Ohio
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
3mo ago
Makes perfect sense to me, AI is a national-level issue. Really it's global, a server farm in Ohio can take jobs off Uzbeks and Bolivians, not to mention Floridians. Makes sense to regulate nationally.
Plus, would you really want California regulating a critical sector of the economy?
SkoomaDentist
4mo ago
Pick a suburb in Ohio and compare it to one in Florida or Texas.
What if you compare it to one in say Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi or New Mexico?
Granted, I don't live on that side of the Atlantic Ocean but Florida and Texas have never seemed to me to be modal examples of "the South".
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
4mo ago
The (rural) South has, if anything, done better than most of the rest of the country over the last few decades. The entire Sunbelt has no shortage of brand new construction suburbs and schools and infrastructure (even some factories!) while the Rust Belt, when I've visited, has, at best, maintained the infrastructure from most of a century ago. Pick a suburb in Ohio and compare it to one in Florida or Texas.
Air conditioning has really changed things.
EDIT: I no longer endorse this post. USA Today and NPR for Northern, Central and Eastern Kentucky have both run stories that confirm that the Jackson, Kentucky NWS office was staffed the night of the tornado:
Fahy said Jackson workers were called in May 16 work the overnight shift to coordinate with emergency management personnel and issue warnings throughout the night. The Jackson office had a full staff that he described as an “all-hands-on-deck” situation due to the extreme storm.
“The deaths were not attributable to the staffing cuts,” he said. “Everybody was there last night. We had a full team.”
In a statement, the weather service said the Jackson office had additional staffing and support from neighboring offices through the weekend.
As USA TODAY reported before the Kentucky storms, the weather service has had to scramble to cover vital shifts. For the first time in decades, not all forecast offices have “24/7” staffing, according to the weather service union.
I still believe it is irresponsible to leave offices unstaffed, even if there is some ability to move neighboring employees around when they're expecting storms, but this is much less bad than I initially believed. I think I'm going to take a break from the Motte for a bit. I do love this community, but I have not been doing a very good job contributing to it.
On May 15th, the New York Times ran a story about how DOGE cuts had left parts of Eastern Kentucky vulnerable while it was under moderate threats for extreme weather:
Tom Fahy, the legislative director for the union that represents Weather Service employees, said the office in Jackson, Ky., was one of four that no longer had a permanent overnight forecaster after hundreds of people left the agency as a result of cuts ordered by the Department of Government Efficiency, the initiative led by Elon Musk that is reshaping the federal bureaucracy. (emphasis mine)
This morning, May 17th, it became apparent that eastern Kentucky had been hit by an overnight tornado that killed dozens.
I was honestly speechless when I read that.
This is what London, Kentucky looks like after the tornado. To quote someone who put it much more eloquently than I can:
Of all the disasters I’ve studied, tornadoes scare me the most.
They come with little warning and can erase entire communities in minutes — even seconds.
There’s no four-day lead-up to prepare like we often have with major hurricanes, and the winds of these storms can far exceed the most violent tropical cyclones.
In those few moments before one hits, especially if you’re sleeping, you’re at the mercy of your local weather station.
If someone is watching, they can issue a warning in those critical minutes before it’s too late.
Those few minutes after an emergency alert is issued are the difference between life and death.
[...]
Tornado warnings were delayed because of reduced staff. Those critical moments — a midnight warning to your phone waking you up, giving you precious seconds to find shelter — came too late for some.
My political stance has been evolving, but I'd describe myself as a state capacity libertarian.
To me disaster preparedness and relief are obvious, bread and butter, parts of the federal government. Sure we do stupid, wasteful things like give people flood insurance that lets them build and rebuild houses in the same vulnerable spot over and over again, when we should probably just heavily incentivize them to rebuild in a less risky area. Sure, with any given disaster there's going to be criticisms about how Biden did this or Bush did that. But I've always felt mostly positive about my tax dollars that go to disaster relief and preparedness.
I've had a growing sense of unease over the last few months as I saw reports of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announcing Trump administration plans to end FEMA, and reports about National Weather Service cuts back in April. I'm gutted that the easy predictions of these moves leading to unnecessary deaths has come true.
A part of me had hoped that Trump and Musk's Department of Government Efficiency would cut a lot of genuinely unnecessary spending from the government. When it was drag shows in Ecuador, even I as a rather Trump-skeptical person could admit that even a broken clock is right twice a day. But it was also clear to me that they were cutting with a chainsaw, not a scalpel. The images of Elon waving a chainsaw at CPAC feel a lot more hollow now. The man has blood on his hands. 27 people are dead in Kentucky because DOGE and Trump thought that it was "more efficient" to just let people die, instead of keeping overnight forecasters on staff.
