I was pleasantly impressed with Trump's magnanimous acceptance speech, which has, at least for a time, tempered the very mixed emotions I had voting for him.
In fairness, I was also pleasantly surprised with Madame Secretary's prompt and congenial concession.
A lot of people are worried. Even many of us that voted for him believe that Trump warrants considerable vigilance. Rest assured though that the press will provide that oversight with verve and a sense of urgency in exactly the same way that they wouldn't have for his opponent.
So lighten up.
Finally,
TakumiYanai's work may not be the only evidence of time travel....
1
Those #NotMyPresident buffoons? Someone should ask them how they felt about the people who said the same about Obama, and then point and laugh when they say "That's different!"
Posted by: Rick C at Thu Nov 10 01:20:40 2016 (ITnFO)
2
Did you see Paul Krugman's reaction to the stockmarket blip?
Paraphrasing, it was "When can we expect to see it recover? Short answer, never."
By the end of the day it was at a record high.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thu Nov 10 01:21:39 2016 (PiXy!)
3
Yes. I laughed.
Nobel prize winner and ENRON advisor.
I'm less amused with the riots.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Thu Nov 10 19:07:04 2016 (1zM3A)
HOLY CRAP!
We are actually less utterly screwed than I thought we would be this morning!
I remain deeply skeptical of Trump, but credit where it is due, he has done what most thought impossible. Whatever his flaws (and they are legion) I can, with considerable confidence, wholeheartedly and without reservation agree that by far the lesser of two evils won this election.
Hillary Clinton wasn't just singularly corrupt. She was the standard bearer for a group, a party and an self-appointed faux aristocracy that not only feels unwarranted entitlement to rule over us, but despises us with every fiber of their being.
We're in for a rough ride as a nation. Trump quite scary in his own ways. However, there is another bright side to this; the intensity with which political correctness got a kick in the groin this morning.
1
Well, there's still the whole President Trump thing to wrap our heads around. But despite my misgivings on that quarter, on the whole, a good day.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wed Nov 9 05:18:25 2016 (PiXy!)
2
My faith in the electorate is renewed. It was wonderful watching the press freak out last night. I don't remember them being that shell-shocked on 9/11.
3
The Press and the Posters being so wrong, and shocked, and upset by the results of the election I think is a testament to how much they were trying to wish it into being. I've observed that liberals have this belief that words can control reality, and they get very indignant when reality does not obey.
Posted by: Mauser at Wed Nov 9 21:44:17 2016 (5Ktpu)
4
Now that we have some numbers to analyse, it's all pretty easy to see. Clinton is up by 1% in the popular vote, so that's well-within the margin of error. A approximate 12% decrease in total votes from *2012*, which was a 5% decrease from 2008. If Hillary was any other Democrat, she likely would have won handily. Trump pulled similar percentages in most demographics to Romney and McCain, but pulled quite a bit fewer total votes than Romney and about the same as McCain.
The bottom line is, the people who said it's all about "who wants to vote for Hillary Clinton?" were absolutely right. She was just so unpopular no one wanted to vote for her.
But, if she couldn't win, at least Trump won. So I guess she has that going for her. Kind of "win-win" for the left, really.
Good Hunting, but do Be CarefulJ.C. Carlton (whose blog you should be following) has a thoughtful disquisition on the state of political discourse. Out of consideration for our readers, we'll post our quibbles below the fold and post a picture of Best Oni here.
1
The Tea Party was a petition; ignored by both sides of the aisle .
Trump is a warning; hated by both sides of the aisle
What comes next against the oligarchs...?
I've two teenage daughters. I'd rather they not see the "Kosovo-ization" of America.
Posted by: Clayton Barnett at Thu Nov 3 20:30:49 2016 (ug1Mc)
2
For what it's worth, here's my reasoning for why not voting for Clinton is the least-worst choice for US voters:
It's highly likely that Russian and Chinese cyberspies have copies of all the emails Clinton sent and received on her illicit email server back when she was Secretary of State; if Clinton becomes President, it would be highly likely that the Russian and/or Chinese governments will attempt to blackmail her with those emails, in an effort to bend US policy to their will. If this does happen, I'd wager that she would not take being blackmailed very well, and that she would act out by provoking a confrontation with her blackmailers ("You can't push me around, Mister Putin!!")--a confrontation that could degenerate into a shooting war.
Posted by: Peter the Not-so-Great at Thu Nov 3 21:17:28 2016 (jS1F0)
3
I figured out months ago that there is no argument either in favor of or against either candidate that can not be convincingly refuted. I'm a bit disappointed but not surprised that Hoyt tried to reason her way to her current position...advocacy for either defies rationality. You can argue for chance, luck, or faith. But I believe the only aspect of the next for years that can be reasoned is how to deal with the aftermath, as reason has already failed in this election for President.
