I do not want to upset the sensitive soul who thinks that vaguely left centrist and our host Mr Zorn is too radical and that "President Trump" is still president, but I have news for all the MAGA anti-abortion types. You have been conned--the twice impeached, multi-indicted fraudster and sexual assailant Trump doesn't give a damn about abortion. He latched on to it as a tactic to get the rubes to vote for him, but now his lizard brain tells him what everyone knows--most Americans are not in favor of dictating to women about their bodies and are moved by the tragic consequences of overthrowing Dobbs in the red states--and has just chucked you overboard. Though he does thank you for the donations to pay his legal fees.
The Former Guy continues to duck answering the very simplest of questions about abortion. Today's version of his 'principles' was that states that want to have abortions will do so and states that don't won't. X-nay on the national ban because he knows (or someone told him) that it was not popular with the majority of the voters. It would be easier to find Waldo at the bottom of the Mariana Trench than to find a principle in The Former Guy.
He ducks it because what's left of his brain just can't come up with a rational defense of his rotten appointments to SCOTUS, who tipped the court over to anti-abortion insanity.
In addition to bloated salaries and consulting fees, WBEZ now repeats the same stories at least once an hour, has “pledge drives” or “membership drives” at what seem like monthly intervals, and runs a lot of ads for what once were ad-free broadcasts, but it still airs “Hidden Brain,” so there’s that.
I had no idea until this blog today that Katharine Lee Bates was a lesbian.
I don't care, because America the Beautiful is about the entire country, which is far more important than a rotten poem by a racist slave owner & lawyer who was actually against the 1st Amendment!
Considering how many people no longer care about who marries who now, I doubt there would be an attack on her over that. The attacks would come from the wing nuts claiming we shouldn't change the anthem due to tradition, except it wasn't made the National Anthem until 1931!
Garry, Yes! I would love for the Star Spangled Banner to be replaced with America the Beautiful. I had not thought about the authors. I more simply prefer the vision of wide-open spaces and nature over martial imagery.
"Informed news consumers tend to enjoy different points of view, even those that differ from their own." - That right there. I read conservative-leaning op-eds all the time, such as Brett Stephens and Ross Douthat and almost always disagree and roll my eyes and some of the bullshit they'll spew. But I'm happy to hear the perspective of those I disagree with. Obviously this doesn't apply to disingenuous propagandists and conspiracy theorists who spread vile racism and misogyny. Like, Alex Jones isn't a legit point of view, neither is Tucker Carlson.
Right on. I’ve found a fairly reliable litmus test to determine whether or not to read and consider someone’s opinion: if they make a living espousing a particular viewpoint without ever conceding a point to a thoughtful dissenter, or at least acknowledging that the dissent is reasonable, then they are poisonous and should be ignored. Eric easily passes that test. The problem is that it’s becoming difficult to find right-wing personalities that pass the test because most realize that MAGA means never admitting that you may be wrong.
Just look at what NBC tried with the poisonous (treasonous) Ronna McDaniel. "Conservative" USED to mean something. Supporting the Constitution, etc. MAGA means we lie, cheat, and steal to get money and power. Far far from conservative positions.
I think the girlfriend tweet was only moderately funny but the other four were hilarious. Hard to pick just one, but I did.
And anyone who defends the orange idiot in any way needs to take a hard look at themselves to determine just what kind of person they are. To quote a line from Joseph Welch during the McCarthy hearings in 1954: "have you no sense of decency?"
Regarding Steven K and South Park, the critic Bramesco takes offense because McFarland made fun of some of the same things many of us do. Yes, Seth McFarland that alt right superstar!
I think this more than underlines Steven K's thoughts. Though I consider myself right leaning, I make fun of the outrageousness spewed by both "sides." Then Bramesco goes on to demean point earning while taking a shot at the makers of South Park. Isn't that a point earning attempt itself? Here's that specific line: "saying much more about the people who created it than anything else."
Seth McFarlane does Family Guy. (and The Orville which is pretty explicitly liberal) South Park is Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who I generally find hit or miss on humor. If you are familiar with Parker and Stone's oft-stated views on the issues, a critic is entitled to take them into account when reviewing their work.
Ooh, absolute brain freeze on my part. Apologies on the McFarlane comment. And I love many of SP's takes precisely because they are hit or miss. Whether I agree or not, isn't important to me. It's the overall humor. I especially like comics brave enough to take on the controversial. Or maybe I just enjoy that they don't seem to be affected by the criticism.
