#donald de line

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Boss politics antitrust

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/12/the-enemy-of-your-enemy/#is-your-enemy

Xi Jinping inaugurated his second term with an anti-corruption purge that ran from 2012-2015, resulting in a massive turnover in the power structures of Chinese society.

At the time, people inside and outside of China believed that Xi was using the crackdown to target his political enemies and consolidate power. Certainly, that was the effect of the purge, which paved the way for reforms to Chinese law that have effectively allowed Xi to hold office for life.

In 2018, Peter Lorentzen (USF Econ) and Xi Lu (NUS Policy) published a paper that used clever empirical methods to get to the bottom of this question:

https://web.archive.org/web/20181222163946/https://peterlorentzen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Lorentzen-Lu-Crackdown-Nov-2018-Posted-Version.pdf

Working from the extensive data-files published during the corruption trials of the purged officials, Lorentzen and Xi Liu were able to estimate the likelihood that an official had really been corrupt. They concluded that overwhelmingly, the anti-corruption purges did target corrupt officials, some of them very highly placed.

But when they considered the social graph of those defenestrated officials, they found that they came from blocs that were rivals of Xi Jinping and his circle, while officials who were loyal to Xi Jinping's were spared, even when they were corrupt.

In other words, Xi Jinping's anticorruption efforts targeted genuinely corrupt officials – but only if they supported Xi's rivals. Xi's own cronies were exempted from this. Xi did use the anticorruption effort to consolidate power, but that doesn't mean he prosecuted the innocent – rather, he selectively prosecuted the guilty.

Donald Trump will be America's next president. He campaigned against "elites" and won the support of Americans who were rightly furious at being ripped off and abused by big business. The Biden administration had done much to tackle this corruption, starting with July 2020's 72-point executive order creating a "whole of government" approach to fighting corporate power:

https://www.eff.org/de/deeplinks/2021/08/party-its-1979-og-antitrust-back-baby

Trump will have to decide what to do about these efforts. It's easy to say that Trump will just kill them all and let giant, predatory corporations rip, but I think that's wrong. After all, the Google antitrust case that the DoJ just won started under the last Trump administration. Trump also sued to block the absolutely terrible merger between Warner and AT&T.

I think it's safer to say that Trump will selectively target businesses for anticorruption enforcement – including antitrust – based on whether they oppose him or suck up to him. I think American business leaders know it, too, which is why every tech boss lined up to give Trump a public rim-job last week:

https://daringfireball.net/2024/11/i_wonder

Trump killed the AT&T-Time Warner merger to punish CNN. He went after Google to punish "woke" tech firms. That doesn't make AT&T, Time Warner or Google good. They're terrible monopolists and the US government should be making their lives miserable.

Trump will not need to falsify evidence against corporations that are disloyal to him. All of America's big businesses are cesspits of sleaze, fraud and predation. Every merger that is being teed up now for the coming four years is illegal under the antitrust laws that we stopped enforcing in the Reagan era and only dusted off again for four years under Biden. They're all guilty, which means that Trump will be able to bring a valid case against any of them.

This will create a trap for people who hate Trump but don't pay close attention to anticorruption cases. It's a trap that Trump sprung successfully in his first term, when he lashed out at the "intelligence community" – the brutal, corrupt, vicious, lawless American spy agencies that are the sworn enemies of working people and the the struggle for justice at home and abroad – and American liberals decided that the enemy of their enemy was their friend, and energetically sold one another Robert Mueller votive candles:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/12/18/schizmogenesis/

Over the next four years, Trump will use antitrust and other corruption-taming regulations to selective punish crooked companies. He won't target them because they're crooked: he'll target them because they aren't sufficiently loyal to him.

If you let your hatred of Trump blind you to the crookedness of these companies, you lose and Trump wins. The reason Trump will find it easy to punish these companies is that they are all guilty. If you let yourself forget that, if you treat your enemy's enemy as your friend, then Trump will point at his political rivals and call them apologists for corruption and sleaze – and he'll be right.

It is possible for Trump to fight corruption corruptly. That's exactly what he'll do. But just because Trump hates these companies, it doesn't follow that we should love them.

[mitigatedchaos]

You Won't "Beat Trump at His Own Game"

Post for July 8, 2024 5,500 words, 25 mins

[ @morlock-holmes ]

Like, can you guys imagine Donald Trump ever admitting that he lost a debate? Let alone imagine his party *withdrawing him as nominee* because of it? And we're going to beat him at his own game by, uh, doing literally the exact opposite of his game?

[ mitigatedchaos ]

Your plan is to beat Trump by being better at being Trump than Trump is? Damn, son. You got a Texas oil baron lined up or something?

-★-

I watched the first hour of the debate. At one point the moderator asked Trump about abortion. As the Republican candidate, this is a tricky question for him, since evangelical voters would like abortion banned in most cases (and thus presumably every state). Trump then argued that he was leaving it up to the states, and the states would decide. He says that he agrees that the abortion pill should be legal, and agrees with the court ruling in favor of it, and that he supports the exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. Further, he's against third trimester and 'post-birth abortion.'

While banning most first trimester abortion only has 38% support, banning most third trimester abortion has 80% supermajority support. The views of the median voter are in tension: they don't want to force women to have babies they don't want, but they also don't want to kill babies.

Biden stumbles in his delivery of his canned line in response, which appeared to be based on the idea that strict limits on abortion access would de facto nullify the exceptions.

Democrats have repeatedly lied about abortion. Republicans have repeatedly lied about abortion. The whole argument about 'after-birth' abortions appears to be based on political fencing with bills, which Democrats also do. (Something like the classic, "Oh, sure, it's illegal, but will you make it super double illegal? Oh, you won't? That means you support it, then.")

(I should note, at the time, I wrote, "I don't think Americans should trust a single word either of these guys is saying.")

But later, Biden trips over Roe v. Wade and the three trimesters to the point that it's unclear just what the hell he means.

The main CNN video doesn't support comments, but there's a clip that does. The top comment?

we're fucked as a nation

In my opinion, these comments overall agree with my post...

Man, both of these men are so old and tired, though Biden is the older and tireder of the two. ... This guy's like a cat with 6 months to live.

It isn't that Biden "lost" the debate, as in he morally failed to engage in enough preparation. The man is simply too old; no amount of preparation would have worked.

-★-

With the abortion argument, we get a good example of Trump's pattern of exaggeration: "Everybody wanted to get it back to the states. Every legal scholar, all over the world. The most respected."

There was a substantive debate about this, and in fact there were a number of legal scholars that believed that the issue was, on a legal basis, on shaky ground. This was a common argument over the past two decades. There was not a complete, unanimous consensus.

People talk about Trump lying a lot. For a lot of that, I think they have this sort of thing in mind, but I don't take it all that seriously. This is salesman lying. He is trying to sell you a Trump steak.

Each message has a [social] component and a [content] component. Trump is weighting the [content] component lower, making it less accurate, but the [social] component lacks tactical depth.

I think this gets into some sort of personality conflict.

All politicians lie. They put on a nice suit, tell you some flowery speech, and then go bomb some country in the middle east. Obama was a genius at public speaking, like Hollywood President tier, but the drone war continued.

So, to make up an example (that's less controversial), a regular politician will start talking about "the human dignity" of guys that break into cars, or something, and the initial language will be quite empathetic. But rather than going where this is supposed to go, and improving the quality and safety of the prisons, they'll get you to agree to this nice-sounding language as part of a multi-step maneuver, and then they won't fix the prisons, and they won't properly rehabilitate the guys that break into the cars, and they'll just... release them, to break into your car.

So if someone starts talking about "human dignity," I start looking for where they hid the knife. (I also consider their personal record; I'm willing to entertain that they're serious, but I have to see the evidence of pragmatism first.)

Trump comes in and he starts talking about how, "All the legal scholars agree with me, all over the world. The most prestigious." This translates to, "I'm popular. I make great decisions. Vote for me."

It's so crass that it has a tactical depth of like, one. It's not part of some long and complicated chain. There is no sophisticated ideological permission structure being setup. He's not trying to redefine the language. There is no second maneuver.

So to me, this feels safe.

I'm not expecting to be attacked from some high-level social plane or whatever, so I can relax. This man is a salesman. A lot of what he says is bullshit, but he just wants to sell me something.

I know it's bullshit. He knows it's bullshit. He knows I know it's bullshit. But this deception is so unsophisticated that it loops back around to being somewhat honest, or even friendly. (It's like if you had a mandatory prison gang fight, and technically, they have to "fight" you, but they're not really trying.) Obviously it results in a lower rate of information transmission, though. (What will he actually do? It can be hard to say.)

This is not the same as "lock her up," from Trump's 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton. That was concerning, and in fact in the 2016 election I voted for Clinton. But then, he didn't follow through on that.

-★-

Thinking from the other direction, why would someone find the general, "we have the best cows," approach to be disconcerting rather than just annoying? (The Wall was kinda also like that. It's just a big, dumb object.)