The Talking Heads Are Pondering
...if Trump is a symptom of a larger issue facing the country.
After Saturday's post on one of Trump's apparent...eccentricities, I'm wondering if these brilliant minds are focusing on the right issue.
Well, I guess we now know what H-15 is.
If, gentle reader, you feel this post to be in poor taste, please place the blame where it belongs...on Dustbury, who irresponsibly linked to this site, from which I shamelessly nicked these pictures.
When people on the news call Donald Trump a racist, I find that statement difficult to believe. Like myself, Donald Trump is a life-long New Yorker. Donald Trump lives, works, eats and employs people of all races and religions. Like many of my fellow New Yorkers, Donald Trump speaks his mind and that type of behavior can easily be misunderstood by people who are not New Yorkers.
Two Middle Aged Women Sitting Down For an Hour Talking About Girl Stuff
No, we've not been hijacked or changed out format, despite the fact that the post title is mostly true..
The Deterioration of Discourse
After a long day of work and school I dealt with an epic traffic jam by ducking into a pleasant Ramen shop in Norfolk.
The waitress, knows I'm a rightie and felt quite chuffed at the opportunity to needle me on the current Republican nominee, who, to avoid triggering any of our readers we will refer to as Whale Vomit for the remainder of this post.
Anyway, she was quite happy that his campaign seemed to be imploding and noted that since Whale Vomit was the Republican nominee, we on the right had no moral authority whatsoever.
Now...it had been a VERY long day, and I was really not in the mood to be thinking about Whale Vomit while attempting to appreciate my Miso Ramen, so I asked her what she thought of her party's nominee (who, in the interest of decency, we'll refer to as the She-Goat of The Forrest With A Thousand Foetid Young). The waitress got annoyed that I would even bring that up. Since nobody in the Democratic party actually likes that individual.
I'll leave the obvious inconsistency to the reader.
The conversation turned to the violence at the Whale Vomit events and the fellow who had tried to shoot the republican nominee...After looking that news tidbit up the waitress was overcome with the blue county giggles and finally broke into laughter, suggesting that the would-be assassin ought to get a medal, or should have done better and if he'd died doing that he'd be a martyr. She also said that any violence at the Republican campaign events was entirely the fault of those rotten enough to show up to support the nominee.
Absolutely no indication was given that she thought this was in any way unreasonable sentiment despite this being a representative republic as opposed to a recital of the Lord of the Flies.
My dismay at the results of the Republican primaries is Brobdingnagian, but I can say with considerable certainty that I hold anyone who is supportive of these thugs and would be assassins in even less esteem than I have for Whale Vomit.
This wasn't the faculty lounge or a meeting of the Weathermen, this was a Ramen shop and there was no hint of awareness that any line had been crossed.
You're not the only one who's worried--here's an American Interest article about a recent Pew Research Center survey; the survey shows the rise of what some commentators call "negative partisanship", i.e. voting for Party X not because you like Party X's policies, but because you hate Party Y's policies (and the people who vote for Party Y). The author of the American Interest article wonders if the term "nihilistic partisanship" might not be more appropriate.
Posted by: Peter the Not-so-Great at Thu Jun 23 20:58:20 2016 (iohoY)
Then tell me, is this what you want conservatism to become?
This is actually one of the most pernicious and vile problems with political correctness. When you define racism down, when you declare vast swaths of discourse off limits and smear everyone who expresses a political disagreement with the label of bigot, then you actually normalize people like this guy, and in doing so give them a way to ooze into our national discourse.
It doesn't help when some of his critics are SO vile that he can look good by comparison to them.
To wit: It used to be that if someone was accused of being a racist and their retort was "Well, I'm against child rape! SO THERE!" that the public could point out that such a defense is not only a non-sequiter, but an utter straw man. Pretty much everyone was in agreement that having sex with children is wrong. Alas now we have his vocal critics amongst the current Sci-Fi luminaries, who can't quite denounce a NAMBLA advocate on one side and a whole bunch of people on the other side who have been victimized over the years and for whom Vox Day is, ironically an advocate who is not only affirming the fact that they have been hurt, but is hated by, and reciprocates the animosity of those who caused them so much suffering.
So yes. Some of the people that dislike us, and that Vox Day also dislikes are truly vile pieces of work. I would go so far as to call them monsters.That doesn't mean he should be allowed to define who we are or not be called out by us for espousing views unrelated to child abuse that we not only find abhorrent, but that the left has been slanderously ascribing to us for decades.
Just as many on the left have missed the point that 1984 is a cautionary tale and not a how to manual, so do many of Vox Day's apologists not quite grok the lessons of Faust (or Elric for that matter). The alt-right (which is actually old school, Wilsonian progressivism) currently has an undeniable energy and has attached itself like a suckerfish to the (valid IMHO) backlash against political correctness.
However, allying with them comes at too high a price, for these toxic remoras will either drown us by their weight of their odious views, or in the worst case, use us as a platform to spread and legitimize their loathesome beliefs. The results of that are not likely to be good, either politically, or morally. I for one won't have it on my conscience.
When fighting monsters it is important to not become one yourself, for that rather defeats the purpose of the exercise.
1
There wasn't much wrong in that linked transcript, on the part of Vox Day anyway. Or at least I can't see it. I stopped following his blog because he was much too racist a few years ago. It was in the blog posts. But the transcript seems fairly innocuous to me.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Wed Jun 1 10:36:31 2016 (XOPVE)
I was "what's the hullabaloo all about" until I got to the point where he said that the Holocaust wasn't important because it happened more than forty years before people today were born anyway. Or some such.
When the leftist starts sounding reasonable about Jews, it's generally a warning sign....
3
I found the whole thing rather tedious reading, but his point about the Holocaust seemed to be "young people don't give a damn about it any more, because to them it's ancient history". I'd say that's a true statement, poorly expressed. The point gets rather muddled when he gets into comparing how long people cared about different massacres and why this one stands out, but that just says that he's not good at live debate and went down a rat-hole.
Personally, I've never seen any reason to pay attention to what he says. The Leftists who created him deserved what they got, and I have no interest in watching them fight it out.
-j
Posted by: J Greely at Thu Jun 2 16:38:07 2016 (CLiR9)
4
This where I've been on Vox for a while. It doesn't matter that he represents a small faction of people when he is successfully presented as *the* face of Christian Conservatism.
5
Unfortunately, he's right about the Holocaust. A couple of decades ago I was having a conversation with a friend of mine, and WWII came up. And after a while, his young housmate interrupted us, and in all bright-eyed innocence asked us, "Who's Auschwitz?" He hadn't really been taught about WWII in school, and I can only imagine it's gotten worse since then.
It's seems strange that a generation whose go-to insult is to call someone Hitler has no idea who he actually was.
Posted by: Mauser at Fri Jun 3 19:23:50 2016 (5Ktpu)
6
I had much the same question asked of me ("What's an Auschwitz?") in a historical methods class...meaning that everyone in the class was a history major, indicating a passing interest in history.
The notion that there is a great lack of any understanding of the holocaust is, in fact true. However, my reading of VDs take on this troublesome development is that it is a good thing, which I find unnerving.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Fri Jun 3 23:44:28 2016 (/4jFR)
Ruminations Upon The Kobayashi Maru and Such
While there is a considerable amount of elation in certain quarters today....
....rest assured that the inevitable disappointment of these bird brains is unlikely to provide sufficient schadenfreude to compensate for the woe their efforts will bring upon us all.
1
Honestly, at this point it's fair to say that the Republican establishment isn't interested in the principles of the Republican electorate. In those circumstances, a Republican victory is almost meaningless anyway; sure, they might pass one or two pieces of symbolic legislation about the moral issues I don't care about in the first place, and the particular recipients of government boodle might be different, but it won't arrest the degeneration, or even meaningfully slow it at this point.
Cruz might have been more effective than Trump at carefully cutting away the fat and loose skin while preserving more of the healthy tissue. But he was always a long shot, simply because of that - the Republican elite feared the prospect of a Cruz administration more than they did of a Clinton one and acted accordingly. And at this point, things have progressed to the point that a scalpel is less appropriate than a chainsaw.
Trump has one tremendous virtue - he simply isn't afraid of the media. He's not worried about coming out with an unpopular opinion or saying something that will be twisted into an attack ad (or more like, he spits out so many of them that it's practically like chaff at this point - attacking him on policy is difficult because so much of it is obviously blather and media-bait that it's hard to hit anything solid.) And that defuses the Democrats' most powerful weapon. We've gone through years of overspending precisely because the Republicans are too afraid of media perceptions to exercise their power where they have it; against that, Trump is essentially immune.
He's got the potential for vast damage to the Republican party. A lot of that damage is necessary.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Thu May 5 14:31:05 2016 (v29Tn)
2
In the primaries you try to get the candidate you want. In the general you try to keep out the candidate you don't.
I am no Trump fan, but at this point, the only objective is to make sure that Hillary does not get into the White House.
As a plus, his policy position is completely random and subject to change a a whim, I am finding this preferable. Hillary, OTOH, Has A Plan, and we're not going to like it.
Posted by: Mauser at Thu May 5 20:18:41 2016 (5Ktpu)
- Trump sent a rabidly gay man to judge a beauty pageant (which naturally resulted in a national scandal). There is of course nothing wrong with being gay, just look at Milo. But his fitness to judge beauty pageants was obviously absent. His only qualification was that he belonged into the Trump empire. Ergo, Trump is motivated by tribalism rather than capabilities in personnel choices. Well, most people are like that. But there are limits.
- Before the JFK assasination thing, Trump's campaign tried to smear Cruz with having 5 mistresses.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Fri May 6 10:54:24 2016 (XOPVE)
4
The one argument in all of this that I do not understand is the "but Hillary is worse" argument. I have yet to be able to convince myself of that. The only statement that leaves room for favor in this regard is "we don't know what Trump will do, but we do know what Hillary will do, and it will be bad." As Brickmuppet pointed out, he reflexively responds as a despot, first thinking of his intention to apply absolute power. NOT ONCE during the campaign has expressed the intent to allow the Congress to do what it's supposed to do, at which point he will either veto or sign and enforce. His expressed intent is to MAKE the congress do what he wants it to do...IF he has to go through Congress.
I have believed that Hillary at her worst would be no worse than Barack Obama. In fact, I have believed that her cowardice and sense an self-preservation would lead her to hide behind Congress as much as possible, while Obama has acted in his own interest and then blamed Congress when people pointed out that his actions did not follow the law. In that regard, I predict that Trump will be *worse* than Obama.
Purely on the grounds of "pick your dictator", I feel that Trump is the worst of the lot, and Hillary will be marginally better than what we've had. I do not debate that she will be miserable; *practically* as bad as Obama, if you will. But then I further consider not only my own conscience, but where any possible gathering of opposition will be situated in four years. Everyone on the right to any degree will carry the stigma of Trump for decades. If doesn't even matter if he miraculously became a great President...he will never become a great man. His soul, if you believe in such things; his legacy, demeanor or aura if you prefer those concepts, is already black. He would have to accomplish something truly great to overcome this extreme handicap. He has shown himself to possess no trait, neither intelligence, nor decorum, nor bravery, nor character, nor wisdom, nor cunning (he has demonstrated that he purchases it in a consultant's bottle; he himself repudiates it and prefers blunder and deceit) that demonstrates any capability for greatness. He must blunder into it or have it handed to him.
Failing that, he will be the death sentence.
I can not vote for Trump, or Hillary. I see no benefit in one over the other, and I refuse to support either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party in this fiasco.
5
From the RKBA perspective, Trump is incomparably better than Hillary. It is a simple tie-breaker for me. Remember that a President is there to introduce legislation (such as Obamacare) and to appoint SCOTUS justices. I'm not looking forward to Hillary packing the court with libs like "the wise latina" (in her own words), who are sure to replay Keller. We have the ruinous taxes on ammo coming up that we sure to end before the court. So yeah... The two may be alike on most issues, but very different on few critical issues.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Fri May 6 16:08:23 2016 (XOPVE)
6
Pete, I'll grant that Trump has been consistent, if somewhat simplistic in a "not sure he knows what he's talking about" way. But I find it concerning that all of his properties ban concealed carry, even when it's not mandated or encouraged by local law. And then, of course, he named several anti-second amendment justices as good Supreme Court nominees, before claiming he was joking when this was pointed out, and switching his opinion to a Justice "just like Scalia." I don't trust him. He's lied about everything else; I don't see a reason to support him just because he gets some of the words right on one issue.
Ben's comment #4 is close to where I am, though I disagree that Clinton would be better. She is as much a narcisist as Trump, she is extraordinarily corrupt, hates the military men and women, and is a totalitarian through and through and doesn't much care about the nation. As Pete correctly points out she is worse, possibly far worse on 2A.
There is hope however.
Not a sane rational hope mind you, but the completely improbable notion that all of this madness means that Takumi Yanai is indeed a time traveller so we might get elf chicks out of the deal, in exchange for the death of the republic.
So...aside from America possibly electing Trump, is there any evidence to support this crazy idea? Well...at the intersection of desperation and special pleading there is this story about how the Russians appear to have been doing seminar calls and Tweetsorms for Trump.
Now, a Debbie Downer skeptic might ask, "What the hell does the involvement of Russia have to do with...that?"
Well, doomsayers...there's the little matter of Natalia Poklonskaya.
to wit...
Yeah...but it's all I've got in the way of cheer-uppery.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Sun May 8 20:49:23 2016 (/4jFR)
1
I've been called ******* nuts these evening when I patiently explained (for the 100th time) that I wasn't opposed to Donald Trump because I didn't like his toupee. It is not clear to me at all that Donald Trump is a superior choice, regardless of the letter he's choosing to represent himself as. And of course, if I don't believe Trump in the oval office is relatively superior to Clinton, or at least not to any compelling degree, then I just accept the long view and choose not to compromise my ethics. I can make a long-view argument that Hillary will be better for the country in the end, but I'm still not sure how comfortable I am with it.
2
I've been a Cruz supporter since shortly before Walker got out (and boy was Walker a disappointment), and I've come to the conclusion he'd have been among our best Presidents. Unfortunately, Cruz always had the deck stacked against him. The Elites on both sides of the isle politically and in the MSM have been routinely changing their shorts about the idea of him winning since Rubio bailed. They think they can control Trump better and that a loss by Trump (more likely to happen in their opinion) would discredit the other Republican factions and give them back the reigns of power. I think they are wrong on both counts, Trump won't be controllable in the way they think and he will do better in the general then people are currently willing to credit him, especially against Hillary or Bernie.
Unfortunately I think Trump managed to make opposing Ted personal to a significant segment of the rebellious voter population that Ted needs to build into a coalition. The 'Lying Ted' and 'Canadian' smears are going to stick, damaging Ted going forward and be difficult to shake. Ted also did himself no favors in the end by going for broke on this election by stacking his entire chance on rules lawyering the delegates and appearing to try to make truce with the establishment against Trump. It give him an unfortunate, and I believe inaccurate, air of being just another greedy politician.
Unfortunately I think Ted's, and the country's, best option at this point would be to get him on the Supreme Court as he won't be granted the advantages of being 'next in line' that other Repub candidates have had.
As for Trump, I do think he will be better then Hillary, though that is a low bar indeed. There is at least a chance he could surprise us and be honestly good or great, but no such chance for a known commodity like Hillary. Also, I have little doubt that with Trump we'll at least finally get our wall built. Whether it is a physical Great Wall of China or a virtual surveillance wall remains to be seen, but I have no doubt something will be built which will at least be an improvement over the last 30 years.
Posted by: StargazerA5 at Wed May 4 07:47:55 2016 (5YSpE)
3
I'm not particularly thrilled by Trump, but it's pretty obvious that he's not interested in fundamentally transforming the country like Obama and Hillary are.
And while I've flirted with the "burn it down" school of thought, in the end I remember that history is replete with examples that what comes later is more likely to be worse.
Posted by: Rick C at Wed May 4 17:57:45 2016 (FvJAK)
4
All that matters is keeping Hillary out of the White House. If that means suffering through one term of a Trump Presidency, so be it, and with the resulting embarrassment for the Republican Party, maybe they will learn their lesson and things will be better after that.
Posted by: Mauser at Wed May 4 22:01:46 2016 (5Ktpu)
5
I'll probably end up voting for some joke candidate like Gary Johnson or whomever the Libertarians put up as a clay pigeon, assuming they don't run an actual Satanist or the like, but between Clinton and Trump, I think I'd give the edge to Clinton. I've more confidence that she won't provoke a shooting war with the Chinese, and I have no such confidence in Trump. On the off chance that Clinton turns out to be even more frothingly incompetent at campaigning than she already has shown herself to be, and that orange clown ends up in the White House, he'll have such a collection of re-treads, adventurers, and sly-eyed con-men working for him that you might as well have a magic 8-ball running his policy desks.
Posted by: Mitch H. at Thu May 5 08:56:58 2016 (jwKxK)
6
That's about where I am, Mitch H. Johnson won't win; I honestly don't think Trump has a change in heck, either. But, Hillary is a very easy target. And while I generally don't support the idea that standing in opposition is better than compromising to win, that's the way I'm leaning this year.
7
I don't want to get into a fight in the comments here so this is the last I'll mention it, but you are advocating for malice over incompetence. The latter seems better from where I'm sitting.
Posted by: Rick C at Thu May 5 10:17:34 2016 (ECH2/)
8
Oh...While I typed, the conversation was down here.
Yeah, this is a mess.
I've gotta say that I'm generally inclined to lean towards incompetence than malice. Where it gets complicated is when one throws a malevolent incompetent into the mix as that messes up the equation...and I'm not sure where the greater value of either characteristic lies in this set.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Thu May 5 11:04:50 2016 (/4jFR)
9
I mean, we've got one person who says "I like veteranss, I just don't want street vendors in front of my classy, snobby building" (which somehow gets turned into "I hate veterans"), again, compared to someone who went out of her way to be rude and demeaning to her Secret Service detail. I can feel that Trump will be less bad for the country while still not actually liking him.
Posted by: Rick C at Thu May 5 14:32:23 2016 (ECH2/)
10
My rule since the Eighties has been "I only vote for Republicans because Democrats destroy the country faster". I have yet to see evidence that undermines this theory.
Now, if Trump could actually take California in the general election, it would be worth voting for him to watch the head explosions. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter who I vote for.
-j
Posted by: J Greely at Thu May 5 15:15:28 2016 (CLiR9)
11
Clinton and Trump... it's like they split Nixon and LBJ each down the middle and set all the dials to 11. Clinton got the Machiavellian evil, Trump took the sour populist hatred of the establishment, both of them took a fair helping of petty self-dealing corruption, while Trump ran away with LBJ's incandescent crassness and, I fear, foreign-policy pugnacious recklessness.
