Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About DMC

  • Rank
    Pithy Witticism

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8,267 profile views
  1. DMC

    Careerchat IV

    LOL, good questions. My understanding is he (for anonymity's sake let's call him..Stan, in honor of Stanley Kubrick who was famously difficult to work with and socially awkward) rarely took on students, for starters. I became fast friends with that one student that successfully completed his diss once I chose Stan as my chair (in my third year), but even he finished fairly recently - 2015. I didn't know the student at the time, but that was my first year in my current program. In between me and that student, there was another student that tried to take on Stan as a chair, but he rather quickly changed course. I only switched chairs when I had to - since Stan left at the end of my third year, my university only would've permitted him to stay on as chair by the end of the next AY, or my fourth year. I was almost done - and in hindsight I should have switched chairs earlier and the other three committee members may have let me defend by the end of my fourth year, but alas, it was not to be. Anyway, so Stan did take on three students in about a 5-7 year interval. That's actually not a horrible rate. Why did he never have a successful student before that? I honestly have no idea. One would think the university would frown upon his either unwillingness or inability to successfully shepherd students to their phd. And, that may be part of why he left - he was always looking for my university to offer him an endowed chair (to avoid confusion, in terms of an endowed faculty position), and they never did. So when he finally got such an offer at a university that is top ranked in his subfield of bureaucracy, he took it. Which at the time I was surprised about - he has two relatively young kids (I think they were about 14 and 10 when he left), I did not expect him to make such a move. Another probable reason, again, is how open even the faculty is about how hard Stan is to work with. My current chair was recruited and hired by Stan, and Stan co-authored her first book that helped get her tenure so she's always appreciative. But me and her commiserate all the time - even before I made the switch - about how difficult Stan is to deal with. When my switch of chairs officially went through administratively, the rest of the committee was notified. The next time I met with my committee was during the bi-weekly meetings the Americanist (American politics field) faculty started with us ABD students to check on our progress. One of my committee members actively celebrated that Stan was off my committee and therefore his association with our university had entirely ended. My current chair and I kind of looked at each other like "that ain't right," especially to do so in front of the other ABD students, but that emphasizes how disliked Stan was in my program. Finally, to be clear, Stan is a very nice person and tries to be as helpful as possible. Moreover, his contributions to developing the theories of my diss are invaluable - I wouldn't be nearly in the position I am without his guidance and I owe him a lot. It's just Stan is insanely intense, doesn't respond to basic social cues, places unrealistic expectations on anyone he works with, and has a tendency to demand everything is done his way.
  2. Yeah way too premature as of yet. And at least one of the two "new" Senators the WSJ article I mentioned earlier identifies - Toomey - is the one pushing for the one-for-one deal, i.e. Bolton for Hunter Biden, etc. I'm not sure the Dems are gonna agree to that construct.
  3. I don't have much to say on the Kobe rape allegation that hasn't already been said, but I do think it's worth sharing that one thing I remember about the incident that still stands out is Kobe buying a $4 million ring for his wife after admitting to (at least) adultery. Certainly cheaper than a divorce, but still.
  4. Whatever, she's a campaign surrogate and his campaign circulated the op-ed. I wasn't even trying to attack Bernie, just using it as an example, man you guys are so sensitive about him. I agree that's very hard to conceptualize.
  5. Sure, this is the argument to impeach him in the first place - because it at least bring to bear some political cost. But the GOP Senate's determination not to remove him, or even allow a fair process, is something pretty much wholly out of anyone that opposes Trump's control. Meanwhile, there can be vigilance on trying to ensure a fair process and being a watchdog against the GOP's traditional dirty tricks. Even if this encourages future bad behavior - which again I think the only way we can try to counteract that is by voting to impeach in the Dem controlled House - the point is Trump's efforts to use the powers of the presidency to interfere in the election are likely to be incompetent and ineffective. He should leave it to the professionals, and there's not many professionals left even in the WHO.
  6. DMC

    NFL: Super Bowl, where legacies are made

    The other aspect to this - which I 100% agree with - is that Shanahan found a QB that can be incredibly efficient in his system. Other than the occasional frustrating interceptions, Garappolo has done everything asked of him throughout this season - including, as I think James Arryn mentioned a bit back - stepping up in crucial situations (e.g. on 3rd downs, in the 4th quarter, and when they're trailing).
  7. Fair point, but one counter I'd raise (and I've hesitated saying this even on here because I don't want to minimize what Trump did). Let's say Trump's gambit with Ukraine worked, and he didn't get caught (he was always going to get caught, but for the sake of argument). How much would that have impacted the election? Biden already is catching flak due to Hunter's role, and even a Bernie staffer wrote an op-ed with the headline that Biden had a "big corruption problem" (Bernie quickly apologized, to his credit). Would the Ukranian government announcing they were investigating Hunter's ties (and to be clear, all Trump wanted was the announcement, he didn't care if they actually conducted any investigation) lead to significantly more damage to Biden as a candidate? I sincerely doubt it. I'm much more concerned about the GOP's interference with the election at the state and local levels - ya know, where the votes are actually counted.
  8. DMC

    NFL: Super Bowl, where legacies are made

    But then the Niners lose the 6-7th guy on the DL depth chart - he's crucial to the rotation!
  9. Another point to emphasize about their not being a lack of enthusiasm or a pervasive feeling of resignation - look at the fundraising headlines that come out just today. The Dem Senate's PAC raised records amount of money in 2019, trouncing their GOP counterpart's haul. Likewise on the House side, where Kevin McCarthy went on record saying "they are kicking our ass," with the NRCC chair literally raising the alarm. Like you said, I think a lot of it has to do with Trump fatigue - people are just tired. And the other aspect is that there is a rational basis - if you're going to spend your time and effort to try to counteract this presidency - to focus your energy on defeating him in November rather than engaging protests that don't promise to yield any real substantive results. I certainly would encourage any protest movement of the trial, but right now I doubt I myself would attend because I frankly don't have the time (now if this was last year, different story, so that's pretty much just based on me).
  10. I'd agree with the first two, but I don't think it's a sign of being "resigned to autocracy." There's a rational reason to not care about the Senate trial because he's certainly not getting removed - and simultaneously certainly not think any active opposition is futile. But yeah, even a quarter of Democrats think impeachment is a waste of Congress' time.
  11. Oh, I think it makes a whole ton of sense. Just interesting because it goes against conventional wisdom that they'd be the most under pressure to support calling more witnesses since it is widely popular. Instead, their opposition emphasizes how polarization dominates reelection strategies even in "swing" states.
  12. Interestingly, WSJ has the GOP incumbents facing tough reelection battles as warning against voting for witnesses: That same article has Portman (OH) and Toomey (PA) as GOP Senators willing to vote for more witnesses - along with the standard three.
  13. I should have spent 30 seconds looking Wright up on Wikipedia. I, too, was thinking of his "God damn America" sermon which got played on a loop for, like, two weeks straight by every cable news channel - and of course the actual argument of those sermons is something I and many people agree with, but instead the media just activated nationalism to pose him as a threat. But, refreshing my memory, he made quite a bit of anti-semitic remarks blaming the "zionists" for Obama turning on him. Considerably more offensive, I'd say, than anything I've read from Rogan, so perhaps that wasn't the best comparison. As for Sanders' electoral strategy, his supporters have been touting how he can reach the "disenfranchised" white males in the middle that Rogan represents, essentially either Obama-Trump voters or nonvoters. And that's one way to win - another is to boost turnout (and support) from leftists that are sick of establishment party candidates (and which went 3rd party rather than Hillary at concerning rates in 2016); and another is to boost minority turnout and try to return it to rates closer to Obama than Hillary. Obviously, ideally you want to bring in all three. But when your campaign touts Rogan's endorsements, and then minorities point out his influence perpetuates an offensive mindset, it's probably best to then disassociate from at least Rogan's comments, if not Rogan himself. That does not mean you stop trying to appeal to Obama-Trump voters, but you can't have it both ways: if you're going to try to be the all-inclusive candidate that will be the most "electable," then you should acknowledge and respond to the valid criticisms of Rogan that one aspect of your election constituency (in the Fenno sense) is raising.
  14. Not doing something is not setting a precedent. The Court does not rule on cases all the time because they do not want to set a precedent. How does him staying out of the Senate's decisions weaken the power of the SC? Hell, he's the only member of the SC there. By doing something, he's going to piss off a lot of people, either way. And that will negatively impact the court's legitimacy because its legitimacy derives from public opinion. Now, if he doesn't cast a vote, sure, it's still gonna piss a lot of people off, but it's the least politically controversial option he has. Again, Roberts' ruling interest here is, as the representative of the court, to make sure it stays out of the political mudslinging as much as possible. That was literally Rehnquist's stated interest twenty years ago when he presided. That is going to be the basis for his (non) decision-making.
  15. Strongly disagree because inaction has the same effect as casting a vote in the negative. A motion, any motion, needs a majority to pass. In the event of a tie, Roberts doesn't have to do anything, he can just let McConnell as Floor Leader dismiss the motion as failing to achieve a majority. That way, he's doesn't set a precedent and he can't be perceived as putting his thumb on the scale. I don't think Roberts has any interest in setting a precedent asserting the power of the Chief Justice in an impeachment trial. His ethos clearly indicates he would indeed balk at such an opportunity because his primary interest is the court's legitimacy, and the best way to maintain legitimacy is to not get involved with political squabbles. This is not to say I agree with that - I of course agree with the WaPo columnist's argument that Roberts should assert the Justice's role in ensuring a fair trial. It's just the argument runs counter to Roberts' behavior as Chief Justice.