Agree completely (see also my comment to Oscar above). The more they imitate the tactics of usually-but-not-always right wing tabloid newstainment the less seriously people take claims to the moral high ground/serious journalism.
I think they're getting a very different message, and because of it they're becoming a little less distinguishable from Fox News in certain important respects. The closet Milo sympathizers from respectable institutions mentioned in Me8 (not Mitchel Sunderland/Vice) along with the list of debunked stories about Russia over the last 8 months are illustrative of the problem.
Me3 is hilarious and I would be willing to pay Comcast extra to periodically be pranked that way.
Me5 and Me7 is why the whole 'fakenews' thing strikes a chord despite being largely silly. Major news outlets, for all their self righteousness in the Trump era, smugly act like they have no reponsibility to get things right.
Me8 wait, Mad Max, Dune, and... 80's synthpop are important to the alt right? Tanz den Mussolini I guess.
Whether or not they understood what it meant my suspicion is that they knew it would present a hurdle to a practice they believe should be prohibited but that they can't ban outright.
Well... I'm not saying such people don't exist. Still my suspicion is that the dynamic has more to do with a polarized legislative environment and fear of being useful idiots for opponents who arent operating in good faith.
I actually think @jaybird is closest to the mark on why it's hard to compromise with gun control advocates. The technical ignorance is frustrating from a utilitarian policy setting standpoint but the real issue is that it at least appears to tip their hands on their intent. It starts to sound like the death by a thousand cuts strategy the pro-life movement has taken thats effectively eliminated the ability for women to have abortions in large parts of the country.
Today is my wife's birthday and I will be taking her to dinner. The catch is that our 2 week old son will be coming along too. He did well with friends over for the Redskins game Monday and visiting my family last weekend so we will see how a restaurant works out. Our plan is to get him milk drunk immediately before we leave and hope he sleeps through the whole thing.
I don't disagree but I still think it's bad policy. Mike asked for good faith discussion and for the types of reforms I would consider. If getting rid of it stopped the Brady campaign from insinuating that out back behind every event some guy is passing out guns to psychopaths it'd be worth it.
I think youre absolutely right. None of the proposals I ever hear (including mine above, which I reiterate I'd only support in certain circumstances and if concessions from the other side were on the table, which they never are) would impact the gun homicide rate much. If we tried mass criminalization of firearm possession I see no reason that would go any differently than other times we've tried mass criminalization of any other commodity.
It's really an outdated/inaccurate term. It's referring to lack of federal regulation over transfer of firearms between private individuals in the same state. Maybe this once was something that happened at gun shows but like you I've never been to one where sellers weren't FFLs.
Closing the gun show loophole, tightening up the NICS system into a real universal background check, tiered licensing and training schemes (free of charge or cheap and available for any citizen over 18), civilian oversight of some kind (law enforcement can't be trusted). I'd also be open to some type of gun club requirements where you have to show your face periodically.
Depending on the kind of concessions I could get in exchange I might even go farther but there would need to be trust building along the way.
I think the sentiments are nice, and maybe I've become too cynical, but I'm not sure a real policy conversation is possible. It might be in other parts of the country, but I'm in hostile territory. I was subject to a wild eyed rant from my boss earlier in the week about gun control where he exposed his near total ignorance of firearms, firearm laws, and his disdain for opposing views. You'd almost think we didn't live in a state that enacted a bunch of the items on the gun control wish list after Sandy Hook (no discernable impact on gun violence of course).
As usual I sat there quietly and let him assume I agreed. And for the record I'm sure there are plenty of people out there in red America who have seen the mirror image, which I think is just as dumb and unpersuasive.
I'd like to be able to have a reasoned conversation. There are a number of policy changes I'd concede to under the right circumstances, where the very limited impact legislation would have might be worth it. But the last thing I need is people assuming I'm crazy or dangerous. I'd like to think there are others who agree but the entire issue has gotten so wound up in tribal divisions I don't know where we go from here.
