Heh, axiomatically, no... doesn't mean that some folks won't have made a fortune... best we can hope is that the majority make some and most got in at the $4 price and not the $192 price and at worst, break even.
Chris Arnade has a number of interesting observations from the (formerly) inside... one of the things that I found curious is the phenomenon of "selling your book" which is to say you take public stances on your positions... which would seem counter-intuitively foolish if one assumes the game is played solely in $$ and not in $$+Influence+Status.
Not accepting readers as patients... but if what I read about the $35/month (or is it session with montly sub?) pricing model for his patients, he should offer $40/month for readers to call and argue with him about his posts. It took 40 years and a virtual revolution, but we'll finally got the Argument Sketch in real life.
The Marchmaine personal history of laundry would scandalize all of you... so I'll have to save it for my post-mortem memoirs.
We finally finished our Screen Porch remodel... my wife has claimed it as her attached she-shed... now my duty is to allocate funds to the decorating and furnishing thereof - but more importantly - to not have a helpful opinion on said furnishing or decorating, which is much harder. I may already have failed.
I didn't say it *would* work, I just pointed out how going through Manchin which everyone thinks is the way to go is, in fact, not the way to go.
But then, I'm not convinced the DEMs really want it to go... but if Ezra's right and maybe they do? Then that's the sort of pitch you're making to back-benchers.
Joe Manchin doesn't want it to go because it makes Manchin king... the interesting play is whether you can find an R or two who will gamble that D overreach will deliver them a filibuster free Senate and congress for 2022 and 2024.
I would be a weird pitch but it would look like this:
Schumer: Remember how we nuked the filibuster for Judicial appointments and y'all got the greenlight to keep nuking and then you got all those judges you wanted? Well, if you support us now we'll nuke the filibuster for good... and who knows, maybe you'll get to do the whole judges thing again, but this time with legislation.
I understand; we differ on the judgment Pence rendered... I'm pushing back on the idea that Pence was constitutionally bound not to exercise that judgment.
So, to your original point, one could (and you do) argue that Pence did not deem it 25th worthy at the moment... but I would not cite that as loyalty to the constitution, but a much lower standard of his judgement of whether to invoke the 25th.
Right, the reality is we're governed primarily by 0's pretending they are +'s ... if the institutions are strong, rightly aligned, and pointed in the correct direction this is a recipe for ... well ... status quo.
We only really get +7 politicians maybe once every couple/few generations. They are the ones who build the movement, align the personnel, institutions and stakeholders with policies before they grab the brass ring.
On the 25th, I'll push back gently... I think there's a legitimate case to be considered.
I think that it is reasonable to suspect Trump was not mentally competent in the last couple of months. He was either pathologically lying or believed a lie pathologically. While the 25th may not have withstood a mid-term challenge, invoking it within the final 2-weeks given the erratic actions of the President seem perfectly constitutionally defensible.
Pence had to make a judgement call on that, and I'll come clean that I think he prudentially made the wrong decision, but I disagree that it is defensible on Constitutional grounds... or, more precisely, that if he reasoned that he 'couldn't' do what he thought he should do on constitutional grounds, then he reasoned incorrectly.
As the only person who couldn't be fired by Trump, a better man would have leveraged his position to greater advantage... either as an insider or an outsider frozen by the President. As such he delivered a Mike Pence 0 WAR performance... but as you say, to his credit he fulfilled the baseline of his duty to his office and by offset relief illustrated the full depravity of Trump.
"This administration, staffed up with plenty of Obama and Clinton-era veterans, knows how to wield power and aren’t going to waste a second in doing so."
Personnel is policy.
Biden is Hope and Change without the Hope and Change.
But I agree with both your negative assessment of Trump (you can't do anything without building the supporting policy infrastructure of people, institutions and stakeholders) and positive assessment of Biden (He has the well worn infrastructure to work with).
