I suspect you're right. Normies have a tendency to mind their own business, not to spend all their time posting garbage for the media to play up as if it were representative of the entire citizenry.
The golf course off my back yard has a new hazard. I went out to see why my dog was going crazy and the answer was the mid-sized bear walking down the cart path. He was pretty cute actually.
That bear was being very correct. Here in our backyard we also have a cart path and everyone who is walking is supposed to abide by the rules and stay on the path. Good for the cute bear. Actually, I would love to see a beer, especially a cute one.
"This encouraging news suggests that the current regime in the poorly drained, once pestilent bogs of the Lower Potomac is entirely at odds with the American people."
I believe that you are overoptimistic.
You should say "is somewhat at odd with some American People".
We can discuss whether it is a "plurality" (in the US meaning), a majority, etc., but in order to do this, we would need to analyse whether the vocabulary used in the questions was understood in the same way by respondants, in particular regarding human rights and democracy.
It is obvious that the answer is no.
1) human rights: many people in the USA confuse human rights and civil rights (as they understand their "bill of rights".
This explain why many citizens of the USA believe that their rights as US citizens apply also to them when they are travelling abroad (bringing their gun in Canada for instance, refusing to show their ID to a German policeman, etc.). In reverse, this is also why many citizens of the USA are happy to deny human rights to foreigners in the USA (too many examples under Trump 1 and 2).
2) democracy: people fit whatever they find convenient under this word.
First, they forget that it is a figure of speech for "representative democracy", or "indirect democracy".
So, on the one hand some people believe that whenever they do not get what they want, it is not real democracy, or that it is "rigged", starting with elections, and on the other hand, others believe that if their "representative" does not look, think and feel exactly like them, then, he cannot "represent" them, and it is not democracy.
So, for many people, democracy is when they get what they want, irrespective of what other want, and this is especially true of libertarians, who put Liberty over Justice as the end of government (contrary to the Founding Fathers who knew better). For them a proper democracy is when they are free to do what they want. And any democracy which limits their "Freedom" is corrupt.
This is how Peter Thiel famously went from libertarian liberal to authoritarian: he wrote about this.
This is how JD Vance, a creature of Thiel, keeps lecturing other liberal democracies, by claiming that they are corrupt and are destroying human rights.
So, when people like Thiel and Vance are posing as champions of "true" democracy and human rights, it is not surprising that 84% of MAGA Republicans give the answer they have given on a question with such terms.
But they do not mean the same "democracy" and the same "human rights" than other respondants.
Imagine a question using the term "conservatism". The MAGA crowd which falsely claims to be "conservative", will answer similarly to a Reagan conservative, or even to a British Tory conservative, whilst they mean different things.
As I opposed Liberty and Justice as the proper end of government, I need to say that a similar confusion exists in the practical meaning of justice: a very old (roman antiquity) definition of justice is to give to each what is owed to them.
Which is very true. But in practice, the difficulty is to agree on what is owed to each individual: the very same for everybody, more to some, and less to others? And who decides?
A thief who robs what he thinks is owed to him, in his mind is only upholding the balance of Justice.
Vance and MAGA people believe that they are defending true democracy and himan rights... especially when they want to put in jail people who disagree with them.
Now I’m gonna go to the very top. I’m a gun carrying Texan and I would never ever go to Canada and expect to carry my gun. If I was in Germany or any other country, I would show my ID if a policeman or any government official asked for such.
By the way, it’s my understanding that German Citizens as well as US citizens will or should show their official IDs if asked by a policeman. I would. If I am stopped by a policeman in the US, I will definitely show my ID without question. I will not run absolutely I would not run away.
US citizens have citizens rights. Foreigners do not have US citizens rights. I don’t think foreigners in Ireland have Irish citizens rights. When my husband went to Ireland, he had to turn his passport over to the Irish policeman. When I went to China, I had to turn my passport over to my tour guide in China. We did not get our passports back until we left the country.
I’m gonna say a whole lot of stuff that you’re saying is a lot of generalization. I was born and raised in Colorado, which was totally totally solidly red the whole time I lived there. It’s a beautiful, beautiful state and more and more people started moving there and it gradually started turning purple and now it is so solidly blue blue blue blue blue blue blue. Now, according to you, I should go back and stomp my feet and say how dare you, you cannot be blue! Because, according to you, my interpretation of democracy is you have to believe the way I believe!
If the statement "By wide margins, Americans believe their country should promote democracy and freedom on the international stage" is actually as true as the poll numbers indicate, then my comment would be in two parts:
1. The hypocrisy burns.
2. If they truly want to put America first, they should be practicing what they're preaching first at home before they start worrying about it anywhere *else* and do so by turning out this neo-Fascistic freedom suppressing, democracy denying administration and its supporters en mass, starting with all its spineless, irresponsible enabling lackeys in both houses of Congress standing for election this November. And I don't mean just replace them with essentially carbon copies.
Trump-supporting pols need a thoroughly butt-kicking defeat if what's become the Party of Trump is ever going to do anything other than what it's been doing for the past decade, because every win for one of them is proof to the rest of them that what they've been doing is still working.
But it sure doesn't work for me. Not now. Not ever.
I have no need to confirm my own priors. All of these people do that more than adequately for me every day, and they do it right in plain sight in front of me and every other American in the country who thinks "country before party" actually means what it says. And if they want to prove it, it's now more than clear how to go about it.
Apparently nuns in Spain are trying to save very large rabbits from extinction. They have a photo of a nun holding a bunny, and it's looks very big. As in, "Monte Python killer rabbit" big, although this one is brown, not white.
I have one question for readers, concerning Russia. I believe RatPutin is an awful person, a horrible leader, and replaced by a good person.
The problem I see is that the "bench" in Russia are all either Oligarchs or nutso Generals. I ask the question: as bad as RatPutin is, will his replacement be better or worse. I fear it will be worse.
Someone who kicks Putin out might arguably offer a departure from the course of militarism and preparation for further warfare. The war is becoming completely untenable. And the war economy is hardly “working”. Even a new dictator is probably going to have to face up to the fact that the country is rapidly going broke, while failing to invest in long term economic viability.
They might, but they also have to defeat the oligarchists and get the loyalty of the military, who are being wooed by the oligarchists. That's no easy task.
Of course, Ukraine might well be RatPutin's Waterloo.
Were I a betting man, or perhaps just a "prediction markets" man, I'd put money on an existing oligarch taking over after RatPutin.
That question was raised about the dictator of Iran, too. I think the notion that the next dictator will be "worse" is alarmism used to justify doing nothing about the current dictator.
I don't know Iran, but RatPutin's death will lead to an IRL reboot of "The Hunger Games", except not quite so easy-going....
I think RatPutin is an evil dictator who rules by might. A lot of oligrarchs, a lot of military generals will look at his wealth and decide they deserve that too....
I think there's some mistaken element of thinking we have to do something. Kinda like Communism...if they're our "enemies", let 'em go with Communism. It'll handle everything without us having to do anything.
The inevitable question (problem!) of succession. If we're voting, I vote worse. It's what Russians apparently like. Russia is its own strange situation, and I don't blame Dostoyevsky...or Tolstoy.
One of the simplest contributing factors is the resource curse. Like other corrupt Petro-states. And there is a weird influence of being late to embrace Enlightenment ideas because of it's conflicts with the Orthodox Church and serfdom. There remains resentment to the rest of western Europe (and the US).
I think there is an important distinction between believing America should project strength and defend freedom internationally (it should), and believing the federal government should expand its control over the economy domestically.
Many Americans can support “peace through strength” while also being wary of rising socialist tendencies here, such as heavier taxation, broad entitlement expansion, hostility toward private enterprise, and the idea that government should be the primary answer to most social and economic problems.
If coddling dictators abroad is a poor option (obvs), replacing it with domestic policies that weaken free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty is not a better one. A strong America depends not only on military power and moral clarity overseas, but also on preserving economic freedom, innovation, and limited government at home. 🇺🇸Denise 2028🇺🇸
😆 My Australian Shepherd would have to be my first partner bc Hubs would never show his face, he’d be somewhere working with the WH maintenance team fixing things.
Which reminds me of a funny story. Years ago Hubs had a MOH winner in his unit. That soldier was always invited to WH things. Hubs told him to send him a pic and he sent back a text showing the First Dog taking a poop in the 🌹garden.
I’m curious how the survey ID’d “MAGA Republicans.” Seems like they would have had to self-identify. Is it anyone who voted for Trump? That term has been used pejoratively for years now and yet I question whether there’s a consensus definition. Anyone know?
I always wonder about this too. It’s used as a campaign slogan, a populist label, a Trump supporter, a political movement, and as you say, a pejorative slam. In fairness, there’s a bunch of political terms used today that I don’t have a clue what they mean.
"Democracy" is admirable as a process that reflects the worth of individuals' agency and different values. If it is imagined as a set of outcomes that are sure to be better than the outcomes of different processes, it is guaranteed to be disappointing.
I'd say there are also no real or absolute assurances of the outcomes of any other "different processes", other than that the outcomes of authoritarian processes are more predictable and very unlikely to benefit those below the power elites to anything more than a minimal degree, if at all.
The best that can be said about democracy's imperfections and unwanted results is the old saw about it being the worst "process" in the world except for every other one.
He didn't say it as an antagonism, so not being bothered is appropriate, I guess. Interpreting it as something to be bothered or not bothered by is missing a large point.
Who doesn't imagine democracy as a means for producing desired outcomes? Are there folks out there operating in a theoretical vacuum? Oh wait...I forgot...(most) university professors.
For that to happen, nearly *everyone* would need to desire the same outcomes, wouldn't they? So, it's certainly reasonable to expect to be disappointed with its outcomes at varying points over a period of time.
But now we have a whole cadre of people who've convinced themselves their disappointment is so severe that it warrants scrapping the democratic process altogether, despite their lives being on the whole way better than the lives of the majority of the people in the entire rest of the world.
Generalized decadence throughout the strata of society is as big a democracy killer as any authoritarian scheme pursued by powerful but unworthy men.
I said somewhere else I hit bottom a long while back. I've not ever witnessed any of my votes...even when I was on the "winning" side...to produce any policy I supported or even recognized.
I still imagine democracy as a means for producing desired outcomes, I just don't think it'll ever happen.
a good quote today from Naomi Shihab Nye, (poet, essayist, and writer of novels and short stories for teens), born in St. Louis, moved to Jerusalem (her Palestinian father’s home city) as a teen, and has lived many years in old downtown San Antonio, Texas, with her husband, photographer Michael Nye, and their son. Her parents Miriam and Aziz Shihab (a journalist retired from The Dallas Morning News) have lived for many years in Dallas, and her brother, Adlai Shihab, in Plano. Her husband grew up in Corpus Christi.
It depends on the definition of "kindness". "Kindness" (or "mercy" or "steadfast love") doesn't stand on its own. It's in a system of balance with other values: “Kindness and truth shall meet; justice and peace shall kiss.” (Ps. 85: 10)
About the author: "Joseph Palange is a Cleveland-based writer, concrete worker, and member of the Cleveland Fire Department; his views do not reflect those of the department."
"When expertise, accrued knowledge, and circumspection become suspect, I’m not sure what about today’s “conservatism” is all that conservative anymore."
Bingo. Thanks for the link, Lucy
Really good article by a blue-collar PhD who's lightyears beyond countless academics and thinktankers (looking at you, Heritage Foundation, et al) and their assessments and pronouncements about today's so-called conservatism.
This should be intravenously mainlined into anyone in the GOP these days with the cajónes to still call themselves "conservative" while still unwaveringly supporting Trump and his administration of self-centered, self-dealing, self-deluding bad actors.
Well, I don't think you'll find any Democrats overtly calling themselves "conservative" beyond perhaps Fetterman, who hasn't himself actually gone that far yet in his apparent attempt to be the D's new Joe Manchin on steroids. But it sure wouldn't surprise me if that guy switched parties for a couple of reasons.
And I was looking at it from the standpoint of who holds the power in the federal and 26 state governments under unified control of members of the GOP.
But in fairness and now that you mention it, being "conservative" to me also means, among other things, having a serious dose of common sense and the pragmatism of dealing with what's actually possible rather than what's a good sounding but impossible fantasy. So yeah, there are a whole lot of people who need a solid dose of at least that, regardless of their partisan political affiliations
Yeah, I don't know how we do that, but it's always pi**ed me off no end that the vast majority of politicians of all stripes seem to have a natural instinct to play to people's fantasies rather than to their common sense. Because it would no doubt make it a lot tougher to get elected campaigning honestly and straightforwardly about what voters could reasonably expect in the way of a "return" on their vote, I suppose, because way too many voters literally "want it all" and have come to see compromise to get a reasonable share of whatever is at issue done their way as tantamount to treason.
TMD mentioned, "Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against the AI-generative chatbot service Character AI, claiming that one form of its chatbot falsely identified itself as a licensed medical professional and sought to provide medical advice."
On the other hand - we've been dealing with our human health care system while my wife has been ill with pneumonia. Even expecting disappointment, that disappointment has exceeded our expectations. Difficulty getting access to care; disjointed care; mistakes in care; and a detestable lack of human caring. I strongly believe we *have* to be our own health advocates. Using Claude has been darn near literally a life saver. For example - who knew that you need a long interval after taking Robitussin before taking the codeine cough syrup or risk serious complications? The doctors didn't tell us. Neither did the pharmacist. But Claude did.
However one goes about it and whatever resources one uses, my own extensive experience over the last two-plus years with the health care system proves the absolute necessity of being our own "health advocates" if we want the best outcomes we can get.
Personally, I've found the enemy to be the system itself (read bureaucracy) much more than any of the people in it who're actually delivering the care, the vast majority of whom that I've had to deal with - and I couldn't even guess how many that's actually been, from doctors and nurses to lab technicians. etc. - to be, for the most part, caring and considerate and trying to do their jobs the best they can.
