Bob Hope snark only today, please.
The alt-right must be somewhat disappointed that Taylor Swift likes a Democrats though. What do you think Richard Spencer thinks of this?
It often seems that people on the left get so much satisfaction from moralizing about people like Boot and Nichols that they'd rather do that than accept new allies to the cause of beating Trump. This is a losing approach to politics, any way you look at it. It puts more weight on what happened in the past than what will happen in November, and it renounces the concept of redemption. This is a quasi-religious approach. "Once you've sinned you are always a bad person." I don't know where it fits into the tenets of Judaism, which i haven't studied closely, but I know that this is an inherently un-Christian approach. To not allow people to improve themselves is intolerant, which has become a hallmark of the left. How ironic coming from people who consider themselves paragons of tolerance. It's almost as if the sinners must be forced to go through re-education camps before they're allowed to say a word. When the stakes are as high as they are now, you have to wonder why people cling to this sort of argument, which does nothing to advance the cause of regaining at least a measure of power. It's little more than self-indulgence.
Just shut up and step up. Please, someone, do a massive takedown on this Maisie.
If it's not clear why someone would sneer at Maisie Hirono, here's her quote:"“I just want to say to the men in this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.” How do you shut up and then step up? Why would anyone not sneer at a politician who tells people she represents to shut up? That is the opposite of what their job description is. Telling people to shut up's a big part of intersectionality, but not applicable to elected leaders.It's odd that there's so much extreme anti-semitism among Muslims, but nobody on the left will tell them to shut up. Suddenly they get meek. The old double standard. Also, I think someone should tell Hirono to shut up on this topic because Lenore Kwock, who was Senator Daniel Inouye's hairdresser for 20 years, said on tape that he had forced her into nonconsensual sex and groped her.Maisie Hirono was then considered a protégé of Inouye, and she said nothing - no indiction at all that she believed Krock. She didn't have the courage to believe a woman when she had something to lose career-wise, but now she's hailed as a liberal hero for her grandstanding and hypocrisy. Anyway, I hope this might help clarify why anyone would sneer at Hirono. It really is quite clear why.
*charade TAKEN APART by someone on the mainstream Left...
Really good, Noah. Your money shot: << The details of the Boot and Nichols essays are different, but the blaring subtext is the same. That subtext is, “These people changed their minds, and are therefore objective and trustworthy.” >> I disagree on a couple of points—Boot better than Nichols, srsly?—but I'm glad to see this whole charade by someone on the mainstream Left who doesn't trip over his feet backtracking and equivocating.
Well who can compete with Jen Bush? Male bait posting great again!
Prediction: Democrats will lose 2018. After that circus you guys pulled..what do you expect. Idiots!
Folks, I dunno what to tell you. This bait is so low energy that Jen Bush could do better. This post is nothing but a big fat mess. We’re gonna male bait posting great again!
You have not even done me the simple courtesy of asking for my pronouns, but say I identify as "a guy"? That sounds bigoted to me. I'm depressed now.
I used "commonsense" exactly once.
Having reviewed my comments, I'm confident in saying that I haven't put any words in your mouth, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I certainly haven't been dishonest about a thing.
You weren't "pushing back," you were putting words in my mouth.
Well that's quite unpleasant of you. I guess nobody's allowed to push back against you or you go off. Anyway, thanks for helping to make my point by bringing up the fact that even the cops act in authoritarian ways when this topic is involved.
I don't know who picked this photo, but it is horribly great and beautifully repulsive.
Chris--this is such bullshit. You're attributing an argument to me that I never made and would never make, it is figment of your putrid imagination. I already told you on Twitter that referring to an incident is not an argument. You're looking for something that isn't there, and being fundamentally dishonest in the process.
Interesting that you think bringing up the fact that the UK police investigated someone for an online argument is relevant in any way. The UK police also investigated Boris Johnson for a joke he made in a newspaper. Those cops are lucky to have you, and others, providing legitimacy to them as they police people's words.
The entire point of what I wrote is that people are not being allowed to question any of the things they're being instructed to believe. People are being told that they must believe any man who identifies as a woman is a woman, which is certainly a debatable topic. You write here about just about everything else except this point, so I don't even see the point in this if you're calling it a rebuttal. It's just a piece on transgenderism and Keen Minshull. Your single comment on transgender authoritarianism is "but it’s sometimes unavoidable." Not all that convincing.
This is funny, crazy, and maybe pointless (I don't care rap about Kanye) yet still provocative. It asks the question, is Intersectionality really a thing? Still a thing? Not so-last-year?
It can't be about both because that would freak the head and obviously there's no connection.
As with art crit, you can always find someone to apply politically correct verbiage to either side. This is a war movie, not men shopping at the mall. Michael Herr wrote much of the screenplay after serving several tours in Nam. I assume that a lot of the film reflects things he saw, and that many others have written about. It's about violence, not genderification.
I was touched by this. To me this reads as a prayer a lament. The prayers of the innocent are as golden bowls of incense, held by the elders that have gone on before us..
