I guess I'm confused then by the relationship of Technocrat to Populist?

I'm reading your original comment as 'antibodies' against Populists would make sure Technocrats are back in charge? But then your definition of Technocrat would suggest that our anti-bodies are worse than the disease. Which *might* be the point... if so, you've out-irony'd me... so kudos. :-)

Yeah, if I have a concern, its that Populist starts to function like Isolationist. A meaningless term that is used solely to discredit something someone dislikes that may or may not be Populist/Isolationist because we never define what the term is or the thing being labeled such.

To JB's point above, I certainly acknowledge that there's a techne to governing - I've repeatedly commented on the importance of this - but there's no particular reason why there couldn't or won't be Populist Technocrats... unless and until we define Populist to be specifically the absence of Technocrats at which point any person enacting Populist Ideas with Technocrats wouldn't be Populist.

That's the gist of my issue with how we're throwing around these terms - and probably why I run to Topologies like Technocrats to catnip.

I suppose it depends on what we mean by Populist. If Populist is something specific to 'Trumpism' and the like, then sure. But if Populist is the opposite to Movement Con/Stuart Stevens (and the Democratic equivalents)... then I guess I dissent. The first part of the article does a pretty good job recounting how Trump dismantled JEB! ... that's still the reckoning we haven't reckoned with. If every dismantling of JEB! is Populist and therefore bad? Then I think our terms are crossed or not useful.

The recent New Yorker article was an interesting thought piece on the various ways the GOP will react: Remnant (Trumpists), Restoration (Neo/Movement-Cons), Reversal (Upper Left).

Douthat quipped the likely result will be Restoration with bits of Remnant/Reversal spices. Probably as good a guess as any.

Nice write-up. Philly is underrated as a food town... I've had some good meals there while travelling for business; especially when the clients pick a 'local' place.

Heh, I can resist anything but temptation?

I'm sure there will be plenty who will try to emulate Trump... but like JB I don't think Trump is really a destination just a ride. There are 'potentially' better rides.

I have no particular notion at the moment whether we'll get better rides to different destinations.

Yeah, good point, but as much as Cotton and Hawley are early adopters of a certain sort of post-Trumpism... there will likely be other forms - some better, some worse.

Strikes me as a reasonable summation given your political positions. Of course, I'd also see your vote as "gettable" come the great realignment (TM).

I suppose I see Biden's replacement value as 0... which means I fervently wish his presidency reaches his ceiling as barely adequate. Though, in my darker moments, I'm not sure his replacement value is 0 anymore... that was peak Biden.

But to answer the obvious rejoinder... yes, I think Trump is negative Replacement value... he has actively devalued whatever decent policies he might have stumbled into.

p.s. [ahem] Do we only put the political/election disclaimer on the articles for the less savory parties, like Solidarity?

In the (very) unlikely event Trump wins... we'll likely be scratching our heads over why a tiny (but significant) shift in support among Black and Hispanic voters in swing states happened at all.

But since I still think that scenario very unlikely... it leaves us only to contemplate the movement of the needle and what it foretells for the Demographic Shifts and their real impact on politics going forward.

The 15 hour workweek is just that much closer!

Curious with regards Brave New World?

Sure... I suppose the leftist dystopia, then, might be calling a bug a feature. Or, becoming so deterministic that we are 'only' our bugs. I think that's kinda the point.

There's no good, only power.

What makes you think the Leftist dystopia isn't revanchist?

I like this as an illustrative aspect. I'd also suggest that a real dystopia would have bi-directional influence in that someone whom we admired as a fantastic Mr. Smith does something that causes us to decide that "Mr. Smith" is bad too... which impacts other people leading very good Mr. Smith lives. So we don't re-define that person as an Alex... we question the choices of all the people we commended for being Smiths. The point isn't to be a Mr. Smith it's always to be in the right group. The group? Which group? That's always in flux.

I see your reamer and raise you one citrus press.

We cook with a lot of lemons/limes... like a lot... like costco bags of lemons are staple purchases. Our problem is that we have to buy the industrial strength presses or we'll break the hinges.

Same with Garlic press... this one is pretty close to what we have.

On the downside, my weekend woods work will be interrupted because a $.01 flange-thingy-holder on the primer bulb of my Stihl chainsaw broke... the primers are 100% point of failure (by design, i'm sure), so I have half-a-dozen... but when the flange-thingy-holder breaks... shit. That said, only ever by Stihl... their engines are the most reliable. If they made a version with a +$30 metal primer pump option, they could hoover up my money.

To me the first go around was such a shitshow of Trump stomping around being Trump that we didn't even really notice Biden.

Honestly, stopping Trump and giving Biden uninterrupted time? Probably made it worse. Uninterrupted Biden just wasn't that impressive.

The unveiling of Biden-care was the shrug heard round the world.

True, it's hard to debate the arguably least racist president since Abraham Lincoln... but if your bat isn't quick enough to catch-up with Lincoln High-heat, then you're just not ready for this game... or maybe the game has passed you by.

https://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/lloyd-bentsens-mic-drop-moment-1988-vp-debate-58255800

He's just not sharp, nor quick witted, nor a commanding speaker... and that's 50 yr old Biden. Now slap almost 30-years on that?... his responses were slow, unfortunately his stutter was prominent, it was clear he was losing his train of thought... odd substitutions in his retorts, like trying to set-up a 'zinger' around 'Poor Boys'. Using Malarkey in an actual sentence... Constant refrain of "c'mon, Man." His set pieces were ok if you're rooting for him, but not in any way impressive or, if I'm honest, convincing.

Trump as a debater is bad in a whole different way, but Biden just doesn't show well if extemporaneous entertainment is on the menu. Trump isn't debating, he's just live tweeting on national TV. Biden didn't really have an answer for that... as I say, I'm not entirely sure I would either... but I'm not the standard bearer for my party.

I sympathize with the position Biden (or anyone sharing the stage with Trump) is in... he's just not a good faith interlocutor - even more so than your average politician. Pulling on all of my sales experience I couldn't see a rhetorical way I'd deal with him in real-time. That is, without destroying my own brand. Honestly, some of the hardest and best decisions I've made over the years is to refuse to engage in a process I didn't feel was in my best interest.

That said, Biden looked bad... I don't think it matters, since people aren't actually voting *for* Biden and I think the voters are gonna vote for who they're gonna vote for already.

But man, Biden isn't up to the task. He's a talisman... keep him safely enclosed in glass and hope everything else just kinda... um, works?

I still think he'll win (and Bigly), but if I'm wrong, I have some strong notions on what's wrong with my model... but it isn't the debates. The debates are just a symptom of the disease.

Constitutional amendment to require Prime Numbers only. 27 is an assault on our judicial aesthetics... as is 15.

SESTA is a carve-out to 230.

Basically it says you are protected under 230, except for participation in SESTA activities for which 230 provides no specific protection.

Go ahead... start carving. What things can 230 *not* protect you from (I assume the law already prohibits material participation in illegal activities a'la Silk Road).

As to Hawley's exact intentions/strategy/tactics? Perhaps you are right... I only have his public utterances that he's going to pull 230 from these platforms. As of now the *actual* bill he's introducing pulls 230 from "[platforms] that display manipulative, behavioral ads or provide data to be used for them."

And his own website further observes with regards this episode of Twitter: "Senator Hawley has been a leading critic of Section 230’s protection of Big Tech firms and recently called for Twitter to lose immunity if it chooses to editorialize on political speech."

I think we might(?) agree that possibly one could clarify that in order to claim 230 protections, one cannot start to edit end-user-content, unless it censors according to these new 230 provisions for Platform Censoring (i.e. not the whims of a TOS).

Which would be Regulations strengthening 230... so not SESTA and not pulling 230.

Honestly George, if you didn't exist we'd have to invent you.

Yeah, that's the best bucket of all... but since Senators Johnson and Grassley have provided us with information on the matter, do we not have 'unbiased' facts about his tenure, pay, duties and qualifications... I mean, we're not suggesting that the son of a sitting VP *wasn't* given a position on a board for company in an industry in which he has no experience (yes, yes, he was advising them on important 'business process' objectives) shadily run - this we all admit - by people we call 'oligarchs' in a place called Ukraine... the language of which Mr. Biden does not speak? Just that we can't prosecute him for that.

Some of that must be in the Grassley/Johnson report, no?

But then, I'm fine with fathers maximizing their networks to make opportunities available to their progeny... like, we should encourage thick communities and networks and families and opportunities... build privilege at all levels.

But perhaps this runs beyond what reasonable limits we'd place on that? Or against the narrative I'm trying to sell in my campaign? Or can we do anything at all as long as we can't be prosecuted for it? It's all so confusing what is permissible and what isn't.

Tougher than inequality, privilege and exposure of our Meritocracy as systemically anti-merticoratic?

I dunno... I'd 100% shift into the not 'technically' prosecutable corruption bucket every opportunity I get.

Its likely a gift that folks like Trump, Giuliani and the RNC are too dumb to frame it any other way than "lock them up"

"Sen. Johnson and Sen. Grassley spent months looking into Hunter Biden’s alleged corruption regarding Burisma, and their initial report paints a picture – long known and previously reported by the media – of relationships that appeared to be conflicts of interest but in fact aren’t illegal."

Sometimes what matters is the bucket you put it in.

I believe your argument (mostly) that the Hunter Biden thing isn't (probably) prosecutable corruption.

Now. Put it in the "Inequality Bucket" and see how the story plays.

And here I'm talking about the Non-Prosecutorial No-Corruption story that Grassley approved.

As far as I can tell the internet is mostly a mechanism to put stories into the bucket *I* want, not the bucket other people want.

That said, my personal take is that Biden pere & fils corruption is exactly the right level of corruption we want in government. So tolerating this level of inequality and corruption leaves me unmoved by the 'scandal' but then I'm the sort of person Sens. Grassley and Johnson hope receive the message.