Jim Swift's piece this morning on Lucas Kunce was the Bulwark at its best. Kunce sounds like just the guy to relieve the country from the Horrendous Hawley. Godspeed!
The assertion that “all men are created equal” was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, nor for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack...
... an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.
As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
Abraham Lincoln
Although with all due respect, Abe, I'd rather you stay and DeSantis and co. go to Russia where they can shed the base ally of hypocrisy and enjoy Putin's "vertical of power."
I'm listening to 'Just Between Us', and the section on Wax. I will start by saying that I agree that it is a mistake for students who find her abhorrent to use the heckler's veto to silence her. Period, end of sentence.
But I will go on to say this: There is a battle forming in this country between defense of the constitution and the rule of law and the alternative. That is January 6. There is a battle beginning in the world between democratic government and self-rule and its alternative. That is Ukraine.
We can pay attention to how people react to performative idiots like Wax and Fifth Circuit Judge Duncan, and agree that their reaction is improper. But for me the only reason to do so is in the interest of electoral politics. People like Wax and Duncan are doing and saying what they are to goad the reaction. We must not go for the bait.
But we cannot lose focus on the threat. Whether or not Wax or Duncan are able to exercise their first amendment rights (as if that is an issue for Federalist Society members, Tenured Professors, and Circuit Judges) is important, but is only a threat insofar as it impacts the electoral mission, which is to defeat the Party that is fighting to destroy the constitution and the Replublic.
Georg Will (mentioned in another thread) writes a column once or twice a week. He is a big fan of issues related to Wax and Duncan--Bully for him. I think he is an opponent of January 6, and of Trump. There is only one President, and presumably soon to be candidate for re-election that is defending the Republic When was the last time George Will said something in support of him?
To borrow from Mr. Twain, "If DeSantis was a Florida Man, and DeSantis was an asshole, but I repeat myself."
As for Professor Wax, I sure am tired of libtard commie Woke warriors poking everyday people in the eyes just to see them howl because Wokesters get such joy from the pain of others . . .
Oh, wait. She's a White Power MAGA. Never mind. That what they do.
Once upon a time, other Americans agreed with the British prime minister & the French that “it’s only a territorial dispute, lots of the people are ethnic Germans, and he will stop there. Neville Chamberlain said the Munich Agreement would bring “Peace in our time.” That was in 1938. For most of my life, “Remember Munich” came right after “Remember Pearl Harbor.” Now with another madman in Europe who wants to restore Russia to the USSR, the extreme wing of both parties are deciding that Putin is less dangerous than Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, not to mention Stalin and Khrushchev. Amazingly blind.
Couldn;t help thinking that the graph under the 'hyper-partisan' section looks like MTG is giving everyone the middle finger. Which..............seems an appropriate description of her belief system. (such as it is!!)
2. Shouldn't the bar for retaining tenure be a bit higher than not murdering someone and maybe include avoid naked bigotry and not truckling with white supremacy?
I don’t understand how a non-white student could possibly take her class and think that they were going to get a fair shake. I mean fire her or don’t but she cannot possibly be allowed to continue to teach.
It occurs to me this morning that we already have three political parties in this country -- and Putin's party is the noisiest, most vocal, most air and screen time, but not the biggest. We have the Democratic Party, which is kinda wimpy and has an extreme faction or two but is mostly center-of-the-road which is unknown to many of its voters. We have the Old Republican Party that had values and principles and presumably is still what we used to think of as Conservative. And we have the MAGA Putin/Trump Republican Party which controls the assets and money of the Old Republican Party and is made up of gerrymandered slavering untethered far-over-the-edge-right extremists with its own TV network.
So: Democrats, Old Republicans, MAGA Putin-Trumps. The MAGA party simply cannot be allowed to win any more elections. In practice, that probably means the Old Republican voters will have to hold their noses and vote for Democrats for the next four to 10 years. And meanwhile hold on and keep our head down.
I doubt DeSantis would make a coherent case why getting entangled in a territorial dispute between Taiwan and China is any more a pressing US interest than doing so re Ukraine and Russia - even in the unlikely event that he could.
We have European allies who would be prejudiced if Russia got away with murder, and Asian ones who are threatened by Chinese imperial ambitions.
DeSantis's main rival for the GOP nomination hasn't shown perceptibly more sympathy for countries like South Korea, Japan and Australia than he has for members of NATO. (Except maybe Turkey, which is run by one of his favorite dictators.)
The big difference seems to be that Trump has made a personal fetish out of insulting the Senate Minority Leader's Taiwan-born wife, whose family has important business ties to China. So I guess DeSantis wouldn't want to play second fiddle.
