Morning Ed: Listicles {2016.06.12.M}


Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

34 Responses

  1. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    It always bugged me that Larry and Balki were supposed to be cousins in perfect strangers but Larry was so completely Anglo-Americanized that he did not know anything about Mypos. It seemed implausible.Report

    • Avatar Kolohe says:

      Both my grandfathers died before I was born, and I have never had any contact with their siblings or the sibling’s decedents. One of them was from Quebec, which yes, isn’t that obscure, but the other was from a former Soviet Republic which very few people would have been able to name in the 80s.Report

  2. Avatar Kolohe says:

    “Will Truman at Ordinary Times lists 6 links that will make your mobile browser ornery” 😉Report

  3. Avatar Morat20 says:

    Well, there is an excellent YA set of Discworld books, but I’m pretty sure Ankh-Morpork would not be the city I’d associate with them.

    Although I think Tiffany Aching visited once.Report

    • Avatar Will Truman says:

      This is fair. Some of them are definitely more YA than others.Report

      • Avatar Morat20 says:

        I try not to miss any opportunity to remind people that the Tiffany Aching books exist, and also that if you have kids they should read them. And that Hogfather is an excellent book for Christmas time. 🙂Report

      • Avatar El Muneco says:

        I think Discworld is of a piece with, say, old Warner Brothers cartoons.

        The more subtle humor aimed at grownups acts as a Genius Bonus for young-uns. And most of them, the earlier ones at least, still work as straightforward stories even if you miss all the jokes – maybe up to “Night Watch” or so. It’s only the really late books – the ones featuring Moist von Lipwig in particular – where the author relies so much on headology that the reader really has to be up to speed on all the subtleties of what’s going on with the characters.Report

    • She did, but she’s of The Chalk. Which doesn’t really count as a town.Report

    • Avatar RTod says:

      also Morris the car and the miceReport

  4. Avatar Stillwater says:

    Here’s a list: in the aftermath of the massacre, how many people have accused Democrats of supporting Islamic extremism?


    Trump accuses Obama and

    Roger Stone accuses Hillary.

    It’s gonna be a long summer.Report

    • Avatar Kolohe says:

      Thinkprogress accused Ronald Reagan.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater says:

        And here I was thinking this summer couldn’t get any worse…Report

      • Avatar Stillwater says:

        Wait, are you referring to the arms sale to Iran or funding the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan?

        Those aren’t accusations, brah. Those are facts. 🙂Report

        • Avatar Kolohe says:

          It’s a listicle. That’s what I thought this thread was about.

          And the Mujahedeen that the US financed in the 80s became mostly the Northern Alliance, the sworn enemies of the TalibanReport

          • Avatar Kolohe says:

            (Iran contra – supposedly – dealt with the same moderate reformist faction in the Iranian government that we’re – supposedly – dealing with now in the U enrichment deal)Report

            • Avatar Stillwater says:

              You’ve convinced me. Reagan wasn’t aiding and abetting Islamic Extremist attacks in the US.

              Of course, Media Matters never said that either…Report

              • Avatar Stillwater says:

                To make the point clear: seems to me there’s a categorical difference between explicitly accusing a politician of aiding and abetting Muslim terrorist attacks on US soil, and … well … not.Report

              • Avatar Kolohe says:

                I never said Media Matters did anything.

                This Think Progress guy, though, said that Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. That’s a pretty direct line to aiding and abetting attacks on US soil.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater says:

                I disagree. Pointing out that Reagan funded OBL’s group in the late 70s doesn’t imply aiding and abetting terrorist attacks against the US yesterday. It was a causal source of those attacks, but not an instance of intentional behavior to bring about that result. I mean, I appreciate your efforts to collapse the distinction but I ain’t buying it.Report

  5. Avatar Autolukos says:

    Trump pulls WaPo press credentials.

    At this rate, I’m pretty sure Breitbart and Alex Jones are going to be the only credentialed orgs left by September.Report

    • Avatar Dand says:

      I can’t imagine he’d pull the credentials of broadcast outlets, he needs them.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater says:

      Here’s what Trump said about WaPo:

      I am no fan of President Obama, but to show you how dishonest the phony Washington Post is, they wrote, “Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting” as their headline. Sad!

      Assuming the quotations are accurate, he quite clearly DID suggest that Obama was involved in the Orlando massacre:

      “We’re led by a man that either is, is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind,” Trump said. “And the something else in mind, you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot — they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the ways he acts and can’t even mention the words radical Islamic terrorism. There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable.”Report

      • Avatar Brandon Berg says:

        I don’t see how that constitutes accusing Obama of having been involved in the shooting.Report

        • Avatar Stillwater says:

          The WaPo headline didn’t say “involved”. It said “connected to”, which strikes me as an accurate paraphrase of what Trump was suggesting: that Obama either wants to prevent the attacks and is incapable of doing so (because he’s not smart or tough) OR he doesn’t, that “he’s got something else in mind”.Report

        • Avatar Tod Kelly says:

          I certainly get this. I’ve talked to others who read it similarly. (I know Will did, for example.)

          However, as he and his camp have been given numerous opportunities to clarify, and have chosen to say some version of, “our people know what I’m trying to say” without clarification, it seems to me that at the very least he’s trying to signal what Still is saying to people that really want to hear that, while signaling to you that he would never, ever say that.

          Which for me, anyway, is just another reason to oppose the guy.Report

        • Avatar Burt Likko says:

          …And the something else in mind, you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot — they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the ways he acts and can’t even mention the words radical Islamic terrorism. There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable.

          Granted, this is not atypical word soup coming from this candidate. But isn’t the fairest way to read this as an accusation of malign neglect? According to this version of events, Obama didn’t tell the shooter to go out and do something awful. But Obama sat back, and despite having the power to prevent it, he simply waited for something awful to happen, knowing that sooner or later, something awful was going to happen. And when it did, Obama would then react in some malign way that isn’t quite explicated.

          From here, you can insert whatever awful fear you wish: that Obama would a) try to take your guns away from you, b) declare martial law and suspend the Constitution to respond to a “state of emergency,” c) transfer control of the government to anonymous other-than-real-Americans, d) force everyone to get gay-married and speak Spanish, or worst of all e) make it easier for people to afford minimal health insurance. Trump did not specify which of this parade of horribles was actually on the agenda, but the implication that Obama is using “radical Islamic terrorism” as a catspaw for some sinister agenda is pretty clear.

          I mused on twitter to @rtod and @will-truman yesterday,

          • Avatar Morat20 says:

            But isn’t the fairest way to read this as an accusation of malign neglect?

            Eh, I don’t think so. It’s word salad, but the phrase “acting the ways he acts” could be parsed as “not acting at all”, but that’s an incredible stretch. Coupled with “There’s something going on” — which really can’t be read as “not doing anything”.

            In two sentences he’s used two phrases that really can only be read as referring to deliberate actions, not “sitting back and doing nothing”.

            That’s not even getting into placing it into the context of Trump personally (his worldview, politics, previous statements) — just a plain up parsing.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater says:

      This might be too little too late Auto, especially given some of the things I’ve said in earlier threads, but I feel for ya. Trump is an unmitigated f***ing disaster for the GOP, conservatism and our country.Report

      • Avatar Autolukos says:

        I wouldn’t feel for me in particular; the only GOPers I’ve ever voted for were no-hopers running against safe incumbents out here in CA, and those votes were entirely a middle finger to this state’s esteemed senators. It would be nice to have two parties I disliked instead of one I dislike and one I despise, but what are you going to do?Report