I think Joni Mitchell is the single most underappreciated figure in folk/rock history. I made a joke about this once, posting something like 'hey, you know who was actually pretty good - Joni Mitchell!' And I got dogpiled by folks who failed to detect, you know, complex irony.
I got lectured all 'Joni Mitchell is a genius and everyone who isn't an idiot knows it!' which is 110% true. As was my due. But it's true. Her solid enough reputation is tiny beside this incredible back catalogue of stupefyingly original works of unearthly beauty.
One third of the tracks on any of the better albums are sui generis. At least utterly unlike anyone who isn't Joni. (It's true she repeats herself, even at her most original. But she is, presumably, biologically human.)
Liz Phair doesn't sound like her - though point granted. Few folkies or rockers could chase her jazzy heights, and not many jazz musicians could sometimes do it so pure and simple. Joni chords and that voice. Well, anyway, we have an election to win. As you were.
OK, one more. Seems like she didn't want to chase rock stardom past a point. And she was too Joni to imitate. Hence her influence is not commensurate with her genius.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"You know what? Nobody fears pro-Trump riots." Nobody sane fears Biden is going to try to steal the election. Everyone knows if Biden wins, unless by landslide, Trump is going to try to steal the election. Weird to blame the left for effects of that. theamericanconservative.com/dreher/riots-e…
Everyone knows that, if Trump squeaks out an EC victory, threading the needle, the result will not be a gracious, humbled Trump, keenly aware he lost the popular vote by millions and therefore he has a civic duty of office to reach across the aisle, find accommodation.
If Trump wins most Americans will be mad because they will know that, though the result is formally legitimate (but how can one be sure, knowing Trump's willingness to cheat?) it lacks substantive, democratic legitimacy. Most Americans will know they are unrepresented.
Yep. That's the argument. And the counterargument from @billscher. Let's game it out. R's want to maintain the fiction that their 6-3 partisan lock is just for extra safe 'balls and strikes' purposes. This allows them to do a lot without getting R fingerprints on it. 1/
Suppose D's expand the court to 12. I think 12 is a really good number because it doesn't seek partisan dominance. It seeks partisan parity. It suggests a reasonable settlement. 'Split it in half' is good solution to many intractable problems. Why not this one? 2/
It also implies an attractive norm, going forward. No partisan issue is going to get settled without some bipartisanship on the court. If you have 7-5 decisions in favor of some partisan thing, you can be sure it's not just 'activism' - i.e. not another Bush v. Gore or Shelby. 3/
Trump achieved escape velocity from the gravity of American political norms. He did it by 'not being a politician'. "Bullworth" meets "Bob Roberts" meets "Dave" meets "Being There". Even after 4 years he knows almost nothing about doing his job, and he cares even less. 1/
If 10% - or 99% - more normal meant becoming a 'normal politician', that would just cause his orbit to decay. He would suffer reentry to liability for thousands (!!) of things he's done, which no other politician could get away with. So, no, that wouldn't work. 2/
Trump is, to sensible folks, a symbol of noxious privilege, corruption and betrayal of American ideals. To his base, however, he is 'the fool triumphant' (to use a screenwriting story term. Screencap from "Save The Cat".) So: less foolishness would uncut base appeal. 3/
Worth distinguishing a couple of lines. 1) D's are screwed if we don't expand the SC and add a couple states, like, now. 2) D's shouldn't try to expand the SC/add states if they win. 3) R's haven't been trying to undermine democracy, it's just politics, which ain't beanbag. 2/
Drum argues against 1, but also for 3, and I'm not sure where he stands on 2. I am agnostic about 1) but the fact that I'm far from sure 1) is false means I believe 2); and 3) is obviously false. (That things have been worse in the past is true, but doesn't change matters.) 3/
I'm on the fence about this. Part of me thinks Tabarrok is exactly right. If the US had a 'normal' center-right party, it would dominate. But Matt's counterpoint is compelling as well. The ingredients needed for a winning right-wing coalition are volatile. 1/
There is an irony in this. Politically, 'conservatism' is hard to stabilize. I'm only sure of this much: it won't be easy for Josh Hawley or Tom Cotton to step into Trump's shoes and build up a 'proper' authoritarian, minoritarian ethno-statist party, American-style. 2/
You need charisma plus will-to-power plus organizational skill and dedication to the cause. Trump has the rarest bit of that, not all of it. Cotton & Hawley lack the Trump lightning-in-a-bottle charisma. But it IS possible to imagine a right-wing demagogue pulling it together. 3/
This is good. There ought to be a word for this genre. It's non-argumentative but non-hortatory; confessional merely by way of efficient summation. It's a form excluded by academic conventions, yet highly complementary to it, by design. 1/
I've thought about writing something of the sort myself, tricky though it is just to say what one thinks (not eve why). Were every philosopher to write something of the sort, on every major topic, it would be of considerable, navigational assistance, in staging our arguments. 2/
On the subject of Great Books programs, I went to the University of Chicago back in the Allan Bloom days, and the funny thing was: there are too many anthropologists around that place. I was supposed to be set to reading Thucydides, Smith, the Federalist Papers and Plato. 3/