How about this celebratory tide?

zombie contentions – A Modest Alternative Perspective

Here, I’m just pointing out that the diversity of our cultural reality is something I enjoy and that sometimes it’s better not to get swept up in a morally questionable celebratory tide.

Just asking – also an excuse to re-post an old favorite:

Hitler dead

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

17 comments on “How about this celebratory tide?

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. @ CK MacLeod:
    There is a certain perfect balance to our mutual taunting. I think my positive affirmation link caused the exact effect on you that your Dalai Lama link had on me and I think we need to credit ourselves. It was truly masterful what we did there, and so perfectly useless that I imagine a whole flock of dead Zen priests cheering us on with wild applause.

  2. Also…
    I was going to say that I get the most credit for going first and establishing the ridiculousness, but then I realized how much more genius it took to retaliate so perfectly and how much cool it took for you not to explain what you were doing. The question is did you have any faith that I would realized the move you had made, or did you think maybe I would just react to the annoyance?

  3. @ Scott Miller:
    Mmmm, I figgered you’d know that I knew that you knew that I’d know you knew, just as deep down and up above you knew that I’d watch more of your video than I might have, waiting for the punchline that never came, its never-appearing of course being the punchline.

  4. Some of those are actually funny. I don’t know, though. I think you guys managed to somehow trivialize my original Zen-ness in a way that makes me want to do the opposite-same thing by pointing out that there was an innocent victim involved in the incident that I have until now refused to reference and that everyone’s glossing over of her death reveals just how much crap is involved in the we fight terrorists as a way to free women idea. And if you want to prove that you understand the game here, you will only retaliate with something even more deep-thought-ish, not with some comment about my assumption being wrong.

  5. @ Scott Miller:
    What innocent victim? I’ve kinda lost the thread, but I thought the narrative had been amended to include no dead women, though one injured. I could be wrong.

    It’s an interesting question for those who support raids like this one and drone warfare, how many deaths of non-dangerous people you would be willing to absorb in pursuit of your mission, but there’s no hard rule. What is clear is that the two main alternatives under discussion in the wide world aren’t “kill ’em all, let god sort ’em out” vs. “pure pacifism,” but the former vs. “we must strive to leave the non-dangerous unharmed, but we can’t in a democratic state require our citizens to suffer and die in order to protect hostages absolutely, not least because it would greatly encourage more hostage-making and -taking.”

  6. I win the game. You blinked. Of course, you only lost because you’re tired, so it’s no real victory. At least you lost well and that means I will spare you from my New-Age meanness.

  7. Scott Miller wrote:

    At least you lost well and that means I will spare you from my New-Age meanness.

    Nah, go ahead. It will help those playing along at home to follow the action.

    And, yes, I am kinda tired from a long day’s blogging into night, after months off. Trying to get those opinionating muscles loosened up again. It was either this, or call the IRS and hope to work out a new arrangement… or plow the back 40… or…

    Anyway, you’re not the boss of me, so there.

  8. Scott Miller wrote:

    You got back in mid-season form so quickly.

    And I’m serious. That statement was a statement within a statement.
    CK MacLeod wrote:

    t will help those playing along at home to follow the action.

    CK just let me know that he could have won the game if he wanted to, but he didn’t want to because it meant playing by my rules.

  9. Scott Miller wrote:

    CK MacLeod wrote:
    Anyway, you’re not the boss of me, so there.

    You got back in mid-season form so quickly.

    You’re too kind as almost always – that is, except when you’re being a meanie.

    Any credit deserved goes to the frog and the Don and the three-eyed chief, who’ve been helping with my off-season workout regimen and keeping the flag waving.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins