flop

There hasn't been much good to come out of a Trump Presidency... but I'm willing to say that it leading to the minting of two new SJWs might count as something.

It's telling that folks think pointing out homophobia is something mockworthy.

Who said I was mocking?

I'm being serious...

Unless, you're less than sincere in your earnest expositions about how language, culture, and humor reinforce broader social glass ceilings that the LGBTQ community still faces? Concepts of sexual domination, stereotyping, gender roles, etc have come up many, many, many times before Trump. Prior to Trump, these discussions - gamer gate, transgenderism, statements by athletes, famous people, and politicians deemed soft bigotry towards LGBTQ, etc - often trod this same ground.

Like virtually every kid I grew up with, I used 'gay' to deride things. As I moved into my teens and 20s, found I had gay friends and family, I learned I was making life just a little harder - not by design, but by careless ignorance - for them. I think when Colbert's ########## (not nannied, you know what I mean) comments originally came up - I'm fairly sure I might have gleefully joined in. I stopped in short order not because of any discussion here, but just talking it through with some gay friends at the time (and it shouldn't surprise people that the views even within the LBGTQ community are not uniform on the matter... that's actually a good thing, and another demarcation of progress). If I did, I apologize. It was the same carelessness - though without the excuse of ignorance - the 13 yo me in the mid-1980s joined his friends in calling something 'gay'.

As a straight, white, male SJW - one thing you learn early is that it becomes easy - and also careless - to use this newfound woke consciousness against people who don't "get it", but in a manner that crosses lines between the underlying truth of such matters and it just being another arrow in the quiver to use against someone you disagree with on everything else. It's not universal or even necessarily common - but sure, it happens. What's more - you also have to learn to be your own best critic. You have to accept that you - carelessly, ignorantly, sometimes both - aren't the saint of the matter yourself.

It's actually not easy - and for the fresh SJW - this is the hardest part. Realizing that the underlying truth of the matter is the most important thing, not you getting a shiny new arrow for the quiver. Understanding that a come-to-gay-jesus moment of "getting it" isn't a backstage, lifetime pass.

Eventually, you learn it's important to read and listen to people who make arguments about language, culture, etc regarding sexual orientation, gender, minority concerns, etc with an open mind - especially for the arguments you're initially attempted to dismiss out of hand as obvious bridges too far. You find out that - if the issue actually does matter to you - you cannot just selectively employ it or worse, bastardize it as a weapon. You also realize that you'll probably never be done, become perfect, or "live it" 24/7 yourself. But that's OK, too - because it matters and since it matters, the broader issue is more important as a baseline than it is you scoring points or feeling superior.

In short, it actually is hard work. You can't so easily fall back on binary definitions or well-defined codicils.

So, again... not mocking.... if you're being sincere.

Saying that you can't say something, or can't say it in the way you said, because someone or some people will be offended is the last refuge of a scoundrel. There is no water under that red rock. Again, it's going off on an irrelevant tangent so as to evade the substance of the issue that should be debated.

Russia Mania Is the Birtherism of the Left

Ray, I know how to set Google Alerts; what I don't know how is what search terms one would use to find incredibly retarded takes by stupid people. I mean, given that I've never heard of "Steve Cortes," I assume you don't follow him religiously the way you do Dilbert, Turkey, and Dershowitz. So how do you manage to find someone so idiotic that he would write "the total lack of evidence regarding Trump and his supposed fealty to Russia..." Absurd enough that he would say that at the late date of 2018, but to say that right after the whole world just saw incontrovertible evidence of it in Helsinki?

I mean, desperate Trumpistas have tried to explain that away, but nobody (except apparently Cortes) has claimed not to have seen it.

SBB is behind Ray in the centipede, right?

The persistence of such narratives in a liberalizing climate of gay rights seems perplexing.

As Ayn Rand said: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

There's no dispute that we are in a liberalizing climate of gay rights. Therefore, the premise that this is a homophobic narrative is necessarily wrong.

There hasn't been much good to come out of a Trump Presidency... but I'm willing to say that it leading to the minting of two new SJWs might count as something.

Two new SJWs endorsing the deranged ramblings of a "feminist security-studies scholar"!

The sort of person they'd be mocking in any other context as a Modern Liberal™ identity politics nut.

I’m too lazy to look, but I’d love to see Ray’s volume of work condemning homophobia (or, in the case of Putin cockholstering, “homophobia”) in any way shape or form before the term “cockholster” was first used here in reference to Trump. I’m gonna guess it’d be like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack, to the extent it exists at all.

It's telling that folks think pointing out homophobia is something mockworthy.

Imagine if you were in a meeting in the conference room at work, say you work for Apple or Facebook or an accounting firm or a law firm. Bob Smith says X which you disagree with, and Jim Jones backs him up. You then look at Jim and go, "Jim, who are you, Bob's cockholster?" Then you look around for the laughs.

See how well that goes over. It's pure homophobia.

