The decision not to endorse a candidate for president this year could conceivably be the last time such a decision is left up to the newspapers to make.
I understand the impulse to only focus on the threat Trump poses, but some people simply aren’t convinced that he’s dangerous. Of course plenty of those same people won’t be persuaded by signs he’s mentally unbalanced, either. But on the off-chance some would, shouldn’t we be making every argument we can that he’s the wrong choice?
This would be a reasonable question 8 years ago, but right now we shouldn’t waste time wondering what will push Trump voters or Trump-curious voters to Harris. We do have enough time to reach out to typical Dem voters who might not vote. If we do that (phone calls, letters, sidewalk conversations), Trump will lose by large numbers. Make sure everyone you know is voting, then tell them how much it would mean to you if they would do the same with everyone they know.
Voting studies have shown time and time again over the years that a higher percentage of voters leaning GOP participate than Democrats. Senior citizens that lean Republican vote in the highest numbers. Young minority members in cities make the lowest percentage. Recent polls show that many young people are turned off by both candidates and don't plan to vote. How about all the Palestinian supporters that have pledged to either vote for Trump or sit it out? Yes, absolutely, it is vital to get Democratic voters to the polls. But don't forget about the Electoral College, which has thrown two recent elections to the GOP. Harris could win the popular election and still have all the small states throw it to Trump. So it's not only important to get Democrats to the polls. Every vote needs to be squeezed out of every state that doesn't automatically assign all its electors to the popular vote winner. I have often heard the term "tyranny of the majority". I take the opposite point of view. How about the tyranny of the minority where in a supposed democracy, a candidate wins by being favored by less people?
I do not think that Trump is an existential crisis for democracy, because I do not think that American institutions, and certainly not the military, are as fragile and malleable as others. But I agree with you that, in addition to concerns about his rationality and authoritarian tendencies, emphasizing his governing and political incompetence, narcissism, and disloyalty to his own supporters would help.
I didn't use to think that. We lived through Andrew Jackson fighting everyone in sight. We lived through the Andrew Johnson spats with Republicans after the assassination of Lincoln. FDR pushed through what he wanted in order to fight Hitler and the Depression despite GOP disagreement. But I predicted 30 years ago that conservatives were doing to tire of the new openness in society that challenged long held moral standards. A man marrying another man? Shameful and degenerate! Same sex sex? Ungodly! Illegal drug use becoming legal? Are you kidding? Forgiving criminals? I said a long time ago that conservatives were going to react. not necessarily in a nice way. Trump is the result. Even the ones that don't like Trump are willing to give him a chance to right the evils of society. But remember history, Marc. No one has a God-given right to last forever. The Roman Empire found out. So did Napoleon and Hitler as well as the USSR. We lived through the Joseph McCarthy years. There has never been any guarantee of the US lasting in its current form forever. As far as I'm concerned, Trump is a dangerous loon. The problem is that there have been many dissatisfied people long before Trump gave up trying to be a television celebrity and decided to run for office. He just lucked into things timewise and became their spokesmen. Yes, I said spokesmen, not spokesperson. Too many conservatives want to return to what they see as kinder gentler times. Too bad they don't know much history.
I agree that Trump is a dangerous loon in many ways. I also think that he is a shallow, self-serving, narcissist with no philosophy or vision or goal other than his immediate gratification.
I think that a lot of the Trump support represents concerns with government and society that are sincerely felt and not Trump dependent. Assuming his supporters are merely addled sheep is a recipe for continued political division.
That said, I do not believe that Trump's support is revolutionary and willing to overthrow the existing institutions of government. Even if he has a hard core that are, neither he nor they are capable.
I have complete confidence in the military officer corps. There is zero chance that the military would support the president in violation of the Constitution. There is zero chance that the military would act against the Congress, the Court, or the people.
There is no way for him to control or silence the media, in any of its forms. Similarly, there is no way for him to overwhelm the opposition media with scope or volume.
There are 2.95 million federal civil service employees. Even if every Administrative agency was headed by a Trump true believer, they could not command a shift to Trumpian fealty nor overcome the bureaucratic inertia (and outright resistance) that would result from trying.
Regardless of the hyperbole, the Federal Court system would not accept or support any attempt at authoritarianism.
A Trumpian majority in both Houses of Congress is not going to happen.
