Morning Ed: Europe {2016.09.15.Th}


Will Truman

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

Related Post Roulette

123 Responses

  1. Avatar Damon says:

    Drug Shaming: I listened to an interview with the Sheriff/COP in that locale. That posting, he claims, was a cry for help. They apparently don’t have the resources to help these people and the post was an attempt to call attention to that fact. He even addressed the un-blurred pic of the kid. From the perspective of achieving his goal, I think it had some use, and I think the pics are useful in calling attention to a real problem in a lot of areas in the country that a Frontline report or NPR report doesn’t do as starkly.

    That being said, I wouldn’t want this to become a common tactic.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy says:

      That is some useful context, @damon . I’d be curious to know what other attempts he made to draw attention/cry for help. If this is his first attempt, I’m bothered. If he has done everything else imaginable, I feel very differently.

      Maybe if we trade in SWAT tanks for the resources he needs, we wouldn’t be at this point.Report

      • Avatar Damon says:

        “Maybe if we trade in SWAT tanks for the resources he needs, we wouldn’t be at this point.”

        Quite so. That wasn’t covered in the report I saw but it’s worth a look.Report

        • Avatar Kazzy says:

          I should have made clear that that was more a general comment than specific to this situation; I don’t know what resources this particular department has.Report

  2. Avatar Kolohe says:

    Isn’t the whole point of the Commonwealth of Nations to have the really super best trade deals among the members already? The Austrailians still have Lizzy Deux on their money; how can Brussels tell them to get in line? They’re already at the service counter, right?Report

  3. Avatar notme says:

    Europeans don’t pay their share for NATO so why should an EU Army be any better? In fact it will be worse bc the US won’t be there to prop them up.Report

  4. Avatar notme says:

    ‘This is a funeral’ Le Pen predicts the end of the EU as she promises FREXIT referendum

  5. Avatar Dand says:

    The Cranky Flier says Southwest Airlines’ labor unions scored a major victory though he wonders how the airline is going to pay for it.

  6. Avatar Mo says:

    Why does Southwest still have the reputation of being a low cost carrier? I have rarely found it to be cheaper than the Big 3. Basically, once the benefit from their fuel price hedges went away over time, they ended up just like the big carriers. Also, interesting to note in that article that things like bag fees weren’t due to benevolence, but due to limits in their existing reservation system.Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck says:

      It might be competitive on cost, but I actually prefer the experience. People complain about not having assigned seats, but the other option is UnitedAir-style “business travellers, frequent-flier members, credit-card holders, people who paid extra during booking board first” and 65 people stand up to get on the plane.

      Interesting from that article’s comments: “Pilot raises will be paid for largely from the relaxation of Scope restrictions in the new CBA, which heretofore have prevented SWA from establishing any sort of code share or joining in any alliance.”

      So, now we’re going to have the experience of paying for a Southwest flight that’s actually a shit-ass Delta flight? GREAT.Report

  7. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    The essay on the growth of the Far Right was interesting and I agree with a lot of it. The thing is I believe we know how to make globalization more humane, wealth redistribution through taxes and the welfare state. It worked during the mid-20th century and there isn’t a reason it won’t work now.

    It’s just that it is politically impossible to implement the necessary policies. The global wealthy are doing everything possible to keep the lion share of the wealth to themselves including tax shelters and other dodges. The Right remains committed to the pure free market with no welfare state and uses culture wars to get their way. The Left keeps trying to fight culture wars and gets distracted from the welfare state issues.Report

    • Avatar Chip Daniels says:

      I generally agree, but Trump has pulled the curtain back on the illusion of a “free market” constituency.

      I would hazard a guess that the number of people who seriously want anything resembling a “free market” could fit in a small conference room at a Cato seminar.

      I keep pounding on this because their tactic over the years has been to shroud every sort of rule or regulation that favors the interests of the 0.1% in the robes of “freedom”.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq says:

        People generally want stability over chaos and the economy and society is changing too fast for many people to take it all in. They are going after anything that they think could restore stability or numb the pain at change.

        The ones most statistics with the state of the globalized and liberalized world are secular affluent educated people. Socially conservative working class people are the most dissatisfied. Everybody else is in between. A transgendered person might be thrilled at the seemingly rapid advance of transgendered rights in the developed world but not like the full throttled globalized economy if they don’t have education or marketable skills.Report

        • Avatar Chip Daniels says:

          What I find fascinating is how many people who are ostensibly “conservative” are now using many of the buzzwords from the old left; “Crony Capitalism”, “Ruling Elites” , “Oligarchy”;

          One of the errors I think liberals made was to assume that economic interest and ethnic interest always favor the same side; like black people are somehow inherently anti-capitalist, or that white nationalists are inherently pro-capitalist.

          I’m starting to get a good idea now of what a “National Socialism” looks like.

          A year ago that would be a punchline. Today, its not.Report

          • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

            The other lesson I think is that the country is so polarized that any R or D Presidential candidate is guaranteed at least 40 percent of the popular vote.

            Unlike others, I find it hard to be shocked that Trump constantly has a 20-35 percent chance of winning. I don’t think any other Democrat but HRC would clean the floor with Trump despite what people are saying now.