Well, if you're used to everything having three layers of social misdirection in order to protect everyone's reputations and social position, and using this to demonstrate loyalty to others, maybe the crass rhetoric makes it sound like anything could be up for sale, with enough votes.

So you're supposed to say the stuff that your network socially agree sounds nice, and if you aren't saying the stuff, that might mean you're planning to coordinate to do something bad. (Why aren't you following the network? Do you think you're better than other people? Sounds like you might be planning to subordinate others.)

But the actual content of the messages doesn't get properly evaluated.

To quote some swing voters from the famous Reddit "sanewashing" post:

Only one participant here agrees we should "defund the police." One woman says "That is crazier than anything Trump has ever said." 50% of people here say they think Biden was privately sympathetic to the position. We are explaining the actual policies behind defund the police. One woman interrupts "that is not what defund the police means, I'm sorry. It means they want to defund the police." "I didn't like being lied to about this over and over again" says another woman. "Don't try and tell word don't mean what they say" she continues. Rest of group nodding heads.

During the early part of the 2014-2022 era, when we had the feminist push, there was a term called "mansplaining," intended to mean roughly "a men condescendingly explaining things to a woman."

In discussion with each other, men may try to assess who is the most knowledgeable or sharpest (in order to lead the discussion), so they may throw a piece of information out there like it's a tennis ball, and they expect you to hit it back. So a man might tell a woman about a book that she wrote, and then expect her to respond with some insight about the passage he was discussing.

From what I've seen, among men this is social statusy, but it's not like, hardcore. From some women, we got tweets along the lines of, "How dare he lecture me about my own book! Does he think he knows better than me about the book I wrote myself?!" It's basically mismatched systems of etiquette. (An autistic woman might have powered through and info dumped about the book to the man anyway until he got tired of the topic, and perceived no insult.)

This was a triple failure.

First, the men did not realize that the women (this kind of woman) have different discursive norms from men, and adapt in a way that makes them feel more comfortable in mixed spaces.

Second, the women did not realize that this was not a male plot to subordinate women. Feminists connected this etiquette mismatch to a larger ideological construct ("patriarchy"). Some of them are probably still angry to this day.

Third, the two groups largely did not reach a mutual understanding on this issue, except for a few honest people (and people less prone to viewing the opposite sex adversarially) in small spaces, coming into maturity.

Which is to say, in this clash of norms, the view based on multiple layers of social indirection as a form of politeness may be socially astute within its own culture, but may be socially maladapted outside of that culture.

Because these social norms are social, they are a product of a local social equilibrium rather than a more universalist analysis, which in practice makes them more particular. Compare economic or scientific ideas, which, while they exist in a social context, have a non-social framework for discovery and resolution.

I don't find it that difficult to understand the median voter wanting first trimester abortion to be legal and third trimester abortion to be illegal.

In the same way, to the median voter and not just conservatives, a slogan like "defund the police" means "defund the police." A lot of the more confrontational slogans produced by this process sound positively unhinged to outsiders - in a way that makes Donald Trump seem normal by comparison.

-★-

There are a good number of right-wing grifters who are out there regularly lying. I don't post much about them, because they just aren't that interesting. The field of politics is constantly shifting, anyway.

But I think it's worth considering how Democrats got into this situation.

To pick another Trump example, some readers may have seen this 2018 video of Trump telling Germany they're too dependent on imported Russian natural gas, and the German delegation smiling at him.

I vaguely recall that this was part of a Trump push to sell more liquefied natural gas from the US to the Europeans.

Of course, Russia did expand their war with Ukraine in 2022. At the time, Germany was importing 55% of their natural gas from Russia.

Brookings interviewed some economists about how the results went down. Russia cut down on gas supplies into Europe in 2021, reducing the amount of stored gas in Germany by the expansion of the war in early 2022. They raised and lowered the amount of gas coming in to Germany until the explosion of the Nord Stream pipeline in mid 2022.

So it's likely that Putin's Russia were, in fact, trying to gain leverage over Germany. Estimates from industry CEOs predicted a major recession.

The economists predicted that the situation would be expensive, but manageable, and the damage to Germany's economy was less than expected. Why?

First, the demand for gas was not perfectly inelastic. The dire predictions were based on gas as a bottleneck causing a cascade of missing production inputs ("for want of a bolt, the bulldozer is lost; for want of a bulldozer, the factory is lost; for want of a factory..." one might say). It turned out that it was possible to substitute at multiple points in the production process, so more gas-intensive components could be imported if needed. (As the war was in Ukraine, Germany was not blockaded.)

Second, gas was imported from other sources, including Norway... and liquefied natural gas from the US. (A second source claims that 5-6% of the gas is still coming from Russia.)

Third, the disruption was already on the horizon from 2021, so it was easier to coordinate actors.

So was Trump right? Was he wrong?

Germany was getting about 26% of its energy from natural gas in 2021. If 55% of that is from Russia, that makes for about 14% of Germany's energy supply, not including imported Russian oil. As of 2014, Russian troops were already occupying Crimea.

What I want to argue is that, less than right or wrong, "Getting ≥14% of your energy from a powerful geopolitical rival, particularly one currently engaged in a military occupation just two countries away, gives them potential leverage, and this makes it risky," is obvious.

Going, "Haha, look at this ignorant buffoon who thinks that Putin might exploit providing us with 1/8th of our energy for leverage," is just... It's cringe.

Germany had to reactivate their coal power plants to deal with the energy crisis, but they still had coal power plants to reactivate. The long-term storage problem for renewables hasn't been resolved yet. If they had an energy economy that was 60% natural gas, 40% renewables, and 0% nuclear, they'd be in an even worse spot.

(Lately it looks like people are making a stab at sucking CO2 out of the air and converting it to fuel. Will that be online as a replacement in 2030? That's harder to say. It would be fortunate, because combustible fuels don't have the same security concerns as fission power.)

-★-

Anyhow, that was all background.

How did Democrats get into this mess?

Well, obviously Democrats and left-leaning people in the media made a huge deal of Trump as the exception, Trump as the risk, Trump as would-be dictator, Trump as the erosion of norms, and so on. And of course, the Covid-19 pandemic landed on Trump's term and was very abnormal.

The point of running Joe Biden, from the perspective of the median voter, was a "return to normalcy." This is what voters were telling them by picking the pre-Trump Vice President from Obama's term.

After Trump got in and stopped caring about pursuing Hillary Clinton, I found it hard to buy the idea of Trump as an emergency.

Democrats always seemed to use "Trump is an emergency" as an excuse to behave in worse ways. For example, Democrats argued that protests against lockdowns of community centers like churches were too dangerous to be allowed due to the risk of spreading the virus, but then argued that nation-wide race riots needed to be allowed and that this was the position of 'science' as an institution.

Did the race riots accomplish anything of value? No. The opportunity for normal police reform was squandered on braindead slogans like "Defund the Police," which swing voters think are insane. There was a significant increase in homicide, and this is before accounting for significantly-improved trauma surgery since 1990. If LA is any indication, most of the victims of the increase in homicide were black and hispanic.

They complained constantly about Trump eroding institutional norms... and then eroded institutional norms. By 2022, trust in mass media among independents and Republicans collapsed to 27% and 14% respectively.

This is going to be a long-term problem; conspiracy theories are proliferating due to a lack of trust in sense-making institutions, and sense-making institutions have had their reputations shredded by wasteful partisan behavior that barely moved the needle electorally.

One way to assess how much someone values something is to ask what they're willing to give up to get it. Ask any Democrat on Twitter - what concessions are they willing to make to the rest of America to ensure Trump doesn't get back into office? The answer is none.

A "return to normalcy" would mean using the racial identitarians as expendable shock troops and then dropping them after the election, not getting shut down by the courts for doing "race conscious" policy.

The administration would quietly make changes to shore up the practical (not mere messaging) legitimacy of the institutions in order to cover for the spent legitimacy from the Trump era and run a boring administration focused on policies with supermajority support.

So now Democrats are the weird theater kids, and Trump is the normal guy. (And he's already been President, so publishing a magazine cover calling him Hitler just comes off as hysterics.)

-★-

Why did this happen?

First, as the guy that won the election, Joe Biden is the primary guy with the political capital to reshape the Democratic coalition's priorities. In 2020, Joe Biden had the same problem he has in 2024: he's too old.

There is no Democrat strategic command to impose discipline on the coalition members. There are lots of factions all fighting each other to pursue policy that's aligned with their own interests rather than the national interest, and it's resulting in what I call a coalitional interest deadlock. (For a relatively uncontroversial example, Left-NIMBYs and boneheaded environmentalists oppose housing construction, while pro-immigrationists bring in millions of people... who, when they get here, would need housing. One of these two factions needs to lose.)

Nasty identitarian rhetoric requires no immediate material concessions from these factions, nor does it require any discipline, so we get nasty identitarian rhetoric that does not benefit the country in any way, and is not connected to positive programs (that would require actual work and limiting claims to what's realistic, which defeats the point).

Some of you are probably familiar with the idea of a "leveraged buyout." This is when a private equity firm buys a company with debt, and then typically put it on the balance sheet of the company they just bought out. A firm with too much debt is said to be "overleveraged."

The second problem is that Democrats are epistemically overleveraged. They are making too many bets based on incomplete information, and a lot of the assumptions they're making in the process are not accurate.

Some tech-related online right-wingers believed that mass schooling was having almost no effect on learning or performance, and that it was almost entirely just selecting for conscientiousness and intelligence.

Learning losses from online schooling during the pandemic showed that mass schooling was having an effect - by removing it.

However, in researching the literature on education shortly before the pandemic, I found that getting educational results beyond what schools were achieving was very difficult, and that many educational interventions would fade out. Charter schools only produced modestly better results (for about the same price), in a way I couldn't differentiate from selection effects on parents. (I did find that online charters performed horribly. Well, I guess that's one finding verified by a larger-scale experiment.)

It isn't a matter of funding. Baltimore schools are highly funded and get terrible results.

We lack means to convert funding into results.

(Roland Fryer reportedly managed to beat the average for one class, but as a sign of things to come, he got politically sidelined in 2019. Naturally, he's an economist.)

Line voter Democrats are likely to claim that sub-par US school results are due to underfunding. The condition of scientific institutions is not as bad as right-wingers think it is; researchers know that just blindly slapping more funding on to education won't work. However, the guys in between, the 'officers' of the Democratic coalition, are quite happy to leave the line voters in the dark.

They're probably patting themselves on the back, thinking, "I should leave out the most damaging information in order to protect the weak and marginalized," and then not accounting for the possibility that everyone else in their information chain is doing the same thing.

Because of this, we don't get a more serious conversation that would establish a better method to convert funding into results. (This applies to other domains as well. Public transit in the US is ruinously expensive to construct, particularly in CA and NYC. A "car tax" without the ability to practically construct public transit is just a hateful punishment.)

When a Democrat is talking about "beating Trump at his own game," for example, by pretending that Biden did OK at the debate, this is generally of the form, "we should be more aggressive, deceptive, and selfish."

The Democrats are already too deceptive. It's inhibiting their ability to govern effectively. The Democrats are already too aggressive. A number of the online right being read by Chris Rufo and Elon Musk were once self-identified liberals [1] who were driven away and radicalized by the hostile messaging (which was not connected to practical benefits for society, so this isn't "mere selfishness"). Democrats are already selfish enough; forgiving student debt without fixing the system to reduce the origin of that debt polls 30-40 approve-disapprove.

And for the debate itself...

Bro why do we have 70+ year old[s] running for office? Shouldn't we have someone at least young and more modern? This is like watching a retirement home cafeteria fight 😭

Do you think telling someone like that, "Biden didn't lose the debate," sounds, you know, hinged? At the very least, it certainly doesn't inspire trust or confidence.

-★-

A little while ago, collapsedsquid posted:

Seeing a lot of the "This Trump thing is because everyone was so unfair to Romney in 2012 and he lost" out there again and this is fucking abuser logic man, "Why did you make me hit you? If you'd only put away the dishes like I'd asked then this wouldn't have had to happen" shut the fuck up man.

I had been writing a draft response to this.

Basically, seriousness is both a substantive position and a rhetorical stance. The Bush administration undermined the rhetorical stance on the Republican side due to the Iraq War, which was mismanaged, and in which no nuclear weapons were found. (Some old chemical weapons were found, but not an actual development program.)

Throwing the line "binders full of women" at Mitt Romney didn't help, of course, but it's more like that faction of the Republican party failed to regain its footing.

During the Bush administration, there were comparisons of George Bush to Hitler (it showed up on protest signs, for instance).

In practice, the Bush administration were libcons. Looking at Afghanistan, a mountainous, dry, landlocked country that has a GDP per capita of around $500, they were neither 'anti-racist' enough to decide not to invade and respect the local rule of the Taliban (and their local cultural traditions), nor conventionally racist (or culturalist) enough to conclude that national development would be a tremendous challenge requiring a radical reorganization of Afghan society.

Utilitarianism is generally about maximizing "utility," or subjective positive experience, and assumes that this can be summed across individuals. For example, there is a utilitarian thought experiment in which a surgeon has one healthy patient and five sick patients. If he kills the healthy patient, then he can harvest the man's organs in order to save the five sick patients. (Yes, like in Rimworld.)

There are many problems with a naive utilitarian approach.

However, if we rotate the concept of utilitarianism, we get the idea of moral prices, and morality as something that can be traded off against other factors of production, such as land, labor, energy, capital, and so on. Morality is not like these other resources; immorality can incentivize more immorality. However, this provides us with a potential frame with which to view a more violent and exploitative past.

One way to view the situation is that a radical reorganization of Afghanistan would be morally intensive, not just financially draining.

For example, Afghanistan has a high rate of cousin marriage, which is not common in developed countries. Overriding that would mean prioritizing foreign marriage norms as superior, taking on epistemic debt as the relationship between marriage norms and democracy or economy is more correlative than rock-solid causative, and to the degree that Afghan people resist this change, enforcing it at gunpoint.

While Democratic voters of the era would joke about Republican-voting "rednecks" being cousin-married, the appetite for such a program likely did not exist.

Another way to view the situation is that, from the outside, the Bush administration believed that democracy, rule of law, economic productivity, and women's liberation, were simply what happens in the absence of dictatorship. This view legitimized American power and influence as simply the natural order asserting itself, and argued that asserting American influence was morally cheap.

If democracy, rule of law, economic productivity, and women's liberation are non-trivially the product of particular cultural norms and values, then American interventionism is much more morally expensive.

In either case, Trump represents a "correction" in reaction to the failed project of the Bush administration: conflict and oppression are still undesirable; bombs are morally expensive; borders are cheap.

-★-

As we know, the United States lost the war in Afghanistan to the Taliban. A joke emerged at the time:

"Now the Taliban have to govern Afghanistan."

Discussion in right-wing circles claims that the Taliban won by doing a better job of maintaining basic property rights and resolving disputes than the US-aligned forces did, despite being in a state of war with the US:

The short answer is that they auditioned to replace the state across the spectrum of control — including punitive violence, but also the pedestrian tasks of recordkeeping and adjudication and governance. They wove their legitimacy into ordinary people’s water rights, their inheritances, their personal disputes — so that even people who were indifferent to the Taliban’s ideological program became invested in the Taliban’s stability and growth.

There were, reportedly, complaints from members of the Taliban after their victory, but it would seem that the Taliban were already governing Afghanistan.

Richard Hanania may be a troll, but he went through some Afghan War documents posted by the Washington Post, and I don't think he's making it up. It would seem that while the Taliban were governing Afghanistan, the US forces, well, weren't:

Six months after he was appointed, Bush didn't know who his top general in Afghanistan was, and didn't care. General McNeill had no guidance about what he should be doing in the country.

He has a whole long thread of this sort of thing. It reminds me of reading through the Wikipedia page on the Vietnam War many years after high school history, which made it sound like the US was quite adept with high-technology weapons, but failed to properly identify and manage the political source for the conflict.

Let's return to the student loan debt forgiveness issue.

A typical firm only has a profit margin of about 7-10%. A firm can keep going as long as it's breaking even, so even a low profit margin can still pay wages. However, if a firm is losing money, it will have to sell off assets or lay off employees, reducing its production capacity.

There is investment, in which we spend current production in order to increase or maintain future production, such as by building a factory. If we make a good investment, we'll get the production value back later. There is insurance, which involves moving risk around. For example, you are unlikely to be in a car accident most of the time, but if you have car insurance and you do get in an accident, the insurance company will pay for repair or replacement of your car. [2] This may make you more likely to buy a car in the first place, or more likely to structure your life around the assumption that you will have a car.

Governments can (in theory) spend a great deal on investment or insurance, but they can only spend a more limited amount on consumption spending.

For a college degree that pays for itself, government can loan money at a low interest rate, and the value will be paid back by the person who took the loan later.

For a college degree that doesn't pay for itself, someone has to supply the production that builds the buildings on the campus, fixes the water pipes, reloads the toilet paper in the bathrooms, and so on, and if that's not "the person taking the degree, but in the future," then it has to be someone else.

Someone like collapsedsquid might have the view, "I want the state to subsidize college education. Why should I pre-compromise and reduce my negotiating position?"

To expand on this, "Guarding the state treasury is the work of the right and of capital (business); why should I do their work for them?"

From this perspective, the role of the Democratic presidential candidate is to be the leader of America's left-leaning coalition, the blue team.

But the median voter or swing voter does not necessarily have this perspective. The median or swing voter is choosing between two candidates to lead the American enterprise.

The actual job is President of the United States.

If you win the War in Afghanistan, you have to govern Afghanistan. If you win the US presidential election, you have to govern the United States of America.

That's the prize. If you don't like it, don't run for office.

-★-

Nonetheless, this causes a tension. In order to become President as a Democrat, you first have to win the Democratic primary, which makes you effectively the leader of the Democratic party.

How do you deal with this?

That's "simple": split the issues.