This is great. Identity conflict? I think that's it. The problem started when they migrated from being red-paper envelopes you got in the mail, to being an online and cable film distributor. Seems to me we had ten times as many selections 15 years ago. You wanted Nightmare Alley, you got Nightmare Alley. Now, in the words of Paul Fussell, "If everybody doesn't want it, nobody gets it."
Lifetime appointments never made sense to me. I'm for term limits as well. As for the courts, serving a political party should be a disqualifying factor, not the necessity it has become.
I always liked J. Kelly or Nicki Haley for this one. I don't disagree with your reasoning and agree that The Times would survive any "scandal" probably with lines like Fox uses e.g."that's our opinion side, our hard news is all fair and factual" . Where I disagree is that A) I don't think they (The Times) have the chutzpah to pull this off B) they know if discovered, it would backfire politically and put a future Democratic Senate in jeopardy and may even lead to a Trump re-election. I also think it could be an ally of Trump (Roger Stone type) creating a smoke screen.
According to Bob Woodward's new book "Fear," multiple White House officials are sneakily attempting to contain the president's whims. It's not just this one person. It is not incredible to me that this person exists. It's a little strange that they should write an op-ed in the New York Times, but it's potentially explainable. The anonymous writer reveals a bit of their motivation. If they really consider themselves one of the "adults in the room" and they really think they can convince the rest of the nation to shut up and let them handle it, that's a big power win for that individual. They get to determine whatever policies they want just by removing paper from the president's desk or whispering something in his ear. Maybe they're sincerely motivated to prevent nuclear war. Maybe they just want to get their nephew a job. Whatever it is, they have access to do it. Since not everyone wants to be famous and some would prefer to control the White House from the shadows while self-styling as an unsung hero, it makes sense that someone would try to secretly sabotage the parts of the president's agenda that they see as unreasonable. That explains why they do it, but not why they brag about it in the New York Times. The reason for bragging about it (as far as I can tell) is to insert the narrative of "reasonable moderates who worked for the Trump administration and were trying to make things better" into public consciousness. Within the next few years, Republicans may have a problem fielding candidates. If Trump's presidency meets with a disaster of his own making and Republican voters begin to see him as toxic--and especially if he loses his reelection bid in 2020--who is the Republican Party going to run for office in 2024? Some "reasonable moderate who was trying to make things better all along." Having written this op-ed gives this person a point to brag about, later on, should they ever choose to out themselves. It's their own political safety net. That's my take. I can't imagine that the New York Times would ever want to fake an article about anything. That's not how good journalists perceive themselves. There's too much intellectual honesty among journalists as a group to allow a large secret cabal of "let's fake an article" to take root. Someone would "out" the cabal. If there's troubled consciences in the Trump administration over not presidenting correctly, there would sure be troubled consciences at the New York Times over not newspapering correctly. I think the institution of the newspaper would permanently suffer (and that they know this), and that they don't need to take such a risk for page views on a single article (when they publish a thousand articles every week and all the news is already stranger than fiction).
Highway 61 doesn't have a note of filler. Notorious Byrd Brothers and Gilded Palace of Sin almost perfect. And Beggar's Banquet.
Just for thr record record, albums with no or very little filler: Let It Bleed; Aladdin Sane; Talking Heads '77; Ziggy Stardust; Exile; Sailin' Shoes; Cure For Pain. Just sayin, they exist... McCain was a tool for allowing them to shove Palin down his throat.
Love Aretha! Also love that the person who attached the sign to the stairs used glue. That's going to be a mess once it comes down.
Didn't that start to change in '67? Although I do remember going to less than packed houses in the 1980s and 90s.
Yeah, I remember when Fenway Park was like that. One frigid April night, there was so much room in the bleachers that a bunch of us made a fire out of paper cups and hot dog wrappers to stay warm. We were told to put the fire out but weren't kicked out.
Great piece, Russ. Uber and Lyft are utterly soulless options. In Upstate NY I see people ignore available local taxis at the Amtrak station to wait an hour for an Uber driver. The local taxi drivers always make a point to thank them for supporting the San Francisco economy from afar.
Yeah, I'm was always dubious about sharing much with my parents and I like that bit about the boys letting their feelings ride, likely in deference to what they may have perceived as yours. I prefer to think of that as kindness and character, the dignity of keeping one's own counsel.
Interesting take on the Brill excerpt in Time. I actually perused the whole book and saw Brill speak at a two-person symposium at NYPL, so I know that the "Boomer" thing was really just a hook for the Time piece. Beyond his autobiographical preening, he's mainly out to make a litany of complaints about the political culture. His arguments are all vague and scattershot, because he can't come to grips with the hard fact that it was the fads of Diversity and victimization that created the social decline he wants to whine about.
And on the chance one or another millenial is so annoyingly well-read they DON'T miss it, lay K7UGA on the smarty-pants. Just sayin, while I never talked to K7UGA on my ham radio, a few of my contemporaries did. What's ever more obscure, I attended a speech by his running mate in Utica, New York, I'm that old.