Unfortunately, the whole "this meeting could have been an email" criticism has evolved into partisan usefulness.
I saw it given against Biden's speeches by Biden's opposition during Biden's term (with the notable exception of 2024 where Biden's opposition was saying stuff like "I want to see if he'll wander off halfway through the speech!").
I want to say that the criticism had the most bite when the speeches were the most boring. If it's a boring speech, why not replace it with an email?
But when the speech is, effectively, a pro wrestling promo? Hell, those are *RATINGS GOLD*! Trump's speech's numbers were up 14% from Biden last year! (Though he didn't hit the numbers he achieved during his first term... his lowest rated speech in 2020 got better numbers.)
What's the solution? Well... I have no idea. If the wrestling promos give the content that mumbling through a list of bullet points doesn't, we're going to get wrestling promos.
People work hard writing an essay on the importance of a fuzz pedal for electric guitars and WHAMMO there's a link to how an Italian senator who was famous for, ahem, adult movies in the early 70s has offered Saddam Hussein sexual favors in exchange for peace.
And now the comments to this essay about the fuzz pedal has a subsection devoted to whether it's culturally insensitive to offer meaningless sex to Muslims with a subsubsection devoted to whether this has ever worked arguing against people who make jokes like "when has this ever *NOT* worked?" and the person who wrote the original essay about the fuzz pedal just wanted to talk about music, man.
I wanted to embed "Love and Anger" but they have that one turned off, for some reason. I went for what I am guessing was the 2nd biggest song off of that album (based off of the number of covers of the song that I've heard... Maxwell, Sons of Serendip, Ella Henderson... no other song on the album even comes close).
He tried to negotiate in front of the world and show Trump up. He just bungled it.
The rumor I heard was that Zelensky met with the Democrats who explained that they could vote more money for him, more support, he just had to stand up to Trump and prove it could be done. Give Trump an L and we can help you!
And, wouldn't you know it, the Dems' mouths wrote checks that Z's ass was unable to cash. He went to Europe and got all of the moral support he could have asked for and more. Moral support and three bucks will get you a tall latte.
And the worst part is that the American People are getting a little sick of the Ukraine thing. "Send them *MORE* money? Ugh. Why?" and getting a moralizing speech in return is, apparently, not working.
Did you see Harry Enten's segment on CNN explaining the difference between the numbers for Biden and Trump on handling Ukraine/Russia?
-Trump's net approval on Russia/Ukraine (+2) is far more positive than Biden's was by the end (-22).
-The share (31% to 50%) who want a compromise in the war is way up
-The share who say Russia is an enemy is way down (64% to 34%).
The segment went on for a bit and explained that a majority of Americans supported Ukraine in the conflict... but it looks like that support amounts to moral support and, well, I already made a latte comment.
There are a handful of arguments that it might be possible to make about how it's important for the US to support Ukraine *MATERIALLY* and send them another few hundred billion. "It is in the US's best interest that Russia lose and internalize having lost" is probably the foremost to come to mind... but few are making it. "We have a *MORAL OBLIGATION* to fight against *TYRANNY* by sending *MONEY*!" makes a lot of assumptions that aren't shared and fewer people share them today than shared them yesterday.
And if even fewer people are going to share those assumptions tomorrow...
If we could figure out a way for Europe to unite and create something like a common Union of some sort, maybe they could pave the way and provide an example for the rest of the world.
"This is what The Future looks like!", they could demonstrate.
I'd suggest that you'd better speak out against him and shoot his arguments down one by one by one and, if you can, make his arguments look stupid and silly.
I mean... look at the trendlines and look at what's likely to be true next year, in five years, and in ten years.
I *SERIOUSLY* think that growing flabby in your ability to argue against people with bad arguments is *NOT* in your best interests.
No, you should not treat blood libel against *ANYBODY* in good faith.
And, again, if we're thinking that there was a conspiracy against Leo Frank to convict him despite his innocence and multiple appeals that goes all the way to the Supreme Court, that makes *US* the "Truthers" and you should have a *LOT* more sympathy for people who believe in conspiracies against innocent people than you do.
I'm pretty sure that since Leo Frank's conviction has not been overturned (even after the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal), the Truthers are the ones who say that there was a conspiracy to declare him guilty. You should use a different word.
You should not treat blood libel against anybody with good faith.
He speaks at I dunno, a 5th grade level. I have a 5th grader and he can follow Trump and get his jokes.
I am chewing on this.
When I said it was a wrestling promo above, I was using the term in a vaguely derogatory sense despite myself...
But I'll try to say it again but this time as praise and see where that takes me.
Well, it was a wrestling promo. He wanted to give a speech that people who never, ever, watch State of the Union speeches would be able to sit through. You know the guy who you'd ask "did you watch the State of the Union?" and he'd snort and talk about being bored for two hours? Well, that guy could sit through this speech and he'd be able to give you his favorite moments.