It does, and we really should have higher expectations of FEMA. Its not like this is the first hurricane and it won't be the last. Trump's incompetence and inexperience in government only exacerbate the shortcomings.
Still this is a geographically large country with a federal form of government. Expectations about natural disaster relief should be set accordingly.
One of the best books I've ever read and which I think is instructive is The Guns of August. The 'always fighting the last war' point by @el-muneco is only the tip of the iceberg. There's historical evidence to suggest that bureaucracies don't respond to crisis based on whats actually happening but rather implement long laid plans regardless of their efficacy. Its possible to have good leaders who can overcome this tendency or luck into situations where the plan largely addresses the circumstances but they're the exception.
Trump was never going to be the type of leader who can masterfully wield clunky federal agencies but I don't think that's unique to him. Given the problems in Puerto Rico I dont know that this ever could have gone well. I hate to sort of agree with Trump but just because the feds have been underwhelming doesn't mean that Puerto Rican authorities should be given a pass for failing in their responsibilities. They're supposed to be the first line of defense, not FEMA.
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
That was a gaffe for sure but look up the rest of the quote. The point being made was that there are parts of the country that have been left behind by globalization and that they've been consistently failed by the government. To me his mistake was wrapping it up in culture war signifyers like guns and religion but I don't think the substance of what he was saying was incorrect. It's a gaffe that I think shows Obama understood his opponents (or at least who he had to convince) in a way Hilary's deplorables comment illustrated her tone deafness.
Largely agree with your assessment. The debate long ago left the realm of setting sound public policy in a way that doesn't overly or impermissibly infringe on important political rights.
What I'm about to say may seem crazy but I actually think the best thing that could happen as a result of the Trump presidency is a healthier skepticism of the office itself. Its become too powerful and too intertwined with celebrity and the country's self image.
Again, we may have to agree to disagree. My take is that the Republican establishment never successfully put the pieces back together after its own internal contradictions were exposed in the Bush years. With no one in charge a bunch of right wing media personalities and charlatans who were already allowed to be way more influential than they should have been saw their chance and took it. Out of the rogue's gallery of Palins and Carsons came the Donald.
That said the vast majority of the people who voted for Trump pulled the lever for R not because of him but because theyve always pulled the lever for R and always will. A quirk of our electoral system along with an unpopular opponent who allowed a small but crucial part of the Obama coalition to switch sides or stay home got Trump the White House. Despite some truly grimy people in the his coalition the vast majority of his voters I dont think are motivated by anything they weren't motivated by in the past, including but hardly limited to a wide range of racial anxieties and resentments, but many other factors as well. Thats kind of a sad statement about the American electorate and Republican voters in particular but its something we've been dealing with for a long time. Its also why I dont think things are as apocalyptic as they may seem.
I guess I'd have to look back at that. I thought it was kind of dumb (which isnt to say I don't think there's a certain truth to it) but maybe it was a bigger deal than I remember. I saw 2012 as more about economics and class than culture though I suppose those things can be intertwined.
Edit to revise my response, a bit, I now see you meant the 2012 election. That said i still don't see the Obama administration as having engaged in culture war tactics against Romney. I saw his strategy as focusing on economic issues more than anything else.
It seems that “types” is doing a whole lot of work there, what with lumping Strange and Clinton together, and sort of eliding the fact that the Senate seat in question was held by racist crazy Jeff Sessions less than a year ago.
Also, it seems a little odd to argue that Dems and Republicans are similarly responsible for the candidates that Republicans nominate.
All that 'type' is intended to do is describe the candidate supported by establishment interests. The Republican party has become a rump grouping of imbeciles and fanatics precisely because the establishment failed to police itself until it lost all the people who credibly could. Nowhere have I said Democrats are responsible for Republican candidates. I do think they're starting to embrace a similar failure to scrutinize themselves that has turned the Republican party into what it is. I think each of these failures is far more responsible for the current political situation than the theory that racism is suddenly much more of a motivating factor among the electorate than it was 5 years ago.
