I find the goop one especially confusing.

Does anyone have an understanding on what gets change to happen? Like 30 years ago, Inwas really opposed to the war on drugs on civil liberties grounds, and I was also aware of how racist it was. Public opinion is much closer to where I was then. I was also very anti Gray Davis' tough on crime stance in California. I think the cost of the prisons has influenced some people, but I'd be curious to know, what, if any actions from activists, got people and policy makers to think differently.

I asked, because Perlstein tracked the rise of the right. How do we build support for a rise of the American left that will be a bit more stable and long lasting?

FWIW, Kevin Drum doesn't think it's the Cell Phones: https://jabberwocking.com/cell-phones-really-dont-seem-to-be-causing-an-epidemic-of-teen-depression/

The demoralization is pretty demoralizing. Nothing young people care about would be better if Biden loses, and a whole lot of things would be worse. Some irretrievably worse. People say that this isn't sufficient reason to vote for Biden but why exactly that is so is kind of a mystery to me. Shit is fucked up, yes, but you have a very low investment way to help prevent shit from being fucked up much worse but, well, why even bother. Because if you don't, shit will be fucked up way worse!

1. We liked Inside Out 2. Saw it yesterday with the family. Good Father's Day movie in that it's kid-appropriate and about growing up, I guess.

2. The linked article seems like a bad argument for or against political depression, but a good argument against X FKA Twitter. Not like I needed to be persuaded of that, but clearly some people do.

But more viscous goop would be *less* likely to leak between the staves of a barrel.

The correct analogy is oobleck because the madder you are and the harder you punch it the more resistant it is. Keep fucking that cornstarch, but slowly and steadily, or something.

Perlstein is the best! But I think he misses two things here:

--The leftist objections to Biden come from people who are not on our side. If you're going to sit out the election or vote for Williamson or Kennedy or West or whoever, it's because you don't want the same things out of politics that us Democrats want. This isn't any different from Trump voters, but Perlstein doesn't seem to understand that.
--Some people have, with considerable justification, given up hope. This Slate piece is a sort of Cletus safari, but the writer doesn't go to some Ohio diner to talk to white Republicans. It's a look at Michigan Muslims who are really pissed off at Biden. Of course, there is no actual alternative to Biden for these people. On the issues they care about, Trump would be much worse in every respect. But while I disagree with their political choice, I am compelled to admit that Palestinians everywhere have earned their nihilism.

I don't think there's really any point in regular people trying to convince other people to vote for Biden, especially at this point. There's some (small) portion of the left that just won't vote for a mainstream Democrat at all, but many of the people threatening to withhold their vote are doing it strategically to try to force Biden to change his policy on Israel. It's an extreme threat, yes, and it would be insane to follow through on, but that's why it's potentially effective. Is Biden so committed to Netanyahu that he's willing to lose his own race? So far it hasn't been actually effective, of course. But people like Perlstein have no role whatsoever in this negotiation.

Cell phones are the new marijuana/D&D/rock music/premarital sex that are destroying America's youth. I've watched this same show over and over again; it will be something else five years from now. Between the looming potential collapses of the climate and the western liberal order, the lingering trauma of a global pandemic and attendant social isolation, and an ever widening roster of random school shootings, we have enough to explain a generalized sense of heightened anxiety without whatever effect TikTok is having.

Three is also the dynamic of the electoral college, which means in most states of the country your vote doesn't really matter because you aren't in a state that is going to swing. If leftists in New York or California withhold their votes from Biden, it isn't going to change anything and everybody knows it. So why get mad at people for voting their conscience?

10: Because the kind of people who declare they're voting their conscience more often than not do not caveat the tactical reason that's ineffective, and can sway people in other states.

In 2016, Clinton won PA by 44k votes, while Stein racked up almost 50k. Not everyone thinks about the EC, especially the less-engaged voters liable to go third-party.

11.1 is what I would say. Whether they recognize it or not, people pissed at Biden are part of a movement, and they can't expect that their movement will only will only affect California, New York, and Massachusetts.

7 There's definitely a core of people who never want a Democrat to win, preferring to fight the Near Enemy rather than the Far Enemy. These folks can't be helped. They're also not enough to turn the election. That requires a bunch of much less committed people going with a vibe. If Biden loses, it'll be because of a bunch of incremental things at the margin, including permission structures from the billionaire-owned media, and maybe some mess ups (like the Palm Beach butterfly ballot, or the Duval County overvotes). I think giving up on persuadables is a mistake. In 2016, people went around saying that Roe wasn't going to be overturned and that people saying it was were fear-mongering. There were enough people who bought that shit to make a difference.

