Linky Friday: To Link It, Link It Good!
As always, all the pieces in Linky Friday are presented for discussion purposes, and the views therein are those of the authors alone, not Ordinary Times.
[LF1] Inside the Lincoln Project’s Secrets, Side Deals and Scandals by Danny Hakim, Maggie Astor and Jo Becker in NY Times
You could see it coming from a mile away. As soon as the Lincoln Project was founded by folks that were well known for not being good people to start with, something like this was inevitable, and now here we are…
The behind-the-scenes moves by the four original founders showed that whatever their political goals, they were also privately taking steps to make money from the earliest stages, and wanted to limit the number of people who would share in the spoils. Over time, the Lincoln Project directed about $27 million — nearly a third of its total fund-raising — to Mr. Galen’s consulting firm, from which the four men were paid, according to people familiar with the arrangement.
Conceived as a full-time attack machine against Mr. Trump, the Lincoln Project’s public profile soared last year as its founders built a reputation as a creative yet ruthless band of veteran operators. They recruited like-minded colleagues, and their scathing videos brought adulation from the left and an aura of mischievous idealism for what they claimed was their mission: nothing less than to save democracy.
They also hit upon a geyser of cash, discovering that biting attacks on a uniquely polarizing president could be as profitable in the loosely regulated world of political fund-raising as Mr. Trump’s populist bravado was for his own campaign.
Then it all began to unravel. By the time of the Utah meeting, the leaders of the Lincoln Project — who had spent their careers making money from campaigns — recognized the value of their enterprise and had begun to maneuver for financial gain. But other leaders had learned of the financial arrangement among the original founders, and they were privately fuming.
Another major problem was festering: the behavior of Mr. Weaver, who for years had been harassing young men with sexually provocative messages.
Allegations about Mr. Weaver’s conduct began appearing in published reports in The American Conservative and Forensic News this winter. In late January, The New York Times reported on allegations going back several years. The Times has spoken to more than 25 people who received harassing messages, including one person who was 14 when Mr. Weaver first contacted him.
[LF2] The Jordan Rules; A Review of Beyond Order: 12 More Rules For Life by Jordan Peterson by Matthew McManus in Arc Digital
Matthew McManus reads it, so we don’t have too…and finds Peterson is starting to repeat himself more than anything else.
Whether right or wrong it is remarkable that Peterson doesn’t consider the Nietzschean argument that many of the doctrines he despises are not “alternatives” to Christianity — they’re Christianity redux. Were he alive today Nietzsche would probably tell the University of Toronto Professor to go down the hall to the Women’s Studies department if he really wants to see what Christianity looks like in the postmodern era.
Beyond Order is a fine self-help book but a bad guide to politics and the history of political ideas. It also showcases that Peterson seems unable to move past the framework and ideas he’s been running with since 1999’s Maps of Meaning. It is getting to the point where a lot of his stuff is just being recycled almost verbatim, right down to yet another long exposition of the myth of Marduk which was already analyzed over dozens of pages in that first book and again in papers like “Religion, Sovereignty, Natural Rights, and the Constituent Elements of Experience.”
Two Takes on the Covid Relief Bill: First Up: It Didn’t Go Far Enough:
[LF3] Joe Biden’s COVID Relief Bill is Rightfully Bringing Back Government Handouts by Hadas Thier at Jacobin
Last year, the US economy shrank by an incredible 3.5 percent. Jobs are beginning to come back, but the US economy is still almost ten million jobs behind where it was before the pandemic. The official unemployment number rate dropped down to just over 6 percent, but once you count the number of workers who have stopped looking for work, the number reaches 9.5 percent.
We should embrace this partial victory for what it is — and fight like hell for more.
The recession has impacted low-wage workers and people of color most. They fell into the deepest holes and have been the slowest to regain their jobs. Black and Latina women in particular have suffered the greatest employment losses relative to where they were at before the pandemic.The latest stimulus bill will not definitively answer the crisis, and it certainly won’t be enough to fundamentally shift the depth of the wealth inequality behind it. But it will make a substantial difference in people’s lives, and in the process create a fertile terrain for the Left to organize.
On the one hand, Americans will see the concrete impact of government benefits to their lives, and anti-welfare ideology’s credibility will be further eroded. On the other hand, while Democrats hope to make at least the child tax credit permanent, their commitment to that project (as well as to raising the minimum wage or maintaining federal unemployment enhancement) is only as strong as it doesn’t irritate corporate America or face too strong of an opposition from their Republican counterparts.