A political coalition has a lot of people and those people have diverse interests. Representing them all at once is too difficult. Talking about them all at once is too difficult. Generalization of coalitional interests into a smaller, more manageable set of principles yields ideology.

Take the issues, and order them by how important they are to the functioning of the country, and how important they are for mainstream voters.

For the issues most important to mainstream voters, aim for a very broad coalition using very general principles. Pass legislation that has supermajority support in the polls, and be loud about it so that voters know what you've done for them lately.

For more niche issues that mainstream voters care less about, aim for a narrower coalition with narrower principles, to reward your base.

The second is the reward for the first. The median voter should be able to trust you on the things that he cares about, and where he doesn't trust you, it's on things he doesn't care about.

Core issues for the functioning of the country will seep into more generic voter dissatisfaction with things like inflation, so it's better to keep on top of those. Whether to be loud about it depends on whether the individual policy that's actually needed has good optics or not.

-★-

If you want to "beat Trump at his own game," you don't do so by talking about how America has the best steaks.

You identify his most important issues, and then you work out how to best steal them from him.

-

[1] "They were elves, once." Extradeadjcb is probably the most prominent example, but it comes up for a number of them. I've written about this before, but ethnic conflict theory by one player creates an equilibrium more favorable to ethnic conflict theory by other players. Lefty Twitter users asked Razib Khan why he attended Extradeadjcb's natalism conference; he replied by asking where the left-wing natalism conference was. That's probably still 20 years out.

[2] It's more complicated than this.

[okaystoptellingmetomakeanaccount]

OKAY I FINALLY MANAGED TO FINISH IT (so sorry i might have taken “no need to rush it” a little too far). The quality is terrible (scans, font, translation, all of it, even the image quality because my phone doesnt like big files with clear pictures or something) but it is just about readable. I could have learnt how to use Gimp properly to do it on my laptop and get better results during this time but… there is no but, i could and should have just done that.

I actually think this one is quite funny. At least in the Dutch translation. There Donald uses a really dry and informal lexicon, which I’ve tried to emulate but I’m not that great at English. Oh well, hope anyone who read it still was able to enjoy, regardless of my mistakes!

If someone scanlates https://inducks.org/story.php?c=B+860087

Then in return i promise i will scanlate. Uh. https://inducks.org/story.php?c=H+2021-425 or something.

A 7 pager for a 7 pager. I just need to read magica bigenerates ok

[many-sparrows]

I love you social justice oriented Christians. I love you Gary (my pastor) who presided over gay weddings before they were legally binding and before the church had come to a decision on it. I love you Conrad (old pastor I work with) for getting arrested for protesting the Iraq war and performing a lesbian wedding the minute it became legal for a couple who'd been together for decades. I love you Dr Donald Hertz for your sermons on Acts 20:27 and your life spent living out that verse and for causing trouble when you were still a student assigned to a segregated church in Birmingham and for spontaneously joining a grape boycott picket line outside of a Safeway in Berkeley because that verse says we cannot shrink away from our duty to each other. I love you Martin Luther's common chest. I love you Charles de Foucauld. I love you Oscar Romero. I love you Dorothy Day. I love you for giving me a legacy to carry on.

[mrs-stans]

Sebastian Stan’s Crash Course in Becoming Trump

After a long tour of duty in the Marvel universe, the Romanian-born actor is conquering the festival circuit, with starring roles in “The Apprentice” and “A Different Man.”

Illustration by João Fazenda

By Alex Barasch

The actor Sebastian Stan glanced approvingly at the neon signage and old-school menus at the Pearl Diner, in the financial district, the other day. He’s lived in and near New York since he was twelve—around the time Donald Trump swapped his first wife, Ivana, for Marla Maples—and has watched the city evolve. “It’s funny. It’s changed, but it’s also the same buildings,” he said. “And then you’re, like, ‘The buildings are there, but you are not the same.’ ”

Stan took off a white ball cap and ordered coffee with cream; he was jet-lagged, fresh from the Deauville American Film Festival, where he’d received the Hollywood Rising-Star Award. “Rising” is a stretch for the forty-two-year-old, who’s appeared in a dozen Marvel projects, but Stan has lately reached a different echelon. In May, he went to Cannes for “The Apprentice,” in which he plays seventies-era Trump. In Berlin, he’d won the Silver Bear, an award whose previous recipients include Denzel Washington and Paul Newman. “Everyone was, like, ‘Oh, the Silver Bear!’ ” Stan said. “Then you go back and you’re, like, ‘Do we know what the Silver Bear is in America?’ ”

The prize was for his role in “A Different Man,” Aaron Schimberg’s surreal black comedy, which nods to “Cyrano de Bergerac.” Stan stars as a man whose lifelong disfigurement is miraculously reversed; the shoot included a grisly three-and-a-half-hour session spent peeling off chunks of his face.

“The Apprentice” demanded a transformation of a different sort. At the diner, Stan pulled out his phone and swiped through an album labelled “DT physicality”—a hundred and thirty videos of Trump, which capture his tiniest gestures and his over-all mien. Marinating in Trump content was, Stan said cheerfully, “a psychotic experience.” He watched the clips so many times that when the director, Ali Abbasi, asked him to improvise in a scene about marketing Trump Tower, he could rattle off the stats: sixty-eight stories of marble in a peachy hue chosen by Ivana, because, as the real Trump put it in a promo, “people feel they look better in the pink.” (It turned out that he’d also memorized Trump’s lie: the tower is actually fifty-eight floors.)

Growing up in Communist Romania, Stan had just an hour of TV news each night; New Year’s Eve was an event because it meant twelve hours of programming. His instinct for mimicry—he had a habit of imitating family members and neighbors—was the earliest tell that he might be an actor. After he and his mother fled to Vienna, in 1989, Stan got his first credit, in a Michael Haneke film—an experience that nearly put him off show business. “I stood in line with, like, a thousand kids, for I don’t know how many hours—which I hated,” he said. “If I could fucking meet Haneke now, it would be amazing!”

When the family moved again, to America, he experienced pop-culture shock. He binged every movie he’d missed—from “Back to the Future” to “Ace Ventura”—in a pal’s basement. Another friend roped him into the school play. “My high school was really, really small, so I didn’t have a lot of competition,” Stan said. “They were, like, ‘Please be in the play!’ ” Soon he was playing Cyrano himself.

After stints on Broadway, and on “Gossip Girl,” Stan was scooped up by Marvel. “I’ve been lucky to play a character for fifteen years,” he said. The blockbuster paychecks freed him up to explore edgier material. “I, Tonya,” in which he played the ice-skater Tonya Harding’s dirtbag husband, was a turning point. “It allowed me to see that a good director will bring out more in you than you can,” Stan said. It was also his first time portraying a real person—a feat that he repeated in “Pam & Tommy,” as the Mötley Crüe drummer Tommy Lee, and now in “The Apprentice.”

“It’s like learning a piece of music,” Stan said, of nailing an impression. “You’ve got to start out slow—it requires practice. Suddenly, you’re getting it more. You’re still making mistakes—but you’re playing the music. You’re playing the music every day until you can do it in your sleep. That’s when the fun starts.” He sliced the air for emphasis, then caught himself and grinned. “And sometimes it’s months later at a diner, and you’re, like, ‘Why am I doing that with my hands?’ ”

[singeratlarge]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY to Adam22, Felice Allesandri, Clem Burke, Dale Carnegie, Billy Connolly, Denise Crosby, Candy Darling, Howard Duff, Donald “Duck” Dunn, Colin Hanks, the great American composer Scott Joplin, producer-songwriter Terry Lewis, Stanley Livingston, Lee Michaels, Charles Theodore Pachebel, Elvis Ramone, Dave Sinclair (Caravan, Hatfield & the North), Baruch Spinoza, Staind, Chad Taylor (Live), keyboardist Richard Tee, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Robin Williamson (Incredible String Band), Teddy Wilson, Jim Yester (The Association), and Pete Best, the original drummer for The Beatles. That’s him on the Decca audition tapes and other early recordings. Deep Beatlemaniacs know that, in 1962, Best was replaced by Ringo Starr, which led to the classic line-up of the Fab Four. That episode is shrouded in urban legend, including rumors that Best was sacked because he was a bigger “chick magnet” than Paul McCartney. The true reason was more prosaic—Ringo had more experienced chops. It was an emotionally-wrenching career move for both Best and the other Beatles as they’d grown up together in Liverpool.

Best retired from drumming in the late 60s and became a civil servant. Then the 1995 Beatles ANTHOLOGY restored him to the public eye. At the behest of family, fans, and friends, Best formed a band and hit the road. In 2005 I was playing keyboards for The Davy Jones Band at a music festival in Newport, Rhode Island, and The Pete Best Band opened with a raw, rowdy rave up show, replicating the Beatles Cavern Club rock’n’roll set from the early 60s. It was a blast to watch! I lost my photo of Pete and I at the catering tent, but in this video I’m watching sidestage w/family members. HB Pete and God bless your rock’n’roll heart!