Back in 2020, FEMA estimated the value of a statistical life at $7,500,000. By that standard, when doing the cost-benefit analysis the government bean counters are supposed to value 27 deaths as a loss of $202.5 million. I wonder how much it costs the government to staff permanent overnight forecasters in eastern Kentucky?
gattsuru
4mo ago
It's noisy, but more critically, it's also a signal that's very sensitive to other stuff. I'm not very optimistic about Ames, for example, but despite not being a disparate impact suit itself, I'm hard-pressed to think of any conclusion but a punt on the underlying circuit split that leaves the rate of disparate impact suits unchanged. There's some cy pres stuff that could have an even bigger impact on settlements in general.
Beyond that, a lot of my position is about the policy, itself. The paper matters, both as something that discourages behaviors well before a court case happens, and in acting as cover for a wide variety of other behaviors that would be legally questionable. Maybe that's not something that we can bet on -- a Dem admin blanket-reversing every Trump EO is possible and wouldn't necessarily mean a reversion to 2024 disparate impact rules -- but it seems more relevant.
hydroacetylene
4mo ago
Outside of Cali, Hawaii, Massachusetts and the NYC and DC metros the shall issue permits are genuinely shall issue- even Chicago has shall issue CCW. The biggest states are California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio- and other than NYC(and that means not upstate) and California CCW permits in those places are available to any law abiding citizen who wants one.
TIRM
4mo ago
As Abraham Lincoln once said:
At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer: If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
aiislove
4mo ago
Thanks for the kind words! Ah, Central Festival, I went there a few times- I stayed closer to some of the other malls but made the trip out to that one once in a while. Super fun. Small world!
I read your post about India when you posted it yesterday. I have very little knowledge of the country but the situation sounds pretty dire from your post. If I read correctly, it looks like the right wing Hindu party announced a census. Does this not benefit the right wing Hindu upper caste? If not, why did they agree to do a census? I think that you're opposed to the census because it will be used by the lower castes to demand reparations or better treatment from the right? (Sorry if I'm way off base with anything here)
Though I know very little about India, I do work in ecommerce and lots of people are eying India as an alternative manufacturing base post China tariff apocalypse, is this something that people in India are aware of? Would you see this as a benefit to your country, bringing in jobs and money, or not really because they are low paying jobs with long hours? (In my mind, the manufacturing is what built China from dirt poor to where they are today so I don't see it as a negative but feel free to tell me I'm wrong)
China
I didn't mention China in my original post at all because I haven't been there. But I believe they've grown massively in the past 2 or 3 decades. I imagine people feel great about themselves and their prospects. I'd love to have someone make an effortpost (or even a short post) about the way China would fit in with my analysis of things.
Plenty of small towns are employed by one or two giant factories or industries, these people are at gods mercy if the owner packs up shop and leaves.
This is pretty true. The fates of entire cities in Ohio, Kentucky, Eastern PA etc definitely operate this way
I was in Chiang Mai, and it seemed dead
So fascinated by this take! I found it super exciting and not dead at all. Then again I grew up in the midwestern rust belt so my standard for dead has to be way lower than someone from India.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
5mo ago
Hardline Religious conservatives hard - 21 with exception for marriage Moderate Religous conservatives - 18 Centrists/liberals - they will look at Europe and see that the world didn't ended and probably say that it is 16(.)
So, let me get this straight:
Hardline religious conservatives in Congress, many hailing from states like or constituencies resembling Alabama and Arkansas and Ohio (16) are going to set the age at 21, while the liberals from California (18) and New York (17) are going to set it at 16.
Full list here. The plurality is 16, though we all seem pretty comfortable enforcing CP laws built around 18, and you have most of the big important states (CA, NY, TX, VA, FL) higher than 16. There's actually not much of a pattern to Red/Blue: FL and CA are both 18, TX and NY are both 17, Massachusetts and Alabama are both 16. Either this issue is simply not one actually considered,
Fighting the hypo a little: if we were to see a movement form to actually pass such a law, it would undoubtedly need some passionate movement behind it, and the passion right now comes from the "SHE WAS JUST A 28 YEAR OLD BABY YOU SICK FUCK" age-gap end of things. We'd need a movement similar to Prohibition: an alliance of women and Southern Baptists. I could genuinely imagine a scenario where we get some kind of insane age-gap law that took the Romeo and Juliet law approach and tried to set the "true" age of consent at 25, with a R+J rule set at 5 years and an exception for marriage. Feminists call it a law against exploiting young women (sub rosa: against young women stealing husbands!), the Qanon caucus calls it an Epstein law, the rump-remnant of the Evangelicals is happy with any law that both serves to restrict fornication and inserts the government back into sexual morality, a bunch of IdPol types on both sides find ways to make it about protecting preferred races against the exploitation of disfavored races. Zoomer online discourse around age gaps is truly insane, older voters are broadly more conservative and will relish inserting themselves into young people's sex lives. Only 8% of couples have an age gap bigger than ten years.