Pretending that you're sincere, when we all know you don't care about homophobia: once more, the word has nothing to do with being gay; it is gender neutral. One could say it to Jane just as much as one could say it to Jim. But of course, it's vulgarity and insulting so it would probably not go well in too many conference rooms, whether involving Jane or Jim.

Here’s a hint, Ray: this has been explained to you a billion times, and of course you’re not arguing in good faith anyway so I’m wasting my breath, but WTF: “cockholster” is not a reference to (and does not depend upon) the real or purported sexual orientation of either Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, nor is its applicability circumscribed by the sex of either character. It is, therefore, not “homophobic.” (For the same reason, it’s also not sexist.)

Here’s another hint: “subservient” does not equal “gay,” which in light of the above is a necessary condition of the term’s usage in this context being homophobic. That you apparently interpret it as such is itself a homophobic assumption.

Edit: Half-pour to Nieporent.

I mean, given that I've never heard of "Steve Cortes,"

I see him on CNN occasionally. He's the Trumpiest of Trumpkins outside of Fox News. If trump were to literally wipe his ass with the Constitution, Cortes would try to spin it as Obama's fault. he is not to be taken the least bit seriously.

1380. Chicago Joe Posted: July 22, 2018 at 12:39 PM (#5713772)
Ok, I have to comment on the cockholster thing. The first time I ever heard the term was long ago when I was tending bar. There was a Lothario I worked with-he just had ladies coming out his ears. He lived with a woman; she had a very nice place. So one night, he and I were tippling, him working his magic, me half observing and half watching Sportscenter (I was an excellent wingman). So he hooks up with these two (!) ladies, in the process spiking poker night, which was usually at his (really her) place. Next day at work, I'm asking him how he manages to pull this off, when he busts out with "___ ain't nothing but a cockholster anyway." So I asked for clarification-his explanation was that she's where he keeps his #### when he's not using it. Which I think is a good summation. Sure, since Putin and Trump are both men, the connotation is gay. But the meaning is more the diminishment of the holster-you see, when I'm inside you, I'm not even really using my #### the way I would be when I'm unholstered. Add to this the vaguely effete nature of Trump (making him passive) and the exaggerated masculinity of Putin (making him the active one), and to me, the picture is complete. It's about power and agency, not sexuality per se. Though Trump's obsession with his own manhood and the disconnect with his actual physical persona certainly adds a layer.

That's an infinitely better explanation of those "homophobic" digs at Trump's relationship to Putin than each and every one of those attacks on those digs that I've seen linked to and defended here. Those digs at Trump's and Putin's relationship have almost nothing to do with sex and everything to do with Trump's supine position in all of his dealings with Putin.

That's not to say that all of these digs are defensible. Certainly the ones that call Trump a "faggot" cross the line. But "kept woman" isn't the least accurate way of summarizing Trump that I've ever seen, although "president on a retainer" might be a more sanitized way of describing his position.

You also might add this: Putin: Trump = Trump: Trump's electoral base. Whatever the master says, the only question is "How high do you want me to jump this time?" And when you see the extent to which Trump's base actually think he succeeded in Helsinki, it's pretty obvious that the world's high jump record is in serious jeopardy.

Quite funny indeed to watch people actually using homophobic slurs for months over and over, lecturing other people on how not to be homophobes.

"Care about homophobia like I do and that gives me license to use actual homophobic slurs for months on end over and over"

Not really how it works. To circle back to Seinfeld, it's rather like Costanza getting all bent out of shape when he finds out the woman Elaine set him up with was bald.

There hasn't been much good to come out of a Trump Presidency... but I'm willing to say that it leading to the minting of two new SJWs might count as something.

Two new SJWs endorsing the deranged ramblings of a "feminist security-studies scholar"!

The sort of person they'd be mocking in any other context as a Modern Liberal™ identity politics nut.

Not to mention Ray's endorsement of that "incoming assistant professor in the department of political science at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst". As I wrote when I posted that link, this sounds like Ray's kind of school.

BTW, this was priceless, classic ray:

1246. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:11 AM (#5713400)


I really don't know how you people have time to sit around here and shoot the breeze all day. Don't you folks work?

Just to pick a random day, Monday, April 2:

3. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 10:16 AM

4. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 10:24 AM (#5646718)

14. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 10:42 AM

15. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 10:45 AM

19. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 10:57 AM

25. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 11:05 AM

34. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 11:34 AM

44. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 11:54 AM

57. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 12:04 PM

74. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 12:19 PM

75. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 12:23 PM

87. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 12:34 PM

116. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 12:53 PM

121. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:01 PM

125. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:03 PM

131. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:10 PM

135. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:20 PM

138. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:24 PM

145. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:27 PM

171. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:47 PM

202. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 02:15 PM

217. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 02:42 PM

The sort of person they'd be mocking in any other context as a Modern Liberal™ identity politics nut.

Ever hear of a Venn diagram?

Here’s a hint, Ray: this has been explained to you a billion times...

And he'll do it another billion times, because you took the bait.

