Although I’m staying away from most of the news, i do follow the election news, and am aware of how Harris has befuddled Trump as Democrats, enthusiastic for a candidate who’s mediocre at best, have taken Harris above the Orange Man in the polls.
As always, I emphasize that I’m a never-Trumper, but I’m probably a not-Harriser, either, as I may vote for a third candidate, or not vote at all, since my state will go Democratic anyway. I also note that Harris is completely avoiding press conferences and interviews, since she’s not at all good on thinking on her feet or speaking intelligibly on the issues. I am baffled for the tremendous Democratic enthusiasm for Harris, but I guess I can understand it as it gives us a way to avoid Trump, who looked as if he was going to win.
But I argue that Harris, despite her promise, did not earn the nomination but simply inherited it, and I’m sad that the person likely to be chosen leader of our country is someone without the smarts and savvy of someone like Gretchen Whitmer, my previous favorite. (n.b. please do not tell me that I MUST vote as doing so won’t help the Democrats, and I will look askance at claims that Kamala Harris is the greatest thing since sliced bread.)
Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, here are three items I’ve stolen from Nellie Bowles’s weekly news summary at The Free Press, called this week “TGIF: the RayGun goes off.”
→ Kamala is up big: Another week in which Kamala Harris does some high-energy rallies. . . and not much else. The Democratic nominee has so far given no interviews, no press conferences, and is just generally keeping it light on details like, say, how she plans to run the country. And it’s working. The voters are warming to Kamala—or at least the loosely reality-based version of Kamala Harris being put forward by a pliant press. According to The Cook Political Report, Harris now leads or ties Trump in all but one of the seven battleground states. The latest national Emerson poll puts Harris four points ahead on 50 percent to Trump’s 46 percent. Nate Silver’s magic election machine also has Harris ahead, as do the betting markets. Remember how a few months ago every expert and political insider insisted that an obviously over-the-hill Joe Biden was a better candidate than Harris? Or that Biden alone could beat Trump? Me neither.
I am but a passenger in the vibes election. And I am dangerously close to putting in a bet on Kamala.
I’d bet on her winning, at least at this stage of the election. But et’s wait until the candidates debate each other and give interviews and press conferences.
→ Oi, mate, be nice or else! I have some British colleagues and they’re all really nice. Polite, considerate, good manners, hard workers, never cry in public, only slightly concerning drinking habits. Anyway recent headlines out of Blighty have me wondering: Is that just because it’s actually illegal to be a dick over there? After some ugly anti-immigrant riots in the UK, in which real-life people tried to do real-life harm to other real-life people, the big takeaway from the powers that be is that people who are mean on the internet should be put in jail. “Think before you post,” warned prosecutors. Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson told Brits: “You may be committing a crime if you repost, repeat or amplify a message which is false, threatening, or stirs up racial / religious hatred.” And one of Britain’s police chiefs even threatened to extradite U.S. citizens who break Britain’s censorship laws—to which the only reasonable response is a big, fat, American middle finger. I can think of no more just war than refighting the American War of Independence, only this time over busybody speech codes and our right to say crazy shit online rather than a tax on tea. Hand me my musket, and fire up Facebook. We’re taking no prisoners.
→ Goodbye, weird kid sports: The Algerian boxer Imane Khelif’s gold medal win highlighted how the IOC is rather squirrely about how they separate the sexes in sports. Is it by what’s listed on your passport? Your testosterone level? What’s coded into your DNA? Whether or not you’re good at math? Who knows! But let’s get real: The Olympics have been playing fast and loose with their standards for quite a while. Skateboarding, speed climbing, BMX racing, and—the newest, dumbest addition—breakdancing all featured as Olympic sports in Paris. I’m not saying these activities don’t require athletic prowess; I’m just saying if the uniform is cargo pants and a sideways hat then maybe it should be part of a different competition than the one Simone Biles participates in. This year, the Australian breakdancer Rachael Gunn, a.k.a. RayGun, participated in the competition, earning herself exactly zero points for her wild display on the break floor. She has a PhD in cultural studies and her thesis was on “Deterritorializing gender in Sydney’s breakdancing scene: A B-girl’s experience of B-boying,” and oh, it showed. After being roundly ridiculed online for her performance Gunn shared the quote, “Don’t be afraid to be different, go out there and represent yourself, you never know where that’s gonna take you.” But sometimes you know exactly where you’re going, like if you sign up for the Olympics as a breakdancer. I commend Raygun for participating and answering the question we all ask ourselves when we watch the Olympics, which is, “I wonder how I would stack up.” Now we know. Breakdancing, and the modern pentathlon that apparently involved laser pistols, will mercifully not be a part of L.A.’s 2028 program.
Okay, one more from Nellie (see also this link from reader Ginger K.):
→ I love my quaint hometown: A referendum in Pittsburgh that would cut all ties with Israel is moving through the legislative process. If it makes it to the ballot, voters will get to choose whether the city charter will be amended to bar “investment or allocation of public funds, including tax exemptions, to entities that conduct business operations with or in the state of Israel.” This is like BDS on crack. If it were to pass, the lights in the city would go out (since we couldn’t do business with Duquesne Light because they do business with Israel) and there would be no more Narcan, a drug manufactured by an Israeli company. Also: There would be no fuel for the city vehicles like patrol cars, nor any vehicles at all, since oil and gas companies and car companies do business with the Jewish state. This sounds like a really promising initiative that will make life in Pittsburgh—a key stakeholder in the war in Gaza—better for all. Also, shout-out to the brave highway blockers in L.A.! If they adopted the Pittsburgh measure, though, they could just take the ambulances away instead of blocking them.
. . . and that’s the way it is.
Nobody asked for this – so I fault no one in their decisions. What can you say? As Jefferson supposedly said :
Let friends be wrong
(Have not sourced this)
Bryan, I’m very late here but I hope you see this: I don’t always follow precisely what you say in your many comments here, but they are generally well received. I thought this one, in particular though, was elegant. It’s kind of what I wish I could have imagined composing when I read our host’s main thrust about the election. You didn’t spell it out – and perhaps I’m wrong – but I think sitting it out and not voting for Harris isn’t a safe option.
Appreciated – cheers.
… I don’t know. Some things like this strike deep, and I must grant an almost reverent respect for this.
Please continue to keep our ears perked. Thanks
To my mind the biggest issue with Harris’s campaign is the apparent unwillingness to have unscripted public appearances, either interviews or press conferences (which, really, are never unscripted with this White House). Given the curated exposure of President Biden, and the Emperor has no clothes moment, this should be a major red-flag.
+1
Is that in fact who is performing the duties of President right now, on a continuous basis?
Frankly, I doubt she would be, even if she were elected in November.
True enough. But to be fair and balanced there are plenty unscripted appearances of president and former president Trump that we could do without.
An introverted person, or one who who likes thinking time to respond clearly to important questions, can still be a good President. I’d find that preferable to someone who just opens their mouth and belches lies and nonsense.
Having said that, I just think that Harris is the least worst candidate.
I agree!
That’s not a fault if she is more likely to blow it than not with an unscripted appearance. Tr*mp winning would be a disaster for the World, so we need to do everything we can (within the law) to stop it from happening.