That's how I could see it happening.
Closer to your hypo, if everyone for some reason was forced to vote on it tomorrow, I think we'd land on 18 with a 4 year R+J, and at least at first blush without time to propagandize we wouldn't see much partisan breakdown, the state list shows no pattern and if there were a strong partisan pattern it would show up in state legislatures. That seems to be the direction that more recently passed laws are going, I don't know the last time a state truly lowered the AoC.
HereAndGone
5mo ago
Hard work is necessary, but luck also is a part of it. "I work hard and my dad's a plumber" versus "I work hard and my dad is a partner in KPMG", you tell me who you think is going to get further in life.
JD Vance is a legitimate "I came from poor stock, worked hard, and made it" success story, and look at the shit he gets for his political allegiance. Kamala Harris ran in part on "I grew up in a middle-class family" (where middle-class is supposed to mean "upper working class/lower middle class", i.e. 'just like one of you schlubs') but she is the daughter of university professors. I don't know if anyone has done a comparison between "is Vance more privileged than Harris because he's a white male and she's a biracial female, versus his family were poor and he grew up between Kentucky and Ohio and her mother only divorced once and she grew up between California and Canada". It'd be an intriguing problem to do a privilege walk between them!
I can see the argument that 'labor' as a class is somehow fungible and that it is best to allow labor to flow to where it is most needed/most cost effective, even across borders. If there's farm work that needs to be done in the U.S., and ample farm workers in Mexico, then you can acquire mutual gains through trade! So 'free trade' does, to some degree, imply free movement of laborers, which implies some level of immigration.
But the apparent reality is that the benefits of most immigration, particularly lower skilled, accrue primarily to the upper and political classes, while costs are borne by the relatively low classes and strains infrastructure for everyone. That time Desantis flew 50 migrants into Martha's Vineyard and the entire town basically declared a state of emergency to get them out ASAP really drove that home. The Migrant hotels in New York also bolstered the point, we don't even have to get into exaggerated stories of Haitians in Ohio to see the issue.
But this should still be easy-ish to fix within the rules of our system, just be willing to deport troublemakers, and shift some of the burdens/costs to the upper classes too so they internalize the cost of their policies and adjust them to make them more efficient. But like almost every other Liberal Shibboleth, it became a HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE that ISN'T SUBJECT TO DEBATE.
hydroacetylene
6mo ago
I’ve heard of red state universities doing this. Specifically I’ve heard rumors about Texas A&M and Ohio state being made to begin doing this.
FlyingLionWithABook
Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.
6mo ago
Let's assume that $211m was equally distributed among the states
It is not. They make their largest grants to state libraries, but they don't distribute it evenly. In 2024 they didn't even give Alabama state libraries a grant at all! California got $15,705,702 for their state library system, the only grant that went to anybody in Alabama whatsoever in 2024 was $184,876 to the Alabama African American Civil Rights Heritage Sites Consortium.
Here's the full list of 2024 grantees under their "Grants to State Libraries" program:
California State Library $15,705,702
Texas State Library and Archives Commission $12,512,132
State Library of Florida $9,533,426
New York State Library $8,125,215
Pennsylvania Office of Commonwealth Libraries $5,891,819
Illinois State Library $5,736,330
State Library of Ohio $5,448,084
Georgia Board of Regents $5,162,498
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources $5,089,381
Library of Michigan $4,788,124
New Jersey State Library $4,506,420
Library of Virginia $4,289,358
Washington State Library $3,948,629
Arizona State Library $3,804,635
Tennessee State Library and Archives $3,689,581
Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners $3,642,371
Indiana State Library $3,589,836
Missouri State Library $3,338,467
Maryland State Library Agency $3,332,465
WI Div. for Libraries and Community Learning $3,230,831
Colorado Department of Education $3,218,246
MN Dept of CFL/Library Development & Services $3,165,524
South Carolina State Library $3,028,013
State Library of Louisiana $2,726,161
KY Department for Libraries and Archives $2,708,198
Oregon State Library $2,597,695
Oklahoma Department of Libraries $2,529,938
Utah State Library Division $2,289,874
State Library of Iowa $2,210,343
Nevada State Library and Archives $2,205,502
Connecticut State Library $2,164,184
Arkansas State Library $2,157,781
PR Dept. of ED/Public Library Programs $2,147,080
Kansas State Library $2,109,780
Mississippi Library Commission $2,109,457
New Mexico State Library $1,797,977
Nebraska Library Commission $1,746,652
Idaho State Library $1,741,500
West Virginia Library Commission $1,668,036
Hawaii State Public Library System $1,541,630
New Hampshire State Library $1,529,144
Maine State Library $1,526,754
Montana State Library, Natural Resource Information System $1,427,530
Rhode Island Office of Library & Information Services $1,413,623
Delaware Division of Libraries $1,389,442
South Dakota State Library $1,346,956
State Library, North Dakota $1,295,858
Alaska State Library $1,276,792
District of Columbia Public Library $1,256,248
State of Vermont Department of Libraries $1,244,357
Wyoming State Library $1,220,427
HaroldWilson
6mo ago
Is the economy good?