In thinking about how the Democrats should approach the upcoming elections and then the election in 2020, it seems like they have to recognize there are more effective ways of influencing the supporters of Trump than telling them they're wrong.

In thinking about how the Democrats should approach the upcoming elections and then the election in 2020, it seems like they have to recognize there are more effective ways of influencing the supporters of Trump than telling them they're wrong.

If Trump keeps ####### with Obamacare and voters lose their insurance, he's screwed.

If Trump keeps adding tariffs the cost of living is going to go way up, and he's screwed.

That will take care of enough of his supporters to swing an election. His cult won't continue to be a cult when they feel it in their pocketbooks.

Spahn Insane,

Re your 1408 and 1410, during the first great debate over Colbert’s remark, I found this old post from Ray:

You're right; instead, the left just seems not to care about it, as they fellate Iran and assail America's bakers.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/otp_-_july_2015_winning_the_political_game_politics_is_more_like_baseball_t/P5300

Obviously, what he meant was that the left was being overly deferential to Iran, not that the left was gay. He fully understands the point of Colbert's and similar remarks and is just playing dumb.

To elaborate on your point a little: For years this web site featured comments, like the above, or with media and Jeter instead of the left and Iran, or whatever, and I don’t recall ever seeing a complaint or someone claiming not to understand the point. But ever since a liberal comedian used a similar metaphor to criticize Trump’s relationship to Putin - NOW it’s a big deal, it’s homophobic, liberals are hyprocrites, etc. It is difficult to see the current outrage as anything other than a matter of whose ox is being gored.

Ha ha ha. The Omega Dancing Monkey should have said "performing cunnilingus on Iran". That big dummy!

BTW, this was priceless, classic ray:

1246. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:11 AM (#5713400)

I really don't know how you people have time to sit around here and shoot the breeze all day. Don't you folks work?

Just to pick a random day, Monday, April 2:

3. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 10:16 AM

4. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 10:24 AM (#5646718)

14. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 10:42 AM

15. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 10:45 AM

19. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 10:57 AM

25. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 11:05 AM

34. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 11:34 AM

44. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 11:54 AM

57. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 12:04 PM

74. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 12:19 PM

75. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 12:23 PM

87. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 12:34 PM

116. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 12:53 PM

121. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:01 PM

125. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:03 PM

131. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:10 PM

135. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:20 PM

138. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:24 PM

145. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:27 PM

171. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 01:47 PM

202. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 02:15 PM

217. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 02, 2018 at 02:42 PM

Even that doesn't quite do justice to Ray. I've lost count of the number of times I've checked in here early in the morning to discover one comment after another of his from between midnight and the wee hours of the morning.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but in terms of lack of self-awareness around here, Ray's in a class by himself.

It is difficult to see the current outrage as anything other than a matter of whose ox is being gored.

The Dancing Monkeys are grasping at straws. They are too proud to admit Trump is the corrupt buffoon most people see him as.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but in terms of lack of self-awareness around here, Ray's in a class by himself.

He's either a complete moron, or a dumb troll.

To the larger point that shipman and others made about possibly homophobic edges to satire and other comic critique: I think it's possible, but I'm not sure about this instance. The original Trump + Putin image was the mural in Lithuania that in turn echoed the Berlin mural showing Brezhnev kissing Honecker – which in turn echoed the photograph of an actual kiss. To show authoritarians as kissing each other, especially when their regimes are homophobic and their public imagines so hyper-hetero (as Chicago Joe noted) is not a reversion to facile homophobia. It may or may not be funny or effective, but it is much more complicated than just yelling "Trump's gay" or something like that.

Apologies if this context was discussed upthread.

That will take care of enough of his supporters to swing an election. His cult won't continue to be a cult when they feel it in their pocketbooks.

Many of them will blame the (((globalists))) instead of Trump. They're in too deep to go back now. There has to be a better way to influence a sliver of the more well-meaning besides repeating "You're wrong" a billion times.

The broad point being that focusing on overreactions from Trump's poor performance in Helsinki is a great way to divert attention away from Trump's poor performance in Helsinki.

This is a bizarre logic train. One has nothing to do with the other.

People aren't treating the complaint of homophobia seriously because the complainants aren't serious about it. Ray and SBB just want to talk about anything but.

1. This is simply false, as a matter of fact. Andy quoted the poli-sci professor today. I quoted two other columnists with similar views.

2. More importantly, it's irrational; whether X is homophobic doesn't turn on what you think my or SBB's motivations are.

Russia Mania Is the Birtherism of the Left

Ray, I know how to set Google Alerts; what I don't know how is

This is one of the columns on RCP's main page, in its aggregator. I check that from time to time.

And he'll do it another billion times, because you took the bait.

Oh, this bait was taken ages ago, and he’s gonna keep banging the drum as long as he needs something to deflect from Trump’s failures (which is to say, for time immemorial). There is zero causal connection between what I just posted and Ray’s inevitable continued reliance on his inability to identify homophobia when he sees (or doesn’t see) it.

In thinking about how the Democrats should approach the upcoming elections and then the election in 2020, it seems like they have to recognize there are more effective ways of influencing the supporters of Trump than telling them they're wrong.

One, I’m not in the campaigning business. Two, I don’t care whether Ray’s mind is changed, because he’s not arguing in good faith. (Plus, he’s totally not a Trump supporter, remember? Speaking of bad faith....) I care about mocking his bad faith when the combination of down time and my perusing these pages coincides—no more, no less.

And three,my post explained *why* Ray’s bad-faith argument is wrong, not merely *that* it is. (That’s not really for Ray’s benefit, despite being phrased as if directed toward him, since he’s purely in desperate spin-and-deflection mode at this point, but, while one may disagree with what I wrote, it wasn’t of the “nuh-uh, you’re just stupid” type of post.)

People aren't treating the complaint of homophobia seriously because the complainants aren't serious about it. Ray and SBB just want to talk about anything but.

1. This is simply false, as a matter of fact. Andy quoted the poli-sci professor today. I quoted two other columnists with similar views.

I posted that link in a tongue-in-cheek mocking way in response to several others along similar lines that you'd already posted. My opinion of that incoming assistant professor in the department of political science at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst's op-ed is higher than my opinion of your similar comments, but that's only because it's clear that the incoming assistant professor in the department of political science at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst's opinion was voiced in all sincerity.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but in terms of lack of self-awareness around here, Ray's in a class by himself.

I particularly liked the post last page where he dogged another poster for being too literal and not seeing nuance re Strzok’s comments/motives. If there’s one thing he’s known for, it’s never seeing anything in hyper-literal and/or black and white terms...

it seems like they have to recognize there are more effective ways of influencing the supporters of Trump than telling them they're wrong.

Fool's errand where the dead-enders are concerned.

There are enough anti-trumpers and non-trumpers to win -- if you get enough of the former to the polls and discourage enough of the latter from voting for him, either by voting against or not voting at all.

I just have my doubts about the Dems doing enough right to bring that about.

1419/baravelli:

You’re correct, obviously. As your research amplifies.

Transparent, easily identified bad faith.

Obviously, what he meant was that the left was being overly deferential to Iran, not that the left was gay. He fully understands the point of Colbert's and similar remarks and is just playing dumb.

Well, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt, shall we? I look forward to Ray’s cogent, good-faith explanation as to why his quoted comment wasn’t homophobic, but “cockholster” vis a vis Trump/Putin is.

It's telling that folks think pointing out homophobia is something mockworthy.

Imagine if you were in a meeting in the conference room at work, say you work for Apple or Facebook or an accounting firm or a law firm. Bob Smith says X which you disagree with, and Jim Jones backs him up. You then look at Jim and go, "Jim, who are you, Bob's cockholster?" Then you look around for the laughs.

See how well that goes over. It's pure homophobia.

Pretending that you're sincere, when we all know you don't care about homophobia: once more, the word has nothing to do with being gay; it is gender neutral. One could say it to Jane just as much as one could say it to Jim. But of course, it's vulgarity and insulting so it would probably not go well in too many conference rooms, whether involving Jane or Jim.

David is full of it. In my scenario the person making the comment would be disciplined or fired, and people are not fired for making a "vulgar" comment but for making a bigoted homophobic comment.

If David is sincere he must not understand how concerned the big companies are about this stuff now -- and the measures they take to protect against it. They don't put up with it.

The Omega Monkey is catching up on the thread. LOL!

To the larger point that shipman and others made about possibly homophobic edges to satire and other comic critique: I think it's possible, but I'm not sure about this instance. The original Trump + Putin image was the mural in Lithuania that in turn echoed the Berlin mural showing Brezhnev kissing Honecker – which in turn echoed the photograph of an actual kiss. To show authoritarians as kissing each other, especially when their regimes are homophobic and their public imagines so hyper-hetero (as Chicago Joe noted) is not a reversion to facile homophobia. It may or may not be funny or effective, but it is much more complicated than just yelling "Trump's gay" or something like that.

Sure, so let's take all of this as given. I do agree that it's more complicated than facile homophobia.

However, it's still problematic to use misogynistic or homophobic tropes as a way to "get back at" hypermasculinity. It only reinforces the power of those tropes to see them used by someone who isn't homophobic.

Further, we have to ask ourselves, why keep using them? Are they super effective? Are they particularly funny? Do they serve some novel purpose? I would say no to all of those.

Given all of this--that the satire is based on misogynistic tropes, that it reinforces the power of those tropes and that it does not have any clear benefits--I would prefer that they not be used and will advocate for same.

Interesting to learn that folks here don't respect the opinions of people in the LGBT community on this issue, that they feel threatened by this "humor," as James Nichols wrote in the piece I quoted in 1391.

5313. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 26, 2015 at 01:27 PM (#5006872)

You're right; instead, the left just seems not to care about it, as they fellate Iran and assail America's bakers.

He'll stammer out something about context.

Given all of this--that the satire is based on misogynistic tropes, that it reinforces the power of those tropes and that it does not have any clear benefits--I would prefer that they not be used and will advocate for same.

Yeah, that’s kind of what I was getting at; this and other formulations, c—sucker being another one, are essentially misogynistic more than homophobic.

Doesn’t make it right, but any good SJW knows what they’re actually angry at, Ray!

Interesting to learn that folks here don't respect the opinions of people in the LGBT community on this issue

Interesting that you think that the LGBT community is of one mind about this. They're just as likely to be varied in their opinions on this subject as blacks are about the use of the n-word by rappers or comedians.

And while "folks here" will respect the views of LGBT (or straight) people who disagree with them on the matter of these Trump jokes, we have little respect for someone who's used homophobic language himself (at least by your definition), and it's hard to respect someone who's also never showed the slightest bit of interest in combating the sort of routine homophobia that shows itself in many ways----for instance among cake bakers.

That doesn't mean you're a homophobe for defending a bigoted baker, but it does indicate that your concern for the opinions of the LGBT community is somewhat less than all-encompassing.

I'm fairly sure I might have gleefully joined in

Hundreds of times over a good period of time, in fact. I'm glad you have come around on the issue. A big problem with political discussion is how we can hem ourselves in to narrower and narrower visions instead of just conceding we might be wrong.

Some really good commentary today, especially pointing out the deeply embedded misogyny, and that sex and power are entertwined.

Interesting that you think that the LGBT community is of one mind about this. They're just as likely to be varied in their opinions on this subject as blacks are about the use of the n-word by rappers or comedians.

Which as Zonk points out, doesn't mean you get to follow suit 'cos you are one of the enwhightened ones.

Two, I don’t care whether Ray’s mind is changed, because he’s not arguing in good faith.

Yes, of course, nobody cares whether Ray's mind is changed. It's all a bunch of preening and virtue signalling.

I get that OTP isn't exactly the pinnacle of western thought, but we spend enough time here that we should stop smearing #### on the walls. Ignore Ray and the other guy, and this stuff will stop. Ray is capable of coherent thought. He will adapt.

***

There are enough anti-trumpers and non-trumpers to win -- if you get enough of the former to the polls and discourage enough of the latter from voting for him, either by voting against or not voting at all.

The problem I have with this is that I don't see how someone can be a non-trumper. How anyone can end up roughly neutral on the man?

Ray is capable of coherent thought. He will adapt.

The Omega Monkey is first and foremost an "owning the libs" moron.

@briantashman (need to click for pic):

When you lose all your friends

@hotlinejosh:

Lindsey Graham says on CBS that his voters will need to experience a little pain over the tariffs in order to win trade war with China.

Good luck with that message for the long haul.

Lindsey Graham says on CBS that his voters will need to experience a little pain over the tariffs in order to win trade war with China.

Good luck with that message for the long haul.

It'll be OK. They can tap into those huge one-time bonuses some of them got.

I dunno, we seem to have been collectively carried into an atavistic political moment that is highly irrational and exceedingly dangerous, and not merely on a personal level. What does a return to the depths of a Cold War, but with Pence, Pompeo, Mattis, Kelly and Bolton in charge of the presidency? Of female Democratic leaders in Congress feeling the need to assert they are capitalists? Of Democrats erupting into chants of USA! USA! USA! on the House floor?

How long 'til we bring back this oldie but goodie?

When you lose all your friends

Birds of a feather...

How long 'til we bring back this oldie but goodie?

Already on the air in Russia. link

War fears are running high as US President Donald Trump urged Russia to “get ready” for a missile strike on Syria.

Threats of conflict prompted one Russian state television Rossiya-24 to air a feature explaining how best to prepare a nuclear bomb shelter for armageddon.

While the anchor prefaced the clip by criticising “hysteria” over the threat, they aired a four minute report explaining how to get ready for World War 3.

Yeah, that’s kind of what I was getting at; this and other formulations, c—sucker being another one, are essentially misogynistic more than homophobic.

Sure, in the same way that when someone calls someone else a "son of a #####\" they are intending to insult his mother -- which is to say, not really.

@pwnallthethings:

It's honestly kind of amazing that *every single one* of the assertions about inadequacies about the FISA application by Nunes are just directly refuted by the FISA application. Utterly dishonest in its entirety.

Taking my cues on LGBTQ - or any - sexual mores from an all-male 99 44/100 % straight online forum seems like an awesome idea.

Taking my cues on LGBTQ - or any - sexual mores from an all-male 99 44/100 % straight online forum seems like an awesome idea.

What did you think of the arguments made by the poli-sci professor Andy linked to in 1360?

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump’s approval rating edged higher during a week in which he faced withering criticism following a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, signaling that he is positioned to weather the latest controversy sparked by his unusual brand of politics.

Mr. Trump’s job approval rating rose to 45% in a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the highest mark of his presidency and up 1 percentage point from June. The survey was taken over a four-day period that started July 15, a day before Mr. Trump’s news conference with Mr. Putin in which he questioned the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia meddled in the 2016 election.

Underpinning Mr. Trump’s job approval was support from 88% of Republican voters. Of the four previous White House occupants, only George W. Bush, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, had a higher approval rating within his own party at the same point in his presidency.

Election Meddling

What many Russians, but few Americans, know is that 20 years before Russia tried to swing an American presidential election, America tried to swing a presidential election in Russia. The year was 1996. Boris Yeltsin was seeking a second term, and Bill Clinton desperately wanted to help. “I want this guy to win so bad,” he told Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, “it hurts.”

Clinton liked Yeltsin personally. He considered him Russia’s best hope for embracing democracy and capitalism. And he appreciated Yeltsin’s acquiescence during nato’s march eastward, into the former Soviet bloc.

Unfortunately for Clinton, ordinary Russians appreciated their leader far less. Yeltsin’s “shock-therapy” economic reforms had reduced the government’s safety net, and produced a spike in unemployment and inflation. Between 1990 and 1994, the average life expectancy among Russian men had dropped by an astonishing six years. When Yeltsin began his reelection campaign in January 1996, his approval rating stood at 6 percent, lower than Stalin’s.

So the Clinton administration sprang into action. It lobbied the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10 billion loan, some of which Yeltsin distributed to woo voters. Upon arriving in a given city, he often announced, “My pockets are full.”

Three American political consultants—including Richard Dresner, a veteran of Clinton’s campaigns in Arkansas—went to work on Yeltsin’s reelection bid. Every week, Dresner sent the White House the Yeltsin campaign’s internal polling. And before traveling to meet Yeltsin in April, Clinton asked Dresner what he should say in Moscow to boost his buddy’s campaign.

It worked. In a stunning turnaround, Yeltsin—who had begun the campaign in last place—defeated his communist rival in the election’s final round by 13 percentage points. Talbott declared that “a number of international observers have judged this to be a free and fair election.”

But Michael Meadowcroft, a Brit who led the election-observer team of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, later claimed there had been widespread voter fraud, which he had been pressured not to expose. In Chechnya, which international observers believe contained fewer than 500,000 adults, one million people voted, and Yeltsin—despite prosecuting a brutal war in the region—won exactly 70 percent. “They’d been bombed out of existence, and there they were all supposedly voting for Yeltsin,” exclaimed Meadowcroft. “It’s like what happens in Cameroon.”

What did you think of the arguments made by the poli-sci professor Andy linked to in 1360?

They read exactly as you would expect an op-ed written by a humorless and non sequitur firing ideologue who was commissioned by the Post to write something that would produce lots of page hits. Sort of like the comments you've been making.

As I wrote above, the only thing that differentiates the incoming assistant professor's op-ed from your comments is that she seems to be quite sincere in her opinion, whereas your own insincerity is transparent. ("You're right; instead, the left just seems not to care about it, as they fellate Iran and assail America's bakers."----a comment in which you both use homophobic language** and defend homophobic bakers!)

** By your own stated standards, your use of "fellate" can only be a slur on gays. Funny how you haven't yet responded to that rather embarrassing display of hypocrisy.

1457

That is not the same thing as what Russia did in our election. If Putin had forthrightly campaigned for Trump or against Clinton, that would be one thing. Nothing says one country can't have preferences in elections in other country and can't express those preferences. That's not what Putin and Russia did. Underhanded tinkering with computers and voting machines is something else.

Morty, I don’t know that a 10bn IMF loan can be described as forthright, especially when it’s used to (apparently) bribe voters.

@1452 Son of a ##### is definitely an insult meant to insult your mother (which is why it’s less fightin’ words in advanced (?) economies than in places where everyone knows your mother.

Son of a ##### is definitely an insult meant to insult your mother

Originally, sure. But nobody thinks of it that way anymore; it's just a general epithet.

Meanwhile, while Trump has clearly won the hearts and minds of Ray and SBB, he's sensing how desperately he's failing in the real world, so he's trying to start another nuclear war, posting a random insane tweet rant against Iran tonight.

re: #1461, David is dead on.


he's sensing how desperately he's failing in the real world, so he's trying to start another nuclear war

This is a concern.

Underpinning Mr. Trump’s job approval was support from 88% of Republican voters. Of the four previous White House occupants, only George W. Bush, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, had a higher approval rating within his own party at the same point in his presidency.

It’s because you hippies are being so mean.

Meanwhile, while Trump has clearly won the hearts and minds of Ray and SBB, he's sensing how desperately he's failing in the real world, so he's trying to start another nuclear war, posting a random insane tweet rant against Iran tonight.

Wow, that was quite an unhinged rant. Which tweet do you think is the most preposterous?

This one?

This one?

Or this One?

No wondering he’s so popular among the Stupids and nobody else.

("You're right; instead, the left just seems not to care about it, as they fellate Iran and assail America's bakers."----a comment in which you both use homophobic language** and defend homophobic bakers!)

