|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 15, 2019 10:43:41 GMT -5
This is actually a phrase that's a pet peeve, but because I'm annoyed by it purely in a political context at the moment, I didn't want to risk polluting the apolitical thread.
During the run-up to 2016, Trump supporters complained that Democrats, liberals, and all other non-Trump supporters needed to "take him seriously, but not literally." (You'd also hear it reversed that they "take him literally, but should take him seriously." You get the idea.)
I hated that phrase, even if I understand it on some level. There are areas in civil discourse when that makes sense, but I don't think national politics are among those areas.
Now, within the past few weeks, I've heard left-leaners use the same phrase about a couple of their own recent darlings, Reps. Ilhan Omar and AOC. AOC got it as a defense of her inaccurate statements about unaccounted-for military spending and more recently on her so-called Green New Deal kerfuffle; Omar got it after her most recent tweets that were described as anti-Semitic.
It drives me crazy. Politicians ought to be taken literally (and I suppose seriously ... at least judged seriously). You can't just fuck up or say something stupid and use that idiotic defense. It was stupid when people defended Trump with it, and it's stupid when they defend those freshmen reps with it.
(Quoting myself? Kind of arrogant, isn't it, Luther? Well, yes, it is, Luther. No need to call me out on it, though. Sheesh.)
I was talking with some friends about the enthusiasm about some of the progressive freshmen in the House, and how it is leading to what I consider excuses for their shortcomings.
That there are some more progressive congresspeople doesn't bother me. Progressive constituencies deserve their representation if that's how the votes fall. But I expect serious work from those people, not just charisma or social media fluency. The Green New Deal response from the left and even mainstream media has mostly been "but don't you just have to admire their ambition?" And the answer is, no, not really. We could fill the House with a few hundred college sophomores if that's all we were looking for. I think we should expect serious policy proposals from congresspeople. The AOC GND was wholly unrealistic, and her dishonesty surrounding the initial reaction to the talking points was wholly unacceptable. That Sen. McConnell is going to bring it up for a vote is probably my favorite thing he--a person I almost entirely despise--has ever done, because it will force senators to actually go on record about something so vacuous and impractical. As they should. It's not sufficient to say "I am for the environment" or "I champion social justice." You need to say what you mean by that, and how you'd get there. It isn't the job of the legislature to make vague, non-binding resolutions about these issues. (It's bad enough that they do this sort of crap about sports teams' recognition and whatnot.)
Everyone needs to aim higher, and hold their legislators more accountable. When Republicans repeatedly passed purely symbolic repeals of the ACA, that was stupid ... and it showed itself as such when they had the chance to actually repeal it and didn't do so, because they couldn't actually offer a serious alternative. The GND is a Democratic equivalent. A grander equivalent, sure, a big, broad package of silly nonsense. Maybe it's inspiring to some, and that's fine, but that isn't the legislature's job. Let think tanks, commentators, and the like handle that. Legislature is there to legislate actual policy. And if, as a freshman, you're not capable of drafting major bills, maybe you ought to learn the ropes before trying to do so. I don't mean freshmen ought to shut up entirely--I don't want to silence anyone--but a little humility is warranted sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 19, 2019 20:46:04 GMT -5
A somewhat short (<30 minutes) piece of a new documentary about the Evergreen College / Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying situation from a couple years ago. As much as my generally moderate "find the middle ground, don't overreact" tendencies push me, I do think this shows what can go wrong when bowing to some of the "grievance studies" (as Pete Boghossian and others call them) ideas.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 20, 2019 9:57:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 20, 2019 10:56:24 GMT -5
Considering the overwhelming majority of our population's position on human rights, it is certainly welcome that the administration would put pressure on countries that fail so miserably in that regard. Obviously we have the ability to pressure them economically. Hopefully that won't just be focused on the boogeyman of Iran and will also pressure our more dubious allies.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 20, 2019 11:10:15 GMT -5
Considering the overwhelming majority of our population's position on human rights, it is certainly welcome that the administration would put pressure on countries that fail so miserably in that regard. Obviously we have the ability to pressure them economically. Hopefully that won't just be focused on the boogeyman of Iran and will also pressure our more dubious allies. Throwing LGBT off buildings and criminalizing sexuality is a human rights issue. It is a crime against humanity - so far we have not seen prosecutions - I think Rick Grenell is the perfect guy to raise the issue.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 11:47:15 GMT -5
Considering the overwhelming majority of our population's position on human rights, it is certainly welcome that the administration would put pressure on countries that fail so miserably in that regard. Obviously we have the ability to pressure them economically. Hopefully that won't just be focused on the boogeyman of Iran and will also pressure our more dubious allies. Its a justification for ramping up hostilities with Iran. Considering this administration's record on LGBT rights, their chastising other nations for it strikes me as the worst kind of hypocrisy. Im not surprised Trump's willfully ignorant base buys into this kind of transparent propaganda, but their two-faced posturing is revolting to me. Let's not pretend to care about LGBT issues if you support a man who's banned transgender people from serving in the military, rolled back LGBT protections and affirmed employers can fire you for being gay shall we? If one would argue that what's going on in the Middle East is worse, that's true. But if you really care, you can affect change more here at home than across the world if it's actually an issue you care about. The president, if he really cared, could and should protect those under his charge before starting more expensive and wasteful wars over it. All you're* saying is that you don't think we should be executed, just made into third class citizens with no rights. This kind of posturing is not only disengenuous, it's disgusting. *Not you, Cap'n, just the general "you" www.newsweek.com/trump-doj-fired-being-gay-lgbt-issues-jeff-sessions-673398foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/01/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-same-sex-partners-of-diplomats-un-officials-gay-lgbt/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/07/06/experts-trump-scotus-pick-could-imperil-gay-lesbian-work-rights.htmlwww.politico.com/story/2018/02/19/trump-lgbt-rights-discrimination-353774www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/he-argued-that-gay-marriage-was-unconstitutional-now-trump-wants-him-on-the-federal-bench/2019/01/25/e4cfb1e6-049b-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.htmlwww.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=708922B7-B8DB-4199-A347-A7145D6E5841www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-anti-lgbt-address-hate-group-summit-meeting-first-president-us-homphobia-a7997401.html
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 20, 2019 11:56:33 GMT -5
Obviously I largely agree with you about this president and administration, including their efforts to undermine human rights here at home. And like my initial post said, I also am more than a little suspicious that it's an Iran-as-boogeyman piece of propaganda more than anything else. (We tell the Saudis we're not going to tell them how to live their lives, but we're quick to lecture Iran.)
I'm not sure I agree with what I'm interpreting as your sentiment about handling the issue at home to the exclusion of worldwide, and this is why: while yes, we can obviously more directly and quickly (theoretically...) change laws and regulations here, we can very quickly affect the world at large, too, when we set our minds to it. All we'd need to do is impose regulation on American companies and government not to conduct business with countries or companies in countries that don't support XYZ human rights--in this case, countries that criminalize homosexuality, et al. That financial threat--the same kind of thing we have done to isolate Iran from the world's marketplace--would pretty rapidly change a lot of countries' policies. So I actually think we could do both at once and impact a huge number of people for the better.
Anyway, I am glad for the initiative, assuming it has any actual teeth and is pursued broadly. I don't think it's enough, and I don't think it's sincere in many corners of the administration. But something is better than nothing.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 12:18:35 GMT -5
Im sick of the damned fool crusades in the Middle East, especially on shaky justifications, and even more especially when our debt has topped 22 trillion, our people dont have medical care, our schools are terrible and our infrastructure is crumbling. The one thing I liked about Trump was he promised not to get us involved in more of these endless, deadly, wasteful quagmires.
And before I get a two-faced lecture by the one who raised this topic, I actually exist in this community. Trump's actions actually affect me, and so has the Republican party fighting LGBT rights since before I was born. I was coming out of the closet against the backdrop of these insane, hateful bathroom predator libel. I will not be talked down to because I dont want to see another million lives and trillion dollars wasted on anoth fruitless war which some Republican fat cats started with manipulative emotional appeals. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson after Vietnam, let alone Iraq/Afghanistan and everything in between. When is it enough?