This takes the cake for the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read. It blusters a lot with only a few actual points made in defence of the notion that government economic statistics failed to capture true economic conditions post-Covid, all of which are very silly indeed.
My colleagues and I have modeled an alternative indicator, one that excludes many of the items that only the well-off tend to purchase — and tend to have more stable prices over time — and focuses on the measurements of prices charged for basic necessities, the goods and services that lower- and middle-income families typically can’t avoid. Here again, the results reveal how the challenges facing those with more modest incomes are obscured by the numbers. Our alternative indicator reveals that, since 2001, the cost of living for Americans with modest incomes has risen 35 percent faster than the CPI. Put another way: The resources required simply to maintain the same working-class lifestyle over the last two decades have risen much more dramatically than we’ve been led to believe.
In the first place I am disinclined to give this any credence because their calculations are very opaque. Even if you got to their website the 'data' section and 'white paper' for their 'True Living Cost' don't seem to give their actual weights or the changes in weightings (other that impressionistic statements like saying that 'luxuries' have been deweighted). However, even if I could trust their numbers it doesn't at all resolve the 'vibecession' question because based on TLC the Trump years were ones of economic decline too. However, the economic discourse in those years was uniformly positive. So what gives?
If you filter the statistic to include as unemployed people who can’t find anything but part-time work or who make a poverty wage (roughly $25,000), the percentage is actually 23.7 percent. In other words, nearly one of every four workers is functionally unemployed in America today — hardly something to celebrate.
Aside from the fairly preposterous gambit of saying that we can count some people in full-time employment as unemployed if their wage is too low (words have meanings, if you want to talk about wages then just do, don't crowbar it in to unemployment figures). More importantly though, what you will see again is that his 'true' unemployment figure tracks exactly the common U-3 figure over the years. So again it's totally worthless in explaining post-Covid dissatisfaction because the post-Covid 'true' rate was actually the lowest it has ever been since his data series starts in the 90s.
Here, the aggregate measure of GDP has hidden the reality that a more modest societal split has grown into an economic chasm. Since 2013, Americans with bachelor’s or more advanced degrees have, in the aggregate, seen their material well-being improve — by the Federal Reserve’s estimate, an additional tenth of adults have risen to comfort. Those without high school degrees, by contrast, have seen no real improvement. And geographic disparities have widened along similar lines, with places ranging from San Francisco to Boston seeing big jumps in income and prosperity, but places ranging from Youngstown, Ohio, to Port Arthur, Texas, falling further behind. The crucial point, even before digging into the nuances, is clear: America’s GDP has grown, and yet we remain largely blind to these disparities.
This is insultingly dishonest. Why does he say 'since 2013' in an article about the post-Covid economy? Because the trend doesn't hold true - after over a decade of sharply rising inequality, the 2021-23 period was actually saw bottom quintile income rise as a proportion of top quintile income.
This article is utterly irrelevant to post-Covid economic perceptions. What is might prove, if one believes the statistics, is that Americans ought to have been pessimistic about the economy throughout the 90s, 2000s and 2010s as well as post-Covid. But they frequently weren't. It still doesn't answer the question of why Americans get specifically upset in the post-Covid period.
What is a woman?
Couldn't resist just dwelling on this for a second too. Now, obviously no-one has to buy into avant-garde views of gender/sex, but to be simply unable to entertain the plausibility of a scheme of gender which includes trans women among women betrays a quite remarkable lack of intellectual imagination, and, frankly, intelligence.
This is talk radio 'why are my enemies all so thick' slop. Take it elsewhere.