I see this routinely asserted, and rarely supported in any convincing way. Usually it involves suggesting, for example, that we not use the most effective electoral strategies, i.e., that we not
Not to be harsh about it but exactly what 'successful' strategies have the Dems been pursuing? I mean, this implies they've had some success lately.
was one where they practiced a pretty ruthless form of culture war.
All I can say is I disagree. He wouldnt have been able to win in some of the places he did if that were the case and his defeat of Clinton in the primary shows that the Dems were in a much healthier place when it comes to setting themselves up for success.
There’s also what appears to be a rather strange suggestion that it’s unfair to associate parties with the candidates they nominate, and voters with the candidates they vote for, but perhaps I’m misunderstanding you there
I haven't commented on the fairness of anything. My entire point is that insisting on giving establishment backed candidates a pass is one of the many factors thats caused large portions of the voting public to think there really is no difference between them and the Trumps of the world. Strange's scandals feed mass cynicism about the process which opens the door for people like Moore. I think Clinton's baggage played a similar role in the presidential election. I'm confident these people can be defeated (maybe not in Alabama, but generally) but they won't be taken down by accusations of scandal leveled by people who aren't qualified to cast the first stone. The OP addresses this type of context which is why I found it to be the more astute piece.
The best way to do that is to win an election, something the only plausible alternative party has been sucking at for 6 years. There's this whole false reality where the superiority of Democrats and the handful of establishment Republicans that still exist is utterly obvious and self-evident. The Clintons and the Stranges of the world (you know, the types who have actually been governing since just after the Berlin Wall fell) get a pass and its an uprising of racists and crazies to blame.
Its a very comforting but very wrong narrative. This is happening because our establishment has lost credibility and they aren't going to win it back until they take their own shortcomings seriously and run candidates who don't epitomize them. If you want to learn how to defeat Trump, look to how Italy finally got rid of Berlusconi. If you want more of him, keep doubling down on the culture war, guilt by association, and (ineffectice) shaming.
.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Morning Ed: Media {2017.10.11.W}”
Agree completely (see also my comment to Oscar above). The more they imitate the tactics of usually-but-not-always right wing tabloid newstainment the less seriously people take claims to the moral high ground/serious journalism.
"
Whats wrong with drinking and drugs?
"
I think they're getting a very different message, and because of it they're becoming a little less distinguishable from Fox News in certain important respects. The closet Milo sympathizers from respectable institutions mentioned in Me8 (not Mitchel Sunderland/Vice) along with the list of debunked stories about Russia over the last 8 months are illustrative of the problem.
On “A Fifth Qatari Travelogue: The Blockade”
I'm not sure the tone of this piece is sufficiently defiant, what with the blockade...
Thanks for sharing these I very much enjoy reading them.
On “Morning Ed: Media {2017.10.11.W}”
Me3 is hilarious and I would be willing to pay Comcast extra to periodically be pranked that way.
Me5 and Me7 is why the whole 'fakenews' thing strikes a chord despite being largely silly. Major news outlets, for all their self righteousness in the Trump era, smugly act like they have no reponsibility to get things right.
Me8 wait, Mad Max, Dune, and... 80's synthpop are important to the alt right? Tanz den Mussolini I guess.
On “It’s Time for Hunters to Participate in the Gun Conversation”
Whether or not they understood what it meant my suspicion is that they knew it would present a hurdle to a practice they believe should be prohibited but that they can't ban outright.
"
Well... I'm not saying such people don't exist. Still my suspicion is that the dynamic has more to do with a polarized legislative environment and fear of being useful idiots for opponents who arent operating in good faith.
"
I actually think @jaybird is closest to the mark on why it's hard to compromise with gun control advocates. The technical ignorance is frustrating from a utilitarian policy setting standpoint but the real issue is that it at least appears to tip their hands on their intent. It starts to sound like the death by a thousand cuts strategy the pro-life movement has taken thats effectively eliminated the ability for women to have abortions in large parts of the country.
On “Weekend!”