#beatles #petebest #drums #drummer #britishinvasion #davyjones #monkees #anthology #ringostarr #paulmccartney #cavernclub #liverpool #rhodeisland #newport #musicfestival #keyboards #johnnyjblair

[rose-tea-and-strawberries]

Hey, I sent in this ask and Tumblr ate it, so here it is:

You know how Yuu getting turned into a child because of a potion accident or a spell mishap is a pretty popular trend in twst headcanons and imagines. I'm thinking about the same scenario with Yuu while she's on her shift in the club. It either happened because of one of Von Drake's inventions accidentally zapping Yuu or someone was messing with Fairy Godmother's wand again.

I mean the chaos and panic that would ensue in the club when Yuu gets hit by a spell gone wrong, and she straight up disintegrates except for her clothes. Everyone's like "OH NO, WE KILLED OUR KID!" And Donald's reaction is like this. But then the clothes start shuffling, and they all find a cute baby Yuu.

If you thought they clubgoers were bad before when it came to competing for the custody over Yuu, it's worse now. Hell, even Mickey is twitching to grab his sorcerer hat and keyblade. Any disney character who's a parent are fighting over on who gets to hold Yuu next. Pepa Madrigal is summoning a biblical storm outside because Triton was taking too long holding Yuu, and it's supposed to be her turn. The parent characters all miss holding a baby.

"Your five minutes are up! Let me hold her!"

The couples are all high on baby fever when they get to hold Yuu. I can see Ariel really missing when Melody was a baby and turning to Eric to say that they should have another kid.

The villains to Yuu: Come to the dark side we have cookies.

I can see just cuddling with the Winnie-the-Pooh characters since they're technically anthropomorphic stuffed animals and soft enough to sleep on.

Even characters who I don't see as parent types take to Yuu so well. Gaston finally gets a turn, and he gets quiet. For the next five minutes, his hubris goes away, and he's so gentle with Yuu. Belle and Adam are in awe because that's what got him to shut up? I mean they get it. Yuu is adorable but still.

Lol. I think went too far with this ask.

"Oh no, we killed our kid!" *Side eyes the villains* it's not like any of you have ever attempted child murder before

That Donald link is everything and it is now canon that that is exactly his reaction when Yuu, his nephews and Max are in danger (I've never watched Ducktales so I don't know if there are any other kids Donald hangs out with)

I absolutely love de-aging fics. It's been one of my favourite tropes in practically every fandom I've been in. I actually did have this one story line I was brainstorming in my head during this very long car ride where some magic caused Yuu, Ace, Deuce, Leona, Azul and Epel to de-age to around 6-7-8 and the NRC students had to deal with that (it kind of played along the lines how the day before the magic accident Yuu said that if she met the NRC gang when she was younger, her younger self definitely would've wanted to be friends with them - there was even this scene where smol Yuu 'meets' baby octopus Azul and he gets all teary-eyed that this pretty 'stranger' thinks that he's nice - and there was another one with little Yuu and cub Leona where they take a nap together) but I digress.

So I'm not going to go for baby since there's not much a baby can do so I'm going to say she's reverted back to a 5/6 year old.

Lilo, Alice and Wendy insist that she spends most of her time with them. They see Yuu as a big sister and now that she's younger, they are much more protective of her. Christopher Robin is included in that group not because he's part of the Yuu Protection Squad but because he's close friends with Alice and Wendy so he's dragged along for the ride. Lilo doesn't want Yuu to hang around with the villains or the NRC boys - she's made badness charts of both Yuu and the villains to show her friend how dangerous they are. Lilo and Yuu definitely get Horace to play Elvis songs because Elvis is amazing.

It doesn't matter how old Yuu is, if she sees our favourite tubby little cubby all stuffed with fluff she is hugging that silly old bear for as long as she can (lucky, lucky her). The tv show called 'My Friends Tigger and Pooh' and one special episode of 'Doc McStuffins' show that the Hundred Acre Woods gang love hanging around children even if they aren't Christopher Robin - let's just hope, Tigger doesn't get too boisterous with his bouncing. Speaking of which, Roo is very happy to have another kid to hang out with (he excitedly asks his mother if they can bring Lumpy with them the next day) and Kanga finds herself doting on Yuu even more with the other animal mothers (etc: Perdita, Mrs Jumbo, Bambi's mother, Duchess etc)

Since Simba (canonically in the first movie) and Ariel (in the non-canon sequel) are the only prince and princess to have children, I think that they would argue that they are the best suited to looking after Yuu - only for Baloo to pipe in that he and Bagheera have plenty of experience in caring for mancubs (the fact that Mowgli was raised by wolves who are still very much alive seems to be completely forgotten by the bear)

Tiana has to literally restrain Naveen and Charlotte from either kidnapping Yuu on the spot to go gallivanting to every toy and dress shop they know or just going to said shops anyway and buying everything they see.

Aladdin and Robin Hood are really good with kids in their movie (and Aladdin's TV series) so they would be having a blast regaling Yuu with tales of their adventures.

Wait, wait Jack Skellington and Sally canonically have kids in the epilogue of their movie so they would have some experience to boast about (in the movie's soudtrack with Sir Patrick Stewart at least)

Unfortunately, none of the heroes trust the villains to go within five feet of child!Yuu for completely logical and justifiable reasons so Yuu the villainous sidekicks usually end up sneaking around nearby

(At some point, Yuu ends up giving Ed the hyena a hug, headpats and a forehead kiss and he never lets anyone forget that)

All the Disney parents are living their best life with Yuu around. I think King Stefan and Queen Leah are especially happy because they never got to see their daughter, Aurora, at that age and they kind of feel like they get a chance at seeing what could have been.

Someone should also probably keep an eye on Fauna incase she pulls a Lilia and straight up kidnaps Yuu

[oilith]

I got reminded of this book!

The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck, with the b- and c parts! It's in finnish of course, but still managed to keep all jokes! I used to be obsessed with Donald Duck and Ducktales, especially Scrooge lol (i also may or may not have had a crush on Goldie and Magica). I love this book, since it has all the stories, including the bonus ones in one piece. My favorites out of all of them are The King of Klondike, The Prisoner of White Agony Creek, and A Letter from Home. A Letter from Home is especially one of my long time favorites.

I really like Don Rosa as an artist and a writer! His art is always very detailed, and honestly kinda funny. A lot of my early line work was actually very inspired by him! Also all his stories featuring Magica De Spell are hilarious, especially the one where she's messing with gravity.

Some of my favorite panels:

An honorary mention goes to A Little Something Special, which isn't in this book, but i just love it SO MUCH lmao

Scrooge is such an idiot hELP-

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Daniel Villarreal at LGBTQ Nation:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has adopted former President Donald Trump’s platform for the Republican Party. The new platform removes the party’s opposition to same-sex marriage — though conservatives have signaled that they’d like to overturn it — and also "softens" conservative opposition to abortion and in vitro fertilization (IVF), two issues that Republicans worry could hurt them in the November election. The platform’s anti-transgender goals, numbered 16 and 17 among its 20 goals, are stated thus: “Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children,” and “Keep men out of women’s sports.” Chapter 9, Section 5 of the platform promises to “end Left-wing gender insanity,” stating, “We will keep men out of women’s sports, ban Taxpayer funding for sex change surgeries, and stop Taxpayer-funded Schools from promoting gender transition, reverse Biden’s radical rewrite of Title IX Education Regulations, and restore protections for women and girls.”

[...] The platform also echoes the Republican opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in schools by promising to “expose politicized education models.” The platform also promises to “restore Parental Rights in Education”, a dog whistle for opposition to anti-racist and LGBTQ+-inclusive education. Anti-LGBTQ+ groups like Moms for Liberty and Leave Our Kids Alone have functioned under the banner of “parents’ rights.”

“We trust Parents’ Knowledge and Skills, Not CRT [critical race theory] and Gender Indoctrination,” the platform states. “Republicans will ensure children are taught fundamentals like Reading, History, Science, and Math, not Leftwing propaganda. We will defund schools that engage in inappropriate political indoctrination of our children using Federal Taxpayer Dollars.” As for higher education, the platform promises to “fire Radical Left accreditors … restore Due Process protections, and pursue Civil Rights cases against Schools that discriminate.” The line about accreditors may refer to the College Board, an organization that gives high school students a chance to pre-earn college credits through Advanced Placement (AP) tests. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) publicly criticized the board last year and tried to get it to drop AP test questions on racial justice movements and queer theory — he failed. The platform repeatedly mentions that Leftists should be removed from government. It also promises, “Republicans will use existing Federal Law to keep foreign Christian-hating Communists, Marxists, and Socialists out of America. Those who join our Country must love our Country. We will use extreme vetting to ensure that jihadists and jihadist sympathizers are not admitted.”

The GOP’s proposed platform contains several anti-trans items, such as keeping trans women out of women’s sports, de facto support for bans on gender-affirming care, support for forced outing policies under the guise of “parental rights”, and pushes the lie that trans people are a “danger” to women and girls.

[queersatanic]

is that post about you wanting to discriminate against immigrants a meme? or????