Rov_Scam
6mo ago
I'm not going to defend Kentucky's system of vehicle registration, because it's dumb. In PA and Ohio at least, liens are recorded in the county where the vehicle is registered, period. In PA it isn't even recorded at the courthouse, just with the DOT, which makes sense since the records aren't public anyway due to Federal law. The legislature had a chance to change it but they put a safe harbor provision in instead. That being said, the court can't just ignore the system that exists because they'd prefer a better system. The bank is the sophisticated party here, and they should know, understand, and follow the law as it exists, at peril of their lien not being recognized. I have no sympathy for them.
zeke5123a
7mo ago
I agree with that. But I think about Springfield Ohio. Let’s say all of the Haitians shares the political values. I still think it would be a tragedy for Springfield where over a few years the entire cultural fabric changed.
In short, I’m okay with some immigration but what I don’t want is to change in a fundamental way the culture. Part of that is politics but not only.
NunoSempere
7mo ago
India imposes direct presidential rule (rather than local elected government) in rebellious state
Drone strike on Chernobyl
IRGC holds large-scale military exercises in southwest Iran
Last week I was worried about Congo affecting more african nations. Since then:
- Uganda deploys troops in Congo to help the local government against local militias
- 4K deaths, 4K wounded in Congo civil war since Jan 21st 2025
- DR Congo seeks Chad’s support to combat M23 rebels: Report
- Bukavu, the second largest city in DR Congo falls to M23
- US imposed sanctions to M23 members
And in Sudan:
- Rapid Support Forces in Sudan kill 200 civilians in three days, are considering establishing their own government.
- Sudan’s army-backed government recalled its ambassador from Kenya in protest over Kenya reportedly supporting Sudan's Rapid Support Forces.
Transmissible brain disease is spreading through Canadian deer.
US seizes weapons shipment to Yemen's Houthis from Iran; Iran denies provenance.
NK building capability for missiles to reach US
South Korea stages military drills near inter-Korean maritime border, and air drills with the United States
Zelensky warns of Russian invasion of NATO countries.
US/Russia holding talks without EU or Ukraine
Stray Russian drones hit Moldova and Romania
Former Bangladeshi PM Hasina accusses Yunus of deploying terrorists, pledges to return and avenge police officers. This seems unlikely, as she doesn't control the state apparatus. However, if she does return, it would lead to wider turmoil in the region.
Southern California has a 36% chance of a M7.5 or greater earthquake in the next 30 years," Elizabeth Cochran with the USGS Earthquake Science Center says. This would wreak havoc upon the state's most populated cities, causing roughly 1,800 deaths, 50,000 injuries, and $200 billion in damage.
How does this:
The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.
affect injunctions and rulings? In a plain reading,
-
if the Trump administration does something,
-
and a judge disagrees and issues an injuction and then a ruling,
-
the Trump administration can still disagree with that
-
Until it goes up to an appelate court, and then to the Supreme Court.
At which step does the president/AG's interpretation cease to be binding?.
Washington post article on the topic: https://archive.is/XIMum
Geologists warn of an "overdue" very large earthquake for Istambul, and warn that Turkey doesn't have the infrastructure to mitigate it, and millions could die.. Die Erdbebenwarte Kandilli gibt die Wahrscheinlichkeit für ein Beben mit einer Stärke über 7 bis zum Jahr 2030 mit 60 Prozent an.
H5N1 also in India. They were doing less testing so they've caught it later. Or it could be that it only reached them now (unlikely). Authorities in the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh have issued an alert and a series of containment measures following the outbreak of bird flu (Avian Influenza H5N1), officials said Thursday.. The outbreak has been reported in Eluru, West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna and NTR districts of the state, where over half a million poultry birds had died over the last three days
CDC conducted a small survey of 150 bovine veterinary practitioners; 3 had H5N1 antibodies. Also wow is this very little testing still.
Nevada and Ohio report first human cases of bird flu; nominal egg prices hit record high – The Moderate Voice
41 Former Bangladesh Police Officials Arrested Over Crackdown On Hasina Ouster Protests
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
7mo ago
Who is spending money on winning California or New York? Republicans haven't broken 40% in 20 years in California, and except for the last election, ny is the same.
In fact the classic criticism of the electoral college is that if you live in CA or NY then your vote doesn't matter. The ad spending bears this out. And this isn't a new trend - twenty years ago candidates were also focusing little on California and New York and way way more on Ohio.
It's Different When We Do It, Chapter 27
or
Did I Just Get Trolled?
tw: old news, unapologetic whataboutism
Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way have a free essay at the (reportedly centrist!) Foreign Affairs: "The Path to American Authoritarianism: What Comes After Democratic Breakdown." (Archive link.) You may notice the URL has "trump" in it, despite that word not appearing in the title. Curious.
