› Unlabelled › alltaket

alltaket

Is this gender-related? The NYT endorses both Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren.

Posted: 21 Jan 2020 04:03 AM PST

I like the illustration, but this is semi-nuts:



The nice illustration is by Jules Julien. It's even better if you go to the article page, here.

If Kamala Harris were still in the race, would the Times have picked 3?

Let's read:
On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation. Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced....

Democrats must decide which of their two models would be most compelling for the American people and best suited for repairing the Republic.... The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country....

[But now b]oth the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration.... That's why we're endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.....
You decide if you want to go realist or radical, and the Times has picked the best realist and the best radical. This is similar to choosing the best Democrat and the best Republican when there are active primaries in both parties.

Anyway, the question becomes why Warren over Sanders? The NYT observes that Sanders is 79 (Warren is 70) and he just had a heart attack. But it's not just that. The Times says he's "overly rigid, untested and divisive." Meanwhile, "Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller." Oh, yes, I remember the story of how Bernie told her a woman can't be President and the story of how she is a person of color. But the Times means:
She speaks elegantly of how the economic system is rigged against all but the wealthiest Americans... In her hands, that story has the passion of a convert, a longtime Republican from Oklahoma and a middle-class family, whose work studying economic realities left her increasingly worried about the future of the country....
How do we know Warren was "a longtime Republican"? I agree it's a good story!

I'm skipping over a lot, but here's the part where the Times has a reservation (sorry, I just stumbled into that word, but I do see the humor potential):
In her primary campaign...  she has shown some questionable political instincts. She sometimes sounds like a candidate who sees a universe of us-versus-thems, who, in the general election, would be going up against a president who has already divided America into his own version of them and us.... The senator talks more about bringing together Democrats, Republicans and independents behind her proposals, often leaning on anecdotes about her conservative brothers to do so....
For those who opt for moderation, why is Amy Klobuchar the one? The Times ticks through the alternatives. Pete Buttigieg is young. Andrew Yang has no governmental experience. Bloomberg is "the candidate in the race with the clearest track record of governing," but he's not campaigning in the normal way. Joe Biden is "prone to verbal stumbles," and he just "tinkers at the edges of issues," and talks about "merely restoring the status quo." So: Amy!
The senator from Minnesota is the very definition of Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness. Her lengthy tenure in the Senate and bipartisan credentials would make her a deal maker (a real one) and uniter for the wings of the party — and perhaps the nation.... Her record shows that she is confident and thoughtful, and she reacts to data — what you'd want in a crisis....
I think the NYT really wants Amy Klobuchar to be the one. And you know me: I said it in December 2018: "Why aren't the Democratic candidates better? I'm just going to be for Amy Klobuchar."

Here's how the NYT ends its dual endorsement:
Democrats would be smart to recognize that Mr. Trump's vision for America's future is shared by many millions of Americans. Any hope of restoring unity in the country will require modesty, a willingness to compromise and the support of the many demographics that make up the Democratic coalition....

There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives. But it's a fight the party itself has been itching to have... the very purpose of primaries...

May the best woman win.
I think there's a dual endorsement here not because there are 2 women left and the NYT wants a woman, as if there's no way to distinguish them because there's only one factor, gender. I think the NYT wants to stand back for a while and let voters have their time with the radical option and get rid of one of the radicals (Bernie, they hope), and later when things settle down, they'll let us know that the realist is better suited to go up against Trump. They hope to give Amy some traction in the meantime, and if it comes down, in the end, to Elizabeth and Amy, they'll advise Democrats to pick Amy.

But chances are, it will boil down to Biden and Bernie, and if it does, that's when we'll know how dedicated the Times is to the realist side of the Democratic Party. They'll embrace Biden.

"There are no 'male feminist' gay guys," Joe Rogan asserts — to make the point that the "male feminist" is always faking it, faking it to get women.

Posted: 21 Jan 2020 03:14 AM PST

"It's such a weird, sneaky thing... It's greasy!... Whenever I read 'male feminist' posts... I know what you're doing: You're a greasy man!"