The Democrats and most of the media are rallying around Harris and giving her a pass on the issues simply because they want to beat Trump, no matter who does it. This—anointing a candidate without a primary and escorting her frictionlessly to the November election—from the party that is constantly warning us that democracy (small “d”) is at stake.
Some pushback on the Harris not earning her nomination part. She was always part of the Biden ticket. They were a pair from Day One. As such, all Biden-earned votes were hers as well. This is ESPECIALLY the case this year, since everyone assumed that Biden, if elected, would not finish his term anyway (one way or another, fair or unfair) and that she would take over.
As I said above. if anyone can convince me that not voting for either candidate in Illinois will help Trump win, I’ll vote for Harris.
Don’t vote for Harris. 😂 Take a stand. Don’t vote for “vibes”. She’s unfit for the presidency, just as Trump is: however, his policy positions (if they can be implemented – which is questionable) will be better – on the border, on Israel, and on gender-ideology. Three significant issues. His policy positions/policies on the environment (of course) will be terrible.
[My dead cat will pose a good write-in. He was a good mouser. Even killed a mongoose once. I miss him. 🙁 ]
Having said that, I’m hoping gender-ideology can well and truly be “killed” under Harris, it will get SO bad and so absurdly asinine and dangerous (to woman and children) that the critical folk (that includes me) will have much more fodder to battle the “madness of crowds” (neo-progressives) and a vapid (yes, it will be vapid) Harris administration.
My previous -similar- recommendation (on a previous post) was met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Sincere stuff. No doubt. I will respond to those comments eventually, too busy.
PS: Try to be charming. 🙂 No matter who is elected, we’ll be ok – unless of course world war 3 breaks out, and… and… and…
Even if Kamala wins:
The Biden admin’s rewrite of title IX legislation (where sex was simply reinterpreted as gender identity) will be blocked by the Supreme Court. (I’ll eat my hat if it turns out otherwise.)
Courts will also reject most of the legal challenges to state laws banning gender-affirming care of trans-identified children.
Agree re: Title IX, though it’s unclear if SCOTUS will take it on. It’s an executive ruling via the Dept. of Education, unlike legislation.
Also agree re: the courts rejecting most of the legal challenges to state laws banning gender-affirming care of minors.
ASDIE: if challenges to gender-affirming care reach SCOTUS (and they will via litigation alleging harm) and a US review similar to the Cass Review or the Cass Review itself influences public/institutional thinking (and it will, eventually institutions will be forced to reckon with the reputational and cost-based fallout via litigation; it’s already happening). SCOTUS will have no choice but to favor litigation acknowledging the harm inherent in gender affirming care – at least in the context of minors. There is simply no science supporting the practice.
Having said that, A Trump administration will act more favorably and forcefully in dismantling the ideology. The caveat is that Trump himself (primarily his affect – disturbs people enough to vote for the ‘other wise’ simply because of it, and it alone) may pose a significant impediment reaching the public and public education on the topic.
The promotion of gender-ideology is likely the most horrific policy position adopted by democrats en masse. It’s (just) mad.
+1
This just broke, (partially related to the discussion above)
====================================
SCOTUS ruling:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4832117-supreme-court-denies-title-ix-doj-request/
Quote:
“The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision denied the Biden administration’s emergency request to partially reinstate its new Title IX rule.
The sweeping changes to Title IX, which protects against sex discrimination in schools, cover sexual orientation and gender identity for the first time. Various Republican state attorneys general have persuaded judges to block implementation in roughly half the country.
The Biden administration contended those injunctions went too far, urging the Supreme Court to narrow them to primarily block the prohibitions on gender identity discrimination at the center of the challenges — allowing the other changes to go into effect.
Those updates, which were set to go into effect on Aug. 1, span from accommodations for pregnant students to retaliation protections to recordkeeping requirements.
“On this limited record and in its emergency applications, the Government has not provided this Court a sufficient basis to disturb the lower courts’ interim conclusions that the three provisions found likely to be unlawful are intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule,” according to the court’s unsigned order.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court’s two other liberal justices and conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented, agreeing with the Biden administration that the lower court rulings were “overbroad.”
“By blocking the Government from enforcing scores of regulations that respondents never challenged and that bear no apparent relationship to respondents’ alleged injuries, the lower courts went beyond their authority to remedy the discrete harms alleged here,” Sotomayor wrote.
The decision is not a final ruling in the various lawsuits challenging the new Title IX rule, and the cases will now return to lower appeals courts. The matter could eventually return to the Supreme Court.
The change followed the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling that an employer who fires someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Biden administration has defended its updates to Title IX, which covers schools, as consistent with the court’s doctrine. The court’s unsigned opinion indicates all nine justices unanimously agreed that the lower courts were proper to block the central changes related to gender identity at this preliminary stage of the challenges.
But Gorsuch’s alliance with the court’s liberals on Friday mimics the Supreme Court’s 2020 case, when he wrote the majority opinion.
Updated at 6:35 p.m.”
I will respectfully disagree with you. I am not a Harris fan and I wish there was someone else to vote for that might have a realistic chance of winning against Trump, but there isn’t. In my opinion, the price you pay for Trump is much too high.
I won’t go down the rabbit hole and debate just how comparatively hideous each of the candidates are or might be. All of that has been well and truly flogged to death many times. But I will hold my nose and vote for Harris, not because of “vibes” or any similar nonsense, but because I believe that under these circumstances it is the right thing do.
Indeed. (I’d say more, but I’m busy with other things.)
Same here, Trump would be a disaster for the environment and for foreign policy and would fill federal courts with bad judges. And he probably would resume filling the government with syncophant loons. The damage he could inflict is longer lasting and more serious than anything Harris might do, in my judgement. I understand that there are a few issues where he is actually good. But these don’t even begin to balance the things he would do wrong.
I agree, no matter how “bad” Kamala is, Trump is still much worse. He should not actually be legally allowed to run.
How many times do I have to say this.
YES, TRUMP IS THE LEAST WORST CANDIDATE BY FAR. I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HIM. But I’m not inclined to vote for a mediocre candidate either. Since I’m not from a swing state, my non-vote would not help Trump or hurt Harris. It will not change the results. And I’ll say this one more time, too, since people seem to think I’m somehow promoting Trump: if anyone can make a convincing argument now about how my not voting for President in a Democratic state will change the election results or help trump, I’ll vote for Harris. Otherwise, right now I’m not inclined to vote for President, or write in Whitmer.
I get it people: Trump is a disaster and worse than Harris. However, I did not intend for this to be a post in which readers could sound off about how bad Trump is, or convince me to vote for Harris.
+1 / Also *not* voting for Harris ± a vote *for* Trump.
YES, TRUMP IS THE LEAST WORST CANDIDATE BY FAR.
Maybe this is a transatlantic nuance, but I read that as “both candidates are bad but Tr*mp is not as bad as Harris”. Not sure that is what you meant to say.
“No matter who is elected, we’ll be ok” – that seems quite a faith statement, Rosemary. Or maybe ‘you’ (US citizens) will be ‘ok’ but probably not the planet as a whole.