In that context, the Left should throw itself into organizing to make benefits like the child credit permanent. Success on that front will bring us further down the road toward rebuilding a welfare state, and building the kind of confidence and fighting capacity necessary to fight for an increased minimum wage, Medicare For All, and much more. We should embrace this partial victory for what it is — and fight like hell for more.
Second Up: It Went Way Too Far
[LF4] Federal ‘COVID’ Spending Just Hit $41,870 Per Taxpayer. Did You See That Much in Benefit? By Brad Palumbo at FEE.org
President Biden just signed his sweeping $1.9 trillion spending package into law. Once this bill hits the books, total taxpayer expenditure on (ostensibly) COVID relief will hit $6 trillion—which, roughly estimated, comes out to $41,870 in spending per federal taxpayer.
Did you see anywhere near that much in benefit?
The sheer immensity of this spending is hard to grasp. For context, $6 trillion is more than one-fourth of what the US economy produces in an entire year, according to Fox Business. The COVID spending blowout is at least eight times bigger than the (inflation-adjusted) price tag of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal.”
Moreover, the COVID spending bills have all lost huge sums of money to unrelated carve-outs, politician pet projects, corporate bailouts, fraud, waste, and worse.
In the latest $1.9 trillion package, more than 90 percent of the spending is not directly related to containing COVID-19. Only 1 percent of the money, about $15 to $20 billion, is spent on vaccines. Meanwhile, hundreds of billions go to bailing out poorly managed state governments’ budget holes that predate the pandemic and $86 billion rescues failing pension plans. Meanwhile, billions more go to Obamacare expansion and subsidizing public schools long after the pandemic.
And that’s just scratching the surface.
[LF5] Beth Moore Inspired Scores of Southern Baptist Women: They Don’t Blame Her for Leaving by Kate Shellnut for CT
If you are not familiar, Beth Moore split from both the SBC but also Lifeway, the “sell stuff” arm of the SBC of which Moore sold as much if not more stuff than anyone. This is after the Trump years of her taking all sorts of abuse for her outspoken opposition to the former president, among other issues with the rank and file.
As one Southern Baptist women’s ministry leader tweeted on Wednesday, “Pastors, I hope you are watching women in the SBC and their response to Beth Moore …”
Moore was in many ways an exemplary figure in the Southern Baptist realm—a household name among Christians, her Bible studies reached 21 million women over her first 20 years of ministry. But she was also personable enough to stand for hugs and selfies with followers at events and would reply on Twitter to offer condolences when someone’s grandmother died or advice on how to care for a cast-iron pan.
Many fellow Southern Baptist women were sad but not surprised that she decided to leave the SBC. The women who followed in her high-heeled footsteps know the tensions Moore walked through too well, dismayed at how issues like abuse, racism, Christian nationalism, and the Trump presidency were dividing the denomination rather than deepening its gospel witness—all issues that came up in a recent Religion News Service story about her decision.
Followers in Southern Baptist churches watched as Moore, now 63, grew from a best-selling Bible study author to an outspoken advocate for victims of sexism and abuse over the past five years, opening up about the misogyny she had faced in evangelical circles.
In addition to taking issue with her role speaking and teaching in churches, critics saw Moore’s outspokenness on current issues as divisive. They believe she wrongly maligned the church in recent years when she decried pastors who defended Donald Trump or called out white supremacy in the church.
Christine Hoover, a Bible teacher and SBC pastor’s wife, remembers asking herself, “If Beth is treated so disdainfully in public arenas, what is being said privately, and what does that say about how, in practice, the SBC values the contribution of women to the kingdom?”
“I can’t overstate how much of an impact Beth has had on women in our churches,” Hoover said. “I was in rooms in those years with SBC female leaders from all corners of the convention who said they, too, were paying close attention, most of us wondering if we as women actually have an honored place in the SBC.”
The president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Russell Moore—no relation to Beth, though he often joked they were family—once said, “A Southern Baptist Convention that doesn’t have a place for Beth Moore doesn’t have a place for a lot of us.”
The remark came two years ago, when Moore had been targeted during yet another spat over women’s roles, spurred by a tweet that referenced giving a Mother’s Day message at church.