But wait--who are Steve Levitsky and Lucan Way? After all, one can scarcely throw a cursor across a website these days without hitting, say, six or seven hyperlinks to "think pieces" about Trump, fascism, fascist Trumpism, or even Trumpist fascism. But never fear--this is no Average Andy/Joe Sixpack collaboration. This is professional work by a team of scholars whose most famous contribution to the canon of political scholarship is the term "competitive authoritarianism." What, you may ask, is competitive authoritarianism? Read on!
Steve Levitsky, according to his employer (Harvard University, naturally), is a
Professor of Latin American Studies and Professor of Government and Director of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard. He is Senior Fellow at the Kettering Foundation and a Senior Democracy Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. His research focuses on democratization and authoritarianism, political parties, and weak and informal institutions, with a focus on Latin America.
His focus is not exclusive--he also writes on Israel policy while calling himself a "lifelong Zionist" (admittedly, in an article endorsing something like BDS)--but his interest in Latin America is apparently more than skin-deep:
Levitsky is married to Liz Mineo, a Peruvian journalist with degrees from the National University of San Marcos and Columbia University who currently works at The Harvard Gazette.
Lucan Way is no less distinguished. Well, maybe a litte less--the University of Toronto is not even the Harvard of Canada, much less the Harvard of, well, Harvard. But his title--his title! He is literally a Distinguished Professor of Democracy. Where Levitsky's focus is Latin America, however, Way's might best be described as "Cold War and Cold War adjacent." He credits at least some of that interest to family ties to historical events:
My stepfather's family were Jewish socialists, and his grandfather, Henrik Ehrlich, was a Menshevik during the 1917 revolution. This familial link to such a pivotal historical moment gave the chapter on Russia a deeper, more personal resonance.
This is an academic power couple, right here. Get one expert on authoritarianism in the New World, one on authoritarianism in the Old World, and baby, you've got a stew going! A book stew. An article stew. A bottomless cornucopia of cosmopolitan political commentary and analysis. Their 2010 text, "Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War," focuses on democratization (or its lack) under authoritarian regimes. David Waldner gave a blurb:
Regimes that blend meaningful elections and illicit incumbent advantage are not merely resting points on the road to democracy; Levitsky and Way guide us along the multiple paths these regimes can take and provide powerful reasoning to explain why nations follow these distinct paths. This deeply insightful analysis of an important subset of post-Cold War regimes is conceptually innovative and precise, empirically ambitious, and theoretical agile, moving fluidly between international and domestic causes of regime dynamics. Read it to understand the dynamics of contemporary hybrid regimes; then read it again to appreciate its many lessons for our general understanding of regime change.
So: you've literally written the book on how democracies are (or are not) born. What are you going to do next? No, no, you're not going to Disneyland--you're going to witness the election of Donald Trump and stop telling people that you study the birth of democracies, but instead the death of democracies. From the Amazon page for Levitsky's (but not Way's) How Democracies Die:
Donald Trump's presidency has raised a question that many of us never thought we'd be asking: Is our democracy in danger? Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt have spent more than twenty years studying the breakdown of democracies in Europe and Latin America, and they believe the answer is yes.
That's the preliminaries. This week, Levitsky and Way published an article, and I have to say, I found it... kinda convincing? Except, I couldn't help but Notice some things that gave me pause. The thesis of the piece, as I mentioned, was that the United States is headed toward "competitive authoritarianism." The article provides a small explainer:
The breakdown of democracy in the United States will not give rise to a classic dictatorship in which elections are a sham and the opposition is locked up, exiled, or killed. Even in a worst-case scenario, Trump will not be able to rewrite the Constitution or overturn the constitutional order. He will be constrained by independent judges, federalism, the country's professionalized military, and high barriers to constitutional reform. There will be elections in 2028, and Republicans could lose them.
But authoritarianism does not require the destruction of the constitutional order. What lies ahead is not fascist or single-party dictatorship but competitive authoritarianism--a system in which parties compete in elections but the incumbent's abuse of power tilts the playing field against the opposition. Most autocracies that have emerged since the end of the Cold War fall into this category, including Alberto Fujimori's Peru, Hugo Chávez's Venezuela, and contemporary El Salvador, Hungary, India, Tunisia, and Turkey. Under competitive authoritarianism, the formal architecture of democracy, including multiparty elections, remains intact. Opposition forces are legal and aboveground, and they contest seriously for power. Elections are often fiercely contested battles in which incumbents have to sweat it out. And once in a while, incumbents lose, as they did in Malaysia in 2018 and in Poland in 2023. But the system is not democratic, because incumbents rig the game by deploying the machinery of government to attack opponents and co-opt critics. Competition is real but unfair.
(As an aside, Way seems to think India is doing alright, actually? Not sure where that fits in with the above but, co-authored pieces do sometimes result in these little puzzles.)
