn't actually address the problem.
Disgruntled men taking out their problems on others is nothing new. We've had a spate of murder-suicides where men take their own lives but decide that their family is going down with them. Suicide is a tragedy, its victims mostly males overwhelmed by situations they can't bring themselves to talk about.
A man who decides to take other people with him stops being a tragic victim and becomes an evil shitbag. Perhaps it is a fine line between not seeing value in your own life, and not seeing value in others. I reckon the decline in traditional morality makes that line easier to cross. Whether that's true or not, one thing's for sure: putting guns in people's hands makes it a helluva lot easier to take people with you.
"…local gap-toothed yahoo with tattoos on his tattoos…"
That would be Johnnie Langendorff. He was the driver, not the neighbor with the rifle.
Are you lumping murdering Nazis into the same category as someone who is afraid that an immigrant might turn out to be a radical, or maybe just compete for their job?
No. What I am saying is that I believe some of the current government's policies, such as the ban on travel from some countries, for the most part originally Muslim majority countries until someone told Trump that may give rise to discrimination lawsuits, is encouraging intolerance and possibly violence, like the Nazis. There was just recently graffiti depicting the Nazi swastika and anti-Muslim comments at one of our colleges here. Granted, this stuff has been around before the advent of Trump, but his reaction to Charlottesville was wishy washy at best and just appeared to appease the extremists on the far right.
The Charlottesville nutters are a microscopic minority -- perhaps smaller than the dangerous leftists and anarchists in extreme groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa.
But it is not the far left that is currently in power in the US. It is a president and a party that has shown, by the policies they wish to enact, that they have little care for the lower income segment of the populace, the health of our environment, the health of our citizens and the inequality of economic means.
The farther they move toward the right the more they encourage a leftist backlash.
Maybe it's because your other political party has moved so far to the left?
Oh, certainly. I think there are those who very much dislike legalizing gay marriage, for example. But to vote based entirely on one issue is to ignore the danger that may arise from other issues. Unfortunately, I think there are many people who vote based on only one issue, though.
Whatever the reason, the demonisation of political opponents has reached farcical levels.
And this really isn't right. In fact, I know many people who voted for Trump that I would not consider extremists. I just think they were getting something other than what they bargained for. So many people don't realize the ramifications of some things, such as to the environment by some deregulation. I also believe that the current administration is out of step with the majority of Americans with regard to climate change.
Why are so many Americans having such a hard time accepting that Trump is the president legitimately elected by the American people?
Because he really did lose the popular vote? And that being the case there are far more people out here who don't support him or his policies? You will see more division when the president and his party try to make major changes without a mandate.
But this really has nothing to do with the Russian investigation. That stands on its own and needs to be seen through to the end, whatever the result is.
What you can't do is blame the electoral system only when it doesn't produce the result you want.
I'm really not. I'm just trying to explain why someone who is elected president within that system may not actually have the backing of the American people.
Pointing out that Trump is merely as bad as Hillary is not a very good recommendation for the latter.
Oh, no, no, what I meant was that Hillary would have maintained the status quo. At least to a certain extent. Trump's policies, if actually enacted, will not improve the status quo, but likely will make it worse.
As a president, or person, I believe that Hillary far outshines Donald Trump.
They will come around when it's them getting killed.
Yes.
None of that disqualified him from buying a gun, although he was already a "bad person".
Last I read it did. He wasn't licensed to carry.
Trump has already come out and said "this wasn't a gun thing"(!) Also, that things would have been much worse if there hadn't been "someone with a gun pointing the other direction". Strikes me as bullshit on both counts.
No argument there. One of those issues I disagree with our president on.
Last I read it did.
Legally that is.
"But it is not the far left that is currently in power
in the US."
Nor are the ‛nutters’ as Petes calls them ‛a microscopic minority’ as he alleges. He just made that part up because that's what he wants to think (or, wants us to think), but it's not true. There are folks out on the left every bit as radical and noxious as the right-wingers, but there's not near as many of them.
"He wasn't licensed to carry."
I think they're talking about concealed. I believe Texas is an open carry state--generally legal to carry a weapon as long as it's not concealed. Exceptions for in churches (irony there) or schools, federal buildings, county courthouses, et al., but, oddly, usually not illegal to carry a gun in bars or taverns.
"And, of course, we have to put up with the clamour from the MSM
and the endless whinge fest from certain quarters who simply won't
accept the outcome of a democratic election…"
And, let's get one last thing straightened out here.
Even if Trump had won a democratic election (he did not, the American Presidential election is quasi-democratic at best), that wouldn't justify his attempts (and Petes' attempts in support of Trump) to shut down inquiry into his potential connections to the Russian meddling on his behalf that occurred in our last election. We have every right to pursue those suspicions, indeed we have an obligation to pursue those suspicions, whether or not Trump was democratically elected (which he was not).
