Yeah biology is a bastard. But all our ancestors (well actually our Ancestors siblings) who could loose the weight easily died in the next wave of famines without passing on their genes and our actual ancestors were folks who would horde their fat calls and burn muscle instead the moment times got lean and shift their metabolisms to burn less fat when they got even a whiff of deprivation.
You and I both agree about that Saul; we're both liberals. McCarthy richly DESERVED to be bounced. I am speaking strictly on a strategic/tactical sense.
McCarthy was treacherous and two faced. He might have felt some gratitude or felt pulled to the center more by being bailed out by the Dems, or maybe he'd have doubled down on the treachery and McCarthyisms to compensate.
But now we have Johnson. Is that replacement better/worse? I honestly don't know.
So, Saul, is your read then that Dems would have been better served had they abstained enough to preserve McCarthy's speakership?
I'm on the fence myself. Johnson ain't pretty but it remains to be seen how he does business as Speaker.
My read is they were reaching out and trying to cut a deal of some sort- then, abruptly, something aligned within the GOP and Mike Johnson was very abruptly voted in. I wouldn't describe that so much as leaving money on the table as much as simply getting blind sided. Extracting some kind of concession for support was always going to be a dicey play, looks like the clock very suddenly ran out.
I'm uncertain whether Johnson is better than his predecessor, a known backstabbing and deal breaking McCarthy, or if he's worse. Probably negotiations on the budget will tell us more.
Demanding a (D) would be bad overreach. The Dems should offer to support an (R) in exchange for modest policy concessions. As Yglesia said: Dems should not give their support away for free but they should be recruitable for cheap.
Yeah you're both right. There are a ton of deals to be made and with the Dems showing marked discipline it'd be pretty easy to get the business all the moderates and the Dems want done with only 30 or so GOP votes for cover.
And watching the right fringe absolutely lose their minds over it would be a bonus.
Your thoughts and mine align quite precisely counsellor. To give the GOP something to shut those inquiries down is to give them a pair of massive gifts; the gift of whatever they get PLUS the gift of the inquiries being shut down and all the messaging they could do on it. It would be an ultimate self own for the Dems.
No. I would not pay a bent nickel to end those inquiries. Even the BSDI media struggles to hold in their contempt each time one of those inquiries loses their minds over the equivalent of a torn subway coupon that Hunter had in his wallet in '14.
Eh, if I were bargaining with the GOP I'd leave the impeachment inquiry and inquiries into Hunter alone. If there's nothing there, which seems to be the case, then letting the GOP continue to beclown themselves about it isn't a bad idea plus the flak they'd get from their base for closing that element down would be so bad they've be virtually assured never to agree to it.
Better to empower the current temp speaker in exchange for budget bills along the debt ceiling bill lines and aid to Israel and Ukraine; anything more than that'd be gravy.
Sure but the GOP can't get what they need by screeching at the Dems. I am assuming their underpants gnome strategy is:
1. Blame the Dems for bringing down McCarthy.
2. ????
3. A chastised group of moderate Dems contribute enough votes to put in a new right wing Speaker who runs on a platform of stomping his boot on the Dem faces??
It's nonsensical. The public isn't going to give a fig that the Dems voted for their own candidate like every minority party in history has done. They especially won't care for that excuse if the government shuts down in November.
The punchbowl analysis strikes me as accurate. If Jeffires can finesse this it'll be incredibly helpful for the party but I am hesitant to even think about it for fear of jinxing it.
Arafat disliked it so much because A) he was a snivelling, corrupt, cowardly crook and had sort of fumbled his way into the position he was in and B) he found himself facing a deal that he could plausibly be expected to accept and push on his people at a risk to his own life and power and, facing that task, he flinched.
Arafat hated the modified Ror and the overall deal because it was a workable deal. If the Israeli's had stuck to demanding that the ROR was dead letter from jump then he'd have been in a much more comfortable position. The settlement loons in Israel hated the deal for the same reason. It could have worked. They were running terrified from that point on.
