When I return home from the memorial service and family visit resulting therefrom, I'll get back to Starfield. The good: the main quest somehow feels engaging, if pretty tightly railed; the two rival nations feel more realistic; the cities feel like actual cities. Also the minigame for lockpicking is better than the Skyrim/Fallout mechanic. The bad: there's a lot of walking around barren planets with little to do. The ugly: Bethesda has never ever figured out how to handle inventory.
I would agree that are in favor of leopards eating most other peoples' faces, but dislike it when the leopard tries to eat their face.
No, I really think that these folks want a king, in practical reality if not necessarily in name. That's one reason why it's important to them that the leader think like they do, why the leader like and dislike the same things they do, and less important that the leader take power and govern through legal channels.
Since power is seen in absolute terms (the king can do anything, it's for the rest of us to obey, and that's the way it should be) that's how they can be confident that the leopard won't eat their faces.
Whenever I see an instance of people who obviously know full well who Donald Trump really is and choosing him nevertheless, I recall 1 Samuel 8.
When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain, and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, 'You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.'
But when they said, 'Give us a king to lead us,' this displeased Samuel. ...[God drops some wisdom on Samuel] ... Samuel said to the people who were asking him for a king, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to play his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your men-servants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and when you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you that day.'
But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' They said. 'We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.'
Some people just plain want a king. You can tell them, "A king will bring war," and they won't care. You can tell them, "A king will leave you less prosperous than before" and they won't care. You can tell them, "A king will make you less free," and they won't care. They want what they want.
How you can look at people like Vladimir Putin or Viktor Orban and say, "Yeah, I want that!" is beyond me, but I'm not someone who wants a king. When someone does want a king, they know who they want to be king, and that's what they want.
About all I can say after Iowa is, maybe they don't want the word "king" to be used, but it's evidently what they want.
This makes me think about the level of detailed citation in my law review article, which was pretty in line with how all law review articles wind up getting published.
Nearly every sentence is footnoted until you get to the section marked "Conclusion." Lots of citations to id or, if you prefer, ibid. (I used to know the fine distinction between those two but no longer care.) That avoids the "here's three sentences that are all drawn from the same source but how do you know where original writing ends and reference to citation begins" issue; every sentence is marked, sentence by sentence, as having come from the same source. It makes the final document a bit difficult to read but that's how you do it if you're as concerned about attribution as, say, a law review editor.
What's amusing is a lot of the cites are to case law, which is not copyrighted. But we want to make damn sure we know when you're reporting on research and when you're attempting actual original thought!
"...[Stone] was constantly planning violence with an NYPD officer and other militia groups,” the source said.
Not to derail too much, but notice how the quote identifies NYPD as one of many militia groups. This is probably unfair to NYPD officers, surely not all of whom are in militias.
Yeah, I kind of like the V-8 idea (if you're going to be doing a tomato-inclusive stock). I would surely miss the onions, though, but like Jaybird I'd compromise within a relationship.
Nice to see some new names around here, both as bylines and in the comments. Welcome!
It's not for me to tell conservatives what they think. At most, it's for me to see what they do when they have power or influence. If a refocus back on abstract principles helps fashion a coherent governing agenda and muffles the Outrage Of The Day Machine (or the basic governing principle of Cleek's Law) then great! I don't have to necessarily agree with the principles or the agenda to welcome such an entry into the public discourse.
I fear, though, that the kind of sober, serious discussion of organizing ideological principles and then coalescing them into policy ideas practical to implement in the real world is never, ever going to be able to compete with the fun and profitability of Getting Folks Mad At Stuff (and Not Caring If It's Intellectually Dishonest).
Let us pray that the "No really we don't want Trump again" Republicans really are hovering around 40% like these polls suggest and after she loses the primary, enough of those "No really we don't want Trump again" Republicans mean it enough to stay home or vote for a third party. It is too much to ask that they vote for Biden, of course, these are Republicans after all. But they can direct their vote elsewhere and deny Trump the Presidency that way.
Well, Trump demonstrated the lie behind "momentum" and "winning by exceeding expectations" back in 2016. (These were lies before that.) Particularly in the Republican party where most primaries are winner-take-all, the prize is convention delegates, not momentum or even campaign donations.
What he’s learned is that he had the wrong group of people around him (Pence for example) when he was in office the first time. No more hiring for talent, it will be loyalty to him personally.
Loyalty is a virtue only to the extent that the person who whom loyalty is given is virtuous. When a person invokes the virtue of loyalty, they will soon thereafter (perhaps in the same sentence) ask that you do something that you should know represents the opposite of virtue. This is what loyalty means to Trump. E.g., "Mike Pence isn't our friend anymore."
It's irrelevant because we have an actual instance of Trump, as President and after, attempting to thwart democracy and hold on to power illegally. He's used a sustained pattern of bold, oft-repeated lies and right out there in front of everyone set in motion actual political violence aimed at those who stood in his way with his hands ju-u-u-u-u-ust above the mud.
And for some reason a large number of people dismiss it. Perhaps for some because it's just too horrific to accept so waving it away is a form of emotional self-defense. (I think that describes you.) There are also those who dismiss it because they wanted it to succeed, and this too is a horrific reality to accept.