Joe is speaking in the extreme, stating absolutes, and that works as comic expression, whether or not the absolute version of the statement is precisely true. Of course, if you had to defend it as precisely true, you could easily win by using a "no true Scotsman" approach to what "male feminist" means.

Also, "greasy man" is an excellent insult. It's old too. I looked it up in the OED. It's "a contemptuous or abusive epithet" that's been around since the 1500s.

a1529 J. Skelton Poems against Garnesche in Poet Wks. (1843) I. 121 Wherto xulde I wryght Of soche a gresy knyght?
a1616 W. Shakespeare As you like It (1623) ii. i. 55 I quoth Iaques, Sweepe on you fat and greazie Citizens.
1641 J. Milton Reason Church-govt. Concl. 62 Not Epicurus, nor Aristippus..but would shut his school dores against such greasy sophisters....
1856 W. Goodell Kansas Struggle (1857) 8 Free society! we sicken at the name. What is it but a conglomeration of Greasy Mechanics, Filthy Operatives, Small-Fisted Farmers, and moonstruck Theorists?...
1974 D. Smith Fisherman's Whore 61 I watch him let the robe clot at your feet as his greasy mechanic's hands slide under breasts only he and I have ever seen naked and lived.
The OED has a specific note on the phrase "greasy mechanic": "used of Northerners by Southerners preceding and during the American Civil War." I looked up "greasy mechanic" in the NYT archive and found "The Greasy Mechanic in a New Light" from September 30, 1861 (click to enlarge and clarify):
There's also greaser culture — the grease of "Grease." Wikipedia ties this term to the old insult:
The word "greaser" originated in the 19th century in the United States as a derogatory label for poor laborers, specifically those of Mexican, Italian descent. The term was later used to refer to mechanics. It was not used in writing to refer to the American subculture of the mid-20th century until the mid-1960s, though in this sense it still evoked a pejorative connotation and a relation to machine work. The name was applied to members of the subculture because of their characteristic greased-back hair.
I went to high school in the 60s, and there were lots of teenagers of Italian ancestry who styled themselves in a way that is called "greaser," but that wasn't the word were I lived (in Wayne, New Jersey). We called them "hoods" or "hood-y kids."

Anyway. Let me gather all the points I want to make into a list so you don't think I just took an off ramp, lost my way, and left you stranded in some backwater of English usage and my long-lost youth:

1. "Greasy" is an excellent insult with a long tradition.

2. The "male feminist" is indeed suspect.

3. Comedians have the license to state things in the absolute that are not actually absolute.

4. Never forget the "no true Scotsman" argument (which is a fallacy, but that doesn't mean you can't use it).

5. I think some gay guys really do believe in feminism (and don't mind saying so).

6. There's an important difference between believing in feminism and calling yourself a "male feminist."

7. I think "male feminist" should only be used as an insult. If you're feminist and male, just call yourself a "feminist." It's like "male nurse." Who says that and why? If you're male and a nurse, you call yourself a "nurse," don't you? It's those other people, who sound rather dumb, who keep saying "male nurse."

When The Ramones were on "Sha Na Na" playing "The Ramone Family" in a "Family Feud" spoof.

Posted: 20 Jan 2020 09:54 AM PST

I just found this YouTube obscurity from 1979:



I was just stumbling around in Wikipedia, researching the insult "greasy," skimming through the subject of the "greaser sub-culture" — "The band Sha-Na-Na models their on-stage presence on New York City greasers (the band members themselves were mostly Ivy Leaguers)" — which led me to the article on "Sha Na Na":
Conceived by George Leonard, then a graduate student in humanities, Sha Na Na began performing in 1969 at the height of the hippie counterculture, and achieved national fame after playing at the Woodstock Festival, where Rob Leonard, the president and bass singer of the band, sang the lead on "Teen Angel" when the band opened for their friend Jimi Hendrix. Their 90-second appearance in the Woodstock film...

