... dig in.
Talk about whatever you want, and — if you need to shop — please consider using The Althouse Amazon Portal.
April 10, 2017
At the Early Lunch Café...
... dig in.
Talk about whatever you want, and — if you need to shop — please consider using The Althouse Amazon Portal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
130 comments:
Can you still get a Plaza Burger ?
Before-lunch lawn scything season starts pic.
Looks a lot tastier than what I'm having.
Do the Trumpkins see a problem, between Trump's dramatic language about a missile attack on a Syrian airbase because of the horrific images of "little children; little babies; babies!" at the same time that he fights in federal court to sustain a ban on Syrian refugees?
Actually, mine is a dumb question, right? The Trumpkins don't see any problems with anything their man does. When he completely reverses himself on what he previously said about Syria, it's only that Trump is being unpredictable. He is trying to keep his adversaries guessing. So there are no normal rules with Trump. If he does what he said he'd do, then he is a straight shooter who keeps his word. If he says something outlandish that cannot be done, he's just negotiating; getting "half a loaf" in whatever the outcome is. And if he does the exact opposite of what he said should be done (or not done) then that is Trump being cleverly unpredictable.
It is all in how you see it. It is possible to justify virtually anything that Trump does if you get the right mindset. Little babies, shmabies.
United Airlines O'Hare.
Former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has infuriated Italy's meat industry by joining a vegetarian campaign and "adopting" five hamburgers and 150 patatine frittes that would have been butchered for Easter.
In the past few weeks, despite the NYT, I have placed three Amazon orders and donated $50. Just so you know. ;-) I use a different email address for my orders than for my personal use.
Do the Trumpkins see a problem, between Trump's dramatic language about a missile attack on a Syrian airbase because of the horrific images of "little children; little babies; babies!" at the same time that he fights in federal court to sustain a ban on Syrian refugees?
I'm not a Trumpkin, but I don't see that one needs to have much affect on the other.
The refugee situation is because the government that bombs it's own people is also fighting against ISIS, which we are bombing in Syria as well. Neither side is particularly good at vetting who is leaving the country.
Is it tough? Yes. But look at how many fighting-age men are in the Syrian refugee camps.
Let's not pretend it's simple.
[If] he does the exact opposite of what he said should be done (or not done) then that is Trump being cleverly unpredictable.
Evidently, he confuses you.
Chuck said... "It is all in how you see it. It is possible to justify virtually anything that Trump does if you get the right mindset. Little babies,".
Our feelings exactly during the previous 8 years. How's that shoe feeling on the other foot..?
But I guess it's different when you are a true believer in the Obamessiah...
This was a Drudge link, that Althouse may have overlooked. Or maybe she saw it, and disregarded it, because she is cagey like Trump.
"‘Pinkwashing’ populism: Gay voters embrace French far-right":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/pinkwashing-populism-gay-voters-embrace-french-far-right/2017/04/07/b82d6434-1b8c-11e7-8598-9a99da559f9e_story.html?utm_term=.91254c14efdd
The Washington Post story was not an outlier. Breitbart reported "Gay voters embracing Marine Le Pen in Record Numbers":
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/08/gay-voters-embracing-marine-le-pen-record-numbers/
There were a half-dozen French election-related stories along similar lines. You might easily presume that when and if WaPo, the NYT, or NPR would do such a story, that the angle would be to somehow humanize and normalize LGBTQ activism. But Breitbart?
It's the old conundrum with Trump; is Trump "pro-gay and being cagey about it"? Jeff Sessions and Mike Pence probably wouldn't think so. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh probably wouldn't think so. Maybe Steve Bannon will fill us in when he thinks we are ready.
I mean, it's the same argument for all of the pro-immigration, pro-illegal immigration situations we have.
"How can you tell parents of the children who have come here illegally from El Salvador that they have to go back to all that gang violence?"
"How can you tell those Mexican people who are here illegally that they have to go back and live in abject poverty?"
Trump was okay with gay marriage WAY before Hillary and Obama.
Ahh, I get it. TrumpWorld discovers complexity and nuance.
How is Trump cagey about being pro-gay?
What exactly does pro-gay mean, anyway?
Althouse should be thankful her blog has not been attacked by the arts page writers of the NYT. It seems the Washington Free Beacon has been denounced for "defaming" Doggie Hamlet. If Hillary had won we would not only be forced to pay for "art" we despise, we'd be forbidden to critique it as well.
zipity said...
Trump was okay with gay marriage WAY before Hillary and Obama.
Absolutely true. And significant, I'd say. Let us never, ever forget the craven political salesmanship and rank hypocrisy with Democrat leaders. Being cagey all those years, futzing around with civil unions and bullshit pablums about how they still think marriage must be between a man and a woman (while privately assuring gay donors that they will move along as fast as they can) and then turning around and calling Republicans "bigots" when those Republicans hold the same positions that the Dems did about 36 months earlier.
There is no cause to take any of the Democrat leaders seriously, on a subject that they played for pure political advantage.
Dear God, woman, Meatfare was February 20, and we still have Holy Week to get through. I'd give a kidney to eat a burger like that right now!
readering, I liked it right after the United/Continental merger, when Houston-based passengers would give the finger to the pre-flight video featuring United's president. I've hated flying since then. United is horrible.
Chuck, I'm far from being a Trumpkin. I don't like the man. But there's a difference between not liking him personally and intentionally interpreting everything he does as somehow absurd or contradictory.
I don't think that if police respond to a domestic violence or other household crime they should be forced to be foster parents or take in the abused spouse. Now, if they did that's nice, but it's not inherently connected to the role of stopping a crime.
Also, did you see that video of the Syrian man responding to a reporter? That may not be a univeral view, but it's no doubt a common one. And it seems directly related to your question.
Sometimes I feel like this blog is more like a courtroom, with Tradguy serving as the lawyer for the defense and Chuck the lawyer for the prosecution. Both tend to absolutize their perspective for some perceived grander cause. Do you bill by the hour or by the comment?
MayBee said...
How is Trump cagey about being pro-gay?
What exactly does pro-gay mean, anyway?