            There are still Sanders supporters like HA Goodman who think Sanders would be kicking Donald’s butt in a landslide. Maybe he would be doing marginally better than HRC but I have my doubts. I also don’t like revisionist thought experiments because they are largely useless. We live in this world, not a thought experiment.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman says:

                Yeah. Even in my most optimistic scenarios, absent a three-person race I had Trump getting over 40% (though just barely… I think 40.8%). So it’s not so much that Trump is going to get 40%, but that he’ll probably get 45% and maybe 48%. Which takes us into this territory:

                If Trump gets 48% or so, it’s a matter of faith – or believing that Hillary Clinton is just that atrocious of a candidate – to believe that an expressly white ethnocentric party can’t win with a better pitchman.Report

              • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

                I think the post November landscape is what everyone wonders about and fears.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels says:

                Likewise, I do worry about the post-November landscape.

                I mean, if Hilary loses, that means as a patriot I need to fly to Kentucky, buy a gun, hunt down Matt Bevin, kill him then water the tree of liberty.

                That’s a lot of work. I would rather just wear a flag lapel pin.Report

              • Avatar PD Shaw says:

                What’s the significance of Trump getting 40% or 48%? I’m not sure there is much. I think it will be significant if Clinton gets under or over 50% to the extent it will tar her as an unpopular President elevated by a more divisive figure. Probably indirectly impacts coattails and the nature of her Presidency.

                For Republicans, if Clinton is under 50%, as in Trump plus Johnson would have beaten Clinton, then I think there will be a fight about what lesson should be drawn (Trump wrong messenger vs wrong message). If Clinton is over 50%, the “establishment” will have more incentives and stronger hand to redirect the party, even if that only means that they will unite behind a Presidential candidate earlier in the 2020 election cycle to avoid the outsider divide-and-conquer scenario.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater says:

                I think it will be significant if Clinton gets under or over 50% to the extent it will tar her as an unpopular President elevated by a more divisive figure.

                When Bush won the 2000 election with a lower popular vote total than Gore and barely squeaked by in the EC, Cheney called it “a mandate” from the American people. If Trump wiggles his way to victory it’ll be a mandate too. What percentage would Hillary have to win by, or any Dem candidate for that matter, for her victory to be viewed as clear articulation of the will of the people?Report

              • Avatar PD Shaw says:

                People can say they have a mandate all they want. Bush II was saved by 9/11 IMHO. My main point though, probably in part because I don’t see Trump winning at this point, is that it is Clinton’s degree of success that is most important.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater says:


                Sure, anyone can call a win a mandate, but for the most part Cheney’s comment wasn’t met with the ridicule it surely deserved. It was, in effect, accepted.

                My prediction: if Trump wins with 47% of the vote and +12 EC, it’ll be viewed as a clear and unequivocal mandate from the American people to enact real Trump-change. If Hillary wins with 57% of the vote and +86 EC it’ll be viewed as conservatives failing to present a viable challenger to the Dem primary opponent.Report

              • 99% at an absolute minimum, though I suspect if the final vote tallies were 1 vote for The Donald, 150 for Johnson, 20 for the Green, and everybody else for Clinton the press would still write about it as a narrow victory tainted by cattle futures.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman says:

                48% means that enough people are not put off by Trumpism to put it within the realm of victory, and that he outperformed Romney and McCain. The argument that the party needs to adapt and move away from white ethnocentrism becomes harder, because it’s not repelling enough people.

                The argument would then rely on counterfactuals (ie someone else would have won this race) and that’s a hard place to argue from. And depending on the exit polls, “We lost because we were sabotaged by our own” becomes a viable argument.

                Apart from this election, my fear is that the GOP’s path to power is least difficult (and therefore most likely) through consolidating the white vote and waiting for the Democrats to fracture. A good showing by Trump validates that fear. If they come close, they might just need to find someone who doesn’t alienate white women and educated voters quite so much.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                Save a corner of your brain for Trump hitting 50%+1.

                You don’t need to use it yet.

                But you’ll be glad you have it somewhere around the middle of October.Report

              • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

                There are not enough white people in the country for Trump to hit 50 plus 1.

                Or more specifically, for Trump to hit 50 plus 1, he would need to get votes from people who voted for Clinton, Gore, Obama x2. In other words, while whites swing republican, there are still lots of whites who are loyal Democrats and liberals.

                The issue for you is that these people don’t live in Colorado Springs except among the faculty of Colorado College.

                I don’t think there are many people who voted Clinton, Gore, Obama x2 who are going to switch to Trump.

                @will-truman is going to laugh at me for this but the big unknown about Trump is that he doesn’t have a turnout machine. Obama and Clinton have very good turnout machines. I keep saying this (and it keeps getting ignored like I am a Cassandra) but turnout is about much more than asking people if they will show up in November. It is about arranging rides to and from polling places. It is about helping people get absentee ballots.

                Obama and Clinton have great turn out machines.

                Two things can happen here.

                1. The field offices and conventional wisdom matter. It would be interesting to see if Clinton manages a great victory despite the recent polls. If she does, all the pundits will just talk about how the ground game matters just like it did in 2008 and 2012.

                2. A Trump narrow defeat or victory will just upend the conversation.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman says:

                To clarify, it’s not that I don’t think turnout machines matter. It’s just that if that’s what you’re counting on, yours probably in trouble. If you’re saying you can’t lose because of it despite what polls are saying, you may be in a lot of trouble.

                Basically, think of turnout machines as a potential tie-breaker. Very important in case of a tie, but they’re not going to save you.Report

              • Avatar Saul Degraw says:


                To further clarify, I get that a lot of people think/hope/want for Donald to be losing badly but I never saw this in the cards.

                I think that the nation is getting more and more partisan and we have gotten to the point where almost any or every Democratic or Republican candidate is guaranteed 40-44 percent of the popular vote no matter whom the candidates are.

                So I disagree with Jason K (and I guess you) when he argues that any other Democratic candidate (including Bernie Sanders) would be thrashing Trump in the polls.

                Maybe this is just uncommonly cynical of me but I think every Presidential election is a turnout election and most elections are going to be near tie-breakers with votes decided by a few swing states. Ronald Reagan’s blowouts are a thing of the past. Obama’s 2008 and 2012 victories might be a thing of the past.

                Counterfactuals hold little appeal to me but I do see people guessing that Sanders would be crushing Trump. I am skeptical because Sanders was always treated as a curiosity. I think Sanders in some ways might be more vulnerable because how is the country going to react to a Jewish-atheist self-described socialist from Brooklyn who lives in hippie Vermont?

                I can see Kaine, Brown, and Sanders being in the same spot as HRC and people saying “Why didn’t we go with Clinton?”

                Though I admit Matt Y’s analysis from Vox is depressing too:


                “It’s simply going to be very hard for Clinton to open up the kind of stable lead that her supporters think Trump’s awfulness deserves while she herself is so little-liked. September of a general election year is probably not a great time to turn that around.

                But the fact remains that her basic problem in this race is almost painfully simple. Over the course of her winning primary campaign she became a deeply unpopular figure. And it’s hard — indeed, unprecedented — for such an unpopular person to win the presidency.”

                I think a lot of Clinton hatred is lies and bullshit based on decades of sexist shit but it exists.Report

              • Avatar PD Shaw says:

                Does voting for a third-party candidate, like for a former Republican governor, constitute not being put off by white ethnocentrism? Frankly, at 48%, I think Trump wins the election because Libertarians are likely to have a big year. I don’t think its a three party race, but think the Ls will get at least 5% from Republicans signaling.

                Disagree with your premise though if you are saying actual voters are thinking in terms of “white ethnocentrism.” Trump is a personality, and he’s largely been given the stamp of approval from celebrity culture.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                Libertarians aren’t going to have a year (much) bigger than last time they had a year.

                They’re not going to hit 5%.

                Ask yourself: why would someone who won’t end up voting Libertarian tell a pollster “I’m going to vote for Gary Johnson”?Report

              • Avatar Will Truman says:

                I’ve always said that while I don’t know how I’m going to vote in November, if a pollster asks I’m saying “Johnson.”

                I have my reasons (the excessively high threshold to be in the debates), but for most I suspect it’s an effective None Of The Above.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman says:

                The third party possibilities do sort of throw a wrench in things. Depending on how well Johnson does, I may have to switch back to using margins. Both metrics matter. 51/48 is not good, but neither is 46/44 or 45/43. Ideally, I want Trump held to below 45% and losing by more than 4 points.

                Even if Trump voters aren’t thinking in terms of white ethnocentrism (and I agree with you a lot aren’t), they’re clearly tolerant of it. That is why I framed it in negative terms (“not repelled by” instead of “supportive of”). People can be not repelled by supporting it, by tolerating it, or by being oblivious to it.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater says:

                Disagree with your premise though if you are saying actual voters are thinking in terms of “white ethnocentrism.”

                I think this claim is ambiguous between first order and second order concerns. For example, liberals have criticized the GOP for its increasing reliance on and direct appeals to white voters even tho conservatives – and the GOP! – vehemently deny that racism on their side is the cause of the demographic shift. (Instead, they criticize Democrats for pandering to blacks and hispanics and playing “reverse-racism”…).

                But Trump’s direct involvement with groups with a race-related agenda has certainly made the issue a meta-political topic, one which I think voters actually are thinking about and aware of. (And again, the dispute tracks standard lines where liberals criticize conservatives for appealing to (in this case) white ethnocentrism and conservatives claiming that liberals see racism where none exists, etc and so on).

                The fact of the matter is that Trump has drawn white nationalists into the political fold, elevated their views to the level of political legitimacy, and shifted the political dynamics upon which elections potentially can be determined to include outright racists. All this is really of a piece, tho, with a larger critique of conservative/GOP politics in general, in which pandering to racists has a time honored tradition. Trump just took it to the next level. Liberals see that, of course. (And certainly the white nationalists who endorse Trump see it as well.) Perhaps even some “independents” do too.Report

              • Avatar PD Shaw says:

                This is not how real people think though. I personally know Trump supporters and they are not engaging in something at a meta level. I also, partly because I’ve been wearing my “George Washington for President” t-shirt, have been getting into discussions with total strangers about how anguished they are about this election and appreciate the humor.

                And this all seems familiar to me from living through the 1991 Louisiana Governor’s race:

                David Duke: 67%
                Edwin Edwards: 59%

                Clinton and Trump have had similar negatives, through RCP currently has an average of Trump: 58.6%; Clinton 55.4%. In my experience, the typical dynamics of an election are turned upside down when a broken primary foists two unpopular candidates on the electorate. First issue is how many people refuse to vote in such an election. Second issue, what are people against?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater says:

                I’ll take your word for it about Trump supporters. I really don’t know any who would fall into what we’d call his “base”. And frankly, I don’t think that most proTrump conservatives would be affected by rhetoric about racism anyway, since they’ve constructed an entire edifice to deflect the accusation from having any merit.