Today is my wife's birthday and I will be taking her to dinner. The catch is that our 2 week old son will be coming along too. He did well with friends over for the Redskins game Monday and visiting my family last weekend so we will see how a restaurant works out. Our plan is to get him milk drunk immediately before we leave and hope he sleeps through the whole thing.
On “It’s Time for Hunters to Participate in the Gun Conversation”
I don't disagree but I still think it's bad policy. Mike asked for good faith discussion and for the types of reforms I would consider. If getting rid of it stopped the Brady campaign from insinuating that out back behind every event some guy is passing out guns to psychopaths it'd be worth it.
"
I think youre absolutely right. None of the proposals I ever hear (including mine above, which I reiterate I'd only support in certain circumstances and if concessions from the other side were on the table, which they never are) would impact the gun homicide rate much. If we tried mass criminalization of firearm possession I see no reason that would go any differently than other times we've tried mass criminalization of any other commodity.
"
It's really an outdated/inaccurate term. It's referring to lack of federal regulation over transfer of firearms between private individuals in the same state. Maybe this once was something that happened at gun shows but like you I've never been to one where sellers weren't FFLs.
"
Closing the gun show loophole, tightening up the NICS system into a real universal background check, tiered licensing and training schemes (free of charge or cheap and available for any citizen over 18), civilian oversight of some kind (law enforcement can't be trusted). I'd also be open to some type of gun club requirements where you have to show your face periodically.
Depending on the kind of concessions I could get in exchange I might even go farther but there would need to be trust building along the way.
"
I think the sentiments are nice, and maybe I've become too cynical, but I'm not sure a real policy conversation is possible. It might be in other parts of the country, but I'm in hostile territory. I was subject to a wild eyed rant from my boss earlier in the week about gun control where he exposed his near total ignorance of firearms, firearm laws, and his disdain for opposing views. You'd almost think we didn't live in a state that enacted a bunch of the items on the gun control wish list after Sandy Hook (no discernable impact on gun violence of course).
As usual I sat there quietly and let him assume I agreed. And for the record I'm sure there are plenty of people out there in red America who have seen the mirror image, which I think is just as dumb and unpersuasive.
I'd like to be able to have a reasoned conversation. There are a number of policy changes I'd concede to under the right circumstances, where the very limited impact legislation would have might be worth it. But the last thing I need is people assuming I'm crazy or dangerous. I'd like to think there are others who agree but the entire issue has gotten so wound up in tribal divisions I don't know where we go from here.
On “Disaster Response and the Autopilot Government”
It does, and we really should have higher expectations of FEMA. Its not like this is the first hurricane and it won't be the last. Trump's incompetence and inexperience in government only exacerbate the shortcomings.
Still this is a geographically large country with a federal form of government. Expectations about natural disaster relief should be set accordingly.
"
One of the best books I've ever read and which I think is instructive is The Guns of August. The 'always fighting the last war' point by @el-muneco is only the tip of the iceberg. There's historical evidence to suggest that bureaucracies don't respond to crisis based on whats actually happening but rather implement long laid plans regardless of their efficacy. Its possible to have good leaders who can overcome this tendency or luck into situations where the plan largely addresses the circumstances but they're the exception.
Trump was never going to be the type of leader who can masterfully wield clunky federal agencies but I don't think that's unique to him. Given the problems in Puerto Rico I dont know that this ever could have gone well. I hate to sort of agree with Trump but just because the feds have been underwhelming doesn't mean that Puerto Rican authorities should be given a pass for failing in their responsibilities. They're supposed to be the first line of defense, not FEMA.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2017.10.04.W}”
Here it is for reference:
"
That was a gaffe for sure but look up the rest of the quote. The point being made was that there are parts of the country that have been left behind by globalization and that they've been consistently failed by the government. To me his mistake was wrapping it up in culture war signifyers like guns and religion but I don't think the substance of what he was saying was incorrect. It's a gaffe that I think shows Obama understood his opponents (or at least who he had to convince) in a way Hilary's deplorables comment illustrated her tone deafness.
