I was moved to transcribe that, from the "Go nuts for squirrels" episode of the podcast "Giles Coren Has No Idea."
The statement was made by the co-podcaster, Coren's wife, Esther Walker, and it's the closest I think I've ever heard to how I react to politics. Now, of course, it's hyperbole. I was thinking of saying I only feel like that up to a point, but she herself must only feel like that up to a point.
The last sentence is especially good, and she's squeezing it in as her husband is well into his next overlapping statement: "I don't care who's in charge, as long as they're actually in charge."
You might think it's hard to listen to, a husband and wife talking over each other and trying to get a word in edgewise, but Giles and Esther show how to do it right.
पोस्ट्स
२८ टिप्पण्या:
The guys' version is you want a system that forces the wrong people to do the right things, not good people.
The left's attack on the system is the threat.
Wow. Okay.
“I don't care who's in charge, as long as they're actually in charge."
- Paul von Hindenburg
"I don't care who's in charge, as long as they're actually in charge."
meanwhile.. Back in The States..
U.S. economic growth was weaker and inflation was stronger than previously estimated in the fourth quarter of last year, revised government data showed on Thursday.
What a Surprise! they "revised" the numbers, to admit that the old numbers were Bull
Video: White House Brags About Most Staff Being Black, Female Or LGBTQ+
"How many people are actually good at their job?”
Jill Biden on Joe’s 2024 Plans: ‘He Says He’s Not Done. He’s Not Finished What He’s Started’
sometimes, the problem Is the people in charge
"They sing while you slave and I just get bored"
Speaking of in-fighting and dicking around, one NE Dem state Senator is beginning to filibuster every single bill because a bill protecting minors from sex change surgery and a new abortion bill got out of committee.
I don't care who's in charge, as long as they're actually in charge.
But what does that mean?
They're not just a figurehead? They're not just sticking a finger in the wind? They're not beholden to powerful interests or donors? They're not controlled by a shadow government? They're behaving responsibly and seriously? They just "do what works"?
Most of the people who strive to be in charge are the least desirable and most incompetent. See the entire Brandon administration for conformation..
Well he locked down thanks to feely ferguson giles was against that right is he for the sky dragon?
"I don't care who's in charge, as long as they're actually in charge."
That is silly. Hitler was in charge. Stalin was in charge. Hugo Chavez was in charge. Mao was in charge.
People in charge actually being in charge is often the problem, and "fucking it up" is in the eye of the beholder.
It's like those who hate gridlock, and a "do nothing Congress."
Do nothing is often better than do something.
Embrace the power of less. Fewer laws (but enforce the ones we have), fewer regulations, a simplified tax code, etc.
Is it really so difficult to see past the hyperbole and understand what she was saying? Are you all so literal minded that you cannot see the point? Or are many of you just so eager to feign offence and hear your own voices trying to sound clever that you pretend not to understand?
What if one side defaults to destabilizing the system whenever they lose power? Still hand power back to them?
The cognitive dissonance between this post and the Ben Shapiro post is awesome to behold.
Don't buy into the idea that Britidiots like Giles Coren are any brighter or deeper than our own idiots.
"Being in charge" is ambiguous (like everything else). Biden's team is "in charge." They got what they wanted from Congress and the bureaucracy. They escaped serious criticism and investigation from the mainstream media. But the country's a mess. Nobody is effectively in charge. Nobody takes responsibility.
Under Trump everything in Washington DC was chaotic. He never took charge of the bureaucracy. He never had the support of Congress or the bureaucracy or the Establishment. But in the rest of the country things were actually going pretty well (until COVID). Outside the capital, we had that "normal" that we supposedly had to defeat Trump to attain again.
Leaders taking full charge of the government doesn't mean that things will be going very well in the country or that the country won't be a mess. Being in charge means securing power for oneself and one's party and implementing the policies of one's movement or ideology. If you can do that by contributing to the nation's welfare that's nice, but if you can take and keep power without actually fixing anything that also works.
Self-confessed pearl clutchers.
I much prefer his siter and her husband: Victoria Coren-Mitchell and David Mitchell.
I recommend Dominic Cummings remarks about Boris over the last year. And he knows from up close.
Here, let me help out the more obtuse commenters.
Our politics is fucked because Congress ceded its power to the bureaucratic administrative state and nine wise Harvard/Yale graduates, and now spends its time dicking around with meaningless performative gestures.
Go back and read the couple’s comments with that in mind.
