Sure, that has no chilling effect on free speech at universities.
What's funny is part of Columbia's pitch to perspective students is their pride in their 1960s protest movement, which was much more disruptive than the 2024 version ever was. I'm sure in 20 years they'll be selling their history of student activism with the 2024 protests as well.
The vast majority of the funding that Columbia gets is allocated for research, much of it vital, and much of it now cancelled. I'm all for destroying the Ivy League, but it is important that funding still go to do this vital research. And it's not going to do that.
And it's not like Columbia students are suffering after graduation, so the university must be doing something right with the money it spends on educating students.
But this is nothing compared to when, in 2019, some cadets were investigated and ultimately suffered no consequences. And besides, someone on another campus at another university in another time zone did something, so they were really asking for this.
I mean, Harris was here in Austin a few days before the election, which made no sense from an electoral standpoint. It was probably less a 50-state approach than a scheduling flub indicative of the incompetence of her campaign, but still, she was here.
I wonder if she made any stops in Wyoming or Montana during the campaign.
And I don't think they will in 2028 either. Certainly none of the people above will, because even if they did, they wouldn't believe it, and therefore wouldn't be able to sell it.
Obviously, this is not a problem for the Right. Trump has shown over the years that what MAGA looks like, in its actual ideas, such as they are, is irrelevant, and can change at any point. What matters is that it breeds fear and nationalist pride, maybe with some cultural nostalgia thrown in. This allows any random Republican to join in and say whatever they want as long as it sounds touch and breeds fear or pride or makes people miss a time when the gays weren't so visible.
The biggest difference I think voters see between Trump and Not Trump is not so much that Trump is selling a revanchist, nationalist, authoritarianism, but that he's selling something, anything, to people who felt like neither party, outside of Trump, was selling much of anything. How bad must things be for people that selling anything, even far right authoritarianism, is better than selling nothing? Bad enough, I'd wager, that a bunch of Not Trump candidates with nothing to sell have little chance of defeating anyone in the Trump mold in 2028, so long as Trump hasn't plunged us into the apocalypse between now and then.
I keep harping on this point, but the Democrats had their own candidate selling things that were not revanchist, were not nationalist, and were not authoritarian, and that could have had a huge impact on people's lives, but the Democrats thoroughly defeated him, to the point that he's now basically exiled, touring the Midwest giving speeches to overflow crowds who want to hear his message of a social democratic change that makes the government work for them, and not for the wealthy.
I know the most popular narrative around here is that the Democrats lost because they went too far left, but do you think people who were offered the choice between a nihilistic billionaire authoritarian who did a half-assed coup attempt and then spent the last 4 years treating becoming president again as an opportunity to get personal revenge, whatever the cost to the American people, and somebody who tells them they should never have to go bankrupt because they or a family member got sick, and that billionaires should pay their fair share of taxes, are going to choose the former because of pronouns in people's email signatures and a half a dozen trans college athletes?
With the exception of Newsom, who is a proper ghoul, devoid of anything resembling a conscience, this looks like the most boring stable of candidates possible, comprised people who will run almost entirely on the message "Hey, at least we're not Trump!"
Wouldn't it be nice if there were potential presidential candidates in the party who had ideas, principles, even a message? That there aren't is an indictment of the entire party. The Democratic Party delenda est.
I used to fly SW almost exclusively, but it's been a while since they were the cheapest, even among the major (non-discount) carriers, despite being less pleasant to fly than most others (except United; fish United). The checked bag thing was seriously the only reason to pick them much of the time. I'm flying with them next week, and wonder if I'll fly with them again for personal travel after that (the institute that flies me around for work stuff always picks them, the cheapskate).
Yeah, I still see a certain type of liberal still using "Bernie Bros" pretty regularly. Basically the BlueSky set.
I also think the moderates and "Frontliners" (the people in tough districts who are likely to have serious GOP challengers) are doing it wrong, and I think Bernie's popularity in conservative Midwestern towns is evidence of that. What's more, I think if you ran Bernie-style (not AOC-style, but hyper-focused on economic issues) campaign in many districts currently represented by Republicans you could pick up a lot of wins.