After eight years of Obama, either one of them will cement our status as an elective dictatorship. Domestically I suspect it'll be a kleptocratic congealed drift towards the entitlements/debt cliff - whether the congressional Republicans lose their majority or not, the only real difference will be whether Congress joins in on the petty cultural war harassment, or continues to leave it to an increasingly lawless executive. And anyone who thinks Donald Trump has the bureaucratic ability or inclination to keep any of that from happening hasn't been paying attention. Either he keeps within the letter of the regulatory apparatus (I hesitate to refer to it as "law" anymore) and gets rolled by the bulletproof, amorphous eternal bureaucracy, or he tries to play despot and lays about with the firing stick, whereupon he's going to find out just how little traction rule by temper tantrum really has in the face of a skilled and self-interested apparat.
Posted by: Mitch H. at Thu May 5 15:52:04 2016 (jwKxK)
However, this discussion by Milo Yiannopoulos and some less exuberantly gay fellow about current political trends and especially political correctness is well worth an hour and a half of your time.
I obviously don't agree with Milo's sanguine take on Trump, particularly regarding his proposals about libel law, but this is a very good, thoughtful, and topical discussion.
One troubling kerfuffle that is getting short shrift outside of right leaning blogs. involves a small time author who got cut by his publisher because his villains motivations were impolitic. This says more about the publisher than anything else, and it would be a non story, if not for the reports of the very pervasive nature of a monoculture in a lot of the publishing industry.
One argument that I hear regarding stories like this is that it is not news and there is nothing wrong with it because the 'policing' is being done by a corporation and it's not a government doing the censoring, so it's not actually censorship.
By that logic, the Hayes Code and the Comics Code Authority which were instituted not by the government, but by trade associations and agreements between corporations were just peachy keen. Even the Hollywood Blacklist, though initially a reaction to contempt of congress citations, was not a government pogrom but was initiated voluntarily by the studios. If that sort of thing appeals to you then fine, enjoy your homeowners association and live happily in your chosen dystopia. However, for the rest of us, when virtual monopoly that controls a good chunk of public discourse silences viewpoints the effect can be the same in many ways as a government doing it. The differences can be reduced further when these entities quietly collude with the government in suppressing viewpoints. Of course, having the government barge in and force these entities to allow the speech they are banning would unambiguously be a 1st amendment violation. However, the situation as it is developing is deeply troubling. Thus it is wise to ensure that people are aware of these things and encourage alternate venues for online socialization and different outlets for publication.
Even Those On The Side Of The Angels
who take too many shortcuts in pursuit of their goals often end up in a different place than they intended serving different ends than they hoped and may find that they have merely replaced the monsters they sought to vanquish.
First, the thing about the hard left is that while they will form a circle and defend themselves from outside attacks no matter the truth of them, they will form a circular firing squad if they see dissent within the ranks. If you can prod them in the right direction, the fireworks can be spectacular.
That's why they haven't ever managed to completely take over; they are all too ready to eat their own.
Second, those dates for the rise and fall of empires are, basically, garbage. The Roman Entity lasted from 509 BC (the founding of the Republic) to 1453 AD (the last days of the Byzantine Empire). That's nearly two thousand years. Things were rather a mess after the Fourth Crusade in 1204, but even if we discount the Byzantine successor states and the re-establishment (and entirely ignoring the Holy Roman Empire and modern Italy) that's still 1700 years, not ~200.
For Greece he's only chosen the Hellenistic period, ignoring both the Classical and Roman periods (which three periods were culturally a single continuous civilization) and the whole Byzantine period, as well as the earlier Mycenaean and Minoan cultures (fair enough in that case; they essentially disappeared in the Bronze Age Collapse), and also the Archaic period, which presaged Classical Greece, and was a not inconsiderable, if rather loosely-organised, state. The Archaic period ended with the Persian invasion - but the Greeks won that war, so that's hardly a reason to ignore it.
For Britain, he chooses the dates of 1700 to 1950. But while the Acts of Union were passed in 1707, the kingdoms were united under a common monarch since 1603, and a unified England goes back to 1042 - albeit with one or two (or three) hiccups over the centuries. Picking the dates for the rise and fall of Britain and ignoring both Elizabeths seems problematic.
I'm no expert on the Ottoman Empire, but given that it was one of the Central Powers in WWI, while it was certainly in decline by then (and had been for quite some time) I think an expiration date of 1570 is stretching the truth a little.
I think the predictive power of his model is limited at best.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sun Jan 3 09:49:09 2016 (PiXy!)
2
I've been arguing with a Bernie Sanders supporter for four days. It really brings home how a person with no grounding in civics, physics, or logic would vote. Not that I'm saying all Bernie supporters are like that. I'm sure some of him actually like his record, or maybe just look at the rest of the field and say "what the hell." But this is a kool-aid drinker. This guy is one of the ones who thought Obama was Jesus, and now thinks it may actually be Bernie.