The goal is not 'reform' but *a government that actually controls the government*
https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/regime-change-2-a-plea-to-silicon
sometimes, the problem Is the people in charge
The Biden administration, and the government in general, is very much an example of the people in charge not actually being in charge. They wanted the perks and privileges of being in power, without any actual responsibilities. Actual decisions get made by committee, where responsibility is diffused, and by adherence to established procedures.
Sounds like my beef with republicans.
They love being in the minority so they can fund raise.
When the do get into the majority they do nothing for their base and move again into the minority.
The never-ending cycle.
A radio host once said, 'Republicans hold office, Democrats hold power.'
He is correct...
I'm not too sure what she means by "dicking about". Boris Johnson got kicked out for something minor and stupid: Holding a party while there was a CV-19 lockdown. He should have gotten kicked out for his POLICIES. Like, not having a true Brexit or his insane overreaction to CV19 or increasing immigration when he pledged to do the oppposite.
Now, out of office, he's Mr. Warmonger. One half expects him to parachute into the Kremlin and assassinate Putin he's so crazed with bloodlust. Paid off by Defense Contractors? Probably.
I can't believe anyone is making the Hitler point after I accounted for it in the post!
Why do commenters write things that look like they are correcting me or informing me of something I missed when my text is right there and it's blatantly obvious that I've already discussed that?
Thanks to Old and slow for saying: "Is it really so difficult to see past the hyperbole and understand what she was saying? Are you all so literal minded that you cannot see the point? Or are many of you just so eager to feign offence and hear your own voices trying to sound clever that you pretend not to understand?"
I think people want to justify their own partisanship, so they seek to minimize the impact of a nonpartisan statement.
"What I care about more than anything else is people in power having power and doing things properly..."
The Althouse theorem applies here: people don't believe what they profess to believe. No moderate American voter that wants things done "properly" has ever protested the people supposedly in power losing power to people actually in power. Most of the American public went along quite happily with the growth of the administrative state. However unlawful it may be, they now think that's doing things "properly," even though it means that the people voted into "power" don't have the power that the public's illusions ascribe to them.
And in politics, no one cares about process. How many American voters who agreed with the ACA provisions staunchly resisted it just because it was passed by improper congressional maneuvers?
In politics the ultimate question is not how but what: doing what things "properly"? A "proper" lockdown, with proper CYA by public health "experts," or an "improper" reopening, calling BS on the phony science? "Properly" passed pointless green subsidies are OK, but "improperly" legislated subsidies are not? More redistribution, or less? More or less money for entitlements?
"I don't care who's in charge, as long as they're actually in charge."
In times of chaos no one may actually be in charge, but usually someone is, just not necessarily the people you thought were in charge. Biden may not be in charge, but the people in charge are actually in charge.
Of course, the sentiment is baffling: I don't care who? But here again, the Althouse theorem applies: nice, moderate, serious people care a lot about who is in charge. That person can't be too uncouth and must show some respect for their feelings.
Question for the adherents of the dictum: how does an ordinary voter determine who is "actually in charge"?
johnson was painted as a figure in the rear view mirror in andrew marr's dark roman a clef, 'head of state' about how far the globalist would go to remain in power,
sunak hasn't done much different from my lights,
I honestly don't know what she means.
Hmmmmm...
I(and you) have seen a lot of bad government come from the people in charge being quite effective. Of course, I live in that laboratory for bad government, Illinois. We have more governmental units than any other state. There is always someone in charge. There is one iron law of Illinois politics: spend tax money to get re-elected. It is followed by both parties, but for the last 20 years the GOP has done it badly, largely because of their feeble attempts to exercise financial responsibility. This is what happens: we have a large economy, which generates a large tax base. We have high real estate taxes, high sales taxes, high workers' comp expenses, and a broad tax base. Only retirement income doesn't get taxed. There is lots of revenue. But there is never any new or enhanced revenue stream that does not lead to increased spending on new things. Always on "good, necessary things" that we have gotten along fine without for 200 years. And promises! We love promises!
The people here love it. The people in charge are in charge. But there was a serpent in Eden. The bills are coming due for those promises, and people are leaving so they don't have to pay for them. FL, TN, TX, WY, even IN and WI all beckon.
We know who is in charge. You ought to move down here.
To fuck or not to fuck is the first choice.
“ I think people want to justify their own partisanship, so they seek to minimize the impact of a nonpartisan statement.”
Or…I have listened and come to the conclusion that there is nothing *but* hyperbole there. ESPECIALLY in the context of “Boris Johnson fucking it all up.”
Boris Johnson *was* “actually in charge.” I find it to be a ridiculous statement devoid of any cleverness or subtlety.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा