Was up far later than I should have been given I had to take a client to the hospital and heard about this on the radio ~ lujlp at January 4, 2018 2:06 AM
The scary thing is that of all the states I checked, the top federal salaries were "Department of Veteran's Affairs" employees who were making $400,000 per year. The next four or five were DVA employees making $350,000+ per year.
If we're paying this kind of money to its employees, shouldn't the VA be the model of how to build and run a federal agency, instead of the model of how not to?
Conan the Grammarian
at January 4, 2018 6:07 AM
Obama certainly did his best to extend the socialist mindset: 'Let's put as many people as possible on the government payroll, and pay them well and fund their programs with money that doesn't exist, and use their powers of regulation to choke the people who actually create the wealth that could pay for any of it.'
But Trump brings the other side of the socialist mirror: A normalization of abject personal corruption for which his fanboys are both complicit and oblivious...
As they were for Maduro, for Chavez, for Castro, for any Soviet leader you could name, for Arafat, for Qaddafi, for Saddam....
Crid
at January 4, 2018 7:03 AM
It's Ann Coulter, so take it with a grain or two of salt, but she brings up some interesting points about Al Franken's recent troubles and his hoisting by his own petard.
...for which his fanboys are both complicit and oblivious... As they were for Maduro, for Chavez, for Castro, for any Soviet leader you could name, for Arafat, for Qaddafi, for Saddam.... ~ Crid at January 4, 2018 7:03 AM
There is no party backing up Trump. The Trumpistas are a disorganized rabble and there does not seem to be any attempt at organizing them. Nor is Trump making moves to consolidate power. All the socialist dictators you named had party organizations backing them, began consolidating power immediately upon taking office, and brutally attacked their enemies with weapons much deadlier than incoherent 3am tweets.
The idea of Trump as evil dictator wannabe is still a "sum of all fears" dreamscape.
Nonetheless, Trump's fanboys are oblivious to his shortcomings, annoyingly so. I watched a debate on a friend's Facebook page in which the friend had expressed frustration with Trump's "my button is bigger" tweet and the Trumpistas came out in droves to defend him, not with facts, but with attacks on "libtards." The Trump detractors did them better with screeching fear mongering and charges of being "Trumptards."
Can we please drop the "tard" suffix from the lexicon and talk to each other like adults? Is that too much to ask?
Conan the Grammarian
at January 4, 2018 7:23 AM
Indeed, we can all play along at home. You can take it from the top quickly if you start this morning, only six tweets so far.
Crid
at January 4, 2018 7:32 AM
> All the socialist dictators you
> named had party organizations
> backing them
I didn't say anything about Trump and parties. My point was that the guy is plain in using the blessings owned by all Americans for his avarice, and his adoring zombies don't see and/or don't care.
Gossip about sincerity in secret Beltway truths all you want: Trump is a Republican president. No matter what happens, that's how history will (rightly) describe him.
Also, "Is that too much to ask?" is borderline sarcastic.
So, to answer the question of your penultimate sentence, maybe.
Crid
at January 4, 2018 7:37 AM
Also, "Is that too much to ask?" is borderline sarcastic. ~ Crid at January 4, 2018 7:37 AM
Borderline? I thought it was blatant. I intended it to be blatant, in the manner of an adult scolding a child.
Seriously, "tard" is no way to engage in a political debate on policy and philosophy. It's a variation of the childish retort, "you're a ree-tard," nothing but name calling.
If anybody was going to turn Trump into a socialist dictator, it was Bannon. His loyalty is to himself, his movement, and himself, in that order. Even Wolff's exposé, reproduced in part yesterday by Crid, spoke of Bannon rapidly attempting to consolidate his power in the Trump White House with an appointment Bannon called "equivalent" to the Chief of Staff.
Bannon was one of those alt-right partisans who refuse to compromise, who refuse to accept that to govern effectively requires compromise. They point to Reagan as their god, but forget that Saint Ronnie said if he could get 80% of what he wanted with a compromise, he'd happily compromise and work to get the other 20% later.
Publicly spurning Bannon might be one of the best moves Trump could have made, even if it did carry Trump's signature petulance at being spurned first.
Conan the Grammarian
at January 4, 2018 7:58 AM
Your attention is focused as though you're most concerned about a putsch... The team! Their leaders! The personalities in power positions!
I'm most concerned about a coddled, incurious, smirking populace that doesn't give a fuck.
Not all of us are practicing for "political debate." We're content to concentrate on seeing things, and people, more clearly than the day before. Offending others by rhetoric is not a problem.
Crid
at January 4, 2018 8:08 AM
It's DeeDee, Danny Boy, The Drezz— Doing the heavy lifting for the first draft.
Crid
at January 4, 2018 8:37 AM
I'm most concerned about a coddled, incurious, smirking populace that doesn't give a fuck. ~ Crid at January 4, 2018 8:08 AM
Me too.
But it may be too late. The political parties as sports teams metaphor has already taken hold. Hurray for our side!
That was evident enough when Ted Cruz and company were content to shut down the entire US government to get their way on Obamacare.