"I liked when he brought out the kid! I have no idea why he called that one lady 'Pocahontas' but I could tell that it was a deadly insult and so that was funny. He talked about (insert topic here) in a way that I could understand. It was a good speech!"
Despite how cool it would be if Christianity were the only religion with heresies, sadly, many religions have them.
Hell, there are even atheists who argue for the existence of heresies within atheism (though if you wanted to talk about post-protestantism, I'd probably concede the point even as the atheists refuse it).
But Mani took and twisted Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and probably some other stuff. Er, not "twisted". "Made his own". "Forged a new path".
In any case... Heresy ain't limited to Jesus Enthusiasts.
Big majorities of viewers liked the plans they heard on immigration, wasteful government spending and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. A relatively smaller majority liked what they heard on tariffs.
I mean, we can easily dismiss the "76% of speech watchers approved" because people who would have disapproved were, instead, watching Daredevil: Born Again on Disney+.
Wait. CBS. That's the old people station. Murder She Wrote and Matlock and whatnot. Let's check CNN instead.
Roughly 7 in 10 speech-watchers said they had at least a somewhat positive reaction to Trump’s speech tonight, with a smaller 44% offering a very positive response. That’s lower than the 57% of viewers who rated Trump’s initial address to Congress very positively eight years ago, or the 51% who said the same of President Joe Biden’s initial address in 2021. It also comes just below the 48% “very positive” rating Trump saw for his 2018 State of the Union.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
It's important to have a place where we can talk about Italian senators offering sex to Saddam.
It's an important topic!
It just shouldn't be in the comments to the music post.
On “The Real First 100 Days”
Unfortunately, the whole "this meeting could have been an email" criticism has evolved into partisan usefulness.
I saw it given against Biden's speeches by Biden's opposition during Biden's term (with the notable exception of 2024 where Biden's opposition was saying stuff like "I want to see if he'll wander off halfway through the speech!").
I want to say that the criticism had the most bite when the speeches were the most boring. If it's a boring speech, why not replace it with an email?
But when the speech is, effectively, a pro wrestling promo? Hell, those are *RATINGS GOLD*! Trump's speech's numbers were up 14% from Biden last year! (Though he didn't hit the numbers he achieved during his first term... his lowest rated speech in 2020 got better numbers.)
What's the solution? Well... I have no idea. If the wrestling promos give the content that mumbling through a list of bullet points doesn't, we're going to get wrestling promos.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
They're a sink.
People work hard writing an essay on the importance of a fuzz pedal for electric guitars and WHAMMO there's a link to how an Italian senator who was famous for, ahem, adult movies in the early 70s has offered Saddam Hussein sexual favors in exchange for peace.
And now the comments to this essay about the fuzz pedal has a subsection devoted to whether it's culturally insensitive to offer meaningless sex to Muslims with a subsubsection devoted to whether this has ever worked arguing against people who make jokes like "when has this ever *NOT* worked?" and the person who wrote the original essay about the fuzz pedal just wanted to talk about music, man.
On “Lent!”
I wanted to embed "Love and Anger" but they have that one turned off, for some reason. I went for what I am guessing was the 2nd biggest song off of that album (based off of the number of covers of the song that I've heard... Maxwell, Sons of Serendip, Ella Henderson... no other song on the album even comes close).
On “Zelenskyy’s Pop-In: Why?”
He tried to negotiate in front of the world and show Trump up. He just bungled it.
The rumor I heard was that Zelensky met with the Democrats who explained that they could vote more money for him, more support, he just had to stand up to Trump and prove it could be done. Give Trump an L and we can help you!
And, wouldn't you know it, the Dems' mouths wrote checks that Z's ass was unable to cash. He went to Europe and got all of the moral support he could have asked for and more. Moral support and three bucks will get you a tall latte.
And the worst part is that the American People are getting a little sick of the Ukraine thing. "Send them *MORE* money? Ugh. Why?" and getting a moralizing speech in return is, apparently, not working.
Did you see Harry Enten's segment on CNN explaining the difference between the numbers for Biden and Trump on handling Ukraine/Russia?
The segment went on for a bit and explained that a majority of Americans supported Ukraine in the conflict... but it looks like that support amounts to moral support and, well, I already made a latte comment.
There are a handful of arguments that it might be possible to make about how it's important for the US to support Ukraine *MATERIALLY* and send them another few hundred billion. "It is in the US's best interest that Russia lose and internalize having lost" is probably the foremost to come to mind... but few are making it. "We have a *MORAL OBLIGATION* to fight against *TYRANNY* by sending *MONEY*!" makes a lot of assumptions that aren't shared and fewer people share them today than shared them yesterday.
And if even fewer people are going to share those assumptions tomorrow...
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
Mosley? I don't know who that is. It's Hitler or nobody.
"
If we could figure out a way for Europe to unite and create something like a common Union of some sort, maybe they could pave the way and provide an example for the rest of the world.
"This is what The Future looks like!", they could demonstrate.
"
You keep making assertions about non-members that aren't true.
Could you rephrase your statements to be about you instead of about the group at large? Maybe that would help.
On “No Country For Young Men? Nah, It’s Time to Grow Up”
Let's try to force them to talk to therapists until they agree with the therapists and, if that fails to work, medicate them.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
I'd suggest that you'd better speak out against him and shoot his arguments down one by one by one and, if you can, make his arguments look stupid and silly.
I mean... look at the trendlines and look at what's likely to be true next year, in five years, and in ten years.
I *SERIOUSLY* think that growing flabby in your ability to argue against people with bad arguments is *NOT* in your best interests.
"
No, you should not treat blood libel against *ANYBODY* in good faith.
And, again, if we're thinking that there was a conspiracy against Leo Frank to convict him despite his innocence and multiple appeals that goes all the way to the Supreme Court, that makes *US* the "Truthers" and you should have a *LOT* more sympathy for people who believe in conspiracies against innocent people than you do.
"
I'm pretty sure that since Leo Frank's conviction has not been overturned (even after the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal), the Truthers are the ones who say that there was a conspiracy to declare him guilty. You should use a different word.
You should not treat blood libel against anybody with good faith.
"
Pelagianism is a heresy too.
"
Closest one is in Denver.
Dang it.
"
Against Manicheans, it just sort of bubbles up sometimes.
"
So would you say that the time for argument is past?
"
Holy crap, they've brought back beef tallow fries.
I may have to get in the car...
"
For those of you who were saying "I'm not going to Steak and Shake until they quote Nietzsche!", you can get in the car.
"
Yeah, my suspicion is that Russia's nukes are useless. I'm 92% sure of that.
That 8%? That's a pretty big 8%.
You know the odds for Russian Roulette? This is about 50% worse/better (depending on your POV) than those odds.
Especially if it'll manifest something like "out of the 200 nukes they launched, good news! Only 16 worked!"
On “Group Activity: President Donald Trump Address to Congress”
He speaks at I dunno, a 5th grade level. I have a 5th grader and he can follow Trump and get his jokes.
I am chewing on this.
When I said it was a wrestling promo above, I was using the term in a vaguely derogatory sense despite myself...
But I'll try to say it again but this time as praise and see where that takes me.
Well, it was a wrestling promo. He wanted to give a speech that people who never, ever, watch State of the Union speeches would be able to sit through. You know the guy who you'd ask "did you watch the State of the Union?" and he'd snort and talk about being bored for two hours? Well, that guy could sit through this speech and he'd be able to give you his favorite moments.
"I liked when he brought out the kid! I have no idea why he called that one lady 'Pocahontas' but I could tell that it was a deadly insult and so that was funny. He talked about (insert topic here) in a way that I could understand. It was a good speech!"
Holy crap. Trump's numbers are going to go up.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
whether the club rules of someone else’s club are “correct” is meaningless to non-members.
I disagree.
I find heresies *EXCEPTIONALLY* meaningful, even for religions for which I am not a member.
You can learn much from heresies. (That's part of what makes them so virulent.)
"
Manicheanism dates to the 3rd Century A.D. so we're well past the books of Moses there.
Would it be enough to discuss Manichean beliefs regarding the resurrection of the dead?
Mani's emphasis on oral tradition versus Jewish emphasis on it?
What are you looking for? I can give you a somewhat scholarly answer depending on which part of Talmud we're going to be pointing at.
"
Despite how cool it would be if Christianity were the only religion with heresies, sadly, many religions have them.
Hell, there are even atheists who argue for the existence of heresies within atheism (though if you wanted to talk about post-protestantism, I'd probably concede the point even as the atheists refuse it).
But Mani took and twisted Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and probably some other stuff. Er, not "twisted". "Made his own". "Forged a new path".
In any case... Heresy ain't limited to Jesus Enthusiasts.
"
Saul, Manicheanism is a heresy.
On “Group Activity: President Donald Trump Address to Congress”
Well, let's check the polls. Maybe there's some good news there that will make us all feel better.
CBS says... wait. This can't be right...
I mean, we can easily dismiss the "76% of speech watchers approved" because people who would have disapproved were, instead, watching Daredevil: Born Again on Disney+.
Wait. CBS. That's the old people station. Murder She Wrote and Matlock and whatnot. Let's check CNN instead.
Ah, much better.
Good. Democrats don't have to change.