I say this fully realizing there are those at every level of the system who *don't* "care" and give no consideration to a person's personal circumstances or suffering, if any suffering is involved. Fortunately for me I've only had to deal with a couple of those compared to the literally dozens and dozens of the other kind of health care providers.
But I learned really quick that if you're not pro-active about your care in most every respect, you're not going to get it delivered in as timely a fashion as it would otherwise be. And the questions that you don't ask are the ones that you very well may end up really wishing that you had at some point.
A perfect example: A doctor decided he didn't like something he saw in a recent MRI he'd ordered for me, but it was unrelated to the problem he himself was investigating and which had prompted him to order the scan. He told me he was referring me to another specialist based on the possible implications. I mentioned a factor from my recent past that might explain the finding and asked if that mattered, and he agreed that it was a possibility and perhaps even a likely one, but the implication of assuming that and if it turned out down the road that was wrong, it could be a very serious mistake, with which I agreed.
Long story as short as I can make it, I gave the referred physician's office a little over a week to call me about setting up an appointment (I've been down this road enough times to know how the referral system works in my neck of the woods). I was about to call them when they got in touch with me by email rather than phone, which I thought a bit strange, that never having happened before.
Turns out they'd tried to text my home phone (a land line) with info about setting up an appointment, thinking it was a cell (smart) phone - a common assumption these days, but a mistake, since cell phones don't work where I live, and I have to depend on that land line for such things.
So, I ended up calling them back as soon as I saw the email.
The lady on the phone asked a few questions and then said the next available appointment would be in - wait for it - late August. My exact response...
"Oh, no. That will not do. I know I'm a new patient, but waiting 3 months just to get in is going to be unacceptable in this case, and here's why."
I then gave a brief but thorough explanation of why that was the case, and the young woman agreed with me. After a few minutes of her "seeing what she could do for me", I actually ended up with an appointment the next afternoon. At which this "new" doctor discussed the possible implications of the MRI's finding, with me recounting my suspicions of what had caused that as the referring physician had suggested I do after my having asked him about it.
She said that may be a likely cause, but given the rest of my history, further investigation was definitely in order, and the best way to do that was with a CT scan, since that would give her a better image of what needed to be looked at than that MRI for a couple of technical reasons, and perhaps (hopefully) give her a means to discount the other possibilities of what might be going on and thereby avoid any further (and considerably more unpleasant) testing.
She said she'd put a rush on the order, considering the possible implications of an untoward finding, as long as I didn't care which one of the several testing facilities I ended up going to which the imaging company has located in different areas around the county, a couple of them many miles further than the one I usually go to for such services. I told her I didn't care, and the test was scheduled for the following week, with a follow-up appointment with her a week after that to find out and discuss the results.
This was like warp speed compared to how this process can sometimes unfold under more "normal" circumstances.
I saw her yesterday, and happily the result showed what I was hoping that it would.
I thanked her for it all having happened so quickly. She said she understood the worst part of this sort of thing is often the "not knowing", that my relating that particular bit of medical history to her as suggested by the referring doctor had been very helpful in her sorting things out, and she really seemed genuinely happy to be able to give me "good news". But I can tell you for a fact, if I'd not been "pro-active" in pursuing this, I'd still be waiting to just get in for an initial consultation with her.
Of course, much of the problem in health care isn't just "the system" itself and how it's set up and operates, but rather the fact that health care is basically a commodity for which the demand always out measures the supply in the big picture of things, driving up prices and straining delivery.
And, sadly, that will only likely get worse as our population not only ages but expands.
Oh gosh - I won’t go into the details but hubs, & I, experienced, something similar several yrs ago when he was told he needed heart surgery, immediately…. But was sent home!!! He’s not one to get on the phone to ask ‘what’s going on?’ I am, but didn’t nag, for awhile—- then it dragged on… he finally called —- it was a failure between the communication of nurses & scheduling- he was admitted immediately after 3 WEEKS DELAY
Yes, a good response. I've nothing but respect and appreciation for the nurses especially. The doctors mostly have been caring. It is her primary care physician and the gatekeepers around her that have been wholly unacceptable. And most everyone in the front office - receptionists, appointment schedulers, etc.
It really makes me sad to think about the less sophisticated people, usually lower income / minority class, that suffer most of all in the system.
Good morning. 45 degrees out, with a high only in the 50s. It rained last night. Not supposed to warm up for another week, if forecasts are accurate (always an ‘if’).
The mothership is reporting on the Ukraine War, describing the Ukrainian “quiet comeback”.
And this interesting observation: "I think the fact that I was isolated and had to entertain myself was instrumental in helping me think for myself. Being overly social often makes people conformist."
Let's say there are two sets. Set A is people who fell for Trump. Set B is people who did not fall for Trump. Set A will include some people who were socially comfortable in their youth and some who were not. So will Set B. In my opinion, the incidence would be pretty random.
It would be interesting to know if there are identifiable life-history variables that predicted whether a person would fall for Trump or not. It's possible that any such variables are hidden by more obvious variables such as age, income, education, etc.
I think you are correct as a general case. The exceptions would be people who objet to Trump, not primarily for his positions, but because of his character and in the face of alternatives with oppositing positions.
In my own case, I can think of several potential variables:
- Intelligence (potentially).
- Introversion, as discussed,
- The fact that I changed from the religious tradition in which I was raised -- demonstrating independence of thought. Along with my awakening of my faith in God, that was a profound event in my life.
- The realization I had, some years ago, that character in a political candidate was at least as important as the positions the candidate espoused.
- I'm a bit stubborn. (I don't really believe that, but my wife tells me I am.) 🙂
It could be any, some or all of the above. or it could be as simple as, "There but for the grace of God, go I".
I'll try it. In the last year I've come to very much appreciate teas. But real tea - those chamomile, rooibos, lemon ginger etc stuff are fine as a substitute for sugar water. But they do not give the same mental clarity and sense of well being that real tea does.
need to clarify that - if you're identifying some Trump voters as being stupid, that, imo, was part of what drove more undecideds to vote for Trump because they didn't like hearing the democrats call anyone who could possibly vote for Trump as stupid. I know, I was with some of those people - they'd say "are they calling me stupid? Well, I'll show them!"
And the dems, as I commented earlier today, are still doing that in their echo chambers: "Who voted for this? Are you happy now?" to me, is continuing to call all those voters stupid.
Yes, I am identifying Trump voters as stupid. We got 30+ years of empirical evidence that he's an incompetent moron.
The difference between what you're concerned about and what I do is...I don't talk about this stuff. If at all possible, I don't talk. If there was someone in here that was pro-Trump and wanted to broadcast it....I'd be outta here yesterday. To be clear, anyone that voted for, or is going to vote for Trump is dumber than a bag of doorknobs.
I don't like using the word 'stupid'. I will say those who voted for him the 1st time (I couldn't believe he actually ran) or the 2nd time (I lost a bet, I thought he'd lose), were most likely voting against the other party. Anyone voting for Harris? What's another word for 'stupid'?
Now, for anyone still supporting him, what's another word I could use other than 'stupid'? aaarrghhh! And spineless Congress!
Working in academia while living in a small "red" town (Eaton voted about 80% for Trump), I'd say half of Trump's support was "not the Dem" more than "pro Trump". There are people who only vote Republican (ditto for Democrats), but there are people who looked at HRC, Biden, and Harris, causing them to vote for Trump.
Me, I voted for Nikki Haley in the primary, because I liked her message. Reagan-lite, but strong foreign policy chops, reasonably conservative. And I thought she wouldn't be as ADHD as Trump.
The irony is, of course, Dems wanted to run against Trump thinking he'd be an easy victory. Had it not been for Covid I think Trump defeats Biden. And even after all that they still wanted to run against him a third time.
I'm social, I think. That is, I enjoy having folks that I know over, ie, like game day. I don't enjoy big parties where I don't know many people. When hubs & I first moved here, we enjoyed giving open-house parties, inviting the entire neighborhood, as well as friends outside the neighborhood. Many people attended, we enjoyed that a lot. Then we realized how many homes in this neighborhood we've never seen the inside of. Not that we expect an exact accounting of 1 for 1, however, after about 5 yrs of that, we've downsized our parties considerably.
I'm independent, I've driven cross-country by myself, staying overnight in my van rather than motels, did all the planning, etc., by myself.
I've moved cross-country by myself, all planning etc...
So, I'd describe myself as somewhat of a risk-taker, independent, not an extreme extrovert, and by no means an extreme introvert. And I'm an independent thinker, I am, I am.
I think FOMO is a sign of being overly social. If you're joining in because you're afraid of missing out, that I think is being overly social. I see it on campus very often.
The other side of FOMO is thinking you know what it's going to be like - without the experience necessary to support that assessment - and declining to participate. FOMO can be necessary to generate that experience.
Yes, that. And conforming. Being something you're not, claiming belief in something you wouldn't believe, or even nodding along to group think you think is dumb. I just cannot do it. I've never been a joiner.
I think it's all too situational and subjective to come up with definitions. Sometimes conforming is the best thing to do. Best in what way? In whatever way the person deciding or the person evaluating says it is.
You can look back and say, "I should been less conformist/compliant in that situation," or you can look back and say, "I acted out to get attention in that situation, and I annoyed people without accomplishing anything."
Or you can just not overthink everything. At least, some people can ...
Not overthink everything...so if I just write what comes off the top of my head first time around, just once today, then I will have not overthunk everything.
Decisions related to chocolate or wine shouldn't count - grr, I'm doing it again.
But yes, I get what he's saying but using "social" that way is too broad.
In this, I wouldn't agree. Of course the definition of "conforming" matters. Taking a hardline definition to avoid wishy washy compliance, anything that asks me to pretend to be something or believe something I don't, no matter how trivial, is out of bounds.
There's conforming to the standard of performance - does the cornbread relieve the hunger? And the standard of culture "You put sugar in cornbread??!!!"
From reading his other essays, I think he is referring more to standards of performance.
well, isn't this a fine National Day? I say no, it isn't: Great American Grump Out. Oscar the Grouch gets the award, I guess.
Better is NATIONAL NURSES WEEK honors nurses everywhere during the week of May 6th and ends on May 12th, the day of Florence Nightingale's birth.
The first Wednesday in May educates us about National Skilled Trades Day. Across the nation, many businesses require highly skilled workers to fill a multitude of trades in the healthcare, construction, manufacturing/industry, and service categories. Learn trades in a variety of fields from machinery and construction to medical and beauty. Whether you're interested in being a chef or mechanic, working as a medical coder or helping others as an Emergency Medical Technician, a nursing aide or a vet tech, choices are available
And in history:
1915 - Babe Ruth hits his first major league home run.
1940 - Author John Steinbeck wins the Pulitzer Prize for The Grapes of Wrath.
1941 - Bob Hope performs his first USO show in California.
1998 - Steve Jobs unveils the first iMac
and last, but not least, it's Bob Seger's birthday (1945) - Acclaimed rock musician with hits such as Night Moves, Turn the Page, and Still the Same, to name a few. I like him.
I suspect you're right. Normies have a tendency to mind their own business, not to spend all their time posting garbage for the media to play up as if it were representative of the entire citizenry.
The golf course off my back yard has a new hazard. I went out to see why my dog was going crazy and the answer was the mid-sized bear walking down the cart path. He was pretty cute actually.
That bear was being very correct. Here in our backyard we also have a cart path and everyone who is walking is supposed to abide by the rules and stay on the path. Good for the cute bear. Actually, I would love to see a beer, especially a cute one.
Ted Turner has died.
Will Jane Fonda pay her condolences?
I watched more than a few televised Atlanta Braves baseball games in Houston because of Ted.
Dear MarqueG68,
"This encouraging news suggests that the current regime in the poorly drained, once pestilent bogs of the Lower Potomac is entirely at odds with the American people."
I believe that you are overoptimistic.
You should say "is somewhat at odd with some American People".
We can discuss whether it is a "plurality" (in the US meaning), a majority, etc., but in order to do this, we would need to analyse whether the vocabulary used in the questions was understood in the same way by respondants, in particular regarding human rights and democracy.
It is obvious that the answer is no.
1) human rights: many people in the USA confuse human rights and civil rights (as they understand their "bill of rights".
This explain why many citizens of the USA believe that their rights as US citizens apply also to them when they are travelling abroad (bringing their gun in Canada for instance, refusing to show their ID to a German policeman, etc.). In reverse, this is also why many citizens of the USA are happy to deny human rights to foreigners in the USA (too many examples under Trump 1 and 2).
2) democracy: people fit whatever they find convenient under this word.
First, they forget that it is a figure of speech for "representative democracy", or "indirect democracy".
So, on the one hand some people believe that whenever they do not get what they want, it is not real democracy, or that it is "rigged", starting with elections, and on the other hand, others believe that if their "representative" does not look, think and feel exactly like them, then, he cannot "represent" them, and it is not democracy.
So, for many people, democracy is when they get what they want, irrespective of what other want, and this is especially true of libertarians, who put Liberty over Justice as the end of government (contrary to the Founding Fathers who knew better). For them a proper democracy is when they are free to do what they want. And any democracy which limits their "Freedom" is corrupt.
This is how Peter Thiel famously went from libertarian liberal to authoritarian: he wrote about this.
This is how JD Vance, a creature of Thiel, keeps lecturing other liberal democracies, by claiming that they are corrupt and are destroying human rights.
So, when people like Thiel and Vance are posing as champions of "true" democracy and human rights, it is not surprising that 84% of MAGA Republicans give the answer they have given on a question with such terms.
But they do not mean the same "democracy" and the same "human rights" than other respondants.
Imagine a question using the term "conservatism". The MAGA crowd which falsely claims to be "conservative", will answer similarly to a Reagan conservative, or even to a British Tory conservative, whilst they mean different things.
As I opposed Liberty and Justice as the proper end of government, I need to say that a similar confusion exists in the practical meaning of justice: a very old (roman antiquity) definition of justice is to give to each what is owed to them.
Which is very true. But in practice, the difficulty is to agree on what is owed to each individual: the very same for everybody, more to some, and less to others? And who decides?
A thief who robs what he thinks is owed to him, in his mind is only upholding the balance of Justice.
Vance and MAGA people believe that they are defending true democracy and himan rights... especially when they want to put in jail people who disagree with them.
Well..., what Vance truly believes..., who knows?
Let me start from the bottom up,
I think I need to first of all say I am not MAGA
Who has Vance put in jail?
Now I’m gonna go to the very top. I’m a gun carrying Texan and I would never ever go to Canada and expect to carry my gun. If I was in Germany or any other country, I would show my ID if a policeman or any government official asked for such.
By the way, it’s my understanding that German Citizens as well as US citizens will or should show their official IDs if asked by a policeman. I would. If I am stopped by a policeman in the US, I will definitely show my ID without question. I will not run absolutely I would not run away.
US citizens have citizens rights. Foreigners do not have US citizens rights. I don’t think foreigners in Ireland have Irish citizens rights. When my husband went to Ireland, he had to turn his passport over to the Irish policeman. When I went to China, I had to turn my passport over to my tour guide in China. We did not get our passports back until we left the country.
I’m gonna say a whole lot of stuff that you’re saying is a lot of generalization. I was born and raised in Colorado, which was totally totally solidly red the whole time I lived there. It’s a beautiful, beautiful state and more and more people started moving there and it gradually started turning purple and now it is so solidly blue blue blue blue blue blue blue. Now, according to you, I should go back and stomp my feet and say how dare you, you cannot be blue! Because, according to you, my interpretation of democracy is you have to believe the way I believe!
Dear dj l,
"I’m gonna say a whole lot of stuff that you’re saying is a lot of generalization".
Did you notice that I wrote such qualifiers as "some", "many", in front of "people", " US citizens", etc.?
By definition, it means that it does not concern "all" Americans, US citizens, etc.
These are therefore not "generalizations".
There are some, and even many people in the USA to whom it does not apply.
Congratulations for being part of the latter group. 😉
If the statement "By wide margins, Americans believe their country should promote democracy and freedom on the international stage" is actually as true as the poll numbers indicate, then my comment would be in two parts:
1. The hypocrisy burns.
2. If they truly want to put America first, they should be practicing what they're preaching first at home before they start worrying about it anywhere *else* and do so by turning out this neo-Fascistic freedom suppressing, democracy denying administration and its supporters en mass, starting with all its spineless, irresponsible enabling lackeys in both houses of Congress standing for election this November. And I don't mean just replace them with essentially carbon copies.
Trump-supporting pols need a thoroughly butt-kicking defeat if what's become the Party of Trump is ever going to do anything other than what it's been doing for the past decade, because every win for one of them is proof to the rest of them that what they've been doing is still working.
But it sure doesn't work for me. Not now. Not ever.
I have no need to confirm my own priors. All of these people do that more than adequately for me every day, and they do it right in plain sight in front of me and every other American in the country who thinks "country before party" actually means what it says. And if they want to prove it, it's now more than clear how to go about it.
For Cynthia
https://x.com/CatholicArena/status/2051970115382526349
Apparently nuns in Spain are trying to save very large rabbits from extinction. They have a photo of a nun holding a bunny, and it's looks very big. As in, "Monte Python killer rabbit" big, although this one is brown, not white.
That rabbit would eat a lot of good garden peas.
In TX they sell postcards showing giant rabbits ‘cause every thing’s bigger in TX
If one were to run across a rabbit that big IRL, the sight of it just might be a bit hare raising, no?
I have one question for readers, concerning Russia. I believe RatPutin is an awful person, a horrible leader, and replaced by a good person.
The problem I see is that the "bench" in Russia are all either Oligarchs or nutso Generals. I ask the question: as bad as RatPutin is, will his replacement be better or worse. I fear it will be worse.
Badk in the 1980s, Andropov was a very scary guy. Gorbachev was better.
Someone who kicks Putin out might arguably offer a departure from the course of militarism and preparation for further warfare. The war is becoming completely untenable. And the war economy is hardly “working”. Even a new dictator is probably going to have to face up to the fact that the country is rapidly going broke, while failing to invest in long term economic viability.
They might, but they also have to defeat the oligarchists and get the loyalty of the military, who are being wooed by the oligarchists. That's no easy task.
Of course, Ukraine might well be RatPutin's Waterloo.
Were I a betting man, or perhaps just a "prediction markets" man, I'd put money on an existing oligarch taking over after RatPutin.
Actually I want to find out ‘cause he’s so awful I don’t know what could be worse
That question was raised about the dictator of Iran, too. I think the notion that the next dictator will be "worse" is alarmism used to justify doing nothing about the current dictator.
I don't know Iran, but RatPutin's death will lead to an IRL reboot of "The Hunger Games", except not quite so easy-going....
I think RatPutin is an evil dictator who rules by might. A lot of oligrarchs, a lot of military generals will look at his wealth and decide they deserve that too....
I think there's some mistaken element of thinking we have to do something. Kinda like Communism...if they're our "enemies", let 'em go with Communism. It'll handle everything without us having to do anything.
I don't know about "worse"; that's a definite possibility. But I very seriously doubt "better".
Unlike our country, Russia has no tradition of democratic values whatsoever and therefore no real tradition in the ways of "better".
The inevitable question (problem!) of succession. If we're voting, I vote worse. It's what Russians apparently like. Russia is its own strange situation, and I don't blame Dostoyevsky...or Tolstoy.
One of the simplest contributing factors is the resource curse. Like other corrupt Petro-states. And there is a weird influence of being late to embrace Enlightenment ideas because of it's conflicts with the Orthodox Church and serfdom. There remains resentment to the rest of western Europe (and the US).
I think it's kind of an equal opportunity resentment for anything not Russian.
I think there is an important distinction between believing America should project strength and defend freedom internationally (it should), and believing the federal government should expand its control over the economy domestically.
Many Americans can support “peace through strength” while also being wary of rising socialist tendencies here, such as heavier taxation, broad entitlement expansion, hostility toward private enterprise, and the idea that government should be the primary answer to most social and economic problems.
If coddling dictators abroad is a poor option (obvs), replacing it with domestic policies that weaken free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty is not a better one. A strong America depends not only on military power and moral clarity overseas, but also on preserving economic freedom, innovation, and limited government at home. 🇺🇸Denise 2028🇺🇸
You've got my vote!
Nice stump speech!
I'd vote for you, unhesitatingly.
