Saturday: Hili dialogue

July 27, 2024 • 6:45 am

Welcome to CaturSaturday July 27, 2024, and both National Scotch Day and National Crème Brûlée Day.  For the former, I’ll have a Springbank, and I’ll eat the latter but always think that the portions of Crème Brûlée are too small.  Now they caramelize the top with a blowtorch, as in this photo from Wikipedia:

cyclonebill from Copenhagen, Denmark, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

It’s also Bagpipe Appreciation Day, National Chicken Finger Day, National Day of the American Cowboy, National Drowning Prevention Day, and, in Puerto Rico, José Celso Barbosa Day, celebrating the father of the statehood movement in Puerto Rico, born on this day in 1857.

There’s a Google Doodle today marking a new Olympic event. Click on it to see where it goes:

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the July 27 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

Content warning: today’s section contains criticism of the Democratic Party and its Presidential candidate. This is not to be construed as support for Trump but as disappointment with my own party.  If you think Kamala Harris is the political equivalent of Wonder Woman, it’s best to skip today’s nooz.

*Over at TGIF, Suzy Weiss present Nellie Bowles’s weekly news summary, poking a bit of fun at Kamala Harris in the title: the column is called “TGIF: The week unburdened by the week that has been.” As usual, I present three of TGIF’s entries:

→ Okay, but now we’re all thinking it: J.D. [Vance] definitely did not have sex with a couch, and it would be ridiculous to suggest he did have sex with one, so everyone please stop saying that J.D. had a relationship with that brown sectional over there. A bizarre AP headline, “No, J.D. Vance Did Not Have Sex with a Couch,” was meant to fact-check claims that in his book, a young J.D., with a rubber glove and a dream, tried to have a baby with two couch cushions. Which turned out to be totally made up. But then the AP took down the article, which on one hand might be them trying to claw back the silly “fact check” altogether, but on the other makes it seem like they are retracting the fact that he definitely didn’t have sex with a couch! I’m exhausted, but now I feel weird about taking a nap in the living room.

 → Is Josh Shapiro too Jewish? One name high on Harris’s shortlist is Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. Shapiro would make a lot of sense. No state is more important to Kamala’s chances than Pennsylvania, where Shapiro’s approval ratings are through the sloped roof. He is also a moderate capable of talking about Republicans like they are human beings. (Watch his tribute to Corey Comperatore, the firefighter and father murdered in the Trump rally shooting.) What’s not to like? Describing the pros and cons of picking Shapiro, CNN’s John King said, “He’s a first-term governor, he’s Jewish, there could be some risks in putting him on the ticket.” Is the election on Rosh Hashanah or something?

To understand what King, however inelegantly, was getting at, look no further than an article in The New Republic by David Klion. Klion says that Shapiro has been “egregiously bad on Palestine” and that his selection therefore threatens the unity of the Democratic Party. Klion’s evidence of this egregious badness relates not to Shapiro’s record on the actual war in Gaza (not something that state governors really have much say over), but the tough line he has taken with anti-Israel activism. You see, Shapiro dared to suggest that campus encampments aren’t great. And as Pennsylvania attorney general, he targeted BDS campaigns because they are “rooted in antisemitism.” Which they are. It seems that Klion’s understanding of “egregiously bad on Palestine” is just “pretty good on antisemitism.” But we wouldn’t want to upset the Iranians, uh, I mean the base.

It’s sad that Shapiro is criticized as “bad on Palestine” when, in fact, I see the opposite. Klion’s remarks exemplify some of the rot infecting the Democratic Party.  Have a look at the New Republic article, a publication that I’m now ashamed to have written for. Here’s part of Klion’s article:

Unfortunately, Shapiro also stands out among the current field of potential running mates as being egregiously bad on Palestine. It’s not just that he, like many Democrats, is an outspoken supporter of Israel—though he certainly is, having championed Israel’s war against Hamas consistently and without any apparent concern for Palestinian civilians. Shapiro has, moreover, done far more than most Democrats to attack pro-Palestine antiwar demonstrators, in ways that call into question his basic commitment to First Amendment rights.’

Back to the Free Press:

→ Kamala is brat, Biden is boots, please God send the asteroid today: I’ve learned the hard way—and by that I mean my parents once asked me what “WAP” meant—that certain things should never be explained with words. It’s not that it’s impossible, it’s just that it embarrasses everyone.

That’s how I feel about the whole Kamala-is-brat thing. Brat is a good album about partying and getting older and having anxiety that was released earlier this summer by Charli XCX. But it’s since been adopted by too-online and very young people as a personality, and by Kamala Harris’s campaign as a mode to relate to those very young people. Her campaign is leaning into the whole green look of the album to try and win over Gen Z, and generally recasting her many viral moments—“You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?” “I love Venn diagrams” “What can be, unburdened but what has been”—as calling cards. It’s like when Hillary went on Broad City, only this time more cringe.

And now we have Jake Tapper and Greg Gutfeld grappling with the “essence” and the “aesthetic” and overall vibe of brat girl summer. We used to be a serious country. We used to make things.

Here’s the thing about Kamla: she is hilarious and campy, but unintentionally so. Any goodwill that her goofy dances or weird turns of phrase garner should be considered bonus points, not game play. Was there ever any doubt that Fire Island would go blue? We’ve been debating whether Kamala’s meme campaign is a good move for her prospects in the Free Press Slack, and here I’ll borrow from my older and wiser colleague Peter Savodnik: “There is nothing more pathetic than an older person who cares what a younger person thinks is cool.”

*Is the Democratic Party becoming the anti-Israeli party, or even he party of antisemitism, like Labour used to be in the UK? I’m, by no means a fan of Netanyahu, but it seems to me uncivil to invite him to address a joint session of Congress and then walk out when he’s speaking or, like the execrable Rashida Tlaib, hold up signs with the false accusation of genocide. A tweet:

From Nancy Pelosi, who doesn’t seem to realize what a ceasefire really entails (she also boycotted Netanyahu’s talk). I retweeted it:

The extreme American Left is, of course, what they call “anti-Zionist,” but videos like the one below, which Andrzej posted, make it clear that “anti-Zionism” is really a euphemism for “antisemitism”, as sympathy for Palestine has morphed into sympathy for Hamas. Hamas! The “progressive” left has been captured by sympathy for terrorists  And I disagree with the video’s claim that vandalism or assaulting cops should be permitted as “freedom of speech”. Signs, permitted demonstrations, yes, and also flag burning. Those are all examples of freedom of speech. Breaking the law, however, is “civil disobedience.”

