Bannon's also a cautionary tale. He was originally an opportunist, not an alt-right true believer; thought he could gain money & influence by pandering to them to grow his audience. Today, they're the only audience he has left.
Remember when Julia Hahn, writing for Bannon's Breitbart, went after Paul Ryan for sending his kids to a Catholic school? mediaite.com/online/breitba…
So, I just finished the @Political_Beats episode on Guns n Roses with @RAVerBruggen. I was somewhat alarmed to hear he, @EsotericCD & @ScotBertram all encountered GnR as kids - even from their dads! As a teenager when Appetite for Destruction hit town, I had a different POV.
@Political_Beats@RAVerBruggen@EsotericCD@ScotBertram I first heard of Guns n Roses while attending a conservative teen conference in Valley Forge, summer of 1987 (I was 15, & had won an essay contest). A guy there told us about an L.A. "biker band" that was heading East and we'd hear about them soon. He was right.
That album went off like a bomb. I always liked the contrast between the band's hard cynicism & the sweetness & pop melodies of Sweet Child O Mine & other songs. I loved Think About You, which was as catchy as any pop hit.
1. The past few weeks have left me more pessimistic than ever about the future of civil debate in this country, and in particular on this platform. There are people who see civil debate as a threat and will bend their efforts to prevent it.
2. Twitter can be used for many purposes, but civil debate is one of those - even when "civil" includes a lot of angry rhetoric. We may not persuade each other by arguing, but we allow observers to judge and be persuaded.
3. The direct and public interaction Twitter permits is fairly unique; few other platforms or social media tools allow totally disparate public figures & public writers to interact and hash things out in the moment. Ideally, that could be a uniquely valuable thing in a democracy.
This had nothing to do with the unitary executive. The argument that POTUS is a co-equal branch with an independent obligation to interpret & obey the Constitution goes back to the earliest days of the presidency, was most vigorously urged by Jackson.
The alternative is the courts simply finding that the law does or does not allow things. The question, a serious and longstanding one, is the limits of "who decides." Also recurs in when the executive can refuse to defend/enforce laws (eg DOMA).
If you want respect on Twitter, you have to earn it. If you lead with arrogant belligerence before you've shown that you have something interesting to add, you're not getting there.
I never assume people should respect me or know who I am, if I'm meeting them the first time. You walk into a new courtroom, you win respect by "show me." Back up your arguments. Be trustworthy. Let your work speak for itself.
Like the early days of blogging, Twitter moved pretty fast away from the camaraderie of sharing a new medium, but only since 2015-ish has it really descended to the flash mob mentality where we judge everything by how many braying jackals each side can summon.
We want professional prosecutors to exercise independent, apolitical judgment. But in a democracy, they respond to the civilian oversight of elected officials with POTUS at the top. That @PreetBharara would question that allocation is deeply disturbing.
@PreetBharara And the US Attorney serves at the president's pleasure, as you well know. The need to get prosecutors to submit to the civilian oversight is just as important as the need for the military to do so.
I'm not against the concept of reparations in South Africa (it's already been done on a smaller scale, and it was no that far in the past). That's not what's going on here. irishtimes.com/news/south-afr…
The problem is South Africa's turn towards a punitive policy against *individuals* (w/o due process or adjudication of guilt) as well as the Zimbabwe precedent leading down a road to economic immiseration, or worse.
If you read the prior thread, you can see why Tom has to shift the debate from what is actually happening to a hypothetical (GOP facing off with a Dem POTUS and a liberal nominee). My argument is about historical precedents, not Mitch's sincerity.
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.