Laughed out loud during last week’s Mincing Rascals during your discussion about state lawmakers not wanting to go to Springfield during their summer break to address new legislation. I especially enjoyed Austin Berg’s riposte, “Have you BEEN to Springfield?” I moved here almost 5 years ago, and it really summed up my feelings for the place.
Regarding the question of to Kass or not to Kass, it doesn’t really matter much to me, but at least Eric has never negated his fondness for commenting on Kass by pompously proclaiming that he isn’t worth commenting on. By contrast, last week on Neil Steinberg’s blog he wrote an excoriating 2400 word manifesto about Kass in which he repeatedly proclaimed that Kass wasn’t worth paying attention to! When I first read the post, it had already elicited 34 comments (about six times the average that would comment on EGD) and a good number of them echoed the “Kass isn’t worth a second of one’s time” tune…..even as they’re all investing considerable time, energy and word space reading and writing about him! Since I regularly post comments on Steinberg’s blog (under the name Bruno McGee), I decided to send one out that pointed out this possibly embarrassing irony. For some reason, Neil didn’t publish it.
Eric, I’d like your take on the tribunes august 9 front page article about the FBI raid on trumps place in Florida. The article seems poorly written and relies on trump for most of its input.
One more indication of a paper going into the toilet
The choice for prisoner swap is too one sided. I would vote for including Fogel and make swap now. That is not an option and makes this a forced choice.
Your sister Karen nailed it. I have a sister named Karen and I feel the same. The difference is that the song names are annoying, but the Karen comments are hurtful.
Funny, I like all the visual tweets in exactly the same order in which they are currently polling. (Tue 9:45 AM). That's never happened for me for any other your other ToTW polls.
I have not been able to listen to the song GLORIA ever since I watched backstage activity prior to Trump’s Jan 6 rally and heard it blaring out of loud speakers to rev up the crowd.
I am having a hard time thinking about the current prisoner swap discussion. In the past swaps were of like kind (equally culpable and pursuing national objectives) - POW's and spies. The numbers weren't necessarily equal, but the type and actions were the same. But the exchange of legitimate criminal prisoners for 'wrongfully detained' people is relatively recent, highly politicized, and erratically reported. The Foley Foundation estimates that there are 67 wrongfully detained Americans in 20 countries. They believe the number may be higher. So, other than politics and media interest, what makes Griner special? What put Griner and Whelan ahead of Fogel? If it is ok to swap a criminal for someone, then why not some other favor or form of payment? Who makes the policy and how do they think about it? How much weight is put on 'they knew the risk, or should have'? If we swap a legitimate criminal, are we agreeing that they were wrongfully or harshly imprisoned?
There are also a couple of thousand other Americans held in foreign prisons for a variety of crimes which apparently do not fit the criteria for sympathy. When does the 'harsh punishment' or 'poor conditions' rule kick in?
None of this is as obvious to me as the media seem to think it is.
Pull quote on page A4 of today's Wall Street Journal: "'They even broke into my safe!' the former president said in a statement." But is this accurate? Wouldn't the truth be that he exclaimed that in a statement? Or even that he exclaimed that in an exclamation?
An effective counter to the idea that left-wingers are more violent than right-wingers might be for them to stop taking to the streets at every perceived slight or social injustice. Yelling and screaming in the streets for a passionate cause has provided cover to violence on both sides, and by the way, I do include property damage under the violence umbrella -- it can be a very personal violation. Perhaps rather than the constant street demonstrations, they could attempt to demonstrate how our system of government could be used as intended to effect changes approved by the majority, rather than efforts to pervert it at every opportunity for short-term tactical gains.
Semantics. I think extreme violence and violent extremism are different things. The former is over the top violence, as typical of action movies, violent extremism is violence in the service of an extreme position. Shooting a doctor who provides abortions is both extreme violence and violence in the service of an extreme point of view (opposing abortion isn't the extreme view; feeling justified in murdering the practitioner is an extreme view); blowing up a government building because of Ruby Ridge and Waco is both violent and an extreme view; believing the federal government lacks the right to own land is an extreme view; anti-Semitic chants in Charlottesville remain an extreme view. On the other hand, believing that we should stop killing black people is NOT an extreme view. Looting did indeed disgust me, as well as the violence, but protesting abuse of black people is a good and just cause. I think it's safe to say that the right is the majority stockholder in violent extremism.
The Mar-a-Lago search warrant looks like it was narrowly drawn to look for materials that should have been turned over to the National Archives. It seems like the NA and the DOJ were not sure that they had gotten all of the materials returned, felt like they were getting the run around from Trump's lawyers and ran out of patience. They must believe that there are gaps in the materials that were sent in the spring (the 15 boxes) or some other suspicion. Lots of yak on the news about Top Secret national security materials, but I don't know what that would be. What I can imagine is that there are call logs or meeting notes, which might be interesting or totally mundane. Or there was nothing else.
The problem for the DOJ is that they are in a political box. They have a right and a duty to remain silent about their investigation. But silence will lead to speculation and accusations from all sides and increase the political implications. Clarification might help in the short run but might increase political pressure from anyone that didn't like the information. Inevitable leaks will only make things worse. We can only hope that they close the investigation or make indictments sooner rather than later.
Thank you for finally mentioning your sister Karen and her unfortunate name. My heart goes out to her and all the other Karens out there. As a Debbie (i.e. Debbie Downer), I feel their pain.
Laughed out loud during last week’s Mincing Rascals during your discussion about state lawmakers not wanting to go to Springfield during their summer break to address new legislation. I especially enjoyed Austin Berg’s riposte, “Have you BEEN to Springfield?” I moved here almost 5 years ago, and it really summed up my feelings for the place.