To understand DeSantis' pivot on Ukraine, you must first understand MAGA's pivot on wars we get involved in that don't start with us being attacked, and even then, after Afghanistan, MAGA is very skeptical of wars we get into because we got attacked.
We're coming up on the 20-year anniversary of the Iraq War, a war that was mostly fought by and for old school republicans. It turned out that the leaders they had faith in (the Bush admin) were not only wrong about why we went into Iraq, they were also quite ill-prepared for the insurgency and civil war that followed the power vacuum we created by removing Saddam. Republicans fought that war almost all by themselves, and I know this because I was a soon-to-be liberal when I served in that war as a teenage Marine, and let me tell you the USMC is filled to the brim with conservatives. They watched their leaders fail them, they watched their leaders not get held accountable for that failure, and they watched liberals become mostly indifferent to the conflict as a whole outside of the maybe two days of protests that liberals did at the beginning of it after Michael Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11. Grass roots republicans felt betrayed by their failed leadership and their indifferent countrymen after fighting 20 years of ultimately useless wars that nobody seemed to actually care about. THAT is why they are now isolationist as fuck and oppose most interventions of any kind, including arms supplies that could escalate into conflict, because they understand that if another war pops off, they'll ultimately be the ones fighting it while America fucks off at the mall and forgets about them all over again while they risk life and limb. Republicans want nothing to do with war now because they've been fighting three of them (AFG, IRQ, SYR) for 20 years for an indifferent American public. They know what that experience was like, and they don't want to repeat it--least of all for liberals who are mostly too anti-war to ever think about serving themselves (there are exceptions, but few exist and they mostly choose non-combat jobs when they go in).
If liberals want a society more willing to provide arms to other nations at the risk of getting involved ourselves when things escalate (Vietnam and Korea come to mind here), then maybe more of them aught to consider not just serving like the rest of red America does, but maybe being more supportive of the troops who do serve as well--especially those in combat arms branches who do the actual fighting. Liberals have a lot to say on foreign policy, but very few often put their own lives where their mouths are. Just some food for thought for anyone asking themselves why the GOP base that loves to serve in the military and loves guns so much might be so isolationist now.
Jim Swift's piece this morning on Lucas Kunce was the Bulwark at its best. Kunce sounds like just the guy to relieve the country from the Horrendous Hawley. Godspeed!
The assertion that “all men are created equal” was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, nor for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack...
... an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.
Abraham Lincoln
As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
Abraham Lincoln
Although with all due respect, Abe, I'd rather you stay and DeSantis and co. go to Russia where they can shed the base ally of hypocrisy and enjoy Putin's "vertical of power."
I'm listening to 'Just Between Us', and the section on Wax. I will start by saying that I agree that it is a mistake for students who find her abhorrent to use the heckler's veto to silence her. Period, end of sentence.
But I will go on to say this: There is a battle forming in this country between defense of the constitution and the rule of law and the alternative. That is January 6. There is a battle beginning in the world between democratic government and self-rule and its alternative. That is Ukraine.
We can pay attention to how people react to performative idiots like Wax and Fifth Circuit Judge Duncan, and agree that their reaction is improper. But for me the only reason to do so is in the interest of electoral politics. People like Wax and Duncan are doing and saying what they are to goad the reaction. We must not go for the bait.
But we cannot lose focus on the threat. Whether or not Wax or Duncan are able to exercise their first amendment rights (as if that is an issue for Federalist Society members, Tenured Professors, and Circuit Judges) is important, but is only a threat insofar as it impacts the electoral mission, which is to defeat the Party that is fighting to destroy the constitution and the Replublic.
Georg Will (mentioned in another thread) writes a column once or twice a week. He is a big fan of issues related to Wax and Duncan--Bully for him. I think he is an opponent of January 6, and of Trump. There is only one President, and presumably soon to be candidate for re-election that is defending the Republic When was the last time George Will said something in support of him?
It's time to set our priorities--all of us.
Sorry. Could be. I think we agree even if I’m the confused one!
To borrow from Mr. Twain, "If DeSantis was a Florida Man, and DeSantis was an asshole, but I repeat myself."
As for Professor Wax, I sure am tired of libtard commie Woke warriors poking everyday people in the eyes just to see them howl because Wokesters get such joy from the pain of others . . .
Oh, wait. She's a White Power MAGA. Never mind. That what they do.
Love this from Mona's piece: Don’t punish her speech—refute it.
And I would only add, cause I'm not in a great mood this am, and if you can't, shut up.
Once upon a time, other Americans agreed with the British prime minister & the French that “it’s only a territorial dispute, lots of the people are ethnic Germans, and he will stop there. Neville Chamberlain said the Munich Agreement would bring “Peace in our time.” That was in 1938. For most of my life, “Remember Munich” came right after “Remember Pearl Harbor.” Now with another madman in Europe who wants to restore Russia to the USSR, the extreme wing of both parties are deciding that Putin is less dangerous than Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, not to mention Stalin and Khrushchev. Amazingly blind.
Couldn;t help thinking that the graph under the 'hyper-partisan' section looks like MTG is giving everyone the middle finger. Which..............seems an appropriate description of her belief system. (such as it is!!)
The Philadelphia Tribune disagrees with you about Amy Wax.
Two questions . . .
1. Is anti-anti-Putinism just Putinism?
2. Shouldn't the bar for retaining tenure be a bit higher than not murdering someone and maybe include avoid naked bigotry and not truckling with white supremacy?
I don’t understand how a non-white student could possibly take her class and think that they were going to get a fair shake. I mean fire her or don’t but she cannot possibly be allowed to continue to teach.
It occurs to me this morning that we already have three political parties in this country -- and Putin's party is the noisiest, most vocal, most air and screen time, but not the biggest. We have the Democratic Party, which is kinda wimpy and has an extreme faction or two but is mostly center-of-the-road which is unknown to many of its voters. We have the Old Republican Party that had values and principles and presumably is still what we used to think of as Conservative. And we have the MAGA Putin/Trump Republican Party which controls the assets and money of the Old Republican Party and is made up of gerrymandered slavering untethered far-over-the-edge-right extremists with its own TV network.
So: Democrats, Old Republicans, MAGA Putin-Trumps. The MAGA party simply cannot be allowed to win any more elections. In practice, that probably means the Old Republican voters will have to hold their noses and vote for Democrats for the next four to 10 years. And meanwhile hold on and keep our head down.
How can the 'greatest country in the world' watch murder and do nothing?
I doubt DeSantis would make a coherent case why getting entangled in a territorial dispute between Taiwan and China is any more a pressing US interest than doing so re Ukraine and Russia - even in the unlikely event that he could.
We have European allies who would be prejudiced if Russia got away with murder, and Asian ones who are threatened by Chinese imperial ambitions.
DeSantis's main rival for the GOP nomination hasn't shown perceptibly more sympathy for countries like South Korea, Japan and Australia than he has for members of NATO. (Except maybe Turkey, which is run by one of his favorite dictators.)
The big difference seems to be that Trump has made a personal fetish out of insulting the Senate Minority Leader's Taiwan-born wife, whose family has important business ties to China. So I guess DeSantis wouldn't want to play second fiddle.
To understand DeSantis' pivot on Ukraine, you must first understand MAGA's pivot on wars we get involved in that don't start with us being attacked, and even then, after Afghanistan, MAGA is very skeptical of wars we get into because we got attacked.
We're coming up on the 20-year anniversary of the Iraq War, a war that was mostly fought by and for old school republicans. It turned out that the leaders they had faith in (the Bush admin) were not only wrong about why we went into Iraq, they were also quite ill-prepared for the insurgency and civil war that followed the power vacuum we created by removing Saddam. Republicans fought that war almost all by themselves, and I know this because I was a soon-to-be liberal when I served in that war as a teenage Marine, and let me tell you the USMC is filled to the brim with conservatives. They watched their leaders fail them, they watched their leaders not get held accountable for that failure, and they watched liberals become mostly indifferent to the conflict as a whole outside of the maybe two days of protests that liberals did at the beginning of it after Michael Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11. Grass roots republicans felt betrayed by their failed leadership and their indifferent countrymen after fighting 20 years of ultimately useless wars that nobody seemed to actually care about. THAT is why they are now isolationist as fuck and oppose most interventions of any kind, including arms supplies that could escalate into conflict, because they understand that if another war pops off, they'll ultimately be the ones fighting it while America fucks off at the mall and forgets about them all over again while they risk life and limb. Republicans want nothing to do with war now because they've been fighting three of them (AFG, IRQ, SYR) for 20 years for an indifferent American public. They know what that experience was like, and they don't want to repeat it--least of all for liberals who are mostly too anti-war to ever think about serving themselves (there are exceptions, but few exist and they mostly choose non-combat jobs when they go in).
If liberals want a society more willing to provide arms to other nations at the risk of getting involved ourselves when things escalate (Vietnam and Korea come to mind here), then maybe more of them aught to consider not just serving like the rest of red America does, but maybe being more supportive of the troops who do serve as well--especially those in combat arms branches who do the actual fighting. Liberals have a lot to say on foreign policy, but very few often put their own lives where their mouths are. Just some food for thought for anyone asking themselves why the GOP base that loves to serve in the military and loves guns so much might be so isolationist now.