[LF6] Meghan’s CBS Oprah interview shows why the monarchy is so threatened by her by By Laura Bassett at NBC News:
Harry and Meghan’s honesty was raw and powerful — a power confirmed by the rather transparent countermeasures taken by the The Firm before the interview even aired. In February, the palace announced that the Sussexes would be stripped of their titles and royal patronage appointments. Then the tabloids trotted out a barrage of anonymously sourced stories painting Meghan as a monster. They recycled the old story about her bullying staffers, called her out for having worn “blood money” earrings in 2018 that were given to her by the Saudi crown prince, and charged that her taste for avocado toast amounts to “fueling drought and murder.” The bizarre and desperate attacks only served to prove what the Sussexes told Oprah about the abuse they endured.
“I don’t know how they could expect that after all of this time, we would still just be silent,” Meghan said. “If there is an active role that the firm is playing in perpetuating falsehoods about us, at a certain point you gotta go, You guys, just tell the truth. If that comes at a risk of losing things, well, there’s a lot that’s been lost already.”
It didn’t have to be this way. The British monarchy could have welcomed Meghan as a much-needed breath of fresh air into a stodgy, white and outdated institution. The Black gospel choir singing “Stand By Me” at the royal wedding in England really felt like it may be ushering in a new, more palatable era for the royal family. But instead of helping to modernize and diversify The Firm, in the end, Meghan had little choice but to expose its pernicious racism, bullying and unacceptable lack of HR standards.
And so for now, in the absurd war of Meghan vs. the British monarchy, Meghan appears to be winning. Diana left Harry enough inheritance that the two can continue to be absurdly wealthy in California and afford their own security without financial help from the palace. The couple have a baby girl on the way and say they’re happier than ever. Meghan said she feels like Ariel in “The Little Mermaid.” “She falls in love with the prince, and because of that, she has to lose her voice,” she told Oprah in one of the more poignant moments of the interview. “But in the end, she gets her voice back.”
[LF7] Activists push for action from Raleigh officials after 2 police board members resign by Adam Owens for WRAL
Ideas are one thing, implementation is another matter all together…
Community activists said Thursday that the Raleigh Police Advisory Board was created just for show and cannot provide any real oversight of the police department because it is handcuffed by a lack of power and resistance within city government. “The board the city gave us is not the board we asked for, and we kind of had a feeling this was going to take place,” said Surena Johnson, coalition coordinator for Raleigh PACT, or Police Accountability Community Taskforce.
Two people on the nine-member board resigned Wednesday, less than a year into the job, citing a lack of confidence with the board’s leadership and problems with city officials. Activists said the resignations highlight problems with the board, and they put forward a list of demands for city leaders that they say will improve the board’s operations:
–Lobby state lawmakers for increased police advisory board powers, such as the ability to investigate complaints against officers and issue subpoenas.
–Have the City Attorney’s Office state the legal reasoning for the Raleigh Police Department to withhold some department policies from the advisory board.
–Allow the board to operate independently of City Manager Marchell Adams-David and Audrea Caesar, director of the city’s Office of Equity and Inclusion. (One of the members who resigned said she felt both Adams-David and Caesar favored the police department in interactions with the board.)
–Hold the line on police department spending and invest more money in mental health support programs, homelessness reduction initiatives and other social programs. “We believe more power would lead to more transparency and trust,” advisory board member Greear Webb said. “We cannot conduct investigations, cannot subpoena, cannot access personnel files or understand what actions have been taken against police officers.”Police department leaders fought the idea of an outside advisory board for years, and it was set up only to review departmental policies and bridge gaps between the department and the community, not investigate any complaints against officers. One of the board’s first tasks was to review a consultant’s findings and recommendations on the department’s handling of racial justice protests and subsequent riots last summer. Even that review requires access to policies on use of tear gas and responding to protests, which the board doesn’t have access to, activist Kerwin Pittman said.
“They are asking for things we can not do legally,” Mayor Mary-Ann Baldwin said. “The board we have constructed is what we can do legally.” Baldwin said some of the demands would have to be granted through changes in state law, adding that the city has written to lawmakers to expand the board’s power.
Durham’s Civilian Police Review Board has had such powers for over two decades.