It was evident enough when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid promised an impeachment of George W. Bush in retaliation for the Clinton impeachment. And declared beforehand that any proposal Bush sent to Congress was dead on arrival.
Trump and the Trumpistas are a symptom of that, not a cause. That they further the decline of the Republic is a legitimate worry. That rabid Trump detractors who flash at his immaturity but ignore his policy also further the decline is a legitimate worry. That people on both sides of the aisle cannot see a viable political position beyond their own rigid one is a legitimate worry.
Trump being a narcissistic child-man as president who can barely see beyond his own needs is certainly of concern, but we've dealt with shallow presidents before - when our political discourse was at least sprinkled with ideas and flourish, not simpleton playground taunts; when giants strode upon the political stage, not the chimps we have now.
Trump cannot destroy the republic. What his election exposed is the rot that is tearing it down: Ignorance and apathy. On both sides of the aisle. Not only are people ignorant, they're proud of their ignorance, disguising it in partisan fervor.
Offending others by rhetoric is not a problem. ~ Crid at January 4, 2018 8:08 AM
I'm not concerned about offense by rhetoric. I'm concerned about the declining quality of the rhetoric itself. "Trumptard" and "libtard" are not signs of high-quality discourse in the political arena - or any arena.
I'm fearful of the day when a playground taunt like "your mama" becomes legitimate political debate. And "Trumptard" and "libtard" are but a short step from that.
Conan the Grammarian
at January 4, 2018 9:46 AM
Wokay fine, model/actress/whatever. but I'm not sure she was ever actually, y'know, pretty. Her eyes kinda look like his in that first one... Flattering neither of them.
(Neither person, not neither of her eyes. C'mon, it's almost noon.)
Crid
at January 4, 2018 11:21 AM
> concerned about the declining
> quality of the rhetoric
Again, it's a difference. I don't wake up and think "Today I will endeavor to issue some rhetoric of a totally elevated quality."
I say "Today I will try to see the world and its people more clearly than yesterday."
Crid
at January 4, 2018 11:25 AM
"But Trump brings the other side of the socialist mirror: A normalization of abject personal corruption for which his fanboys are both complicit and oblivious..."
Don't really disagree, but it's a topic that I find it hard to get wound up about. Trump is certainly not unique in Washington, in this respect. In fact, he's rather ordinary.
Cousin Dave
at January 4, 2018 11:53 AM
> I'm not sure she was ever actually, y'know, pretty.
The First Lady of the United States of America has always spoken very highly of your appearance, crid.
She's stunning to look at. I've not researched her position against the photos and oil portraits of her predecessors in an actually Pillsbury Bake-Off, but I'd have to assume she's the most attractive woman to ever hold the title.
Snoopy
at January 4, 2018 12:02 PM
Like everything else modern feminism touches . . .
Feminism Ruined “The Last Jedi” ~ mpetrie98 at January 4, 2018 12:16 PM
The female-authored Harry Potter series has the same flaws described in the article.
Whenever the hero needs a skill, he suddenly has it. He never struggles to develop any particular skill, being adept at everything right off the bat. If he needs instruction in anything, it is as simple as what word to use or how to activate a device. His chief struggle is to defeat those holding him back or standing in his way; and his power matches theirs. His struggle is never about improving himself.
I don't know if the flawed logic here is the fault Hollywood, women, or Millennials - that skills are somehow inherent, not acquired through sacrifice and hard work - but it's immature thinking and shows a lack of real-world experience.
Again, it's a difference. I don't wake up and think "Today I will endeavor to issue some rhetoric of a totally elevated quality." ~ Crid at January 4, 2018 11:25 AM
Not really sure we're disagreeing as much as you think we are.
I'm not waking up thinking, "Today, I will issue elevated rhetoric and oratory." I'm merely pointing out that past modern politicians, even the folksy ones like Everett Dirksen and Sam Ervin, spoke like they were not speaking down to their constituents; spoke like they themselves had a decent education. Today's political rhetoric is decidedly less sophisticated in word choice, allusion, and syntax. Perhaps in order to address an audience wracked with ADHD, ADD, and video game attention spans, or more likely, to address an audience unversed in classical dialogue, debate, and literature.
I was watching Endeavour on PBS last night (recorded) and marveled at the word usage in that show versus the average US show. Regarding his pending death, one character spoke of his choice to die in the line of duty or in his bed "with posterity gathered round." Allusions were made to Shakespeare, Eugene O'Neill, Henrik Ibsen, Spartacus, and even "Dirty Harry." Past episodes have contained allusions to works as varied as The Great Gatsby and The Graduate. But, never has the series felt the need to explain the references or quotes, trusting the audience to be smart or educated or experienced enough to get them or to look them up.
US politicians talk as if the audience has a seventh grade education, if that. And, problem is, they're probably right. And that is what I find sad, and a bad omen for the future of the Republic.
Conan the Grammarian
at January 4, 2018 1:59 PM
> spoken very highly of
> your appearance
As well she ought: I'm electrically beautiful.