Petes has never displayed any real affinity for democracy. He's always been something of an autocrat. His attitude here, i.e. that winning the election somehow makes how one won the election irrelevant, seems to be just another manifestation of his general disdain for democratic norms.
Post Script:
"We have every right to pursue those suspicions, indeed
we have an obligation to pursue those suspicions…"
We have a further right and duty to inquire as to what the hell he's doing with the powers he's managed to acquire, and to complain when complaints are warranted.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that
we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Theodore Roosevelt -- Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918
We have an explanation of sorts from FoxNews for why they pulled those advertisements urging Shorthand's impeachment that we discussed above. ↑↑
"Due to the strong negative reaction to their ad by our viewers, we
could not in good conscience take their money."
Politico.Com
They were concerned that the poor misguided advertiser was wasting his money. Yeah, right.
Sounds like an excuse Petes would try to sell us.
Writer in TheAtlantic suggests that American mass shootings, like the recent ones in Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, and Orlando are both contagions and share characteristics with more structured antisocial activities such as jihadi activity.
Fairly short for an Atlantic piece.
[Lynnette]: "What I am saying is that I believe some of the current government's policies, such as the ban on travel from some countries, for the most part originally Muslim majority countries until someone told Trump that may give rise to discrimination lawsuits, is encouraging intolerance and possibly violence, like the Nazis."
And when Obama brought in travel restrictions mentioning the same list of countries, was that also like the Nazis? Or was their something qualitatively different about Obama's restrictions? Or was it just not Nazi-like because it was Obama and not Trump?
"There was just recently graffiti depicting the Nazi swastika and anti-Muslim comments at one of our colleges here. Granted, this stuff has been around before the advent of Trump, but his reaction to Charlottesville was wishy washy at best and just appeared to appease the extremists on the far right."
Extremists on the far right do not take solace from Trump. That is one of the many fabrications of the hysterical left, though it is one of the more patently ridiculous ones. Trump is despised by the far right. Anyone who gave it one nanosecond's rational thought would realise that no swastika-toting thug is a fan of a president with a Jewish daughter.
"But it is not the far left that is currently in power in the US."
And it is not the far right either.
"Oh, certainly. I think there are those who very much dislike legalizing gay marriage, for example. But to vote based entirely on one issue is to ignore the danger that may arise from other issues. Unfortunately, I think there are many people who vote based on only one issue, though."
I don't think Trump got elected by people voting on the single issue of gay marriage.
"Because he really did lose the popular vote? And that being the case there are far more people out here who don't support him or his policies? You will see more division when the president and his party try to make major changes without a mandate."
Ok, I take that point. He has a weaker mandate than if he'd achieved a bigger electoral majority.
"...what I meant was that Hillary would have maintained the status quo."
That's her problem right there. That's why she lost. The status quo isn't working for enough people anymore.
"As a president, or person, I believe that Hillary far outshines Donald Trump."
The people beg to differ ;-)
(Enough people to get Trump elected, at any rate).
"…when Obama brought in travel restrictions…"
restrictions ≠ ban
And, just for the record… Obama didn't ‛bring in’ the travel restrictions in question. Arguably he might have vetoed the legislation imposing those restrictions, but that's another question entirely, whether he should or should not have vetoed that legislation; and it might have passed over his veto anyway.
"Trump is despised by the far right."
That is one of the many fabrications of a fat, hysterical, Catholic Irishman. Only a very small portion of the American ‛far right’ still gets bent ‛bout Jews. Most of them have have transferred their ethnic animosity almost seamlessly from Jews to Muslims.
Post Script:
It's a Protestant thing, so maybe you wouldn't understand. I do understand that many European Catholics still have a thing ‛bout the Jews.
This is Stephen Willeford, the Texan whom Petes described above ↑↑ as ‘some local gap-toothed yahoo with tattoos on his tattoos’.
It's beginning to look like the Texas church shooter ran out of ammo before Mr. Willeford showed up to shoot him as he tried to escape the scene. This isn't preventing the pro-shooters lobby from making Mr. Willeford into the hero of the hour all over their conservative media outlets.
Hilarious. That idiot lady who gave Trump the finger in a photo that went viral was a "communications specialist" for a government contractor. The responsible mother of two proudly used the photo as her Facebook profile pic. Needless to say, her employer was not best pleased. I'm sure prospective new employers will be very receptive of her little tantrum, which might be why she's considering Planned Parenthood and PETA -- they probably have better opportunities for leftwing extremists. ;-)
Lynnette: "All of you seemed to disagree with this [climate change] statement. As you see I did qualify it with "perhaps". What I am thinking about here is Africa. We have seen quite a large migration from countries within that continent. As Marcus has pointed out they seem to be more economic refugees rather than political, despite the fact that so many countries there are not what one would refer to as democratic. What we seem to see there is corruption and government mismanagement, as well as an inability to deal with issues arising from things such as drought, which may be exacerbated by climate change."
I still say "climate change" has not (at least not yet) played any large part. Droughts are nothing new you know. Remember Ethiopia in the 80's?
Africa has it well within it's means to feed that whole continent a few times over. Hell, drop a seed, turn around, turn back around and there's a plant growing! It's as a whole one of the very most fertile regions on earth.
Their problem is man-made. Insane over-population for one. 5-7 children per family is COMPLETELY unsustainable in todays world. If we did that all across the world we would likely breed ourselves into extinction within a century.
Then the poor governance, the corruption, that's most likely one of the main factors as well.
Genociding the whites outta Rhodesia and creating the Shono-homeland of Zimbabwe was prolly not such a hot idea either, all things considered.
Pete: "Well that is as much a result of the lack of discernment of the internet generation as anything else. I think we are in a transitional stage where people haven't caught up yet with the idea that online journalism has none of the checks and balances of the traditional print medium."
Maybe if "respectable" journalism actually adhered to fair and balanced (not in the FOX sence, in the actual sence) news and reported NEWS and HAPPENINGS without an agenda, we the people wouldn't find a reason to look for the truth (and sometimes getting it, sometimes being duped) elsewhere.
The MSM is IMO largely to blame for this themselves. And the "traditional print medium" has succumbed to politization and "outrage journalism" to the extent they are no longer trustworthy. Not by a longshot.
-----------------------
Just take this latest instance of Trump and Abe feeding Koi-fish in Japan. Here's an updated CNN report:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/donald-trump-koi-pond-japan/index.html
The original report that originated from ABC had it thus:
Abe and Trump was at this pond feeding Koi fish. Abe scooped out some feed, Trump scooped out some feed and THEN, THEN because Trump is an impatient CHILD he poured the whole canister of food into the water and now animal rights groups are hollering for his treatment of them poor fish!!!111
That was actually reported by the ABC. It got picked up all over, across the globe. And it was published with a pic of Trump looking like a dumbass while emptying the fishfood into that pond.
TRUTH:
Abe scooped out some fish-food. Trump did the same. Abe then emptied his canister of fish food. Trump did the same. And anyone whose been to any Koi feeding place knows emptying a can of food is just normal.
So: a major US news outlet DELIBERATLY took a complete non-event and used it to make Trump look like a stupid buffoon, when in fact he did nothing wrong, and it went world wide.
So, speking bout Fake News, we might not ONLY look at "alternative media" or "internet journalism" or "Russians".
"Needless to say, her employer was not best pleased."
They will be even less pleased if she accepts any of the offers she'll be getting for free legal help to sue her ex-employer.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"The original report that originated from ABC had it thus:"
The original report that I read on ABC's website had it differently. They reported that Trump drew laughter when he poured out his fish food. (I presume the laughter ensued because he did it with a grand ‘flourish’.) The dedicated Trumpkins took immediate umbrage. (I presume they took offense to the report of Trump being laughed at. I also presume you've taken your description of the ABC coverage off of the umbrage reports.)
Writer in TheAtlantic suggests that American mass shootings, like the recent ones in Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, and Orlando are both contagions and share characteristics with more structured antisocial activities such as jihadi activity.
I know people have characterized those who wage jihad as being ideologically motivated and not crazy, but I have to wonder if that is not entirely true. And perhaps "crazy" isn't quite the correct term either. Perhaps "broken" would work better. For those who feel that there is no where to turn, or that the world has it in form them, finding something to hold onto, even something as dark as Daesh is, gives them something to identify with. To belong. This might explain why you see people from all economic strata, even those with monetary advantages can have emotional problems.
Extremists on the far right do not take solace from Trump.
This I will disagree with. There have been enough pictures of rallies of the extreme right praising Trump to imply that they do.
Anyone who gave it one nanosecond's rational thought would realise that no swastika-toting thug is a fan of a president with a Jewish daughter.
I don't know that they like her, but they will take any Trump policy that furthers their agenda.
I don't think Trump got elected by people voting on the single issue of gay marriage.
I believe he got elected for multiple reasons, that being only one. I just meant that there are many people out there who vote on a single issue. The anti-abortion crowd probably like him too.
The status quo isn't working for enough people anymore.
I understand. Those are the people who voted out of protest. They are the ones who will be sadly disappointed, because, as I said, Trump won't fix any of their concerns. At least not judging by the legislation the Republicans have tried to push through Congress.
P.S.
What is rather interesting, though, is that perhaps Trump has achieved something that will in the end really make our country greater. We have an election for local races today. From an article in my paper yesterday it appears that many of the candidates who have been knocking on doors are finding a more engaged electorate who are interested in not just national but local politics. It's not just the older voters, but the younger ones as well.
Millennials "are starting to get more involved," said Craig Angrimson, who's running for the Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan school board. "They want to be precinct chairs. They're saying, 'We have a stake in this. This is our future. It's our country, too.'"
Local candidates find national issues matter to voters
Droughts are nothing new you know. Remember Ethiopia in the 80's?
Remember the Great American Dust Bowl of the 30's?
Both your cite and mine could very well be signs of climate change. They are both, in our planet's lifetime, current events.
But I will give you the point that climate change has not affected us extremely, yet.
I ran across a report the other day that said that the number of women running for office, first time, was also way up since Trump took office. His evident misogyny seems to have motivated many.
Rich Lowry professional conservative, makes Stephen Willeford (who basically shot an unarmed man) and ‘local gap-toothed yahoo with tattoos’, Johnnie Langendorff, into the heroes of the hour.
Mr. Lowry is careful to imply things he will not actually write out in clear, and to not mention that Willeford shot and killed an unarmed man.
Guess that's wrong, Willeford killing him that is. The church shooter decided not to wait for Willeford's shots to finish him off (he'd already telephoned his father saying that he was dying, texted maybe, I forget which). But he decided to not wait for that end, and is said to have hurried the end with his own head shot.
[Lynnette]: "I know people have characterized those who wage jihad as being ideologically motivated and not crazy, but I have to wonder if that is not entirely true. And perhaps "crazy" isn't quite the correct term either. Perhaps "broken" would work better. For those who feel that there is no where to turn, or that the world has it in form them, finding something to hold onto, even something as dark as Daesh is, gives them something to identify with. To belong. This might explain why you see people from all economic strata, even those with monetary advantages can have emotional problems."
I think you are 100% correct. This is well born out by the profiles of French and Belgian so-called jihadis, as well as some British ones. They are predominantly low-grade criminals who have reflexively latched onto jihadism as a way to make their lives meaningful. By "meaningful" I mean they get to pretend to themselves that vile and cowardly attacks on unarmed civilians will give them the notoriety and kudos that they feel they must deserve, but have failed to garner as low-life thugs. Killers like the Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs shooters just leave out the intermediate step of latching onto a notorious cause. Those are more likely people who did make something of themselves, but threw it away in the pursuit of a grudge.
[Lynnette]: "This I will disagree with [that "extremists on the far right do not take solace from Trump"]. There have been enough pictures of rallies of the extreme right praising Trump to imply that they do. I don't know that they like her [Ivanka], but they will take any Trump policy that furthers their agenda."
You're kind of making my point for me. These people may have temporarily latched onto Trump as a temporary travelling companion, but they are headed nothing like the same direction. Don't take my word for it, listen to Richard Spencer's own words. I'll admit Trump's immigration policy was indeed music to their ears, but it doesn't mean that agree with it for anything like the reasons that Trump proposed it. They quite clearly don't.
If anything I blame the media for giving these fringe low-lifes the oxygen of publicity. As Spencer himself says, they were pretty much unheard of for their first ten years of existence. Now the media have given him the notoriety he so dearly craves. Spencer is the quintessential attention-seeking troll.
As for the Jewish thing, I can assure you that Ivanka and Kushner are a blot they are willing to turn a blind eye to for the sake of expedience. The leopard doesn't change his spots, and the "alt-" part of alt-right does not extend to ditching the fascist disdain for Judaism. Just listen to Spencer's fellow idiot, "Millennial Woes".
All this said, Spencer's alt-right are extremely fringe elements. I don't see that Trump has to apologise for them any more than Obama had to apologise for the idiot black girl who slapped a white cop at his inaugural celebrations because "things had changed now". The people who think otherwise are the ones cheerleading the whinge fest for their own purposes.
[Lynnette]: "Remember the Great American Dust Bowl of the 30's?"
Decadal drought in the American Plains is as old as the hills. There were half a dozen of them in the 19th century. Many people were fooled by a wetter period just around the height of homesteading in the plains. The 30's Dust Bowl was a combination of the climate doing what it had always done, and unsustainable farming practices. The only thing that has changed since is the farming practices.
"…but it doesn't mean that agree with it for anything like the reasons
that Trump proposed it."
You are making the totally unwarranted assumption that Trump publicly admits to his real reason for proposing a travel ban.
"As for the Jewish thing…"
As for the Jewish thing, it's become a part of the standard dogma of the Christian Right Wing support for Israel (and thus tolerance for Jews) is decreed by God. (They even have a name for it, ‛Christian Zionists’.) You can rattle on about Spencer and his best buddies all you want; they represent a distinct minority among the right-wing crazies. There are still a few who originalist Nazis who still hold to the paleo-Nazi hatred of the Jews; Spencer and his besties are among them, but, in America that sentiment has been almost seamlessly replaced by and morphed into hatred of Muslims. I understand this is not true in Europe, but we're not talking ‛bout Europe.
[Marcus]: "Maybe if "respectable" journalism actually adhered to fair and balanced (not in the FOX sence, in the actual sence) news and reported NEWS and HAPPENINGS without an agenda, we the people wouldn't find a reason to look for the truth (and sometimes getting it, sometimes being duped) elsewhere."
Agreed. However, there is even less reason to trust the new online media. I think we have to improve our critical faculties with regard to all of them.
(It doesn't hurt the Jews among the right-wingers that they've kinda had a falling out with the black activists since the heydays of the Civil Rights Movement back in the 60s and 70s.)
Post Script:
I would point out that the invitation of Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress and assail Obama and Obama's foreign policy was considered a delightfully successful public insult to Obama by the Republicans in Congress and by their favored media outlets and by their right-wing crazy wing in particular.
American Nazis aren't generally down on the Jews anymore; they've filled that space with antipathy towards Muslims.
Now here's a new battery technology that has been silently building up an actual track record and seems ready for prime time. The vanadium redox-flow battery is a US invention that is making a big splash in China. I would take this article by one of its main developers with a pinch of salt ... except that it seems the Chinese are in the process of actually deploying it at utility scale for grid storage. The battery can be completely charged and discharged without damage, can deliver power over a four hour period, has a lifetime of 20 years, is more scalable than lithium and is already approaching the price of lithium batteries.
The Virginia Governor's election has been called. Ralph Northam, the Democrat, is the winner. That means Virginia should have a Democratic governor next time they reapportion electoral districts.
I told a lie -- the vanadium flow battery is an Autralian, not a US, invention. Couple of youtube vids about it, from before the current US refinement, and Chinese deployment -- one, two.
That well-known country of Autralia should be Australia, of course. ;-)
It seems that Petes has been cured of his previously dour attitude towards battery innovation. All that was required was for him to find a battery he liked instead of me mentioning a candidate. Whodda thunk it?
Didn't take long for Shorthands, to deny responsibility for the losing candidate for Governor, Republican Ed Gillespie. Earlier today Shorthands was all over twitter and doing voice-over for robo-calls across Virginia in support of the loser, but now it's all Gillespie's fault for ‛not embracing’ Shorthands with sufficient enthsiasm. Trumptweets
Not Shorthands' fault; never Shorthands' fault.
Another vid comparing the vanadium flow battery to pumped hydro. With bonus cute Saht Ifrican accents ;-)
Yesterday's elections in New Jersey and Virginia are going to be excessively over analyzed for weeks if not months, to come, so I thought I'd get my contribution to that excess in early.
According to the exit polls, fifty-one percent (51%) of the Virginia voters intended their vote as either express opposition to Trump or as support for Trump. That split came down two to one against Trump. (34% to 17%).
This will not change Trump's direction. He will continue to play to his base, to that 17%. It may make him a little louder and more frantic, but that's about the extent of the change he'll adopt.
The more important question for now is, "What effect will these results have on Republicans in Congress?"
Right now they're afraid of Trump again. Jeff Flake fought him and lost; Flake isn't even running again. Bob Corker fought him and lost; Corker isn't running again either. Guys who wanted to keep their jobs in Congress (Republicans anyway) decided they were scared of Trump all over again. Now they have something else to fear. If they cross Trump they're in trouble in their own primaries; if they don't cross Trump they may be in trouble in the general elections.
Of course, they have to survive the primaries before they have to worry about the general elections. So, I'm guessing the play along with Trump just as they have been doing, and they worry about the general elections when they have to face the general elections.
The Texas shooter was in a mental facility. Maybe Trump knew something we didn't after all. He also had form, threatening his military chain of command and smuggling weapons onto his base. Nice to know the system of background checks works so well to stop nutters buying guns (not!).
"Maybe Trump knew something we didn't after all."
Oh. My. Gawd. The Irishman's gone over the edge.
@ Lynnette,
Interesting piece here if you've got a little time to kill.
Writer for Politico.Com spends a few days among the dedicated Trumpkins of Cambria County, Pennsylvania.
They've given up on Trump delivering anything except public malice towards their enemies. That's gonna be enough to keep ‛em loyal.
Pete: "Agreed. However, there is even less reason to trust the new online media. I think we have to improve our critical faculties with regard to all of them."
Yes there might be even less reason to trust random web-pages claiming to be news outlets. But I think it's way more important to hold so called "serious" sources, especially Public Service sources that we are forced to pay for to ethical and non-biased standards.
In Sweden we have a "Public Service" we are forced to pay for. It's divided into SR (swedish radio) and SVT (swedish television). They did a poll a while ago on their staff and found that 55% of 'em went for our "green" party: Miljöpartiet. That party is in government today with about a 5% vote but polls at about 3% now. Mlost of the rest polled as other leftist parties.
And they DO let their party affiliation or general worldview impact on their reporting. Complete cultural marxists the lot of 'em.
Just the other day one of their "journalists" was convicted in court of human trafficking here. He brought a syrian back after a report he did from Syria, against all laws. Still he remains employed and I am one of the ones forced to pay his salary.
Why should I trust that lot any more than I trust a rightwing blogger? They clearly operate about at the same levels of journalistic integrity.
The BBC covered up the Rotherham rape scandals for quite some time. Tens of young white british girls being groomed, gangraped and sold between gangs of (mostly) Pakistani men and both ya'lls police and Public Service put a lid on it so as not to inflame "racism". You know all that now, you still have any faith in your "public service news outlets"?
Those agressors and even more so their protectors should be lined up and shot if you ask me.
"Those agressors and even more so their protectors should
be lined up and shot if you ask me."
By whom?
Winners & Losers in the 2017 Election.
"Trumpism without Trump": In the hours leading up to polls closing in Virginia, the idea -- floated by former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon -- that Gillespie would prove you could run and win on Trump's idea if you took Trump's personality out of the equation was rampant. Then Gillespie got trounced. What Tuesday night in Virginia showed is that most voters outside of the GOP base simply don't distinguish between support for Trump personally and support for Trump's agenda. It's all the same to them. And it's bad.
Petes: If anything I blame the media for giving these fringe low-lifes the oxygen of publicity.
As long as these people identify with Trump, even if it is only temporary, the media will cover it. He is the President of the United States and it is their job to track his performance, his connections if they are questionable, his policy shifts and whatever else is needed to keep the American public informed.
It is up to that public to determine the veracity, or bias if there is any, of the reporting of the events or circumstances. I think you made that point with regard to the Russian propaganda floating around during the 2016 election. It is a buyer beware kind of thing.
And it is up to Congress to deal with anything illegal that may turn up because of any investigation.
Petes: I don't see that Trump has to apologise for them...
No, he does not. But he does have to make sure he gives them no oxygen to breathe.
Petes: Decadal drought in the American Plains is as old as the hills. There were half a dozen of them in the 19th century.
Recent times when looking at the age of our planet.
Petes: The 30's Dust Bowl was a combination of the climate doing what it had always done, and unsustainable farming practices.
Recent climate, but I will give you the farming practices point. ;)
Lee C: Didn't take long for Shorthands, to deny responsibility for the losing candidate for Governor, Republican Ed Gillespie.
He can deny all he wants, but the only thing that will matter in the end is the motivation of voters. If he can't read that correctly, then he, or the GOP, is in trouble.
Lee C: Now they have something else to fear. If they cross Trump they're in trouble in their own primaries; if they don't cross Trump they may be in trouble in the general elections.
They are between a rock and a hard place, indeed. The only solution may be
running as an Independent, possibly hastening the break up of the Repbulican Party as we know it.
"Now the media have given him the notoriety he so dearly craves."
Both of you seem to have missed the distinguishing feature here. This time the right wing crazies managed to get hundreds of right-wingers to attend, mixing neo-Nazi regalia with Trump's MAGA hats and Klansmen's hoods. Plus they brought their own armed militia. Nazi regalia, Trump regalia, a militia armed with assault weapons.
This was a newsworthy event.
Marcus: Tens of young white british girls being groomed, gangraped and sold between gangs of (mostly) Pakistani men...
You do realize that claims of rape are made by many jihadist recruiters, only about us?
And, since they were wearing his trademarked wearing apparel it would have been proper for him to have disassociated himself from them (maybe needn't have apologized as such, but a public disassociation was called for; instead he afforded them the cover of ‛good people’).
Hmmm...that battery thingey reminded me of that post I was thinking of doing.
"The only solution may be running as an Independent…"
There is another solution; the list of Republicans who're opting out instead is growing rapidly. Seems like there's a new announcement of a Republican not running for reelection to the Congress just about every week now.
It looks to me like the Republicans spent most of the day getting deep into a process for convincing themselves that the solution to their current voter woes is to pass an unpopular ‘tax cut for the rich’ plan. This is unlikely to actually work, but it's reasonably likely that they'll convince themselves anyway.
[Marcus]: "Tens of young white british girls being groomed, gangraped and sold between gangs of (mostly) Pakistani men..."
[Lynnette]: "You do realize that claims of rape are made by many jihadist recruiters, only about us? "
I don't know if you're familiar with the cases Marcus is talking about. They aren't rumours or allegations. A long list of perpetrators are in jail. It is widespread and systemic. The local authorities and police had to apologise for dragging their heels on investigations for years, for fear of racist accusations. Pretty horrific stuff.
Channel 4 in the UK are airing a documentary tonight about the roots of white anxiety in the US, called Angry, White and American. I'm not sure how balanced I expect it to be, but I doubt I'll be in any disagreement about Richard Spencer who was interviewed for the program. Gary Younge's interview in a carpark full of Nazis was pretty brave, I thought. Spencer didn't deal well with being interviewed by an intelligent black guy. It didn't take long for the mask to slip on his profound ignorance and bigotry. I think Younge has the right idea -- stick a Nazi in front of a camera and let him expose himself. Spencer shows himself to be less intellectual than a sack of shit. Guardian article here.
I don't know if you're familiar with the cases Marcus is talking about. They aren't rumours or allegations. A long list of perpetrators are in jail. It is widespread and systemic.
I am not. My apologies to Marcus. This type of thing sounds a lot like some of the Asian gang activity that you may find here, except it is usually the girls within that community who are the targets. They are less likely to come forward to testify against attackers.
If the media did cover up something like this, then they are not doing their jobs.
There is a book out, Hillbilly Elegy which is a story of our white working class. I am waiting to get it in paperback. I think it might give some insights into the problems some people are facing that we don't all see.
"This type of thing sounds a lot like some of the Asian gang
activity that you may find here…. They are less likely to come forward
to testify against attackers."
And yet, you've read about it anyway. I find it inconceivable that our press would cover up such offenses except, maybe, in isolated cases (and almost always it'd be the rich and powerful, and white who'd benefit from the press looking the other way). And yet we have a better track record on integrating minorities than the Europeans whose media is accused of overlooking such transgressions by their minorities. I think these things may be related. We expect, even demand, compliance with our social norms, and we punish deviations. We get compliance and integration as a result.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Hillbilly Elegy"
I'm familiar with the book, and the author, and the subject matter. Haven't read it yet, but have been treated to (subjected to?) several summaries and reviews.
I looked at the video, and read the article, on Richard Spencer. I had never listened to him before, and I can see why.
He really should check out the movie Hidden Figures or perhaps do some research on factual history.
Anyway, yes, those would be the kind of people I would be concerned about standing alongside of in support of Donald Trump, if I had voted for him.
I'm familiar with the book, and the author, and the subject matter. Haven't read it yet, but have been treated to (subjected to?) several summaries and reviews.
That sounds like you have formed an opinion on the book already. Or are you just tired of the play it, and its author, have received?
"That sounds like you have formed an opinion on the book already."
Rather, I've formed an opinion on the book review. (There seems to be only the one.)
I was going to let this one slide on by, but Shorthands decided to get in on the story from his Southeast Asia trip.
Roy Moore, the Republican nominee to replace Jeff Sessions as Senator from Alabama has been accused of being a pervert and child molester on the basis incidents supposedly occurring some thirty years ago. (For our foreign readers, Roy Moore is a self-righteous Bible Thumper in addition to being a reactionary Republican and an assertive Trumpkin.)
Almost all of the Republicans already in Washington D.C. have said that Moore should withdraw from the race if the allegations are true.
Now Shorthands has weighed in with the exact same prescription. Moore should drop out of the race for the Senate seat if the allegations are true.
Well, now Moore can't drop out of the election without it looking like he's admitting that the allegations are true. He's a self-righteous Bible Thumper; he's never going to admit that unless there's overwhelming evidence of his guilt, and, with 30 year old accusations, there's no chance of legal proceedings (the statute of limitations has long since run out). Without cops and prosecutors digging up evidence there's virtually no chance of anything popping up that Republican partisans will accept as ‘overwhelming evidence’. So, there's virtually no chance that he'll drop out now.
So, all those Republicans who wanted him to drop out have effectively arranged things so he won't drop out. Now they get to explain why they're okay with sitting by and working with a child molester, not a good look. (Any chance they could make headway of the Democrats' Senator Menendez's corruption trial has just been shot to hell.)
Speaking of Shorthands, now that I've broached the subject again today…
Trump advisor and advance man, Carter Page, has recently been obliged to acknowledge that he met with ‘high level’ Russians, ‘senior government officials’ while on his visits to Moscow. And Trump's ‘body man’ (i.e. personal assistant and bodyguard combined), Keith Schiller, has been obliged to acknowledge that the Russians offered Trump women (multiple women at once) for his overnights in Moscow. Schiller says he turned the Russians down.