[LF8] David Shor on Why Trump Was Good for the GOP and How Dems Can Win in 2022 By Eric Levitz at NYMag
If you missed this one the first time around, it’s been getting new run with former president Barack Obama having commented and shared on social media.
Let’s start with numbers: In 2016, non-college-educated whites swung roughly 10 percent against the Democratic Party. And then, in 2018, roughly 30 percent of those Obama-Trump voters ended up supporting Democrats down ballot. In 2020, only 10 percent of Obama-Trump voters came home for Biden.
So I think what this shows: There is a long-term trend of increasing education polarization here and in every other country in the West. But the fact that education polarization declined significantly in 2018 — when Trump wasn’t on the ballot — and picked up again in 2020 suggests that Trump is personally responsible for a significant portion of America’s education polarization. I think that there’s a really strong case that this transition was specifically about Donald Trump.
A lot of people theorized that we first alienated Obama-Trump voters during the fight over comprehensive immigration reform and that their rightward movement was already apparent in 2014. But if you actually look at panel data, it seems really clear that these people didn’t start identifying as Republicans until Trump won the GOP nomination. I think there’s a very strong empirical argument that Donald Trump was the main driver of the polarization we’ve seen since 2016. He just personally embodies this large cultural divide between cosmopolitan college-educated voters and a large portion of non-college-educated voters. Those divides take a lot of different forms: attitudes toward race, attitudes toward gender, opinions on what kinds of things you’re allowed to say, or how you should conduct yourself. And you know, as Trump became the nominee, and as the media made politics the Donald Trump Show for the last four years, that led to increasing political polarization on attitudes toward Donald Trump specifically. I think the reason why we saw less education-based voting in 2018 is that Trump was a smaller part of the media environment than he had been in 2016 or would be in 2020.
This Week At Ordinary Times:
Growing up in the System by John McCumber
There are still too many people of my experience trying to apply their “the system” to today’s problems and today’s jobs.
Justice, Bail, and Bigo Behaving Badly by Em Carpenter
The judge called Richard “Bigo” Barnett “brazen, entitled, and dangerous.” What would I tell Mr. Richard Barnett if he were my client?
The Two Year Chit: A Filibuster Suggestion by Burt Likko
What might be done to mitigate the contra-democratic effect the peculiar tradition of filibuster has in the Senate? Burt Likko has an idea.
Saturday Morning Gaming: Digging In The Back Catalog by Jaybird
Going back and digging out games that I had intended to beat, but never, did with Hand of Fate and Ruiner
OT Contributor Network: John McCumber Talks ZZ Top
Ordinary Time Contributor John McCumber joined Keith Conrad on his “The Greatest Story Ever Podcast” talk about driving ZZ Top.
OT Contributor Network: Dennis Sanders’ Polite Company Podcast
Ordinary Times contributor Dennis Sanders podcast, Polite Company, has a new episode entitled “We Have Some Healing to Do”
Game of Thrones: Ready, Willing, and Ableism by Kristin Devine
The eyeroller disdainfully says “Game of Thrones is just show!” But problematic beliefs like ableism are like belly buttons, we all got em.
Sunday Morning! “The Prisoner” by Marcel Proust by Rufus F.
The Prisoner by Marcel Proust’s depiction of doomed and obsessive sexual jealousy is not nearly as bleak as I remembered. It’s tragic, but it’s a light tragedy.
What is the Goal of Vaccine Discourse? by Eric Medlin
The goal of vaccine discourse should be to share information that will push as many people as possible to legally obtain the vaccine.
Cancellation, Culture, and Copyright by Daniel Takash
What separates the Dr. Seuss incident from more recent cancellations is that it has turned into a discussion of copyright terms
Wednesday Writs: Chief Justice Roberts All By Himself by Em Carpenter
Chief Justice Roberts finds the majority’s decision to be an unwise expansion on the power and purview of federal courts
They are Newton’s Laws of Motion by Vikram Bath
It seems like students should at least be told that others refer to them as Newton’s laws of motion even as they chose to refer to them differently.
Mini-Throughput: Rubin Observatory Edition by Michael Siegel
This amazing feat of engineering is going to make a huge number of breakthroughs on some of the outstanding problems in astrophysics.
So the relief bill doesn’t not go too far enough?Report
Pretty sure that’s a political maxim.Report
And we still see Democrats pushing for minimum wage over UBI, in a time when millions of the jobs that would pay a minimum wage have evaporated.Report
When we see a handful of Republicans backing UBI, it will be time for the Democrats to consider it. Until then, it is a political non-starter, and the Democrats are necessarily confined to half-measures.Report
I want to see more Democrats talking about it as an alternative to minimum wage. Until then, Republicans can simply pretend UBI doesn’t even exist as a concept.Report
LF 7:
Lets bookmark this for the next riot, when we hear the whinging about why protesters don’t “work within the system”.
Those who make peaceful change impossible…Report
“They had to go to the Capitol to be heard!”Report
Yes, its impossible for white males to be heard without rioting.Report
Do you remember writing about the rioters who visited your town when you were discussing with your compatriots about how you’d stand in front of the store but you’re not going to risk your life over it?
I remember you writing about it.
Would you like me to find you the comment? I can, if you have no recollection of what you said.Report
The fact that you see Jan 6 as related to BLM is bizarre.Report
I’m just running with “why don’t rioters work within the system”?
And then your complaints about white males rioting, as opposed to the people who made you have a conversation about whether your life was going to be threatened shortly.
Do you remember writing about them, by the way?Report
Well, Chip, tell me about your mother…..Report
This isn’t Freudian analysis. This is more of noticing one of the moves from the playbook that Jussie Smollett used.
Remember when the cops went to Jussie and said “we found the two guys who assaulted you, do you want to press charges?” and he said “HELL YEAH I DO!” and then they showed him a picture of the two guys that he gave a check to and he *IMMEDIATELY* said “you know what? I would prefer to *NOT* press charges”.
I guess it’s a reverse of that, though. “We need to be understanding of rioters!” “You mean like the ones at the capitol?” “No, not white males. I mean like the BLM rioters!” “You mean like the ones you wrote about?”
It has nothing to do with his mother.
More his memory.Report
I think we previously agreed that it’s OK to change the subject whenever we want, though we did have a minor disagreement about whether it is worthwhile to point it out. I was trying your way out for size. Doesn’t seem to have added much value.Report
CJ, I wasn’t changing the subject.
Chip made a statement affirming a principle.
I pointed out that he didn’t extend this principle to the outgroup.
He made an assertion that the outgroup was different than the ingroup due to physical traits.
I pointed out that he wrote about the ingroup also having these physical traits.
This isn’t changing the subject.
It’s actually talking about the subject.Report
I suppose it’s a question of who decides what the subject is. Who is to be master, that is all.Report
Well, I’ll let us get back to the original point:
We should bookmark L7 and go back to it the next time we hear whining about rioters.
After all, Those who make peaceful change impossible, ellipses.Report
The fact that you think the Jan 6 riot is in the same subject as the BLM protests, is what I find bizarre illogic.
But that is the central core of Trumpism, that white male grievance over loss of status is equal to oppression of people of color.Report
What color were the BLM protests in your part of town, again?
Do you remember talking about noticing the makeup of the rioters?Report
You appear to not remember. That’s okay.
It’s here.
(Emphasis added)
This is something that you wrote in the middle of the riots last summer. Before we have the rose-colored glasses given by the benefit of hindsight.
That’s what you wrote smack dab in the middle.
Anyway, I’ll let you get back to putting what happened last summer in a different “white male grievance” category. And being confused that other people also aren’t doing that.Report
You are making incredible backflips of illogic here by equating white people’s bad behavior to BLM protests.Report
That’s the wacky thing about last summer, Chip.
It was chock full of white people rioting and calling their riots a “BLM protest”.
Like, people in City A said “City B is having a BLM protest!” while the people in City B were writing open letters and taping them to lightposts to the white dudes who were long gone.
If I were to criticize the events that happened in City B… would I be protesting a BLM protest? Or would I be protesting white people rioting?
Because I could pretty easily see someone standing in front of a riot explaining that, hey, this protest is *MOSTLY* peaceful and we shouldn’t lose sight of that.
We spent last summer doing that. Do you remember?
Oh, wait. Let’s go back at what you said at 9:57AM today:
“Lets bookmark this for the next riot, when we hear the whinging about why protesters don’t “work within the system”.”Report
You’re not actually making an argument of any sort here.