From Brendan O’Neill in Spiked:

What would you call a gathering of angry people marching behind a giant, grotesque effigy of a horned Jew with blood dripping from his mouth? A gathering at which one attendee held up a placard calling for a ‘Final Solution’ for ‘the Zionists’? A gathering at which people giddily waved the flag of a movement that is devoted to the murder of Jews? A gathering at which there were banners and speedily daubed graffiti on public monuments singing the praises of this Jew-killing outfit? I would call it a fascist rally. And yet, bizarrely, when just such a rally took place in Washington, DC yesterday, the liberal media called it an ‘anti-war protest’. Were they watching something else?

Let’s speak frankly: yesterday’s protests in Washington, DC against the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, were deeply disturbing. They were riddled not only with the febrile Israelophobic bigotry we’ve come to expect from the supposedly progressive left, but also with open anti-Semitism. With classic anti-Semitism. With expressions of virulent contempt for the Jew as blood-drinker, the Jew as child-killer, the Jew as such a key source of the world’s ills that a ‘solution’, ideally a ‘final’ one, must be found to his continual ailing of the human race. This was a hate-fest masquerading as concern for Palestinians.

Consider what many in the press are referring to as ‘the Netanyahu puppet’. What cowardly euphemising. This was no mere mocking likeness of the Israeli PM – it was a repulsive caricature of The Jew. Displayed outside Congress, where Netanyahu was speaking, it contained almost every anti-Jew trope. Blood-spattered horns sprouted from the Jew’s head. His hands and mouth were generously smeared with fake blood, as if this creature had freshly feasted on human flesh. His white shirt was red with blood, too – the spillage from his vampiric gorging.

It was right out of Medieval Europe, where eruptions of anti-Semitism were fuelled by ‘folk beliefs’ about Jews having ‘horns and big noses’.

. . . Protesters scrawled graffiti all over the Columbus statue in Union Square. One of the scribbled defacements said: ‘Hamas is coming.’ Seeing self-styled radicals applaud a reactionary army of Jew-haters who would hurl every they / them from a 10th-floor window faster than you could say ‘Queers for Palestine!’ would be funny if it were not so revealing of the crisis of our own civilisation. Writing ‘Hamas is coming’ on a public monument is not protest – it’s Jew-taunting. It’s a gross threat to the Jews of DC that the monsters who killed a thousand of their co-religionists nine months ago might come for them next. It’s the moral equivalent of writing ‘The KKK is coming’. It’s worse, in fact, given that the last time racist Klansmen lynched a black person was in 1981, whereas the racists of Hamas lynched a thousand Jews as recently as October.

Here’s a photo of the Netanyahu (and antisemitic) puppet referred to by O’Neill (there’s no credit so I can’t give credit to the photographer):

WASHINGTON, DC – JULY 24: Activists carry a puppet of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a protest near the U.S. Capitol on July 24, 2024 in Washington, DC. Activists staged multiple protests near the Capitol to protest the visit of Netanyahu to Washington and to protest the war in Palestine. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

*And Kamala Harris, who is very likely to be considerably less sympathetic to Israel than was Biden, is already taking the hard line against Israel. She’s made the Pelosi Mistake of thinking that a cease-fire will end terrorism and bring peace to the Middle East. From the Times of Israel:

US Vice President Kamala Harris insisted Thursday that she would not be “silent” on suffering in Gaza while also touting her pro-Israel bona fides, in comments made shortly after meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Her remarks drew furious Israeli complaints that they could complicate efforts to reach a deal with the Hamas terror group to free hostages and end the war in Gaza.

Speaking to reporters after what she called a “frank and constructive” meeting with Netanyahu at the White House, Harris said it was time to end the “devastating” war sparked by the Hamas terror group’s brutal October 7 attack on Israel, in comments that some saw as a sign of a possible shift in Washington’s stance as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president takes center stage.

“What has happened in Gaza over the past nine months is devastating. The images of dead children and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time,” Harris told reporters. “We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering and I will not be silent.”

. . .The vice president noted that she pressed Netanyahu on the “dire” situation in Gaza during their 40-minute meeting in Washington, while also stressing the importance of reaching a deal to free hostages and end the war.

Harris said she “expressed with the prime minister my serious concern about the scale of human suffering and Gaza, including the death of far too many innocent civilians. And I made clear my serious concern about the dire humanitarian situation there.”

And here is the most misguided thing she said:

“It is time for this war to end, and end in a way where Israel is secure, all the hostages are released, the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can exercise their right to freedom, dignity and self-determination,” Harris said.

Does VP Harris have a plan for how this is to happen? Does she think the war should end and leave Hamas in power? If so, how will Israel remain “secure”, especially since Hamas has vowed to enact another thousand episodes of the October 7 butchery.   And how can the Palestinian people exercise their “right to freedom” when they don’t have it now, as there hasn’t been an election in Gaza and the West Bank since 2006?  The Palestinian Authority still pays Palestinian terrorists who kill Jews, and UN-funded textbooks glorify the killing of Jews.  This doesn’t happen in Israel with respect to Palestinians.  Is Harris ignorant of all that?  I’d say “no, she can’t be,” but I’m not so sure. I think she’s trying to appeal to the “progressive” left.

And what does she mean by “far too many innocent civilians”, given that Hamas embeds itself among civilians and knew very well what would happen when it attacked Israel on October 7? Of course it horrible to have noncombant civilians killed, but sn’t a ratio of 1 to 1.3 dead Gazans to dead Hamas combatants—a ratio far lower than in any war seen to date—bespeak the care with which the IDF is going after Hamas? No, because Harris is victim of Left-wing anti-Israeli sentiments, and apparently doesn’t realize what those figures mean. Sorry, but I’m plenty worried about how Harris, if she wins, will handle the war. Of course I’m not worried enough to vote for Trump.

*Andrew Sullivan weighs in on the Democratic candidate in his Weekly Dish column called “The Kamala Chimera” and subtitled, “The Dems’ weakest and wokest candidate becomes the nominee.” He gives plenty of links so you can check out his claims. And there’s a lot more to the piece than I’ve excerpted here:

With Harris, amnesia is essential. We all have to become unburdened by what we — and, more specifically she — have been. And beneath the enthusiasm linger some obvious, loud, unanswered questions. Why did Biden so quickly put his weight behind a vice president he had previously ignored, sidelined, and regarded — according to almost every media outlet — as something of a burden? Why has Obama taken his sweet time to endorse her, after calling for an open nominating process? And why did no other viable candidate come forward to challenge her?

The official answer is that a Harris nomination avoided a mess at the convention, quickly united and energized the party, safeguarded Biden’s war chest, and solidified the demographics of the base. Fair enough, and it seems to have worked (although I suspect a little chaos and a fresh face emerging from the convention would still have been preferable).

But there are other plausible explanations for Harris’ unexpectedly sudden dominance. Could it be that Biden and all of Harris’ rivals still expect to lose in November, and Harris is a useful sacrificial lamb? Or that Biden suspects that a Harris defeat would vindicate him in retrospect? Or that the Dem governors knew it would be political death to challenge a black, female candidate for president in a woke party, and see 2028 as by far their best shot?

I suspect it’s a mix of all of the above — and not quite the strategic breakthrough some may want it to be.

Some of the many issues Sullivan raises, which I’m glad because I don’t have to do it:

Her record on the national stage — from 2019 till now — is that of a super-woke leftist. In speech after speech, and in an ad she narrated just before the 2020 election, she insists on the need for “equity” as well as “equality,” and by “equity” she means that “everyone ends up in the same place.” She is a presidential candidate who endorses “equality of outcomes” over “equality of opportunity,” a position that even Communist China has now abandoned.

One moment in her catastrophic 2020 campaign for the Dem nomination also stood out for me. There was a discussion in a debate about issuing an executive order that would ban all assault weapons. Biden made the simple point that this was not within the president’s constitutional authority: “There are some things you can do [as president]. Many things you can’t.” Harris replied, giggling: “I would just say, Hey Joe, instead of saying no we can’t, let’s say yes we can. And yes we can!” As she said this, she burst into hysterical laughter. Go watch the clip. She’s not a serious person.

In the only primaries outside California she campaigned in, she favored decriminalizing illegal border crossings and compared ICE to the KKK. On June 1, 2020, as BLM riots were so spreading out of control that even the NYT had an A1 story the day before — “Appeals for Calm as Sprawling Protests Threaten to Spiral Out of Control” — she tweeted out a bail fund for those arrested in the rioting, and urged people to donate. As the chaos surged in June, she told Stephen Colbert:

They’re not going to stop. This is a movement, I’m telling you. And everyone beware. They’re not gonna stop … They’re not going to let up and they should not. And we should not.

Also in June 2020, she said on national television, “It is outdated, and it is actually wrong and backward to think that more police officers will create more safety.”

Harris believes illegal aliens should get work authorization and free healthcare. She favors unproven, irreversible medical experiments on gay, autistic, and trans children. She favors, and the Biden administration has enforced, systemic government discrimination against men, whites, Jews and Asians to compensate for past discrimination against African-Americans and women. Her Senate record is one long series of DEI initiatives. And yes, Biden selected her using a DEI process: no men were to be considered, and in the hysteria of 2020, white women were also seen as no-go areas for the veep role.

Her record as vice president rivals Dan Quayle’s. Every single media outlet, including all the mainstream ones, said so until last week. No, she wasn’t given the formal title of “Border Czar,” because such a title doesn’t exist. But she was the administration’s “point-person” on immigration and the Southern border, as every media outlet also told us until this week. So she is strongly attached to the Democrats’ weakest issue by far: mass, illegal immigration.

After Sullivan brings up her notorious inability to run a staff because she alienates them all, he finishes this way.

But I’ll say this. Harris is one of the weakest and wokest Democratic candidates there is. She cannot credibly appeal to the center after such extreme-left posturing; she cannot run a campaign; she cannot run an executive office; she has never been able to win elections outside the left-liberal, one-party state of California; and she has nothing to offer to those of us who really, really don’t want to vote for Trump but don’t want to unburden ourselves of every moderate or conservative principle we ever had. Apart from that, she’s perfect.

Okay, I’ve had my say, somethings through others. Now for something a little lighter from the AP’s “Oddities” section. First, a food travesty: the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that “boneless” chicken wings can have bones!

Consumers cannot expect boneless chicken wings to actually be free of bones, a divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday, rejecting claims by a restaurant patron who suffered serious medical complications from getting a bone stuck in his throat.

Michael Berkheimer was dining with his wife and friends at a wing joint in Hamilton, Ohio, and had ordered the usual — boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce — when he felt a bite-size piece of meat go down the wrong way. Three days later, feverish and unable to keep food down, Berkeimer went to the emergency room, where a doctor discovered a long, thin bone that had torn his esophagus and caused an infection.

Berkheimer sued the restaurant, Wings on Brookwood, saying the restaurant failed to warn him that so-called “boneless wings” — which are, of course, nuggets of boneless, skinless breast meat — could contain bones. The suit also named the supplier and the farm that produced the chicken, claiming all were negligent.

In a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said Thursday that “boneless wings” refers to a cooking style, and that Berkheimer should’ve been on guard against bones since it’s common knowledge that chickens have bones. The high court sided with lower courts that had dismissed Berkheimer’s suit.

“A diner reading ‘boneless wings’ on a menu would no more believe that the restaurant was warranting the absence of bones in the items than believe that the items were made from chicken wings, just as a person eating ‘chicken fingers’ would know that he had not been served fingers,” Justice Joseph T. Deters wrote for the majority.

This is reprehensible.  Every sane person knows that chickens don’t have fingers, and, anyway, a misunderstanding of that nature wouldn’t be dangerous. On the other hand, thinking that boneless wings really were boneless can be dangerous, as it was to Mr. Berkheimer. The Ohio Supreme Court is even crazier than the U.S. Supreme Court!

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Szaron are plotting social justice:

Hili: We have to save the world!
Szaron: How?
Hili: By meowing. Everybody does it.
In Polish:
Hili: Musimy zbawić świat!
Szaron: Jak?
Hili: Miaucząc, wszyscy tak robią.

*******************

From Cat Memes:

From The Dodo Pet:

Reader (and origami master) Robert Lang also saw a “thing with faces” and reports this:

I’ve enjoyed the occasional “Things with Faces,” including today’s; and this evening I was sitting in my Mom’s hospital room and saw this on the wall:

Robert adds:

On the topic of pareidolia, I was really excited when I found what I thought was the face of Jesus on my grilled cheese sandwich the other day, but it turned out it was the face of his next-door neighbor Shmuel, which isn’t worth anything. So close!

From Masih, a women getting four years in prison for not wearing a hijab.  How oppressive can that country get? (sound up). Masih is the conduit of these videos to the West, which is why Iran keeps trying to kill her.

From Luana. Donalds is a Republican, but his words resonate with me.

From Malcolm. Cats and dogs hug! It’s the very fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah!

 

From my feed. If only ducks would do this!

Yes, this is a real lake, 40 m above the ocean. Read about it here.

From the Auschwitz Memorial, one that I tweeted:

Two tweets from Dr. Cobb. I hope the owners recivered their d*g!

Matthew says, “Just as you begin to get bored, he nails it”:

91 thoughts on “Saturday: Hili dialogue”

    1. Me too! Not to ever be confused with the “me too movement” which, even as a survivor of… oh, never mind…I never supported. I supported many actual victims of very real atrocities (both personally and professionally), but the movement? Nah.
      Keep reporting, Professor! We need your voice of reason.

  4. PCC(E) for the Democratic nomination I say!

    Jerry, I must admit I forget your position a little, whether you’re a never-Republican or a never-Trumper, but I do wonder if that’s something you, and others, can sustain indefinitely? I mean both the GOP and Trump seem to be aligned on a lot more of your views that the current Democratic leaders and certainly Harris.

    I have no dog in the fight really, being British and living in Oz, and certainly find a lot of what Trump is and represents reprehensible, but I’m seeing a lot more that I dislike on the Democrat side. And a lot of the rhetoric about Trump overstated. Even Sam Harris (most recent podcast with Anne Applebaum) has started to note things like when Trump says he’ll “be a dictator for a day” he is clearly joking and the hand-wringing from the mainstream media does them no favours.

    I guess, if I have a question, it’d be has it ever crossed your mind to cross the aisle? And, if not, what would it take?

    1. Trump from last night: “You have to get out and vote. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four years, it will be fixed, it will be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore. In four years, you won’t have to vote again.”

      To which Ruth Ben-Ghiat, author of “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present,” responded: “Media: this should be *the* A1 story. I have studied dictatorship for decades and this is it: ‘You won’t have to vote anymore.’ Trump will never leave office if he wins in November.”

      The Republican Party, as currently constituted, is a fascist party. There. I said it (as if my saying this is anything new).

      1. The trouble with Trump’s statements is how differently you can interpret them. When he told Hilary Clinton that she’d be in jail if he were president, it was interpreted as both a dictator’s threat to jail his opposition and a mere boast that under his watch, her corruption would no longer be ignored.

        Among his many unhinged statements, it might be better to focus on the less ambiguous ones. Just recently, he demanded to annihilate Iran in a nuclear strike if he was assassinated by them (thank you Israel for the suggestion!). Something must impress upon undecided voters that this man should not get their vote.

        1. But why not attack Iran with nuclear weapons? Under game theory the only rational use of nuclear weapons is against a state that doesn’t have nuclear retaliatory capacity. If this argument worked for President Truman in August 1945, why ought it not to work for a President Trump on Inauguration Day 2025? Have any of Iran’s allies concluded treaties that would obligate them to retaliate with nukes against the U.S.? Would they follow through with an ad hoc threat to? I very much doubt it.

          Iran’s nuclear apparatus is supposedly buried in the mountains. So, fine, destroy Iran’s economy so it no longer has the resources to devote to it. Everyone seems to agree that Iran must not get a Jihad Bomb. So what else can be done toward that goal?

      2. Trump was a weak president who inspired more ridicule than fear. This is hardly the profile of a dictator.

        He does have a big mouth.

        1. I know of no dictator who was not ridiculed while there was still room to make fun of them.

        2. The Republicans have done a terrible job of confronting him.

          According to Mitt Romney’s autobiography, Trump gave a speech to Republican senators. He was greeted with a standing ovation, but as soon as he left, everyone mocked his stupidity. Crucially, nobody would confront him in person! Worse, Romney suggested that fear of violent Trump supporters may prevent some of his colleagues from criticizing Trump in public.

          Unfortunately, Trump can intimidate people much more capable than himself. He also cannot be controlled easily (some of his backers probably planned to do just that, in order to further their own preferred policies).

          https://newrepublic.com/post/175561/mitt-romney-reveals-republicans-hate-trump-laughed-behind-back

      3. The relevant segment of that speech saw Trump begin by declaring that “I will secure our elections. Our goal will be, as I said, one-day voting with paper ballots, proof of citizenship, and a thing called voter ID.” He then talked of negotiating with the Democrats: “Look we gotta fix our laws on voting, we have to start with voter ID.” Of course, the Democrats refuse, a refusal Trump and his followers attribute to Democrats wanting to cheat. And, with his earlier promise that he will secure the elections if he wins, he then says, “but until then, Republicans must win this election.” He tells the crowd that “We want a landslide that’s too big to rig.” He then goes on a voter turnout pitch. He has, at other times, lamented what he calls poor voter turnout among Christians (and others), and he has been harping on turnout for weeks, if not months. That is the context for the comments above. If people who cannot usually be bothered to turnout will simply show up at this election to deliver “a landslide that’s too big to rig” then Trump can fix the voting laws (“It will be fixed”) that he claims allow rampant cheating. Then people who are so inclined can go back to not voting anymore as the Republicans won’t need to overcome the allegedly rampant cheating.

        I noticed that neither the NYT nor any of the half dozen MSM sources I looked at bothered to link to the video. (I know, I know, we should trust them, and it is a tough thing to do, providing source material in an age of ubiquitous clips.) So, here it is below. The relevant segment is at 59:00 to 1:01:06. Draw your own conclusions.

        Much of what Trump says can be fragmented and is part of an ongoing conversation of speeches and social media posts. It can sometimes be difficult to understand what he is talking about if you have not followed his ongoing obsessions. We saw that several times from him in the Biden debate. I don’t fault people for not wanting to follow along. But nine years into this national circus, one might have learned that when the press hyperventilates about Trump, then it is a wise bet not to hyperventilate with them (“fine people,” “bleach,” “dictator for a day,” and on and on and on). One could even be forgiven for believing that the press lies about Trump as often as he lies about everything else. Well, they long lied about Biden, too, but that served a different purpose.

        I need a South Africa trip, too.

        1. Thank you for the context. Besides “fine people,” “bleach,” “dictator for a day,” to your list of words taken out of context by the MSM we can add “bloodbath.”

    2. I have been a Democrat for so long, and I’ve seen no Republicans that I would want to vote for, that I can’t imagine “crossing the aisle”. The best I would ever be able to do, I think, is simply not vote if I can’t abide a Democratic candidate. I wouldn’t feel too badly about that in Illinois because we’re a Democratic state and my absence of a vote wouldn’t make any difference.

      If by some miracle a Republican should appear who has better qualifications and positions (to me) than his/her Democratic opponent, I’d consider voting for them, but in my life I haven’t found any. (Oy, I still remember the McGovern disaster!). I campaigned hard for McG, and the only places where he won was Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.

      I am a classical liberal, on the Left but more towards the center than, say, the “progressives”, and that makes me a never-Trumper and, so far, a never-Republican, too. But the latter could change if Ceiling Cat some day produces a liberal Republican.

      1. My dream is that the old parties shatter and the classical liberals form a new party.

        1. I second that dream… but classic liberalism is the politics of a small state and personal responsibility and no modern party comes anywhere close to those ideals. Although it may be camouflaged by rhetoric most parties are dedicated to growing the size of the state and ensuring that the ‘little people’ do what they are told and think what they are permitted to think by their betters.

        3. I, too, share that dream. I’m so very tired of the performative drama (is that a redundancy?). The media silos… we’ve been played! How do we pull people off their couches and away from MSNBC and Fox News? Where has critical thinking gone? Did we ever have it? Maybe we were just sitting back watching the “big three” (ABC, NBC and CBS) and there was a “normal” decency we all agreed upon in spite of our political differences. Were we lulled into complacency? How did these nut jobs grab ahold of things? And who are “they”? Where did they come from? Were we just too comfortable and stop paying attention? Damn!