We now know that the Russians were eager to make contact with Trump in the run-up to the 2016 elections. We know that Trump's people were eager to reciprocate.
Does anybody here really believe that Trump is too patriotic or too moral to have hooked up with the Russians to try to get help in defeating Hillary Clinton?
Does anybody here really believe that Putin would have allowed that opportunity to go unfulfilled?
Whether or not Robert Mueller can get proof is another question entirely, but those questions are still out there.
Yes indeed there ARE rapist gangs of (mostly Paki) muslims who gangrape, trade, sell and abuse white girls there. The Rotherham gang was the most notorious.
And YES the police and local authorities in those places HAVE downplayed these crimes for fear of being racists. And for the same reason they've been letting these crimes go on.
And YES, for that they should be lined up and shot. IMO.
Lee asks: "by who?"
My only answer is by the people.
I doubt it will ever happen, but they really should get lined up and just shot.
If you're an elected official whose job it is to serve your own people and you turn a blind eye to young girls of your own people being gangraped by invading hordes from another people, then you deserve a bullet to the back of your head and nothing less. Very simple.
There's even a quite detailed wiki about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
"My only answer is by the people."
You mean to abandon the rule of law in favor of vigilante action? Whomever takes the notion gets to make the kill?
"Does anybody here really believe…"
Due notice taken that Marcus didn't volunteer to believe in Trump back there.
Lee: "You mean to abandon the rule of law in favor of vigilante action? Whomever takes the notion gets to make the kill?"
Well, Lee, in France pre revolution there was a tale (it was prolly just a tale but it got traction) of how Marie Antoinette was told sitting in Versailles luxury "the people are hungry, they can't afford bread" and she answered "well, let them eat cake". I'm sure you've heard 'bout that supposed episode.
That was one example of a then Royal elite, surrounded by whores and sychophants who cared NOTHING for their own people, as best demonstrated by Marie Antoinettes callous remark.
That, then, led to the people eventually rising up and Madame Lé Guillotine having her thirst for blood quenched. The blood around the Bastillé then ran ancle deep from the headchopped traitors to their own people.
It happened then, it can and probably will happen again. Maybe not in my lifetime but it's far from inconceivable. You're prolly too old to be around though.
And the officials who covered up Rotherham are exctly the sort of folks who would and should have their heads on the chopping block if and when the next peoples' revolution come 'round.
It will be on that axis though. Our new cultural marxist elites are flooding us with problems and strife both in the real world and in the world of ideas and we will eventually fight back violently. Courts will be held, scentences will be meted out, and heads will fall.
Also do note that the betrayal of the supposed rule of law was precisely what made this particular scandal into a many year long saga of abuse of the innocents, so to decry solutions outside that "rule of law" is pretty rich, even coming from you.
So you're looking more for an anti-Arab kristallnacht, rather than just small scale vigilante escapades?
Although, I suppose just ‘anti-Arab’ is rather too limiting a description, considering the breadth of your target list
"Liberté, égalité, fraternité"
I don't think the French Revolution is probably your best analogy. I'm thinkin’ that equality and brotherhood ain't exactly high on your list of favored attributes for your New Order in Sweden.
No but Lee you are of the Boomer generation that lets small girls get raped and killed all for the "greater good" of your warped way of believing, despite all evidnce, that the human kind is one race and that we are all the same.
You will soon be dead, and Gen-Z is much more woke.
Your inheritance will be like:
"There was a short period in time where sickening fools for their own emotional well being sold out our children and our people's future. They were dispicable and we must never get their in the future."
Lee: "So you're looking more for an anti-Arab kristallnacht, rather than just small scale vigilante escapades?"
You're dumber than a box of rocks. The main enemy I portray in the enemy from within.
Like the sainted Corneieani Corneandru said: "If I'm faced with one enemy and one traitor and I have just one bullet, I would shoot the traitor first".
"The main enemy I portray in the enemy from within."
Ah, well, you led with the ‘gangs of (mostly Paki) muslims’, so you managed to conceal your ‘main enemy’ from detection by listing them in a secondary position. (Marcus @ Wed Nov 08, 11:30:00 am and Fri Nov 10, 10:26:00 pm ↑↑)
I will therefore not feel chastened by your current elevation of the second listed enemy to first position. (Although, it appears you think that I should.)
More to the point though… In America we do not ‘lets small girls get raped and killed all for the "greater good"’. We pretty much disapprove of that sort of thing all around, even when such offenses committed by immigrants.
Post a Comment