And it amuses without surprise that of all the thunderingly, indisputably condemnatory stuff that's been written about that fucktard* on this blog and elsewhere in the past week or two, the thing that stirs you from your torpor is an intimation (of similar metaphysical certitude) that this trivial & unaccomplished little woman ——presumably photographed in a studio financed by a mid-level NYC ad agency which never collected on the job, multiply-surgeried even by that younger year, illuminated without grace and photoshopped with a heavy hand—— is not, like, totalee wankable.
We can write encyclopediae about his illiteracy, but to suggest one might not want to pork the missus is transgression you just will not tolerate.
*Hi Coney!
Crid
at January 4, 2018 2:21 PM
> the thing that stirs you from your torpor
You flatter yourself that you have secret knowledge of the innermost workings of commentators on this blog.
> indisputably condemnatory stuff that's been
> written about that fucktard
You say the same thing over and over. Most of it is #fakenews and I've responded before. This at least was something new.
Snoopy
at January 4, 2018 2:39 PM
The female-authored Harry Potter series has the same flaws described in the article.
Not sure about that. Harry Potter often comes up as an useless, pulsating lump of flesh with marginally more talent than Bella Swan -her powers are pretty much having zero thoughts at all-
from The Twilight Saga.
The only reason he managed to survive that long in the books is sheer luck and the talent of others because Wizard Batman kept on using him as live bait for Voldemort throughout the series.
Sixclaws
at January 4, 2018 4:26 PM
Regarding Harry Potter, if you accept the mythos of that world - it was, if you think about it, literally impossible to kill Harry as he was a horcrux and they can only be destroyed by a very precise ritual.
Plus the plan was to keep Harry alive long enough to be the last horcrux and then kill him
Which all shows Harry Potter wasn't really a main character. He was just part of the scenery. You could have replaced him with a rock or statue and you would have had the same effect.
As for the level of the book, it is aimed at young kids. Amazon puts the age range at 9-12. It is on par with Charlie and the Chocolate factory. I found the foreshadowing so heavy handed as to make the book unreadable. But I'm an adult who is familiar with the conventions the book was referencing. I don't need you to tell me something, and then tell it to me again, and then tell it to me a couple more times for me to get it. Harry Potter's real claim to fame was being something for kids that adults could survive. Compared to watching the Carebear movie this was much much better.
Ben
at January 4, 2018 7:47 PM
As for the Crid thing, Snoopy is right. We've heard it all before from you Crid. Dozens and dozens of times. And anytime someone disagrees you fall back on some childish personal insult.
Which only shows you don't have any real response. You can't actually make a counter point. Instead it's a 'you're stupid', 'never kissed a girl', or some such.
Which has lead me to think Crid's main issue with Trump is he doesn't like the competition. Small hands was Crid's gig and he doesn't like some mouthy New Yorker horning in on his turf. Well, whatever. Not my problem. So I put Crid on ignore.
Ben
at January 4, 2018 8:08 PM
> We've heard it all before
Naw, you guys never respond to news. No events, no headlines, no books, no responses to Trump from any other figure in the world have any impact on your adoration. As with Snooples this afternoon, anything to interrupt the simple-mindedness of your desires is "fake news." Like Hellfire & brimstone preachers from down in the holler: You don't like books, you've found one you're okay with, and your done.
'Hearing' things was never what this was about for you guys.
Crid
at January 5, 2018 1:18 AM
"His chief struggle is to defeat those holding him back or standing in his way; and his power matches theirs. His struggle is never about improving himself."
I don't know about that. A theme throughout the books (it was downplayed in the movies) is that Harry worries constantly that, due to his metaphysical connection with Voldermort, he might have the same moral disposition as Voldermort. In the later books, at times he wonders if he should be engaging in magic at all. I won't argue, though, that in the earlier books, Harry is lacking in character development. Rowling was trying to write an all-ages adventure (commendable in itself), and she knew that the younger audience wouldn't sit still for extended internal dialogue on the nature of being.
The limits-of-powers problem is an issue in all superhero stories. The superhero's powers have to have some defined limits, or else there would be no story; the superhero with unlimited powers would simply banish all the evildoers and life would be utopia thereafter. Boring. Some do it better that others; some are pretty clunky. As much as I enjoy Doctor Who, it suffers from this problem sometimes. For instance, the capabilities of the Sonic Screwdriver have never been very precisely defined; sometimes the writers have to invent an on-the-fly explanation for why it doesn't work in a certain circumstance, in order to maintain the integrity of the story. And some stories hinge on a random malfunction of the TARDIS which is never explained or dealt with thereafter. (Why, in 900 episodes and thirteen generations of Doctors, hasn't he/she ever been able to fix the shape-changing circuit?)
As for First Ladies: People who were there said that Dolley Madison was the most beautiful woman they had ever seen.
Cousin Dave
at January 5, 2018 6:54 AM
Did you guys even read the article?
When we first meet Rey, she’s a loner without friends, without family, and even without a last name. Yet she’s also somehow an expert fighter, mechanic, and pilot. The first time she picks up a lightsaber, she defeats a trained dark lord. She learns no lessons, needs no instruction, and never faces any real crisis, external or internal.