Sorry; I keep thinking that all of the Althouse commenters are in on that joke.
Way back during the campaign I was pressing in the comments pages on whether or not Trump held mainstream Republican-platform views on the series of cases where Justice Scalia was a fumingly enraged and righteously indignant dissenter (Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell) or whether Trump held private views that were in line with much of the Manhattan/show biz crowd in which the Trump family moved.
Althouse wrote a comment stating in part, "I think he's pro-gay and being cagey about it."
Hope that explains it.
TrumpWorld discovers complexity and nuance.
We discovered that long ago. For example, early last year when we discovered that the Democratic Party used anti-democratic means to ensure that Hillary won the majority of convention delegates even in states where her opponents won the majority of primary votes. Hand me the White House keys because it's my turn is nothing if not nuanced.
Hmm... which one got the big round plated gut bomb, and which one got the dainty colon cleaner?
I had a Walmart salad. Alas, there was no dead animal in it, although I could have used the protein.
Chuck said...
Do the Trumpkins see a problem, between Trump's dramatic language about a missile attack on a Syrian airbase because of the horrific images of "little children; little babies; babies!" at the same time that he fights in federal court to sustain a ban on Syrian refugees?
I reject the term Trumpkin because it is childish and a little too Dickensian for serious application. After all, I don't approve of everything Trump says and does, which is what Chuck continually insinuates in his simplistic posts. Like this simplistic pairing of Trump's modest travel pause, created with the expressed purpose of "extreme vetting," and Trump's emotional recount of his reaction to the poisonous gas used on children. Even orange cartoon-like characters, after all, can be moved by the suffocating death of innocents. Is that so hard for Chuck to understand? Wouldn't extreme vetting allow us to distinguish between ISIS wannabees and children displaced by war? After three years of a blossoming "crisis" is it Chuck's position that a 90-day wait (unnecessarily elongated by Leftist judicial posturing, which Chuck apparently approves of by his own formulation above) would be overly onerous to the real refugees?
There also has been plenty written about Trump's alternative plan to create a safe zone in Syria so that refugees can return to their homeland, if not their exact region of origin. This was the view approvingly cited by the refugee interviewed by CNN the other day, surprising the news anchoress as the refugee effusively praised Trump and wished for a way to return "home." This was also the answer given to the AP's Julie Pace when she thought she'd landed a "gotcha" question on the King of Jordan during the White House photo op last week, much to her surprise. Lots of thinking people think that allowing refugees a safe return to Syria is the most civilized answer.
I have no idea what a Trumpkin would think. But I know a smartass, poorly thought-out attack when I see one, Chuck.
But I know a smartass, poorly thought-out attack when I see one, Chuck.
If nothing else, Chuck's trained us well in that area over the last several months.
"Do the Trumpkins see a problem, between Trump's dramatic language about a missile attack on a Syrian airbase because of the horrific images of "little children; little babies; babies!" at the same time that he fights in federal court to sustain a ban on Syrian refugees?"
-- It is one of the problems I do have with the ban is that there is probably a better way to ensure that we keep bad actors out while providing humanitarian relief. The ban is a crude, blunt instrument that, hopefully, is only being used until a better one is devised.
It's not a ban. It's pause. It would have been nearly over by now had the leftist machine not attacked it on unsupportable grounds and delayed the implementation of it! The alleged complainants are causing more misery than they prevent, as usual.
Let's not use the dishonest DNC-Media's terminology when better words exist.
Temporary ban? Pause ban? Pausan? Oh, Pawsanas!
By the way; I have a minor personal rule whenever I bring up Althouse's "I think he's pro-gay and being cagey about it" comment.
Whenever I bring it up, I add; I think that Althouse is essentially correct. I too think that Trump may be "pro-gay and being cagey about it."
And in saying that, I would mean it in the most uncomplimentary way possible.
But as time goes on, I think Trump is cagey about almost everything. Because he is utterly lacking in any personal ideology, principles, moral code (or any other code) apart from personal promotion in the media world. Trump could be pro-gay, or anti-gay at this point and it would be meaningless because it might be different a week later.
That is why the Supreme Court looms so large. Those people all have some of the most highly-developed personal belief systems, tailored to a rigorous way of thinking that Trump cannot even imagine. And, those choices never go away. Lifetime appointments. Of people who really do have ideas about making those decisions. In a permanent way.
In the Gorsuch swearing-in ceremony today, did Trump really say something about how Justice Kennedy -- who has been a federal judge since 1975 after having been nominated to the Ninth Circuit by President Gerald Ford -- is 'doing a great job'?!? Like Kennedy had been working on repainting the Blue Room or maintaining the White House shrubbery? Great job, Tony! You're a great guy, nice work! Hey when are you gonna retire? Isn't the Ninth Circuit a bad place? What were you doing there?
Chuck respectfully (ha!) asks a question:
Actually, mine is a dumb question, right? The Trumpkins don't see any problems with anything their man does
Chuck gets thoughtful answers, and responds:
Ahh, I get it. TrumpWorld discovers complexity and nuance.
Forgive me if I don't think you are actually looking for a thoughtful discussion, or nuance, Chuck.
Do the Trumpkins see a problem, between Trump's dramatic language about a missile attack on a Syrian airbase because of the horrific images of "little children; little babies; babies!" at the same time that he fights in federal court to sustain a ban on Syrian refugees?
No. Not at all.
Because those two things are in no way equivalent to each other. Separate issues.
Mike said...
It's not a ban. It's pause. It would have been nearly over by now had the leftist machine not attacked it on unsupportable grounds and delayed the implementation of it! The alleged complainants are causing more misery than they prevent, as usual.
For weeks, I have been asking if these Trump immigration bans all become moot at the end of Trump's own sunset time periods.
Don't you see, Mike? It doesn't matter whether the Courts uphold the ban(s) or not. Trump, all along, has been telling us that we need time to get the immigration vetting just right. he didn't say what that was, on the campaign trail. "...[U]ntil our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on..." In the EO's, his lawyers are telling him that they will need to be more specific. And the more sepecific it gets, the more silly it looks, because it gets clearer and clearer that it isn't based on any major immigration legislation but rather all along it was just a matter of Trump's being able to make a claim based on his campaign "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." In six months, the question is going to be; "Did you get it done yet, Mr. President?" How much more time do you need to figure out "What the hell is going on"?