                What I DO think – perhaps incorrectly – is that most liberals and probably all white nationalists are acutely aware of the role racism plays in this election and are voting with that clearly in mind, and that lots (not all) of independents are also aware of the role race is playing (whether they call it racism is another question) in this election, and are voting one way or another or not at all with that in mind.

                I mean, I could be wrong, but just about everyone I speak to about this election seems to mention that Trump is a horrible racist at some point in the conversation, irrespective of how they’re going to vote. (Which to me signals that the word “racism” has devolved to pure signaling. The conservatives won that particular skirmish.)Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

            assume that economic interest and ethnic interest always favor the same side

            Those venn diagrams certainly share some overlap, but I don’t think they’ve ever had large areas of overlap. I think the reason for that line of thought has to do with loud, squeaky wheels.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw says:


        Thatcher excluded, I don’t think “small government” conservatism was ever that big in Europe including among their wonky set.

        I generally agree with you. Win or lose, one of the prime messages of this election to me is that Trump destroyed any semblance of small government/free market conservatism as an ideology except maybe among 10-15 percent of the population. If that much.

        What Trump’s nomination reveals is much darker. Most people seem to primarily vote on cultural/social issues. There is a good chunk of the electorate (or at least the GOP base) that finds welfare state/what nationalist/volk populism appealing. There is a possibly overlapping chunk that has a very juvenile and dangerous attitude of “Let it all burn/Epartier Le Bourgeois.”*

        *As we saw yesterday, the real culture war seems to be between white working class and/or lower middle class people and there dreaded enemies in the upper-middle professional class for being liberal snobs.Report

  8. Avatar Alan Scott says:

    Looking at the details of the UK redistricting…

    It’s awkward. Uses registered voters, not population or even population of eligible voters. Uses old voter registration roles that don’t reflect all the new voters that registered for Brexit (though I imagine that’s more about when they started the process, not anything intentionally sinister). And it shrinks the number of districts by almost 8%.Report

  9. Avatar Jaybird says:

    When I think about an “EU Army”, I think “EU Police/Occupation Force”.

    Let me read the article…

    Oh, okay. It’s not as bad as I feared. The EU no longer trusts the US to take point in EU-Domestic problems.

    Wait. That might be worse than I feared.Report

  10. Avatar Jaybird says:

    When it comes to overdose shaming, one of the things that still bugs me is how we, as a society, will evolve from a “Just Say No/Don’t Do Drugs” society to a “It’s okay to use drugs, if it’s your Friday night, and you don’t have plans for the next X hours, and you’re in a safe place where you’re not likely to leave” society.

    We have theories about the best ways to introduce beer or wine to kids/teenagers.
    We’re going to have to generate new ways to introduce drugs to kids/teenagers.
    Because, if we don’t, we’re going to be stuck relying on the old ways. I’m not sure that the old ways are the best ways, here.Report

    • Avatar dragonfrog says:

      I don’t know that we are, really, going to get all the way to “it’s okay to use any drugs (etc.)” position.

      If we get to a point where a much wider range of drugs are not prohibited, so that they can be considered on their own, as drugs of knowable strength and purity and effects and no associated need to deal with violent criminal organizations to obtain them – that would be great.

      When/if that happens, considering the drugs individually, we’ll probably come to a prescription rather like the one you describe above (use in moderation and don’t operate heavy machinery) for some drugs, and a range of very different ones for other drugs, up to and including “if you are using this drug with any kind of regularity, we’re going to try to get you into treatment”.

      We have this already for all kinds of things that are perfectly legal – we don’t need a law against anorexia or cutting yourself with a razorblade, for it not to be seen as “OK to do if it’s your Friday night”Report

      • Avatar Jaybird says:

        Well, let’s stipulate that I’m not talking about *ANY* drugs. I’m merely talking about…

        What drugs would you find it most frustrating for me to list here?
        Marijuana, LSD, um… what else?

        Let’s say I’m only talking about limiting the conversation to those.

        We can exclude heroin, meth, and ecstasy, if you’d like. We all agree that there’s no safe way to use those and they shouldn’t be part of any legalization conversation.

        So, when we’re limiting our conversation to weed and acid, how will our Brave New Society deal with introducing these drugs to adolescents?

        Because I’m pretty sure that the whole “DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT UNTIL YOU’RE 21 AT WHICH POINT PARTY ON!!!!” technique that we use for alcohol is not even close to the best way to do it. For alcohol, anyway.

        But it might actually be the best way to deal with weed and acid. I don’t know.Report

        • Avatar dragonfrog says:

          I agree with you that the “absolute sobriety until you move away to college, and then learn your limits by guesswork in the company of other 18-22 year olds who also don’t understand their limits” model is a terrible one. It is probably more terrible for alcohol than for most other drugs simply because alcohol’s margin of safety is AFAIK the smallest of any commonly used recreational drug.

          So, the approach described is probably merely less disastrously terrible with respect to most other drugs, but still not good.

          We can exclude heroin, meth, and ecstasy, if you’d like. We all agree that there’s no safe way to use those and they shouldn’t be part of any legalization conversation.

          I don’t agree on that at all, actually.

          MDMA is fairly safe, significantly more so than alcohol, both in its margin of safety and in its addiction potential. Random-ass pills sold as “ecstasy” that may or may not contain any actual MDMA are a whole nother matter.

          Actually-pure, unadulterated methamphetamine (aka Desoxyn) and heroin (aka diamorphine), are also possible to use safely, albeit that they have high addiction potentials.

          Regardless of all that, I believe absolutely that all those should be legalized – that for all the harm that the drugs themselves can cause, each of those drugs in a framework of prohibition is far more harmful.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird says:

            I worried about this a couple of years ago.

            I still have no idea of the best way for us, as a society, should talk about this sort of thing.Report

            • Avatar Damon says:

              Justify why “society” has to but into people’s personal life in the first place and that might spark the convo.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                Because if they don’t learn it from us, they’re going to learn it on the school bus.

                I do not say this to start an argument on public schools, but to point out that I am resigned to the set of things that are likely to happen and are within my purview of changing rather than wishing to wrestle with how they deal with this sort of thing in an alternate universe that is better than this one.Report

              • Avatar dragonfrog says:

                I don’t think the scare quotes are necessary – for ‘society’ just read ‘we’, and I think we’re fine.

                Since we’re talking about a post-legalization context, this is about the kinds of conversations we’d be happy to see happen, without the force of the state backing one side or another. The kind of thing I gather libertarians are generally alright with

                How about these Margaret Thatcher-approved phrasings
                – How should we, individually, prepare our children for access to drugs?
                – What information should we give them?
                – What information would we like healthcare bodies to support us with?
                – What practices would we, individually, be comfortable with, knowing that they were the approaches used by the parents of our children’s friends?

                All this is of course setting aside the facts that
                1) prohibition never did much of a job of preventing access, so we’ve always had to prepare our children for it, and
                2) nothing about legality forces us to change approach – “I recommend you never do X” is just as valid whether X is ‘cliff diving’ or ‘burglary’.Report

        • Avatar dragonfrog says:

          We can exclude heroin, meth, and ecstasy, if you’d like. We all agree that there’s no safe way to use those and they shouldn’t be part of any legalization conversation.

          Actually that’s precisely what I was getting at with the reference to other self-harming behaviours that are perfectly legal and also obviously not considered an acceptable way to spend one’s Friday night – illegality would only increase the harms of those behaviours.

          But if they were, for some misguided reason, illegal – then we’d be having this same conversation.

          “Well there is no safe way to practice self-cutting, so that’s obviously off the table for legalization”

          “But all the people who are not getting their infected cuts treated out of fear of prosecution! We could reduce harm!”

          “But what message would we be sending if it were legalized?”


        • Avatar J_A says:



          It might not work for other drugs, but for alcohol the (Southern) European model of drinking small amounts with your parents in family celebrations and then moving on to a small glass of wine at family meals seems to work ok.

          If nothing else, it demystifies the issue.

          I note that French and Scandinavian people have a similar attitude towards teen sex. That is something normal that all teens do. Parents don’t freak out about it, are willing to explain the mechanics, will buy the profilactics and put them in your bedroom to make sure you have them, and will offer coffee to your significant other if he/she happens to spend the night.

          Normal things lose their power over us. The best way to tame something terrible is to make it normal.

          (Cue scores of examples that disprove the above in three, two, …..)Report

          • Avatar Jaybird says:

            I think about the famous picture of Rastafarian Children.

            My brain breaks. The perfectly rational part says something like “well, that’s best compared to a child getting a small glass of wine at Easter or something…” but the (Southern Babtist?) part of my brain sees that and starts screaming all sorts of Reagan-era propaganda.Report

            • Avatar J_A says:

              Hence me limiting my comment to alcohol.

              In the centuries where water was one of the most dangerous things you could drink, it was common to mix wine or other spirits with water for children to drink.Report

  11. Avatar Kazzy says:

    “In one of the pictures, the woman slumped over in the passenger seat, identified in the department’s Facebook post as the mother of the blond-haired boy sitting in a car seat directly behind her, is visibly turning blue. In both pictures, the boy is staring directly at the camera — which means that the officer who pulled the couple over decided it was more important to snap some money shots before he or she made sure the child didn’t witness his mother’s death. (Both adults were eventually administered first aid and survived.)”

    This is the part that gets me.Report

    • Avatar notme says:

      I’m fairly certain that the cop already took the 2 seconds it takes to call for an ambulance. For some reason, you seem to assume otherwise. Even assuming the mom was about to die, what first aid could he administered for an overdose?Report

      • Avatar Jaybird says:

        It’s called Narcan (or naloxone).

        We’ve known about it for at least two years. It’s so easy to administer that even a police officer can do it.Report

      • Yeah, she was white, after all.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy says:

        How long would it have taken to remove the boy from the car? Why was that not done?Report

        • Avatar PD Shaw says:

          I do not know what happened, but it is part of the police officer’s job to take evidence. It shouldn’t take priority over life and limb, but barring that I think the picture needed to be taken to record the scene. Probably exhibit one in having the child removed from parents.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy says:

            I’m not saying to not document it. But you come across a child who is a passenger in a just-stopped out of control car whose parents are unconscious — possibly dead — in the front seat with (hopefully) EMS on the way and, yes, you sure as hell need to get that child out of there. There are any number of things that just happened or could be about to happen that could prove traumatizing. Take care of the damn kid. This isn’t difficult. Then take whatever picture you need to take and write down whatever notes you need to write down so you can properly pursue all resulting matters.

            But get the damn kid out. Again, this isn’t difficult.

            There are two different pictures from two different angles. One wasn’t enough?

            Get. The. Damn. Kid. Out. Of. There.

            Actually… looking more closely, I see that the child is not strapped into his seat.

            This leaves two likely scenarios:
            1. The child was unstrapped the entire time. This means he very easily could have been injured as the car was “weaving back and forth” across the road. GET THE DAMN KID OUT AND CHECK HIM FOR INJURIES!
            2. They DID take the kid out and then returned him to his seat for the photographs. HOLY FUCK! KEEP THE DAMN KID OUT!

            Maybe there is another scenario but I can’t imagine it.Report

        • Avatar notme says:

          Was the kid in any danger? No, then take the picture to record the scene. See easy even for a liberal. Is there anything else you want to try and second guess or find fault with?Report

          • Avatar Kazzy says:

            Yes, the kid was in danger. See above.Report

            • Avatar notme says:

              As you said yourself the car was stopped when the cop took the picture. How was kid in danger in a car that was at a full stop?Report

              • Avatar Kazzy says:

                Could have been injured. Might watch his parents die. Might watch his parents receive intense rescusitation efforts. All of those are potentially dangerous for a young child.

                Why do you think taking the pic before removing him was prudent?Report

              • Avatar notme says:

                Why do you think taking the pic before removing him was prudent?

                Because the picture provides nearly irrefutable evidence for the hearing with child protection. I hear lots of “mights” and “coulds” but nothing immediate or substantive.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy says:

                Because all of this is indefinite. Why do they need irrefutable proof? Because a judge “might” not accept a written statement. But we don’t know that, do we?

                Again, the child was in his seat unsecured. Meaning he was either traveling that way meaning a very high chance of injury OR he was removed and placed back in the vehicle.

                Let’s weigh the various considerations:
                A) A high likelihood that the child was already harmed or could be harmed in the near future.
                B) A very low likelihood that CPS would reject an officer’s statement that a child was traveling in the car with those adults absent a picture. Because it is very likely that the cops just happened to find the child at the very spot the car stopped but he had arrived entirely on his own. The cops had the frickin’ kid! Document his presence in myriad other ways. But get him the fuck out of the car.

                Why are you so desperate to defend please that you’ll accept them leaving/putting a kid in harm’s way?

                See above in my exchange with Damon. I’m not even necessarily opposed to them posting a picture of the adults. I am opposed to them doing what they did to that child.

                You’re either a troll or a cruel bastard. Not sure which is worse.Report

  12. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    From the Atlantic article, the Cain called Saul bait:

    “All he does is go to Republican and conservative events,” Wadhams complained. The deep-red county Glenn hails from is also home to the social-conservative powerhouse Focus on the Family and five military installations, including the Air Force Academy. “Conservatives in El Paso County are like liberals in Boulder—they don’t understand that everybody’s not just like them.” (A strategist with knowledge of the Glenn campaign told me the campaign purposefully spent the summer focused on fundraising and planned to be more active in the coming weeks.)

    There are plenty of white, liberal, blue bubbles. I point this out to my friends a lot when they post articles on how Donald Trump’s family plan does not include dads or gay couples. This is true but irrelevant. The pitch was meant for Republican-leaning women who need a family friendly enough plan and not a super-progressive one. Plenty of these women exist.

    But is it possible, Jaybird, is it possible that you also live in a kind of bubble where almost everyone you know is either a rock-ribbed Republican or Libertarian? Is it possible for you to admit that your corner of the United States is not like the nation overall and there are plenty of white people who are not Republican or Libertarian?

    And I still don’t understand why it is so bangon hard to get the tinniest concession that GOTV and Fieldwork is hard and important.

    Except we get a bunch of wanker fever dreams.

    I am not saying Trump is going to lose. I am not saying that the new surge is not concerning but the polls have not shown him getting more than 40-45 percent of the popular vote. The only basis for your claim as far as I can tell is “Jaybird thinks this would be really interesting but I have no evidence to support it so I will just go dada and say ‘Brace yourselves for Trump getting 50 percent plus 1. Not saying it is gonna happen but you will be warned.'”Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

      This was meant to be a reply to @jaybirdReport

    • Avatar Jaybird says:

      But is it possible, Jaybird, is it possible that you also live in a kind of bubble where almost everyone you know is either a rock-ribbed Republican or Libertarian? Is it possible for you to admit that your corner of the United States is not like the nation overall and there are plenty of white people who are not Republican or Libertarian?

      Let’s assume that I’m not particularly gregarious in my personal life.

      Are there reasons that I might be coming to the conclusions I am coming to that do not involve all of the people I physically talk to day in and day out?

      Again, the main things that I’m noticing with this election is how volatile it is and noticing how one side seems to be having fun and the other side seems to not be having much fun at all.

      I’m noticing the energies that were there for Obama that don’t seem to be there, at all, for Clinton.

      I’m noticing Gamergate.

      I’m noticing the strange events that happened earlier in the summer (terrorist attacks, police attacks) and the strange events that are happening in the fall (fainting presidential candidates).

      I’m noticing that 3rd Party support is uncannily high even though there is a great deal of social censure for voting for one of the two and social approbation for voting for the other.

      I’m noticing that “RACIST!” doesn’t quite seem to work as well as it used to.

      Again: I’m noticing the different energies between the two warring sides.

      Clinton doesn’t have this in the bag.