      2. Having always been disappointed by those I have voted for, I have adopted a different strategy. I now vote out incumbents that are failing or have become corrupt. Who I vote matters little as they will disappoint me in due course and then I’ll vote them out. I end up encouraging governments from alternate sides of the aisle, and this suits the long term goal of the leftists to come up with new ideas, and the right to run them properly.

        1. My strategy is to vote in a way that splits the government branches between the parties so compromise is required. Otherwise, you end like San Francisco and California where one party runs the town. Same goes for GOP controlled governments, just a different set of problems.

          1. Oh, boy, don’t I know about one party running the show. The city of Tucson is (and has been) run by a very tight machine of extreme leftists. There really is no district or ward in which you’re given a viable choice. It’s disheartening and has caused many reasonable people to quit participating. Nepotism is rampant. I wonder if this is what led to the downfall of San Francisco. Though Tucson was never the vibrant, spectacular city that San Francisco was (I was born and raised in California), what’s become of our downtown (open drug use, homeless camping in the heart of the city — there was a period when our city council provided these rolling box type structures to the homeless in which they could shut the door to their rolling coffins to protect themselves from other homeless who might rob them of the free sleeping bags they were given by non profits who handed them out daily — I worked for one of those non profits for years so, I know what I’m talking about) — has caused people to compare our downtown to San Francisco. But those in office are the kids of those who’ve been in office for numerous decades. They start at the school boards, move to the city or county, then the state and so on. Complete incompetence with no way for voters to break through the walls of nepotism. It has rendered most voters powerless. It has become a tight, clean, self-maintaining machine.

      3. Your preferences and values are v. close to mine.
        I won’t cross the line to vote for the GoP but in local races I’ll finance anybody against the Squad.

        D.A.
        NYC

    3. I closely listened in vain for Anne Applebaum or Sam Harris to utter the phrase “eastward expansion of NATO.” (I gather from Hillary Clinton that that is a framing only “useful idiots” use.)

      (During I forget whose podcast a year or so ago when Applebaum guested, mention was made of George Kennan stating to the effect that eastward expansion of NATO would be a foreign policy disaster. Applebaum replied, “Kennan was wrong. Kennan was wrong about many things.”)

      Maybe she or Andrew Sullivan will utter and discuss the verboten phrase in the latter’s current “Dishcast” podcast.

      2. A lot of people seem to not understand that NATO, like the EU, is a club countries WANT to join. There’s a velvet rope to cross to enter and many pre-requisites to get into both.
        Nato and the EU isn’t “imposed” on anybody. If your neighbors want to join Nato then maybe you, Putin, are doing something wrong. Like the USSR. Or gangster warmonger Russia.

        D.A.
        NYC

    4. A Canadian Prime Minister whose party was elected with a majority of seats in the legislature actually is a dictator, albeit with a time limit of five years. (This is the maximum life of a Parliament under our Constitution, at which time it and the Government contained in it dissolve, requiring an election. The Prime Minister himself can last as long as he is winning. A couple have pushed twenty years, including the father of the current one.) But during that five years he can do almost anything.

      Theoretically under Responsible Government, the Legislature controls the Executive Cabinet which is drawn from that same Legislature. But in practice the Prime Minister controls absolutely his party in the House (because party leaders can eject their elected MPs from caucus, ending their political careers.). When his party is a majority, he effectively controls the entire legislative apparatus. Any bill he wants to become law will pass as long as the press, now mostly paid off by the government, doesn’t complain too much. The MPs can’t even impeach him. They can vote to bring down the government but the PM can still contest the resulting election as party leader and many have been returned with majorities. (Any MP on the Government side who voted against the government is cast into the political wilderness.)

      A U.S. President has nothing like that kind of power. If Canada mattered in the world, it would be a dangerous autocracy of the Centre or the Centre-Left, depending on which party held power. The composition of the government in both countries, including the holding of elections to elect parts of it, is contained in the Constitutions. Neither head of government can end voting through fiat or lock people up on a whim, although our judiciary is more deferential to the administrative state than yours. Criminalizing hate speech casts a long chilly shadow.

      The current Prime Minister is able, singlehandedly, to carry out an unprecedentedly woke Leftist agenda that is much worse than mere virtue signaling and not supported by most Canadians, despite his not even having had a majority in the House since 2019, his second of (so-far) three electoral victories. Like any skilled dictator he has been able to curry favour with weak but numerically essential allies and exploit division and dissension in the Opposition parties. His power comes from being able to dictate to Parliament and ruthlessly punish dissenting voices in his caucus, which a U.S. President cannot do to Congress.

      Canadians are scared witless of a second Trump presidency that will produce a “dictatorship” next door. They don’t seem to realize they have, effectively, had one themselves since the 1960s, which they seem comfortable with as long as they can throw the bum out when they get tired of him. I would like to know how Donald Trimp would become a dictator when the President, unlike a PM, has no personal legislative power to make or undo laws.

      1. Thank you. Excellent stuff. Some of my family live in Canada, and I worry about the younger ones still in school.

        ASIDE
        +++++
        I remember Trudeau invoking Canada’s Emergencies Act, to break up trucker protests that had disrupted Ottawa and blocked border crossings. I also recall that the bank accounts of some of the protesters were impounded for months.

        The trucker protest was a nuanced story, still, predictably, the MSM painted the protesters as fascists, nazis and racists, following Trudeau’s lead. A lie.

      2. “I would like to know how Donald Trump would become a dictator when the President, unlike a PM, has no personal legislative power to make or undo laws.”

        He can’t. Even if he had the will, there is not a way.

        The threat inflation, the fearmongering, the tapping into a free-floating anxiety about the future is a borrowing from what both parties have long done on the international scene. Vietnam would fall, and then communism would sweep the rest of Asia. Osama bin Laden sought to destroy America; we thus needed to “fight the terrorists there, so that we don’t have to fight them here.” Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction against his own people; he would surely use them against us, so we must invade. Putin will conquer Ukraine and then roll into Europe; the rest of the dominoes might then fall. How, precisely, any of these men or movements would field the capability to enact their reportedly devilish designs is nearly always left unsaid.

        We also see the threat inflation on the domestic front. To name just a few, the Republicans would have us believe there is a migrant hiding behind every tree, waiting to rape our wives and daughters. Democrats sold COVID-19 as the next Black Plague and condemned in divisive terms anyone who objected to what were not always well-thought-out policies. And continuing today, they have been telling us for decades that, because of climate change, “We only have ten years” . . . before the apocalypse. Time to remake the global economy and redefine our freedoms by fiat from our elites.

        Behind each of these examples are people inciting division, stoking the fear and anxiety of others to either seize or retain power for themselves and their causes. Once whipped into a frenzy, few partisans heed the lesson that an overactive immune system can be more damaging than the targeted disease. In response, many who are not diehard believers either dismiss or minimize the real problems that exist behind each of these instances of fearmongering and threat exaggeration. The sky can only fall so many times. And, so, the division continues.

        A once ubiquitous quote from FDR comes to mind; I wonder whether it is taught to children these days. One day we might relearn that real leaders do not fearmonger, even if, and especially when, there is a threat worth fearing. But charlatans, demagogues, and many self-interested politicians do. Why is it so easy to see when it is “they” who do it but not when it is “we”?

      3. Agreed, Leslie. But, since Obama, executive orders have ruled! It wasn’t right when Obama did it (I was a HUGE Obama supporter throughout his 2 terms), but looking back, I believe he abused executive powers and set motion this most destructive habit of US presidents circumventing the legislature? Would you agree?

        1. Your direct question would require a partisan response so I won’t.
          My concern is not whether XOs are wise or too numerous but whether they can allow the Executive to alter the system of government without the consent of the Legislature. Clearly they can’t, and neither can Cabinet Orders-in-Council in Canada. The danger in Canada is that in addition to issuing OiCs, the Prime Minister can force Parliament to pass any legislation he wants to stake his party’s electoral future on, as long as it doesn’t violate the Constitution (which governs federal-provincial relations and entrenches the Indian treaties as inviolable covenants.) Parliament (meaning the PM) can pass legislation that infringes on civil liberties (what looks in our system like a watered-down U.S. Bill of Rights) by a number of gambits including invoking a clause in the Constitution that says, “notwithstanding” that a law breaches a civil liberty, the law shall stand regardless. (The Emergencies Act used against the Trucker Convoy, btw, was invoked by the PM and endorsed by a compliant Parliament but it did not infringe on civil liberties as understood in Canada.)

          Citizens and non-citizens alike in all rich countries look to government to solve their problems for them. This requires Big Government: the vast administrative state which is directed by ad hoc orders from the Chief Executive. This is what we say we want but the cost is regulatory tyranny. Lay legislators who know nothing but the law can’t grapple with it. It is a bigger issue than where I was going with the dictatorial power of the Executive over the Legislature, which a Canadian PM has but a President does not.

          1. My question was inaccurately phrased because I hadn’t read your comment with the attention it deserved. Sorry, Leslie.

    5. Yep. +1. Though I am not crossing the aisle, but will -from now on- vote for the party I think will do most good for the USA, and that’s certainly not the Democrats.

      And I do have a dog in the fight. I want the border secure, I want the USA to support Israel (Israel is fighting Iran’s multiple proxies and is therefore fighting USA’s wars) and I want the American middle class supported.

  6. I think Biden was the last moderate Democrat with a national profile. We are in uncharted waters now.

  7. Biden made the simple point that this was not within the president’s constitutional authority: “There are some things you can do [as president]. Many things you can’t.” Harris replied, giggling: “I would just say, Hey Joe, instead of saying no we can’t, let’s say yes we can. And yes we can!” . . . She’s not a serious person.

    This was not just some out-there statement. This is exactly what the Administration did on vaccine mandates and student loan forgiveness. After initially saying that they couldn’t do it, they did did it. In the case of student loans, twice. God knows where else. I would call Harris many things, but unserious it not one of them.

    1. +1 hear you.

      Perhaps unserious in the sense that she does not grok the seriousness of selectively dismissing the rule of law. Does not grok the seriousness of the Israel-Gaza war. Does not grok the seriousness of the border. Does not grok the craven stupidity of DEI.

  8. I’ve never eaten chicken wings (which seem to be a way of making people pay money for bits of a bird that should be thown either away or into the stock pot), but if I did and saw “boneless wings” advertised on a menu I should certainly expect them to be boneless! For that ruling to have any justification there must be an alternative meaning for “boneless” and it should be generally understood by the man in the street. I do not accept that “boneless” is a style of cooking. The judge is a fool.

  9. Kamala is a disaster. The republicans will easily shred her. And if she nevertheless wins, the prospect of her presidency is frightening. I’m so depressed.

    1. I really appreciate, Jerry, that you consider opinions from both sides. You quote the NYT and the WSJ, and I think we would all be better off in the U.S.A. if more people were to consider multiple opinions before deciding on a stance to endorse on each political issue.

      I think Harris is having a honeymoon moment, largely due to the huge relief everyone is feeling that Biden was finally shoved off the national stage by the back-room bosses. The polls will stay 50/50 for awhile, and then Harris will drop behind.

  10. Andrew Sullivan is quite right about Harris. We need to pay close attention to her campaign to see if she tacks more toward the center. She probably will, as candidates on both sides typically do. But if she wins, will she actually govern from the center or will she revert to her seemingly more natural inclination to act from the far left? I will be watching carefully for any hint of how she will govern, but it will be hard to know.

    Regarding Israel and Gaza, Harris is not starting out well in calling to end the war now. Ending the war now is a great sound bite, but ending the war without winning it decisively—without ending Hamas’s ability to fight and to govern—would be devastating to Israel. Is Harris really so superficial that she is unaware of the fact that ending the war without victory will mean that Hamas will re-emerge to attack Israel again, and again, and again, until Israel is no more—probably on her watch? I don’t have an answer. Again, I will be observing her carefully before casting my vote in November.

    1. Harris is in love with power. In some strange way she’s like Trump. Not much idealism, a great deal of expediency.

      Still, if she loses, she won’t challenge the outcome – maybe her solitary grace.

  12. The “Hamas is coming” graffito updates a classic, Islamist anti-Jewish chant: “Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahud! Jaish Muhammad soufa yaʿoud!” ( ’Khaybar, Khaybar, Oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!’). The “Hamas is coming” trope is also revealing of the US political horseshoe: invocation of an outfit bent on retrogressing to the 7th century AD is popularly labelled “far Left” or “global Left”.

  13. As an American Liberal (not a Neo-; not a Classical-) I no longer have a political home. The Republican Party is christofascist, and the Democratic Party is increasingly islamofascist. I won’t vote for Harris (incompetent, illiberal, acquiescent to her party’s fascist wing), and so, as I live in a non-swing state, I have little compunction about sitting out this election. It’s devastating to me that it’s come to this.

      1. I’ll just ride it out until I die, I guess. If it gets unbearable, I’ll go to Israel and die there…i have that “luxury”!

        Are they really fascist? In their mindsets, in their goals, Yes I think they are.

        1. The Muslim side, absolutely fascist. There ARE quite a large bunch of Christofascists but we have enough immunity against them so they’re less of a threat.

          We have no crowd immunity against the left-Islam complex, including its woke aspect. And it is a profoundly dangerous combination.
          D.A.
          NYC

    2. The Republican Party is far more Chritofascist than the Democratic Party is Islamofascist.

      The Republican Party is now thoroughly Christofascist, while the Democratic Party has Islamofascist agitators — many of whom are, no doubt, supported directly or egged on with sly propaganda by Russia and other states that would like to further destabilize democracy and the rule of law.

      No political party is without issues, but the Republican Party is now a political sewer that despises the very idea of democracy. Else why have so many top Republican leaders — including former Trump supporters and members of his own administration — jumped ship?

      Very few, if any, Democratic leaders are becoming Republicans. Why? Because there is no equivalence in the way you posit.

      Sitting out an election is a nihilistic position when there is a referendum on democracy itself, never mind if one is not in a swing state. People can see over their state borders as well as they can see within their state borders.

      (Unless they’re in Russia, or North Korea, or Iran, among other anti-democratic states.)

      1. +1! Thanks for the post. I’m not comfortable with the ambivalence re Harris and astonished that people would come an ostensibly science-oriented site and declare they will vote for Trump.

        From KH I hear:

        …”before I was elected vice president, before I was elected a United States senator, I was elected attorney general of the state of California. And I was a courtroom prosecutor before then.

        And in those roles, I took on perpetrators of all kinds — predators — who abused women — fraudsters — who ripped off consumers — cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So, hear me when I say: I know Donald Trump’s type.”

        Wonderful clear, cadence, a prosecutor’s opening statement.

      2. I’m so sorry to disagree with you, Jon. Particularly in light of my earlier snarkiness towards you. However, I don’t see anything democratic about the way Kamala was christened as the nominee. We can all disagree on policies, but I see her elevation to nominee as a sham. The statement Black Lives Matter put out about this, wholeheartedly reflects my sentiments about these past recent events. My belief is that all this did is add fuel to the fire of voters, citizens, etc who’ve lost faith in our system. Did Trump start this? He surely did. Nonetheless, there are many of us out here in the hinterlands who are questioning what is wrong, in this day and age, from preventing people who cannot provide proof of citizenship from voting. I’ve worked for numerous nonprofits who’ve bent over backwards to provide anyone and everyone who requests assistance in acquiring legal identification to acquire it.

        1. Those who cannot provide proof of citizenship should not be able to vote. Yes, the republicans may require this for nefarious reasons (we can speculate about those reasons, and some of the speculation will land on target), whether that be factual or not, permitting votes without proof of citizenship is untenable.

          It’s NOT difficult to get a national ID. POC are not without agency. I am one. I have a national ID. It was a no-brainer.

          It’s a new form of “colonialism” (coming from the liberal left) to pander to POC. I reject it wholeheartedly.

          1. I’m interested in your story, Rosemary. From the bits and pieces I’ve gleaned here, you’ve been all over this world of ours and yet, you continually refer to the US as your point of reference. I’m intrigued. Also, I only recently noticed you referring to yourself as “a POC”. I think I remember you referring to being a youngster in Sri Lanka? Am I correct? All quite exotic and of interest to me. Anyway…
            About the identification thing, everyone I know who is, shall we say, not white, is offended by the notion that they cannot obtain identification with which to legally vote. Duh!

        2. Debi,

          Thank you for asking.

          Yes, my family and I left Sri-Lanka in the late 80s, early 90s – as children/young adults. Sri-Lanka was in the throes of a violent civil war that left 100s of 1000s dead; a civil war between militant Tamil terrorists and the majority Sinhalese; both factions contributed to the violence (though the Tamil faction escalated what could have been settled relatively peacefully into an unprincipled bloody conflict, the LTTE – the liberation tigers of Tamil Elam are often credited with the *invention* of the suicide bomb, though it’s unclear to me if they were) in a nation that remains thoroughly and blatantly corrupt – bottom up and top down. Recent attempts to reform government have failed.

          As immigrants, we (my family and I) first lived in Canada and then after I graduated (from U of T) in comp-sci/mathematics, I worked for astronomical observatories for several years on the Big Island of Hawaii, at Caltech and at NASA Ames (via USRA) in Silicon Valley on a couple of NASA missions.

          Yes, I was a youngster when we left Lanka for good, and I have deep affection for my island of birth. Still. I am an American first. Why this matters and why I feel a deep sense of loyalty and gratitude for the USA will take a while to explain; I’ll refrain from boring you with details, suffice to say, the founding principles, the 1st amendment, and gravitas of meritocracy have a great deal to do with my love of nation and my belief in American exceptionalism. The USA -also- gave my family and me a home away from the threat and reality of ethnic violence.

          Most 1st generation immigrants share my sensibilities about their adoptive nation. I am not unique in that regard. Generational Americans are (I generalize) largely without a clue on how good they have it. America is a unique and exquisite experiment, it breaks my heart that the attacks on her come both from the left and right.

          Moderation is key to the survival of a democracy.

          Aside
          ====
          I abhor the burning of our flag, those who engage in the act are exercising a unique gift, one they may never -fully- understand, if I burned a Sri-Lanka flag in public, in Colombo, I’ll probably be knifed within 24 hours.

          My ardent wish for my nation is that those who disagree vehemently (citizens and residents of the USA) come together civilly to draft compromise – as the founders intended. The visceral hate “for the other” should be shunned, rejected. You (generic) really can’t hate someone you don’t know. Such hate is contrived, taught, cultivated. We should ask ourselves who taught us to hate and why.

          White liberals (again, I generalize of course) need to quit lionizing POC, building altars for us, and (at the same time) thinking of us as vulnerable puppies who need constant help and attention. It’s a type of colonialism that occupies the mind. I won’t be colonized by it.

          Incidentally, it took me 13+ years to become a citizen. Yes, we (all citizens) can and should get an ID to vote.

          2. Great story. Thanks for taking the time to share it. Fascinating history (yours, I mean).

        3. The proof-of-citizenship issue is a red herring, Debi, and the last presidential election was certified as the most secure ever, if that’s an issue that concerns you.

          The choice of Kamala as a candidate was due to the intersection of many unusual factors, the shortness of time being probably the most important one, in my opinion.

          In any case, if there weren’t so many logical reasons for her candidacy, she wouldn’t have been put forward as the candidate, no matter Biden’s endorsement. And the immediate groundswell of support for her indicates agreement from many ordinary citizens. And, the official endorsement by the Democratic party remains to be finalized, so if her candidacy didn’t make sense, someone else could still be picked, though I don’t expect that.

          The U.S. political process is far from perfect. The bubbling up of a candidate includes many factors, not all of which would be considered evidence of a democratic process. If you are concerned about democracy, I’d suggest focusing on the massively distorting effects of unfettered dark money that the Supreme Court recently allowed. Also, focus on the right-wing corruption of the courts themselves (not just the Supreme Court).