The same people who cry over Syrian refugee children find the murder of a million unborn babies per year here in the US perfectly acceptable.
I would need a nap after that meal.
A great quote by Gordon Ramsay today when he rides an airline:
I turn left with Tana (his wife) and they (the kids) turn right and I say to the chief stewardess, ‘Make sure those little fuckers don’t come anywhere near us, I want to sleep on this plane.’ I worked my fucking ass off to sit that close to the pilot and you appreciate it more when you’ve grafted for it.”
Grafting: To work hard or to make something out of nothing.
P.S. I never say 'grafted' as I'm a non-achiever and paid by the US Treasury.
"Actually, mine is a dumb question, right?"
You're not even trying anymore, Chuck. Say it now and say it loud, I'm a goose-stepping statist creep and I am proud!
The Gospel yesterday reminded me of Chuck. The "Go find an ass" part.
In their haste to welcome Syrian refugees, I would caution the left to make sure that some effort is made to screen out the Christians. Many of those Syrian Christians would probably seamlessly assimilate into American society in the way that ethnic Catholics previously did. Some of them might even be grateful. This is a vile thing to say about any group, but there's the possibility some of them might even go on to vote Republican. Diversity is not fostered by importing people who like America, and diversity is our greatest strength.
Don't you see, Mike?
Please don't ask me follow up questions while ignoring my thoughtful responses to your inane inquiries.
Because I'm a nice guy I'll gently nudge you to where you can satisfy your shallow curiosity should you so desire. Over the last two weeks the HSA has enacted some aspects of what they clearly called "elements" of "extreme vetting" during the roll-out. For one example, you may have heard about people applying for certain visas being required to give up social media content (passwords in same cases) as part of the new process. The fact these things Trump is doing exist in the physical world and you ignore them as if they are just more social media noise is puzzling. But I don't waste time trying to figure out your pathologies at this point.
"In the Gorsuch swearing-in ceremony today, did Trump really say something about how Justice Kennedy -- who has been a federal judge since 1975 after having been nominated to the Ninth Circuit by President Gerald Ford -- is 'doing a great job'?!? Like Kennedy had been working on repainting the Blue Room or maintaining the White House shrubbery? Great job, Tony! You're a great guy, nice work! Hey when are you gonna retire? Isn't the Ninth Circuit a bad place? What were you doing there?"
Lord.
I wish Trump was more eloquent and precise with his speech than he is.
But the important thing here is that Trump picked what appears to be a solid choice to the SCOTUS and that Gorsuch was confirmed after the Dem opposition disastrously misplayed their hand. Conservatives should be rejoicing and all you're doing is your usual sour, petty carping about Trump's word choices.
We had "eloquence" with the windbag Billy Jeff and Obama excelled at reading lines from the teleprompter. I'm sure they made better speeches when Ginsburg and Kagan and Sotomayor were sworn in. And we got Ginsburg and Kagan and Sotomayor.
Again, Mike, your comment:
Mike said...
It's not a ban. It's pause. It would have been nearly over by now had the leftist machine not attacked it on unsupportable grounds and delayed the implementation of it! The alleged complainants are causing more misery than they prevent, as usual.
So why, at the end of 90 days or 120 days or whatever do we have to worry anymore? If we have our first-ever major terrorist attack committed by one or more refugees from Syria, Trump can and assuredly will blame teh federal judiciary. Got it.
But for these next several months, Trump can implement all of his other immigration/vetting procedures. And if the federal cases kick around on appeal for those months, and we get to the end of that time period, why don't all of those cases become moot? Are you saying that there are important vetting procedures that are being temporarily restrained under federal court TRO's? And that we just have to let them work for 90-120 days before they do any good? Trump's point in the campaign was that "our representatives" needed to "figure out what the hell is going on." How long does it take, for Trump to figure out "what the hell is going on"? If in fact he battles in federal appellate courts for the next year (during which he can easily blame the courts for any security failures related to the "ban") why won't Trump be able to say at the end of that year, "Okay, we don't need any temporary bans anymore. We've got it figured out. We're ready to go."
@Chuck:
Do the Trumpkins see a problem, between Trump's dramatic language about a missile attack on a Syrian airbase because of the horrific images of "little children; little babies; babies!" at the same time that he fights in federal court to sustain a ban on Syrian refugees?
The derogatory label aside, as someone who voted for Trump, I can only speak of my own expectations from him. The main reason I voted for him was for "America First" policies in domestic and international affairs. I also liked they resisted the insane urge from the establishment to attack Assad, which would essentially put the US on both sides of a civil war. I don't want any middle eastern refugees in the US. Qatar is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a soccer tournament in 2022. I think they can support quite a few refugees with that money, and it would be in a country that was linguistically, ethnically, and culturally much closer to Syria than America. As for Trump's response to the images of dead babies, I will quote the estimable John Derbyshire:
"So apparently the driving motive here was the President’s feelings—wo-wo-wo feelings. We thought we’d elected a practical, deal-making, hard-headed National Conservative to the presidency. It seems that we actually elected a 14-year-old girl.
Of course, it’s a shame for little kids to be killed. And poisoning by gas is a nasty way to go. But the world is full of horrors. Why is this particular one any of America’s business?
-Collapse of Trumpism—On War and Immigration?
I am not quite as pessimistic and gloomy as Derbyshire (who could be?), but my politics align very closely with Derbs, and I certainly share a good deal of his worry.
Driving a car is never disappointing unless you do it right after riding a horse.
A text goes off to a friend, "Let's move where we can have horses!" "Yes!" She texts back. Neither of you has any real intention of moving.
You look up the things involved in owning a horse. !!! Like a dog that needs special grooming and its own house. Hm.
Mike said...
Chuck said...
Do the Trumpkins see a problem, between Trump's dramatic language about a missile attack on a Syrian airbase because of the horrific images of "little children; little babies; babies!" at the same time that he fights in federal court to sustain a ban on Syrian refugees?