But we agree that the unalloyed RoR will never, ever, happen. There's no way to force the Israeli's to accept it even if it were somehow a moral thing to do, so they won't.
Russia is a lot bigger and a lot more self sufficient. Israel is a modern western country in more ways than not and it's very dependent on trade networks for its money. Russia is basically a primary resource extraction camp sprawled over north Eurasia, Israel is as close to the opposite of Russia as you can get economically. If the world imposed trade embargos on Israel, even short of food, water and energy embargos, a lot of Israeli society would pack up shop and leave for elsewhere. I don't know if I'd say Israel would necessarily implode but I would be confident in saying Israel would regress incredibly and the lopsided imbalance of power between it and its neighbors would decline a lot.
My point is that while direct aid is a small fraction of their GDP their "global support network" accounts for an overwhelming preponderance of their GDP if you factor in trade.
Aid is one thing, but if they got cut of from trade Israel would go back to being desert and semi desert in relatively short order (as would most countries in the middle east) which is why its global support network is vital.
Eh, it's not quite are stark as you present it. You can square the "right of return" circle by making it a right to "return" to current Palestine rather than to current Israel. It's a big climb down but it's slightly more palatable than simply "make your host country accept you".
On “The Party of No”
Thank you, I don't disagree. Time will tell.
On “The Weight of Society”
Mhm! If we can keep this up for a couple hundred thousand years our descendants will be gorgeous!!
On “The Party of No”
I didn't ask you, Saul, what our BSDI media would say. I wanted your personal strategeric opinion.
"
Yes that could be, in which case the mud on the GOP's faces and punishing McCarthy makes it worth it.
We'll have to see if Johnson actually will bring things to votes.
On “The Weight of Society”
Yeah biology is a bastard. But all our ancestors (well actually our Ancestors siblings) who could loose the weight easily died in the next wave of famines without passing on their genes and our actual ancestors were folks who would horde their fat calls and burn muscle instead the moment times got lean and shift their metabolisms to burn less fat when they got even a whiff of deprivation.
And, now, so too do we. Sigh.
On “The Party of No”
Yeah we'll soon see. Does a new Speaker mean a new set of rules or will the GOP still have that idiotic "one vote to vacate" rule?
"
You and I both agree about that Saul; we're both liberals. McCarthy richly DESERVED to be bounced. I am speaking strictly on a strategic/tactical sense.
McCarthy was treacherous and two faced. He might have felt some gratitude or felt pulled to the center more by being bailed out by the Dems, or maybe he'd have doubled down on the treachery and McCarthyisms to compensate.
But now we have Johnson. Is that replacement better/worse? I honestly don't know.
"
So, Saul, is your read then that Dems would have been better served had they abstained enough to preserve McCarthy's speakership?
I'm on the fence myself. Johnson ain't pretty but it remains to be seen how he does business as Speaker.
"
My read is they were reaching out and trying to cut a deal of some sort- then, abruptly, something aligned within the GOP and Mike Johnson was very abruptly voted in. I wouldn't describe that so much as leaving money on the table as much as simply getting blind sided. Extracting some kind of concession for support was always going to be a dicey play, looks like the clock very suddenly ran out.
I'm uncertain whether Johnson is better than his predecessor, a known backstabbing and deal breaking McCarthy, or if he's worse. Probably negotiations on the budget will tell us more.
"
Curious? Could you expand on that? You surely can't mean they missed out by not bailing out McCarthy do you? So what did they leave on the table?
On “The Alaska Airlines Attack”
Fascinating and disturbing story but an excellent write up. Well done.
On “From Matt Yglesias: Israel, Palestine, and the need for principled free speech”
Heck, Fox News calls itself "Fair and Balanced".
On “So, Now What House GOP?”
Demanding a (D) would be bad overreach. The Dems should offer to support an (R) in exchange for modest policy concessions. As Yglesia said: Dems should not give their support away for free but they should be recruitable for cheap.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/23/2023”
Yeah the ratchet just slowly turns click...click...click.