But they're not gonna listen to me, and why should they, I won't vote for Democrats anyway. But I would like to see a viable opposition party with actual ideas.
Unfortunately, I don't think he does. I think a lot of people thought that it'd be AOC, but she has a at least three problems:
1) She's nowhere near as good as he is at staying on message.
2) She sees the path towards her ascendance as lying within the Democratic Party establishment, which happens to currently be Dubya-in-'08 levels of unpopular, and even if it weren't, will constantly try to restrain the message. One thing Bernie has consistently done is remain independent of the Democratic Party and its strict control of messaging.
3) Whereas Bernie is broadly popular, AOC is narrowly so.
Bernie is unique, in that he comes from a very small state, where he could campaign for Senate (or anything) without requiring a whole lot of money, so he has been able to operate outside the Democratic Party for his entire career. While we might get some potential Bernie successors (look at Greg Casar, e.g.) who are better at AOC at staying on message, and might be able to gain broader appeal, all of the current stable of young progressive Dems come from bigger districts/states, and operating without the Democratic Party's funding is pretty much impossible.
The hope was to move the Democratic Party towards Bernie, so you wouldn't need a single true Bernie successor, but would have many, and from them you could choose the best/most talented for national visibility, but the Democratic Party has so far resisted any move to the left, even when Biden was doing a few things that were at least in the same area code as Bernie (though I think they were more Warren-type policies than Bernie-type). The push to the center post November 2024 has been even stronger, and is, I have no doubt, responsible for those Bush-like approval ratings.
So yeah, I don't think we're going to get a Bernie successor, and I don't think the party is going to adopt his message. So we get to watch them flail, trying to convince people that actually, with the exception of the Dems needing to be more xenophobic and transphobic, the status quo they've been selling should be enough for everyone.
So I still see no evidence that Khalil supported 10/7, but let's say he did -- I don't know anyone who supports the killing of civilians, but I do know people personally who won't criticize Hamas for 10/7, so it's probably not outside of the realm of possibility that he falls into that category -- is that grounds for deportation?
Would supporting armed resistance in Palestine generally be grounds for deportation?
Hey man, as someone who's repeatedly criticized our relationship with the Saudis, including providing them the weapons that they used to support mass slaughter in Yemen, you're preaching to the choir.
And also in Syria, a situation that we were less directly involved in, but which our actions directly led to by destabilizing the region. I
I don't know if Syria counts as genocide, and not just mass government killings, but I don't think that makes it any better. I think there is some debate in the literature, however.
Yemen has a real case for being genocide, and there have been multiple calls for Americans generally, and genocide scholars specifically, to take a close look at it.
I have no doubt that CUAD has members who openly supported armed resistance in Palestine. Pretty much every group does. I do not see any evidence that most, or even more than a few, of the protestors supported 10/7.
Oh wow. I remember when he announced his cancer, and that it was terminal, saying he was going to stop blogging, but then seeing him like a year later and thinking, "Wow, hope that means he beat it." Then I saw his stuff occasionally for the next decade, and I forgot about the cancer. RIP.
There's a guy who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination twice, whose message seems to be really resonating, based on the size of the crowds throughout the Midwest, and his general popularity. I'd go with what he's saying and work out from there.
Did he protest in support of 10/7, or just in opposition to the then ongoing genocide? Do you have evidence he specifically supported the former? The Columbia protests were explicitly about the genocide, not 10/7.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
Sure, that has no chilling effect on free speech at universities.
What's funny is part of Columbia's pitch to perspective students is their pride in their 1960s protest movement, which was much more disruptive than the 2024 version ever was. I'm sure in 20 years they'll be selling their history of student activism with the 2024 protests as well.
"
Well the results of this investigation are horrifying, but expected :
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/report-of-the-commission-of-inquiry-israel-gender-based-violence-13march2025/
"
The vast majority of the funding that Columbia gets is allocated for research, much of it vital, and much of it now cancelled. I'm all for destroying the Ivy League, but it is important that funding still go to do this vital research. And it's not going to do that.
And it's not like Columbia students are suffering after graduation, so the university must be doing something right with the money it spends on educating students.
"
Yes.
"
They were in the process of doing this last year. They'd already done some of it. It just took this long, procedurally.
"
I can think of few better indications that someone is wrong than Yggles thinking they're right.
"
Yup, they capitulated (those measures had all been previously recommended), punished their students for free speech, and this is still what they get.
On “Posing, Posturing, & Positioning: 2028 Democratic Presidential Candidates”
The society of the spectacle.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
But this is nothing compared to when, in 2019, some cadets were investigated and ultimately suffered no consequences. And besides, someone on another campus at another university in another time zone did something, so they were really asking for this.
https://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/1900365049597722800?t=LEX8wlmLd4uyqjhFa_pjtg&s=19
On “Posing, Posturing, & Positioning: 2028 Democratic Presidential Candidates”
I mean, Harris was here in Austin a few days before the election, which made no sense from an electoral standpoint. It was probably less a 50-state approach than a scheduling flub indicative of the incompetence of her campaign, but still, she was here.
I wonder if she made any stops in Wyoming or Montana during the campaign.
"
Yeah, I don't think they went left at all.
And I don't think they will in 2028 either. Certainly none of the people above will, because even if they did, they wouldn't believe it, and therefore wouldn't be able to sell it.
Obviously, this is not a problem for the Right. Trump has shown over the years that what MAGA looks like, in its actual ideas, such as they are, is irrelevant, and can change at any point. What matters is that it breeds fear and nationalist pride, maybe with some cultural nostalgia thrown in. This allows any random Republican to join in and say whatever they want as long as it sounds touch and breeds fear or pride or makes people miss a time when the gays weren't so visible.
"
The biggest difference I think voters see between Trump and Not Trump is not so much that Trump is selling a revanchist, nationalist, authoritarianism, but that he's selling something, anything, to people who felt like neither party, outside of Trump, was selling much of anything. How bad must things be for people that selling anything, even far right authoritarianism, is better than selling nothing? Bad enough, I'd wager, that a bunch of Not Trump candidates with nothing to sell have little chance of defeating anyone in the Trump mold in 2028, so long as Trump hasn't plunged us into the apocalypse between now and then.
I keep harping on this point, but the Democrats had their own candidate selling things that were not revanchist, were not nationalist, and were not authoritarian, and that could have had a huge impact on people's lives, but the Democrats thoroughly defeated him, to the point that he's now basically exiled, touring the Midwest giving speeches to overflow crowds who want to hear his message of a social democratic change that makes the government work for them, and not for the wealthy.
I know the most popular narrative around here is that the Democrats lost because they went too far left, but do you think people who were offered the choice between a nihilistic billionaire authoritarian who did a half-assed coup attempt and then spent the last 4 years treating becoming president again as an opportunity to get personal revenge, whatever the cost to the American people, and somebody who tells them they should never have to go bankrupt because they or a family member got sick, and that billionaires should pay their fair share of taxes, are going to choose the former because of pronouns in people's email signatures and a half a dozen trans college athletes?
"
With the exception of Newsom, who is a proper ghoul, devoid of anything resembling a conscience, this looks like the most boring stable of candidates possible, comprised people who will run almost entirely on the message "Hey, at least we're not Trump!"
Wouldn't it be nice if there were potential presidential candidates in the party who had ideas, principles, even a message? That there aren't is an indictment of the entire party. The Democratic Party delenda est.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
I used to fly SW almost exclusively, but it's been a while since they were the cheapest, even among the major (non-discount) carriers, despite being less pleasant to fly than most others (except United; fish United). The checked bag thing was seriously the only reason to pick them much of the time. I'm flying with them next week, and wonder if I'll fly with them again for personal travel after that (the institute that flies me around for work stuff always picks them, the cheapskate).
On “So Let’s Put Together a Democratic Party Ad Campaign”
Yeah, I still see a certain type of liberal still using "Bernie Bros" pretty regularly. Basically the BlueSky set.