I totally get why Palestinian Americans would feel like there was no one to vote for. But they have to be worried about climate change, about democracy, about civil rights, and all the rest as well. Biden is still their best bet.

But also, pretty sure it's significantly worse for Palestinians if Trump gets elected?

Also I got viscosity meaning oppositely wrong. I meant it thins out the goop.

It probably wouldn't get significantly worse for Palestinians in Palestine if Trump won, but that's only because the situation is already so bad that it probably can't get meaningfully worse. Trump would definitely be enthusiastically cheering on the situation rather than half-heartedly criticizing it, though. For Palestinian-Americans Trump would be worse than Biden in all the same ways as for other American minority groups.

The movie annoyed me because they established in the first film that Fear is Anxiety, and that all of the five emotions can be good and useful. Disgust gave rise to concern about social standing. So, why did we need more emotions?

It was okay, but I felt like Pixar remade the first movie and made it worst conceptually.

9: the college students I have think social media is bad for them. I think it's not just a moral panic, but that we don't have the tools to handle it yet. But the mistake is thinking that we won't.

16: Fear serves a different purpose (according to the worldview of the movie). It doesn't have a future-planning component. Anxiety is based in the future in a differentiating way than fear.

12.2: I was addressing Perlstein, who isn't talking about "persuadables," or if he is, he doesn't understand what he is trying to persuade them of. Perlstein interlocutors are people who understand the political milieu they are operating in, and are acting accordingly.

You clearly understand the underlying issue, and Spike in 10 understands, too. Some folks' conscience doesn't allow them to join in with a Democratic majority. That's the locus of the disagreement.

I do think Spike makes a couple of mistakes in 10. By Spike's stated standard, nobody's presidential vote counts for anything. It doesn't matter -- again by Spike's standard -- if you're in Florida in 2020 or California in 2024. Your vote is meaningless. It will not decide the election. If you vote, it is for some reason other than determining the outcome of the election.

And the other mistake is wondering "why get mad at people for voting their conscience." I vote my conscience, and some people get mad about that and, given their views, that is obvious and natural and appropriate.

18: in the first movie the new school first day worries were assigned to Fear. Also Anxiety shows up only at puberty (the parents only have five emotions)? Someone tell my eight year old.

I liked the story and the depiction of the panic attack. shiv was annoyed that Joy had apparently learned nothing from the first movie.

For me, this one took on meaningfully different psychological ideas - the emergence of a sense of self and identity, the onset of teenager-style anxiety. It certainly had the same basic story arc, but I see both as basically PSAs for school counselors more than story-telling. The premise of the first one is "You have emotions and you should be able to name them, and they are useful for you to observe and learn from, but you are not obliged to always obey them."

On gripes, I was thinking, "Nostalgia seems to show up around age 6. Why are they pretending it starts at age 18?!"

17: Sure, we can all agree that social media carries potential and realized personal and social harm, just like alcohol etc. But the 21st century has an entire host of gigantic, global anxiety-producing existential crises and social media, for all its perniciousness, is being assigned a lots of those impacts.

I think 15.1 is wrong, but it's not foolish or crazy. The Slate piece that I linked really articulated that sentiment well.

For that matter, I also understand Hamas' desire to butcher festival-goers, and Israel's desire to wipe out the residents of Gaza. In all cases, we are talking about people with a well-founded belief that "the situation is already so bad that it probably can't get meaningfully worse." The corollary to that is the situation can't get any better without comprehensive upheaval.

I don't think that's correct, but I am also aware that it's rather glib and facile for someone like me to express that opinion from a position that is essentially on the sidelines.

8.last is the essential sentence in this thread:

But people like Perlstein have no role whatsoever in this negotiation.

In the first Inside Out, Joy thinks Sadness is a bummer and should stay in the circle. And it turns out that Sadness is the source of compassion and other more grown-up emotions are combinations of emotions. Sadness is controlling the mom's console.

It's fun to have Anxiety personified, of course, but solving it by putting her in a chair/circle seems to undermine the point.