I reject the term Trumpkin because it is childish and a little too Dickensian for serious application. After all, I don't approve of everything Trump says and does, which is what Chuck continually insinuates in his simplistic posts. Like this simplistic pairing of Trump's modest travel pause, created with the expressed purpose of "extreme vetting," and Trump's emotional recount of his reaction to the poisonous gas used on children. Even orange cartoon-like characters, after all, can be moved by the suffocating death of innocents. Is that so hard for Chuck to understand? Wouldn't extreme vetting allow us to distinguish between ISIS wannabees and children displaced by war? After three years of a blossoming "crisis" is it Chuck's position that a 90-day wait (unnecessarily elongated by Leftist judicial posturing, which Chuck apparently approves of by his own formulation above) would be overly onerous to the real refugees?
There also has been plenty written about Trump's alternative plan to create a safe zone in Syria so that refugees can return to their homeland, if not their exact region of origin. This was the view approvingly cited by the refugee interviewed by CNN the other day, surprising the news anchoress as the refugee effusively praised Trump and wished for a way to return "home." This was also the answer given to the AP's Julie Pace when she thought she'd landed a "gotcha" question on the King of Jordan during the White House photo op last week, much to her surprise. Lots of thinking people think that allowing refugees a safe return to Syria is the most civilized answer.
I have no idea what a Trumpkin would think. But I know a smartass, poorly thought-out attack when I see one, Chuck.
4/10/17, 11:38 AM Delete
I'm sorry did you have a point you were making?
I am better off taking everything Trump says seriously and just ignoring "lifelong Republican" attempts at hijacking threads. To engage is unsatisfying intellectually and rhetorically.
Dregs of society:
Colorado cop shows how to body-slam 90-pound girl face first into the sidewalk...
Lots of high-fives at police headquarters around the country, to be sure.
Also, a standard procedure many police wives can attest to from personal experience.
Shoe-horned this onto another post last week when you hadn't had any café posts, but didn't get any reaction, so let me put it here.
PBS last week had a documentary (I think it was on Independent Lens) called "Newtown" about the parents of children killed at Sandy Hook ES. We lost a child to a rare chromosomal defect, and I totally understood their grief. Even though we at least had something of a forewarning, I could hear so much of what I've said and felt from them. I was appalled at the way they were used and allowed themselves to be used by anti-2A activists. Our rural district would probably go the Argyle ISD route if we thought we could make it fly with the state, but the (unspoken, obviously) philosophy around here is, "As long as it stays in the holster, we see nothing". How can we say we care about something or that something is important to us if we are unwilling to use lethal force to defend it?
(And as long as I'm stepping on liberal shibboleths here, as awful as losing our child was, at least we had the knowledge that we did everything we could. How awful it must be (and I mean this sincerely) when it sinks in to a woman/couple that their child was killed and they themselves did it. (anyone coping with that, http://rachelsvineyard.org/ does good work))
"Sorry; I keep thinking that all of the Althouse commenters are in on that joke."
Jesus, chuck, put a fucking sock in it !
Why do you guys let a guy as repetitive and bereft of interesting ideas as Chuck dominate these threads? I would nail a gold doubloon to the mast of the good ship Althouse for the first person to get him to say something interesting, but then I would have to judge his posts.
BTW Chuck, it's a rhetorical conceit, this blog has no actual mast, I admit it.
I thought and still believe civil unions were the way to go. Calling same sex marriage marriage is ridiculous. WTF are we kidding when we just change the meaning of words to suit the current liberal rage. Now we are to believe in climate change due to science and believe in gender choice due to science too?
Lots of high-fives at police headquarters around the country, to be sure. Also, a standard procedure many police wives can attest to from personal experience.
You sound like a man of experience, David. So you used to carry a badge? Still do? Or are you just another angry libertarian type who makes the assumption that all cops are bad?
I know I'll catch hell for this, but here is the deal: grow up, follow the law, don't resist a cop when he/she does the job, and this will never happen to you. And the first item is probably the most important of all of them.
There also has been plenty written about Trump's alternative plan to create a safe zone in Syria so that refugees can return to their homeland, if not their exact region of origin. This was the view approvingly cited by the refugee interviewed by CNN the other day, surprising the news anchoress as the refugee effusively praised Trump and wished for a way to return "home." This was also the answer given to the AP's Julie Pace when she thought she'd landed a "gotcha" question on the King of Jordan during the White House photo op last week, much to her surprise. Lots of thinking people think that allowing refugees a safe return to Syria is the most civilized answer.
Um, okay. I didn't realize that that is in fact the Trump plan. Wait; is it the Trump plan? What a turnabout that would be, from Trump's series of Tweets in 2013 (after another Syrian civilian-gas-attack) when he berated Obama for any notion of going into Syria in any way, shape or form.
But of course early this year, after the election, Trump did sort of pledge that he was going to establish safe zones for Syrian refugees in or near Syria. So even if we don't have a plan from Trump, there is a pledge.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-syria-safezones-idUSKBN1592O8
However, when Hillary Clinton showed some favoritism to the idea of Syrian safe zones, she got called on it, by Bernie Sanders. Sanders was probably not wrong, when he argued that any U.S.-imposed Syrian "safe zones" equates to U.S. troops on the ground, and in large numbers, inside Syria. Hillary said she wouldn't do that. And effectively, she sort of fell back to the idea of enforcing a total Syrian no-fly zone.
So is Trump REALLY going to use U.S. ground forces to impose Syrian safe zones? John McCain asked General Loyd Austin about it; General Austin pretty much confirmed that when we talk about Syrian safe zones, we are talking about U.S. combat troops on the ground:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/20/hillary-syria-fact-check-safe-zones-equals-ground-troops
Bashing Trump is Chuck's raison d'être. Trump's nomination and election have given him real purpose in life.
When I got the bulletin regarding Dylan Roof's confession I thought, "Oh, shit! They plea-bargained and his life will be spared." But it appears he is still sentenced to death, which he so richly deserves.
Another Muslim atrocity: the Palm Sunday bombing of Copt Churches in Egypt.