To those dismayed about Francis Scott Key’s view of Black people, you should read the Lincoln Douglas debates for Abe’s views. And remember that only white men voted back then, so they didn’t have the ability to be ‘Liberal’ and get elected.
Excellent comment! Essentially what you are doing is pointing out different beliefs in different eras. In 1860, just what was a liberal or a conservative? Were there people, in 1860, fighting for abortion rights, gay rights, and many other common 21st century items? Don't forget that women also did not vote and it was still commonly thought that wives were the property of their husband's and mainly responsible for taking care of households. As I said- commonly thought. So just what was a liberal in 1860? Democrats are often accused today by MAGAs of being the defenders of slavery. Does that make 1860 Democrats the conservatives and 1860 Republicans the liberals? MAGAs would probably say I should have mouth washed out with soap for that- or worse.
Don't forget, Lincoln & the Republican's original plan was to buy all the slaves & free them. The dimbulb Southerners rejected that outright, thus they then lost their enslaved property without any compensation in just four more years.
Wow, I am afraid you and Nancy Meyer revealed your ignorance concerning the American Flag.
There is a code of flag etiquette that is pretty well known by folks who fly the flag or people with a military background.
Deviating from this etiquette is either a sign of ignorance or a form of protest. If you fly the flag upside down, you are either indicating great peril (especially on a ship) or you are protesting something. And if you are flying the flag upside down as a protest, you normally include the reason why. I saw some examples of flag burning, flags trampled on the ground and flags upside down in protest of the Vietnam War.
So any act that deviates from flag etiquette is by definition a form of ignorance or protest.
Since Nancy Meyer indicates no further protest message by “washing” the flag other than breaking flag etiquette, she falls into the ignorant class.
Do you remember or have you seen President John F. Kennedy’s funeral? The American Flag that was on his coffin was folded and presented as a sign of sympathy and respect to his widow.
This is repeated many times in many military funerals where the flag is presented to widows, widowers or parents. Ever have a comrade, relative or friend die in a military setting and have their coffin covered by the flag? My hunch is no concerning you and Nancy Meyer.
I do not support any criminal charges to people who use the flag in different ways as a form of protest. But I do retain my opinion on the issue.
For people who disrespect the flag with no protest in mind other than to troll their fellow Americans, I only have contempt.
By the way, if you really want to get a response on your flag washing…wash it in animal blood or maybe urine. You might get a greater response than just burning the flag.
Finally, are we suppose to find Norman Thomas some sort of respected authority on protest or the flag? I am still shaking my head on this post and response.
The flag code is unconstitutional. Because of the 1st Amendment, even SCOTUS said that, over the laws making flag burning illegal, despite the weird fact that same flag code states the proper way to dispose of a worn out flag is to burn it!
Well the first thing I would do with an old worn out flag is to stop flying it! I notice when a flag is out day and night (but not illuminated in the dark), in the rain and the snow, and is ragged and torn. This does not show the respect that the flag wavers think it does.
It is my understanding that the VFW holds flag burning ceremonies to deal with old and torn flags. I've always assumed that someone plays Taps on that occasion.
I suppose the code of flag etiquette is supported by servicemen who take an oath of enlistment or public officials the oath of office. I don't think the rest of us are expected to honor this code or should be criticized for use of the flag that may cause offense.
The flag represents all Americans.Quick correction, when I joined the military, I was drafted and did not enlist. I took an oath to the Constitution, not any oath of enlistment.
This is basically a code of “being polite with the flag”. So yes you are not required to be “polite”, but isn’t that better than being impolite?
As to criticism concerning “messing with the flag”, isn’t that an expectation?
If you burn a flag, you think you won’t get criticism? I think the expectation would likely be praise and criticism. Are you saying if you burn a flag, there should be no First Amendment right to criticize this act? Kind of declaring liberal martial law banning criticism of flag protests?
Ok, I am thoroughly in sympathy with the bashing of the former President, and I hope his upcoming encounters with the legal system result in massive enforced fines and some time in jail, but … I see very little analysis of why half the electorate ranges from grudgingly to rabidly supportive of him. Is it just that half the country is racist / fascist / nuts; or something more complicated? Will Trump’s going away, through the legal system or by just not living forever, change this? Given the existence of folks like De Santis, Abbott, Cruz, etc. I fear not. Never mind Trump—How does this get repaired?