So yeah, the pee tape was probably never real and even if it is, who cares anymore? There's something much more important to worry about.
The path described in the OP seems plausible enough to me -- Haley needs to edge DeSantis out and then wait for Trump to be somehow disqualified out of the race.* At that point, she's the Last Candidate Standing.
It's a play she might as well make now, because come 2028, she'll have been out of any public office, appointed or elective, for ten years. Her moment will surely have passed.
Unlike the OP I think a VP slot might be available on the same logic that Reagan used to offer the running mate spot to George HW Bush: it's how to unify the party. Obviously she doesn't get to do anything consequential in Second Trump Administration as punishment for her campaign rhetoric, but if anything happens to the 45th/47th President, she inherits The Precious.
* Do any of the charges against Trump carry legal disqualification from Federal office as a penalty? Such crimes exist but I don't know if any of the charges Trump faces do.
Of course the Italian ancestors are groaning at this but it looks super good. Now, if it's me, I might chop up them sausages you've grilled up so beautifully, pop them in the mixing bowl too, and then take an immersion blender to it, producing a uniform sauce with the meat mixed in. Not Bolognese sauce, but a nifty twist on a simple Americano meat sauce (aka "gravy").
Alsotoo grilling the tomatoes looks like a great way to make that smoky, rich salsa that I like on tortilla chips: grill the tomatoes and the jalapenos and the onions first, then mix them all up with salt, garlic, cilantro, etc.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Backpack Hero”
When I return home from the memorial service and family visit resulting therefrom, I'll get back to Starfield. The good: the main quest somehow feels engaging, if pretty tightly railed; the two rival nations feel more realistic; the cities feel like actual cities. Also the minigame for lockpicking is better than the Skyrim/Fallout mechanic. The bad: there's a lot of walking around barren planets with little to do. The ugly: Bethesda has never ever figured out how to handle inventory.
On “It Was Always Going To Be Trump”
I would agree that are in favor of leopards eating most other peoples' faces, but dislike it when the leopard tries to eat their face.
No, I really think that these folks want a king, in practical reality if not necessarily in name. That's one reason why it's important to them that the leader think like they do, why the leader like and dislike the same things they do, and less important that the leader take power and govern through legal channels.
Since power is seen in absolute terms (the king can do anything, it's for the rest of us to obey, and that's the way it should be) that's how they can be confident that the leopard won't eat their faces.
"
Whenever I see an instance of people who obviously know full well who Donald Trump really is and choosing him nevertheless, I recall 1 Samuel 8.
When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain, and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, 'You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.'
But when they said, 'Give us a king to lead us,' this displeased Samuel. ...[God drops some wisdom on Samuel] ... Samuel said to the people who were asking him for a king, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to play his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your men-servants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and when you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you that day.'
But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' They said. 'We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.'
Some people just plain want a king. You can tell them, "A king will bring war," and they won't care. You can tell them, "A king will leave you less prosperous than before" and they won't care. You can tell them, "A king will make you less free," and they won't care. They want what they want.
How you can look at people like Vladimir Putin or Viktor Orban and say, "Yeah, I want that!" is beyond me, but I'm not someone who wants a king. When someone does want a king, they know who they want to be king, and that's what they want.
About all I can say after Iowa is, maybe they don't want the word "king" to be used, but it's evidently what they want.
On “From New York Magazine’s Intelligencer: Neri Oxman and Claudine Gay Cases Show We Need New Rules on Plagiarism”
This makes me think about the level of detailed citation in my law review article, which was pretty in line with how all law review articles wind up getting published.
Nearly every sentence is footnoted until you get to the section marked "Conclusion." Lots of citations to id or, if you prefer, ibid. (I used to know the fine distinction between those two but no longer care.) That avoids the "here's three sentences that are all drawn from the same source but how do you know where original writing ends and reference to citation begins" issue; every sentence is marked, sentence by sentence, as having come from the same source. It makes the final document a bit difficult to read but that's how you do it if you're as concerned about attribution as, say, a law review editor.
What's amusing is a lot of the cites are to case law, which is not copyrighted. But we want to make damn sure we know when you're reporting on research and when you're attempting actual original thought!
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/8/2024”
That's a delight to see!
On “The Truth About January 6”
"...[Stone] was constantly planning violence with an NYPD officer and other militia groups,” the source said.
Not to derail too much, but notice how the quote identifies NYPD as one of many militia groups. This is probably unfair to NYPD officers, surely not all of whom are in militias.
"
I do very much appreciate your plain, direct use of language here, David. It makes you a powerful writer.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/1/2024”
Wondering about the experience of seeing American Fiction, starring Jeffrey Wright double-featured with Sorry to Bother You.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Beef Stew and a Knife you Need”
Good gods in Asgard above how many people is she cooking for?
"
Yeah, I kind of like the V-8 idea (if you're going to be doing a tomato-inclusive stock). I would surely miss the onions, though, but like Jaybird I'd compromise within a relationship.
On “Conservatives Should Know What They’re Conserving”
Nice to see some new names around here, both as bylines and in the comments. Welcome!