          As I’ve written elsewhere, Harris would not have been my first choice, but I’m glad she has replaced Biden as a candidate — despite her apparent sympathy with identity politics, which of course I deplore. But there would be room for change in her administration, if she wins, whereas a Trump administration would drown democracy in a bathtub, which I say with allusions to a statement by an earlier, pre-MAGA Republican extremist.

          So the choice of Kamala now is clear to me, if not to you, Debi. Democracy, after all, is about compromise, not perfection.

          If I haven’t already overused this space, and in deference to Jerry’s roolz, I don’t expect to say more about this here.

          1. I agree with your concerns about dark money, Jon. The Citizens United decision (2010) was the beginning of the end with respect to the Supreme Court. I actually worked (volunteered) to help Arizona bring transparency to dark money (Terry Goddard’s Proposition 211: The Voter’s Right To Know Act). We got it passed in 2022 and it went into effect in 2023. Outside groups Keep bringing suits against it but, fortunately, the courts keep throwing them out.

  14. I see a number of references to fascism.

    This is a good reference-peppered exposition on the dialectical reaction to communism known as fascism :

    youtu.be/qdY_IMZH2Ko?si=a6C8aj_VQBNM9nwy

    A telltale sign of fascism is multiple unions bound together (fascio, Italian ; bundle) and contributing to power of the state, in addition to authoritarianism.

      1. Doug referred us to your link. Just read it. Clarifies a topic that really isn’t “clear”. Thanks. By the way, I listened to the audio version of Peter Singer’s Hegel primer. Took me back to my old political theory courses and reminded me that the thing about nearly all philosophy is that one must learn a separate language to get through it.

        1. Hey, great to hear – yeah, I just thought, Singer’s work is very much like Steven Pinker — the effort is on making the ideas and thought as clear as possible, for the reader to make of it what they will. I mean, they have their own biases, but I think I can tell they set them aside as best they can.

  17. Is anyone here aware of, or has opinions about, an organization called “3.14 Action”?

    My wife got a text from the group, and I took a cursory look at their website. The organization’s purpose is to promote political candidates who are scientists or knowledgeable about science.

    (I’m assuming that “3.14” refers to Pi.)

    https://314action.org

    2. Judging by their mission statement, they are promoting Democrat activists who have sort-of scientific credentials to impress voters. I looked at their list of House candidates – many have practical medical training, one is a law prof, and only one appears ever to have had a job actually doing scientific research. So for them to call the candidates “scientists” is misleading.

      I see no indication of the meaning of “3.14” and most references on that site omit the dot.

      1. Thanks for checking, Gordon. They might be trying to get scientists, but scientists are usually apolitical or want to appear that way…

        Anyway, I’ll check them out some more at a later time.

        I don’t have a problem with their focus on Democrats — they need as much remedial instruction as the general population.

        (Their logo puts the period in. Having the period in regular text might cause confusion, especially in hyperlinks.)

  18. This day, 230 years ago.
    On July 27, 1794 (9 Thermidor in the Revolutionary calendar), Robespierre and his allies were placed under arrest by the National Assembly. After some complications, he was seized by troops of the Assembly, and met Madame Guillotine on July 28.

  19. Okay. After what I fear has been too much commenting, I must say that today’s Auschwitz Memorial really has my heart breaking for the father and husband who survived such horrors. I intend to keep him in my mind as I mourn.

  20. Q’s for Jerry:

    What constitutes too much commenting? Isn’t vigorous discussion a good thing?

    Do wordpress sites limit or constrain commenting?

    I’d like these defined:

    1) Dominating a thread
    2) Too much commenting

    🤔

  21. Where did these terms “Christofascists” and “Islamofascists” come from? Are these really meaningful terms or are they just words used to demonize the “other side”?

    1. Debi: Fascists SHOULD be demonized, don’t you think? You may feel it’s splitting terminological hairs to affix those qualifiers, but the Christo- and Islamo- subgroups are not the same, and so I really think the distinction serves a useful function. If you feel such people are not fascists, well, I’d disagree.

      Over and out as this is my fourth post here.

      1. The Lebanese organization Hezballah (Party of God) provides a helpful illustration of Islamofascism, as exemplified in this news bulletin yesterday from JNS.
        “Twelve children and youths were killed, and dozens more people wounded, when a Hezbollah heavy rocket hit near a soccer field in the Druze town of Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights on Saturday evening.

        “The Hezbollah terrorist organization is behind the rocket launch at a soccer field in Majdal Shams which caused multiple civilian casualties, including children, earlier this evening,” the Israel Defense Forces said.”

      2. I thought it obvious what I was responding to, Danny, which was what I see as an overuse of words like fascism. To affix whichever chosen word to *that* only intensifies the heat, in my opinion. If I take your question at face value, whether “Islamo” or “Christo” are functional distinctions is a separate issue that I won’t
        debate. I think your question is fair game in the blogosphere which is why I’ve pretty much stayed out of this stuff. I wish I hadn’t commented in the first place, but I appreciate your question if, for no other reason than it reminds me why I don’t belong here.
        .

        1. Debi,
          We can rephrase danny’s question as: People whom I call fascists should be demonized, don’t you think? The term, no matter how modified, generally sheds more light on the dislikes of the speaker than it does upon the characteristics of the demonized.

          I found the best piece of this comment thread to be the Orwell essay to which Bryan linked. I had read it decades ago, but it was a short-yet-relevant reminder of how some behaviors and confusions are likely always with us.

          1. Bryan always provides us with nougats, if we take the time to follow through. Your rephrasing of Danny’s question has caused me to pause which, I think, is always a good thing. Thank you

        2. Simply because a term can be abused doesn’t mean it’s bereft of meaning. For example, the term “boneless chicken” CAN be abused (when the chicken in question is not in fact boneless), but that doesn’t mean “boneless chicken” doesn’t exist. Fascism exists, I’m sure you agree. If you think that the mindsets and goals of (for example) the SJP or the KKK are not fascist in nature, of course, I’m open to non-ad hominem and good-natured intellectual discussion. (But not in this thread because I’ve written too much haha.)

          1. What I was objecting to, Danny, was the attachment of religious/faith based systems of belief to fascism. Yes, fascism exists. So does Christianity and Islam. They needn’t, necessarily, be connected is what I was trying to say. I’m not, by the way, a Christian or a Muslim. I know many people who are, but they are not fascists nor do they wish someone of their faith would take over the country and impose their beliefs on others. I just feel that we need to be careful about connecting beliefs we don’t necessarily agree with to fascism simply because we disagree with those beliefs.I may still be missing your point and if I am, I apologize for my density.
            But it looks like maybe you can’t say sh*t because you’ve already “over commented”. I’m kidding, I swear.

Comments are closed.