Trump has not really anything resembling policies or strategies (except dismantling, persecuting, rambling, etc).
Still, very likely that with Trump in power we will be riding the worst possible carbon emission slope (scenario A1F1 – Fig 4 – https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/sres-en.pdf) – and this will certainly not be ok.
In the face of this, I believe disagreements on ‘gender policies’ are rather irrelevant matters that can be discussed in due course (when we’re not heading into a wall).
Martim,
I care first about my own nation, and then everything else. You may find that objectionable, but the time is *now* to care about the US border, the multiple proxy wars we are fighting, the massive debt we are incurring and the billions of dollars we dole out every year on behalf of other nations, particularly Europe and multiple international agencies whose purpose I question.
I’m not advocating an isolationist policy, but I am -certainly- advocating a revision of US policy as it relates to the globe. Yes, perhaps we can “do it all”, but we need to be far more thoughtful about how we spend, we need to draw down our national debt, and we need to make our Social Security program serve Americans past 2033.
Neither a Biden/Harris administration (nor a Trump administration) nor the US alone can affect carbon emissions in a significant manner unless we reign in developing nations, and we can’t do that effectively because developing nations surprisingly -also- like nice things – the things that you and I have. You can’t deny poor people cars (for example).
Our time is better spent trying to convince the South African government -for example- to move away from coal and go to SMRs – which are quite safe. There are multiple groups working hard on these aspects and this is where we need to focus, not worrying about who the US will elect. We’ve already had 4 years of Trump and we have evidence of what it was like, everyone suffered from TDS (thanks to a ‘broken’ media) and in the end, there were no wars, the economy was better for the middle class and the border more secure (and no, I don’t agree with nor condone some of the methods Trump adopted to secure the border).
Americans are suffering from the consequences of the policies enforced (particularly on the border) by the Biden/Harris campaign and Israel will certainly be stronger – a nation fighting a proxy war with Iran on our behalf – under Trump. We don’t want the immigration crisis that has hit Europe to overrun the US as well. I say this even as I have empathy for the majority of those seeking a better life and crossing our southern border illegally.
Where I live (temporarily) in the rural lowveld in SA, people are without the basic necessities, without water – and no, not because of the drought, but because of corrupt governance. These people never talk about climate, nor do they care, nor can we expect them to care. Their priorities are constrained by their daily needs – “how do I put food on the table, and how do I get my kids to school”. Every aspect of conservation/planet is -ultimately- dominated by the presence or absence of disenfranchisement and the lack of agency. Reduce the unemployment rate in South Africa -for example- from ~32% to -say- 20% and you’ll see a reduction in poaching, you’ll see more interest in climate issues and you’ll see more agency – more people able to pressure their government(s) to move away from coal.
As for the gender issue, what you call “gender politics” impacts the lives of families, of children, and of communities. Denying reality is the definition of heading into a wall. Societies cannot function effectively if the amplification of a fantasy (and I speak of more than gender-ideology) supersedes the dictates of nature – of reality; if children are being taught to question their gender, if the genitals of children are being mutilated, if males are in female sports, if males are in female prisons (with verifiable instances of rape), if the decades of hard fought rights on behalf of women are being erased. Gender ideology (and more) represent a canary in the coal mine, a symbol of collapse.
So no to “due course”. To the female prisoner who has to put up with a male in her cell/prison block. It’s not a matter of “due course”. It’s a matter of “how do I have a shower?”, “will I get raped”, “what will happen if I get pregnant?”.
It’s a reflection of our elitism ( I include myself in the equation) that we think these issues are irrelevant and can afford to worry about climate change above the needs and concern of “ordinary/vulnerable” people.
I couldn’t agree more. Thank you.
I couldn’t agree less.
The climate change scenario was just an example (a crucial one in my opinion) about the non-obviousness of the statement ‘everything will be ok’.
I replied out of my puzzlement derived from coming across educated people considering Trump as a valid hypothesis.
I guess it is just another case of a long time conundrum. Why, throughout history, do part of the intelectual elites support ‘killer clowns’ (as George Monbiot calls these enraged populists). Hitler included. That Malgorzata seems to concur with you (i.e., apparently ok with Trump as president?) underscores this paradox in a chilling way.
Note – Comparing the infinitesimal role of poor South Africans (or developing countries in general) to that of the USA (in particular, and Northern Hemisphere in general) in driving the current carbon emissions makes no sense. Likewise there is a big scale discrepancy when putting in the same level the few instances of “the female prisoner who has to put up with a male in her cell/prison block” and the millions of people affected by climate change (most of whom will be the “ordinary/vulnerable” people who happen to contribute the least to the problem). Not that the former is not important, but the scale of the two problems is certainly very different.
To Martim:
In addition to all Rosemary Alles’d arguments I have some more for preferring Trump to Harris. Of course, I would be deliriously happy if the Republican candidate would be somebody else (almost anybody else, though my personal favorite is Nikki Haley). But I’m not an American citizen and I’m looking at the American election through the prism of my being a Polish Jew with close friends in Ukraine. And while Ukraine could survive four years of Trump, Israel may not survive four years of Harris/Walz. The fall of Israel (Little Satan) would easily encourage the Axis of Evil to try to go after their real goal: The United States of America – the Big Satan. Which means a war – a war with emissions which would dwarf the emissions caused by Trump climate politics (not to mention the general destruction and tens of millions of corpses).
“Whenever women’s rights clash with other dicta from the Progressive Left, the women will lose.” MacPherson’s Dictum.
I’m tired of women’s concerns always being put last.
Do you think that a President Harris is going to convince China and the rest of Asia to run their economies on weather-dependent electricity and stop burning coal? In the Paris Accord, each country pledges its own nationally determined emissions targets. The industrial powerhouses in Asia have said they’ll consider, as as aspiration, peaking their emissions (from fossil fuel burning and cement-making) sometime around 2050, taking into account their economic and national security imperatives which run opposite to emissions reductions.
Furthermore, the easy way for America and Europe to reduce their national emissions is to offshore their high-emissions manufacturing to Asia and then import those products in ships and aircraft whose extraterritorial emissions are not booked to any one country.
There may be many good reasons to vote for Kamala Harris over Donald Trump. I just don’t see climate change as one of those. The American consumer will put up with what he will, — gasoline and electricity prices — and no more. And it’s not very much. A President Harris will have to let the oil and gas men drill. She just won’t boast about it.
I think in this discussion, we are maybe forgetting that the US sees their president as the “leader of the free world”, and as much that expression irks me, I must admit that there is a lot of practical truth in it. So, yes, who the US president is matters, and it matters not only for the US, but for the entire world, and it matters for the climate and carbon emissions. The world, or a large part of it, does follow the US example in many things, and the US with all the money it can leverage, can “bully” the world into doing a lot of what it thinks is right. So yes, I have very little doubt, that in terms of carbon emissions, the world will be in a much better trajectory in a few years, if Harris becomes president. Now, the climate may not be the priority for the US voters and of course, what their priorities are is for them to decide and not for me (a citizen of Portugal and Canada).
A testable prediction. Good.
Thanks.
First of all she did earn the nomination as the previously elected delegates for the Biden/Harris team switched their votes to Harris. They didn’t have to but they did.
Also there was no other serious contender for the nominee came forward (except for Manchin and that was only for a day). Personally I preferred Pete Buttigieg but he is too young and the US would not elect a gay president. Maybe in another decade or so.
Also there is indications that she hold question and answer sessions now that she has a running mate and the DNC conference is over. If she did well in a question answer session would that encourage you to consider her?
I’m not convinced. What you describe is her INHERITING the nomination, largely by virtue of Biden’s endorsement. She strongly implied that she’d earn it by providing a platform that would convince America that she was worthy. I have not seen that. She has avoided one-on-ones assiduously, for her handlers know that she’ll screw up when asked to think on her feet instead of reading from a teleprompter. That said, I’m giving my opinion at this moment, and if she can convince me that she can turn into a smart, savvy, and perspicacious leader between now and November, yes, I’ll vote for her.
Small correction detail: TGIF was from our dear little sister Suzy Weiss this morning (note hometown Pittsburg): “Nellie told us she was leaving the house for a pack of cigarettes and we haven’t seen her in weeks. If anyone sees her, please tell her the baby is hungry and come home…”
Nelly having left for a pack of cigs is funny. Does that tell us that among Bari and Nelly, Nelly is the man?
Thanks for the correction. Suzi is starting to write like Nelly!
Yes she is. I almost missed it except for my engineering penchant for details (can be read anality) I went back at some point and read the byline. Almost a distinction without a difference as they say.
It was Suzy Weiss not Nellie this week.
One more:
This from Pirate Wires’ morning takes:
“Yesterday, it finally happened: Kamala proposed a policy. Or, sort of. Her advisors leaked the fact that she would soon propose a policy, and long story short it’s communism. Have you noticed basically everything is 20 to 30% more expensive than it was a few years ago? Well, you’re in luck. Lil’ Coconut is about to simply make price increases illegal. What’s that you say? Prices aren’t increasing, the value of our dollar is crashing on account of Biden printed trillions of dollars and lit it all on fire like the Joker? Yeah, no shit. Grocery stores aren’t about to carry goods at a loss, either, as we’ve seen in every command economy in human history. But in this vibes-based, post substance world we live in none of that matters. Mamala makes us “happy.” Now go buy yourself some hard liquor while you still can, pour yourself a drink, and enjoy your weekend.” – PW
The snark and the stupid are always strong with PW. IMO,OC
Maybe (just maybe) the truth hurts.
Please. It’s a nonserious and nonuseful take.
I agree.
That the snark and the stupid are always strong with PW is indeed a nonserious and nonuseful take.
What is *really* nonserious and nonuseful are the economic policies that Harris proposes. Shortages follow handouts and inflation follows shortages. The COVID giveaways should have taught her this. But here we are.
The reality is that her strategy is politically smart (most Americans are into vibes, not reality) – promise something you can never deliver, that may indeed be unconstitutional and harmful to the economy, campaign on vibes, don’t answer any serious questions and hope that people vote for her simply because she isn’t Trump and is a *merry* warrior.
So, maybe the truth does hurts. We’ll find out after the election.
She’s a politician. She’s making pandering promises. It’s what they do. She’s just trying to get around the inflation issue. If it can’t be done she’ll say ‘at least we tried’.
Have you seen some of the shit Trump has promised? Freedom Cities? Remember ‘Mexico will pay for the Wall’?
Well, I think the actual devil is in the details. One source says “…if elected, Harris would seek Congress’ passage of a law to implement a ban on price gouging on groceries and other food as well as establish “rules of the road” that would bar companies from “excessive profits on food and groceries.” And …
“To implement her grocery gouging plan, Harris proposes providing the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general with new authority to “impose strict new penalties” on companies that price gouge.”
I am not clear on how this can be implemented. Pirate Wires is good for a mild chuckle, but I soon saw that they can’t be trusted.
PW is being snarky (+ sarcasm). Neither PW nor any of us believe -I hope- that a ban on price gouging can be implemented – it may be unconstitutional; that’s the beauty of the “fake” policy promise, it’s a smart+ campaign move, “good vibes” all around without the burden of enforcement.
I.e. Harris does not have to stand by this (particular) commitment, it cannot be enforced.
Bans on price gouging (or control) underwrite inflation. It’s bad policy, but good “vibe” policy – PW is mocking the *policy*.
And the US$ is falling.
It’s a typical political strategy: she can say she proposed a way to ease the financial burden of hardworking Americans but then those mean Republicans in Congress blocked it.
Social issues are important, but I focus on the macroeconomic side more when voting for a national leader (to each his/her own). These latest proposals are idiotic.
Put price caps on food? You’ll get shortages.
Give new home buyers $25k toward the cost of a new house? You’ll see housing prices rise by $25k.
Make houses easier to purchase, then we could be looking at 2008 all over again.
I’m against all government handouts to corporations, so the handout to big home building corporations who build “starter homes” is also against my basic principles . I thought giving subsidies to big corporations was bad? If it’s ok, then why not increasing tax breaks for big oil too, so that they lower the cost of gas? /sarc
How would canceling medical debt work? Just a one time thing or forever? What happens to the doctor who did the work and is now not going to get paid? Or is it going to be that the debt itself is not really canceled, just paid for by the government using taxpayer money and government debt rather than the debtor?
The government loves inflation. It gives them a way to reduce the real value of future debt. By providing these sorts of price controls, they are not addressing the root causes of inflation, just making it less visible in the short term.
I’m in a swing state. I voted for Biden / against Trump in the last election but will not vote for Harris this time based on her economic plan alone, and the other stuff just makes it even harder to do so.
On the other hand, if economic disaster and price collapse does occur in housing again, my house is paid for and I’ve got a nice nest egg built up that I could use to snatch up a deal on a vacation home in a warmer clime, so maybe it’s not all bad.
+1
Agree, the fact that shortages follow handouts and inflation follows shortages should be better known.
In your opinion what are the best ways to handle inflation?
Glad you are all sorted re: your retirement. Good luck with the vacation home.
Reduce inflation by tightening the money supply. Reduce the amount of dollars chasing goods. Increase interest rates. It’s painful. Whoever does it will likely not last in office.
Current inflation rates aren’t horrible when looked at on a year over year basis, but prices have gone up a lot if you compare on a 5 year basis. The worst is over. But your grocery bill is a lot higher than it used to be. We likely won’t get deflation, so we’re stuck with the higher prices.
I would invite anyone to find the break dance routine from RayGun. Oof! That was weird and bad. But it was just the thing we all needed to come together so that we could agree on something.
It was stunningly, gloriously, stupendously, badly bad. That’s what made it so good. IMO.
Yes! it was gloriously bad – how did she manage that? It’s definitely a talent to scam your own government to get to the olympics – free ticket, food and entertainment. 🙂
I read her 2017 PhD thesis (omg PhD!) so you don’t have to.
From the Abstract,
“This thesis critically interrogates how masculinist practices of breakdancing offers a site for the transgression of gendered norms…I use analytic autoetthnography [sic] and…theoretical frameworks offered by Deleuze and Guttari, Butler, Bourdieu and other feminist and post-structuralist philosophers, to critically examine how the capacities of bodies are constituted and shaped in Sydney’s breakdancing scene, and to also locate the potentiality for moments of transgression…to deterritorialize the body [and] facilitate new possibilities for performativities beyond the confines of dominant modes of thought and normative gender construction.”
Forgot to add: a propos de “stunningly, gloriously, stupendously, badly bad.”
Calvin: “I realized the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog! Want to see my book report?”
Hobbes [reads]: “The dynamics of interbeing and monological imperatives in ‘Dick and Jane’: A study in psychic transrelational gender modes.”
Calvin: “Academia, here I come!”
Good one.
The Calvin and Hobbes cartoon is here:
http://riversuh.com/blog/2013/08/14/the-root-of-bad-writing
😁
Perhaps her bad dancing was intentional? Designed to transgress the gender norms of breakdancing? Or maybe she was the dog that caught the car?
OMG… and some will call her doctor
Out of interest – and regardless of the academic merit or otherwise, of a PhD like this – how many hours a week are these PhD students putting in? I have a PhD in physiology and was regularly in the lab for 10-12 hour days and knew people working considerably longer hours than me (I usually didn’t do weekend experiments although I did some work on weekends). I have the impression, which may be wrong, that it doesn’t require as much investment of time.
And we have seen on this web page some “social scientists” suggesting that the terminology/language/jargon of STEM is too difficult and turns people off!
Performativities 🤣.
My guess is that she deliberately performed a crap routine to generate academic output. Just think of all the material now available that will support her nonsensical narrative around transgressive Performativities. She can point to thousands of comments and stories that will now ‘prove’ women aren’t allowed to freely express themselves in sport. It’s daft, pointless and a total waste of time and money, but very useful when your job is about wasting your employers money by writing daft and pointless papers.
Also look for footage.of the event where she won the place at the Olympics. The woman she beat was actually much better.
What wasn’t said about this event:
Break Dancing for Beginners and the Olympic Experience.
There, fixed it for everyone.
However,
Boxing Women in the Head by Males
is a new event that was trialled and with world wide publicity was a resounding sucsess for the IOC.
Everyone should take a look at Colin Wright’s latest column on the ridiculous PR campaign for boxer Imane Khelif: “The posture of this campaign, featuring playfully soft “girly” punches, hyper-feminine makeup, windswept hair, and a flowery dress, seems to be something like: “See, bigots? We told you she was a woman!”
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/imane-khelif-launches-hyper-feminizing?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=225618&post_id=147763416&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo0MDM3OTUyNiwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTQ3NzYzNDE2LCJpYXQiOjE3MjM4MzY4OTAsImV4cCI6MTcyNjQyODg5MCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTIyNTYxOCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.CyPUKvBftIcpbTl5n3v0s-lqc2WkEZBg-d_CYBS-Cr8&r=o1h1i&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I agree with Jerry on Harris. I also agree with Andrew Sullivan:
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-kamala-chimera
The Harris quote in Sullivan’s piece goes a long way to explain why she won’t go off the teleprompter.
I may also chose not to vote in the presidential election. Not just because Oregon is safe for Harris. I look at my vote as my personal imprimatur of a candidate. I will find it very difficult to give her mine.
+1
Since I live in a swing state, I will do my duty by voting for Harris.
Thank you.
1+
CNN has just posted a secret tape of a conversation with the co-author of project 2025. Christian Nationalism is going to be a Trump policy if re-elected. He admits Trump publically lies about this to get elected. Trump’s administration will be extreme. I will be voting for Harris because Trump will wreck America. Plus 16 Nobel Prize winning economists have stated that Trump will wreck America’s economy if re-elected. That alone disqualifies Trump.
https://us.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/russ-vought-project-2025-trump-secret-recording-invs/?dicbo=v2-PONuYuK&hpt=ob_blogfooterold
As I’ve said before, I dislike Trump as much as anyone here and believe he’s by far the worst candidate, with the possibility of seriously damaging America. But as I said above, if you can convince me that not voting for either candidate in Illinois will help Trump win, I’ll vote for Harris.
There is long term and short term strategy. Long term, voting for Harris – Walz sends a signal to the GOP that they need to start dropping support for Christian nationalists, incompetent politicians that have been found guilty of serious felonies, and have announced bad economic policies that will wreck our economy. Otherwise in the future, the GOP will happily support populists like Trump – Vance. This is not just a vote for Harris. It is also about changing politics.
I can send a message by voting for Whitmer. That, too, sends a message that Democrats don’t want “progressive” Leftists.
Touché!
I don’t understand. How can you know this guy is not lying but that Trump is. One thing Trump definitely is not is a practicing Christian. He’s a pragmatist and a populist, and a vote whore. I read and listen to a lot of conservative side folks and the Project 25 is never discussed, unlike when the Green New Deal was proposed by the leftists.
What is the opinion of those 16 economists about Harris’s plan for price caps on food? This is Econ 101 stuff (or maybe slightly higher – theory was in 101 and I did the actual math on pricing in my higher level Econ classes)? That will ruin lives far worse. Most of the other parts of Trump’s econ policy are traditional Democratic positions, which I am firmly against (tariffs, corporate tax breaks for favored companies, etc.). I’d love to see either candidate address the national debt, but it’s too easy to promise free stuff to ignorant voters.
I always find Richard Hanania thought-provoking:
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/hating-conservatism-while-voting
“Yes, I still want the Stupid Party to win.”
(Should be free to read.)
Essentially, he says Trump is a temporary threat to democracy but the Democrats are a permanent threat to capitalism, which is more fragile than democracy because democracy can undermine capitalism (by mob rule) more easily than the other way round.
Naturally those who mistrust capitalism and are inclined toward progressivism, not even of the totalitarian kind, cannot see it this way. The two sides are arguing from different world views and are frankly mystified at each other’s thought processes.
Our host linked to an earlier article by Freddie Deboer over at Substack. He (Freddie) wrote one a bit later (unlocked) that is moot, by now, but still a very thoughtful one that, besides addressing why many of us are bothered by Kamala’s “installation” I’ll call it, hits on important problems with bypassing the primary process. It’s titled, “I Do Not Need to Defend Myself For Believing That… primaries are the immune system of… ” of July 25. It’s a worthwhile read.
Reading Freddie deBoer’s take on people (like me, I guess) who object to trans women (that is, men) in women’s locker rooms convinced me to never listen to anything he says.
He’s a communist (for real) so I’m wary of his ideas. But some of them are smart and helpful, like his analysis of the gentrification of disability (he has a serious life-threatening mental illness) by tik-tok influencers.
I rarely agree with anyone on everything but men in womens’ locker rooms is a big one for me, too. Your point is well taken.
I’m struggling to understand your vehement dislike of Harris. She’s intelligent, right on almost all the issues (no one is right on all of them), and she had nothing to do with Biden dropping out and herself getting the nomination. As the Number Two in the administration, why wouldn’t she be next in line? That’s why she was picked as VP. As for not voting for her because Illinois is a reliably Democratic state, so it won’t make any difference, I beg to differ. The margin by which she wins the nationwide popular vote will be noted and important when the Orange Weasel starts crying “stolen election”. The bigger the margin the safer the country.