"Do the Trumpkins see a problem, between Trump's dramatic language about a missile attack on a Syrian airbase because of the horrific images of "little children; little babies; babies!" at the same time that he fights in federal court to sustain a ban on Syrian refugees?"
I resist encouraging you by responding but this is stupid even for you. Do you really think a solution to the Syria problem is to have all the Syrians come here?
I wouldn't pay any attention to Chuck. He is probably a router part refurbished from Clinton Foundation surplus hardware. His focused and programmed morality sounds bleached and without empathy.
He is mad because DJT has impressed everybody by glibly channeling Ivanka's off the charts level of empathy for women and children. Experienced Babe hunters learn to do that trick early on.
That bun is beat..
"Sorry; I keep thinking that all of the Althouse commenters are in on that joke."
How many Althouse commenters does it take to change a light bulb? That one?
Google tells me this important question has never been answered.
Trump's nomination and election have given him real purpose in life.
4/10/17, 12:53 PM
Well, better that he endlessly obsess over every phrase Trump utters rather than what he would have done if Hillary won. Then everything Hillary would have done would have been blamed on the "Trumpkins" who spoiled everything for Cruz or Rubio or Kasich (who SURELY would have beaten Hillary.) However, Chuck would have taken considerable comfort in the fact that the "deplorables" - those blue collar slobs - had been vanquished and the world was once again safe for the GOP Establishment types like him.
He was denied that victory and the opportunity to gloat on November 8 and he just can't forgive us for it.
A Syrian refugee answers Chuck.
"But it appears he is still sentenced to death, which he so richly deserves."
There was absolutely no doubt in my mind he would get the death penalty.
And yeah he deserves it.
I Callahan said.. "...here is the deal: grow up, follow the law, don't resist a cop when he/she does the job, and this will never happen to you."
Ideally, I agree.
But there are necessarily exceptions. Like a 90-pound girl who obviously had no reasonable expectation of being violently manhandled. Leaving the onus of applying reasonable discretion on the cop. That he didn't will cost the city of Colorado Springs and its taxpayers upwards of a million dollars.
Not to mention that these continuing displays of primal police brutality only further erode the public's already negative perception of their police.
Original Mike said...
A Syrian refugee answers Chuck.
Why are you dumping that on me?
I didn't defend the feckless Obama policy in Syria. And I didn't support Hillary Clinton -- who, in fairness, really did depart from Obama policy in Syria. Clinton wanted a fari bit more activity in Syria than we have seen so far from Trump. She wanted to prosecute a very aggressive no-fly zone, which is something that Trump so far seems to be just thinking about.
That Syrian refugee seems rather unlikely to be made happy by any Trump policy. At least not if Trump is so disinterested in any deeper U.S. involvement, that he won't do what it takes (major deployment of U.S ground forces) into the region to set up safe zones for Syrians in their own country.
Anyway; don't pick on me. It's not my policy. All I've done is to ask questions and point out the breathtaking inconsistencies with Trump. It's hard to pick on any Trump policy, since it's so hard to figure out what any Trump policy actually is.
"All I've done is to ask questions and point out the breathtaking inconsistencies with Trump."
Trump's Syrian action and the refugee ban are not inconsistent. You can't solve the Syrian problem by accepting refugees.
Yes, yes, Chuck. We get it. Trump has a superficial persona that stupid people of many political stripes cannot see through, and you're immensely proud of how opaque you find it to be.
"Trump's Syrian action and the refugee ban are not inconsistent."
No, it's not! He fucks them coming and going!
I Callahan said...
I know I'll catch hell for this, but here is the deal: grow up, follow the law, don't resist a cop when he/she does the job, and this will never happen to you.
That is incorrect.
We don't owe Syrians anything. Many of the people I talked to said they were torn by Trump's bombing of the airfield. On the one hand, they wish America would pull back from those prehistoric, terrorist breeding Muslim nations and on the other hand , they were glad that, Trump, in a way, smacked Assad.
I don't like that so many young gang-bangers are murdered every year in Chicago.
But that doesn't mean I want to transplant a bunch of them into my town either.
That is incorrect.
No, Ferdinande, it is not. I'd love to see an example of where I'm wrong.
"Calling same sex marriage marriage is ridiculous."
Why? How are they any different, in essence?
Insofar as marriage provides couples with legal rights and protections and and tax benefits and so on, what is marriage for anyone but, in fact, a civil union?
What do we talk about when we talk about Syrian refugees ? For some people it's a pretty woman in a head scarf carrying a cute little kid. For others it's a draft-age unemployable thug with mustache and unibrow. In the Liberal Imagination there are a lot of the former. In Germany, Netherlands, France, and Sweden there are a lot of the latter.
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
Is the LLR position that Scalia was taking a political position in Obergefell and Lawrence?
I think Scalia was writing about the proper role of the courts, contra Posner, versus the proper roles of the political branches. Since President Trump as a candidate was running for a position outside the judiciary, I'm not sure what in the world you mean. Both a pro-gay agenda and Scalia's opinions can exist simultaneously and in a logically consistent way.
Why must a Chuck be a fopdoodle?
Life-long Republicans are the go-to demographic of CommonDreams! He is a fucking troll.
"No, Ferdinande, it is not. I'd love to see an example of where I'm wrong."
How about the many filmed incidents of cops shooting down compliant, non-resisting persons? How about incidents of persons under police control being beaten, (also seen on many videos)?
I don't think all cops are "bad," but to the extent the good cops do not stop their psychopathic colleagues from abusing their authority, the good cops are aiding and abetting the bad cops. (I understand the career and peer pressures that prevent them from doing so, but...they're still helping the furtherance of police abuse.)
Trump tightening the noose:
"Barrel bombs" now cross a red line.
Kind of a "Make my day" moment.
Good.
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
I want you to be very careful when criticizing the Supreme Court and its decisions. You might upset the extremely sensitive Justice Gorsuch and send him on a crying jag that prevents the proper administration of his duties. He might become distraught at even the slightest provocation.
Like a tweet or other internet comment.
... I'd love to see an example of where I'm wrong.
Eric Garner.
Freeman Hunt said...You look up the things involved in owning a horse.