It sounds like you're referring to this post, which you're right, is pretty jarring without the context of the bitter but serious joke being made there.

In the wake of the psychic trauma of the 2016 election and Hillary Clinton's electoral loss to Donald Trump, a librarian named Kristin Garvey came up with the following sign:

In this house, we believe: Black Lives Matter. Women’s rights are human rights. No human is illegal. Science is real. Love is love. Kindness is everything.

Basically saying, "Unlike those people who supported and support Trump, we are reasonable people who have basic human decency and right opinions," and presumably these people vote for the most progressive Democrat they can in every election.

But pretty quickly the sign was mocked and satirized by others, especially on the political Right. On the Left, though, this was often done by noticing how such people tended to also be wealthy white liberals who would suddenly grow very reactionary when an issue moved away from platitudes to something material like greater housing density near them, sending their own children to public schools, or non-carceral government responses to immigrants or visibly homeless people. Even the opening phrase "in this house" tells you that you're talking about a certain kind of person with a certain kind of wealth because to be able to plant a yard sign you both need a yard and have the authority to put something on it, which renters rarely have.

So let's go back to @papasmoke's post, riffing on that:

In this house we believe in Housing de-regulation A strong border wall Discriminatory immigration policies Infinite funding for the police Rhodesia 2's right to rape, murder, and conquer A maximally lethal military Loving who you love ❤️

This is a reference to the current state of the Democratic Party under presidential nominee Kamala Harris, and specifically her speech at the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 22, 2024 (the day before papasmoke's post was made).

Now, we may be differing with @/papasmoke here in that "housing de-regulation" in the sense of ending shit like single-family zoning probably is actually a good thing. But the point we'd agree on is that Democrats aren't talking about using the federal government to step up dense, public housing projects like they did in the mid-20th century. It's just, "We're going to solve the problem!" as an applause line.

On the border, Harris is criticizing Trump for not being as strong on "border security" as she will be.

On police, since 2020, the Biden regime, and surely Harris as well, will continue to push for more federal resources for cops around the country. The spigot will be turned on for the publicly-funded thugs doing the attacks on unhoused people but not so much for the unhoused people.

In regards to "Rhodesia 2", of course we have Harris saying this about Israel:

And let me be clear. I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself — (applause) — and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself, because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that a terrorist organization called Hamas caused on October 7 — (applause) — including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival.

Not only is there continued material support to proceed continuously bombing Gaza for what will soon be a year, there is not even the rhetorical condemnation of Israel raping, murdering, and starving two million people, all in the name of greater living space and manifest destiny of a brutal apartheid state.

For the USA's own military, Harris says:

As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world. 

However, Harris does say that at stake is "the freedom to love who you love openly and with pride," which is one of the main clubs Democrats use to tell queer people in particular that if you aren't OK supporting genocide, cops, and imperialism, then you are not a serious or practical person and you deserve whatever the next Trump regime does to you.

All of this was wildly popular to that room full of people, who also chanted "U-S-A" in response to people trying to just get a Palestinian speaker on stage to have their suffering recognized.

There's an old joke about how if you ask a socialist to describe their problems with capitalism, the socialist tells you a long list of problems with capitalism. But if you ask a capitalist the problems with socialism, they just describe the status quo under capitalism.

U.S. politics is like that with progressive voters in particular. If you were to accurately describe the Biden regime's current immigration/border policy or the enabling of Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing to a liberal in 2017-2020, they would tell you, "That's why the next election is so important to get a Democrat in office."

Then when you look at what Democrats do while in office, yeah, you can argue that it could be worse. But it could be a hell of a lot better, too, and the fundamental problem is there are tens of millions of liberals and partisan Democrats who only seem capable of imagining and working toward a better world when the opposing party is in power. Meanwhile these same people call life under their own rule the best of all possible worlds and see anyone conceiving and working toward something better than that to be actively sabotaging them.

So, that's a much longer explanation than you presumably were asking for, but that's what that post is criticizing specifically and why it's in that format, and it's also why people left of Ronald Reagan are so antagonistic toward partisan Democrats and their political class when we recognize that, yes, Donald Trump and the GOP are horrible and want horrible things for everyone they can put under their power.

[chicinsilk]

US Vogue October 1989

Karl Lagerfeld for Chanel Haute Couture Fall/Winter 1989-90 Collection. Cordula Reyer wears a black wool jacket over a houndstooth wool tweed skirt, which projects a long, slim line. Generous shoulders and sleeves, well-fitted and well-cut torso. The multiple buttons and pockets are Chanel signatures of the season. Gandini wool jacket. Chanel jewelry: Another classic Chanel Teint Pur Oil-Free makeup in ivory. Sunglasses, Ray-Ban Dekko by Bausch & Lomb. Fashion editor: Carlyne Cerf de Dudzeele, Hair, Donald, makeup Stéphane Marais. Karl Lagerfeld pour Chanel Collection Haute Couture Automne/Hiver 1989-90.

Cordula Reyer porte une veste en laine noire sur une jupe Pied-de-poule en tweed de laine, qui projette une ligne longue et fine. Épaules et manches généreuses, torse bien ajusté et bien coupée. Les multiples boutons et poches sont les signatures Chanel de la saison. Veste en laine Gandini. Bijoux Chanel : Un autre classique du maquillage Teint Pur Oil-Free de Chanel en ivoire. Lunettes de soleil, Ray-Ban Dekko by Bausch & Lomb. Rédactrice mode : Carlyne Cerf de Dudzeele, Coiffure, Donald, maquillage Stéphane Marais.

Photo Peter Lindbergh vogue archive

[mariacallous]

Regular readers know my hobbyhorses. I think Democrats should emerge from defeat more willing to confront Republican corruption, and (relatedly) more intentional about creating and shaping media than they have been.

I thought this before the election, and still do. Apart from any unpredictable political implications, it’s a righteous goal, and one that has the potential to unite the party without heedlessly tossing various people and ideas under the bus. Democrats disagree with each other about policy in many realms, but I don’t know any who think Republicans play fair, or who think the party has done a great job defining their opponents by their most unappealing traits. They are alarmed, belatedly, that all the Trump-family corruption they left uninvestigated will soon get buried; they realize only now in defeat that it’s important to surface derogatory information about the opposition.

Hopefully these lessons will stick long-term. My fixations are important to me, and should be to the party, too. But on the face of it, they’re mostly about shrinking the GOP tent. How do we make what we know about Trump and the GOP more apparent to those who don’t pay close attention?

Recriminations are much more bitter and unproductive among those who disagree about how to grow the Democratic tent. They simply reprise debates that have been raging across the left for years: policy radicalism vs. incrementalism; neoliberalism vs. progressivism; equality vs. equity.

For the most part, these fights are unimportant now, many weeks before we have enough information to truly understand what happened in the election.

But that last category, widely derided as the “wokeness” debate, strikes me as one where the party might finally, lastingly, make productive headway. It’s admittedly a bit strange that liberals are fighting (again) over whether Democrats are too “woke” after a campaign that featured very little wokeness. If anything Democrats in competitive races emphasized their anti-wokeness, and overperformed the party as a whole. It isn’t the summer of 2020 anymore, much as Republicans would like us to think it is.

Despite all this, though, there are good reasons for Democrats to have it out over identity issues again, contingent on everyone operating in good faith. Donald Trump is coming back to power, and he will pour gasoline on the embers of social strife. People across the left really should think through how they will respond, and aim to do so both righteously and wisely.

That debate is also relevant to the challenge of recruiting new voters. For the growth process to be as effective and frictionless as possible, Democrats will want to appeal to people without sounding aloof or stilted; they want to offer people something (a popular agenda) not ask of them to embrace contested critiques of American society. Voters are electing representatives, not joining a movement.

This prospect alarms many progressives, including some elected officials, who suspect a reconstituted Democratic Party will join Republicans in appealing to citizens by scapegoating powerless people. They fear betrayal and want to hold the line.

Striking a balance between these two factions will, thus, not be a fun process! But it would be easier if everyone understood each other a little better.

COATES TAILS

I won’t use the term “woke” here, beyond paraphrasing others, because it’s a trap. People of good faith in the center of the political spectrum accept the term, and Republicans shift its meaning to encompass larger and larger realms of social justice. It starts with a small niche, like, critical race theory, but quickly comes to envelop the whole notion of equality under the law, and eventually entails stipulating to out and out racism. Black people are flying airplanes now? This wokeness has gone too far! Suddenly it isn’t an internal debate over discourse norms, it’s a fight with Republicans over how much of the Civil Rights Movement to roll back. A fight that Republicans relish.

The argument within the left, by contrast, pits an older conception of civil equality against a newer school of thought, where caste can’t be extinguished through the culture or through race-neutral policy reforms, because it’s baked into the system; where true justice will be elusive until enough people see the light, and we reform or rebuild the system itself.

This idea is at the heart of modern social-justice vernacular: intersectionalism, systemic racism, equity. And as a critique of the American state, I think it has a lot of merit. Bigotry in America is clearly more sweeping than the sum of every act of hatred. Even Republicans on this Supreme Court will occasionally write opinions influenced by critical race theory.

But it isn’t perfect dogma, either. I don’t think American governing institutions need to be dismantled en masse for justice to prevail. In part I just don’t think experience bears this out, but I’m also not confident better ones would replace them.

One of the lessons I’ve taken from the Trump era is to not assume progress means you never have to look around any corners. For instance, a subset of leftists wants to deconstruct American empire. Some of them even hopped the ends of the horseshoe into alignment with Trump because they liked that he weakened the global liberal order. But if the U.S. collapsed or blinked out of existence, or joined a new axis of fascism, or even just withdrew from the world a bit more—I don’t think most people on the left would like what filled the void.

Same goes domestically. Give me an opportunity to circumvent the Electoral College or the Senate and I’m here for it, but imagine writing a new Constitution today, or even just abolishing the carceral state, when half the country is aligned with MAGA.

So the critique is contested. Nobody should swallow it whole, just as nobody should support efforts to censor it. But that’s different from the question of whether it should form a basis for campaign politics, or movement building. And here I think the answer is clearly no.

Elon Musk coined or popularized the term “the woke mind virus” for the online right to wield against the entire left. Only MAGA and the MAGA-curious are unafflicted, and if you can shake off the virus, then you’ll finally see progressivism for all its evils.

This is almost completely backwards. Nothing about intersectional thinking is contagious. It implies the need for a politics of sacrifice for the greater good; for asking people to acknowledge that they’ve benefited from unfairness in society. It is the antithesis of the MAGA appeal, to anyone who will listen, that the world has been unfair to them, and that only in unity can they vanquish the sources of that unfairness: Jews, Mexicans, liberals, socialists, whoever. That is the real mind virus. It deserves to be eradicated. But that will require offering people something more tempting than pure self-indulgence.

Progressive gatekeepers, by contrast, implicitly ask people to set their individual interests aside as a precondition of membership in the coalition. Opening your mind to their critique can be a powerful intellectual exercise. I think it’s made me a better person. But the reasons it shouldn’t form the basis of mass politics in America should be quite obvious.

The idea and its implications are inherently counter-solidary. Asking people to think a certain way is a much tougher sell than telling people they’re right to think the way they already do. Our two-party system is a popularity contest, and, knowing how people are, which approach do you think would prove more popular?

That doesn’t discredit the theory itself. Unpopular ideas aren’t inherently wrong. It is certainly worth asking liberal political leaders to attune themselves to ingrained social and political and economic biases; to take even controversial ideas seriously. But it’s also worth understanding that, if those leaders embraced the critique with both arms, it would prefigure huge setbacks for everyone who cares about equal human dignity.

Barack Obama read Ta-Nehisi Coates’s essays during his presidency, and respected him as a thinker. The two men had a steady public and private dialogue reflecting, I imagine, both mutual admiration and frustration. They didn’t see the world alike, and even if they did, their roles wouldn’t allow them to forge a public alliance. Obama is the one who believed “better is good;” Coates is the one who associated himself with the Malcolm X line, “You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches, and then pull it out six inches and say you're making progress." These are two remarkably accomplished men, possessed of formidable critical thinking skills. But it should come as no surprise that Coates thrived as a public intellectual and Obama as a politician.

TIL SETH DO US PART

The way Coates and Obama related—how they appreciated the best about each other—could serve as a model for today’s progressives and Democrats who frustrate one another.

In the current climate, the relationship is much too distrustful.

When Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) told the New York Times, “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that,” one of his top aides quit, and his alumni asked him to apologize. A political science professor at Tufts threatened to embargo his students from interning in Moulton’s office.

To end where we started, this is all, in one sense, way off base. Moulton’s notion that trans kids playing sports is one of the “challenges many Americans face” is ludicrous. Kamala Harris didn’t campaign on trans issues at all, Republicans did. And Republicans will always be able to find some quote or bill cosponsorship or association or even just some wacky activist to portray Dems as scary, alien, and perverse.

But in another sense it underscores how political and ideological differences on the left can make the whole Democratic, pro-democracy project uninviting.

It isn’t wise to paint Moulton as a heretic for this, even if his defensive crouch is unbecoming. By contrast, it’d be perfectly fair to ask him to make clear that, whatever he thinks about this issue or any other, he wants no part of the far right and its gratuitous cruelty.

I’ve spent most of this newsletter teasing out one way progressive thinking is at odds with big-tent politics; the flipside is that Democrats really do need to be governed by some fundamental principles.

Building a bigger coalition that can reliably defeat the reactionary right can’t mean playing dumb about who’s most at risk. In different iterations, fascists have assailed different minorities; today’s American formation appears most fixated on brown-skinned immigrants and trans people, with a high tolerance for rogue acts of violence against Jews, Muslims, and others. I don’t believe this is because the MAGA movement harbors a precise hierarchy of hatred. It’s that pretexts for cruelty to illegal immigrants and trans people are easier to justify to a naive public. Some Trump supporters revel in the hatred; other can convince themselves they’re just on the side of fairness: The immigrants broke the law; trans equality is a trojan horse for inviting men into women’s spaces.

It would be foolish to blind ourselves to this dynamic, and a moral failure to abandon entire communities to Republican degeneracy. But I do suspect that defeating fascism will require Democrats to remain at odds with the social-justice catechism, and for social-justice activists to recognize the political pitfalls of their beliefs. In the past year, we’ve seen Democrats drift away from their past insistence that immigration reform pair border-security with legal authorization for most immigrants, and part with activists on the precise dimensions of trans rights. I don’t expect them to race back to “woke” views on these matters, and I don’t necessarily think it would be good idea if they did. Certainly nobody should blow up the party over it. By the same token, it would be a disgrace if, confronted with systemic abuse of these or any other classes of Americans, they abandoned the vulnerable and tried to change the topic. Republicans aren’t going to limit themselves to deporting violent criminals; they aren’t sincerely fixed on sports fairness or the rights of prisoners—they’ll come after immigrants of all kinds, and trans health care wherever it’s offered. What will Democrats like Moulton and the activists who condemn him say when these things happen? Will they find it within themselves to speak with one voice? The answer should be yes. Capturing the center can go hand in hand with protecting people from cruelty and rallying the public against oppression. If it doesn’t, we are lost.

[puffyducks]

DCRC Week #19 (Part 1)

Hey do you guys remember that soap opera that Donald likes to watch, Anxieties? Well buckle up cause today we're reading PKNA #15: Camera, Action! which is all about the cast of Anxieties getting attacked by (you guessed it) EVIL EVRONIAN INVADERS!!! I don't remember much of this story past the fact that it's a pretty silly and lighthearted issue so letsgo

Bro locked in and hit the Dreamworks face

guys he's just silly... hi Donald 👋

I can't tell if this chapter is supposed to take place in the real life Isla de Providencia in Colombia or if this is supposed to be a fictional place cause I've never heard it referred to as "the republic" before lol

Footage of the writers of the Ducktales reboot (circa. 2017)

What a freak I love her <3

I'm really glad to know Donald and Uno just sit around and watch soap operas together, especially since Everett Ducklair originally just left Uno by himself and didn't want him letting anyone on the secret floor. FUCK YOU EVERETT we're watching Anxieties without you 🖕

guy that looks suspiciously like chris chan

WHAT NOOOOOOO I would never send my partner all the way to Colombia to infiltrate a film set just to get soap opera spoilers what

NOOOOOOOOO HE FUCKINF ESPLODED NOOOOOOOOOOOOooo oh nevermind he's fine

GUYS LOOK! IT'S ZOSTER AND ZONDAG! THE EVRONIANS THAT I CAN ONLY NAME BECAUSE THEY WERE THE TWO BOSSES FROM THE PK VIDEO GAME!!!

btw do people ship them together. cause if not can we start doing that? not because they'd make a good couple or whatever but because the concept of evronian yaoi is funny to me

see look they share trauma (and I don't mean the big evronian guy)

"anthropological studies" ok bro I know a silly billy when I see one!!!

Glad to see a group of people finally treat the Evronians with the fear and respect they ACTUALLY deserve

I'm gonna see big buff-armed Uno in my nightmares now thanks

Gotta say, I'm impressed with the number of explosions there have been in this issue given the fact that Xadhoom isn't here

Alright folks you know what the fuck it is, it's fucking TRIP TIME!!!! YIPPEEE YAHOO WOOHOO

First and foremost shoutout to the way the Raider is drawn here I think they should draw him like this all the time actually. Second of all TFYM "HONEST WORK" YOU'RE LITERALLY A TIME PIRATE 😭

Using time travel as a shortcut to riches eh??? I'm having flashbacks to a certain storm-themed cartoon episode... can't quite put my finger on it........