It's an incredibly superficial discussion compared to the content of this blog post, which was fascinating and thoughtful.
Oh, and I was going to post something similar to what Pixy did, although I think the discussion of when one would say Britain became truly representative in nature is debatable. Interesting and worth the discussion, of course.
3
Pixy, you are in Australia. You're looking at the chart upside down.
Actually....
The chart and some made from it has been cropping up lately (usually unattributed) and has been referenced occasionally with the chants of "DOOM!" and "Lets cast aside the rules and go down fighting".
I think the possibility of a general collapse is greater than many suppose and more worrisome since the sort of enlightenment we grew out of is rare. However I specifically wanted to use the pre-and post Rubicon Rome (and the omission of Venice) to debunk the notion that the 200-250 year lifespan is inevitable.
On the other hand, all your points are valid Pixy. These are all specific political arraignments more akin to nation states than civilization itself. I swear I had one or two sentences in there quibbling with Spain (which was bankrupt and virtually a spent force after the Armada but did not loose meaningful territory until the 1800s) and the UK, for which we probably should start the clock after the Fall of Cromwell though I've heard other places refer to "About 1700" for the start of the Empire...and I'd really draw the curtain just a bit later (at the Suez Crisis) for the point where keeping it up truly became impossible.
The point you make regarding Eastern Rome is well taken and a lot of people agree with it. Although Byzantium was a distinct entity it was arguably only a bit more so than the Republic/Empire divide for Rome. On the other hand, as I point out, Rome reinvented itself and was certainly Rome before and after the Rubicon.
With the exception of the Western Roman Empire none of those ended with the sort of calamitous dark age we associate with civilizational collapse (and even the chaos of the post Roman period is overblown) so civilizational collapse does not mean to him what it does to most people.
The Mamelukes he mentions (as opposed to three other Mamelukes) were a sort of predecessor to the Ottomans trying to rebuild the Caliphate and based in Cairo...they were succeeded by what we call the Ottomans, though that is a western term and it refers to several dynasties. They were kind of like Spain in that they pretty much were a zombie empire after a debt crisis and military reversal, though I'd put the date at or around the siege of Vienna for their decline.
Persia should not be on the list at all.
Sir Glub makes some good points, but that chart, while probably intended to be a conversation starter is counterproductive. Using the criteria he does you could (with a few exceptions like the Yuan) be talking about Chinese dynasties but that wouldn't fit neatly into the time span Glub has chosen. On the other hand, using numbers that are not very close to the current age of the U.S.A. ie: 100-300 years would involve a TL;DR of a list.
No nation lasts forever but predestination is not a meaningful influence upon history unless a citizenry chooses to believe in it and give up.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Sun Jan 3 14:13:37 2016 (AaBUm)
4
The Tokugawa Shogunate began in 1603 and ended in 1868, 265 years.
5
China is a good counter-example - dynasties changed, but there's been a recognisable Chinese political entity for 4000 years. Egypt is another counter example - 2800 years of self-rule across 31 dynasties (with a couple of Persian incursions and a mild case of Sea Peoples), and nearly 1000 years of Greco-Roman rule.
France in the late 18th and 19th centuries is an example in the other direction - the government was overthrown from without or within 9 to 12 times (depending on what you count) but at the end of it all, it was still France.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, though.... 226 years.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sun Jan 3 18:28:47 2016 (PiXy!)
6
Anyway, I'd argue that Western civilisation is a single entity; and it's been continuously flourishing at least since 1543 despite the best efforts of various categories of barbarian along the way.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sun Jan 3 18:39:19 2016 (PiXy!)
7
Although Russia cannot hold a handle to China in this regard, it existed as a nation since 988 A.D. or so, and continues to exist today. Although the Romanov dynasty only lasted for 234 years, the preceding dynasty, Ryuriks, lasted for 736 years (through the Mongol occupation, natch), and the Communist rule lasted for 74 years. So there is quite a range of numbers to pick.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Tue Jan 5 00:10:20 2016 (XOPVE)
That's only really true if you're taking the Duchy of Moscow to be "Russia". Russia in that era was like Germany, a lot of independent city-states who spoke the same language.
A lot of those city-states were annihilated by the Mongols and that left a power vacuum which the Duchy of Moscow capitalized (heh) on, but modern Russia as we know it doesn't go back that far AFAIK. I'd put the start at Peter the Great, myself.
9
Yep, which goes back to how arbitrary it becomes. Except in cases like the fall of Rome or the Bronze Age Collapse, you have a lot of leeway about where you draw your lines, and your conclusions are only as good as your justifications for those lines.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wed Jan 6 05:52:21 2016 (PiXy!)
10
Jaques Barzun explicitly argued in From Dawn to Decadence that European or "Western" culture terminated with the long world war, and that we're in the early stages of a post-Western cultural moment. That's a very Eurocentric point of view - he clearly didn't consider Americans to be part of "Western civilization" - but that list of "civilizations" or even "nations" is pretty dubious. There was a Persia of some sort intermittently for two thousand years, a Rome of some sort for about as long, and Russia existed before the Romanovs and continued under communist bastards after the Romanovs were exterminated. Culture is upstream from politics and all that.
And Japan's been in cultural existence forever and aye - the Tokugawa were a regime, not the nation.
Posted by: Mitch H. at Thu Jan 7 16:01:36 2016 (jwKxK)
If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.
After many moves, I reside now in the town of my birth.
And yet...
Today I find myself taking the pledge above; a pledge that in the country of my birth would have been unimaginable due to its redundancy.
"Fundamental transformation" indeed.
The United States of America is one of a few nations that is not defined by an ethnicity. In fact it is not even defined by geography. The U.S.A. is an experiment in facilitating a set of ideals. Take those away and the nation is no more, no matter what the map, or the U.S. code may say.
In October, then FEC Vice Chairwoman Ann M. Ravel promised that she would renew a push to regulate online political speech following a deadlocked commission vote that would have subjected political videos and blog posts to the reporting and disclosure requirements placed on political advertisers who broadcast on television. On Wednesday, she will begin to make good on that promise.
There are thoughts on this by other far more eloquent and prolific than I here, here, and here,
Hobby Space News of the commercial space industry A Babe In The Universe Rather Eclectic Cosmology Encyclopedia Astronautica Superb spacecraft resource The Unwanted Blog Scott Lowther blogs about forgotten aerospace projects and sells amazingly informative articles on the same. Also, there are cats. Transterrestrial Musings Commentary on Infinity...and beyond! Colony WorldsSpace colonization news! The Alternate Energy Blog It's a blog about alternate energy (DUH!) Next Big Future Brian Wang: Tracking our progress to the FUTURE. Nuclear Green Charles Barton, who seems to be either a cool curmudgeon, or a rational hippy, talks about energy policy and the terrible environmental consequences of not going nuclear Energy From Thorium Focuses on the merits of thorium cycle nuclear reactors WizBang Current events commentary...with a wiz and a bang The Gates of Vienna Tenaciously studying a very old war The Anchoress insightful blogging, presumably from the catacombs Murdoc Online"Howling Mad Murdoc" has a millblog...golly! EaglespeakMaritime security matters Commander Salamander Fullbore blackshoe blogging! Belmont Club Richard Fernandez blogs on current events BaldilocksUnderstated and interesting blog on current events The Dissident Frogman French bi-lingual current events blog The "Moderate" VoiceI don't think that word means what they think it does....but this lefty blog is a worthy read nonetheless. Meryl Yourish News, Jews and Meryls' Views Classical Values Eric Scheie blogs about the culture war and its incompatibility with our republic. Jerry Pournell: Chaos ManorOne of Science fictions greats blogs on futurism, current events, technology and wisdom A Distant Soil The website of Colleen Dorans' superb fantasy comic, includes a blog focused on the comic industry, creator issues and human rights. John C. Wright The Sci-Fi/ Fantasy writer muses on a wide range of topics. Now Read This! The founder of the UK Comics Creators Guild blogs on comics past and present. The Rambling Rebuilder Charity, relief work, roleplaying games Rats NestThe Art and rantings of Vince Riley Gorilla Daze Allan Harvey, UK based cartoonist and comics historian has a comicophillic blog! Pulpjunkie Tim Driscoll reviews old movies, silents and talkies, classics and clunkers. Suburban Banshee Just like a suburban Leprechaun....but taller, more dangerous and a certified genius. Satharn's Musings Through TimeThe Crazy Catlady of The Barony of Tir Ysgithr アニ・ノート(Ani-Nouto) Thoughtful, curmudgeonly, otakuism that pulls no punches and suffers no fools. Chizumatic Stephen Den Beste analyzes anime...with a microscope, a slide rule and a tricorder. Wonderduck Anime, Formula One Racing, Sad Girls in Snow...Duck Triumphalism Beta Waffle What will likely be the most thoroughly tested waffle evah! Zoopraxiscope Too In this thrilling sequel to Zoopraxiscope, Don, Middle American Man of Mystery, keeps tabs on anime, orchids, and absurdities. Mahou Meido MeganekkoUbu blogs on Anime, computer games and other non-vital interests Twentysided More geekery than you can shake a stick at Shoplifting in the Marketplace of Ideas Sounds like Plaigarism...but isn't Ambient IronyAll Meenuvians Praise the lathe of the maker! Hail Pixy!!