I vote for "more complicated." Many of his supporters are surely completely round the bend. Many will vote for him because he can be relied upon to push a traditional conservative Republican agenda, as he did last time. (I could imagine Democrats doing likewise in the case of a Democratic Trump. If what's really important to you is policy, you care less about the vessel.) Many, including many of that last group, probably think he gets a bum rap from the hysterical mainstream media, and they warm to, as they see it, the entertaining cut of his jib. Many others, I suspect, like him because he represents a giant middle finger against what they see as so much bullshit -- the "progressive urban elite" that wants open borders, no guns, no police, no jails, no cars, no genders; spits on religion; teaches kids they're racists; and wants to control everyone's lives, like in the pandemic.
The good news, I think, is that a whole lot of people don't have very strong views, and they're subject to persuasion. How to repair? The Democratic Party needs to get its populist mojo back. I'm not one of those who thinks populism is such a dirty word when it amounts to doing the non-crazy stuff most people want and rejecting the actual crazy stuff that turns them off. The thing about a two-party system is that the rational thing for both parties to do is to strive to become a majority party. The GOP is falling down on that job. Trump's coalition isn't big enough, which, along with Dobbs, is a gift to Democrats. But they seem to lack the leadership, vision, acumen, and courage to run with these gifts.
Tar Trump with every unpopular Republican position -- he wants to end abortion, end social security, end Medicare, end health care, end unions, befoul the air and water, and hand gobs of money to rich assholes so they can bankroll his bail. Oh, he said something else? Yeah, he never tells a lie. Look who controls him. Tell a story that makes him the ringleader and/or useful idiot of an evil cabal, which he is. Steal ownership of his issues. When he was in charge, illegal immigration kept on coming like gangbusters, he just restricted *legal* immigration of top-level people in tech and health that benefits our economy and keeps us strong, so they're going to other countries instead. Dumb. He wants to weaken American defense and national security. He wants to defund the police when it comes to the police who go after rich tax cheats. He wants to replace unionized police with rent-a-cops. He doesn't want to go after terrorists who mean to harm us, and did deals with the Taliban. He's for inflation, which under his stupid trade ideas, would increase one gazillion percent. What's worst, though, is that he has no honor. He spits on honor, on American heroes. He resents them because he was a draft-dodger who never had an ounce of courage or patriotic feeling in his life. He doesn't care about this country or what it stands for or anything but his own stupid fat ass. He cheats his way through life and cheated his way through his presidency, and, if he doesn't get his way, he throws a lethal riot and holds up the Bible, which, by rights, should burst into flames in his greasy grasp.
The "courage" piece requires a shitload of Sister Souljah moments that puts the radical left in its place, the fringe. It worked for Clinton and can work again. When you're out of step, when you really are going too far, you've got to forcefully show that that's not you. That means a whole lot more than saying "fund the police" at the state of the union.
My "word cloud" for reclaiming Democratic populist mojo would include God, country, freedom, service, prosperity, opportunity, fair shot, common sense, little guy. I don't know. Just spit-balling.
Shelley Riskin—-I think that the layoffs at WBEZ portend a very dark future for local journalism, when you combine those actions with the decimation of the still-trying-to-be-outstanding WTTW Chicago Tonight. Last year the PBS/WTTW powers-that-be kicked CT off its long-time 7 pm nightly time slot, reducing its hour format to 30 minutes and broadcasting instead at 10 pm. Just a short time after that they went back to 5:30 pm, still at 30 minutes, and reduced its nightly presence to just Mondays and Tuesdays. Black Voices and Hispanic Voices were moved to Wednesdays and Thursdays, but were not general Chicago news (besides, why not do Jewish Voices? Asian-American Voices? etc;) Thank goodness Fridays continued with Chicago Week in Review, hosted by the outstanding Paris Schutz. The writing was on the wall. Their rich coverage of our city was sharply curtailed, from the arts to the neighborhoods to political, environmental and other news.
A valiant effort was made (by the excellent team of co-hosts Paris Schutz and Brandis Freeman, and such stellar team members as Amanda Vinicki, Nick Blumberg , Heather Cherone, Angel Idowu, etc;) to continue their outstanding reporting. But sure enough, the consequences are beginning: Paris Schutz has now resigned after 20 years with the station. This is a devastating and totally unnecessary loss of one of the best interviewers and on-camera people that Chicago has ever had! (Who knows if Schutz will even stay in Chicago?) What does WTTW think they’re doing? In my opinion, it’s the beginning of the end for CT, and along with WBEZ, accelerates the slow slide to minimal broadcasting of local news. SO sad.
This is insane, but it turns out, if you want to sue DJT's failing company & its website, the company requires you to sue it in the Argentinian courts of Buenos Aires!
Went to your “Every person in this room is paying more for health care because of Joe Fucking Lieberman.” link. Hadn't heard of Crooked Media (staying strong on not joining X), but chuckled when I googled the two founders (both Obama speechwriters). Wiki: "Jon Favreau, not to be confused with filmmaker Jon Favreau" and "John Lovett, not to be confused with comedienne Jon Lovitz". :) Was looking for the "Every person in this room is paying more for EVERYTHING because of..." link.
Crooked Media, the parent company of the Pod Save America podcast, was founded by Jon Favreau and Jon Lovett, who is a comedian as well as a speechwriter turned podcaster. Highly recommended for all who view Trump, correctly, as an existential threat to the USA. What on earth is there to "chuckle at" about that? De mortuis nil nisi bonum and all that, but I strongly dislike many of Lieberman actions and policies, from his damaging effect on the ACA to the last No Labels grift, fortunately now moribund.
The problem is that Eric and his objector are talking apples and oranges. I hate stereotyping. I have a hard time coming up with groups where all the members are the same and believe exactly the same things. It's why I don't identify with any particular political party. Both have too many items with which I disagree. Both will tell you that you can't be a good member if you disagree with just one item. I'm quite sure there are Republicans that enjoy sex. Based on the life experiences of Trump, it's not just sex for procreation. As far as Trump is concerned, he is ONE person. He is not ALL Republicans or all conservatives, no matter how many agree with him. So Eric is correct where Trump is concerned. The object-oriented is wrong for two reasons. The blog does not show a leftward tilt just because Eric objects to Trump. And this is Eri's blog. He has a right to his own opinion. Agree or disagree- that's up to you. Open minded people listen to both sides and make up their minds. And people can leave if they so choose.
What democratic (small d on purpose) party makes people agree on every single item? - None that I know of.
The Democratic Party to which I belong includes all kinds of folks. To paraphrase Garrison Keillor I am a gold-plated, museum quality liberal and they don't make 'em like me anymore. Not everyone agrees with all of my positions but they will vote for the Democratic Party candidates because they are better than the MAGA-worms that infest the former Republican Party that has turned into a Former Guy cult.
If you are still on the app formerly known as Twitter, owner Elon Musk now demands folks stop using “Formerly Twitter.” Does he also demand the death of the “Tweet?” So, let’s all use “Exit” instead of “Tweet”...and then do that with “X.”
Okay. The essay by Charles Bramesco about the South Park episode has the most creative and best simile I have read in a very long time: “The back half of the episode keeps layering bad-faith assumptions on top of one another like a delicious lasagna of bullshit.” A lasagna of bullshit! That’s a keeper!
On the long time listener, first time defector of The Mincing Rascals, I’ve run into this phenomenon before: Republicans supporters of Donald Trump who are shocked that other people judge them harshly for their views. It’s as if they should be able openly to hate or look down on entire groups of people, transgender people, immigrants, people of color, and independent women, and not be judged by others. They openly support Trump who refers to black and brown immigrants as “animals” “poisoning the blood of our nation,” and then they are shocked that other folks judge them harshly. And then the Republican supporters of Donald Trump begin to see themselves as victimized; they invent this concept of cancel culture to portray themselves as the victims. It’s as if it’s okay to judge people by things they have no control over, like the color of their skin, their sex, or their gender identity, but it’s not okay to judge people by a thing that they do have control over like their opinions and views.
I do not want to upset the sensitive soul who thinks that vaguely left centrist and our host Mr Zorn is too radical and that "President Trump" is still president, but I have news for all the MAGA anti-abortion types. You have been conned--the twice impeached, multi-indicted fraudster and sexual assailant Trump doesn't give a damn about abortion. He latched on to it as a tactic to get the rubes to vote for him, but now his lizard brain tells him what everyone knows--most Americans are not in favor of dictating to women about their bodies and are moved by the tragic consequences of overthrowing Dobbs in the red states--and has just chucked you overboard. Though he does thank you for the donations to pay his legal fees.
You had me at lizard brain
The Former Guy continues to duck answering the very simplest of questions about abortion. Today's version of his 'principles' was that states that want to have abortions will do so and states that don't won't. X-nay on the national ban because he knows (or someone told him) that it was not popular with the majority of the voters. It would be easier to find Waldo at the bottom of the Mariana Trench than to find a principle in The Former Guy.
He ducks it because what's left of his brain just can't come up with a rational defense of his rotten appointments to SCOTUS, who tipped the court over to anti-abortion insanity.
In addition to bloated salaries and consulting fees, WBEZ now repeats the same stories at least once an hour, has “pledge drives” or “membership drives” at what seem like monthly intervals, and runs a lot of ads for what once were ad-free broadcasts, but it still airs “Hidden Brain,” so there’s that.
I had no idea until this blog today that Katharine Lee Bates was a lesbian.
I don't care, because America the Beautiful is about the entire country, which is far more important than a rotten poem by a racist slave owner & lawyer who was actually against the 1st Amendment!
Considering how many people no longer care about who marries who now, I doubt there would be an attack on her over that. The attacks would come from the wing nuts claiming we shouldn't change the anthem due to tradition, except it wasn't made the National Anthem until 1931!
Plus the music of our national anthem is based on an English drinking song. I guess that fits cuz one needs to be drunk to hit all those notes.
I did not know that. That makes me like the national anthem a bit more. Partly because it makes it ironic.
"To Anacreon in Heaven"
Plus the music is terrible, which is the best, though least often cited reason for changing it.
Garry, Yes! I would love for the Star Spangled Banner to be replaced with America the Beautiful. I had not thought about the authors. I more simply prefer the vision of wide-open spaces and nature over martial imagery.
"Informed news consumers tend to enjoy different points of view, even those that differ from their own." - That right there. I read conservative-leaning op-eds all the time, such as Brett Stephens and Ross Douthat and almost always disagree and roll my eyes and some of the bullshit they'll spew. But I'm happy to hear the perspective of those I disagree with. Obviously this doesn't apply to disingenuous propagandists and conspiracy theorists who spread vile racism and misogyny. Like, Alex Jones isn't a legit point of view, neither is Tucker Carlson.
Right on. I’ve found a fairly reliable litmus test to determine whether or not to read and consider someone’s opinion: if they make a living espousing a particular viewpoint without ever conceding a point to a thoughtful dissenter, or at least acknowledging that the dissent is reasonable, then they are poisonous and should be ignored. Eric easily passes that test. The problem is that it’s becoming difficult to find right-wing personalities that pass the test because most realize that MAGA means never admitting that you may be wrong.
Just look at what NBC tried with the poisonous (treasonous) Ronna McDaniel. "Conservative" USED to mean something. Supporting the Constitution, etc. MAGA means we lie, cheat, and steal to get money and power. Far far from conservative positions.
I think the girlfriend tweet was only moderately funny but the other four were hilarious. Hard to pick just one, but I did.
And anyone who defends the orange idiot in any way needs to take a hard look at themselves to determine just what kind of person they are. To quote a line from Joseph Welch during the McCarthy hearings in 1954: "have you no sense of decency?"
I thought all the VTotWs were great, but I found the girlfriend Tweet to be hilarious!
Well, we all know the answer to that last question.
Regarding Steven K and South Park, the critic Bramesco takes offense because McFarland made fun of some of the same things many of us do. Yes, Seth McFarland that alt right superstar!
I think this more than underlines Steven K's thoughts. Though I consider myself right leaning, I make fun of the outrageousness spewed by both "sides." Then Bramesco goes on to demean point earning while taking a shot at the makers of South Park. Isn't that a point earning attempt itself? Here's that specific line: "saying much more about the people who created it than anything else."
Seth McFarlane does Family Guy. (and The Orville which is pretty explicitly liberal) South Park is Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who I generally find hit or miss on humor. If you are familiar with Parker and Stone's oft-stated views on the issues, a critic is entitled to take them into account when reviewing their work.
Ooh, absolute brain freeze on my part. Apologies on the McFarlane comment. And I love many of SP's takes precisely because they are hit or miss. Whether I agree or not, isn't important to me. It's the overall humor. I especially like comics brave enough to take on the controversial. Or maybe I just enjoy that they don't seem to be affected by the criticism.
My personal favorite is the episode where they eat Eric Roberts.
To those dismayed about Francis Scott Key’s view of Black people, you should read the Lincoln Douglas debates for Abe’s views. And remember that only white men voted back then, so they didn’t have the ability to be ‘Liberal’ and get elected.
Excellent comment! Essentially what you are doing is pointing out different beliefs in different eras. In 1860, just what was a liberal or a conservative? Were there people, in 1860, fighting for abortion rights, gay rights, and many other common 21st century items? Don't forget that women also did not vote and it was still commonly thought that wives were the property of their husband's and mainly responsible for taking care of households. As I said- commonly thought. So just what was a liberal in 1860? Democrats are often accused today by MAGAs of being the defenders of slavery. Does that make 1860 Democrats the conservatives and 1860 Republicans the liberals? MAGAs would probably say I should have mouth washed out with soap for that- or worse.
Don't forget, Lincoln & the Republican's original plan was to buy all the slaves & free them. The dimbulb Southerners rejected that outright, thus they then lost their enslaved property without any compensation in just four more years.
Wow, I am afraid you and Nancy Meyer revealed your ignorance concerning the American Flag.
There is a code of flag etiquette that is pretty well known by folks who fly the flag or people with a military background.
Deviating from this etiquette is either a sign of ignorance or a form of protest. If you fly the flag upside down, you are either indicating great peril (especially on a ship) or you are protesting something. And if you are flying the flag upside down as a protest, you normally include the reason why. I saw some examples of flag burning, flags trampled on the ground and flags upside down in protest of the Vietnam War.
So any act that deviates from flag etiquette is by definition a form of ignorance or protest.
Since Nancy Meyer indicates no further protest message by “washing” the flag other than breaking flag etiquette, she falls into the ignorant class.
Do you remember or have you seen President John F. Kennedy’s funeral? The American Flag that was on his coffin was folded and presented as a sign of sympathy and respect to his widow.
This is repeated many times in many military funerals where the flag is presented to widows, widowers or parents. Ever have a comrade, relative or friend die in a military setting and have their coffin covered by the flag? My hunch is no concerning you and Nancy Meyer.
I do not support any criminal charges to people who use the flag in different ways as a form of protest. But I do retain my opinion on the issue.
For people who disrespect the flag with no protest in mind other than to troll their fellow Americans, I only have contempt.
By the way, if you really want to get a response on your flag washing…wash it in animal blood or maybe urine. You might get a greater response than just burning the flag.
Finally, are we suppose to find Norman Thomas some sort of respected authority on protest or the flag? I am still shaking my head on this post and response.
The flag code is unconstitutional. Because of the 1st Amendment, even SCOTUS said that, over the laws making flag burning illegal, despite the weird fact that same flag code states the proper way to dispose of a worn out flag is to burn it!
Garry, enforcing flag etiquette via criminal penalties or fines is unconstitutional and I recognize that.
However, there is nothing to stop folks (particularly in the military) from following flag etiquette in things like military funerals.
And there is a lot of traditions whereby worn out or old things get burned via a tradition. .
The Catholic Church burns old palms from Palm Sunday to make ashes for Ash Wednesday.
Heck, people get cremated and their ashes scattered in various locations. I scattered ashes at sea as a part of a military funeral.
What would you suggest we do with worn out American Flags?
You seem so amazed about this??
I'm not amazed, just baffled at the contradictions of it.
You need to focus on intent, that may help. Only old worn out flags are burned and burned with respect.
New flags are burned out of protest or ignorance.
People die and some are cremated with ashes scattered out of respect. Igniting a live person shows either bad intent or ultimate protest.
Still did not answer my question, how would you dispose of old worn out flags?
Well the first thing I would do with an old worn out flag is to stop flying it! I notice when a flag is out day and night (but not illuminated in the dark), in the rain and the snow, and is ragged and torn. This does not show the respect that the flag wavers think it does.
It is my understanding that the VFW holds flag burning ceremonies to deal with old and torn flags. I've always assumed that someone plays Taps on that occasion.
I suppose the code of flag etiquette is supported by servicemen who take an oath of enlistment or public officials the oath of office. I don't think the rest of us are expected to honor this code or should be criticized for use of the flag that may cause offense.
The flag represents all Americans.Quick correction, when I joined the military, I was drafted and did not enlist. I took an oath to the Constitution, not any oath of enlistment.
This is basically a code of “being polite with the flag”. So yes you are not required to be “polite”, but isn’t that better than being impolite?
As to criticism concerning “messing with the flag”, isn’t that an expectation?
If you burn a flag, you think you won’t get criticism? I think the expectation would likely be praise and criticism. Are you saying if you burn a flag, there should be no First Amendment right to criticize this act? Kind of declaring liberal martial law banning criticism of flag protests?
Ok, I am thoroughly in sympathy with the bashing of the former President, and I hope his upcoming encounters with the legal system result in massive enforced fines and some time in jail, but … I see very little analysis of why half the electorate ranges from grudgingly to rabidly supportive of him. Is it just that half the country is racist / fascist / nuts; or something more complicated? Will Trump’s going away, through the legal system or by just not living forever, change this? Given the existence of folks like De Santis, Abbott, Cruz, etc. I fear not. Never mind Trump—How does this get repaired?
I vote for "more complicated." Many of his supporters are surely completely round the bend. Many will vote for him because he can be relied upon to push a traditional conservative Republican agenda, as he did last time. (I could imagine Democrats doing likewise in the case of a Democratic Trump. If what's really important to you is policy, you care less about the vessel.) Many, including many of that last group, probably think he gets a bum rap from the hysterical mainstream media, and they warm to, as they see it, the entertaining cut of his jib. Many others, I suspect, like him because he represents a giant middle finger against what they see as so much bullshit -- the "progressive urban elite" that wants open borders, no guns, no police, no jails, no cars, no genders; spits on religion; teaches kids they're racists; and wants to control everyone's lives, like in the pandemic.
The good news, I think, is that a whole lot of people don't have very strong views, and they're subject to persuasion. How to repair? The Democratic Party needs to get its populist mojo back. I'm not one of those who thinks populism is such a dirty word when it amounts to doing the non-crazy stuff most people want and rejecting the actual crazy stuff that turns them off. The thing about a two-party system is that the rational thing for both parties to do is to strive to become a majority party. The GOP is falling down on that job. Trump's coalition isn't big enough, which, along with Dobbs, is a gift to Democrats. But they seem to lack the leadership, vision, acumen, and courage to run with these gifts.
Tar Trump with every unpopular Republican position -- he wants to end abortion, end social security, end Medicare, end health care, end unions, befoul the air and water, and hand gobs of money to rich assholes so they can bankroll his bail. Oh, he said something else? Yeah, he never tells a lie. Look who controls him. Tell a story that makes him the ringleader and/or useful idiot of an evil cabal, which he is. Steal ownership of his issues. When he was in charge, illegal immigration kept on coming like gangbusters, he just restricted *legal* immigration of top-level people in tech and health that benefits our economy and keeps us strong, so they're going to other countries instead. Dumb. He wants to weaken American defense and national security. He wants to defund the police when it comes to the police who go after rich tax cheats. He wants to replace unionized police with rent-a-cops. He doesn't want to go after terrorists who mean to harm us, and did deals with the Taliban. He's for inflation, which under his stupid trade ideas, would increase one gazillion percent. What's worst, though, is that he has no honor. He spits on honor, on American heroes. He resents them because he was a draft-dodger who never had an ounce of courage or patriotic feeling in his life. He doesn't care about this country or what it stands for or anything but his own stupid fat ass. He cheats his way through life and cheated his way through his presidency, and, if he doesn't get his way, he throws a lethal riot and holds up the Bible, which, by rights, should burst into flames in his greasy grasp.
The "courage" piece requires a shitload of Sister Souljah moments that puts the radical left in its place, the fringe. It worked for Clinton and can work again. When you're out of step, when you really are going too far, you've got to forcefully show that that's not you. That means a whole lot more than saying "fund the police" at the state of the union.
My "word cloud" for reclaiming Democratic populist mojo would include God, country, freedom, service, prosperity, opportunity, fair shot, common sense, little guy. I don't know. Just spit-balling.
Shelley Riskin—-I think that the layoffs at WBEZ portend a very dark future for local journalism, when you combine those actions with the decimation of the still-trying-to-be-outstanding WTTW Chicago Tonight. Last year the PBS/WTTW powers-that-be kicked CT off its long-time 7 pm nightly time slot, reducing its hour format to 30 minutes and broadcasting instead at 10 pm. Just a short time after that they went back to 5:30 pm, still at 30 minutes, and reduced its nightly presence to just Mondays and Tuesdays. Black Voices and Hispanic Voices were moved to Wednesdays and Thursdays, but were not general Chicago news (besides, why not do Jewish Voices? Asian-American Voices? etc;) Thank goodness Fridays continued with Chicago Week in Review, hosted by the outstanding Paris Schutz. The writing was on the wall. Their rich coverage of our city was sharply curtailed, from the arts to the neighborhoods to political, environmental and other news.
A valiant effort was made (by the excellent team of co-hosts Paris Schutz and Brandis Freeman, and such stellar team members as Amanda Vinicki, Nick Blumberg , Heather Cherone, Angel Idowu, etc;) to continue their outstanding reporting. But sure enough, the consequences are beginning: Paris Schutz has now resigned after 20 years with the station. This is a devastating and totally unnecessary loss of one of the best interviewers and on-camera people that Chicago has ever had! (Who knows if Schutz will even stay in Chicago?) What does WTTW think they’re doing? In my opinion, it’s the beginning of the end for CT, and along with WBEZ, accelerates the slow slide to minimal broadcasting of local news. SO sad.
This is insane, but it turns out, if you want to sue DJT's failing company & its website, the company requires you to sue it in the Argentinian courts of Buenos Aires!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS97UnDNVQw
Went to your “Every person in this room is paying more for health care because of Joe Fucking Lieberman.” link. Hadn't heard of Crooked Media (staying strong on not joining X), but chuckled when I googled the two founders (both Obama speechwriters). Wiki: "Jon Favreau, not to be confused with filmmaker Jon Favreau" and "John Lovett, not to be confused with comedienne Jon Lovitz". :) Was looking for the "Every person in this room is paying more for EVERYTHING because of..." link.
Crooked Media, the parent company of the Pod Save America podcast, was founded by Jon Favreau and Jon Lovett, who is a comedian as well as a speechwriter turned podcaster. Highly recommended for all who view Trump, correctly, as an existential threat to the USA. What on earth is there to "chuckle at" about that? De mortuis nil nisi bonum and all that, but I strongly dislike many of Lieberman actions and policies, from his damaging effect on the ACA to the last No Labels grift, fortunately now moribund.
Michael, I just thought it was funny that when I looked at it I thought that Jon Lovitz and Jon Favreau would be an interesting combo. Nihil ultra.
I was not supporting Lieberman either. Funny, when I posted this I thought "Well, at least no one can get pissed at this one..." Wrong again. :)
Sorry, I did not get the joke (probably never having heard of Jon Lovitz did not help).
I was genuinely confused not at all pissed so you weren't wrong. Best, Michael
Thank you, Michael.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLRKhdQnd-k
The problem is that Eric and his objector are talking apples and oranges. I hate stereotyping. I have a hard time coming up with groups where all the members are the same and believe exactly the same things. It's why I don't identify with any particular political party. Both have too many items with which I disagree. Both will tell you that you can't be a good member if you disagree with just one item. I'm quite sure there are Republicans that enjoy sex. Based on the life experiences of Trump, it's not just sex for procreation. As far as Trump is concerned, he is ONE person. He is not ALL Republicans or all conservatives, no matter how many agree with him. So Eric is correct where Trump is concerned. The object-oriented is wrong for two reasons. The blog does not show a leftward tilt just because Eric objects to Trump. And this is Eri's blog. He has a right to his own opinion. Agree or disagree- that's up to you. Open minded people listen to both sides and make up their minds. And people can leave if they so choose.
What democratic (small d on purpose) party makes people agree on every single item? - None that I know of.
The Democratic Party to which I belong includes all kinds of folks. To paraphrase Garrison Keillor I am a gold-plated, museum quality liberal and they don't make 'em like me anymore. Not everyone agrees with all of my positions but they will vote for the Democratic Party candidates because they are better than the MAGA-worms that infest the former Republican Party that has turned into a Former Guy cult.
If you are still on the app formerly known as Twitter, owner Elon Musk now demands folks stop using “Formerly Twitter.” Does he also demand the death of the “Tweet?” So, let’s all use “Exit” instead of “Tweet”...and then do that with “X.”
Okay. The essay by Charles Bramesco about the South Park episode has the most creative and best simile I have read in a very long time: “The back half of the episode keeps layering bad-faith assumptions on top of one another like a delicious lasagna of bullshit.” A lasagna of bullshit! That’s a keeper!
On the long time listener, first time defector of The Mincing Rascals, I’ve run into this phenomenon before: Republicans supporters of Donald Trump who are shocked that other people judge them harshly for their views. It’s as if they should be able openly to hate or look down on entire groups of people, transgender people, immigrants, people of color, and independent women, and not be judged by others. They openly support Trump who refers to black and brown immigrants as “animals” “poisoning the blood of our nation,” and then they are shocked that other folks judge them harshly. And then the Republican supporters of Donald Trump begin to see themselves as victimized; they invent this concept of cancel culture to portray themselves as the victims. It’s as if it’s okay to judge people by things they have no control over, like the color of their skin, their sex, or their gender identity, but it’s not okay to judge people by a thing that they do have control over like their opinions and views.