It’s just some jumble of images juxtaposed and somehow supposed to be connected.Report
Here is the connection, Chip. Here is the comment that ties everything together:
Report
This, right here, is prejudice. You may not like it when conservatives throw MLK back at you, but right here you’re ignoring identical behaviour on the basis of skin color. And you’re advertising it! ‘How can someone compare rioting blacks with rioting whites? They’re fundamentally different! One group is bad! You can tell by their complexion.’Report
Trumpism in a nutshell.
White resentment equated with actual oppression.Report
The entire history of the Democratic Party in a nutshell.
“Most Favored Race” status is a good thing if the important people choose the right race.Report
Just to hammer this down… was the riot that you, personally, witnessed and were moved to write a letter about… was that a riot or was that a movement fighting against actual oppression?Report
Before you start interrogating people, its polite to make an argument first.Report
Fair enough.
If your answer to the question is “I witnessed a bunch of privileged white men who drove in shiny new cars come to my neighborhood and trash it, including the storefront of a store that was owned by an immigrant”, I’d ask why you see me comparing the riot you witnessed to the riot at the Capitol as a bad comparison to make to the point where you’d ask me why I was criticizing BLM protests.
If, however, you now see the protest you witnessed as part of the BLM police protest movement, why you’d slandered the protest movement at the time as being a bunch of whiny white dudes who were looking for a fun night out.
And, in either case, I’d point out that your original comment was that we should hold L7 in our back pockets for the next time that there was a riot… and how easily one man’s riot can be spun as another man’s voice of the unheard.
And, depending on your answer to the question of what you witnessed, I’d ask if you could easily see how flimsy it is to make the case that “oh, *THIS* riot was a good one”.
Either by pointing out that others classified your riot as part of the BLM protests *OR* by pointing out that you, originally, classified a BLM protest as a bunch of entitled white kids from out of town.
But I’d need your answer to the question first, to figure out which argument I should apply.Report
And if you want to answer something like “at this point, what difference does it make?”, I’d point out that the trial of Derek Chauvin is going on RIGHT NOW. They’re seating jurors.
One of the jurors seated agreed with the statement that “if George Floyd followed police instructions, he wouldn’t have died”.
We don’t know which of the two autopsies will be used as evidence: The one that talked about the drugs in Floyd’s system or the one that didn’t.
The judge re-entered the charge for 3rd Degree Murder into the trial after it being excluded earlier in the process leaving only 2nd Degree and Manslaughter charges…
The possibility exists that there will be a verdict to the trial that will result in:
A: White Boys running down to your part of town and breaking stuff all over again
B: Unheard people letting the world know that they have a voiceReport
You haven’t even addressed the first point, which is what logic connects resentful white people rioting to overthrow an election, with my comment about oppressed black people being denied peaceful means to change the law?
Your introduction of badly behaved white men being present at both protests is an irrelevant distraction that has nothing to do with it.
You don’t seem to have any point to make here.Report
I’m not connecting the oppressed black people being denied peaceful means to change the law to the resentful white people rioting to overthrow an election.
I’m asking you why you’re connecting resentful white people from out of town rioting because they are bored with oppressed black people being denied peaceful means to change the law.
Because I’m connecting resentful white people rioting to overthrow an election with resentful white people from out of town rioting because they are bored.
Unless, of course, I read you wrong and you now see the riot that you witnessed and wrote about as actually being a mostly peaceful protest where the voiceless finally decided to make their voices heard.
You didn’t answer my question, I notice, even though I went to the trouble to lay my argument out.Report
“I’m not connecting the oppressed black people being denied peaceful means to change the law to the resentful white people rioting to overthrow an election.”
Dude- I made a comment about oppressed black people being denied peaceful means to change the law, and you jumped in with a reference to Jan 6.
If your contention is, “But they both contained misbehaving white people!” then that is a bizarre bit of illogic.Report
No. This was your comment:
Lets bookmark this for the next riot, when we hear the whinging about why protesters don’t “work within the system”.
Those who make peaceful change impossible…
Your comment was about the next time that protestors didn’t want to work within the system… because, of course, peaceful change was impossible.
You want to clarify that you only meant the people you agree with?
Fair enough.
Could you answer my question, now?
I’ll repeat it, if you don’t remember it:
Just to hammer this down… was the riot that you, personally, witnessed and were moved to write a letter about… was that a riot or was that a movement fighting against actual oppression?Report
Maybe that’s your confusion.
I didn’t make a comment about people not wanting to work within the system.
BLM was about people being denied the ability to work within the system.
Jan 6 was people who wanted to deny other people the ability to work within the system.Report
Two towns. Same County. Same State. Same Laws. Vastly different outcomes.Report
Two towns? Raleigh and…?Report
Durham. From the article:
Report
Ah, missed that last line, thank you.Report
Lou Ottens, who created the cassette and therefore the mixtape is dead:
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/music/lou-ottens-dead.amp.html?0p19G%3D0232Report
Sad news indeed.Report
Norton Juster, the author of the Phantom Tollboth, died on March 8th. Incidentally, I thought the Phantom Tollboth was written by a British gentile but it turns out the author was a tribesman.Report
LF6: The issue with monarchy in the modern world is two-fold:
1. Are the ceremonial parts of politics and statecraft, which range from signing ceremonies to parades to fancy state dinners, still important or can they be dispensed with? The argument for the ceremonial is that people like ceremonies and they are important ways to bring about social cohesion in the body politic and get things done. A diplomatic summit without any food is going to have a lot of very grumpy people trying to do important work. The anti-ceremonial argument is that they are a useless expense that gets in the way of important work,. They also blind people to the truth.
2. If the ceremonial part of politics and statecraft are still important, who should carry out these functions? An elected official? An apppointed or elected ceremonial figure? Or a trained professional since birth? The rough argument for constitutional monarchy is that royal families are uniquely equipped to carry out the ceremonial parts of politics and statecraft while leaving the important business to elected politicians.Report
I’d like to register a partial dissent from the very concept of an “issue with monarchy in the modern world.” I’m not sure there is one. There are few, if any, real monarchies left in the world. Several countries have vestigial monarchies and no country that doesn’t have a monarchy of either sort looks as if it’s interested in forming one.
To be sure, the whole idea of hereditary monarchy is foolish — though, long ago, it was a modest improvement over contending warlords squabbling about succession to the throne — but if a country decides that it is willing to devote some modest portion of the national wealth to propping up nostalgia, entertainment, or a tourist attraction, that is an issue purely for the country involved. For the rest of the “modern world,” monarchy should be no more an issue than soap opera — if there is a difference.Report
The answer to your final question: there is no difference.Report
Formal monarchies are of course almost nonexistent, but I think there have been quite a few analyses drawing parallels between celebrity worship and monarchy.
Its not a perfect fit if you are comparing the Windsors to the Kardashians but I think a better fit is between celebrity of performing artists and the celebrity of authoritarians, the way Donald Trump is almost indistinguishable from the Kardashians, with the constant appeal to drama and conflict over essentially nothing.
Like that Arendt line about how fascists promise their followers not peace, but endless conflict , reality shows are never about resolution, but just endless and pointless battle.Report
Royalty and celebrities act as receptors for warm and fuzzy feelings and also as an entertaining source of salacious gossip depending on the audience or the audience’s mood. Its why would had Princess Di the beloved giver of charity and Princess Di the glamorous at the same time.Report
There are plenty of ideological people who believe that we can not achieve true social equality and democracy unless we get rid of all signs of status. This includes constitutional monarchy even if the monarchs have no power. They are by definition un-modern and need to go.Report
Most studies indicate that the UK monarchy is, on net, a financial and economic benefit to the UK, not a burden.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
so the ceremony parts are in a way incidental to (but probably necessary for) making money.Report
Welp. Mayor Ted Wheeler seeks $2 million to bring back uniformed police team to address spike in shootings.
From the article:
All this has happened before.
All this will happen again.Report
We want significant cultural and operational reform, but we don’t want that reform to include any possible negative consequences while it happens.
So we really don’t want reform.
ETA: I do have to admit DarkMatter had a point about a lot of this.Report
If I had to guess, I’d say that the obvious move would be “this is why we need gun control!”
Soon to be followed by “we need door-to-door searches for illegal guns!”
Soon to be followed by “why are the police killing so many poor people? Defund the police!”
Soon to be followed by “Mayor Johnson seeks $2 million to bring back uniformed police team to address spike in crime”.Report
Well, the challenge that all of the newly minted reformers last year missed is that this isn’t easy and so we got a bunch of Mencken solutions. That does not preclude the ability to do better if there is a concerted effort in trying to do so without the proverbial tossing of the baby out with the bathwater. I’m as big a critic of all this crazy, militarized policing as anyone but we need cops. Better ones, serving under better policies and accountability, but we have to have them. Anyone who thinks we don’t is stupid. Full stop.
