1. This reminds me I have some thoughts on the pre-history of the mullet, the Beastie Boys, Dan Clowes, the way naming something makes it visible and changes our sense of the past, Jack Kirby, etc.
2. Back in 1989, Daniel Clowes in Eightball #2 had a strip called "I Hate You Deeply" about various peeves, including "guys with short hair on top and long hair in back." There was no name for what Clowes was describing although it was becoming more pervasive: the mullet.
3. History records that the mullet as a term was first popularized, and perhaps even coined, by the Beastie Boys in 1994. But as the Clowes strip shows, mullets had pre-dated that -- and many readers testified that when they saw Clowes drawing it resonated with what they saw.
4. In popularizing the term "the mullet" the Beastie Boys made it visible, made it discussable, and altered not just the present but the past since we can now see the mullet in earlier eras, whereas before it was just a inchoate odd thing on corner of consciousness.
5. Now that "the mullet" is named we can find all sorts of precursors in history. In 1621 a Plymouth colonist encountered native named Samoset of the Abenaki: "He was a tall straight man, the hair of his head black, long behind, only short before, none on his face at all"
6. Various photos of Tom Jones, Paul McCartney, David Bowie from 1960s and 1970s now look like mullets avant la lettre. The thing existed before the name but the name helps us see the thing.
7. Some notes that might be useful for future mullet scholars. Basil Wolverton's drawings from 1930s and 1940s often feature what seem like proto-mullets.
8. And Jack Kirby's Angel (from Boys' Ranch, early 1950s) is edging towards a mullet.
9. I think is is key about how successful the term mullet has been, enough to overshadow original mocking use and also eclipse earlier stabs at taxonomy like "hockey hair"
1. In an ideal world, no one would know who Michael Anton is. In our vale of tears, he's the author of a hugely influential essay (Flight 93 Election) & served on National Security Council. So when Anton licks his chops at thought of coming civil war, worth some attention.
2. Anton's new Civil War fan fiction (manly Texas defeating the wimps of California) is of the same genre as his famous Flight 93 essay which did so much to bring right around to Trump: both exercises in LARPing politics: putting oneself in heroic crisis moment.
3. Anton's latest piece is absurd on many levels but one interesting thing is that it replicates the same fantasies that secessionists had in 1850s: that they were side of virility & so would easily win the war.
1. As this piece notes there's a tension between Biden's strident rhetoric on voting rights ("Jim Crow on steroids") & the lesser priority he's giving it (expending far effort in arms twisting than he is on the big economic bills).
2. The White House thinking on this is wrong but it's worth exploring on its own terms. The implicit assumption is the economics is more important for Dems winning future elections (something that is arguably true) & Dems can overcome voter suppression with organization.
3. The problem with the "focus on economy" is that you have to do both: for Dems to win, they'll need a strong economy but that's hardly sufficient since voter suppression, gerrymandering etc can over come that.
1. This is really bad, it's going to prolong the pandemic, increase the odds of more deadly variants emerging and also get people killed. It's a product of many factors, a major one of which is American right deciding to make vaccination a culture war issue.
2. As the pace of vaccination plummets in USA, the one ray of hope is the right is not monolithic but in fact splintering. As @joshtpm has been tracking, pro-vaccination voices are starting to speak out more (perhaps spooked by polls & stock market).
3. The divide on the right is very evident on Fox News, where the daytime news shows & Hannity are pro-vax while Carlson continues his "just asking questions" anti-vax message. I think this presents an opportunity for Biden to both promote a needed message & divide foes.
1. This whole business about General Milley being worried about the coup has to be put in context of his earlier statement "The institutions are bending, but it won't break." It's worth remembering that at key moments Milley himself bended.
2. If we remember the Lafayette Square moment, then Milley's recent spate of interviews feels a bit like reputational laundering. For it to amount to something more serious we'd need a congressional investigation into what Trump actually tried to do with the military.
3. To the extent Milley & the top ranks bent resisted Trump and now want to be on the right side of history by taking a stance against white supremacists in the ranks, they are likely to targets of rightwing anger. That's the root of the "woke military" meme.
1. I think @fordm is accurate here in saying the Biden White House is effectively giving up on the voting rights bills. It's useful to think about why & what that means going forward.
2. The reasons for giving up are well known: filibuster, Manchin, Sinema. An unhill fight and do you want to wasted resources on a very uncertain thing when you could be focusing on walk-arounds (pushing enforcement of existing civil rights laws, donor investment in GOTV).
3. The best argument for de-priotizing voting rights is that it only matters on the margins & that a strong economy is more important in deciding elections. There's something to that but...
1. This is spot on. For centuries novelists -- running from Sterne and Austen to Dickens to Bellow, Roth &
Roupenian have had a monopoly power on parodying their family, lovers & friends. Now people have more power to strike back!
2. The 19th century version of the Cat Person scandal involved Dickens and a little person, Mrs. Seymour Hill, whose dwarfishness he mocked as "Miss Mowcher" in the serialized version of David Cooperfield (where he also implied she was a pimp).
3. Mrs. Seymour Hill read David Cooperfield in serialization & objected to the cruel jokes about her appearance and the suggestion in the novel that she procured young women for aristocrats.