Well, lemme tell ya, the whole "cutting remark hiding behind superficial affirmation of membership in good standing" thing is something that the Babtists are pretty good at.

I'd have suspected that it was universal.

I'm guessing you didn't grow up in the synagogue but were fairly secular?

I ask because, as someone who grew up fairly evangelical, that particular move is visible from a million miles away.

But, of course, you can't *SAY* "they don't even care about Palestine" because... hey. That's a deeply cutting thing to imply.

MoveOn.org was a website created in the days following the Clinton impeachment.

It tweaked the whole preoccupation with CONSENSUAL sex between Presidents and interns on the part of thrice-divorced Republicans and otherwise mocked the whole pretense to "Family Values".

The movie "Jennifer's Body" includes some snappy dialog where one character tells another character to "Move On Dot Org."

On the day of (or maybe the day after) October 7th, a plucky young Ivy Leaguer tweeted out "What did you think decolonization would look like? Vibes? Papers? Essays? Losers."

I mashed all of these together in the hopes that it would point out what a post-Family Values Republican Party would look like. It was intended to be a humorous post but also one with bite because it's also supposed to accurately, if unflatteringly, describe the state of affairs.

What did you think moving on dot org would look like?

Vibes? Papers? Essays?

Both dead.

Dumbya, bless his heart, seems to have disappeared.

They wheeled out both Clintons to campaign for Kamala.

For what it's worth, I think that firing Waltz is, at a minimum, justified.

He added Goldberg. He's either stupid or malicious and you should be able to find a replacement that isn't.

Last thing on Snow White for a while. The kid of one of the producers blames Zegler.

To be perfectly honest, he has a point but there is plenty of room to make lots of points. Sure, Zegler was vaguely offputting in some of her interviews but how many people even know about those?

Hell, the movie has some vaguely of-the-moment politics in it but that's something that people who see it walk out of the movie scratching their heads over, not something before the fact.

The problem, if I had to guess, was that the trailers sucked and the dwarves were more likely to make you say "you're kidding, right?" instead of "holy cow, this looks awesome". The trailers were just enough to get people to say "maybe I'll read a review first..." and the official critic reviews are at 42% on Rotten Tomatoes (which means there's a good chance that the movie reviewer in your local paper gave it a poor grade) and Letterboxd has it at 2.2.

The trailer made people hesitate, the reviews told them that they were right to do so.

Now, with that said, is it possible to put lipstick on a pig? Yes! Disney used to be good at that! And the lipstick process does involves stuff like not being offputting in carpet interviews and not posting "Free Palestine" to your social media in such a way that is as likely to get people to say "that's not a message to her millions of fans, that's a message to two or three very specific people in front of her millions of fans" as to get them to say "from the river to the sea! But I won't see a movie with Gal Gadot in it because she was in the Israeli Military!"

We're in the "finger-pointing and recriminations" part of the post-release now. Not the "it didn't do that bad, all things considered" part.

This would have been 90 or 91 and, I assure you, packs of Top Ramen were somewhere around a dime.

Let's pretend to negotiate. What's an acceptable outcome, do you think?

Waltz resigns, Hegseth resigns, Vance takes the Cybersecurity Challenge again?

Will this balance the scales?

The ability for it to be spun as a set of side-by-side tally marks is the problem.

Because it's sooooo friggin' easy to do that.

What's the underlying principle?

I mean, I know how *I* would try to phrase it. Something about a Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" or something like that...

But we ain't playin' that game.

We haven't played that game for a good long while.

There's been too much of a Schmittian undercurrent for too long for any appeals to principle to come across as anything other than applied Friend/Enemy stuff.

Sometimes you see stuff like "I thought at the time that Lloyd Austin should have resigned! That's why I think this guy should!"

But... that's limp, isn't it?

My grandparents had a joke book or two on the various bookshelves in the house and one of them had a bunch of jokes about the importance of tipping one's pin boy.

Checking the intertubes... automated pin setters date back to the late 40s?!?

A couple of times, we went bowling in the 70s and I remember mom and dad talking about how great the new automatic scoring was.

A few years later, I could swear that we had a bowling section in math class in 3rd or 4th grade.

"Afghanistan's withdrawal was worse than this. Therefore..."

It should be noted that Afghanistan's withdrawal wasn't Biden's fault and I'm not trying to imply that it was.

I would have friends over for a party! There would be 3 or 4 of us and we'd eat ramen and ice cream and watch a movie on the VCR. Then everybody would go home by 9PM!

To be honest, I don't see what the big deal was.

There is no network that hackers cannot hack.

But there are ones that 99% of hackers can trivially get to and ones that 99% of hackers cannot trivially get to and the latter ones also happen to be ones where you cannot possibly add journalists to it by mistake.

There are two sets of mistakes that I've seen people argue about:

1. Adding Goldberg to the chat was a mistake.
2. Talking about this stuff on a network that could possibly have Goldberg added to it was a mistake

If you want to argue 1, argue 1! If you want to argue 2, argue 2! But don't argue 1 with someone who is arguing 2!

We'd have to figure out the equivalent to Harry Sisson back in the AOL days.

Ashton Kutcher? Lemme google.

Okay. Okay. Okay... The best thing I can say is that it's not particularly Gen Z.

Remember back when we were discussing the Kennedy Assassination classified files? Here was the definition of Secret that I lifted off of Wikipedia:

"Secret material would cause 'serious damage' to national security if it were publicly available."

Pretty straightforward, right?

I mocked the idea that any given file in the papers would, in the current year, cause serious damage to national security and called for the papers to be released pretty much solely on that judgment.

And you know what? I went through a bunch of the papers and, yep. They were all dregs from the Cuban Missile Crisis and a bunch of other Cold War debris and precious little stuff having to do with stuff that would cause any damage at all to national security (and, indeed, it doesn't strike me that it would have back in the 90s though I could see having an argument over some of the Cuban Missile stuff).

What we have here is stuff like:
The current time.
Stuff that's going to happen over the next few hours.
Acknowledgment that we have eyes on the ground over there and giving reports to us.

Holy crap! The only thing in there that wouldn't potentially cause damage to national security is the current time!

In our defense, we didn't have yoga pants yet let alone the ability to take pictures of our butts in them and transmit them over miles within seconds.

The Jeffrey Goldberg/Atlantic/Leak thing: Everybody involved in the group chat said "it wasn't classified stuff!" and the Atlantic said "you sure about that?" and everybody said "yeah!" and so Goldberg published the group chat and...

Hoo boy. Specific equipment, times *BEFORE THE FACT*, techniques, and a tidbit that indicated that we were getting updates on the ground.

This ain't even in the ballpark of "maybe they deliberately leaked it to see how gullible Goldberg was".

Or that.

I'm sure that he is confused as to why support for his obviously correct article is so one-sided.

If Republicans want to blow up Bud Light, Democrats get to blow up Tesla. Elon should know that Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

GenX Republican influencers on Twitter have responses that fall into three (general) buckets.

1. "Hahahahahahahahahahahaha" (deep breath) "Hahahahahahahahahahaha"
2. "You did nothing wrong, my man. Don't let the bastards grind you down!"
3. "I thought Harry was gay."

Anyway, #3 is how the gay thing got introduced.

The question: "Are they victims?" has a strange and terrible logic.

If the answer is "yes, those women are victims", then we've got ourselves an old-fashioned scandal.
If the answer is "being dumb and posting pictures of your butt in yoga pants to a guy who is also getting pictures of other chicks' butts in yoga pants does not a victim make", you've got yourselves a new-fashioned scandal.

These chicks need to listen to Beyonce and tell Harry: "No pictures of this cake unless you put a ring on this hand, honey."

Dongs are abundant and low value.