Shoutout to Trip meeting another version of himself and IMMEDIATELY starting beef, FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

ALL THE FUCKING FACES HERE I'm so mad the art in these comics is so expressive and silly

NOOOOO TRIP DON'T SAY SLURS YOU CAN'T RECLAIM

Ok but seriously, this specific line has been haunting me for months because I was like "there's no way that's the original line right? Is there actually an Italian equivalent to the R slur or was the translator just having a bad day???" WELL TODAY I HAVE SOLVED THE CONUNDRUM ONCE AND FOR ALL. And the truth is:

Trip was fucking FRAMED!!! The original insult used was "babbeo" which, based on everything I can source online, roughly translates to "fool" or "idiot" or any other derogatory name that's basically just calling someone stupid. So like THEORETICALLY it could be translated to the R slur but it's a bit of an extreme take 😭

Anyways I'm not saying that Trip WOULDN'T say slurs, just that I needed closure and I finally have it.

Raider just coming home with groceries what the fuck is this outfit

I'm assuming this was all resolved in the same way as Steven and the Stevens where they had to make all the other Trips blink out of existence. And then they wrote a silly little song about it!

OKAY this is only my first post for this week I will be back later with Trick or Treat 🎃 in the meantime STAY SPOOKY FOLKS

[scotianostra]

On July 6th 1249 King Alexander II died on the island of Kerrera.

The kings of Scots of the old Celtic line were plagued in the thirteenth century by a persistent inability to breed male heirs. William the Lion, whose reign lasted fifty years till his death in 1214, was well into his middle fifties when his son and heir, the future Alexander II, at last arrived. Alexander was sixteen when he took his place on the hallowed coronation stone at Scone.

Alexander was at once threatened by his relatives, the MacWilliams, descended from King Duncan II, who had been murdered in 1094. They believed they had a better right to the throne than the incumbents, had already made attempts to attain it, and had no shortage of male heirs. Now, in 1215, Donald Bane, a great-grandson of King Duncan, rose in the north, but he and his supporters were quelled by a powerful Celtic lord, Farquhar MacTaggart, who sent Alexander the severed heads of the rebels as a present. Alexander was less Norman-oriented and more Celtic in his sympathies than his father and this support from a Celtic lord was significant.

It was a brutal age and in the 1220s Alexander would have the hands and feet of eighty men of Caithness cut off to punish them for roasting their bishop alive, while another challenge from the MacWilliams in 1230 would end with the brains of the challenger’s baby daughter being beaten out against the market cross in Forfar.

Alexander meanwhile had no baby of his own. He had married Joan, the eldest sister of Henry III of England, but the years went by and there were no children. The nearest male heir was Alexander’s cousin, John, Earl of Huntingdon, but he died in 1237, childless. The English kings had already laid claim to being Scotland’s suzerains and the situation was so threatening that, apparently, it was decided that if Alexander died without a son, his successor would be Robert Bruce, lord of Annandale, as the nearest male in line. Or so the Bruces were to claim.

When Queen Joan died in 1238 on a visit to England, Alexander took the opportunity to marry again. He chose a French lord’s daughter, Marie de Coucy, and in 1241, to what must have been the huge relief of them both, she presented him with an heir, the future Alexander III, who was to be their one and only child. The king, who had extended his effective sway to both Galloway and Argyll, with assistance from Farquhar MacTaggart, now set out to buy the Western Isles from their ruler, Haakon IV of Norway. The offer was not accepted and in 1249 Alexander gathered an invasion fleet. He had got as far as the island of Kerrera, across the water from Oban, when he fell sick of a fever and died.

The heir, Alexander III, was a boy of seven, and was ten when he was married to Henry III’s eleven- year-old daughter, Margaret. He grew up to be one of the best kings of his line, but all his children died in his own lifetime and when he himself was killed in a riding accident in 1286 his successor was his baby granddaughter, known as the Maid of Norway. She died only four years later and the way was wide open for the ruthless Edward I of England to intervene, claiming to be Scotland’s overlord, and to sort out the succession. The intervention was unsuccessful in the end, but it led to centuries of intermittent war, and Scots in later times looked back to the reigns of Alexander II and Alexander III as a golden age.

Alexander II has the honour of being the only Scottish king to take his invasion force all the way to the south coast of England.

Whilst still a teenager, Alexander backed a rebellion of northern English barons against the King of England, John I. Hoping to secure the territories of Northumberland, Alexander and his army invaded England. They reached the port of Dover where, while waiting to join a French invasion force, the invasion failed. The death of John I saw the English barons change their allegiances. Alexander left empty-handed.

The third pic is Gylen Castle on Kerrera.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

By showing Musk’s X the red card, has Brazil scored a goal for all democracies?

At 10 minutes past midnight on 31 August, Elon Musk’s X (nee Twitter) went dark in Brazil, a country of more than 200 million souls, many of them enthusiastic users of online services. The day before, a supreme court justice, Alexandre de Moraes, had done something hitherto unthinkable: ordered the country’s ISPs to block access to the platform, threatened a daily fine of 50,000 Brazilian reis (just under £6,800) for users who bypassed the ban by using virtual private networks (VPNs) and froze the finances of Elon Musk’s Starlink internet service provider in the country. The order would remain in force until the platform complied with the decisions of the supreme federal court, paid fines totalling 18.3m reis (nearly £2.5m) and appointed a representative in Brazil, a legal requirement for foreign companies operating there. Moraes had also instructed Apple and Google to remove the X app and VPN software from their stores, but later reversed that decision, citing concerns about potential “unnecessary” disruptions.

Cue shock, horror, incredulity, outrage and all the reactions in between. Musk – who has been sparring with Moraes for quite a while – tweeted: “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo-judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.” The animosity between the two goes back to 8 January 2023, after the defeat of Jair Bolsonaro in the 2022 Brazilian presidential election, when a mob of his supporters attacked federal government buildings in the capital, Brasília. The mob invaded and caused deliberate damage to the supreme federal court, the national congress and the Planalto presidential palace in an abortive attempt to overthrow the democratically elected president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Justice Moraes is in the firing line because before the 2022 presidential election the country’s supreme court had given him expansive powers to crack down on online threats to democracy and he has been an enthusiastic deployer of that capability ever since. A New York Times report, for example, said that he “jailed five people without a trial for posts on social media that he said attacked Brazil’s institutions. He has also ordered social networks to remove thousands of posts and videos with little room for appeal.” And it is this last practice that brought him into collision with Musk, whose platform was one of the channels used by the 8 January insurgents.

Media coverage of this clash has predictably personalised it as ruthless enforcer versus tech titan. Who will blink first? Why on earth did Musk pick this fight? Has his fatuous obsession with free speech finally pushed him over the edge? After all, he could have complied with Moraes’s takedown orders, kept the office in Brasília and fought the issue through the Brazilian courts. Instead, he took his ball away, leaving more than 20 million Brazilian X users bereft. On the other hand, although Moraes turned out to be a pretty effective check on Bolsonaro – a cut-price Donald Trump who attacked the media, the courts and the country’s electoral system – some critics are beginning to wonder whether, in his mission to protect democracy, the judge may also wind up eroding it.

Who knows? But for now at least, one thing is clear: this is the first time a democratic state has shut down a main tech platform. Autocracies do this at will (for instance, China, Russia, Iran, Gulf states), but until now democracies have shied away from such an extreme measure. Listening to some of the chatter on the web about the Moraes order provides a clue to the timidity, for what you pick up is astonishment at the effrontery of a mere Brazilian who dares to take down a big American platform because it doesn’t obey the law of his particular land. Who does he think he is? Doesn’t he understand Silicon Valley’s “manifest destiny” to be the prime engine of human progress, leaving lesser breeds bobbing helplessly in its wake?

Continue reading.

[weil-weil-lautre]

One of the most important questions would be this: Why does the appearance of queer theory coincide historically with the fall of the Berlin Wall? The Berlin Wall symbolized, of course, not simply a particular post-World War II partitioning by Allied powers of a country on the 'losing' side. As Ronald Reagan and George Bush's obsession with it indicated, the Berlin Wall symbolized, most importantly, the dividing line between the spheres of influence of two competing visions of the social and their allied modes of production: one, capitalism, devoted to the expansion, reproduction, and commodification of desires (for profit); and another, socialism, concerned with fulfilling needs. Ultimately, today's queer theory--which belongs...with the former and not with the latter--is the kind of Eurocentric theory (it takes its de-historicized notion of desire to be desire as such) that sees the fall of the Berlin Wall as what the bourgeois apologist Francis Fukuyama calls 'the end of history' itself. The queer theory that dominates academic and intellectual circles at the present time is, in the last analysis, just one strand of today's dominant Eurocentric theories, which desperately want to see the burden of history (along with the West's collective social responsibilities) disappear. Dominant queer theory's program for this disappearance is what it calls 'queering the planet' (that is, establishing the autonomy of desire and erasing need). These theories, which hail the present post-Cold War moment to be the moment of the arrival of 'freedom for all' (that is, of the desire of 'all'), only serve to occlude the worldwide needs that remain to be fulfilled. In other words, today's queer theory is finally only part of that idealist, bourgeois history currently being written through VR goggles and 'white glasses.' Ultimately the most productive and responsible contribution will be made by a materialist queer studies that theorizes sexuality in relation to the largest possible understanding of social need.

Donald Morton, The Material Queer, 29b-30a