It's not for me to tell conservatives what they think. At most, it's for me to see what they do when they have power or influence. If a refocus back on abstract principles helps fashion a coherent governing agenda and muffles the Outrage Of The Day Machine (or the basic governing principle of Cleek's Law) then great! I don't have to necessarily agree with the principles or the agenda to welcome such an entry into the public discourse.
I fear, though, that the kind of sober, serious discussion of organizing ideological principles and then coalescing them into policy ideas practical to implement in the real world is never, ever going to be able to compete with the fun and profitability of Getting Folks Mad At Stuff (and Not Caring If It's Intellectually Dishonest).
On “Sloshing Is Not Surging: Adventures In Nikki Haley Polling”
Let us pray that the "No really we don't want Trump again" Republicans really are hovering around 40% like these polls suggest and after she loses the primary, enough of those "No really we don't want Trump again" Republicans mean it enough to stay home or vote for a third party. It is too much to ask that they vote for Biden, of course, these are Republicans after all. But they can direct their vote elsewhere and deny Trump the Presidency that way.
On “The Penny Farthing”
A special edition of Clare Briggs: the penny-farthing or "ordinary" bicycle has long been a symbol of this website.
On “Iowa, Where Political Narratives Go To Die, Gussies Up For Funerals”
Like an annoyingly-trained parrot, I squawk once again, "Brrrraaaw! Debates are bad. Brrraw!"
"
Well, Trump demonstrated the lie behind "momentum" and "winning by exceeding expectations" back in 2016. (These were lies before that.) Particularly in the Republican party where most primaries are winner-take-all, the prize is convention delegates, not momentum or even campaign donations.
On “Trump’s Authoritarian Tells”
What he’s learned is that he had the wrong group of people around him (Pence for example) when he was in office the first time. No more hiring for talent, it will be loyalty to him personally.
Loyalty is a virtue only to the extent that the person who whom loyalty is given is virtuous. When a person invokes the virtue of loyalty, they will soon thereafter (perhaps in the same sentence) ask that you do something that you should know represents the opposite of virtue. This is what loyalty means to Trump. E.g., "Mike Pence isn't our friend anymore."
"
To be sure. The pee tape is irrelevant now.
It's irrelevant because we have an actual instance of Trump, as President and after, attempting to thwart democracy and hold on to power illegally. He's used a sustained pattern of bold, oft-repeated lies and right out there in front of everyone set in motion actual political violence aimed at those who stood in his way with his hands ju-u-u-u-u-ust above the mud.
And for some reason a large number of people dismiss it. Perhaps for some because it's just too horrific to accept so waving it away is a form of emotional self-defense. (I think that describes you.) There are also those who dismiss it because they wanted it to succeed, and this too is a horrific reality to accept.
So yeah, the pee tape was probably never real and even if it is, who cares anymore? There's something much more important to worry about.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/4/2023”
He's not writing that law.
"
Only if he can keep his hand on the spigot of all that sweet, sweet oil money.
On “The Fourth Republican Debate Is The One To Watch”
Credit where it's due -- Vivek has lasted a lot longer in this process than I thought he would.
Also note: it's six weeks until the Iowa Caucuses.
And finally, your periodic grumpy reminder: debates are bad. We've been over this, recently, so I won't re-iterate the reasons why debates are bad.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/4/2023”
Gasp. How could one think such a thing.
On “What is Nikki Haley’s Strategy?”
The path described in the OP seems plausible enough to me -- Haley needs to edge DeSantis out and then wait for Trump to be somehow disqualified out of the race.* At that point, she's the Last Candidate Standing.
It's a play she might as well make now, because come 2028, she'll have been out of any public office, appointed or elective, for ten years. Her moment will surely have passed.
Unlike the OP I think a VP slot might be available on the same logic that Reagan used to offer the running mate spot to George HW Bush: it's how to unify the party. Obviously she doesn't get to do anything consequential in Second Trump Administration as punishment for her campaign rhetoric, but if anything happens to the 45th/47th President, she inherits The Precious.
* Do any of the charges against Trump carry legal disqualification from Federal office as a penalty? Such crimes exist but I don't know if any of the charges Trump faces do.
On “Farrah Fawcett and Grilled Spaghetti Sauce”
Of course the Italian ancestors are groaning at this but it looks super good. Now, if it's me, I might chop up them sausages you've grilled up so beautifully, pop them in the mixing bowl too, and then take an immersion blender to it, producing a uniform sauce with the meat mixed in. Not Bolognese sauce, but a nifty twist on a simple Americano meat sauce (aka "gravy").
Alsotoo grilling the tomatoes looks like a great way to make that smoky, rich salsa that I like on tortilla chips: grill the tomatoes and the jalapenos and the onions first, then mix them all up with salt, garlic, cilantro, etc.
Many thanks for this one, Ben!
On “Rule of Tod Video Roundup”
R7 -- you can tell this isn't a Portland singles bar because none of them are wearing peacoats.
"
Maybe we could say Jude Law's character in GATTACA was "bespoke," but Ethan Hawke's character, like people in real life, are merely "unique."