When we first meet Harry, he's a loner without friends, without loving family, but he does have a last name. Yet, he's also somehow an already-powerful wizard, will immediately and without study be a parsle-tongue, will immediately be an expert Quidditch player (despite no indication of any interest or ability in sports until then), and will never face a real emotional or intellectual struggle.
At the end [Luke] is still impetuous, still myopic, still being lectured by Yoda. But Rey—she’s perfect. As Yoda tells Luke as the last Jedi archive burns, there is nothing in “those books that the girl does not already possess.” In other words, she does not need the lessons of the past or a mentor to guide her. She already knows because she’s empowered.
Modern academia feminism is writ large in Harry Potter. Harry supposedly has the wise Dumbledore to mentor him, but what does Dumbledore actually teach Harry, other than a few historical facts? Nothing. Dumbledore serves as the emotional support doll for Harry, but Harry is complete as is, so he doesn't need any mansplaining from the doddering old fool. Dumbledore, on the whole, serves as little more than exposition for the reader.
Whenever Harry needs the ability to do something, it magically appears. There is no period of intensive training or study. He simply can. While Rowling does clean up her early laziness in the later books, providing Harry with some emotional struggle over family deaths, those family deaths are contrived as Harry gets the emotional support he needs from another family member or family friend popping up like whack-a-moles. And she never cleans up her habit of just endowing Harry with whatever skill he needs.
The smart wizard with all the answers in class and a backbone of steel is Hermoine. Ron is a klutz and a dolt who needs the superior Hermoine to take care of him. Neville is an emotionally-fragile wimp.
Frodo had to overcome the Ring and had Sam to help/drag him along while his friends fought the forces of darkness. Luke Skywalker had to contend with not being powerful enough to challenge Vader and had to learn how to be a Jedi. Dorothy had to overcome her shyness and indecision to take on the Wicked Witch of the West. Harry just had to show up for class that day.
Harry never took Campbell's Hero's Journey. Even Jesus took the Hero's Journey. Harry just had to stand around Hogwarts and wait for skills to appear. Most of the action in the story does not even hinge upon his words or actions, he's a side character in his own story.
Like Harry, teenagers are seldom in control and are often reactionary characters in their own lives while living with their parents or in loco parentis elsewhere and, since the series is aimed at teenagers (growing in size and complexity with each successive book and year of Harry's age), this makes it relatable to them.
What does it say then that adults have gone gaga over the series, ascribing it mythical status alongside LOTR, Beowoulf, and King Arthur? There's even a Master's thesis online about Harry Potter as mythic hero. A Master's thesis?
Conan the Grammarian
at January 5, 2018 7:04 AM
"Naw, you guys never respond to news. No events, no headlines, no books, no responses to Trump from any other figure in the world have any impact on your adoration."
And that right there shows your inability to reason or interact with reality Crid. You keep ascribing feelings and emotions to people they pretty clearly don't have. You also mix up who you are talking to. I've never had any adoration for Trump. But you keep claiming I do Crid. As for your news, events, headlines, and such. They aren't news. As I said, we've seen them all before. You may as well channel the spirit of Rick Romero. You are reporting that water is still wet. All of this was well known long before the election.
"What does it say then that adults have gone gaga over the series, ascribing it mythical status alongside LOTR, Beowoulf, and King Arthur? There's even a Master's thesis online about Harry Potter as mythic hero. A Master's thesis?"
That I can't argue with Conan. Rawlings lucked into something there. Potter was just the modern version of Seseme Street. A kids thing that adults could survive. There is no good reason for all the gaga. As for the thesis, there are too many people trying to get degrees. When everyone has to do something different you run out of topics.
Ben
at January 5, 2018 7:47 AM
" corruption for which his fanboys are both complicit and oblivious..."
Much like Clinton supporters are guilty of Billary's lifelong corruption and string of suspicious deaths, I suppose.
Let's face it, if you laughed at Al Franken on SNL or attended a Roman Polanski film, you're complicit in sexual harassment, assault, and perhaps worse.
You bastards!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at January 5, 2018 8:56 AM
From 2007, elsewhere, back when I was still a fan of HP:
On Aug 21, 4:39 pm, Meghan Noecker wrote:
> She seemed to be laying the
> groundwork (for the Knight-to-King theory), and then it stopped.
>
> I do think she could put off by the negative reaction the theory got.
> So many people were upset by the idea that she knew the last book
> would not be well-liked.
Me:
Well, she knew perfectly well how upset many people would be regarding
Sirius, so I would hope that, in itself, wouldn't be enough to scare
her off. (I also had the impression that a majority of the naysayers
just didn't think K2K was plausible, for whatever reason. Not that
they hated the idea.) Besides, bringing Sirius back would, I hope,
compensate for whatever it was that some people didn't like about K2K.
Though I suppose she may have decided, at some point before or after
OotP, that since many fictional orphans over a certain age are usually
expected to move on without a new loving parental figure permanently
in their lives, she wasn't about to break the cliche, and that's why
she made Sirius go. But the whole business about the Veil is, as I
said, pretty suspicious.
> I still like the way it all ended.
Can't say I did. The dialogue in the last two chapters was so tedious
and laughable I wanted to scream. Ever see "The Good, the Bad, and the
Ugly"? ("When you're going to shoot, shoot! Don't talk!")