Right -- so if I defend black people against disproportionate capital punishment, it gives me the license to use the N-word, hard R.

Somehow that just doesn't seem ... right. It seems a bit ... off.

Meanwhile, while Trump has clearly won the hearts and minds of Ray and SBB

Yes, he clearly has.

That newest rant:

{Trump}: "To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"

"This seems to be a little out of character and really a little alarming for many people," said {CNN's Rick} Francona, a former US Air Force intelligence officer who worked in the Middle East and retired as a lieutenant colonel. "This is really dangerous."

Except … as Trump keeps up this level of crazy, the danger subsides. It becomes completely in character, and completely vacuous.

As predictable as the sunrise:**

Trump again reverses course on Russian interference, calls it ‘all a big hoax’

After a week of tortuous statements, walk-backs and clarifications on whether he believes the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign, President Trump appeared to have come full circle on Sunday night, dismissing the issue as “all a big hoax.”

In an evening tweet shortly after taking off for Washington following a weekend spent at his golf club in New Jersey, Trump questioned why President Barack Obama did not inform his campaign or the public about alleged Russian interference before Election Day.

“So President Obama knew about Russia before the Election,” Trump said. “Why didn’t he do something about it? Why didn’t he tell our campaign?”

Trump then went on to answer his own questions: “Because it is all a big hoax, that’s why, and he thought Crooked Hillary was going to win!!!”

Yeah, Trump's critics are the ones who are deranged. No wonder JE's been sticking to the friendly confines of Twitter lately.

** Of course since it's now raining in Washington, Trump would probably say that we can't prove the sun has actually risen.

Except … as Trump keeps up this level of crazy, the danger subsides. It becomes completely in character, and completely vacuous.

At least as long as we have a military that puts country above blind obedience to a mentally deranged president.

Of all the ironies that would have been unthinkable not that long ago, the idea that in 2018 we'd be thinking about Seven Days in May with the roles of Burt Lancaster and Fredric March reversed may be the strangest one of all.

Trump again reverses course on Russian interference, calls it ‘all a big hoax’

Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.

- Hannah Arendt , “The Origins of Totalitarianism”

Of all the ironies that would have been unthinkable not that long ago, the idea that in 2018 we'd be thinking about Seven Days in May with the roles of Burt Lancaster and Fredric March reversed may be the strangest one of all.

"We" aren't thinking of it. Only the TDS crowd is.

Of course since it's now raining in Washington, Trump would probably say that we can't prove the sun has actually risen.

So any raid on him or his associates can be called a "predawn" raid!

So I submitted a new tread, so watch for it.

Russia Mania Is the Birtherism of the Left

LOL.

I'm not sure whether I should be disturbed by this or not, but I see facebook has an option to mark yourself "safe" after a shooting. Which is popping up a lot as there was a shooting last night on the Danforth in Toronto.

I actually had a friend convince me to cancel a round of badminton and join him for drinks around there yesterday. I ended up leaving about an hour before the shooting, but I think I'll give him a hearty thanks for the invitation today.

Of all the ironies that would have been unthinkable not that long ago, the idea that in 2018 we'd be thinking about Seven Days in May with the roles of Burt Lancaster and Fredric March reversed may be the strangest one of all.

"We" aren't thinking of it.

Obviously you mean "we aren't not thinking of it." Sort of a double-negative.

Insiders say the NY Daily News is about to announce a 50 percent reduction in newsroom staffing.

update:
"We are reducing today the size of the editorial team by approximately 50 percent and re-focusing much of our talent on breaking news – especially in areas of crime, civil justice and public responsibility"

senior writers making a living wage to be replaced by a handful of serf millennials

what could go wrong?

Other than the Big Three papers with an international readership coming mostly from the upper income brackets, I wonder how many others are positioned to survive for much more than another decade. Print media seem like but one more example of the winner-take-all phenomenon.

"We are reducing today the size of the editorial team by approximately 50 percent and re-focusing much of our talent on breaking news monitoring Twitter – especially in areas of crime, civil justice and public responsibility"

Mmmhmm.

Other than the Big Three papers with an international readership coming mostly from the upper income brackets, I wonder how many others are positioned to survive for much more than another decade. Print media seem like but one more example of the winner-take-all phenomenon.

That was my first thought. NY is very well covered in the media. It not as if the only paper in Toledo went under and now the city council & county commissioners can do whatever they want without their voters hearing about it. There is still the Times & the Post.

But there seems to be a genuine uproar from a lot of people this morning that the Daily News does a lot of excellent acountability journalism that somehow isn't covered by the other papers and that NYC/NYS still needs.

NY is very well covered in the media. It not as if the only paper in Toledo went under and now the city council & county commissioners can do whatever they want without their voters hearing about it. There is still the Times & the Post.

But there seems to be a genuine uproar from a lot of people this morning that the Daily News does a lot of excellent acountability journalism that somehow isn't covered by the other papers and that NYC/NYS still needs.