A friend got a divorce and his ex-Wife had a horse. They had to sell their place after the divorce, so she asks me if she can put her horse on my property.
I tell her, the fence will handle goats but it won't handle a horse, and I ain't running after it "when" it escapes.
No problem she said, I have a portable corral I can use. Well, this entailed moving the horse once a week, because the horseshit becomes more than the grass, and that horse was drinking more water than Coca-Cola uses in its factory.
So she starts getting me to help move the portable corral with my tractor!
OK, this is too much, so I told her $300 a month for a 6-month land lease. I ain't her spouse, and now I know why he left.
...and poof she was gone...
I hate horses... I like goats. Goats are natures lawn mowers, and goat cheese is God's own condiment.
The only problem with goats, is they don't survive a lightning strike very well.
Mike wrote:
"I reject the term Trumpkin because it is childish"
The commenters who use this term reveal more about themselves than the ones it is addressed to. Always keep that in mind.
Birkel, you moron. You're talking to someone who can almost recite Scalia's dissent in Lawrence from memory.
So yes; Scalia actually wrote in Lawrence that he had nothing against homosexuals, making their case for expanded rights in our representative democracy. That was the line that became infamous, for the left-leaning press' taking it out of context and quoting Justice Scalia as having blandly declaring (this is now they quoted him) "I have nothing against homosexuals."
Scalia repeated that admonition in later writings, including his Windsor and Obergefell dissents.
Indeed; Scalia betrayed no personal views on the pros and cons of homosexuality. He simply believed that nothing in the constitution -- and certainly nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment, which was written when laws against homosexual sodomy were nearly universal -- set up a U.S. Constitutional bar to states legislating as did Texas with its anti-sodomy law. And both Scalia and Thomas referred to the Texas anti-sodomy law as "uncommonly silly" a phrase the harkened back to another old line of constitutional cases. But, Scalia told us, "uncommonly silly" does not mean "unconstitutional."
It is hard to understand Justice Kennedy as having done anything other than imposing a profoundly personal value judgment on the nation. He simply believed that normalizing homosexuality under the law and making same sex marriage a national right, was just the right thing to do in light of what he thought was developing international law, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, et cetera. Kennedy -- no doubt earnestly -- thought that he and his social class of federal judges knew better than the majority of voters and the majority of state legislatures.
Again, "pro-gay" was never my shorthand, although I think it works well enough for blogging work. I think Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Rhenquist were all pro-constitution. I think that the five judge liberal majorities under Kennedy were all pro-gay.
If someone thinks that Trump will answer questions for fifty minutes on the subjects of Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell, Bowers v Hardwick, Loving v Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut, I hereby volunteer to be the questioner.
And that lunch plate made me hungry!
Cookie argues: I don't think all cops are "bad," but to the extent the good cops do not stop their psychopathic colleagues from abusing their authority, the good cops are aiding and abetting the bad cops. (I understand the career and peer pressures that prevent them from doing so, but...they're still helping the furtherance of police abuse.)
I have to agree with you there. Conspiracy of silence regarding abuse of authority is, sadly, common in law enforcement. Not just regarding brutality but of confiscation of funds from 'likely drug dealers'. Good cops--and most of them are--need to feel free to speak up with impunity.
Everyone see the movie, Training Day? Not all fiction.
Tim said: "it's a rhetorical conceit, this blog has no actual mast, I admit it. "
But it DOES have a masthead :)
Re the lunch plate: I don't care for fries [other than sweet potato fries] but a big, juicy hamburger is something to fantasize about. Especially while on a diet.
I think we need to talk about Althouse's diet, if indeed she was eating that plate full of nasty carbs.
Mockturtle: do you really live in an RV?
Violation: Attempting to fly the friendly skies:
MSNBC moments ago: "Officer placed on leave after removing [dragging] man [lawful ticker holder] from flight against his will."
BTW, the man was too big to body-slam, face first, into the floor.
Therefore, no high fives, no cop points awarded.
Since it is an open thread and all, I have a question- do any of you watch the Showtime series Homeland?
The plot for season 6 revolved around the election of the first female president, after her election but before her inauguration. This president elect is at odds with the US intelligence agencies, and a cabal is formed within those agencies to, first, force her to resign before taking the oath by instigating a propaganda operation in league with right-wing television and radio- a great deal of which involves "fake news", artificial troll armies, etc. Eventually, the cabal decides to assassinate the president elect, but fails in the season finale, and she takes office.
Filming of this season began last August. In the first 11 episodes, it abundantly clear that the president elect is modeled on Hillary Clinton, and that the writers were trying to anticipate all of Trump's supporters in and out of the government to rise up and protest violently Clinton's election. In the show, protesters of the president elect were using the "Not My President" chants.
The fascinating thing for me this season, however, is that even though the show's writers catastrophically miscalculated the winner of the election and the politics of the protests, they actually managed to get the overall mood almost spot on, even if exaggerated. However, it seemed to me that the writers rewrote the script of the finale itself- the ending of the finale felt like it was tacked on hastily in the aftermath of the actual election and post-election ruckus. Suddenly, the president elect/president is portrayed as paranoid, secretive, and maybe a traitor.
I was just wondering if any of you watch the show and had the same impressions I did.
Ryan,
Carbs are good for you if they are deep-fried.
I just skip Chuck's comments.
Clark,
It is a pity more don't.
I like McDonalds regular burgers. When I go there, which isn't often, I go to the counter and order two fresh ones. I don't want a pre-cooked one.
To me it has a good bread to meat ratio. I don't like a burger with a big bun. My body doesn't process bread unless it is in small quantities.
I remember in Germany, they had this Schnitzel stand next to the local gas station. It was the only German I knew for a long time - Schnitzel sandwich und pommes frites, mit alles.
It had a big-ass breaded schnitzel and a thin bun. It came with Belgian style fries and a tub of Mayo. Mmmph...
Anyway, I've never seen thin buns in America. (bread or ass)...
It is hard to understand Justice Kennedy as having done anything other than imposing a profoundly personal value judgment on the nation. He simply believed that normalizing homosexuality under the law and making same sex marriage a national right, was just the right thing to do in light of what he thought was developing international law, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, et cetera. Kennedy -- no doubt earnestly -- thought that he and his social class of federal judges knew better than the majority of voters and the majority of state legislatures.
You might say he twisted the 14th Amendment to mean whatever he would need it to mean to allow him to bestow victory on the gay rights lobby.
Wow, that Burger looks great, as do the fries.
Is Althouse really eating that, or it a picture of someone else's meal?
Yep, horses are a lot of work. My mother dreamed of having one, and when she got it, she only kept it for five years. She said she only buy another one if a free stable boy came with it.
Yancey Ward said...
It is a pity more don't.
Killfile
This tool is useful, results below.
Comment by Chuck blocked.
4/10/17, 11:05 AM
Just got through reading McCain's statement on the filibuster. What a bunch of horseshit (to keep up the horse theme).
There is NO tradition of the Senate Filibustering judges. In the 20th century there were about 60 nominations, 55% got confirmed with unanimous support, and 20% faced token opposition. Only 4 were denied a SCOTUS seat. As shown by the numbers, The TRADITION is the Senate giving the POTUS what he wants on the Supreme Court.
People bring up Fortas and forget that wasn't about denying him a seat on the SCOTUS. He was already on the SCOTUS. It was about delaying his nomination to be Chief Justice until after the '68 election, and also about Fortas being a crook. And not only that, it was a bi-partisan filibuster. Fortas was only nominated because he was LBJ's personal lawyer and friend who regularly told LBJ everything that was going on. If he talked over how to vote with LBJ, I wouldn't be surprised.
So why is McCain bemoaning the loss of the filibuster? Easy, it makes it harder for him to hide his social liberalism. Now, he's have to come and oppose a Conservative judge instead of hiding behind a Democrat filibuster.
Etienne
I hate horses... I like goats. Goats are natures lawn mowers, and goat cheese is God's own condiment.
My husband says horses are hay burning money pits. People really do underestimate the amount of work and maintenance it takes to keep horses. They aren't like cars to park in the garage until you decide to take them out for a ride. To not take good care of, keep them penned up in small corrals and not spend exercise time with your horse is cruel and abusive.
Goats are hilarious, amusing, useful and also giant pains in the rear. Goats will eat everything. That can be good when you want to eliminate brush, weeds etc. It is really bad when it is your rose bushes, young trees and vegetable garden. Think carefully before getting goats.
David Baker said...
Eric Garner.
Wrong. Eric Garner was clearly resisting. I'm not saying the police used the correct amount of force, correctly applied. But you can't use it as an example of someone cooperating with the police.
Philando Castile is one example of someone cooperating and getting shot anyway.
I also remember a case of a truck driver getting shot when he tried to get his registration from the glove compartment, after the police asked for his registration.
Blogger Clark said...
I just skip Chuck's comments.
4/10/17, 2:59 PM
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
Clark,
It is a pity more don't.
4/10/17, 3:00 PM
I was thinking along the same lines. Can I propose of list of people whom I'd like to skip my comments?
Robert Cook said...
How about incidents of persons under police control being beaten, (also seen on many videos)?
I would be interested in a link to some of those many videos. And no, a video of someone shouting I am not resisting is not evidence that the person is not resisting. Particularly when they are clearly holding their body rigid in an attempt to prevent the police from cuffing them.
Yancey Ward said... [hush][hide comment]
Since it is an open thread and all, I have a question- do any of you watch the Showtime series Homeland?
The plot for season 6 revolved around the election of the first female president, after her election but before her inauguration. This president elect is at odds with the US intelligence agencies, and a cabal is formed within those agencies to, first, force her to resign before taking the oath by instigating a propaganda operation in league with right-wing television and radio- a great deal of which involves "fake news", artificial troll armies, etc. Eventually, the cabal decides to assassinate the president elect, but fails in the season finale, and she takes office.
Filming of this season began last August. In the first 11 episodes, it abundantly clear that the president elect is modeled on Hillary Clinton, and that the writers were trying to anticipate all of Trump's supporters in and out of the government to rise up and protest violently Clinton's election. In the show, protesters of the president elect were using the "Not My President" chants.
The fascinating thing for me this season, however, is that even though the show's writers catastrophically miscalculated the winner of the election and the politics of the protests, they actually managed to get the overall mood almost spot on, even if exaggerated. However, it seemed to me that the writers rewrote the script of the finale itself- the ending of the finale felt like it was tacked on hastily in the aftermath of the actual election and post-election ruckus. Suddenly, the president elect/president is portrayed as paranoid, secretive, and maybe a traitor.
I was just wondering if any of you watch the show and had the same impressions I did.
First thing I noticed was crazy radio guy named "O'Keefe"(James O'Keefe always mischaracterized by MSM as editing under cover vids). I suppose the crazy character is Alex Jones? (Have not personally listened to AJ.)
So, writers discredit O'Keefe and Jones with one whacko character.
And, cliched "muslim not the bad guy, it's really the rogue US military"
"So, writers discredit O'Keefe and Jones with one whacko character."
They discredit themselves.
As for the rest of the scenario, (I don't watch the show, fyi), it seems entirely plausible. I'm sure Trump has been made to know he'd better curb his maverick tendencies, however incoherent they are, and play ball with the deep state's agenda, or he would find himself out on his ear...or worse. Hence, his missile launch on Syria last week.
You could get your own blog, Chuck. Then all of the people who are into your point-missing prolixity can follow you there and you can ban the deplorables at will!
I'm sure your blog will be yuuge! Your comments are only the best, Chuckie!
After 1482 ham contacts in the last exactly one year, three were women.
What a gender imbalance. Forget STEM.
The last, WA1S, was a pro, I must say.
The best part about that CNN refugee video is the anchor doing her best blue Steele look. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously as a journalist when you freaking look like Derek Zoolander?
Ignorance is Bliss said... "Wrong. Eric Garner was clearly resisting"
Hardly. The cops were messin' with him. Among the cops Garner was a well known commodity; an overweight diabetic who sold "loosies."
But today's street sentence: Death.