      While I could totally say “Trump is going to lose this very badly”, I have to remember the last 40ish times I’ve said that this election season.Report

  13. Avatar Stillwater says:

    Speaking of Trexit … uh, I mean Brexit…

    Trump is now tied with Hillary. Given this cycles history, and her history, things don’t look good for anti-Trumpers, pro-Hillaryers, or folks who just want an end to the madness.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird says:

      Maybe you should leave your little Trumpist bubble. Did you ever think of that?Report

        • Avatar Will Truman says:

          They’re not wrong about the need for a clear way to change a ticket. But now is not the time to discuss that people!Report

        • Avatar Jaybird says:


          When I was driving to work on Monday, NPR had Cokie Roberts on and she was talking about the whispers going on about what it would take to replace Hillary Clinton.

          And I thought “They’re talking about this on NPR. This is very, very, very bad.”Report

          • Avatar Kazzy says:

            Hey, @jaybird ! I agree that this is not good! Very bad even!

            However… I’m finding it increasingly frustrating (AND NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THIS ADMITTEDLY BAD THING!) when articles are written in which they base a HUGE THING on one dude’s opinion.

            If you skimmed this article, you’d walk away thinking the DNC and actual Democratic leaders were taking steps to develop a plan… not that a former high ranking official who last held that position two decades ago was offering his personal opinion.

            Now, to the article’s credit, the headline was unambiguous; as we also talked about recently, BS headlines are an even bigger scourge.

            So, yes, that people are wondering about replacing Clinton is a bad thing. That that person was once a higher up in the party is a very bad thing.

            But that needs to be weighed against all the people who are NOT wondering about replacing Clinton… including all of the current higher ups. And the article simply doesn’t do that.Report

            • Avatar Stillwater says:

              But that needs to be weighed against all the people who are NOT wondering about replacing Clinton…

              “Opinions differ as Democratic camps align over the testy issue of replacing Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate.”Report

            • Avatar Jaybird says:

              Do you know who Cokie Roberts is? She’s the lady who was always wearing milk-white stockings on This Week With David Brinkley in the 90’s. She’s the guy who replaced David Brinkley after he retired. She’s not merely some guy. She’s a huge insider.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy says:

                I don’t know who Cokie Roberts is so hopefully you can forgive me that.

                But I just want to know… who is whispering? How many people are whispering? And when they whisper, do the people with power say, “Shit, that is a good point”? Or do they say, “Shut up, Steve! You’ve been whispering shit like that for damn near 3 decades”?

                If I’m understanding, Roberts was reporting that she heard the whispering. That is, indeed, bad. But it is REALLY bad if the people doing the whispering are power players. It is much less bad if it is just a bunch of randos. It is worse than no whispers. But it is better than the party actually taking steps. I’m trying to put it in the proper perspective… trying to understand how bad this is.

                But… because of reports like these… I don’t think it matters who is whispering. We’re talking optics here. Optics are less predicated on facts than impressions. These pieces give very bad impressions.Report

              • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

                All the people on InfoWars are talking about it along with how HRC is using a body double and is totes really dead. Plus their pet fishes told them that clingwrap is much better than tin foil for keeping out the CIA brain control waves!!!Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                It’s not something that needs forgiveness but I wanted to provide context for “Holy crap, Cokie Roberts is talking about this on NPR!”

                The response of “so some guy on NPR is talking about this” is a response that doesn’t apprehend why it’s a “Holy crap” at the front of the sentence.

                Here’s the NPR Ombudsman dealing with the fallout from Cokie saying such a thing.

                People wrote letters asking the exact same questions you are asking.

                And here’s what Cokie said:

                Roberts declined to discuss her sources. In an email, she said, “With any luck, commentators are reporting all of the time. Otherwise we are just blabbing. Reporting informs commentary. On that Sunday after seeing that video I reached out to some very well-placed Democratic sources to get reaction. If I characterize them beyond that it will have the effect of revealing who they are. I always think it’s important to report what we know, and that’s what I was doing.”


              • Avatar Kazzy says:


                I’m not particularly bothered by Roberts’ work. I was focused more on that article.

                You see this often in all areas.

                “Former Coach Says Kaep Needs to Shut the Fuck Up!”
                You read the article and you find out it was his assistant high school coach.
                “Retired Top Cop: Knockout Game a New Scourge!”
                You read the article and find out the cop is some nobody who retired a decade ago.
                “Top Doc: GMOs Will Destroy You!”
                You read the article and learn that the doc has a PhD in basketweaving.

                Not always, but often these articles feel like the author writing an opinion piece but hiding behind the guise of finding someone who said what they think so they can report on it. It is irresponsible and bad journalism. If you have one and only one “expert” who says what you’re writing about, you’re probably wrong. Not definitely. But probably. But the article is framed to give the exact opposite impression.

                This is all distinctly different from what it seems Roberts was doing.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                Do you have an NPR station in town? If so, I think you should start listening to it as you drive to/from work.

                You’ll never go back to “Crazy Dave and the Morning Zoo!” ever again.Report

              • Avatar notme says:

                I listen to my local npr station every morning on my commute.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy says:

                We have a great NPR station but I take the train/subway/walk so I’m not in the car very much. I used to listen regularly.Report

              • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

                And we all know insiders can’t get snookered!! #sarcasm

                I find this essay is old but instructful:


                Savviness! Deep down, that’s what reporters want to believe in and actually do believe in — their own savviness and the savviness of certain others (including master operators like Karl Rove.) In politics, they believe, it’s better to be savvy than it is to be honest or correct on the facts. It’s better to be savvy than it is to be just, good, fair, decent, strictly lawful, civilized, sincere or humane.