But yes, I think we can pretty easily see that the head-line grabbing solutions of last year’s racial justice protesters were fundamentally unserious and the outcome Jaybird’s describes is/was inevitable. IMO anyone who has followed the issue for any length of time saw exactly how this would play out.Report
But even the serious non-sensational reformers are getting hard obstruction.
Police reform is a bit like gun control in that there is a powerful bloc of voters who really, really like the status quo and will fight viciously against any reform, no matter how tepid or well thought out.Report
Well I think there may be some parallels to gun control but those aren’t them. To the extent there’s a similarity I’d say it’s that advocates of the change are hyper focused on easily shredded non-solutions designed in a lab for the express purpose of not convincing anyone who needs to be convinced.
Like, I can’t think of a better way to alienate reform sympathetic people than saying ‘oh by the way, you need to tolerate being personally victimized by crime as the price for this new utopian idea that we thought of 5 minutes ago.’ And yet that’s exactly what they did.Report
No, they flippin’ didn’t.
I’m talking about people like Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon who I have been following.
He is a moderate reformer, and even his most mild reforms like eliminating sentencing enhancements and trying juveniles as adults, has sparked a recall effort led by “tough on crime” politicians.
His reforms are the sort of sensible modest steps that people claim they support (when using them as a weapon against street protests) but when actually faced with their enactment, they explode in rage.Report
I admittedly can’t speak intelligently as to what’s going on in LA. If there are reasonable reforms being rejected by the citizenry then I suppose the only answer is more outreach, more persuasion. Without knowing the specifics of local government there I would hazard to say that prosecutors trying to do things unilaterally have their work cut out for them. The big battles need to be in state legislatures, though I certainly won’t fault anyone trying to approach the job with a broader perspective towards proportionality and fairness.Report
Fair enough, but my larger point that affects all cities across the country, is that there is a very large faction of American voters who prefer the status quo of militarized policing, even is they occasionally make noises to the contrary.
I’d like to think we’re making headway, but it would be an error to think that “if only we had sensible reforms and serious reformers” the pieces would fall into place.
Police reform starts with the Republican Party representing about 30-40% of the citizenry implacably opposed; Then it also has to contend with police unions, prosecutors, and the various vested interests who feed off the carceral state;
These groups can fairly be described as “Unpersuadables”. You might pick off a few here and there, but they are pretty much unified in their opposition.
So then we are left with the Democratic Party constituencies of urban voters, educated voters and some suburban blocs.
But as we’ve seen, even they can be easily spooked and demagogued with enough WIllie Horton type ads.
The political landscape of police reform is almost always tilted in favor of the police.Report
Police reform starts with the Republican Party representing about 30-40% of the citizenry implacably opposed; Then it also has to contend with police unions, prosecutors, and the various vested interests who feed off the carceral state;
Surely the Progressive states like California and Oregon are able to do something.
Clinton won California by 30 points! Biden won it by 29!
Clinton won Oregon by 11 points! Biden won it by *16*!Report
Yes, that’s exactly what I said.Report
Are the elected officials properly elected by the citizenry able to accomplish anything?
Surely having a 65% to 35% majority would be able to accomplish *SOMETHING*.
I mean, I’d hate to think that a 2-1 majority would be as hamstrung as a 51-50 majority would be.Report
I think that’s true but it’s true in the same sense that the system is always tilted towards inertia. We had something like 3 decades of tough on crime policies implemented at every level of government, plus an extra ratcheting up after 9/11. It doesn’t go away overnight and reforming it will necessarily be slow and full of setbacks.
My opinion and point above was that part of chiseling successfully involves appreciating that not everything in place is totally without basis. The best way to derail momentum for change is to do something ham-fisted that results in hugely visible increases in crime.Report
It’s also vitally important to remember that while Blue Flu might be “illegal”, there isn’t really an effective enforcement mechanism. Even if the police are fully funded, if they aren’t feeling up to it, they can most certainly allow an area to fall apart simply by withdrawing their presence, or by not investigating the crimes in that area beyond the most basic effort.
The duty the police have to their community exists in name only, there is effectively nothing to obligate them to fulfill that duty.
The Professionalism of the Police is often sorely lacking.Report