Excellent popular vote point! And thus Uncle Joe was fine by me too, given the alternative.
Totally agree.
1+
When I see a (at best) mediocre man (Trump) complaining about her intelligence and someone whose daddy certainly helped him (Trump) get into college (DEI, really?) I can only shake my head.
Trump doesn’t believe in anything except what is good for him.
As long as we are trapped in our frustrating two-party system, I think the best approach is to cast our votes for the most palatable and competent candidate of one or the other party (and of course all the down ballot candidates, too). Trump is unacceptable for the job he seeks for what to me are obvious reasons (pathological liar, con man, corrupt businessman, sexual predator, bully, convict, tax evader, election denier, self-serving ignoramus, etc.). As far as I know, Harris is none of those things and has a verifiable record of public service. Any quibbles I have about how her party is approaching her nomination and campaign really pale in comparison to how damaging it would be to our country should Trump and his Project 2025 ideologues get back into the oval office.
+100
We could transition to Ranked Choice Voting. And possibly not have to constantly be voting for the least likable candidate.
The Tangerine will cry “stolen election” regardless of the margin; a bigger margin just means it was a more brazen steal.
+1
People don’t vote for tickets by putting a lot of weight on the VP as a potential President if the Prez can’t finish their term. Nobody ever said that Kamala Harris was the best qualified candidate for VP. Biden chose her not for her executive merit, but because he promised to appoint a black woman as his running mate.
+1. The relentless Republican attack on women and women’s rights is horrifying to me. Here’s the insane latest: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/25/republicans-no-fault-divorce. If the world ends up with another Trump term because Dems couldn’t stomach voting for a candidate who isn’t as perfect as some other, imaginary candidate, I’ll be beyond devastated. Because this sh*t spreads and emboldens misogynists everywhere 🙁
I thought that the elections of 2000 and 2016 would have cured people from voting 3rd party. It’s disheartening to see that it hasn’t.
Well, every vote counts. Assume nothing. In 2017, I did not vote for either the dem or the rep in my district for state delegate. Normally I would have voted for the dem, but she had pissed me off by weathervaning with public opinion while on the school board that year. So I said that I was standing on principle and could not in good conscience vote for her….what difference could it make out of more than 20,000 voters? Turned out to be BIG difference. Vote ended up after two recounts as exactly tied at 11,608 votes each. Republican won on drawing lots from a bowl which gave the Republicans control of the state House! I will always vote as long as I see one candidate being superior to the other in some way; not perfect mind you and I likely will disagree on some issues, but as long as I can see a difference, I will never discard my franchise again. True story.
Thank you!
+100%
I agree completely.
Lots of VP’s -effectively- inherit their party’s nomination for President. The unusual thing here is that President Biden declared his intention to seek a second term, but then, withdrew.
Given MAGA-moron-nation’s penchant for screaming “Stolen Election” and acting violently based on that and all the election officials around the country who have been intimidated or replaced with MAGA-morons, Harris will need a landslide to take the presidency as well as a landslide in the downballot races everywhere to be able to get anything useful done.
The switch from Biden to Harris moved the Trump-Harris polls about 2%, while the median Margin of Error for those polls is about 3%. Given that the pollsters have likely been oversampling Dems (on the reasonable assumption that Harris is less unpopular among Dems than Biden so depresses Dem turnout less), the overall race remains basically the same.
Some will argue that I should compare Trump-Biden polls from before the switch against current Trump-Harris polls, making the swing about 4% (twice as large). I don’t see how it matters.
I had heard about the surprising 4% margin recently, but did not know how broadly that applied. In any case, we are living in a honeymoon period regarding the Harris bump in the polls.
Folks, a vote for anyone but Harris is a vote for Trump. If you want Trump to be president, don’t pussyfoot around, vote for him. If you don’t want him to be president, turn out and vote for the only alternative that has a chance of being elected.
I’m not passionate about Kamala, but consider the alternative.
Not only that, I remember the 1984 gubernatorial election in Ohio. It rained in Cleveland on election day. That dampened the turnout and made the difference between between the R candidate — he won — and the D candidate.
If you don’t want Trump and don’t turn out, you’ve effectively cast a vote for Trump. Jerry, that means you. I can’t believe that you want Trump.
Yes!
Sorry, but you haven’t convinced me why not voting at all in a state that is going to go by ALL accounts for Harris is a “vote for Trump”. That’s the issue I asked about.
No, I do not want Trump and if faces with a consequential choice it’s a no-brainer: I’d vote for Harris. But my choice, regardless of what Batterson says above, is inconsequential.
On the one hand, I take your point. On the other, if too many people agree with you and stay home … Please hold your nose and vote for Kamala.
Or vote for Trump if you think he’s better for the country than Kamala. Or for any of the other candidates. Or not at all. Your choice.
It’s a free country.
Many people have made it very clear that we will definitely vote for Harris if there is any chance that it will be a close race. There is a good reason why both parties spend their time courting swing states.
Liberals like to feel virtuous, conservatives like to win elections. But if you lose the election, it really doesn’t matter how virtuous you are.
If you convince me that not voting for either major candidate in Illinois will help Trump win, then I’ll vote for Harris
Good reasons have been given.
Harris is not my ideal candidate, but I guess no one is (I don’t like Whitmer’s red lipstick /S). Trump disqualified himself from the presidency by his performance on January 6 and continued election denialism. I would vote for anyone who can defeat him.
With regard to Harris, I couldn’t disagree with our host more. The most important thing is to defeat Trump. Another four years of him would be a disaster. Biden is right: Trump is an existential threat to democracy. Policy be damned. As Liz Cheney has pointed out, the country can survive with poor policy for four years; it can’t survive the threat to the Constitution that Trump represents.
The fact that Harris doesn’t have a full program to divulge right now is simply because, until a couple of weeks ago, she didn’t need one. She was Biden’s #2, and his program was her program.
If Biden had announced in the Spring that he wouldn’t be running, the the Democrats could have had a regular primary, but his delay made that impossible. Her position as the heir apparent is not based on any deal made in a smoke-filled room, but by the fact that no Democrat has chosen to challenge her. And as pointed out in a post above, it is important that Harris get every vote she possibly can in the coming election because of the challenges to the outcome that will be made if she wins.
It is maddening that Biden waited as long as he did to step aside. It sure would have been better for democracy if his decision had come a year ago or even back in January. We can blame human ego for his stubbornness, the Democratic Party elite, his family or maybe all of the above but I’m sure glad he came around to acknowledging the electoral reality. I fully support Harris and it seems clear to me she and Tim Walz (whom I also strongly support) are making the best of a suboptimal opportunity. Press conferences and policy positions will roll-out in due time.
This is a good take. It was political malpractice for the Democrats to allow the clearly addled Biden to continue for as long as he did. He was already having difficulties speaking as early as 2020. It was disturbing to see the level of hubris that our “elite” class has…apparently they thought they could gaslight the public about Biden all the way through to a second term.