And I think they're right. The Times has a lot of good local feature stories, but no single paper can keep fully abreast of a city or region as vast as the NYC market. The worst thing about the decline of print media is the reduction or elimination of local news coverage, which inevitably will lead to corruption in city halls going unreported.

2.5 Billion Pounds of Meat Piles Up in U.S. as Production Grows, Exports Slow

Farm country is really taking it on the chin right now... and absent changes, the losses now smacking the hell out of livestock farmers are going to spread to grain producers.

Newsday's sports columnist:

Neil Best
‏Verified account @sportswatch
45m45 minutes ago

Translation: We are re-focusing our talent in the form of 24-year-olds who sit in an office and type up stuff reported by other journalists so that people might click on it and not know the difference.

That's ageism!

My 65 year old dad did that work for a while. He was as good as any 24 year old! And he wakes up at 4am everyday, so he'd beat those kids to the punch.

The worst thing about the decline of print media is the reduction or elimination of local news coverage, which inevitably will lead to corruption in city halls going unreported.

I can see some of what you're talking about in the Los Angeles area. There's the L.A. Times - which tends to have its eyes on national and state stories. There's the O.C. Register, whose staffing is largely in Orange County. There are lesser papers for parts of the region, like the Daily Breeze/Press-Telegram family, but they have at best skeleton staffs. If you can't shoot video of it from a helicopter, the TV stations don't care. So if the government of a none-of-the-above municipality - some place like Bell - wants to go outrageously corrupt, no one is going to notice until it's well into the cleanup and recriminations stage.

Cool, something else older people can blame on those dang millennials.

At least as long as we have a military that puts country above blind obedience to a mentally deranged president.

Did it ever occur to you that Trump is the perfect foil for a rightwing junta to rule in effect? With the delicious effect of turning Democrats into its defenders, complete with denunciations of traitors and chants of USA on the floor of Congress?

This is not a conspiracy theory, but rather the facts on the ground. Yes, the GOP fought Trump tooth and nail until his nomination, but all except a few useful gadflies like George Will and Bill Kristol now rally around the Idiot in Chief, not to protect him but to enhance their power.

Massive tax cuts, supreme court nominees, and generals and their fiercest supporters like Pompeo run the show. And if Trump becomes seriously unhinged rather than merely vacuous windbag, the Koch Bros sock puppet and God's Second-Favorite Son stands waiting in the wings.

Insiders say the NY Daily News is about to announce a 50 percent reduction in newsroom staffing.

How could one tell?

#SnarkNotSnark.

Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow.

Real life Washington Examiner headline last night:

"FISA warrant application supports Nunes memo"

Can't make this #### up.

But there seems to be a genuine uproar from a lot of people this morning that the Daily News does a lot of excellent acountability journalism that somehow isn't covered by the other papers

Like rewriting press releases from Richard Emery before publishing them! (Now I guess they'll have to just reprint them without rewriting them.)



But, yeah, the NYT is not a local newspaper. It has expressly refocused away from NYC coverage.

Farm country is really taking it on the chin right now... and absent changes, the losses now smacking the hell out of livestock farmers are going to spread to grain producers.

Oh, I'm sure the fiscally conservative Trumpkins will solve this problem they've created by passing a taxpayer bailout for these farmers.

Oh, I'm sure the fiscally conservative Trumpkins will solve this problem they've created by passing a taxpayer bailout for these farmers.

Well, if you made that comment before RTFA - well done... because -

The USDA has examined drawing upon Depression-era programs that permit borrowing of as much as $30 billion from the Treasury as a way to compensate farmers for tariff-driven price declines

New thread just published. (Thanks to Mouse for submitting.)

Did it ever occur to you that Trump is the perfect foil for a rightwing junta to rule in effect? With the delicious effect of turning Democrats into its defenders, complete with denunciations of traitors and chants of USA on the floor of Congress?

This is not a conspiracy theory, but rather the facts on the ground.

"Also I am not a crackpot but serious and sober-eyed pundit of the people, operating only in the best of faith. Gardyloo!"

"FISA warrant application supports Nunes memo"

99% of people aren't going to read the 412-page FISA warrant or the Nunes memo, much less understand either. A partisan news outlet can just call on some partisan expert to come on and say whatever they want. If you get enough partisan news outlets, you can always claim that people who disagree are being equally partisan.

There's lots of lawyers here. Any of you read the FISA warrant?

they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.

FWIW, this was my favorite part of that excerpt. This sounds like a lot of the Trumpkins here. Heck, I know people in real-life who are like this.

The internet is a clear net negative. Not entirely negative, of course, but on balance clearly negative. It's ruining of the newspaper business is one of the major negatives.

It's actually becoming a key component of The Decline.

I'm not sure whether I should be disturbed by this or not, but I see facebook has an option to mark yourself "safe" after a shooting. Which is popping up a lot as there was a shooting last night on the Danforth in Toronto.

They have had this for a few years, and not just for shootings -- it is also used for terrorist attacks, natural disasters, etc.