On “So, Now What House GOP?”
Yeah you're both right. There are a ton of deals to be made and with the Dems showing marked discipline it'd be pretty easy to get the business all the moderates and the Dems want done with only 30 or so GOP votes for cover.
And watching the right fringe absolutely lose their minds over it would be a bonus.
"
Your thoughts and mine align quite precisely counsellor. To give the GOP something to shut those inquiries down is to give them a pair of massive gifts; the gift of whatever they get PLUS the gift of the inquiries being shut down and all the messaging they could do on it. It would be an ultimate self own for the Dems.
No. I would not pay a bent nickel to end those inquiries. Even the BSDI media struggles to hold in their contempt each time one of those inquiries loses their minds over the equivalent of a torn subway coupon that Hunter had in his wallet in '14.
"
Eh, if I were bargaining with the GOP I'd leave the impeachment inquiry and inquiries into Hunter alone. If there's nothing there, which seems to be the case, then letting the GOP continue to beclown themselves about it isn't a bad idea plus the flak they'd get from their base for closing that element down would be so bad they've be virtually assured never to agree to it.
Better to empower the current temp speaker in exchange for budget bills along the debt ceiling bill lines and aid to Israel and Ukraine; anything more than that'd be gravy.
"
Sure but the GOP can't get what they need by screeching at the Dems. I am assuming their underpants gnome strategy is:
1. Blame the Dems for bringing down McCarthy.
2. ????
3. A chastised group of moderate Dems contribute enough votes to put in a new right wing Speaker who runs on a platform of stomping his boot on the Dem faces??
It's nonsensical. The public isn't going to give a fig that the Dems voted for their own candidate like every minority party in history has done. They especially won't care for that excuse if the government shuts down in November.
"
The punchbowl analysis strikes me as accurate. If Jeffires can finesse this it'll be incredibly helpful for the party but I am hesitant to even think about it for fear of jinxing it.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/16/2023”
Arafat disliked it so much because A) he was a snivelling, corrupt, cowardly crook and had sort of fumbled his way into the position he was in and B) he found himself facing a deal that he could plausibly be expected to accept and push on his people at a risk to his own life and power and, facing that task, he flinched.
Arafat hated the modified Ror and the overall deal because it was a workable deal. If the Israeli's had stuck to demanding that the ROR was dead letter from jump then he'd have been in a much more comfortable position. The settlement loons in Israel hated the deal for the same reason. It could have worked. They were running terrified from that point on.
But we agree that the unalloyed RoR will never, ever, happen. There's no way to force the Israeli's to accept it even if it were somehow a moral thing to do, so they won't.
"
Russia is a lot bigger and a lot more self sufficient. Israel is a modern western country in more ways than not and it's very dependent on trade networks for its money. Russia is basically a primary resource extraction camp sprawled over north Eurasia, Israel is as close to the opposite of Russia as you can get economically. If the world imposed trade embargos on Israel, even short of food, water and energy embargos, a lot of Israeli society would pack up shop and leave for elsewhere. I don't know if I'd say Israel would necessarily implode but I would be confident in saying Israel would regress incredibly and the lopsided imbalance of power between it and its neighbors would decline a lot.
My point is that while direct aid is a small fraction of their GDP their "global support network" accounts for an overwhelming preponderance of their GDP if you factor in trade.
"
Aid is one thing, but if they got cut of from trade Israel would go back to being desert and semi desert in relatively short order (as would most countries in the middle east) which is why its global support network is vital.
"
Eh, it's not quite are stark as you present it. You can square the "right of return" circle by making it a right to "return" to current Palestine rather than to current Israel. It's a big climb down but it's slightly more palatable than simply "make your host country accept you".
"
That's very very gratifying news.
On “Understanding Libertarianism in the Current Moment”
It's weird, I feel like Hamas leadership hiding in luxury in Qatar was always well known. *shrugs*