Also, there did not appear to be a Plan B, and there was no indication of prepping Kamala for this highly likely scenario. So I think she and Walz are doing their best under these tough circumstances to mount a good campaign.
In theory perhaps, but there has never been an incumbent president who lost his party’s primary, and the three cases where a challenge was offered (Reagan challenged Ford in 1976, Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980, and Buchanan challenged Bush in 1992) all led to defeats for the party in question. Johnson’s 1968 stepping away from the nomination after RFK and McCarthy entered the race also didn’t work out well. So the only thing you can critique is the timing of Biden’s decision to step away. In my opinion, this timing is about the best the Democrats could hope for.
As for the process, there are elected delegates from each state. They chose Harris. This is as democratic as one could hope for. Until 1972, most states didn’t even have primaries – each party chose their nominee in the classic “smoke-filled rooms”.
+1
Trump must be kept out of the WH. I too preferred Whitmer. Agreed with Carville’s NYT editorial suggesting 4 town halls and the delegates voting during the convention. That is not to be. This situation is dire and I accept what the delegates chose to do. The party is united and enthusiastic. Harris is riding this honeymoon through the convention. She will speak extemporaneously, she will be good, and on a bad day she will be heads and shoulders above her babbling opponent.
Comments 11, 12, 14, and 16 make very strong points about voting even in blue states. I live in a Chicago suburb and will be voting for Harris. May the best woman win.
+mucho!
That reminded me of time Humphrey wanted to promote the best man for the job regardless of sex.*
*Note that this is meant for comedic purposes only. It is not meant to be a comment on the election in question 🙂
Very funny!
What I love about that clip is that when Sir Humphrey or one of Cabinet Ministers says something absurd, I can’t tell if the grinning and eye-rolling around the table are the characters obeying the script or the actors breaking character and having some genuine fun.
Very well done.
Funny clip!
“anti-immigrant riots in the UK”
It’s good that you don’t make the common USA error of calling the whole UK ‘England’ 😁 But the rioting is a situation where ‘England’ would be more appropriate. There haven’t been riots in Scotland, and I don’t think there have been any in Wales, either.
There are several possible reasons. Those two countries of the UK tend to be more left wing than England, so are possibly more tolerant of incomers, although they have fewer immigrants per head of population than England, especially London. In Scotland we also have a lot of people who are second or third generation ‘new Scots’ from all over the world who have settled and are welcome.
I think the riots aren’t just ‘anti immigration’ generally, they are more specifically against islamic immigration, but the media is reluctant to make a reference to that.
There’s a subset of muslim incomers who are islamists and totally reject western culture, and that subset is causing a lot of issues. We have had calls for Sharia law here [ https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/12/over-40-percent-of-uk-muslims-support-aspects-of-sharia-law ], and some are already trying to implement it [ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rcsG-u2GtZE ], one religious teacher went into hiding after a demonstration outside his school after he showed pupils a cartoon of Muhammad in a discussion [ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-68659435 ], some are demanding that schools stop doing sex education [ https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/parents-protest-sex-education-lessons-21901559 ] and disrespect for women has led to organised grooming gangs abusing teenage girls [ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-67136690 ].
Several countries in Europe have had christian monuments pushed over and a statue of the virgin Mary was destroyed in London. [ https://catholicherald.co.uk/still-no-mention-of-st-josephs-desecration-as-catholic-and-anglican-church-leaders-denounce-uk-attacks-on-mosques/ ]. One of the monuments in France had stood for centuries and people are making assumptions about who knocked it over.
I stress that this is only a minority of muslims, but they are very vocal and very scary.
Many government departments are giving in to islamic ideology and a lot of citizens are offended by that. We have demands to allow mosques to broadcast the call to prayer five times a day over loud speakers while there are limits on the ringing of church bells.
Many gay people are scared of decisions to bring in Palestinian ‘refugees’ because around 98% of them are homophobic. But ministers in the government are dismissing gay people as ‘bigots’.
The rioters are correct about the two-tier policing here, it’s outrageous. Police took years to take action on the Rotherham grooming gang as they were scared of being accused of racism. In contrast, the speed with which some rioters were taken to court, prosecuted and imprisoned is breathtaking. Add to that a case where a male muslim was let off with rape because he ‘didn’t know it was wrong’ and you can understand the anger [NB Daily Mail so may be twisted. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html%5D
I’m being dragged to court by the police for a crime I committed that I didn’t know was wrong. I doubt that fact will help me avoid prosecution. 🤦♀️
I’m curious why these events are happening in Europe, but not in the USA? Is it because you have such a huge population that these things go unnoticed? Or perhaps, you don’t have so many militant islamists?
Thank you for your comments but please try to keep them a bit shorter. Many thanks!
👍
Maybe, Joolz, the pressure to assimilate in the American melting pot is stronger except in “Death to America” enclaves like Dearborn and Hamtramck where Muslims are an overwhelming majority. Otherwise it is just not done for immigrants to be anti-American. They leave that proclivity to the native-born. Ironically, and contrary to what might be expected, it strikes me that Muslims in America are more likely from the more moderate Middle East Arab countries preoccupied with making money while those in England (and Canada) are more likely from Pakistan and Somalia, whose emigrants are notoriously hard to assimilate and become readily radicalized, even the ones born in their new homes. The authorities in both England and Canada are deathly afraid of being thought Islamophobic and seek to severely punish those whose speech might be so interpreted.
Best of luck with your troubles with the police. Are you needing money for your defence?
Interesting, thanks. I can see how heritage would make a difference, I hadn’t thought of that aspect. The Rotherham grooming gang were British-Pakistani men and the man who murdered MP David Amess was British-Somali. Sadly, innocent people in both communities have suffered discrimination and suspicion since.
I’ve engaged a solicitor, thanks. They hope to get the case dropped. It helps that the police statement is full of lies and I can prove it, although that isn’t a guarantee that the judge won’t side with the police.
+1
Here are some comments from Taegan Goddard, a pro-Democratic blogger on Harris’ first major policy speech:
Kamala Harris unveiled the central planks of an economic agenda in her first major policy speech as a presidential candidate.
It was an excellent speech for several key reasons:
Harris is so much better at explaining her policies compared to President Biden because of her use of straightforward language and relatable examples.
She connected her policy proposals to her personal experiences, such as an early job at McDonald’s or her family’s journey from renting to home ownership.
She called for an “opportunity economy” — one where where everyone has a fair shot at success. It’s the classic American dream narrative.
She criticized Donald Trump’s tariff plans, correctly comparing them to a national sales tax on everyday products — which, by definition, would lead to significantly higher prices.
Her speech ran just 30 minutes long, much shorter than a typical Trump speech.
Interestingly, there was no daylight between her and Biden. But she was a much better communicator of their shared agenda.
While I am quite pleased, relieved almost, that breaking will not be in the next summer Olympics, it seems rather odd to have it in Paris but not LA. After all, isn’t LA exactly the sort of place where such activities are exalted? I don’t know the facts but I would believe you if you told me that break dancing started in LA. (Similarly, I am a bit surprised they didn’t give out medals for the fashion catwalk in Paris). So dropping breaking in LA would almost be like holding the winter Olympics in Norway but doing away with skiing. Except that skiing is actually a sport…
Breaking, along with the other activities mentioned and perhaps several more, should be farmed out to a separate competition, the “It’s not really a sport but we want medals anyway” Olympics.