What actually struck me first about this description was my memory of posters here in the Motte discussing "Brazilification," the process by which the U.S. is, as a result of economics, immigration, and identity politics, gradually adopting the political norms of South and Central American nations. But my experience has been that it is usually more conservative, even arguably nationalist people expressing this concern. While Levitsky and Way do not use the term "Brazilification," they definitely seem to be placing the United States on that trajectory.
They elaborate on the problem at length:
Competitive authoritarianism will transform political life in the United States. As Trump's early flurry of dubiously constitutional executive orders made clear, the cost of public opposition will rise considerably: Democratic Party donors may be targeted by the IRS; businesses that fund civil rights groups may face heightened tax and legal scrutiny or find their ventures stymied by regulators. Critical media outlets will likely confront costly defamation suits or other legal actions as well as retaliatory policies against their parent companies. Americans will still be able to oppose the government, but opposition will be harder and riskier, leading many elites and citizens to decide that the fight is not worth it.
This is where I started to wonder, just a little, whether I was being trolled. While Trump's second term has indeed set a record pace for executive orders, Joe Biden's early flurry of dubiously constitutional executive orders was a greater departure from the norm. Most readers here will be well-acquainted with the IRS targeting of conservative groups. Many will also be aware of the time regulators inappropriately targeted the NRA. Conservative media outlets faced expensive defamation lawsuits (losing some, winning others). The fit with the Biden administration just seems too close in this paragraph, to be pure coincidence... but what am I supposed to conclude from that? Am I supposed to be doing a Straussian reading?
The piece continues:
[M]uch of the coming authoritarianism will take a less visible form: the politicization and weaponization of government bureaucracy. . . . Even in countries such as the United States that have relatively small, laissez-faire governments, this authority creates a plethora of opportunities for leaders to reward allies and punish opponents. No democracy is entirely free of such politicization. But when governments weaponize the state by using its power to systematically disadvantage and weaken the opposition, they undermine liberal democracy. Politics becomes like a soccer match in which the referees, the groundskeepers, and the scorekeepers work for one team to sabotage its rival.
Republicans have long complained against the weaponization of government against conservatives, and Democrats have long ignored those complaints. Whether it's a county clerk jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses or the throw-the-book-at-them attitude toward January 6th protesters, conservatives regularly find the scales of justice thumbed against their interests. Similarly-situated Democrats need fear no prosecution at all.
Levitsky and Way have more to say about this sort of thing:
The most visible means of weaponizing the state is through targeted prosecution. Virtually all elected autocratic governments deploy justice ministries, public prosecutors' offices, and tax and intelligence agencies to investigate and prosecute rival politicians, media companies, editors, journalists, business leaders, universities, and other critics. In traditional dictatorships, critics are often charged with crimes such as sedition, treason, or plotting insurrection, but contemporary autocrats tend to prosecute critics for more mundane offenses, such as corruption, tax evasion, defamation, and even minor violations of arcane rules. If investigators look hard enough, they can usually find petty infractions such as unreported income on tax returns or noncompliance with rarely enforced regulations.
Tax evasion, you say? As for minor violations of arcane rules and rarely enforced regulations, well, the whole "Trump committed a felony" charade in New York was recognized well in advance as "novel" and "built on an untested legal theory."
The argument continues!
Moreover, much of the Republican Party now embraces the idea that America's institutions--from the federal bureaucracy and public schools to the media and private universities--have been corrupted by left-wing ideologies. Authoritarian movements commonly embrace the notion that their country's institutions have been subverted by enemies; autocratic leaders including Erdogan, Orban, and Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro routinely push such claims. Such a worldview tends to justify--even motivate--the kind of purging and packing that Trump promises.
Why would the Republican Party embrace the idea that America's institutions have been corrupted by left-wing ideologies? After all, just 63% of senior executives in government posts are Democrats; only 58% of public school teachers identify as Democrat; fully 3.4% of journalists identify as Republicans, and the ratio of liberal to conservative college professors is a measly 17 to 1!
I guess "believing facts about the ideological makeup of our country's institutions" qualifies as authoritarian, now?
There's more to the article--I invite you to read it. But maybe some of you want to ask, in total exasperation, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Maybe none! I am not here to do apologetics for Trump. I was just really struck by the idea that this article could have been written, almost word for word, about Biden, or even Obama. Maybe Bush! Maybe others--FDR for sure, right? But I can find no evidency of Levitsky or Way ever actually noticing, or worrying, about American competitive authoritarianism, until Trump. They think he's special. I don't think he's special! I think that, so far, he has actually committed far fewer of the sins on their list, than Biden did. That doesn't mean I endorse Trump's actions, so much as I am confused that a couple of highly-credentialed experts on the matter only seem to recognize American authoritarianism when it is coming from their right (or, more accurately, even when it might eventually be coming from their right).
