On health care, for example, Hitler believed in national health care; being Hitler, he saw it as a lever for state control and, ultimately, his goals of racial purity & eugenics.
Now, it's important to recall that the Nazi platform was much more socialistic than the Nazi regime once it had absolute power. Social welfare and worker power were the sales pitch, not so much the policy. The Nazis crushed unions, for example.
RIP Aretha Franklin, who did so many things we now take for granted in music. Before 1967, there were nearly no solo female rock stars, black women sang in girl groups, and gospel and popular music were totally separate. Aretha busted barriers all at once.
Aretha was feminist in a way that was wholly unlike the white "women's lib" of her time. She brought "church" into mainstream music. She reinvented other people's songs. She was an original, who made the music landscape technicolor.
Every black female singer since Aretha has sang in her footsteps, and her influence went far beyond black women. She was the original "diva" in popular music. She took musical chances, so even when she failed, she was interesting in failure. She boomed and wailed and strutted.
1909 World Series hero as a rookie, Babe Adams was a star from 1910-15:
2.46 ERA, 2.59 FIP, 0.2 HR, 1.5 BB, 3.4 K.
1916, his FIP was 2.69: 0.2 HR, 1.5 BB, 2.7 K. But .337 BABIP gave him a 5.72 ERA. Didn't pitch in MLB again for 2 years. Came back even better from 1919-22.
Adams had a sore arm in 1916, but modern metrics would have noted that his struggles were mostly not his fault. 22.1 innings with a .427 BABIP in his last 8 appearances cost him a lengthy exile only ended by wartime player shortages in 1918.
1918-22, he returned with a 2.44 ERA, 2.62 FIP (in which he led the NL in 1920, 1921 & 1922). 0.1 HR, 0.8 BB, 2.8 K. Hard to beat a guy who allows less than one HR+BB per 9 innings.
My general sense has been that both Jordan's critics & defenders are overselling their case, when the real debate is woulda coulda shoulda arguments - about responsibility and attentiveness - from circumstantial evidence that are unlikely to be resolved with smoking guns.
Put another way, the Jim Jordan story is never gonna be "he knew A, B, C, and D" vs "he did not know A, B, C, or D." It was always gonna be "he knew A and B, he should have troubled himself to learn C and D." But that's not as sexy a slogan.
1. This is an even-tempered thread with some important context on the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings, but it is also missing several kinds of crucial context on where "unconditional surrender" came from & why it stayed U.S. policy to the bitter end
2. "Unconditional surrender" wasn't Truman's idea; it had been FDR's publicly declared policy for over 2 years of war, and had been followed to the bitter end with the Germans. Truman had been in office 4 months.
3. Truman certainly wasn't shy about making his own decisions, but there was a lot of policy inertia behind unconditional surrender. FDR had seen it as important to secure Stalin's confidence in US commitment. Fear of a separate peace has haunted wartime alliances for centuries.
But that's the point! One, the great new social-democrat hope is same as the old boss. And two, in a large Congressional caucus, dim bulbs can rely on a small brain trust. Someone running as a brash new thinker is expected to be a thought leader, not a shallow, foolish follower.
Framers of the Constitution expected Presidents, Senators & Justices to be serious, dignified & learned.
They expected the House to be a bunch of yahoos, climbers & grifters, & designed its structure & powers accordingly.
Of course, politics being what it is, James Madison was perfectly capable of both (1) having a low opinion of members of the House and (2) running for a seat in the House himself, where he swiftly became its most influential leader.
The number of 150-innings-in-relief seasons in MLB history (11, all between 1945 & 1986) is fewer than the number of 600-inning seasons (15, all between 1874 & 1890).
Kansas City A's reliever John Wyatt - later a contributor to the 1967 Red Sox & 1968 Tigers - allowed 23 home runs in 128 relief innings in 1964. He's the only pitcher ever to allow 20 HR in relief in one season.
In 1956, 23-year-old Senators rookie pitcher Connie Grob managed to allow 44 extra base hits, 25 walks *and* 9 men reached base on errors in 72.1 relief innings (oddly, he pitched well in 7 innings in his lone start).
Grob pitched 9 more years in AAA but never again in MLB.
If nothing else, this Sarah Jeong story has produced a bumper crop of "actually, our tribal dislikes of people on the basis of their race are noble" tweets from people who claim that opposing bigotry is their highest value.
A truly vast amount of the intellectual energy of progressivism is dedicated to constructing elaborate arguments for why "tribalism is bad except when we do it."
The 1890 decision that established federal officer immunity from state prosecution involved a US Marshal killing a former Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, while defending one of the SCOTUS Justices, Stephen Field. The backstory was insane:
Note that, while Justice Field recused himself in In re Neagle, his remaining colleagues did not even though the case involved an attempt on Field's life and Field was a witness to the killing of his assailant.
In 2012, Mitt Romney won 51% of voters with a college degree (no postgrad), 53% of married women, & won white women 56-42, widest margin of any candidate since Reagan in 84. Driving those voters off is a choice.
Of course, anything that changes course to add to your political coalition will cost you *some* voters, but a winning strategy builds out from the people you have; it doesn't burn it down in hopes of starting over.
Really only successful example of a party rebooting itself by abandoning its base's concerns to chase new voters was Democrats in 1928 after 1920 & 1924 catastrophes. Ds lost badly in 1928, but set themselves up for explosive growth in 1932-36...with huge assist from Depression.
The world would be better off if Alex Jones was banned from ever speaking anywhere about anything. But content platforms banning Jones is bad because it's a dangerous road to have publishing platforms start content-policing speech for falsehood or offensiveness.
Banning users makes sense when it's for certain narrowly-defined, content-neutral kinds of abuse, like doxxing people's home address & phone number. But the Alex Jones stuff is the definition of a slippery slope.
Trump & Hillary were, by Election Day favorability, the two most disliked candidates in polling history. They couldn't both lose. That neither could muster a popular majority against such a dismal opponent is an indictment of both.
1-Let’s do a little Twitter housecleaning on a time I made a bet on future disclosures a lot of these over the years) & it did not pan out. This pertains to the HHS Inspector General Report on Tom Price’s travel, which came out late last week oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/re…
2-I thought Price needed to resign at the time, b/c he’d been unable to present an argument for the costs of his travel *and* b/c he’d been ineffective. Lotta downside, no upside.
3-*But* I’d heard through multiple direct & indirect credible sources that there was another side of the story: that Price had faced worrying security concerns, and this might put his travel practices in a different light.
1. Trump's foreign policy represents the value, and limitations, of "personnel is policy."
2. Trump has surrounded himself with an excellent foreign policy/national security team. It's gotten better as the Bannonites washed out. When he lets them do their jobs, they've done a lot of good.
3. Trump himself, by contrast, makes no end of mistakes when he personally conducts foreign policy. Often this involves doing things his subordinates are on record - even while in their current jobs - opposing.
I wonder if anyone has done a count of how many articles Vox has published arguing that some element of the United States Constitution is bad.
At least one upside of Trump's election is that it put an end to five solid years of liberal commentators complaining that midterm elections are unfair and bad because Republican voters are more likely to show up for them.
Proof of my thesis that young progressives expect every social debate to shift rapidly their way like same-sex marriage did, much as my generation of conservatives expected everything to end the way the Cold War did.
I bet Republicans who were in their twenties in the 1850s spent the 1870s and 1880s bewildered that Reconstruction didn't turn out the way abolition had, too.
For Gen X conservatives, we saw our side go from victory to victory in 1981-95: tax cuts, stagflation ends, Cold War victory, Reagan landslides, Newt ending 40 yrs of Dem House, Rudy leading the crime-fighting revolution.
The years since have taught us it's not always like that.
The important thing about Schumer's preemptive attack on Barrett is the dictum that your enemies will tell you who they fear.
My guess is "Chuck Schumer doesn't like her" will not be a big deterrent to Trump.
Trump is not immune to bad press or public criticism, but if there is one thing we should have learned about him by now, it's that you don't talk him out of things by telling him, "if you do this, people will be mad and there will be a fight."
Also I suspect Schumer is already visibly worried that "you don't understand why contraception is important to women" is not going to be the most effective argument against a mother of seven.
1. I've made my case that, historically, when POTUS & Senate are different parties, the Senate has held open SCOTUS seats rather than confirm presidential-election year nominees. @nycsouthpaw does not dispute this. But a few rebuttals.
@nycsouthpaw 2. The chief argument he makes is about the procedure, rather than the outcome - eg, that there was no hearing & no recorded vote. These are red herrings, for three reasons.
@nycsouthpaw 3. One, as I've noted before & he now concedes, hearings are a modern innovation for the benefit of the Senators, not the nominee. They serve no purpose if the outcome is not in doubt. nationalreview.com/corner/it-does…