"the situation is already so bad that it probably can't get meaningfully worse"

Is there some place I need to come and talk about German, Russian, and East European history?

Reality's canonical response to 'can't get worse' is 'hold my beer.'

I mean, obviously the situation can in fact get worse. It's just unlikely that the difference between Biden and Trump will be a trigger for that.

Speaking of worse beer, I accidentally bought alcohol-free beer when I wanted to try something new.

I think there's reason to think that Trump's "finish what they started" could, implausible as it may sound, unleash Israel even more - to more overt genocide, specifically.

28: I understood all of that. I just don't agree.

I'm okay with characterizing the Israeli actions in Gaza as "genocide," but there's a big difference between this genocide and the kind of genocide that Trump is prepared to endorse. Do you think there is any plausible crime in Gaza or the West Bank that Trump wouldn't support? Or do you think that support wouldn't be materially different from Biden's dithering? I think the difference would matter a lot on the ground in Gaza.

Or what 30 said.

28: The people of Gaza would also see little improvement in their lives were Biden wholeheartedly won over by the threats from the left.

Or do you think that support wouldn't be materially different from Biden's dithering?

This. Biden isn't giving Israel quite as much rhetorical support as Trump would, but he's giving just about as much material support as it's possible for a US president to give. Trump would love to do more but I don't think he really can.

It's fun to have Anxiety personified, of course, but solving it by putting her in a chair/circle seems to undermine the point.

But Anxiety is still useful - it's said that she's useful when there's a test coming up, for example, to start studying early. I interpreted it to mean that the chair is just a coping strategy for when Anxiety starts over-functioning, not an actual banishment.

Trump would love to do more but I don't think he really can.

The literal leader of the military can't ramp up the war? Can't go for a photo op with Netanyahu when he claims that Gaza has now been eradicated of Palestinians and settlers should feel free to move about the cabin?

He could give Israel a ton more thermobaric weapons & a thumbs-up.

But people like Perlstein have no role whatsoever in this negotiation.

I don't think I agree with that, but if it is correct, why doesn't it go both ways -- what do they gain by arguing with Rick Perlstein?

Or, to rephrase 38, if you think Perlstein shouldn't try to convince people who are threatening to not vote for Joe Biden for leftist reasons, shouldn't they also not try to change the minds of people who plan to vote for Joe Biden for leftist reasons?

So 39 is the clearer version?

That's what I ask.

40: heh. Perhaps I should have stopped while I was ahead.

The literal leader of the military can't ramp up the war?

Our military isn't fighting the war, which is pretty much at full throttle already anyway, at least in Gaza. Israel could certainly ramp up by, say, invading Lebanon, but that sort of decision is independent of who is US president. Biden might be restraining them behind this scenes (some people claim this is happening but the extent to which that's true is unclear), in which case Trump could possibly make it worse by egging them on, but they seem very eager to ignore any and all attempts at restraint so I doubt it.

38/39: Sure, I'm not saying what they're doing is any more productive. But the discussion here has been from Perlstein's perspective.

38-39: I'll start with the disclaimer that I'm explaining what I liked about teo's remark, rather than purporting to explain what teo meant.

I'm not saying anything like, "Perlstein shouldn't try to convince people who are threatening to not vote for Joe Biden for leftist reasons." But the Online Left -- the folks Perlstein is addressing -- aren't interested in leftist policy the way that Perlstein is. He's talking past them, and vice versa.

Perlstein is very Left, and very pro-Palestinian. So that's not what they're arguing about. But his Online Left interlocutors have a theory of change that he is unwilling to credit.

Teo, meanwhile, offers in 8 a level of understanding and sympathy for the Online Left that Perlstein (and I) lack. In an effort to emulate teo, I will say that any theory of change has to take into account matters beyond the directly political -- and how one measures political harm against other benefits is a difficult problem.

And that's as sympathetic as I can get. Lumping Biden supporters with Likud supporters makes absolutely no goddam sense to me at all in any context, and that's the locus of the debate. Perlstein can go so far as to say it makes him feel bad, but he can't take the next step and understand that his interlocutors have genuinely thought this through and want policy to be dictated by something other than the available democratic processes. The Online Left is not on the same side as Perlstein, but he seems to think otherwise.

Thinking that the Palestinian situation couldn't get any worse was behind a lot of 10/7 cheerleading. If people actually cared about outcomes instead of performative politics, things probably wouldn't be so bad today. But it's been a bad few decades.

The Trumpist right is more interested in building up the domestic police state than international wars. Those are for later, if there's enough insulation from political opinion.

implausible as it may sound

Why's it implausible? The guy is wildly racist in a generic sense and personally obsessed with performative displays of cruelty for their own sake*. He's also deeply chaotic and impressionable; like a cushion he bears the impression of the last man to sit on him. When he was actually president, he first decided to fold support for US allies in Syria on a whim and then heard that one of their locations was an abandoned oil field so he ordered the military to re-occupy it because he believed that the DOD operates roughly in the way the no bananas guy on twitter thinks and they could steal oil or something. If the right weirdo managed to get something put in his folder he might well send the Marines into Gaza to spray it with pig lard or something.

* https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-says-immigrants-poison-blood-nation-1234934092/

I mean, it's not as if there was *doubt* about how he would behave at this point.

I also understand Hamas' desire to butcher festival-goers, and Israel's desire to wipe out the residents of Gaza. In all cases, we are talking about people with a well-founded belief that "the situation is already so bad that it probably can't get meaningfully worse."

I think this is a misreading of the situation. It is very rare for people to mount massive military operations out of despair. They do it because they think they can win - they think they have a good chance of achieving a valuable objective. The only exception I can think of would be the Warsaw Ghetto, and they really did have grounds to think that the situation couldn't get meaningfully worse because they were all about to be sent to concentration camps (real ones) and killed. This wasn't the case for residents of Gaza on 6 October.

In the case of Gaza, their decision was probably based on a lot of ill-founded beliefs about how likely victory was; for example, IIRC the consensus belief in Gaza is that the population of Gaza is roughly twice the population of Israel.

I think it's possible they (Hamas) considered the situation bad and likely to get worse (e.g. via a normalization deal that cut them and even the PA out), and chose an option that had high variance if a poor expected value outcome because that includes the possibility of changing the situation. From an ultracynical perspective they may even consider this to be success*; they're still there, nobody can ignore them, Israel's name has never been worse and the level of antagonism never higher.

*If Hamas was at all concerned about the safety of the civil population they wouldn't have done it. That the Israeli retaliation would be horrific was both predictable and predicted, and the very reason why anyone was campaigning for a ceasefire the day after 7th October was because they feared it would turn out as horrific as it has.

51 is a good point and avoids making the mistake I made in 50. The correct way to look at this is not "was the situation in September 2023 unspeakably bad, as bad as it could possibly get, for the people of Gaza" - clearly it wasn't, but that doesn't matter, because they didn't make the decisions. The correct question is "was the situation unspeakably bad for the leadership of Hamas" - yes, it was, because they were at risk of losing their power.

But I am also always instinctively hostile to the sort of argument that says "aha, don't you see, doing this was exactly what the terrorists wanted all along". I don't like it when people were saying that about bin Laden, and I don't like it about Hamas either. I don't think this was exactly how they wanted things to go. They've lost a third of their forces and, probably, a great deal of money. And they can't just replace fighters at will. They need experienced, capable and most of all loyal troops - not so much to fight Israel because that isn't their priority, but to keep control of their subject population.

||

NMM to Anouk Aimée

|>

The problem with 8 is that Biden would lose more votes by shifting to their position than he would gain. Moreover, if you look at what the same people say about say Climate Change, you see that there's just no satisfying these people. They don't want Biden to shift policy, they want to live in a magical fantasy land unconstrained by reality.

I want to live in a magical fantasy land where I can carry a sword and be supported by serfs.

52 And to have actual and perceived strength vis a vis Fatah.

Our military isn't fighting the war

You may be able to find some Yemenis who'd take some issue with this. Also Donald "the Dove" Trump approved the assassination of Qasem Soleimani on grounds no greater than are available regarding a number of people associated with Hamas right now.

My congressman voted no on the Israel aid bill because he considers the humanitarian aid for Gaza in the bill to be "funding my enemy." It's not that difficult to see Trump basically stopping this, which he can undoubtedly do, and cheerleading further Israeli efforts to prevent aid from reaching Gazans. This is a very direct way in which electing Trump make things worse for actual Gazans, and I think ignoring it is basically bad faith on the part of people pushing a permission structure for the result they actually want: Biden's defeat.

I don't think this was exactly how they wanted things to go.

Not exactly, but surely the rough outline of the outcome was, as Alex says, "predictable and predicted." I have been a bit surprised at how successful the Hamas attack was in achieving Hamas' goals. (And the same for bin Laden, who must have been delighted at the invasion of Iraq.)

They do it because they think they can win

What "win" do you think Hamas expected that Hamas didn't get?

57.last I think they thought that Hezbollah and Iran would join the fight. Though I agree in broad terms this is a strategic defeat for Israel. There is no military solution to be had here (for either side for that matter), but if all you know how to use is a hammer...

58 Really? Betting that Iran would do something direct and overt? Obviously, Hamas leadership knows the players and their thinking a whole better than I ever will, but this seems to be such a long shot as nearly delusional.

If by Iran joining the fight they meant that Iran would not tells entities it is aligned with in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen that they should stand down, ok that's a better bet.

Not exactly, but surely the rough outline of the outcome was, as Alex says, "predictable and predicted." I have been a bit surprised at how successful the Hamas attack was in achieving Hamas' goals.

Even educated, intelligent, well-informed people can make very serious errors about the outcomes of military operations!
It looks to us really obvious that going to war with the USA was a terrible idea for Japan in 1941. They couldn't even defeat China and so they decided to take on the world's biggest economy as well?
But they didn't think "this is pointless, even if we destroy the entire Pacific fleet the Americans will be able to rebuild it in a year, and build another three identical copies in the year after that" even though they had all the knowledge they needed to reach that conclusion. They thought that the Pearl Harbor attack would be so shocking that the US would immediately sue for peace.

As Barry says, Hamas' goal was to take and hold a significant slice of Israeli territory (some reports say up to 20 miles deep) on the assumption that this initial victory would tempt other actors inside (the population of the West Bank) and outside Palestine (Hezbollah, Iran) to join the winning side. This would start a wider regional war which would bring about the destruction of Israel. That was not a realistically achievable goal but they thought it was.

I mean, Yamamoto knew it was a bad idea. Presumably lots of other Japanese officers did. The problem was that assuming Pearl Harbor would work was much more comfortable for Japanese political reasons.

It is not unheard of for people to deliberately lose wars in the hope of gaining international sympathy which will end up furthering their political objectives. This is what the Russian Communist government did in the First World War (it didn't work). But it's not very common as a strategy. Normally people fight to win, in order to gain objectives.

I mean, Yamamoto knew it was a bad idea. Presumably lots of other Japanese officers did.

Yamamoto knew that war with the US was a bad idea (though he never actually said the thing about "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant") and he correctly said that Japan could never win a protracted war. He also didn't believe in the dominant "Decisive Battle" concept of operations that had governed Japanese naval strategy for the previous 20 years.

But he thought that the Pearl Harbor strike could work as a psychological blow to shock the US into seeking terms. It was his idea. "I'd rather not do this at all, but if I have to, this is the best way to do it" was basically his position.

The reason he was in that position is because the army was unwilling to not beat China and there was no political support for forcing the army to stop trying.

Vaguely related, one of the most memorable bits from "Cryptonomicon". The characters are Japanese officers in the occupied Philippines.

"[MacArthur] has landed on Leyte in great force," he says matter-of-factly.

"He is mad!" Ninomiya raves. "The Navy will destroy him! It is what they have been waiting for all these years - the Decisive Battle!"

"The Decisive Battle was yesterday."

"I see," Ninomiya whispers. He looks ten years older and he is not at a stage in his life when he can afford to spare ten years.

My point is that domestic politics is first, then strategery follows.

Until it doesn't.

Why's it implausible?

"Implausible" was in reference to the subsequent, that Israel could be "unleashed even more".

I am gonna vote for Biden because I live in PA, but I definitely would not if I lived in a safe state. Like he is supporting a genocide now. I was hoping that democrats would pull themselves out out the centrist triangulation hole they have been in since 1980 or so but they can't do it. Biden doesn't even support abortion rights without waffling. It makes me insane.

Living in Pennsylvania is a blessing and a curse. I'm not even near a WaWa.

"The Decisive Battle was yesterday."

It was won by six identical copies of the USS We Built This Yesterday, with important assistance from the various escort carriers USS We're Running Out of Revolutionary War Battles to Name These After and underwater support by a whole bunch of USS Some Kind of Fishes.

Don't forget the ice cream barge.

Biden doesn't even support abortion rights without waffling. It makes me insane.

I don't know, this seems a fairly unambiguous statement.

"Many of you in this chamber and my predecessor are promising to pass a national ban on reproductive freedom. My God, what freedom else would you take away? Look, in its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court majority wrote the following: "Women are not without electoral or political power." You're about to realize just how much you were right about that. Clearly those bragging about overturning Roe v. Wade have no clue about the power of women. But they found out. When reproductive freedom was on the ballot, we won in 2022 and 2023. And we'll win again in 2024. If you, the American people, send me a Congress that supports the right to choose, I promise you I will restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land again."

I imagine the real trick is keeping the barge supplied with milk and eggs.

And can I say how much I like the Shakespearean sound of "My God, what freedom else would you take away?"

We're Running Out of Revolutionary War Battles to Name These After

I recently read Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause and one of the really interesting aspects of it was how few battles there actually were in the war. The vast majority of it was Washington maneuvering and trying to keep his army from getting destroyed. Also even by the end of the war the Continental Army was still pretty bad and the militia was even worse.

The problem with 8 is that Biden would lose more votes by shifting to their position than he would gain.

Yeah, I don't think the political gambit is likely to succeed and in purely political terms I think the Biden administration is probably right to call their bluff. I do think this is not quite the same as the people mad at Biden over climate change, etc., although those people are part of it. The Gaza-specific abstainers have a specific policy goal that they're trying to pressure the administration into and when it becomes clear that that won't work I think most of them will back down and vote for Biden in the end. (This is why I think third parties arguing with them now is particularly pointless.)

Posing as immovable fanatics on this one issue is part of the shtick! It's a negotiating posture! Of course they're not going to publicly change their tune after talking to some random person not involved in the negotiations.

73

he avoids saying the word abortion even in the quote you give. https://apnews.com/article/abortion-biden-2024-reproductive-rights-harris-494af752992ba88fa6e3d53fbd54f716

He definitely is better than Trump on this and there is no reason to tilt the SC even more conservative for longer.

The Gaza-specific abstainers have a specific policy goal that they're trying to pressure the administration

Not just the administration, but the entire Democratic Party. Its important for policy makers at all levels to understand that mindless support for Israeli apartheid now comes with a cost, and that continued efforts to silence dissenting voices will be met with hostility.

That might not change policy in the next five months, but 20 years down the road the party is going to have to have a very different position on the topic. That's worth doing, and if the cost is that Biden's share of the national popular vote is reduced by a tenth of a percent, its still worth doing.

People keep calling me to check how I feel about how well various political figures support Israel.

||

NMM to Noam Chomsky. Real mixed legacy there.

|>

He's not listed as dead on Wikipedia, is someone likes doing edits.

Thanks.

It sucks that he died one day before a paid holiday.

So far it's sourced to a single tweet

He's back alive on Wikipedia.

Nim Chimpsky is dead.

If his heart beats even once after midnight, he can get paid for the holiday.

79: Biden comes out with a strong statement unambiguously favoring abortion rights, but because he chooses to cast it as "reproductive freedom" in order to present it in the most favorable terms to the electorate, you call that "waffling."

You have to strip your mind of all context to interpret this AP report that way. For decades, proponents of abortion rights have referred to themselves as "pro-choice." The AP reporter even quotes someone from "Pro-Choice Ohio."

It will be a better world when people can call abortion by its correct name, and I have no problem with people pushing Biden on that. But none of them suggests Biden lacks commitment to their issue, because to do so would be ridiculous.

I was curious about how the National Abortion Rights Action League talks about abortion, so I looked them up. Turns out they abandoned that name to call themselves "NARAL Pro-Choice America," but then got rid of that name, too.

You can now find them at https://reproductivefreedomforall.org/.

I'm picturing Jimmy Carter sitting in a recliner, taking sips of Schlitz, and tweeting out rumors about the deaths of other people.

82 fake news apparently

Schrödinger's Chomsky

Assume a spherical linguist with overly nuanced views on genocide.

Anouk Aimee's death surely will have a greater real-world impact on ethical masturbatory habits.

79: how I detest the "he didn't say the magic word so it doesn't count" school of political analysis. FDR never mentioned Pearl Harbor in his speech the day after the Pearl Harbor attack, clearly he wasnt serious about it. Churchill didn't mention Hitler or the Nazis when he was promising to fight on the beaches - obviously half hearted about the danger they posed.. Martin Luther King shamefully waffled on racism - he doesn't mention it once in the entire "I Have A Dream" speech!

Something very fitting that Chomsky's death should be marked by lots of people denying that it had happened.

95 Between her and Françoise Hardy earlier this week it's been a difficult time for ethical Francophile masturbators.

97 indeed

80: Spike, if Biden loses this one the consequences for Gaza will be immediate and very bad. It is very foolish to risk that in exchange for a possibility that in 20 years internal Democratic politics may have changed so that the candidate in 2044 may have to take a slightly different position on Gaza.

I also note the basic incoherence of this view of the world. You believe, as I understand it:
1. Israel is committing a genocide aimed at exterminating the population of Gaza.
2. Biden is supporting it and if re elected will continue to do so.
3. Trump will also support it if elected.
4. That a concerted effort to reduce Biden's vote this year will sway D politics such that in 20 years there will be a more Gaza-friendly D candidate.
5, and this is the bit that really makes me think you haven't thought about this very hard: in 20 years, despite the pitiless genocide mentioned in points 1-3, *there will still be a Gazan population for the candidate to be concerned about".

The New Statesman published then unpublished an obituary, whereas Jacobin has an article still up written like an obituary but the closest it gets to actually he's dead is "There will never again be a Noam Chomsky" in the next-to-last sentence - plus the URL still contains "obituary".

he avoids saying the word abortion even in the quote you give.

Yeah, this seems barely dissimilar from the whole "Obama say 'radical Islam'!" thing.

Not just the administration, but the entire Democratic Party. Its important for policy makers at all levels to understand that mindless support for Israeli apartheid now comes with a cost, and that continued efforts to silence dissenting voices will be met with hostility.

I am genuinely of multiple minds on this.

On one hand, if purpose of politics is to build coalitions for the purpose of wielding political power, that becomes more difficult the greater number of people have one more issues on which they will engage in hostile manner with anyone who is in opposition to their position.

On the other hand, I think most people shouldn't see themselves as responsible for helping build a political coalition; they should speak out about the issues that are important to them.

For me, personally, I would prefer less hostile political debates. I can certainly understand why supporters of Palestinians or abortion, or immigrants, or policies to reduce carbon emissions feel quite strongly and want to make their position very clear.

Spike, if Biden loses this one the consequences for Gaza will be immediate and very bad.

Well, sure, but I really don't think Biden is going to lose. He is an incumbent in a strong economy running against a convicted felon. This is a lay up.

This is a lay up.

It is very much not a lay-up.

I can quote myself from 2016

I'm serious when I say that this weekend made me feel a different sort of sympathy for Clinton. I had, subliminally, somewhat bought in to the idea that, "Clinton has a clear field ahead of her, she just has to avoid screwing up." But this week, from the Matt Lauer interview to pneumonia, is a reminder that, "just don't screw up " still takes a tremendous amount of work. And that, by this point at least, I do have to feel like that's work on behalf of my interests -- it's very important that she do well.

that becomes more difficult the greater number of people have one more issues on which they will engage in hostile manner with anyone who is in opposition to their position.

I agree but consider that, for my entire life, supporters of Palestine have been treated with hostility by the Democratic establishment. Why just recently, Biden gave his blessing when Eric Adams sent in the police to knock heads at Columbia because the students were exercising their right to free speech about the wrong thing.

I am willing to coexist peaceably with Israel supporters in the Democratic Party, but not until they are willing to coexist peaceably with me. And we are a long way from there.

Incumbents are getting destroyed the world over.

I still think Biden is the favorite in November, but if we voted tomorrow Trump would be the favorite.

Spike seems to be doing something rather different from the people I was talking about, who very much do think Biden may lose and that their votes may be decisive in that. They're probably wrong (he may well lose but it probably won't be because of them), but that assumption underlies the whole strategy.

"for my entire life, supporters of Palestine have been treated with hostility by the Democratic establishment."

You're younger than I thought, because I can remember a Democratic president giving an official welcome to the White House to *Yasser Arafat*.

but if we voted tomorrow Trump would be the favorite.

I think if we voted tomorrow Trump would also lose. I'm just not seeing the enthusiasm for him out there that there was in 2020. Its all about who shows up, and he's going to have a lot more trouble getting Joe Rando to the polls this time around.

And if you think Biden winning is a layup, I'll bet you £200 at five to one that Trump wins. Then I'll put another £200 on Biden at any high street bookie and they'll give me evens.

Someone else can take that bet. I don't gamble.

*No one else* will take that bet, Spike, and you need to think hard about why that is.

100: exactly, the interest in playing the long game to tackle genocide is fascinating.

Bad day
https://x.com/glenn__kenny/status/1803234806056067550?s=46&t=nbIfRG4OrIZbaPkDOwkgxQ

At least Noam Chomsky didn't live to see it.

the interest in playing the long game to tackle genocide is fascinating.

It reminds me very strongly of people who profess to believe that Christ is returning in splendour to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth within the next ten years, but who are also contributing to a private pension scheme.

re: 115

James Chance! I don't know a lot of his stuff, but there's a couple of brilliant singles on the big Ze records Mutant Disco box set.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fkOqZQdaRE

* that one is an August Darnell (aka Kid Creole) remix.

||

I've had Covid this week, and it fucking sucks. I think this is the 5th time I've had it. It's certainly the 4th time I've tested positive.

I don't know if it's the changing variants, or the waning of vaccine protection, as I've not had a vaccine booster since 2022,* but I've felt much sicker this time than I remember for the last couple of bouts.

>

* thanks to the infinite wisdom of our fucking Conservative government, I don't qualify for the current vestigial vaccination program and private vaccines have only recently become available.

There is quite a bit of it going around. Seeing a lot more respiratory infections in general. And my brother and his wife had it quite badly last month. There was a small spike in hospitalisations in England in May, not as big as the winter spike, but that's dropping off now...

I think I've had like six vaccinations. I assume there'll be another one this fall. I'm going to keep going until I'm magnetic.

re: 121

The UK basically discontinued the vaccination program at the end of 2022, except if you are over 75 or have a weakened immune system. It doesn't make any sense to me, either.

Now trying to decide if it's irresponsible to go to the pub this evening to watch the football (it's over a week since I got sick).

I went to the bar last weekend, so I probably won't go this weekend because my stomach doesn't like it if I drink too often. In theory, I could go and have two beers. In practice, I was acculturated to what the kids are calling "binge drinking".

110: I think it's a tossup right now but it was notable to me that Bob Good almost hung on in last night's Virginia primaries despite Trump going after him/endorsing his opponent because Good committed the unforgivable sin of backing De Santis.

117: Hmm. Maybe a better analogy would be to people who aren't preparing for the future for that reason.

Anyway, I don't think the right message to send with your vote is: "We don't see any particular reason to oppose Trump on this issue." Admittedly, that judgment is largely based on my view that Trump is sui generis in his support of the Likud program. Say what you will about Obama or Biden, but neither of them -- or the Clintons or Bushes -- would have recognized Jerusalem as the capitol, to pick one obvious example.

Perlstein was apologetic about his "over-the-top claim that we can expect second-term Trump to urge Israel to use nuclear weapons." But would anyone actually be surprised if Trump did that? I mean, I don't think Netanyahu would follow Trump's advice, but that's only because Netanyahu is less extreme and less stupid.

Hmm. Maybe a better analogy would be to people who aren't preparing for the future for that reason.

And once again we see the wisdom of the analogy ban. I was going for "these people are not acting in the way they would act if they actually believed what they say they believe".

Perlstein was apologetic about his "over-the-top claim that we can expect second-term Trump to urge Israel to use nuclear weapons." But would anyone actually be surprised if Trump did that?

I vaguely remember earlier this year being told off for doubting that Lindsay Graham had already done that. So, no, no one would be surprised if Trump did it.

119- only had it once, but I got it in January after getting boosted in November. Sick as a dog for a week even with Paxlovid which our state Telehealth program covered.. Breathing difficulties for a month and had to get an inhaler.

In the winter I still wear a mask at the grocery store And I wear one on public transportation. I figure limiting the amount of germs breathed in me during a bus or train ride for 30-40 minutes doesn't hurt my quality of life, and if I can cut my overall risk by 20-30% it's worth it.

122: As you said, private vaccines are finally available. I got mine last month. Unfortunately it was like £85.

I got a free vaccine but you don't want my co-pays for regular health care in exchange for saving £85.