In the run up to January 6, Trump, his minions, and every social media clamorer was calling for people to attend "the big event" and to be ready to act. There was no more auspicious time for an authoritarian coup. They drew 75,000 people. Less than 5,000 stormed the capital, less than 50 were "armed" (only one with a gun), and less than 30 were from the far-right groups (like Proud Boys and Oath Keepers). There was zero military or law enforcement support. Many of those that participated said that they felt used and abandoned by Trump. Many said they regretted their participation. Even the most ardent of the right-wing insurgents said that their goal was to force a recount or a revote. I think that was the high-water mark for the forces that Trump can mobilize. It is in stark contrast to what happened in Brazil after Bolsonaro lost.
Finally, there is no way for Trump to prevent or corrupt the mid-term elections in 2026, and I am confident that should he win, he will see the same type of reverses that happened in 2018.
The Betty Bowers "quotable " tweet that Eric included today says it all. I now understand how the Germans came to normalize Hitler and allow the Holocaust to happen. Those that think they have "complete confidence in the military officer corp" somehow are still willing to overlook the warnings of Maddis, Miley, and Kelly.
As each of those fine officers also noted - Trump has no understanding of the US military or its officers. The follow up question that none of them has been asked is "are you concerned that US military officers would swear allegiance to Trump personally?" and "are you concerned that US military officers would follow illegal or unconstitutional orders?" I am certain that they would respond emphatically "no". There is no General or Flag officer that would follow an order to arrest or murder a civilian office holder or political opponent of Trump. There is no officer that would follow an order to interfere with the Congress or the Court. The military would not protect Trump from the FBI or DOJ. If there were a potential for such a military coup, then we are in serious trouble, because those officers could jam a stick up any Presidential tush any time they wanted. Trump would certainly not be giving the orders after such a coup.
What those officers said was that Trump wanted to do autocratic, fascist, illegal, and bone headed things. And when he was told that he couldn't he stamped his feet and whined.
Outside the box... before Hitler, who did people point to as the worst person ever? (King George? Napoleon?) Let's exclude Trump for the moment for the second question - who will be the person pointed to in 50 or 100 years? Endorsements: Newspapers no longer endorsing candidates - yet we having a growing number of celebrities and influencers endorsing candidates. Sign of the times? Newspapers could at least outline their reason. People who follow celebrities tend to be the "Oh I really love their movies, music, tv show, sport team." Mayor/School Board: Raise your hand if you miss Lori Lightfoot.
I doubt people thought of either George III or Napoleon as the worst person ever. For all his faults, George called George Washington the greatest man, because he refused the offer to be king.
Napoleon reformed the French legal system & made sure the Jews of France had full legal rights, unlike his eventual destroyer, Wellington, who actually opposed giving the Jews of Britain the same things.
For truly horrible people before Hitler, you have Ivan the Terrible, numerous witch hunters, like in Salem Mass. & of course the Spanish Inquisition!
Without Hitler would any of his henchmen been in a position to commit all those evil acts? I'd ask the same about Trump's ghoulish acolytes, like Stephen Miller. For every megalomaniac like Trump or Hitler there have always been despicable minions who might otherwise never see the light of day.
Excellent observation, as none of them would've been put in place by anyone else. The sole exception to that might be Goering as he was a genuine WWI hero to them & might have gotten some minor role in the military by another. Goering was a bizarre fat fool that appeared to be motivated more by his desire to loot the art of Europe than any actual devotion to Nazism. He would've worked for anyone that hired him & let him grift away.
Interesting, I just had a friend come back from Mongolia (it was some kind of ecology thing) and she said that Genghis Khan remains a hero there. Kind of the George Washington of Mongolia with statutes everywhere.
I think just about everyone there is related to him in some way.
You think Mongolian AI would disagree with your findings😏?
I did not include Attila or Genghis Khan, or other conquerors like them because they were generally good for their own people and incorporated other societies in a rational way.
As an Illini alum, I can't really go after anything you said. We have only beat two big ten teams with winning records and are 20+ point underdogs at #1 Oregon Saturday. Still fun last Saturday, though. And we know who your true rival is...
For those who were complaining about the length of The PS, if you don't read presidential election comments it saves a bunch of time. 69% of today's word count is about the election.
My wife and I have decided to embrace the World Series this year. The best two teams, great history between them, plenty of stars and evenly matched.
Ohtani is truly a marvel. Except for longevity, his numbers are very Ruthian!
Someone suggested splitting the conference into best 9 and worst 9 teams. Then every year the top 2-3 teams in the bad division move up and worst 2-3 in good division move down. Like soccer… Some issues, but would make games more competitive and meaningful.
I think the legitimate answer to this is that in many of these down ballot races voters have not been paying much attention, and they are grateful to indifferent to the advice of an editorial board. I never participated in the endorsement process when I was at the paper, but I know the people who did Were very conscientious in how they evaluated the candidates and studied the issues. For the major races, however, people who read newspaper editorials tend to be already up on the issues and have already made up their own minds. They can be resentful of an endorsement that goes the other way. To the point of canceling their subscriptions.
I've been reading about local races primarily in the Daily Herald (I get the Tribune too!) -- one day there were a couple of articles about a county-level position. My husband and I read them and later, we both said that one of the candidate's opinions had us both saying, "not this person!" So these articles are quite useful.
We are constantly bombarded by Trump, along with his visage, and unfortunately, a lot of voters pay no attention to what he says or the news attached to him. I’ve always been amazed by how much money is spent on advertising, but I guess the more people see and/or hear about a product, the more likely they are to buy it.
Had the Mets held on, we’d have a David vs Goliath story with the number 6 seed taking on number 1. We’d also have a subway series, something old like to see in Chicago before I pass.
I think the attitude toward the term "fascism" on the right is similar to that of "socialism" on the left - it's dismissed as an overreaction and a scare word without the weight it used to carry. I'm not saying both are correct, actually the opposite, I think it's accurate to describe Trump as a fascist, I'm saying it's ineffective to point it out - his supporters don't understand the meaning, don't mind it and don't care.
I think the focus should be on his authoritarian desires, but also emphasizing their absurdity. No president could ever seize the powers that he wants, and he stills seems to be completely unaware of how the government actually works. Attacking him for being a right-wing nationalist is a loser because a large number of people believe that the country has drifted to far away from protecting and advancing the national interests. The left seems comfortable with the idea that 'nationalist' is an obvious negative epithet, but I don't think that is true for many.
The rallying word on the right is "freedom". If it can be somehow imparted on them that a strongman leader is antithetical to the concept of freedom, even for the people loyal to him, Trump wouldn't be this close to the presidency. This is why abortion is a successful issue for Democrats - it's understood that banning it is taking away a freedom. However expanding it to other issues is very difficult.
He seems incapable of recognizing and accepting any personal responsibility for his political and governing issues. He can't fix what he refuses to recognize needs fixing.
The latest is the rapper murder thing and whether or not he will return a large political donation, as the mayor of Broadview did. He said it is not up to him to judge before the courts do and it's a case of another black man being charged while trying to change his life. Now someone correct me if I'm wrong. Is it wrong to hire someone to kill a rival regardless of skin color?
With regard to the "Columns I Regret" thing EZ brought up once, this time of year reminds me that Eric once wrote that kids should trick o treat in their own community.
Until a couple of weeks ago, when I responded to one of Eric’s minute surveys in the emailed PS (Yanks/Bums/Eh), my phone would jump directly to the results in the online version. Now it just jumps to the beginning of the online version and I have to scroll-scroll-scroll to find the results. Is this just me? I do have a short history of screwing up Substack parameters, but I don’t know what this one would be.
Looking forward to the MSU vs Michigan game this weekend. Neither is very good but the game is always interesting. My house divided gets extra divide-y this time of year. GO GREEN!
We do! Though I love to point out to my husband and his brother that their wives GRADUATED from MSU, while they are just U-M FANS (both went to school elsewhere). And we wives both were accepted to U-M but chose MSU for particular programs that are better (lots of U-M prof's kids in my MSU major too)
Last year, in the wake of the Pat Fitzgerald firing, etc, it was pretty fun to watch NU actually win a bunch of games and the coach to get coach of the year. This year ... not so fun.
We and the media keep getting suckered by Trump's outrageous comments. As Pete Buttigieg observed, when we use up our bandwidth on Trump’s remarks about eating pets or Arnie’s endowments, we're not focusing on the chaos of his administration, the loss of reproductive rights, or the threat to democracy.
Politicians don't really help either. They could be way more focused and specific about Trump's incompetence and ignorance as a politician and office holder.
Agreed. My Trump friends are all, "I know he's not a nice buy, but I like his policies." Well, we need to tear down Trump's policies, which are horrific, immoral, and inflationary.
The decision not to endorse a candidate for president this year could conceivably be the last time such a decision is left up to the newspapers to make.
I understand the impulse to only focus on the threat Trump poses, but some people simply aren’t convinced that he’s dangerous. Of course plenty of those same people won’t be persuaded by signs he’s mentally unbalanced, either. But on the off-chance some would, shouldn’t we be making every argument we can that he’s the wrong choice?
This would be a reasonable question 8 years ago, but right now we shouldn’t waste time wondering what will push Trump voters or Trump-curious voters to Harris. We do have enough time to reach out to typical Dem voters who might not vote. If we do that (phone calls, letters, sidewalk conversations), Trump will lose by large numbers. Make sure everyone you know is voting, then tell them how much it would mean to you if they would do the same with everyone they know.
When asking what we should be doing to beat Trump, I would say all of the above.
Voting studies have shown time and time again over the years that a higher percentage of voters leaning GOP participate than Democrats. Senior citizens that lean Republican vote in the highest numbers. Young minority members in cities make the lowest percentage. Recent polls show that many young people are turned off by both candidates and don't plan to vote. How about all the Palestinian supporters that have pledged to either vote for Trump or sit it out? Yes, absolutely, it is vital to get Democratic voters to the polls. But don't forget about the Electoral College, which has thrown two recent elections to the GOP. Harris could win the popular election and still have all the small states throw it to Trump. So it's not only important to get Democrats to the polls. Every vote needs to be squeezed out of every state that doesn't automatically assign all its electors to the popular vote winner. I have often heard the term "tyranny of the majority". I take the opposite point of view. How about the tyranny of the minority where in a supposed democracy, a candidate wins by being favored by less people?
I do not think that Trump is an existential crisis for democracy, because I do not think that American institutions, and certainly not the military, are as fragile and malleable as others. But I agree with you that, in addition to concerns about his rationality and authoritarian tendencies, emphasizing his governing and political incompetence, narcissism, and disloyalty to his own supporters would help.
I didn't use to think that. We lived through Andrew Jackson fighting everyone in sight. We lived through the Andrew Johnson spats with Republicans after the assassination of Lincoln. FDR pushed through what he wanted in order to fight Hitler and the Depression despite GOP disagreement. But I predicted 30 years ago that conservatives were doing to tire of the new openness in society that challenged long held moral standards. A man marrying another man? Shameful and degenerate! Same sex sex? Ungodly! Illegal drug use becoming legal? Are you kidding? Forgiving criminals? I said a long time ago that conservatives were going to react. not necessarily in a nice way. Trump is the result. Even the ones that don't like Trump are willing to give him a chance to right the evils of society. But remember history, Marc. No one has a God-given right to last forever. The Roman Empire found out. So did Napoleon and Hitler as well as the USSR. We lived through the Joseph McCarthy years. There has never been any guarantee of the US lasting in its current form forever. As far as I'm concerned, Trump is a dangerous loon. The problem is that there have been many dissatisfied people long before Trump gave up trying to be a television celebrity and decided to run for office. He just lucked into things timewise and became their spokesmen. Yes, I said spokesmen, not spokesperson. Too many conservatives want to return to what they see as kinder gentler times. Too bad they don't know much history.
I agree that Trump is a dangerous loon in many ways. I also think that he is a shallow, self-serving, narcissist with no philosophy or vision or goal other than his immediate gratification.
I think that a lot of the Trump support represents concerns with government and society that are sincerely felt and not Trump dependent. Assuming his supporters are merely addled sheep is a recipe for continued political division.
That said, I do not believe that Trump's support is revolutionary and willing to overthrow the existing institutions of government. Even if he has a hard core that are, neither he nor they are capable.
I have complete confidence in the military officer corps. There is zero chance that the military would support the president in violation of the Constitution. There is zero chance that the military would act against the Congress, the Court, or the people.
There is no way for him to control or silence the media, in any of its forms. Similarly, there is no way for him to overwhelm the opposition media with scope or volume.
There are 2.95 million federal civil service employees. Even if every Administrative agency was headed by a Trump true believer, they could not command a shift to Trumpian fealty nor overcome the bureaucratic inertia (and outright resistance) that would result from trying.
Regardless of the hyperbole, the Federal Court system would not accept or support any attempt at authoritarianism.
A Trumpian majority in both Houses of Congress is not going to happen.
In the run up to January 6, Trump, his minions, and every social media clamorer was calling for people to attend "the big event" and to be ready to act. There was no more auspicious time for an authoritarian coup. They drew 75,000 people. Less than 5,000 stormed the capital, less than 50 were "armed" (only one with a gun), and less than 30 were from the far-right groups (like Proud Boys and Oath Keepers). There was zero military or law enforcement support. Many of those that participated said that they felt used and abandoned by Trump. Many said they regretted their participation. Even the most ardent of the right-wing insurgents said that their goal was to force a recount or a revote. I think that was the high-water mark for the forces that Trump can mobilize. It is in stark contrast to what happened in Brazil after Bolsonaro lost.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/08/world/brazil-congress-protests-bolsonaro
Finally, there is no way for Trump to prevent or corrupt the mid-term elections in 2026, and I am confident that should he win, he will see the same type of reverses that happened in 2018.
The Betty Bowers "quotable " tweet that Eric included today says it all. I now understand how the Germans came to normalize Hitler and allow the Holocaust to happen. Those that think they have "complete confidence in the military officer corp" somehow are still willing to overlook the warnings of Maddis, Miley, and Kelly.
As each of those fine officers also noted - Trump has no understanding of the US military or its officers. The follow up question that none of them has been asked is "are you concerned that US military officers would swear allegiance to Trump personally?" and "are you concerned that US military officers would follow illegal or unconstitutional orders?" I am certain that they would respond emphatically "no". There is no General or Flag officer that would follow an order to arrest or murder a civilian office holder or political opponent of Trump. There is no officer that would follow an order to interfere with the Congress or the Court. The military would not protect Trump from the FBI or DOJ. If there were a potential for such a military coup, then we are in serious trouble, because those officers could jam a stick up any Presidential tush any time they wanted. Trump would certainly not be giving the orders after such a coup.
What those officers said was that Trump wanted to do autocratic, fascist, illegal, and bone headed things. And when he was told that he couldn't he stamped his feet and whined.
I hope you're right. As someone that needs to live here, I would live to be wrong.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-u-s-can-take-a-tough-election-division-this-will-pass-other-intense-seasons-have-b39edacb?st=V9e8YC&reflink=article_imessage_share
Thanks! That was excellent.
Read my comment above. Who outside our circle is listening?
I agree with Steve T that the potential road to Harris victory is getting the Dems out to vote.
The owner of the LA Times refused to let them print an endorsement of Kamala Harris and the editorial director resigned.
btw, It's "The best laid plans o' mice and men / Gang aft agley."
but Eric has the literal translation!
Outside the box... before Hitler, who did people point to as the worst person ever? (King George? Napoleon?) Let's exclude Trump for the moment for the second question - who will be the person pointed to in 50 or 100 years? Endorsements: Newspapers no longer endorsing candidates - yet we having a growing number of celebrities and influencers endorsing candidates. Sign of the times? Newspapers could at least outline their reason. People who follow celebrities tend to be the "Oh I really love their movies, music, tv show, sport team." Mayor/School Board: Raise your hand if you miss Lori Lightfoot.
I doubt people thought of either George III or Napoleon as the worst person ever. For all his faults, George called George Washington the greatest man, because he refused the offer to be king.
Napoleon reformed the French legal system & made sure the Jews of France had full legal rights, unlike his eventual destroyer, Wellington, who actually opposed giving the Jews of Britain the same things.
For truly horrible people before Hitler, you have Ivan the Terrible, numerous witch hunters, like in Salem Mass. & of course the Spanish Inquisition!
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
😅
Stalin
I also thought of Mao, but both are contemporaries of Hitler, so not really 'who was the worst guy before Hitler?' :)
Garry, my vote goes to Reinhard Heydrich the ultimate Nazi who engineered the killing of millions.
Supposedly the only Nazi that even Hitler was afraid of. A real sweetheart.
The Nazis wiped out a town after his death.
Weird fact that few people know about Heydrich: He spoke excellent Yiddish.
You could also add Himmler to the rotten to the core list, along with everyone in the SS & Waffen SS.
Without Hitler would any of his henchmen been in a position to commit all those evil acts? I'd ask the same about Trump's ghoulish acolytes, like Stephen Miller. For every megalomaniac like Trump or Hitler there have always been despicable minions who might otherwise never see the light of day.
Excellent observation, as none of them would've been put in place by anyone else. The sole exception to that might be Goering as he was a genuine WWI hero to them & might have gotten some minor role in the military by another. Goering was a bizarre fat fool that appeared to be motivated more by his desire to loot the art of Europe than any actual devotion to Nazism. He would've worked for anyone that hired him & let him grift away.
Don't forget Himmler and Eichmann.
Good question, I asked AI and it said Genghis Khan and Caligula. I also think Attila the Hun was in the mix.
Interesting, I just had a friend come back from Mongolia (it was some kind of ecology thing) and she said that Genghis Khan remains a hero there. Kind of the George Washington of Mongolia with statutes everywhere.
I think just about everyone there is related to him in some way.
You think Mongolian AI would disagree with your findings😏?
Everyone loves a winner if it's their own.
I did not include Attila or Genghis Khan, or other conquerors like them because they were generally good for their own people and incorporated other societies in a rational way.
Caligula? Nero? Ivan the Terrible? The evil doer needs to be both evil to others and cause great injury to their own people.
how about Vlad The Impaler?
The dastardly Turk?
As an Illini alum, I can't really go after anything you said. We have only beat two big ten teams with winning records and are 20+ point underdogs at #1 Oregon Saturday. Still fun last Saturday, though. And we know who your true rival is...
For those who were complaining about the length of The PS, if you don't read presidential election comments it saves a bunch of time. 69% of today's word count is about the election.
My wife and I have decided to embrace the World Series this year. The best two teams, great history between them, plenty of stars and evenly matched.
Ohtani is truly a marvel. Except for longevity, his numbers are very Ruthian!
https://stathead.com/baseball/versus-finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1=ruth--002geo&player_id2=otani-000sho
This is what happens when you dilute the product. Join the crusade for putting the “10” back in Big 10!
Someone suggested splitting the conference into best 9 and worst 9 teams. Then every year the top 2-3 teams in the bad division move up and worst 2-3 in good division move down. Like soccer… Some issues, but would make games more competitive and meaningful.
David, really like your concept. Especially when there seems to be so many people concerned about fair competition.
relegation - great idea!
Not bad. It seems to work for English soccer and CPS
If the Tribune won't endorse a presidential candidate, why are they using page after page to endorse a candidate in every other state-wide race?
I think the legitimate answer to this is that in many of these down ballot races voters have not been paying much attention, and they are grateful to indifferent to the advice of an editorial board. I never participated in the endorsement process when I was at the paper, but I know the people who did Were very conscientious in how they evaluated the candidates and studied the issues. For the major races, however, people who read newspaper editorials tend to be already up on the issues and have already made up their own minds. They can be resentful of an endorsement that goes the other way. To the point of canceling their subscriptions.
I've been reading about local races primarily in the Daily Herald (I get the Tribune too!) -- one day there were a couple of articles about a county-level position. My husband and I read them and later, we both said that one of the candidate's opinions had us both saying, "not this person!" So these articles are quite useful.
Good points. How do you think they leaned before and after Colonel McCormick?
A far better quote from Rex Tillerson came just after the fat traitor got rid of him as Secretary of State: "He's a fucking moron"!
We are constantly bombarded by Trump, along with his visage, and unfortunately, a lot of voters pay no attention to what he says or the news attached to him. I’ve always been amazed by how much money is spent on advertising, but I guess the more people see and/or hear about a product, the more likely they are to buy it.
I think people pay attention. But too many have been paying attention to and believing attacks on media bias.
i'm sorry [for me, as a baseball fan], but i can't answer the world series poll. i detest the yankees - have since my youth, back in the '60s.
so it would seem i shd favor the dodgers. except i don't.
but it's not that i couldn't care less. altho that answer is the closest to how i feel.
You must be a Sox fan. The Yankees have Rizzo, that’s enough for me.
congratulations for the intuition - you're right.
but be careful of the Ex-Cub Curse on teams that play in the world series.
Had the Mets held on, we’d have a David vs Goliath story with the number 6 seed taking on number 1. We’d also have a subway series, something old like to see in Chicago before I pass.
Good luck with that. In my lifetime the Sox have been in two World Series, 46 years apart. How long to the next one?
I think the attitude toward the term "fascism" on the right is similar to that of "socialism" on the left - it's dismissed as an overreaction and a scare word without the weight it used to carry. I'm not saying both are correct, actually the opposite, I think it's accurate to describe Trump as a fascist, I'm saying it's ineffective to point it out - his supporters don't understand the meaning, don't mind it and don't care.
I think the focus should be on his authoritarian desires, but also emphasizing their absurdity. No president could ever seize the powers that he wants, and he stills seems to be completely unaware of how the government actually works. Attacking him for being a right-wing nationalist is a loser because a large number of people believe that the country has drifted to far away from protecting and advancing the national interests. The left seems comfortable with the idea that 'nationalist' is an obvious negative epithet, but I don't think that is true for many.
The rallying word on the right is "freedom". If it can be somehow imparted on them that a strongman leader is antithetical to the concept of freedom, even for the people loyal to him, Trump wouldn't be this close to the presidency. This is why abortion is a successful issue for Democrats - it's understood that banning it is taking away a freedom. However expanding it to other issues is very difficult.
And even more turmoil in Brandon Johnson's utterly dysfunctional administration. It never ends:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2024/10/23/johnson-communications-director-leaving-mayors-office-ronnie-reese
A boulder gains speed as it rolls downhill.
He seems incapable of recognizing and accepting any personal responsibility for his political and governing issues. He can't fix what he refuses to recognize needs fixing.
The latest is the rapper murder thing and whether or not he will return a large political donation, as the mayor of Broadview did. He said it is not up to him to judge before the courts do and it's a case of another black man being charged while trying to change his life. Now someone correct me if I'm wrong. Is it wrong to hire someone to kill a rival regardless of skin color?
Johnson is a fool. He probably believes that OJ Simpson didn't murder his wife & her friend, because the jury found him not guilty.
With regard to the "Columns I Regret" thing EZ brought up once, this time of year reminds me that Eric once wrote that kids should trick o treat in their own community.
https://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/10/off-site-trick-.html
Here's another one that is literally a list of memes that come out around Halloween every year.
https://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2013/10/a-fun-sized-list-of-halloween-dos-and-donts.html
That is truly an excellent regrettable – just that portion of the column.
Sorry for interrupting with something trivial.
Until a couple of weeks ago, when I responded to one of Eric’s minute surveys in the emailed PS (Yanks/Bums/Eh), my phone would jump directly to the results in the online version. Now it just jumps to the beginning of the online version and I have to scroll-scroll-scroll to find the results. Is this just me? I do have a short history of screwing up Substack parameters, but I don’t know what this one would be.
Looking forward to the MSU vs Michigan game this weekend. Neither is very good but the game is always interesting. My house divided gets extra divide-y this time of year. GO GREEN!
I hope you have a flag that displays this divide! Friend of mine has one for Northwestern (Go U, NU!). and her husband's Wisconsin Buckeyes.
We do! Though I love to point out to my husband and his brother that their wives GRADUATED from MSU, while they are just U-M FANS (both went to school elsewhere). And we wives both were accepted to U-M but chose MSU for particular programs that are better (lots of U-M prof's kids in my MSU major too)
you & your sister-in-law ROCK!
whenever someone tells me their daughter, wife, or other female in their family went to MSU, i always reply: well, i already know 2 things about her.
reply: what's that?
me: she's smart, and she's pretty!
Wisconsin “Buckeyes”? We’re not stupid, we’re Badgers. (Never mind the cheese wedges on our heads.)
I will not be at all surprised if the Spartans beat the Wolverines this weekend. Michigan is in disarray.
MSU has a first year coach too and a program hit hard by the mess left in Tucker's wake. I think it will be an unusually even match up this year.
Last year, in the wake of the Pat Fitzgerald firing, etc, it was pretty fun to watch NU actually win a bunch of games and the coach to get coach of the year. This year ... not so fun.
i was so pumped by NU's recovery last year under braun, after the crumbling ruins of the fitz era.
not so much fun this year.😟
We have one of those house divided front plates for our car.
I'll have to tell my friend!
Go White! 💚🤍
We and the media keep getting suckered by Trump's outrageous comments. As Pete Buttigieg observed, when we use up our bandwidth on Trump’s remarks about eating pets or Arnie’s endowments, we're not focusing on the chaos of his administration, the loss of reproductive rights, or the threat to democracy.
Politicians don't really help either. They could be way more focused and specific about Trump's incompetence and ignorance as a politician and office holder.
Agreed. My Trump friends are all, "I know he's not a nice buy, but I like his policies." Well, we need to tear down Trump's policies, which are horrific, immoral, and inflationary.
Thanks for the link to Caro's piece on Blair Kamin, who I now know is not just a great architecture critic, but an architecture hero.