So if she DID originally have K2K planned and she dumped it, she took
a gamble and lost, IMHO, since I do NOT consider 6 and 7 to be as good
as 5, aside from the tighter editing in the last two. Yes, those who'd
already heard of K2K would have felt quite a bit let down upon finding
that the ending had been already spoiled for them, but the plotlines
are going to be everywhere from now on ANYWAY. (After all, the
schoolyard can be far worse than the Web when it comes to spoilers,
since it's easier to avoid hearing gossip on the Web.)
Sigh...if anyone finds some good fanfic that follows the K2K
theory, please let me know.
Was up far later than I should have been given I had to take a client to the hospital and heard about this on the radio
https://www.openthebooks.com/
lujlp at January 4, 2018 2:06 AM
The scary thing is that of all the states I checked, the top federal salaries were "Department of Veteran's Affairs" employees who were making $400,000 per year. The next four or five were DVA employees making $350,000+ per year.
If we're paying this kind of money to its employees, shouldn't the VA be the model of how to build and run a federal agency, instead of the model of how not to?
Conan the Grammarian at January 4, 2018 6:07 AM
Obama certainly did his best to extend the socialist mindset: 'Let's put as many people as possible on the government payroll, and pay them well and fund their programs with money that doesn't exist, and use their powers of regulation to choke the people who actually create the wealth that could pay for any of it.'
But Trump brings the other side of the socialist mirror: A normalization of abject personal corruption for which his fanboys are both complicit and oblivious...
As they were for Maduro, for Chavez, for Castro, for any Soviet leader you could name, for Arafat, for Qaddafi, for Saddam....
Crid at January 4, 2018 7:03 AM
It's Ann Coulter, so take it with a grain or two of salt, but she brings up some interesting points about Al Franken's recent troubles and his hoisting by his own petard.
--------------------------------------------------
There is no party backing up Trump. The Trumpistas are a disorganized rabble and there does not seem to be any attempt at organizing them. Nor is Trump making moves to consolidate power. All the socialist dictators you named had party organizations backing them, began consolidating power immediately upon taking office, and brutally attacked their enemies with weapons much deadlier than incoherent 3am tweets.
The idea of Trump as evil dictator wannabe is still a "sum of all fears" dreamscape.
Nonetheless, Trump's fanboys are oblivious to his shortcomings, annoyingly so. I watched a debate on a friend's Facebook page in which the friend had expressed frustration with Trump's "my button is bigger" tweet and the Trumpistas came out in droves to defend him, not with facts, but with attacks on "libtards." The Trump detractors did them better with screeching fear mongering and charges of being "Trumptards."
Can we please drop the "tard" suffix from the lexicon and talk to each other like adults? Is that too much to ask?
Conan the Grammarian at January 4, 2018 7:23 AM
Indeed, we can all play along at home. You can take it from the top quickly if you start this morning, only six tweets so far.
Crid at January 4, 2018 7:32 AM
> All the socialist dictators you
> named had party organizations
> backing them
I didn't say anything about Trump and parties. My point was that the guy is plain in using the blessings owned by all Americans for his avarice, and his adoring zombies don't see and/or don't care.
Gossip about sincerity in secret Beltway truths all you want: Trump is a Republican president. No matter what happens, that's how history will (rightly) describe him.
Also, "Is that too much to ask?" is borderline sarcastic.
So, to answer the question of your penultimate sentence, maybe.
Crid at January 4, 2018 7:37 AM
Borderline? I thought it was blatant. I intended it to be blatant, in the manner of an adult scolding a child.
Seriously, "tard" is no way to engage in a political debate on policy and philosophy. It's a variation of the childish retort, "you're a ree-tard," nothing but name calling.
--------------------------------------------------
National Review celebrates Trump cutting ties with Steve Bannon.
If anybody was going to turn Trump into a socialist dictator, it was Bannon. His loyalty is to himself, his movement, and himself, in that order. Even Wolff's exposé, reproduced in part yesterday by Crid, spoke of Bannon rapidly attempting to consolidate his power in the Trump White House with an appointment Bannon called "equivalent" to the Chief of Staff.
Bannon was one of those alt-right partisans who refuse to compromise, who refuse to accept that to govern effectively requires compromise. They point to Reagan as their god, but forget that Saint Ronnie said if he could get 80% of what he wanted with a compromise, he'd happily compromise and work to get the other 20% later.
Publicly spurning Bannon might be one of the best moves Trump could have made, even if it did carry Trump's signature petulance at being spurned first.
Conan the Grammarian at January 4, 2018 7:58 AM
Your attention is focused as though you're most concerned about a putsch... The team! Their leaders! The personalities in power positions!
I'm most concerned about a coddled, incurious, smirking populace that doesn't give a fuck.
Not all of us are practicing for "political debate." We're content to concentrate on seeing things, and people, more clearly than the day before. Offending others by rhetoric is not a problem.
Crid at January 4, 2018 8:08 AM
It's DeeDee, Danny Boy, The Drezz— Doing the heavy lifting for the first draft.
Crid at January 4, 2018 8:37 AM
Me too.
But it may be too late. The political parties as sports teams metaphor has already taken hold. Hurray for our side!
That was evident enough when Ted Cruz and company were content to shut down the entire US government to get their way on Obamacare.
It was evident enough when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid promised an impeachment of George W. Bush in retaliation for the Clinton impeachment. And declared beforehand that any proposal Bush sent to Congress was dead on arrival.
Trump and the Trumpistas are a symptom of that, not a cause. That they further the decline of the Republic is a legitimate worry. That rabid Trump detractors who flash at his immaturity but ignore his policy also further the decline is a legitimate worry. That people on both sides of the aisle cannot see a viable political position beyond their own rigid one is a legitimate worry.
Trump being a narcissistic child-man as president who can barely see beyond his own needs is certainly of concern, but we've dealt with shallow presidents before - when our political discourse was at least sprinkled with ideas and flourish, not simpleton playground taunts; when giants strode upon the political stage, not the chimps we have now.
Trump cannot destroy the republic. What his election exposed is the rot that is tearing it down: Ignorance and apathy. On both sides of the aisle. Not only are people ignorant, they're proud of their ignorance, disguising it in partisan fervor.
I'm not concerned about offense by rhetoric. I'm concerned about the declining quality of the rhetoric itself. "Trumptard" and "libtard" are not signs of high-quality discourse in the political arena - or any arena.
I'm fearful of the day when a playground taunt like "your mama" becomes legitimate political debate. And "Trumptard" and "libtard" are but a short step from that.
Conan the Grammarian at January 4, 2018 9:46 AM
Wokay fine, model/actress/whatever. but I'm not sure she was ever actually, y'know, pretty. Her eyes kinda look like his in that first one... Flattering neither of them.
(Neither person, not neither of her eyes. C'mon, it's almost noon.)
Crid at January 4, 2018 11:21 AM
> concerned about the declining
> quality of the rhetoric
Again, it's a difference. I don't wake up and think "Today I will endeavor to issue some rhetoric of a totally elevated quality."
I say "Today I will try to see the world and its people more clearly than yesterday."
Crid at January 4, 2018 11:25 AM
"But Trump brings the other side of the socialist mirror: A normalization of abject personal corruption for which his fanboys are both complicit and oblivious..."
Don't really disagree, but it's a topic that I find it hard to get wound up about. Trump is certainly not unique in Washington, in this respect. In fact, he's rather ordinary.
Cousin Dave at January 4, 2018 11:53 AM
> I'm not sure she was ever actually, y'know, pretty.
The First Lady of the United States of America has always spoken very highly of your appearance, crid.
She's stunning to look at. I've not researched her position against the photos and oil portraits of her predecessors in an actually Pillsbury Bake-Off, but I'd have to assume she's the most attractive woman to ever hold the title.
Snoopy at January 4, 2018 12:02 PM
Like everything else modern feminism touches . . .
Feminism Ruined “The Last Jedi”
mpetrie98 at January 4, 2018 12:16 PM
The female-authored Harry Potter series has the same flaws described in the article.
Whenever the hero needs a skill, he suddenly has it. He never struggles to develop any particular skill, being adept at everything right off the bat. If he needs instruction in anything, it is as simple as what word to use or how to activate a device. His chief struggle is to defeat those holding him back or standing in his way; and his power matches theirs. His struggle is never about improving himself.
I don't know if the flawed logic here is the fault Hollywood, women, or Millennials - that skills are somehow inherent, not acquired through sacrifice and hard work - but it's immature thinking and shows a lack of real-world experience.
Not really sure we're disagreeing as much as you think we are.
I'm not waking up thinking, "Today, I will issue elevated rhetoric and oratory." I'm merely pointing out that past modern politicians, even the folksy ones like Everett Dirksen and Sam Ervin, spoke like they were not speaking down to their constituents; spoke like they themselves had a decent education. Today's political rhetoric is decidedly less sophisticated in word choice, allusion, and syntax. Perhaps in order to address an audience wracked with ADHD, ADD, and video game attention spans, or more likely, to address an audience unversed in classical dialogue, debate, and literature.
I was watching Endeavour on PBS last night (recorded) and marveled at the word usage in that show versus the average US show. Regarding his pending death, one character spoke of his choice to die in the line of duty or in his bed "with posterity gathered round." Allusions were made to Shakespeare, Eugene O'Neill, Henrik Ibsen, Spartacus, and even "Dirty Harry." Past episodes have contained allusions to works as varied as The Great Gatsby and The Graduate. But, never has the series felt the need to explain the references or quotes, trusting the audience to be smart or educated or experienced enough to get them or to look them up.
US politicians talk as if the audience has a seventh grade education, if that. And, problem is, they're probably right. And that is what I find sad, and a bad omen for the future of the Republic.
Conan the Grammarian at January 4, 2018 1:59 PM
> spoken very highly of
> your appearance
As well she ought: I'm electrically beautiful.
And it amuses without surprise that of all the thunderingly, indisputably condemnatory stuff that's been written about that fucktard* on this blog and elsewhere in the past week or two, the thing that stirs you from your torpor is an intimation (of similar metaphysical certitude) that this trivial & unaccomplished little woman ——presumably photographed in a studio financed by a mid-level NYC ad agency which never collected on the job, multiply-surgeried even by that younger year, illuminated without grace and photoshopped with a heavy hand—— is not, like, totalee wankable.
We can write encyclopediae about his illiteracy, but to suggest one might not want to pork the missus is transgression you just will not tolerate.
Crid at January 4, 2018 2:21 PM
> the thing that stirs you from your torpor
You flatter yourself that you have secret knowledge of the innermost workings of commentators on this blog.
> indisputably condemnatory stuff that's been
> written about that fucktard
You say the same thing over and over. Most of it is #fakenews and I've responded before. This at least was something new.
Snoopy at January 4, 2018 2:39 PM
Not sure about that. Harry Potter often comes up as an useless, pulsating lump of flesh with marginally more talent than Bella Swan -her powers are pretty much having zero thoughts at all-
from The Twilight Saga.
The only reason he managed to survive that long in the books is sheer luck and the talent of others because Wizard Batman kept on using him as live bait for Voldemort throughout the series.
Sixclaws at January 4, 2018 4:26 PM
Regarding Harry Potter, if you accept the mythos of that world - it was, if you think about it, literally impossible to kill Harry as he was a horcrux and they can only be destroyed by a very precise ritual.
Plus the plan was to keep Harry alive long enough to be the last horcrux and then kill him
lujlp at January 4, 2018 4:37 PM
Which all shows Harry Potter wasn't really a main character. He was just part of the scenery. You could have replaced him with a rock or statue and you would have had the same effect.
As for the level of the book, it is aimed at young kids. Amazon puts the age range at 9-12. It is on par with Charlie and the Chocolate factory. I found the foreshadowing so heavy handed as to make the book unreadable. But I'm an adult who is familiar with the conventions the book was referencing. I don't need you to tell me something, and then tell it to me again, and then tell it to me a couple more times for me to get it. Harry Potter's real claim to fame was being something for kids that adults could survive. Compared to watching the Carebear movie this was much much better.
Ben at January 4, 2018 7:47 PM
As for the Crid thing, Snoopy is right. We've heard it all before from you Crid. Dozens and dozens of times. And anytime someone disagrees you fall back on some childish personal insult.
Which only shows you don't have any real response. You can't actually make a counter point. Instead it's a 'you're stupid', 'never kissed a girl', or some such.
Which has lead me to think Crid's main issue with Trump is he doesn't like the competition. Small hands was Crid's gig and he doesn't like some mouthy New Yorker horning in on his turf. Well, whatever. Not my problem. So I put Crid on ignore.
Ben at January 4, 2018 8:08 PM
> We've heard it all before
Naw, you guys never respond to news. No events, no headlines, no books, no responses to Trump from any other figure in the world have any impact on your adoration. As with Snooples this afternoon, anything to interrupt the simple-mindedness of your desires is "fake news." Like Hellfire & brimstone preachers from down in the holler: You don't like books, you've found one you're okay with, and your done.
'Hearing' things was never what this was about for you guys.
Crid at January 5, 2018 1:18 AM
"His chief struggle is to defeat those holding him back or standing in his way; and his power matches theirs. His struggle is never about improving himself."
I don't know about that. A theme throughout the books (it was downplayed in the movies) is that Harry worries constantly that, due to his metaphysical connection with Voldermort, he might have the same moral disposition as Voldermort. In the later books, at times he wonders if he should be engaging in magic at all. I won't argue, though, that in the earlier books, Harry is lacking in character development. Rowling was trying to write an all-ages adventure (commendable in itself), and she knew that the younger audience wouldn't sit still for extended internal dialogue on the nature of being.
The limits-of-powers problem is an issue in all superhero stories. The superhero's powers have to have some defined limits, or else there would be no story; the superhero with unlimited powers would simply banish all the evildoers and life would be utopia thereafter. Boring. Some do it better that others; some are pretty clunky. As much as I enjoy Doctor Who, it suffers from this problem sometimes. For instance, the capabilities of the Sonic Screwdriver have never been very precisely defined; sometimes the writers have to invent an on-the-fly explanation for why it doesn't work in a certain circumstance, in order to maintain the integrity of the story. And some stories hinge on a random malfunction of the TARDIS which is never explained or dealt with thereafter. (Why, in 900 episodes and thirteen generations of Doctors, hasn't he/she ever been able to fix the shape-changing circuit?)
As for First Ladies: People who were there said that Dolley Madison was the most beautiful woman they had ever seen.
Cousin Dave at January 5, 2018 6:54 AM
Did you guys even read the article?
When we first meet Harry, he's a loner without friends, without loving family, but he does have a last name. Yet, he's also somehow an already-powerful wizard, will immediately and without study be a parsle-tongue, will immediately be an expert Quidditch player (despite no indication of any interest or ability in sports until then), and will never face a real emotional or intellectual struggle.
Modern academia feminism is writ large in Harry Potter. Harry supposedly has the wise Dumbledore to mentor him, but what does Dumbledore actually teach Harry, other than a few historical facts? Nothing. Dumbledore serves as the emotional support doll for Harry, but Harry is complete as is, so he doesn't need any mansplaining from the doddering old fool. Dumbledore, on the whole, serves as little more than exposition for the reader.