... brought the group national attention and helped spark a 1950s nostalgia craze that inspired similar groups in North America, as well as the Broadway musical Grease (and its feature film adaptation), the feature film American Graffiti and the TV show Happy Days....
That was a culturally powerful 90 seconds!
From 1969 until 1971, the band played at, among other places, the Fillmore East and Fillmore West, opening for such bands as the Grateful Dead, the Mothers of Invention, and the Kinks. When Sha Na Na began headlining at other venues, one of their opening acts was Bruce Springsteen...

On their album The Golden Age of Rock and Roll, the lead singer taunts the audience on one of the live tracks by announcing, "We've got just one thing to say to you fuckin' hippies, and that is that rock and roll is here to stay!"
Americans are always looking back to a golden age. Compare "Make America Great Again." Question whether Donald Trump's present day version of "you fuckin' hippies" is any less satirical than Sha Na Na's. They're all Ivy Leaguers restyling American culture for the edification and education of the American People.

And how about those Ramones? How much of a comedy routine were they? And how did they interface with American politics? I'll just say that at the time, in the 70s, I regarded them as a comic act, and let me give you this from Wikipedia:
[Joey and Johnny] were politically antagonistic, Joey being a liberal and Johnny a conservative. Their personalities also clashed: Johnny, who spent two years in military school, lived by a strict code of self-discipline, while Joey struggled with obsessive-compulsive disorder and alcoholism....
Sounds just like America.

"It’s clear that Northam is praying for violence."

Posted: 20 Jan 2020 09:46 AM PST

Wrote Glenn Reynolds, expressing the cynical view that I had but felt I should refrain from saying.

My post, from 5 days ago, quotes NBC12 — "Fearing a repeat of the deadly violence that engulfed Charlottesville more than two years ago, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a temporary emergency Wednesday banning all weapons, including guns, from Capitol Square ahead of a massive rally planned next week over gun rights" — and says:
That phrase — "Fearing a repeat of the deadly violence that engulfed Charlottesville more than two years ago" — caused me to have a thought so cynical that I will refrain from writing it down.
With Glenn's companionship, I will disclose that when I read the headline out loud 5 days ago, I stopped after "Fearing a repeat of the deadly violence that engulfed Charlottesville" and said "Hoping for a repeat of the deadly violence that engulfed Charlottesville."

Today's the day. The rally is under way. The New York Times is doing live, minute-by-minute updates under the heading "Virginia Gun Rally Live Updates: Crowds and Lines, but Calm So Far." Sample text:
White supremacists, members of antigovernment militias and other extremists have said they planned to be in Richmond for the rally as well, stoking fears of the sort of violence that left one person dead and some two dozen others injured during a far-right rally in Charlottesville in 2017.

Hoping to head off trouble, the state has set up a security perimeter around the Capitol grounds and has banned weapons — including firearms — from the area inside. Police officers guarded the area with the help of bomb-sniffing dogs, and people entering the perimeter through the single entrance were being screened with metal detectors....

The actual sunrise time was

Posted: 20 Jan 2020 09:44 AM PST

3EE70E57-AF8D-481C-8678-446FBB63BDBC_1_201_a

The actual sunrise time was 7:24.

You may ask, did it really look like that? The answer is no, it was more unusual with a very striking, brilliant vertical and horizontal light — a distinct cross. The camera did not capture that. But the camera (the iPhone camera) did detect colors that I could not see. I've turned down the light a bit to keep the sun from washing things out, but I left the color saturation where it was.

I had not done a sunrise run since January 15th. I wanted to go out each day, but either there was the kind of new snow emergency where the police ask you to stay off the roads or the wind chill was below zero. This morning it was about 15°, which is perfectly fine. There was snow, but it was trampled down, so the only problem was a little bumpiness (because footsteps don't pack the snow down exactly evenly).

Anyway, I'm back to my ritual, and I regret that I could not record the huge vivid cross in the sky. You can say it was only in my head, but I saw it.