After weeks, the Washington Post finally had a commentary on women’s sports that doesn’t follow the “woke” narrative.
https://wapo.st/3AvuLb5
If you want to read it but this link doesn’t work, it is an opinion piece by Doriane Coleman. “Why elite women’s sports need to be based on sex, not gender”
It’s good. But I think all women’s and girls’ sports should be based on sex, not just elite.
Agree. You can’t become an elite sportswoman if you can’t compete fairly at grass route level and work your way up.
+1
The Post story links to a CBC story (which I hadn’t seen) in which the CEO of Canadian Women in Sport said that encouraging girls to stay engaged in participatory and recreational sport (and competitive sport for those good enough and interested) is important for their well-being and social development. This doesn’t square with her claim that there is “no debate. . . Women’s sport is the best place, we believe, for transgirls [sic] and women to play.” Surely the presence of rapidly developing teenaged boys who will dominate and beat the girls can only demoralize them. Teams can be only so big given coaching resources and ice time as scarce precious commodities. Even at the recreational level, a boy playing in a women’s setting is denying a place to a girl, who will therefore not get a chance to show her stuff and develop her skills. This position clearly values inclusivity over helping girls reach their potential, which is ostensibly the whole point of CWS.
Co-ed pursuits such as T-Ball and Slo-Pitch are one thing. But when you start segregating the sexes, something important is happening. Boys don’t belong on the female side of that division.
CWS is an NGO funded (like almost all voluntary efforts here) by the government of Canada and of course must toe the line on such matters: providing gender-equity opportunities for “all girls” must be interpreted explicitly to mean “including transgirls.” I e-mailed them to tell them they must stop using language like this and to focus on girls. So there. /sarc
Late to the party here, but I want to point out that Harris didn’t become the nominee because Biden somehow anointed her after he stepped aside on July 21st. The Democratic delegates coalesced around Harris because no other Democrat like Whitmer or Newsom stepped forward and Harris was generally seen by other Democrats as a good candidate to run against Trump. I went to the Harris/Walz rally in Eau Claire last week along with 12,000 other people (some who walked up to three miles to get there) and was struck by how many young people were there, which is a big part of the reason why Harris has caught up with Trump – young voters weren’t happy with either Biden or Trump as their choices and they like Kamala.
As for policy, I think people are missing an important point about politics here. Remember the phrase “I Like Ike”? I’m sure some of you do. Was that about policy or about a candidate’s personal appeal? Obviously, the appeal. What Harris is doing by getting herself out there and smiling to the crowds and cameras is to cement her image as a happy, even joyful candidate – in contrast to the odious and mean Trump. Don’t think that doesn’t matter in politics, which is more about marketing than policy. And anyway, Harris is running as a Democrat and we already know what Democratic policies generally are, don’t we?
As for Kamala’s VP pick Tim Walz, he brings some balance to the ticket by virtue of his Midwestern image which appeals to those undecided rural voters who want to feel they’re being listened to, and Walz fits that bill. He can help win over voters in Wisconsin and Michigan. Vance on the other hand is smart and well-spoken but he doesn’t come across as a real people person like Walz does. Vance will try and needle Walz in the debate I’m sure, but Walz knows that and can counter by being a caring human being. Again, this isn’t about policy it’s about getting voters to like you because they believe you care about them. Trump just feeds their grievances and we’ll never reach the 27% MAGA vote by appealing to the better angels of their nature – they’re too polarized for that. But Democrats can reach the undecideds and win, and hopefully will in November.
I’m half way with you about British free speech. For me the red line is incitement to violence. People shouldn’t be saying that mosques should be burnt down with people in them and, I think, they should face a penalty. However, what penalty? I agree that the British legal system’s sentencing policy at the moment appears to be a national disgrace. Over the last couple of weeks we have had a man convicted of attacking and causing significant injury to a police officer getting a two-year suspended sentence. The person who didn’t attack anyone but that said that the mosque should be burned down, admitted the charge and apologised, gets jailed for 15 months. While 5 “Just Stop Oil” Protestors get sent to jail for up to 5 years merely for making a peaceful protest.
While I don’t know all the details of these individual cases, and it isn’t for keyboard commentators like me to decide sentences, it looks as if there has
been clear political interference in these sentences, or else something is shockingly wrong with the system.
Protests that obstruct traffic or rail service carry an implicit threat of violence and the risk of significant harm to people who need to get somewhere, maybe even for something vitally important like having an abortion (as one wag put it.) They are not “peaceful.” Peaceful means you stand on the sidewalk waving a sign or shouting your arguments without preventing others from using the sidewalk for their lawful purposes. Protesters who step into the street to obstruct it may well see their actions as morally imperative civil disobedience but the state sees it as a direct threat to its authority. It is justified in punishing those actions severely if Parliament has so legislated. Civil disobeyers should take this into account. They seem to assume they will suffer no consequences. Some re-education is appropriate.
“When the state is weak, it must be cruel.” — Ed West, The Wrong Side of History
https://www.edwest.co.uk/p/think-before-you-post
“When the state is weak, it must be cruel.”? Really? I’m always deeply suspicious when someone seeks to twist an obvious vice into a virtue. How could it ever be appropriate to justify cruel treatment of anyone?
This is a confused and contradictory article. On one hand it claims that cruelty to some offenders is justified then it goes on to say: “While many of the convictions related to the recent disorder are reasonable and just, it’s hard to escape the impression that the establishment is flailing wildly in its response, with the result that miscarriages of justice are occurring.” So contrary to the article by-line, cruel miscarriages of justice are questionable after all.
I do have questions about Just Stop Oil’s methods, which I think might sometimes be counter-productive, and have I deep reservations about blocking a motorway when emergency vehicles may need to use it. But I’m also committed to truth, and I think science is all we have to point us in its direction. The science is abundantly clear that we are doing far less than we need to be doing to counter the massive carbon pollution of our atmosphere. While you clearly seem to think that the state must react to what you say is a “direct threat to its authority”, this sounds overly dictatorial to me. What we have seen recently with the foibles, and ideological distortion, implicit in the way Parliament works suggests that such a deferential approach to government is deeply misplaced. The JSO protestors are in an exceedingly difficult position. If they demonstrate in favour of their cause in a non-disruptive way, they know there will be no publicity. They aren’t going to get onto the 6 o’clock news by waving placards. They know very well that their opponents, the fossil fuel industry, have their oily fingers deep into the workings of government with their extremely well funded lobby groups, while, I strongly suspect climate scientists don’t have anything like the same level of access, especially when what they say doesn’t align with the ideology of the party in power.
You may disagree, but I think it is bizarre to give a JSO protester a longer sentence than some vicious offender who is convicted of, say, a violent rape.
I agree. Violent rapists, murderers, pedophiles and the like should receive the harshest sentences available.
That doesn’t mean that repeat offenders who block roads or cause destruction should not receive penalties.