Garner's last words: "I can't breathe."
Muscle-bound cops: Good. Watch us flex. Under the color of law.
David Baker said...
Hardly. The cops were messin' with him. Among the cops Garner was a well known commodity; an overweight diabetic who sold "loosies."
I don't see how being a career criminal makes resisting arrest okay. We can all watch the video, and he is clearly resisting arrest.
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
I enjoyed that long non-answer. Try again?
Can I propose of list of people whom I'd like to skip my comments?
Wouldn't it be easier just not to make the comments?
Yancey:
I stopped watching Homeland when the terorists blew up most of our intelligence officers etc using a big car bomb in Season 2 [I think]. I thought that was doe too easily and made our government look even dumber than it is.
Btw, I listened to Rush today for a few minutes and he was warning his listeners he was going to be talking about last night's Homeland episode.
Ryan asks: Mockturtle: do you really live in an RV?
I did for two years. A small RV, at that. Recently, I bought a house in southern AZ where I plan to spend most winters but will be back in my RV from May to October in search of cooler climes and visiting family.
@ mockturtle
Too late. I read both comments, ha ha.
Meanwhile, while merrily debating our next round of foreign adventurism, the good news just keeps rolling out of Libya....
Migrants from west Africa being ‘sold in Libyan slave markets’
Birkel, after re-reading my comment, I was struck by the poor wording. ;-)
Ignorance is Bliss said: "...We can all watch the video, and he is clearly resisting arrest."
No, he was clearly being choked to death. And subsequently, the City of New York agreed, settling pre-trial with the Garner family for 5.9 million dollars.
The City of North Charleston also settled pre-trial with the family of Walter Scott - shot in the back while feebly attempting to run away from a white cop - for 6.5 million, which was unanimously approved by the city council.
Of course, the problem with these video-taped, police-murdering-citizens cases is that the cops are unable to mount plausible, much less believable, defenses. Thus the unanimous, pre-trial settlements. Add to that list of city-to-family settlements; Michael Brown; Philando Castile; Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray; and Tamir Rice. For starters.
Meanwhile, let's go back to where we started; the 90-pound girl getting viciously body-slammed, face first, into a cement sidewalk. In your opinion, was the action of the police officer proportional or in any way reasonable? Did he exercise proper, or even minimal, discretion? And finally, is the girl lucky to be alive?
FullMoon,
Yes, I made a mental note early on of the name of the TV host- I am sure it was done intentionally. I hadn't thought of Alex Jones- my thought it was a TV version of Rush Limbaugh.
Question: Was the burger juicy? A three-napkin burger is good. A four-napkin burger is great.
David Baker said...
No, he was clearly being choked to death.
What the fuck do you mean, No?
Are you telling me that you are incapable of seeing him resisting arrest in a video clearly showing him resisting arrest. Really? You understand that everyone else can watch that, and see that you are living in a world of alternative facts, don't you? Do you really see so little value in credibility that you're willing to throw it away for nothing?
Meanwhile, let's go back to where we started...
I understand your desire to change the subject. Forgive me if I have no interest in rewarding your attempt at distraction.
Well, Ann, I did a little shopping yesterday on Amazon, adding a couple of pennies to the tip jar.
That plate of food makes my mouth water. Actually, the french fries look especially enticing. And the pickles, although there are not enough chunks.
And last but certainly not least: STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"Trump's Syrian action and the refugee ban are not inconsistent."
No, it's not! He fucks them coming and going!
Good. Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it, Cookie.
Ignorance is Bliss said... "What the fuck do you mean, No?"
I mean that the video showed Eric Garner being choked to death by muscle-bound cops. And sure enough, Garner died. That's why the City of New York shelled out 5.9 million dollars to Mr. Garner's family before ever going to trial. Because that same video, in the hands of a jury, would've bankrupted the city. Why? Because the recording clearly showed Garner being choked to death by NYC cops.
At this point it might be useful for you to understand how the police think, how they approach "civilians," how prone they are to kill first and lie afterwards. More importantly, just how many "bad apples" there are in the rotten police barrel.
One of the best contemporary examples of this rotten barrel reality happened in Cleveland. In 2012, no fewer than sixty (60) police cars joined in a wild car chase of two unarmed civilians, covering over 20 miles, and ending in a schoolyard where the “suspects” were summarily executed. One cop, the designated executioner, gloriously pumped 15 shots through the suspect's windshield while standing on the hood of their disabled vehicle. Five of those shots were later determined to be fatal.
All in all, 104 cops, 137 shots fired. The unarmed suspects crime? Never established (ie none). More here…
You can just imagine the high fives around headquarters that night. And don't miss the point; upwards of 40% of the police on duty in Cleveland that night were directly involved. Clearly demonstrating just how deep the rot goes.
" Can I propose of list of people whom I'd like to skip my comments?"
Quit posting stupid shit.
Although. The above is the most amusing thing you've ever posted.
David Baker said...
I mean that the video showed Eric Garner being choked to death by muscle-bound cops.
Which is entirely irrelevant to answering the question of whether or not he resisted arrest.
You are the one who offered Eric Garner as an example of police brutality of someone who doesn't resist. Man up and admit that you were wrong.
Note that I have never once justified what the police did to Garner. In fact, I offered two counter-examples of people not resisting, and having the police use excessive force against them anyway. That's precisely two more examples than you offered. In other words, I'm competently making the case that you are entirely fucking up by your persistent lying.
@Ignorance is Bliss;
Garner's momentary "resistance" was token at best, more a natural reaction as opposed to hostility or belligerence. Add a strong measure of disbelief over being arrested - for a "crime" so minor it didn't even register.
But with this I'll agree; ANY level of resistance is an invitation to trouble. Especially when the cops view you as less than human.
But you apparently enjoy the "protections" offered by the police state. Like being protected from a 90-pound girl being slammed to the ground. Or dragged off an airplane like a bag of garbage. Or shot to death for a broken taillight.
Although the cops are still getting away with murder, lying under oath, and framing innocent persons, the advent of the cellphone and DNA testing has made getting away with such sundry felonies considerably more difficult.
...has/have
Post a Comment