😆 My Australian Shepherd would have to be my first partner bc Hubs would never show his face, he’d be somewhere working with the WH maintenance team fixing things.
Which reminds me of a funny story. Years ago Hubs had a MOH winner in his unit. That soldier was always invited to WH things. Hubs told him to send him a pic and he sent back a text showing the First Dog taking a poop in the 🌹garden.
The MOH recipient had his priorities in alignment.
I’m curious how the survey ID’d “MAGA Republicans.” Seems like they would have had to self-identify. Is it anyone who voted for Trump? That term has been used pejoratively for years now and yet I question whether there’s a consensus definition. Anyone know?
I would have to look but maybe it’s in the survey cross-tabs (?).
Really good point. Of course it depends on who you ask. Just as annoying is "right wing" - used as a pejorative.
I know a few, and I'm kinda like that SCOTUS guy...I know it when I see it. Per polling, I don't know how it could identify such a vague description.
I know a few too. And yes, we know it when we see it.
I always wonder about this too. It’s used as a campaign slogan, a populist label, a Trump supporter, a political movement, and as you say, a pejorative slam. In fairness, there’s a bunch of political terms used today that I don’t have a clue what they mean.
It’s the insane need to label and group everyone. Drives me nuts.
“….Americans believe their country should promote democracy and freedom on the international stage…”
Currently, we’re a bad advertisement for democracy.
"Democracy" is admirable as a process that reflects the worth of individuals' agency and different values. If it is imagined as a set of outcomes that are sure to be better than the outcomes of different processes, it is guaranteed to be disappointing.
I'd say there are also no real or absolute assurances of the outcomes of any other "different processes", other than that the outcomes of authoritarian processes are more predictable and very unlikely to benefit those below the power elites to anything more than a minimal degree, if at all.
The best that can be said about democracy's imperfections and unwanted results is the old saw about it being the worst "process" in the world except for every other one.
Aristotle disagees.
That doesn't bother me.
He didn't say it as an antagonism, so not being bothered is appropriate, I guess. Interpreting it as something to be bothered or not bothered by is missing a large point.
Who doesn't imagine democracy as a means for producing desired outcomes? Are there folks out there operating in a theoretical vacuum? Oh wait...I forgot...(most) university professors.
"Who doesn't imagine democracy as a means for producing desired outcomes?"
I have desired outcomes. I just don't think it's reasonable always to expect "democracy" to produce them.
For that to happen, nearly *everyone* would need to desire the same outcomes, wouldn't they? So, it's certainly reasonable to expect to be disappointed with its outcomes at varying points over a period of time.
But now we have a whole cadre of people who've convinced themselves their disappointment is so severe that it warrants scrapping the democratic process altogether, despite their lives being on the whole way better than the lives of the majority of the people in the entire rest of the world.
Generalized decadence throughout the strata of society is as big a democracy killer as any authoritarian scheme pursued by powerful but unworthy men.
I said somewhere else I hit bottom a long while back. I've not ever witnessed any of my votes...even when I was on the "winning" side...to produce any policy I supported or even recognized.
I still imagine democracy as a means for producing desired outcomes, I just don't think it'll ever happen.
a good quote today from Naomi Shihab Nye, (poet, essayist, and writer of novels and short stories for teens), born in St. Louis, moved to Jerusalem (her Palestinian father’s home city) as a teen, and has lived many years in old downtown San Antonio, Texas, with her husband, photographer Michael Nye, and their son. Her parents Miriam and Aziz Shihab (a journalist retired from The Dallas Morning News) have lived for many years in Dallas, and her brother, Adlai Shihab, in Plano. Her husband grew up in Corpus Christi.
“It is only kindness that makes sense anymore.”
could take out the word "anymore"
Solzhenitsyn said something quite similar.
It depends on the definition of "kindness". "Kindness" (or "mercy" or "steadfast love") doesn't stand on its own. It's in a system of balance with other values: “Kindness and truth shall meet; justice and peace shall kiss.” (Ps. 85: 10)
I’ll take it in whatever form arrives at my door.
All day every day and twice on Sundays.
For Kurt:
https://thedispatch.com/article/conservatism-father-work-humility-trump/?gift_key=2d7f3cf0ba7cb03d&gift_ref=3931477&utm_source=giftlink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=membergift
About the author: "Joseph Palange is a Cleveland-based writer, concrete worker, and member of the Cleveland Fire Department; his views do not reflect those of the department."
"When expertise, accrued knowledge, and circumspection become suspect, I’m not sure what about today’s “conservatism” is all that conservative anymore."
Bingo. Thanks for the link, Lucy
Really good article by a blue-collar PhD who's lightyears beyond countless academics and thinktankers (looking at you, Heritage Foundation, et al) and their assessments and pronouncements about today's so-called conservatism.
This should be intravenously mainlined into anyone in the GOP these days with the cajónes to still call themselves "conservative" while still unwaveringly supporting Trump and his administration of self-centered, self-dealing, self-deluding bad actors.
Why limit it to the GOP?
Well, I don't think you'll find any Democrats overtly calling themselves "conservative" beyond perhaps Fetterman, who hasn't himself actually gone that far yet in his apparent attempt to be the D's new Joe Manchin on steroids. But it sure wouldn't surprise me if that guy switched parties for a couple of reasons.
And I was looking at it from the standpoint of who holds the power in the federal and 26 state governments under unified control of members of the GOP.
But in fairness and now that you mention it, being "conservative" to me also means, among other things, having a serious dose of common sense and the pragmatism of dealing with what's actually possible rather than what's a good sounding but impossible fantasy. So yeah, there are a whole lot of people who need a solid dose of at least that, regardless of their partisan political affiliations
Yes, it was the common sense and pragmatism I was thinking about. We definitely need to conserve, even grow those perspectives.
Yeah, I don't know how we do that, but it's always pi**ed me off no end that the vast majority of politicians of all stripes seem to have a natural instinct to play to people's fantasies rather than to their common sense. Because it would no doubt make it a lot tougher to get elected campaigning honestly and straightforwardly about what voters could reasonably expect in the way of a "return" on their vote, I suppose, because way too many voters literally "want it all" and have come to see compromise to get a reasonable share of whatever is at issue done their way as tantamount to treason.
That’s excellent.
“An expert is a person who has made every possible mistake, within a narrow field”….Neils Bohr
In housing, I’ve made most of them and observed the rest.
Good one. I had a boss that said an “ex” is a has been and a “spurt” is a drip under pressure.
Drips under pressure also describes the current Republican administration.
Excellent. The “fake it til you make it” philosophy causes lot of problems. Humility is a much better way.
that was great
TMD mentioned, "Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against the AI-generative chatbot service Character AI, claiming that one form of its chatbot falsely identified itself as a licensed medical professional and sought to provide medical advice."
On the other hand - we've been dealing with our human health care system while my wife has been ill with pneumonia. Even expecting disappointment, that disappointment has exceeded our expectations. Difficulty getting access to care; disjointed care; mistakes in care; and a detestable lack of human caring. I strongly believe we *have* to be our own health advocates. Using Claude has been darn near literally a life saver. For example - who knew that you need a long interval after taking Robitussin before taking the codeine cough syrup or risk serious complications? The doctors didn't tell us. Neither did the pharmacist. But Claude did.
I'll take it.
However one goes about it and whatever resources one uses, my own extensive experience over the last two-plus years with the health care system proves the absolute necessity of being our own "health advocates" if we want the best outcomes we can get.
Personally, I've found the enemy to be the system itself (read bureaucracy) much more than any of the people in it who're actually delivering the care, the vast majority of whom that I've had to deal with - and I couldn't even guess how many that's actually been, from doctors and nurses to lab technicians. etc. - to be, for the most part, caring and considerate and trying to do their jobs the best they can.
I say this fully realizing there are those at every level of the system who *don't* "care" and give no consideration to a person's personal circumstances or suffering, if any suffering is involved. Fortunately for me I've only had to deal with a couple of those compared to the literally dozens and dozens of the other kind of health care providers.
But I learned really quick that if you're not pro-active about your care in most every respect, you're not going to get it delivered in as timely a fashion as it would otherwise be. And the questions that you don't ask are the ones that you very well may end up really wishing that you had at some point.
A perfect example: A doctor decided he didn't like something he saw in a recent MRI he'd ordered for me, but it was unrelated to the problem he himself was investigating and which had prompted him to order the scan. He told me he was referring me to another specialist based on the possible implications. I mentioned a factor from my recent past that might explain the finding and asked if that mattered, and he agreed that it was a possibility and perhaps even a likely one, but the implication of assuming that and if it turned out down the road that was wrong, it could be a very serious mistake, with which I agreed.
Long story as short as I can make it, I gave the referred physician's office a little over a week to call me about setting up an appointment (I've been down this road enough times to know how the referral system works in my neck of the woods). I was about to call them when they got in touch with me by email rather than phone, which I thought a bit strange, that never having happened before.
Turns out they'd tried to text my home phone (a land line) with info about setting up an appointment, thinking it was a cell (smart) phone - a common assumption these days, but a mistake, since cell phones don't work where I live, and I have to depend on that land line for such things.
So, I ended up calling them back as soon as I saw the email.
The lady on the phone asked a few questions and then said the next available appointment would be in - wait for it - late August. My exact response...
"Oh, no. That will not do. I know I'm a new patient, but waiting 3 months just to get in is going to be unacceptable in this case, and here's why."
I then gave a brief but thorough explanation of why that was the case, and the young woman agreed with me. After a few minutes of her "seeing what she could do for me", I actually ended up with an appointment the next afternoon. At which this "new" doctor discussed the possible implications of the MRI's finding, with me recounting my suspicions of what had caused that as the referring physician had suggested I do after my having asked him about it.
She said that may be a likely cause, but given the rest of my history, further investigation was definitely in order, and the best way to do that was with a CT scan, since that would give her a better image of what needed to be looked at than that MRI for a couple of technical reasons, and perhaps (hopefully) give her a means to discount the other possibilities of what might be going on and thereby avoid any further (and considerably more unpleasant) testing.
She said she'd put a rush on the order, considering the possible implications of an untoward finding, as long as I didn't care which one of the several testing facilities I ended up going to which the imaging company has located in different areas around the county, a couple of them many miles further than the one I usually go to for such services. I told her I didn't care, and the test was scheduled for the following week, with a follow-up appointment with her a week after that to find out and discuss the results.
This was like warp speed compared to how this process can sometimes unfold under more "normal" circumstances.
I saw her yesterday, and happily the result showed what I was hoping that it would.
I thanked her for it all having happened so quickly. She said she understood the worst part of this sort of thing is often the "not knowing", that my relating that particular bit of medical history to her as suggested by the referring doctor had been very helpful in her sorting things out, and she really seemed genuinely happy to be able to give me "good news". But I can tell you for a fact, if I'd not been "pro-active" in pursuing this, I'd still be waiting to just get in for an initial consultation with her.
Of course, much of the problem in health care isn't just "the system" itself and how it's set up and operates, but rather the fact that health care is basically a commodity for which the demand always out measures the supply in the big picture of things, driving up prices and straining delivery.
And, sadly, that will only likely get worse as our population not only ages but expands.
Oh gosh - I won’t go into the details but hubs, & I, experienced, something similar several yrs ago when he was told he needed heart surgery, immediately…. But was sent home!!! He’s not one to get on the phone to ask ‘what’s going on?’ I am, but didn’t nag, for awhile—- then it dragged on… he finally called —- it was a failure between the communication of nurses & scheduling- he was admitted immediately after 3 WEEKS DELAY
Yes, a good response. I've nothing but respect and appreciation for the nurses especially. The doctors mostly have been caring. It is her primary care physician and the gatekeepers around her that have been wholly unacceptable. And most everyone in the front office - receptionists, appointment schedulers, etc.
It really makes me sad to think about the less sophisticated people, usually lower income / minority class, that suffer most of all in the system.
I knew a lot of guys in college who tried that routine on Friday/Saturday nights. It rarely ended in a lawsuit, normally just with a slap to the face.
:-)
Good morning. 45 degrees out, with a high only in the 50s. It rained last night. Not supposed to warm up for another week, if forecasts are accurate (always an ‘if’).
The mothership is reporting on the Ukraine War, describing the Ukrainian “quiet comeback”.
Maybe someday Trump will perceive that Russia is "weak" and run by "losers" and will adjust his attitude.
He’s too enamored of Putin to think that.
Good morning!
This piece introduced me to the word "socionaut".
And this interesting observation: "I think the fact that I was isolated and had to entertain myself was instrumental in helping me think for myself. Being overly social often makes people conformist."
https://www.henrikkarlsson.xyz/p/travel-by-foot?publication_id=313411&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=73eks&utm_medium=email
Dang-it Lucy... I've had David Allen Coe running through my head for days now.
😆
There are worse things...
"Being overly social often makes people conformist."
I'd rate that an understatement.
We never lived anywhere long enough to be social. That probably led to my disregard for folks telling me what I oughta be doing with myself.
Siblings can have a lot of influence in that direction, positive, negative, or both.
I was not exactly socially comfortable growing up. Does that explain why I never fell for Trump?
Nope. Intelligence does.
I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks!
I could see that going either way. If Trump had been more comfortable with himself growing up, we likely wouldn't be where we are now.
No, I don't think it does.
Let's say there are two sets. Set A is people who fell for Trump. Set B is people who did not fall for Trump. Set A will include some people who were socially comfortable in their youth and some who were not. So will Set B. In my opinion, the incidence would be pretty random.
It would be interesting to know if there are identifiable life-history variables that predicted whether a person would fall for Trump or not. It's possible that any such variables are hidden by more obvious variables such as age, income, education, etc.
I think you are correct as a general case. The exceptions would be people who objet to Trump, not primarily for his positions, but because of his character and in the face of alternatives with oppositing positions.
In my own case, I can think of several potential variables:
- Intelligence (potentially).
- Introversion, as discussed,
- The fact that I changed from the religious tradition in which I was raised -- demonstrating independence of thought. Along with my awakening of my faith in God, that was a profound event in my life.
- The realization I had, some years ago, that character in a political candidate was at least as important as the positions the candidate espoused.
- I'm a bit stubborn. (I don't really believe that, but my wife tells me I am.) 🙂
It could be any, some or all of the above. or it could be as simple as, "There but for the grace of God, go I".
Don’t forget the stupidity variable.
Some strong green tea today?
I do red tea. Hong cha.
I'll try it. In the last year I've come to very much appreciate teas. But real tea - those chamomile, rooibos, lemon ginger etc stuff are fine as a substitute for sugar water. But they do not give the same mental clarity and sense of well being that real tea does.
need to clarify that - if you're identifying some Trump voters as being stupid, that, imo, was part of what drove more undecideds to vote for Trump because they didn't like hearing the democrats call anyone who could possibly vote for Trump as stupid. I know, I was with some of those people - they'd say "are they calling me stupid? Well, I'll show them!"
And the dems, as I commented earlier today, are still doing that in their echo chambers: "Who voted for this? Are you happy now?" to me, is continuing to call all those voters stupid.
Yes, I am identifying Trump voters as stupid. We got 30+ years of empirical evidence that he's an incompetent moron.
The difference between what you're concerned about and what I do is...I don't talk about this stuff. If at all possible, I don't talk. If there was someone in here that was pro-Trump and wanted to broadcast it....I'd be outta here yesterday. To be clear, anyone that voted for, or is going to vote for Trump is dumber than a bag of doorknobs.
I don't like using the word 'stupid'. I will say those who voted for him the 1st time (I couldn't believe he actually ran) or the 2nd time (I lost a bet, I thought he'd lose), were most likely voting against the other party. Anyone voting for Harris? What's another word for 'stupid'?
Now, for anyone still supporting him, what's another word I could use other than 'stupid'? aaarrghhh! And spineless Congress!
Working in academia while living in a small "red" town (Eaton voted about 80% for Trump), I'd say half of Trump's support was "not the Dem" more than "pro Trump". There are people who only vote Republican (ditto for Democrats), but there are people who looked at HRC, Biden, and Harris, causing them to vote for Trump.
Me, I voted for Nikki Haley in the primary, because I liked her message. Reagan-lite, but strong foreign policy chops, reasonably conservative. And I thought she wouldn't be as ADHD as Trump.
The irony is, of course, Dems wanted to run against Trump thinking he'd be an easy victory. Had it not been for Covid I think Trump defeats Biden. And even after all that they still wanted to run against him a third time.
Me too! My being an extreme introvert has made me the independent thinker I am!
I'm social, I think. That is, I enjoy having folks that I know over, ie, like game day. I don't enjoy big parties where I don't know many people. When hubs & I first moved here, we enjoyed giving open-house parties, inviting the entire neighborhood, as well as friends outside the neighborhood. Many people attended, we enjoyed that a lot. Then we realized how many homes in this neighborhood we've never seen the inside of. Not that we expect an exact accounting of 1 for 1, however, after about 5 yrs of that, we've downsized our parties considerably.
I'm independent, I've driven cross-country by myself, staying overnight in my van rather than motels, did all the planning, etc., by myself.
I've moved cross-country by myself, all planning etc...
So, I'd describe myself as somewhat of a risk-taker, independent, not an extreme extrovert, and by no means an extreme introvert. And I'm an independent thinker, I am, I am.
Whatever else we may disagree on, we can agree that ALL of us commenters are independent thinkers!
Absolutely!
he met some interesting folks who expanded his world, so he didn't end up a couch potato. He didn't say "no". I wonder how many might have said "no".
I enjoyed reading it.
"Being overly social often makes people conformist."
Who decides what's "overly" social, as opposed to adequately social or insufficiently social?
I think FOMO is a sign of being overly social. If you're joining in because you're afraid of missing out, that I think is being overly social. I see it on campus very often.
The other side of FOMO is thinking you know what it's going to be like - without the experience necessary to support that assessment - and declining to participate. FOMO can be necessary to generate that experience.
That's a pretty good criterion.
Yes, that. And conforming. Being something you're not, claiming belief in something you wouldn't believe, or even nodding along to group think you think is dumb. I just cannot do it. I've never been a joiner.
Seems like some folks aren't happy until they've figured out which pigeonhole to stuff you in.
Good point. "Insecurely social" or "compliantly social," in a situation where being yourself is less important than fitting in?
I think it's all too situational and subjective to come up with definitions. Sometimes conforming is the best thing to do. Best in what way? In whatever way the person deciding or the person evaluating says it is.
You can look back and say, "I should been less conformist/compliant in that situation," or you can look back and say, "I acted out to get attention in that situation, and I annoyed people without accomplishing anything."
Or you can just not overthink everything. At least, some people can ...
Not overthink everything...so if I just write what comes off the top of my head first time around, just once today, then I will have not overthunk everything.
Decisions related to chocolate or wine shouldn't count - grr, I'm doing it again.
But yes, I get what he's saying but using "social" that way is too broad.
In this, I wouldn't agree. Of course the definition of "conforming" matters. Taking a hardline definition to avoid wishy washy compliance, anything that asks me to pretend to be something or believe something I don't, no matter how trivial, is out of bounds.
There's conforming to the standard of performance - does the cornbread relieve the hunger? And the standard of culture "You put sugar in cornbread??!!!"
From reading his other essays, I think he is referring more to standards of performance.
well, isn't this a fine National Day? I say no, it isn't: Great American Grump Out. Oscar the Grouch gets the award, I guess.
Better is NATIONAL NURSES WEEK honors nurses everywhere during the week of May 6th and ends on May 12th, the day of Florence Nightingale's birth.
The first Wednesday in May educates us about National Skilled Trades Day. Across the nation, many businesses require highly skilled workers to fill a multitude of trades in the healthcare, construction, manufacturing/industry, and service categories. Learn trades in a variety of fields from machinery and construction to medical and beauty. Whether you're interested in being a chef or mechanic, working as a medical coder or helping others as an Emergency Medical Technician, a nursing aide or a vet tech, choices are available
And in history:
1915 - Babe Ruth hits his first major league home run.
1940 - Author John Steinbeck wins the Pulitzer Prize for The Grapes of Wrath.
1941 - Bob Hope performs his first USO show in California.
1998 - Steve Jobs unveils the first iMac
and last, but not least, it's Bob Seger's birthday (1945) - Acclaimed rock musician with hits such as Night Moves, Turn the Page, and Still the Same, to name a few. I like him.
Celebrating Bob Seger is a good thing.
I felt he got carried away with the ending of too many songs, ("we've got tonight"), but dang if the intro and middle parts didn't blow you away....
I like Bob Seger.
Big fan. Many favorites, but especially "Against the Wind".