DireWolfSpirit Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Kind of poor optics for Newsom. Panera Bread, however, was ruled exempt from the $20-an-hour minimum wage hike by Gov. Gavin Newsom after the billionaire owner of several of the chain’s locations donated to his campaign, according to a report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 @Larry of the Lawn -- if you don't believe the constant bombardment of this kind of violence from birth on up, in television, movies, video/computer games, and even sports, has no effect on the brains and attitudes of people you need new drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Fair. The outsider “fighting” for the oppressed “decent folks” has long been a fantasy in American populism. That doesn’t make it good or lesss dangerous (but I’m confident you see that). I really don't think that's exclusively an "American" fantasy. And very often the "hero" in such a fantasy is precisely a wealthy and/or aristocratic person who has made themselves an outsider in order to fight for the "common people." Robin Hood, anyone? I really think many of Trump's admirers have the misperception that he is some sort of combination of Robin Hood, John Wayne, Zorro, and Daddy Warbucks. P.S. Here are links for those of you who may be too young to know who Zorro and Daddy Warbucks are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daddy_Warbucks Edited March 25 by Ormond Ser Scot A Ellison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Trump's bond knocked down to 175 million [stares directly at the camera] Durckad, Ser Scot A Ellison and Zorral 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Slotkin this month hast published a new book, btw, this one looking at the 21st C. Could a New Mythology Save the United States? After a career of framing the country’s past through the myths that inspire Americans to fight, kill and make money, Richard Slotkin wants to find a gentler story. Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/books/review/a-great-disorder-richard-slotkin.html?unlocked_article_code=1.fU0.30e1.Mo2eCfgx7yCC&smid=url-share Quote .... Having interpreted 400 years of American history through this lens, Slotkin now turns his attention to the 21st century. Distressed by the division and dysfunction that have come to define U.S. politics, especially since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, he looks again to the motives we find in the stories we tell. The present polarization, Slotkin argues, is rooted in competing national mythologies, “a different understanding of who counts as American, a different reading of American history and a different vision of what our future ought to be.” Only by understanding how those competing myths fell into place, then forging a new, unifying myth, can the country emerge from its current political crisis. To underscore the centrality of myth to U.S. history, Slotkin adds to his myth of the frontier a number of others: the myth of the founding, the myths of the Civil War, the myth of the good war, the myth of the movement. It’s an enormous pileup that shows just how challenging his project is. ... .... Having interpreted 400 years of American history through this lens, Slotkin now turns his attention to the 21st century. Distressed by the division and dysfunction that have come to define U.S. politics, especially since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, he looks again to the motives we find in the stories we tell. The present polarization, Slotkin argues, is rooted in competing national mythologies, “a different understanding of who counts as American, a different reading of American history and a different vision of what our future ought to be.” Only by understanding how those competing myths fell into place, then forging a new, unifying myth, can the country emerge from its current political crisis. To underscore the centrality of myth to U.S. history, Slotkin adds to his myth of the frontier a number of others: the myth of the founding, the myths of the Civil War, the myth of the good war, the myth of the movement. It’s an enormous pileup that shows just how challenging his project is. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 14 minutes ago, JGP said: Trump's bond knocked down to 175 million [stares directly at the camera] How ... is it ... we are not surprised. Who did this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 18 minutes ago, JGP said: Trump's bond knocked down to 175 million [stares directly at the camera] Mild shock! Who could have ever foreseen this set of events JGP and Prince of the North 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 5 minutes ago, Zorral said: How ... is it ... we are not surprised. Who did this? The appeals court, unsurprisingly: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-bond-deadline-trials-03-25-24/h_f3960c66c1a2652ad0404dd31cc6cffc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 15 minutes ago, Ormond said: I really don't think that's exclusively an "American" fantasy. And very often the "hero" in such a fantasy is precisely a wealthy and/or aristocratic person who has made themselves an outsider in order to fight for the "common people." Robin Hood, anyone? I really think many of Trump's admirers have the misperception that he is some sort of combination of Robin Hood, John Wayne, Zorro, and Daddy Warbucks. P.S. Here are links for those of you who may be too young to know who Zorro and Daddy Warbucks are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daddy_Warbucks Zorro was the fictional creation of a 1919 USian, not a Spanish-Mexican-Californian author or folk tale. The earliest folk tradition of Robin Hood was NOT an aristo. Seemingly based in the 19th C invention of the Scarlet Pimpernel --who saved other aristos, the French ones, from the Revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 16 minutes ago, Zorral said: Zorro was the fictional creation of a 1919 USian, not a Spanish-Mexican-Californian author or folk tale. The earliest folk tradition of Robin Hood was NOT an aristo. Seemingly based in the 19th C invention of the Scarlet Pimpernel --who saved other aristos, the French ones, from the Revolution. He stole lupins from the rich and gave them to the poor, right? maarsen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Ugh. Appeals court reduces Trump bond to $175m and extends deadline 10 days – live (msn.com) New York judge rules Trump hush money case can start on 15 April Judge Juan Merchan has ruled that Donald Trump’s trial on charges related to making hush money payments will begin on 15 April. The former president’s attorneys had alleged misconduct by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s office in sharing evidence, and asked for the charges to be dismissed, or the proceedings to be delayed at least 90 days. “The district attorney of NY County is not at fault for the late production of documents from the US attorney’s office,” Merchan said. He added that “defendant has been given a reasonable amount of time to prepare,” and “Jury selection in this matter will commence in 21 days, on April 15.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 hour ago, Zorral said: @Larry of the Lawn -- if you don't believe the constant bombardment of this kind of violence from birth on up, in television, movies, video/computer games, and even sports, has no effect on the brains and attitudes of people you need new drugs. That's not what I said, at all. I do think that violence for violence sake in art is lazy and probably not a good thing for people to be consuming, and we certainly have plenty of that. I disagree that some of the examples discussed are particularly egregious examples of that. There is also a lot of art, especially literature, that I think makes a similar argument to Slotkin. McCarthy and Pynchon seem hyper-fixated on the tackling foundational myths, attacking the popular portrayals of manifest destiny and greater good justifications for atrocity. But in doing so they definitely depict it, and I don think there's anything wrong with that. I'm sure there are better examples. Back to the stuff cited, I suppose Coppola's comments about Apocalypse Now not being an anti-war film could place a bit more scrutiny on how he uses violence on film, but I didn't get the impression after watching the Godfather films that Michael Corleone was someone to be admired. I don't know what we're supposed to do about this, but I'd lean towards more education rather than ratings systems or some method for limiting what people can do with film or TV. I think there is an actual slippery slope there where we end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Phylum of Alexandria and Prince of the North 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Why even have laws? Every person in NY should now demand they get the same bullshit treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 3 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: Why even have laws? Every person in NY should now demand they get the same bullshit treatment. You have laws to punish the people you don't like, namely those without money. Occasionally you need to punish someone with money who you stop liking, but most of the time you don't. I guess, eventually, you might come to the conclusion that someone like Trump will not face legal repercussions in the US system and that is largely by design. You cannot rely on a system like this to get punishment for these kinds of crimes, or possibly any crimes. You will, however, have him happily using it to punish people he doesn't like. Prince of the North and Larry of the Lawn 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 20 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said: Back to the stuff cited, I suppose Coppola's comments about Apocalypse Now not being an anti-war film could place a bit more scrutiny on how he uses violence on film, but I didn't get the impression after watching the Godfather films that Michael Corleone was someone to be admired. I don't know what we're supposed to do about this, but I'd lean towards more education rather than ratings systems or some method for limiting what people can do with film or TV. I think there is an actual slippery slope there where we end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Agreed. There's a long list of directors that felt like they were making a clear anti-violence or anti-war movie only for some people to embrace it at face value. Natural Born Killers is clearly satire, the movie is basically nonsense without that interpretation, but it still inspired the Columbine shooters and a bunch of others to boot. James Cameron thought that the incompetence and arrogance of the Space Marines in Aliens was a clear shot at the American military in the Vietnam war, but people loved their bravado so much that Evan Wright in Generation Kill discussed how much actual US marines stole phrases/quotes from Aliens during the Iraq War. Cameron even sought to rectify that mistake by portraying similar marines but from the perspective of the native victims in Avatar, but people STILL thought Stephen Lang's Col. Quaritch was really cool. Basically, if you portray someone who is self assured and willing to employ violence to get what they want, you can be confident that many people will find that extremely appealing. No matter how obvious it is that such violence in unwarranted/wrong, people will make excuses for them because they like that kind of macho bravado. Ser Scot A Ellison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 28 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Agreed. There's a long list of directors that felt like they were making a clear anti-violence or anti-war movie only for some people to embrace it at face value. Starship Troopers is another that seems to go through periods where it becomes apparent that some people are immune to satire (and basic media literacy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Just now, Week said: Starship Troopers is another that seems to go through periods where it becomes apparent that some people are immune to satire (and basic media literacy). Agreed, although that movie is straight terrible if you aren't watching it as satire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 7 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Agreed, although that movie is straight terrible if you aren't watching it as satire. I'm not sure how much is going on upstairs if you don't recognize and appreciate the satire Ser Scot A Ellison and Prince of the North 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Evil clowns in politics. Fintan O’Toole is one of the most perceptive analysts of US politics and Donald Trump. As I wrote recently, for everyday politics it’s enough to take what Trump says at its worst. But I am also fascinated with the multiple ways his discourse (or word salad, if you will) can be taken. I suspect it’s not intellectual depth, but that he has found, by trial and error, ways to use language that benefit him. O’Toole analyzes into some of it in his latest column: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/03/the-new-new-york-review-of-books Quote .... What is new in the development of antidemocratic politics is that Trump brings all this comic doubleness—the confusion of the real and the performative, of character and caricature—to bear on the authoritarian persona of the caudillo, the duce, the strongman savior. The prototype dictators of the far right may have looked absurd to their critics (“Hitler,” wrote Adorno and Horkheimer, “can gesticulate like a clown, Mussolini risk false notes like a provincial tenor”), but within the community of their followers and the shadow community of their intended victims, their histrionics had to be taken entirely seriously. Trump, on the other hand, retains all his self-aware absurdity even while creating a political persona of immense consequence. This comic-authoritarian politics has some advantages over the older dictatorial style. It allows a threat to democracy to appear as at worst a tasteless prank: in the 2016 presidential campaign even liberal outlets like The New York Times took Hillary Clinton’s e-mails far more seriously than Trump’s open stirring of hatred against Mexicans and Muslims. Funny-autocratic functions better in a society like that of the US, where the boundaries of acceptable insult are still shifting and mainstream hate-mongering still has to be light on its feet. It allows racial insults and brazen lies to be issued, as it were, in inverted commas. If you don’t see those invisible quotation marks, you are not smart enough—or you are too deeply infected by the woke mind virus—to be in on the joke. You are not part of the laughing community. The importance of not being earnest is that it defines the boundaries of the tribe. The earnest are the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 I know some of you are skeptical of the Lincoln Project, but as a fan of musicals I love how this video uses The Phantom of the Opera to laugh at Trump: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts