All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I didn't support the Iraq war and have voted against candidates (including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in several primaries) because of their support for it. I'd still agree with him that non-white Democrats do tend to be less hostile to government/religion (especially) than white Democrats and that the circular logic of some anti-racist advocates prevents their message from working much from beyond their bubbles (hard to have a discussion when you don't have to measure results, can't be questioned on penalty of being labeled/dismissed as evil and irrelevant, and start from the assumption that because you're arguing for a good cause everything you're saying is correct).

The question is why choose this topic to write too in a culture and climate here you have fascism legitimized by an opposition party. Yglesias acts as if the Dems lost the election and writes as such. His take would still be bad but editorially it would at least have some validity for justification in terms of "public interest".

Isn't this an ad hominem, where the reaction is about him as a person rather than his specific argument?

I wasn't making a specific argument, just giving an off-the-cuff response to a writer who has an overinflated sense of self, who was also seen as not an especially good boss at Vox and not really worker-friendly, and I also think it's worth reminding everyone of people who supported the Iraq War trying to pass themselves as wise old men, or speaking as if they had the wisdom of the old-left. In fact, Yglesias was a Clintonian war-hawk (as was Ezra Klein).

Would it be a good idea in all situations to dismiss everything anyone's said, because of a view they've held when in their early twenties?

If they offer an opinion or present a persona without a hint of self-criticism and self-awareness, then yes. Yglesias is offering a bog-standard critique against "identity politics" which is a total misunderstanding and using the latest issue to sharpen his knife simply because his particular brand of political analysis no longer has real currency or popularity among his readers. He's not offering analysis but a bruised ego.

People here criticize "arsonists coming in as firefighters" in describing Bush-Era Neocons now posing as latter-day "where did we go wrong" anti-Trump GOP...but that applies to the left as well, to Clintonian war-hawks. It's people like Matt Yglesias who bear responsibility for the "problems" as he understands it in the left in terms of polarization and generational rejection. And yet he doesn't own up to it, never owns up to his own mistakes. Their support for the Iraq War and the Clinton-era policies begat this huge series of problems in the left, which in America was overcome with considerable difficulty. Today Clintonism is at least for the time a spent force (happily so). Obama is now seen as the great redeemer of the Democrat party with Clinton recognized as the false dawn he truly was.

This brings me to the worst of them all, rat-faced traitor of the Labour Party, Tony Blair who wrote a self-aggrandizing Aunty Agony piece about the election:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ft-he-planning

Another arsonist coming in posing as a firefighter, offering bad analysis, bad advice, and worse opinions. Not once does he own up to the fact that his policies fractured UK politics, that he destroyed Labour electorally with his blind and unnecessary support for the Iraq War and of course he doesn't in the wisdom of Walter Sobchak "stick-to-his-lane" by offering comments on US politics of which he hopelessly doesn't understand like railing against "Defund the Police" which
a) wasn't in any way a factor in the US elections 2020 to start with,
b) wasn't adopted or had purchase in the UK during the recent Council elections.
c) was some 6 months ago, and we live in a Post-Capitol Putsch landscape.

Trash like Blair and their brand of politics should never be validated again.

[Hellion]

From history, we had the Great (Black) Migrations of the early 1900's. Then we had White Fight in the 1950's and 1960's.

I wonder what Historians will call this? The Republican Relocation? The Trumpian Consolidation? Right-Wing Flight? White Flight II?

The Evangelical Exodus has a certain ring to it...

[Hellion]

This brings me to the worst of them all, rat-faced traitor of the Labour Party, Tony Blair who wrote a self-aggrandizing Aunty Agony piece about the election:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ft-he-planning

Another arsonist coming in posing as a firefighter, offering bad analysis, bad advice, and worse opinions. Not once does he own up to the fact that his policies fractured UK politics, that he destroyed Labour electorally with his blind and unnecessary support for the Iraq War and of course he doesn't in the wisdom of Walter Sobchak "stick-to-his-lane" by offering comments on US politics of which he hopelessly doesn't understand like railing against "Defund the Police" which
a) wasn't in any way a factor in the US elections 2020 to start with,
b) wasn't adopted or had purchase in the UK during the recent Council elections.
c) was some 6 months ago, and we live in a Post-Capitol Putsch landscape.

Trash like Blair and their brand of politics should never be validated again.

Not necessarily disagreeing with your view here, but it's kind of amusing to see Blair become the new Thatcher in terms of derided personages. I read the article. With his bitching about wokeness and the far-left, he may as well run again as a Tory, it seems to me.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Not necessarily disagreeing with your view here, but it's kind of amusing to see Blair become the new Thatcher in terms of derided personages.

That a--hole literally said his entire job as PM was to build on Thatcher's legacy
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-22073434

And then tried to pretend he didn't in fact say those things when Corbyn and others held him to task:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48640331

Fundamentally, I respect Thatcher more than Blair in the same way I respect Dracula more than Igor. I respect the actual supervillain more than the traitor-flunkey. And Margaret Thatcher for all her hatred and contempt for the poor at the very least did shatter glass ceilings and sexism in conservative circles and became the first female world leader of a major Western economy...Tony Blair is just the latest in a line of white British salesman speaking proper sentences and sounding sensible and pragmatic while robbing the ground underneath your feet.

I read the article. With his bitching about wokeness and the far-left, he may as well run again as a Tory, it seems to me.

He would have but he knows the Tories have their own improved version of Blair -- Boris Johnson.

I mean seriously writing an article as if the Left holding Rowling for her comments cost them the Council elections, seriously, who writes that? Nor does he acknowledge the reality that it was Starmer's centrist backed candidates that failed and not the left-of-center candidates like Burnham and Drakeford among others (none of whom Starmer has even thanked publicly or acknowledged) who did brilliantly.

I will take Blair seriously when he admits that the Iraq War was a mistake, that it was his fault that the Labour lost elections after him, and that he betrayed the party and its principles. Once he admits that, and only then, I will listen to what he has to say.

[shooshoomanjoe]

It seems like most of the fleeing Californians have made their way into my state, and sadly, most of the ones I've encountered are definitely Republican-leaning.

I don't think this has anything to do with politics. CA is just too expensive to live in CA. Reality in Las Vegas has skyrocketed because of Californians moving here. Last year, my wife and I were looking for a new house and a lot of the new houses, not even finished being built yet, were already sold.

[CSTowle]

The question is why choose this topic to write too in a culture and climate here you have fascism legitimized by an opposition party. Yglesias acts as if the Dems lost the election and writes as such. His take would still be bad but editorially it would at least have some validity for justification in terms of "public interest".



I wasn't making a specific argument, just giving an off-the-cuff response to a writer who has an overinflated sense of self, who was also seen as not an especially good boss at Vox and not really worker-friendly, and I also think it's worth reminding everyone of people who supported the Iraq War trying to pass themselves as wise old men, or speaking as if they had the wisdom of the old-left. In fact, Yglesias was a Clintonian war-hawk (as was Ezra Klein).



If they offer an opinion or present a persona without a hint of self-criticism and self-awareness, then yes. Yglesias is offering a bog-standard critique against "identity politics" which is a total misunderstanding and using the latest issue to sharpen his knife simply because his particular brand of political analysis no longer has real currency or popularity among his readers. He's not offering analysis but a bruised ego.

People here criticize "arsonists coming in as firefighters" in describing Bush-Era Neocons now posing as latter-day "where did we go wrong" anti-Trump GOP...but that applies to the left as well, to Clintonian war-hawks. It's people like Matt Yglesias who bear responsibility for the "problems" as he understands it in the left in terms of polarization and generational rejection. And yet he doesn't own up to it, never owns up to his own mistakes. Their support for the Iraq War and the Clinton-era policies begat this huge series of problems in the left, which in America was overcome with considerable difficulty. Today Clintonism is at least for the time a spent force (happily so). Obama is now seen as the great redeemer of the Democrat party with Clinton recognized as the false dawn he truly was.

This brings me to the worst of them all, rat-faced traitor of the Labour Party, Tony Blair who wrote a self-aggrandizing Aunty Agony piece about the election:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ft-he-planning

Another arsonist coming in posing as a firefighter, offering bad analysis, bad advice, and worse opinions. Not once does he own up to the fact that his policies fractured UK politics, that he destroyed Labour electorally with his blind and unnecessary support for the Iraq War and of course he doesn't in the wisdom of Walter Sobchak "stick-to-his-lane" by offering comments on US politics of which he hopelessly doesn't understand like railing against "Defund the Police" which
a) wasn't in any way a factor in the US elections 2020 to start with,
b) wasn't adopted or had purchase in the UK during the recent Council elections.
c) was some 6 months ago, and we live in a Post-Capitol Putsch landscape.

Trash like Blair and their brand of politics should never be validated again.

My feeling is a decent writer/commentator should be able to discuss any number of topics. I agree our main concern as a country should be seeing how dangerously close we came to throwing off democracy and how the long-held assumption that democracy was even a thing people in this country cherished and would fight for (rather than paying lip service to, as so many in power often do) appears to be a much closer thing than anyone should be comfortable with and trying to figure out a way to prevent anything like what happened both on Jan. 6th and throughout the Trump Administration.

That said, there's no reason a writer/commentator can't take the time (minutes/hours?) to write an article about a subject of concern for them. Even if it's not the top priority in the country. I feel like that would be an absurd standard to hold any writer/commentator to, needing to only focus on whatever the largest concern in a given time period was.

As to the topic of attitudes on race/anti-racism, I have the concerns I previously listed and agree with some of his points in part because I believe it's important that those of us who consider ourselves to be on the left are able to make the best arguments on a given topic to keep those who either don't have the time or interest to pay close attention to these matters (middle or lower class white folk who have the privilege of not having to think about these things, perhaps the greatest white privilege, but still have real concerns of their own) receptive or hopefully in agreement with the general cause of equality.

Bad messaging, or hostile messaging that as I've said before probably feels good and in a way can even be empowering on an individual basis, does the opposite of that. Take "Defund the Police". Whatever you think of the concept (I support wholeheartedly, major police reform and a real investment in drug counseling and mental health issues are badly needed) it was so absolutely boneheaded a way to phrase it that I'm still not certain it wasn't dreamed up by Russian internet trolls or the Heritage Foundation. It drove people away exactly when support was on an upswing.

I don't think anybody here, whatever side of the aisle, disagrees with their cause. But messaging matters. Allies matter. Even if they're "poor allies" or "bad allies". Sometimes (often) when a fight is important you have to take whatever help you can get. And changing a culture that we're all born into and have almost no say on, aside from discussing it with other people and trying to decide where we stand and what we can do, is hard work that continues and evolves over generations. Nobody should pretend they hold the pinnacle of humanity's wisdom/wokeness/enlightenment because nobody does. But if you have insight others don't/can't have personally that's a valuable thing you can share. But you need to find someone willing to receive it.

Maybe he was acting in bad faith, maybe he has personal issues/sensitivity to the topic and is prickly about it. Or maybe he has some of the same concerns I and others have about the potential harm of bad messaging, and wanted to write about it to hopefully make people think. I don't know. All I can say is where I agree or disagree. And I think it's a topic worth discussing, even if there are other (more important) things to talk about.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Take "Defund the Police".

I assure you the Clintonian-Blairite Liberal centrists spend far time whining about "Defund the Police" than the so-called centrist voter they assume it alienates ever does.

We are in Post-January 6...and the slogan "Stop the Steal" on the right or the election was stolen which is in fact cancerous and toxic and vile has a currency and purchase greater than "defund the police" ever did. And yet we are spending time fighting a boogeyman of the right.

It drove people away exactly when support was on an upswing.

Not sufficient evidence of that. The people who were angered by that slogan were Trumpistas and Trump-voters. The seats that the House Dems lost in 2020 were Trump-voting districts they swung back in 2018 but who in 2020 because of Pandemic furloughs turned out in greater propensity than before.

Maybe he was acting in bad faith, maybe he has personal issues/sensitivity to the topic and is prickly about it.

The latter more than the former. Yglesias isn't arguing in bad faith or cynicism. It's the things he's sincere about that's the problem.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The Evangelical Exodus has a certain ring to it...

Or the Holy Roller Getaway.

[Hellion]

I don't think this has anything to do with politics. CA is just too expensive to live in CA. Reality in Las Vegas has skyrocketed because of Californians moving here. Last year, my wife and I were looking for a new house and a lot of the new houses, not even finished being built yet, were already sold.

Same thing is happening here in Montana. I'm actually having to consider quitting my job in education at the moment, which I love, because the cost of living in my area is too high right now. My rent is over two thirds of my monthly salary and that's on the low-end of the price spectrum.

[Malvolio]

Because I want this to happen it definitely won't. My guess is they regroup and take back the White House in '24. Democrats will probably do OK in midterms, we're turning the corner and economy will be on an upswing. But 4 years is a long time, and Biden wasn't 100% this past year. Add 3 more, and a candidate lower on the ticket whose charisma netted them a hefty 1% in the Democratic Primaries and things are wobbly. Probably won't be a Trump to kick around then. Here's hoping we get to at least replace a Justice before that happens.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I mean, the only Republican I've even heard whispers about running in 2024 so far, is Trump.

[PaulBullion]

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I mean, the only Republican I've even heard whispers about running in 2024 so far, is Trump.

I've heard Ron DeSantis. And Ted Cruz, again. Also Liz Cheney, of course.

[BeastieRunner]

And the knife twists ...

NRA bankruptcy case dismissed, leaving group open to NY lawsuit: A federal judge has dismissed the NRA’s bankruptcy case, which would have allowed the gun-rights group to move and incorporate in Texas. Instead, it will have to remain in New York, where it is facing a lawsuit that threatens to dissolve the organization.

In an update from yesterday, now the NRA is facing liquidation of assets and dissolution for mismanagement as well as felonies for those that aided in foreign interference.

Thoughts and prayers and all that.

[JackDaw]

That a--hole literally said his entire job as PM was to build on Thatcher's legacy
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-22073434

And then tried to pretend he didn't in fact say those things when Corbyn and others held him to task:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48640331

Fundamentally, I respect Thatcher more than Blair in the same way I respect Dracula more than Igor. I respect the actual supervillain more than the traitor-flunkey. And Margaret Thatcher for all her hatred and contempt for the poor at the very least did shatter glass ceilings and sexism in conservative circles and became the first female world leader of a major Western economy...Tony Blair is just the latest in a line of white British salesman speaking proper sentences and sounding sensible and pragmatic while robbing the ground underneath your feet.



He would have but he knows the Tories have their own improved version of Blair -- Boris Johnson.

I mean seriously writing an article as if the Left holding Rowling for her comments cost them the Council elections, seriously, who writes that? Nor does he acknowledge the reality that it was Starmer's centrist backed candidates that failed and not the left-of-center candidates like Burnham and Drakeford among others (none of whom Starmer has even thanked publicly or acknowledged) who did brilliantly.

I will take Blair seriously when he admits that the Iraq War was a mistake, that it was his fault that the Labour lost elections after him, and that he betrayed the party and its principles. Once he admits that, and only then, I will listen to what he has to say.

I think maybe the most principled and talented Labour politician of the Blair generation was Robin Cook...and it speaks volumes about our UK values that he was never a serious contender for leader because he wasn’t telegenic.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I think maybe the most principled and talented Labour politician of the Blair generation was Robin Cook...and it speaks volumes about our UK values that he was never a serious contender for leader because he wasn’t telegenic.

That was the guy who quit a Cabinet position out of opposition to the war, right? Yeah.

Tony Blair seemed telegenic when he got elected but years in office withered, or if we want to go Dorian Gray, revealed his true features. He looks more sinister now (especially with that mullet that makes him look like a Richard Branson cosplayer, or as some have said Vigo the Carpathian).

The Labour Party suffered greatly thanks to the support of invading Iraq. It never recovered from that as Paul Mason pointed out in his reply to Blair's terrible advice:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-longer-exists

The payload is this: “Without the diverting drama of speculation around new political parties, we need a new progressive movement; a new progressive agenda; and the construction of a new governing coalition.” Despite the new political frame, it is hard to see anything here other than the old Blair-Mandelson project, destroyed by the Iraq War, of a new Lib-Lab progressive party, free of the unions, acceptable to Rupert Murdoch and primarily funded by progressive millionaires.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

And the knife twists ...

NRA bankruptcy case dismissed, leaving group open to NY lawsuit: A federal judge has dismissed the NRA’s bankruptcy case, which would have allowed the gun-rights group to move and incorporate in Texas. Instead, it will have to remain in New York, where it is facing a lawsuit that threatens to dissolve the organization.

In an update from yesterday, now the NRA is facing liquidation of assets and dissolution for mismanagement as well as felonies for those that aided in foreign interference.

Thoughts and prayers and all that.

Awwwww! I feel so bad for the NRA.

Psych! I don't! WOMP WOMP!