I also think the moderates and "Frontliners" (the people in tough districts who are likely to have serious GOP challengers) are doing it wrong, and I think Bernie's popularity in conservative Midwestern towns is evidence of that. What's more, I think if you ran Bernie-style (not AOC-style, but hyper-focused on economic issues) campaign in many districts currently represented by Republicans you could pick up a lot of wins.
But they're not gonna listen to me, and why should they, I won't vote for Democrats anyway. But I would like to see a viable opposition party with actual ideas.
"
Unfortunately, I don't think he does. I think a lot of people thought that it'd be AOC, but she has a at least three problems:
1) She's nowhere near as good as he is at staying on message.
2) She sees the path towards her ascendance as lying within the Democratic Party establishment, which happens to currently be Dubya-in-'08 levels of unpopular, and even if it weren't, will constantly try to restrain the message. One thing Bernie has consistently done is remain independent of the Democratic Party and its strict control of messaging.
3) Whereas Bernie is broadly popular, AOC is narrowly so.
Bernie is unique, in that he comes from a very small state, where he could campaign for Senate (or anything) without requiring a whole lot of money, so he has been able to operate outside the Democratic Party for his entire career. While we might get some potential Bernie successors (look at Greg Casar, e.g.) who are better at AOC at staying on message, and might be able to gain broader appeal, all of the current stable of young progressive Dems come from bigger districts/states, and operating without the Democratic Party's funding is pretty much impossible.
The hope was to move the Democratic Party towards Bernie, so you wouldn't need a single true Bernie successor, but would have many, and from them you could choose the best/most talented for national visibility, but the Democratic Party has so far resisted any move to the left, even when Biden was doing a few things that were at least in the same area code as Bernie (though I think they were more Warren-type policies than Bernie-type). The push to the center post November 2024 has been even stronger, and is, I have no doubt, responsible for those Bush-like approval ratings.
So yeah, I don't think we're going to get a Bernie successor, and I don't think the party is going to adopt his message. So we get to watch them flail, trying to convince people that actually, with the exception of the Dems needing to be more xenophobic and transphobic, the status quo they've been selling should be enough for everyone.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
So I still see no evidence that Khalil supported 10/7, but let's say he did -- I don't know anyone who supports the killing of civilians, but I do know people personally who won't criticize Hamas for 10/7, so it's probably not outside of the realm of possibility that he falls into that category -- is that grounds for deportation?
Would supporting armed resistance in Palestine generally be grounds for deportation?
"
Hey man, as someone who's repeatedly criticized our relationship with the Saudis, including providing them the weapons that they used to support mass slaughter in Yemen, you're preaching to the choir.
And also in Syria, a situation that we were less directly involved in, but which our actions directly led to by destabilizing the region. I
I don't know if Syria counts as genocide, and not just mass government killings, but I don't think that makes it any better. I think there is some debate in the literature, however.
Yemen has a real case for being genocide, and there have been multiple calls for Americans generally, and genocide scholars specifically, to take a close look at it.
"
I have no doubt that CUAD has members who openly supported armed resistance in Palestine. Pretty much every group does. I do not see any evidence that most, or even more than a few, of the protestors supported 10/7.
"
I'm confused. Khalil is not in any of those posts, and they're all about Bangladesh.
"
Oh wow. I remember when he announced his cancer, and that it was terminal, saying he was going to stop blogging, but then seeing him like a year later and thinking, "Wow, hope that means he beat it." Then I saw his stuff occasionally for the next decade, and I forgot about the cancer. RIP.
"
They're definitely being conflated on Twitter by people celebrating his detention.
"
I'm way past the point of addressing genocide denialism at all.
Re: the protests, where in the Wikipedia page does it say they supported 10/7?
On “So Let’s Put Together a Democratic Party Ad Campaign”
There's a guy who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination twice, whose message seems to be really resonating, based on the size of the crowds throughout the Midwest, and his general popularity. I'd go with what he's saying and work out from there.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
Did he protest in support of 10/7, or just in opposition to the then ongoing genocide? Do you have evidence he specifically supported the former? The Columbia protests were explicitly about the genocide, not 10/7.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.