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 20, 2019 12:23:08 GMT -5
Im sick of the damned fool crusades in the Middle East ... You'd think we'd have learned our lesson after Vietnam, let alone Iraq/Afghanistan and everything in between. When is it enough? Sure, but I'm not advocating any kind of on-the-ground intervention here. I'm talking purely about financial (and let's be honest, PR) pressure. If you want to do business with the USA, you protect human rights. That's my only international proposition here.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 12:26:40 GMT -5
Im sick of the damned fool crusades in the Middle East ... You'd think we'd have learned our lesson after Vietnam, let alone Iraq/Afghanistan and everything in between. When is it enough? Sure, but I'm not advocating any kind of on-the-ground intervention here. I'm talking purely about financial (and let's be honest, PR) pressure. If you want to do business with the USA, you protect human rights. That's my only international proposition here. That's all well and good, but the fact that this is being directed against Iran specifically worries me it's another shaky cause for ramping up tensions and, eventually a "police action."
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 20, 2019 12:30:55 GMT -5
I don't doubt something like that could be in the cards (especially if the 2020 campaign isn't going well or if impeachment/investigations are getting seriously risky), but I do doubt this would be the primary justification for it. I'm sure it would be something about a weapons program, hostility toward Israel, or something. This would just be the window dressing.
Honestly I am really, really hoping there are no military endeavors. Not against Iran, not against Venezuela, not anywhere. While my enthusiasm for these things is low regardless of the administration, I'm especially leery with this one's judgment.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 12:42:07 GMT -5
I don't doubt something like that could be in the cards (especially if the 2020 campaign isn't going well or if impeachment/investigations are getting seriously risky), but I do doubt this would be the primary justification for it. I'm sure it would be something about a weapons program, hostility toward Israel, or something. This would just be the window dressing.
Honestly I am really, really hoping there are no military endeavors. Not against Iran, not against Venezuela, not anywhere. While my enthusiasm for these things is low regardless of the administration, I'm especially leery with this one's judgment.
I never said this would be the casus belli, but propaganda to justify it? Certainly. It's a disgusting piece of two-faced propaganda and I can't believe how shameless this administration and its apologists are to presume to preach to us about lgbt rights after everything they've done.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 20, 2019 13:00:56 GMT -5
Im sick of the damned fool crusades in the Middle East ... You'd think we'd have learned our lesson after Vietnam, let alone Iraq/Afghanistan and everything in between. When is it enough? Sure, but I'm not advocating any kind of on-the-ground intervention here. I'm talking purely about financial (and let's be honest, PR) pressure. If you want to do business with the USA, you protect human rights. That's my only international proposition here. Sometimes that is all that gets through - $$$.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 20, 2019 13:56:08 GMT -5
With the previous posts dealing with the Middle East to some extent, I thought I'd share this interesting recent discussion about the area. It's from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, with their new Dir. of Middle East Program as the speaker.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 21:33:13 GMT -5
Trump apparently not familiar with his administration's push for global decriminalization of homosexuality Trump denied a trans woman asylum & deported her. She was killed when she returned. ^Just browsing the headlines on some of my favorite subreddits when I came across these gems. These are the headlines, with links embedded within. At the risk of pushing the issue, let's not pretend that Trump gives a damn about LGBT people, okay? On a different topic, it also looks as though the Mueller report might be released soon. All I can say is, it's about time.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 21, 2019 7:44:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 21, 2019 12:51:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 21, 2019 19:19:09 GMT -5
Interesting and broad-ranging conversation between John McWhorter (whom I just love. He' just great.) and Steven Pinker (whom I also like). It begins with some linguistics stuff that many may not enjoy, but works into general societal discussions.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 24, 2019 11:46:34 GMT -5
For some reason we in the US always seem to focus whatever foreign affairs capacity we've got on the Middle East and Europe. No particular article to share (though there are plenty out there), but I just want to say the situation in Venezuela is scary right now. Our next military intervention may well be there, and soon.
No good suggestions coming from me, either. Maduro seems to be corrupt and power-hungry at best, without even talking about the ideology in effect, so it's not as if I support his government. And blocking aid intended for your citizens in crisis isn't a good look. But I don't want American troops involved any more than might be absolutely necessary (which ideally would be not at all), and I don't trust this administration's judgment to make that decision. (I don't trust any administration, really ... but this one less than others.)
Anyway, I won't be surprised if we are more forceful in the coming days or weeks.
|
|
B.E.
Kahuna
Posts: 179
Likes: 131
|
Post by B.E. on Feb 24, 2019 13:50:20 GMT -5
Being mostly ignorant on all things Venezuela, and being spurred by the recent news coverage, last night I tried to find something to read/listen to/watch to explain what's going on in Venezuela. Not just the immediate crisis, but what has led to it (which I assume is many years in the making). I don't really know where to look for accurate, unbiased content - in general. Anyone have any recommendations?
By the way, perfect thread title. Cool thread.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 24, 2019 14:44:23 GMT -5
Thanks re the thread.
Unfortunately I don't have a great reference for you. I'm blaming myself as much as anyone in my previous post with respect to keeping informed, and my knowledge of Venezuela (such as it is) comes primarily from having followed the news since the Hugo Chavez regime began in the late '90s. I was just interested in this country openly defying the US--pretty rare in this hemisphere--with its socialist leader railing against "Diablo" Bush and doling out the spoils of nationalized oil wealth to remain popular.
But it has just been intermittent news over the years: I've never really dug in. I should, actually. If you find anything, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 27, 2019 8:32:26 GMT -5
The corrupt former lawyer of a seemingly corrupt president will testify for a bunch of grandstanding congresspeople pretending to be offended while the aforementioned president will meet overseas with another egomaniacal and incompetent head of state in a series of photo ops staged as negotiations, all while two nuclear powers in south Asia are trading strikes and ramping up tension and the Venezuela situation isn't improving.
Happy Wednesday, everyone.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 27, 2019 12:07:51 GMT -5
This hearing, like pretty much every committee hearing I've ever listened to or watched, is depressing. It's all so scripted, all for show, all for later repackaging in campaign ads, attack ads, and networks/publications of choice. There is an underlying reality and nobody involved can convincingly claim to be looking for it. I have a perspective on it, no doubt about that, and this isn't false equivocation on my part. But that said, it's all theater.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 12:33:06 GMT -5
This hearing, like pretty much every committee hearing I've ever listened to or watched, is depressing. It's all so scripted, all for show, all for later repackaging in campaign ads, attack ads, and networks/publications of choice. There is an underlying reality and nobody involved can convincingly claim to be looking for it. I have a perspective on it, no doubt about that, and this isn't false equivocation on my part. But that said, it's all theater. It's a disgrace Debbie Wasserman Schultz isn't in jail and is in a position to wag the finger at anyone else. But it's even more of a disgrace how shameful the Republicans are. Literally just yelling, browbeating and disparaging Cohen, who was their own deputy finance chairman. They LITERALLY made up a poster that said "liar liar pants on fire" as if we're in kindergarten. It's a complete and total travesty. They're not even letting him answer ther "questions." Even though he's a convicted felon and scumbag, Cohen is sharp. He's giving it right back and taking it like a champ. Some of my favorite moments are the "Shame on you, Mr. Jordan" and "I don't expect I'll have an income in prison" and "I do not have a book deal lined up--I have been approached by book publishers, TV and movies. I could tell you who should play you." (Im paraphrasing--Cohen said it much better).
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 27, 2019 12:41:12 GMT -5
There have definitely been a few one-liners of note. He also was pretty good in his response to Rep. Jordan when he mentioned that not a single Republican has yet asked a question about the underlying subject matter, but rather spent all their time basically repeating one another that he's a criminal (which we know).
To me, the most nonsensical line has been--and this is a pretty close paraphrase to what 3-4 Republicans have said--"if you wanted a star witness, wouldn't you pick one who isn't a liar?"
That is absurd. You don't have free reign to select witnesses; you choose from a limited pool. If someone mugs me on the street and I want to bring in a witness, I don't get to pick the Pope because he's (theoretically) an honest person. If the only person who saw it was a shady character, well then that's the witness. That's the nature of investigations. You operate in the world that exists and try to discern the truth.
Michael Cohen is not a hero, although if the underlying allegations against the president are true, then this is a somewhat heroic act (even if it isn't entirely selfless or philanthropic). He deserves more than the sentence he got, in my opinion. But that doesn't disqualify his testimony or the records he is providing. Just like Stormy Daniels isn't a hero. Or any number of other people, including some of the self-righteous Democrats (who would, sadly, I suspect be acting just like the Republicans are acting had Trump decided to run as a Democrat).
|
|