                Savviness is what journalists admire in others. Savvy is what they themselves dearly wish to be. (And to be unsavvy is far worse than being wrong.) Savviness — that quality of being shrewd, practical, well-informed, perceptive, ironic, “with it,” and unsentimental in all things political — is, in a sense, their professional religion. They make a cult of it. And it was this cult that Karl Rove understood and exploited for political gain.

                What is the truest mark of savviness? Winning, of course! Everyone knows that the press admires an unprincipled winner. (Of a piece with its fixation on the horse race.) Josh Green, a reporter for the Atlantic Monthly who actually took the time to understand Rove’s career, totaled up his winnings in a 2004 article (“Karl Rove in a Corner”) that I highly recommend.

                If DNC insiders were really talking about it would be all over the news and been talked about all week because there is no way in hell information like that remains under wraps. Instead we have one reputable source and two disreputable sources saying “may” from Monday and that is it.

                Find me more.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                Perhaps you’re right.

                Perhaps Cokie Roberts is getting played.Report

          • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

            @jaybird @kazzy

            Oh Good God!!

            Do you remember how people were talking about getting Trump replaced at various times from when he wrapped up the primaries to the GOP National convention? Where did that go? Nowhere.

            One reporter talking on one media outlet (even one that has a Democratic leaning audience) is not a sign that HRC’s flu or that this is anything more than rumor mongering.

            “whispers” Who is whispering? Where are these whispers coming from? Have you heard it since then? Have you heard about these whispers from any other substantiated source? Any more details beyond whispers for clickbait.

            A google search for Clinton and replaced brings up right-leaning sites like the Washington Times or Clickbait sites like the Gateway Pundit. All the stories are several days and use hedging words like “could” or “may”. This is the realm of hypothetical and conjecture.

            In short, replacing HRC is not going to happen. It is just a damn wet dream for people who like to fantasize about politics and alleged shadowy cabals too much.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird says:

              In short, replacing HRC is not going to happen.

              I’m not suggesting that HRC will be replaced.

              I’m suggesting that those in the back halls of power are considering that they might lose. Badly. And they’re considering this in front of NPR reporters.Report

              • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

                And I am suggesting that this story is a result of NPR reporters getting snookered and you are falling for the same bait. No other reputable media source is talking about it!!Report

              • Avatar greginak says:

                “I’m not saying X…no I’m certainly not saying X. I just saying, you know, sort of x. But i would never say X.”

                Cripes if you ever thought yourself as cynical, you were wrong.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                Greg, I even said, here… I’ll cut and paste it:

                And I thought “They’re talking about this on NPR. This is very, very, very bad.”

                I wasn’t thinking “THIS MEANS THAT THEY’RE GOING TO REPLACE HILLARY!”

                I was thinking “They’re talking about this on NPR. This is very, very, very bad.”

                For what it’s worth, if you think that I’m saying “Oh, they’re going to replace Hillary” because I thought that it was bad that Cokie Roberts talked about hearing whispers about replacing Hillary on NPR’s Monday morning show, let me clear up for you right now:

                It is not my position that they’re going to replace Hillary.

                It is, however, my suspicion that “they should have replaced Hillary” will be your position in a month or so.Report

              • Avatar greginak says:

                Sigh…that they are talking about is enough. It is chum for the press. Of course they aren’t going to replace her. But if you have enough harmful whispers around the press goes more negative, they look for problems, they see only the bad and pass that on. It’s about working the refs. And clearly its working. It worked with her health stuff recently. Drudge and infowars and rush and etc have been going on and about whacked out health conspiracy theories for a while. Now we have Politico stories about how many glasses of water she drinks.

                There is no “they” to replace either candidate. That’s democracy for you.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                But if you have enough harmful whispers around the press goes more negative, they look for problems, they see only the bad and pass that on. It’s about working the refs. And clearly its working. It worked with her health stuff recently.

                Now imagine if I argued against this point of yours by saying “SHE’S NOT GOING TO DROP OUT!!!”

                It’s one thing for Rush and Savage Nation and Art Bell to be talking about the need to replace Hillary.

                If you felt like calling that sort of thing “concern trolling”, I’m sure that you’d only get notme arguing with you.

                It’s quite another for NPR to be talking about how, in the halls of power, there are whispers about replacing Hillary. At that point you’re either stuck arguing that Cokie Roberts is lying *OR* that people are lying to Cokie Roberts *OR* that people in the halls of power are actually having these conversations and whether the first two are true depends on your opinion of Cokie Roberts.

                But if your opinion of Cokie Roberts this year is significantly different than your opinion of her in 2008 or 2012, it might be interesting to figure out why that is.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen says:

                Or that some person or two, of unknown influence or stature, said something about replacing HRC to Roberts (or she overheard), and Roberts fans that tiny bit of smoke into a small fire, which is then fanned by other media outlets into a slightly bigger fire, . . . . and repeat until it’s the story of the day/week.

                No one needs to lie, only extravagate and dissemble to push a narrative or promote their self interest.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy says:

                “It is, however, my suspicion that “they should have replaced Hillary” will be your position in a month or so.”

                I’ll bet $5 it isn’t.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                You’re on.

                By October 15th.

                This is even a really easy five bucks to make. Even if you feel that way, lie about it. Five bucks in a birthday card from the grocery store.Report