Regarding the question of to Kass or not to Kass, it doesn’t really matter much to me, but at least Eric has never negated his fondness for commenting on Kass by pompously proclaiming that he isn’t worth commenting on. By contrast, last week on Neil Steinberg’s blog he wrote an excoriating 2400 word manifesto about Kass in which he repeatedly proclaimed that Kass wasn’t worth paying attention to! When I first read the post, it had already elicited 34 comments (about six times the average that would comment on EGD) and a good number of them echoed the “Kass isn’t worth a second of one’s time” tune…..even as they’re all investing considerable time, energy and word space reading and writing about him! Since I regularly post comments on Steinberg’s blog (under the name Bruno McGee), I decided to send one out that pointed out this possibly embarrassing irony. For some reason, Neil didn’t publish it.
Eric, I’d like your take on the tribunes august 9 front page article about the FBI raid on trumps place in Florida. The article seems poorly written and relies on trump for most of its input.
One more indication of a paper going into the toilet
The choice for prisoner swap is too one sided. I would vote for including Fogel and make swap now. That is not an option and makes this a forced choice.
Your sister Karen nailed it. I have a sister named Karen and I feel the same. The difference is that the song names are annoying, but the Karen comments are hurtful.
Funny, I like all the visual tweets in exactly the same order in which they are currently polling. (Tue 9:45 AM). That's never happened for me for any other your other ToTW polls.
I have not been able to listen to the song GLORIA ever since I watched backstage activity prior to Trump’s Jan 6 rally and heard it blaring out of loud speakers to rev up the crowd.
I am having a hard time thinking about the current prisoner swap discussion. In the past swaps were of like kind (equally culpable and pursuing national objectives) - POW's and spies. The numbers weren't necessarily equal, but the type and actions were the same. But the exchange of legitimate criminal prisoners for 'wrongfully detained' people is relatively recent, highly politicized, and erratically reported. The Foley Foundation estimates that there are 67 wrongfully detained Americans in 20 countries. They believe the number may be higher. So, other than politics and media interest, what makes Griner special? What put Griner and Whelan ahead of Fogel? If it is ok to swap a criminal for someone, then why not some other favor or form of payment? Who makes the policy and how do they think about it? How much weight is put on 'they knew the risk, or should have'? If we swap a legitimate criminal, are we agreeing that they were wrongfully or harshly imprisoned?
https://jamesfoleyfoundation.org/american-hostage-advocacy
There are also a couple of thousand other Americans held in foreign prisons for a variety of crimes which apparently do not fit the criteria for sympathy. When does the 'harsh punishment' or 'poor conditions' rule kick in?
None of this is as obvious to me as the media seem to think it is.
Pull quote on page A4 of today's Wall Street Journal: "'They even broke into my safe!' the former president said in a statement." But is this accurate? Wouldn't the truth be that he exclaimed that in a statement? Or even that he exclaimed that in an exclamation?
Your response to Jim F was brilliant!
An effective counter to the idea that left-wingers are more violent than right-wingers might be for them to stop taking to the streets at every perceived slight or social injustice. Yelling and screaming in the streets for a passionate cause has provided cover to violence on both sides, and by the way, I do include property damage under the violence umbrella -- it can be a very personal violation. Perhaps rather than the constant street demonstrations, they could attempt to demonstrate how our system of government could be used as intended to effect changes approved by the majority, rather than efforts to pervert it at every opportunity for short-term tactical gains.
Semantics. I think extreme violence and violent extremism are different things. The former is over the top violence, as typical of action movies, violent extremism is violence in the service of an extreme position. Shooting a doctor who provides abortions is both extreme violence and violence in the service of an extreme point of view (opposing abortion isn't the extreme view; feeling justified in murdering the practitioner is an extreme view); blowing up a government building because of Ruby Ridge and Waco is both violent and an extreme view; believing the federal government lacks the right to own land is an extreme view; anti-Semitic chants in Charlottesville remain an extreme view. On the other hand, believing that we should stop killing black people is NOT an extreme view. Looting did indeed disgust me, as well as the violence, but protesting abuse of black people is a good and just cause. I think it's safe to say that the right is the majority stockholder in violent extremism.
Politifact rated mass killing ( at least shootings) political affiliation inconsistent or irrelevant in most cases https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/feb/23/claudia-tenney/do-many-mass-shooters-end-being-democrats-rep-tenn/
Part of the problem is we're only assessing "successful" killings, not intended. Most mass killings and terrorist attacks get thwarted.
Good; I can still enjoy the versions by Them and U2
The Mar-a-Lago search warrant looks like it was narrowly drawn to look for materials that should have been turned over to the National Archives. It seems like the NA and the DOJ were not sure that they had gotten all of the materials returned, felt like they were getting the run around from Trump's lawyers and ran out of patience. They must believe that there are gaps in the materials that were sent in the spring (the 15 boxes) or some other suspicion. Lots of yak on the news about Top Secret national security materials, but I don't know what that would be. What I can imagine is that there are call logs or meeting notes, which might be interesting or totally mundane. Or there was nothing else.
The problem for the DOJ is that they are in a political box. They have a right and a duty to remain silent about their investigation. But silence will lead to speculation and accusations from all sides and increase the political implications. Clarification might help in the short run but might increase political pressure from anyone that didn't like the information. Inevitable leaks will only make things worse. We can only hope that they close the investigation or make indictments sooner rather than later.
Thank you for finally mentioning your sister Karen and her unfortunate name. My heart goes out to her and all the other Karens out there. As a Debbie (i.e. Debbie Downer), I feel their pain.