I'm agnostic on whether he will 'accomplish' anything of significance ... other than not being Trump... and maybe a little pessimistic given your observation quoted first that what ever he does accomplish is pre-written and only sets the stage for disaffection from the left and right alike.
I'm not sure I agree that transfers have been precarious. In my lifetime maybe 1968, if we squint? Then off the top of my head I could see Jackson, Lincoln and Hayes... maybe with a few lesser knowns? Otherwise a remarkable run, really.
I guess I'm suggesting sort of the opposite, that the Truce mostly holds, not that War almost always nearly wins.
What I'm noticing is that America isn't really using the language of Truce and Plurality anymore. I don't think we ever had Unity, if that's what you mean... but strangely calls for Unity these days strike me as calls for war... a Unity of elimination.
Fair point... I've never read Marvel comics... I can't say I've discerned any sort of meta-narrative from the movies, and that makes me assume there's no coherent meta-narrative/metaphysics I need to consider. The story goes where the story goes, and where needed the story is violated (retconned) to make it go where it now needs to go.
If you told me that Marvel has an important metaphysics undergirding the entire thing that I should really grapple with first... then I'd want to grapple with that for fear of mis-understanding the movies.
Now you are probably going to ruin Marvel movies for me like I'm attempting to ruin LotR for everyone else? :-)
I certainly take your point that Divorce is very impractical... maybe impossible. Are we sure the ruling out Divorce means we've also ruled out War? I'm not so sure. Not that we'd start it... they would start it, of course.
A Good point. I suppose it depends. As pure plot/spectacle the movies are 'close enough.' But I'm not sure books are simply plot/spectacle devices. So if one is interested in more than the base narrative, then it's important to get the meta-narrative aligned.
As I note below, I think this is the primary deficiency of GRRM and why, ultimately, his novels *only* work as subversive narrative... they assume we know the meta-narrative. GRRM fails once it is necessary to square the narrative with the meta. See also LOST.
I can certainly appreciate a movie maker who is 'grappling' with a work and makes some conscious decisions that we as participants can contemplate and grapple with as well.
A fun little example of this was the most recent Emma... which I think is very well done indeed (despite dubious editorial choices) but precisely because I can see that the makers are grappling with the fact that they don't really like Emma. It's an anti-Emmma... and that's ok as far as Art goes. But precisely because we can discuss how and in what way its *not* Emma and not trying to do Emma and getting it wrong.
Now, your movie goer who has no Idea who Emma is? They should not watch this movie without first learning about Emma.
Its certainly true that it happens more often than not; but there are many movies that are as good (a few better) than the books. It's possible, but by far the exception.
That why, I think, the critique stands... because we have seen movies that adapt the book so the failures demand explanation.
For me, I'm fine with Jackson's editorial choices (and his artistic/stylistic choices) but I draw the line when he changes the narrative such that it does violence to a character and/or philosophical point in the book.
A simple example is having the Ents arrive at the wrong conclusion in the movie... to be corrected by Merry/Pippin. There's no actual Plot reason for this... nothing added, nothing gained. Simple deviation for no commensurate good.
On “From Vox: The GameStop stock frenzy, explained”
Now they are...
"
Diamond Hand meets Greater Fool.
"
Heh, axiomatically, no... doesn't mean that some folks won't have made a fortune... best we can hope is that the majority make some and most got in at the $4 price and not the $192 price and at worst, break even.
Chris Arnade has a number of interesting observations from the (formerly) inside... one of the things that I found curious is the phenomenon of "selling your book" which is to say you take public stances on your positions... which would seem counter-intuitively foolish if one assumes the game is played solely in $$ and not in $$+Influence+Status.
See this as a correction on Influence + Status.
On “Slate Star Codex has been deleted”
Agreed... this would be a totally non-medical Argument-for-hire subscription.
Although, now that he's out there... the movement from Patient to Reader is theoretically trivial - even if he's not accepting Reader to Patient.
"
Not accepting readers as patients... but if what I read about the $35/month (or is it session with montly sub?) pricing model for his patients, he should offer $40/month for readers to call and argue with him about his posts. It took 40 years and a virtual revolution, but we'll finally got the Argument Sketch in real life.
On “Electoral Trends: Into The Biden Era”
I think it does because your dichotomy is false.
"
In fairness, I'm willing to extend Racist to Dem voters too. No need for everyone to exclude everyone else.
On “Weekend Plans Post: A Shirt Worth Stealing”
The Marchmaine personal history of laundry would scandalize all of you... so I'll have to save it for my post-mortem memoirs.
We finally finished our Screen Porch remodel... my wife has claimed it as her attached she-shed... now my duty is to allocate funds to the decorating and furnishing thereof - but more importantly - to not have a helpful opinion on said furnishing or decorating, which is much harder. I may already have failed.
On “President Biden’s Inauguration: Day One for Forty Six”
I didn't say it *would* work, I just pointed out how going through Manchin which everyone thinks is the way to go is, in fact, not the way to go.
But then, I'm not convinced the DEMs really want it to go... but if Ezra's right and maybe they do? Then that's the sort of pitch you're making to back-benchers.
"
Joe Manchin doesn't want it to go because it makes Manchin king... the interesting play is whether you can find an R or two who will gamble that D overreach will deliver them a filibuster free Senate and congress for 2022 and 2024.
I would be a weird pitch but it would look like this:
Schumer: Remember how we nuked the filibuster for Judicial appointments and y'all got the greenlight to keep nuking and then you got all those judges you wanted? Well, if you support us now we'll nuke the filibuster for good... and who knows, maybe you'll get to do the whole judges thing again, but this time with legislation.
Hawley: You make an interesting point, sir.
On “Mike Pence and One Cheer For Doing the Right Thing”
I understand; we differ on the judgment Pence rendered... I'm pushing back on the idea that Pence was constitutionally bound not to exercise that judgment.
So, to your original point, one could (and you do) argue that Pence did not deem it 25th worthy at the moment... but I would not cite that as loyalty to the constitution, but a much lower standard of his judgement of whether to invoke the 25th.
"
Sportball terms for Wins-above-replacement and Just-another-guy ... basically your average professional player at that position.
"
Right, the reality is we're governed primarily by 0's pretending they are +'s ... if the institutions are strong, rightly aligned, and pointed in the correct direction this is a recipe for ... well ... status quo.
We only really get +7 politicians maybe once every couple/few generations. They are the ones who build the movement, align the personnel, institutions and stakeholders with policies before they grab the brass ring.
"
On the 25th, I'll push back gently... I think there's a legitimate case to be considered.
I think that it is reasonable to suspect Trump was not mentally competent in the last couple of months. He was either pathologically lying or believed a lie pathologically. While the 25th may not have withstood a mid-term challenge, invoking it within the final 2-weeks given the erratic actions of the President seem perfectly constitutionally defensible.
Pence had to make a judgement call on that, and I'll come clean that I think he prudentially made the wrong decision, but I disagree that it is defensible on Constitutional grounds... or, more precisely, that if he reasoned that he 'couldn't' do what he thought he should do on constitutional grounds, then he reasoned incorrectly.
"
As the only person who couldn't be fired by Trump, a better man would have leveraged his position to greater advantage... either as an insider or an outsider frozen by the President. As such he delivered a Mike Pence 0 WAR performance... but as you say, to his credit he fulfilled the baseline of his duty to his office and by offset relief illustrated the full depravity of Trump.
On “Game of Thrones: Little People, Big World”
Heh, sad. :-)
"
Thanks! One hits upon the occasional nugget and all that. Appreciate the GoT re-visits.
On “President Biden’s Inauguration: Day One for Forty Six”
"This administration, staffed up with plenty of Obama and Clinton-era veterans, knows how to wield power and aren’t going to waste a second in doing so."
Personnel is policy.
Biden is Hope and Change without the Hope and Change.
But I agree with both your negative assessment of Trump (you can't do anything without building the supporting policy infrastructure of people, institutions and stakeholders) and positive assessment of Biden (He has the well worn infrastructure to work with).
I'm agnostic on whether he will 'accomplish' anything of significance ... other than not being Trump... and maybe a little pessimistic given your observation quoted first that what ever he does accomplish is pre-written and only sets the stage for disaffection from the left and right alike.
Surprise me Joe Biden.
On “On Writing of Wrongs”
I'm not sure I agree that transfers have been precarious. In my lifetime maybe 1968, if we squint? Then off the top of my head I could see Jackson, Lincoln and Hayes... maybe with a few lesser knowns? Otherwise a remarkable run, really.
I guess I'm suggesting sort of the opposite, that the Truce mostly holds, not that War almost always nearly wins.
What I'm noticing is that America isn't really using the language of Truce and Plurality anymore. I don't think we ever had Unity, if that's what you mean... but strangely calls for Unity these days strike me as calls for war... a Unity of elimination.
"
Maybe we've always been at War with varying degrees and terms of Truce.
Except I don't think there's any coherent "we" in that sentence. But I do think there's a coherent Truce.
On “Game of Thrones: Little People, Big World”
Fair point... I've never read Marvel comics... I can't say I've discerned any sort of meta-narrative from the movies, and that makes me assume there's no coherent meta-narrative/metaphysics I need to consider. The story goes where the story goes, and where needed the story is violated (retconned) to make it go where it now needs to go.
If you told me that Marvel has an important metaphysics undergirding the entire thing that I should really grapple with first... then I'd want to grapple with that for fear of mis-understanding the movies.
Now you are probably going to ruin Marvel movies for me like I'm attempting to ruin LotR for everyone else? :-)
On “On Writing of Wrongs”
That's what Domestic Terrorism Laws are for.
I certainly take your point that Divorce is very impractical... maybe impossible. Are we sure the ruling out Divorce means we've also ruled out War? I'm not so sure. Not that we'd start it... they would start it, of course.
On “Game of Thrones: Little People, Big World”
"How do you mess up people fighting against evil?"
Agency... a'la Ents. :-)
"
A Good point. I suppose it depends. As pure plot/spectacle the movies are 'close enough.' But I'm not sure books are simply plot/spectacle devices. So if one is interested in more than the base narrative, then it's important to get the meta-narrative aligned.
As I note below, I think this is the primary deficiency of GRRM and why, ultimately, his novels *only* work as subversive narrative... they assume we know the meta-narrative. GRRM fails once it is necessary to square the narrative with the meta. See also LOST.
I can certainly appreciate a movie maker who is 'grappling' with a work and makes some conscious decisions that we as participants can contemplate and grapple with as well.
A fun little example of this was the most recent Emma... which I think is very well done indeed (despite dubious editorial choices) but precisely because I can see that the makers are grappling with the fact that they don't really like Emma. It's an anti-Emmma... and that's ok as far as Art goes. But precisely because we can discuss how and in what way its *not* Emma and not trying to do Emma and getting it wrong.
Now, your movie goer who has no Idea who Emma is? They should not watch this movie without first learning about Emma.
"
Its certainly true that it happens more often than not; but there are many movies that are as good (a few better) than the books. It's possible, but by far the exception.
That why, I think, the critique stands... because we have seen movies that adapt the book so the failures demand explanation.
For me, I'm fine with Jackson's editorial choices (and his artistic/stylistic choices) but I draw the line when he changes the narrative such that it does violence to a character and/or philosophical point in the book.
A simple example is having the Ents arrive at the wrong conclusion in the movie... to be corrected by Merry/Pippin. There's no actual Plot reason for this... nothing added, nothing gained. Simple deviation for no commensurate good.