Whenever Harry needs the ability to do something, it magically appears. There is no period of intensive training or study. He simply can. While Rowling does clean up her early laziness in the later books, providing Harry with some emotional struggle over family deaths, those family deaths are contrived as Harry gets the emotional support he needs from another family member or family friend popping up like whack-a-moles. And she never cleans up her habit of just endowing Harry with whatever skill he needs.
The smart wizard with all the answers in class and a backbone of steel is Hermoine. Ron is a klutz and a dolt who needs the superior Hermoine to take care of him. Neville is an emotionally-fragile wimp.
Frodo had to overcome the Ring and had Sam to help/drag him along while his friends fought the forces of darkness. Luke Skywalker had to contend with not being powerful enough to challenge Vader and had to learn how to be a Jedi. Dorothy had to overcome her shyness and indecision to take on the Wicked Witch of the West. Harry just had to show up for class that day.
Harry never took Campbell's Hero's Journey. Even Jesus took the Hero's Journey. Harry just had to stand around Hogwarts and wait for skills to appear. Most of the action in the story does not even hinge upon his words or actions, he's a side character in his own story.
Like Harry, teenagers are seldom in control and are often reactionary characters in their own lives while living with their parents or in loco parentis elsewhere and, since the series is aimed at teenagers (growing in size and complexity with each successive book and year of Harry's age), this makes it relatable to them.
What does it say then that adults have gone gaga over the series, ascribing it mythical status alongside LOTR, Beowoulf, and King Arthur? There's even a Master's thesis online about Harry Potter as mythic hero. A Master's thesis?
Conan the Grammarian at January 5, 2018 7:04 AM
"Naw, you guys never respond to news. No events, no headlines, no books, no responses to Trump from any other figure in the world have any impact on your adoration."
And that right there shows your inability to reason or interact with reality Crid. You keep ascribing feelings and emotions to people they pretty clearly don't have. You also mix up who you are talking to. I've never had any adoration for Trump. But you keep claiming I do Crid. As for your news, events, headlines, and such. They aren't news. As I said, we've seen them all before. You may as well channel the spirit of Rick Romero. You are reporting that water is still wet. All of this was well known long before the election.
"What does it say then that adults have gone gaga over the series, ascribing it mythical status alongside LOTR, Beowoulf, and King Arthur? There's even a Master's thesis online about Harry Potter as mythic hero. A Master's thesis?"
That I can't argue with Conan. Rawlings lucked into something there. Potter was just the modern version of Seseme Street. A kids thing that adults could survive. There is no good reason for all the gaga. As for the thesis, there are too many people trying to get degrees. When everyone has to do something different you run out of topics.
Ben at January 5, 2018 7:47 AM
" corruption for which his fanboys are both complicit and oblivious..."
Much like Clinton supporters are guilty of Billary's lifelong corruption and string of suspicious deaths, I suppose.
Let's face it, if you laughed at Al Franken on SNL or attended a Roman Polanski film, you're complicit in sexual harassment, assault, and perhaps worse.
You bastards!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 5, 2018 8:56 AM
From 2007, elsewhere, back when I was still a fan of HP:
On Aug 21, 4:39 pm, Meghan Noecker wrote:
> She seemed to be laying the
> groundwork (for the Knight-to-King theory), and then it stopped.
>
> I do think she could put off by the negative reaction the theory got.
> So many people were upset by the idea that she knew the last book
> would not be well-liked.
Me:
Well, she knew perfectly well how upset many people would be regarding
Sirius, so I would hope that, in itself, wouldn't be enough to scare
her off. (I also had the impression that a majority of the naysayers
just didn't think K2K was plausible, for whatever reason. Not that
they hated the idea.) Besides, bringing Sirius back would, I hope,
compensate for whatever it was that some people didn't like about K2K.
Though I suppose she may have decided, at some point before or after
OotP, that since many fictional orphans over a certain age are usually
expected to move on without a new loving parental figure permanently
in their lives, she wasn't about to break the cliche, and that's why
she made Sirius go. But the whole business about the Veil is, as I
said, pretty suspicious.
> I still like the way it all ended.
Can't say I did. The dialogue in the last two chapters was so tedious
and laughable I wanted to scream. Ever see "The Good, the Bad, and the
Ugly"? ("When you're going to shoot, shoot! Don't talk!")
So if she DID originally have K2K planned and she dumped it, she took
a gamble and lost, IMHO, since I do NOT consider 6 and 7 to be as good
as 5, aside from the tighter editing in the last two. Yes, those who'd
already heard of K2K would have felt quite a bit let down upon finding
that the ending had been already spoiled for them, but the plotlines
are going to be everywhere from now on ANYWAY. (After all, the
schoolyard can be far worse than the Web when it comes to spoilers,
since it's easier to avoid hearing gossip on the Web.)
Sigh...if anyone finds some good fanfic that follows the K2K
theory, please let me know.
lenona at January 5, 2018 1:40 PM
Leave a comment