On “Morning Ed: World {2017.10.02.M}”
Largely agree with your assessment. The debate long ago left the realm of setting sound public policy in a way that doesn't overly or impermissibly infringe on important political rights.
On “Moore Context”
@stillwater
What I'm about to say may seem crazy but I actually think the best thing that could happen as a result of the Trump presidency is a healthier skepticism of the office itself. Its become too powerful and too intertwined with celebrity and the country's self image.
"
Again, we may have to agree to disagree. My take is that the Republican establishment never successfully put the pieces back together after its own internal contradictions were exposed in the Bush years. With no one in charge a bunch of right wing media personalities and charlatans who were already allowed to be way more influential than they should have been saw their chance and took it. Out of the rogue's gallery of Palins and Carsons came the Donald.
That said the vast majority of the people who voted for Trump pulled the lever for R not because of him but because theyve always pulled the lever for R and always will. A quirk of our electoral system along with an unpopular opponent who allowed a small but crucial part of the Obama coalition to switch sides or stay home got Trump the White House. Despite some truly grimy people in the his coalition the vast majority of his voters I dont think are motivated by anything they weren't motivated by in the past, including but hardly limited to a wide range of racial anxieties and resentments, but many other factors as well. Thats kind of a sad statement about the American electorate and Republican voters in particular but its something we've been dealing with for a long time. Its also why I dont think things are as apocalyptic as they may seem.
"
I guess I'd have to look back at that. I thought it was kind of dumb (which isnt to say I don't think there's a certain truth to it) but maybe it was a bigger deal than I remember. I saw 2012 as more about economics and class than culture though I suppose those things can be intertwined.
"
@pillsy
Edit to revise my response, a bit, I now see you meant the 2012 election. That said i still don't see the Obama administration as having engaged in culture war tactics against Romney. I saw his strategy as focusing on economic issues more than anything else.
"
All that 'type' is intended to do is describe the candidate supported by establishment interests. The Republican party has become a rump grouping of imbeciles and fanatics precisely because the establishment failed to police itself until it lost all the people who credibly could. Nowhere have I said Democrats are responsible for Republican candidates. I do think they're starting to embrace a similar failure to scrutinize themselves that has turned the Republican party into what it is. I think each of these failures is far more responsible for the current political situation than the theory that racism is suddenly much more of a motivating factor among the electorate than it was 5 years ago.
Not to be harsh about it but exactly what 'successful' strategies have the Dems been pursuing? I mean, this implies they've had some success lately.
All I can say is I disagree. He wouldnt have been able to win in some of the places he did if that were the case and his defeat of Clinton in the primary shows that the Dems were in a much healthier place when it comes to setting themselves up for success.
I haven't commented on the fairness of anything. My entire point is that insisting on giving establishment backed candidates a pass is one of the many factors thats caused large portions of the voting public to think there really is no difference between them and the Trumps of the world. Strange's scandals feed mass cynicism about the process which opens the door for people like Moore. I think Clinton's baggage played a similar role in the presidential election. I'm confident these people can be defeated (maybe not in Alabama, but generally) but they won't be taken down by accusations of scandal leveled by people who aren't qualified to cast the first stone. The OP addresses this type of context which is why I found it to be the more astute piece.
"
The best way to do that is to win an election, something the only plausible alternative party has been sucking at for 6 years. There's this whole false reality where the superiority of Democrats and the handful of establishment Republicans that still exist is utterly obvious and self-evident. The Clintons and the Stranges of the world (you know, the types who have actually been governing since just after the Berlin Wall fell) get a pass and its an uprising of racists and crazies to blame.
Its a very comforting but very wrong narrative. This is happening because our establishment has lost credibility and they aren't going to win it back until they take their own shortcomings seriously and run candidates who don't epitomize them. If you want to learn how to defeat Trump, look to how Italy finally got rid of Berlusconi. If you want more of him, keep doubling down on the culture war, guilt by association, and (ineffectice) shaming.
.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.