Aside from that, I don't see any obvious problems with the picture that they paint. Having pundits on both sides of the aisle say similar things about our nation's political trajectory serves to increase my worry that "Brazilification" might be a real thing, and makes me wonder how quickly it might happen, and how seriously I should take the possibility.
(Insert butterfly meme: is this authoritarianism? Insert spaceman meme: always has been.)
IMO, it depends on what specific kind of freeway driving you do. My commute spends just twenty minutes each way on a busy freeway, where my speed changes all the time and cruise control is worthless. But I once took a drive through the featureless wastes of rural Ohio on US 30, with hardly any traffic on the road, and being able to rest my foot for two hours on an eleven-hour drive (each way) was nice.
Rov_Scam
8mo ago
Oh boy. As you may know, I'm an attorney, and before I proceed I want to give some general disclaimers. First, I'm not your attorney and none of what I'm about to say should be taken as legal advice. I don't know your exact situation or even the state in which you reside, so I'm not in a position to give specific advice. As for my qualifications, I had my own practice between November 2019 and May 2023 and I did estate planning and administration work, but not exclusively. This work was in Pennsylvania, which does not have ToD deeds. For a decade, includign when I had my own practice, I did oil and gas title work. While this may not seem like it has much to do with estate planning, a large part of it was dealing with the consequences of poor estate planning and figure out how to clean everything up. I did this in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. OH and WV have ToD deeds, but I didn't see them much, for reasons I will make clear below. I currently do litigation in PA and WV primarily and still do estate work very occasionally, but it's more of a side gig where someone will ask me about a will and I'll do it through my firm or a coworker's friend will ask them and I'll get it because I'm one of the three people here who have done that kind of work. I don't mess around with anything that involves the Federal Estate Tax or the word "irrevocable", but I've been to plenty of seminars involving this kind of stuff so I have a decent working knowledge. Basically, I know enough about it to know that it's a liability minefield I don't want to get involved in.
With that out of the way, I'd generally recommend against ToD designations for real estate. Certain charlatans like Suze Orman try to convince everybody that probate is the worst thing in the world and is to be avoided at all costs, but that's not necessarily true. One of the most common questions I was asked when I did estate planning is a variation of the following question I actually got a call about a couple months ago: A woman's husband recently died. She had three children, including a 36-year-old unmarried son who was living with her. She already had a will that left the house to the son, but asked me about possibly conveying the house to the son. Her intention was to avoid the 4.5% inheritance tax.
My answer was an immediate and unequivocal "no". Her plan would only work if her son stayed in the house and continued to live there indefinitely after her death, and he continued to be a responsible single guy in good health with no financial difficulties. The most obvious issue, though, was the tax issue. If the son continues to live in the house after she dies then it's not a problem. But the woman is only in her 60s; she could easily live another 20 or even 30 years. Suppose the son buys his own house in the meantime. When his mother dies, he now owns a house that he doesn't live in. If he sells it, he takes a short-term capital gain that is taxed as regular income since he isn't entitled to a homestead exemption. To make matters worse, the capital gain is on the entire sale price, since he got the house for free. On the other hand, if he inherits the house in that situation and wants to sell it, he can take advantage of the step-up in basis and only pay capital gains tax on the difference between the sale price and the market value at the time of death, which is likely to be zero. He'd still have to pay inheritance tax, but this is only 4.5% as opposed to the 20%+ he'd be paying in capital gains tax.
Beyond tax considerations, though, this woman would risk dealing with what I call the five Ds:
-
Death: If her son dies before she does, the beneficiaries of his estate will become the owners of the property. The woman probably assumes that she'll outlive her son and even if she doesn't, he'd leave his estate either to her or another family member, but he could leave it to anyone. It could end up in the hands of a charity or an ex-girlfriend who is disinclined to let this woman keep living there for free.
-
Divorce: If her son were to get married, the house could be an asset subject to distribution in any subsequent divorce proceeding.
-
Disability: If her son becomes disabled, owning a significant asset will affect his eligibility for SSDI, Medicaid, and various other benefits.
-
Debt: If the son were to file for bankruptcy, the house would be an asset subject to distribution to creditors. Chapter 13 bankruptcy allows debtors to protect equity in a home by entering into a payment plan instead of liquidating the estate. The catch is that the payment plan has to raise at least as much money as the creditors would get in a Chapter 7. This realistically isn't an issue, since most people filing for bankruptcy don't own their houses free and clear; they've already mortgaged them to the hilt. If the house isn't complete shit it probably forces him into a 100% plan, which could be unfeasible depending on the amount of debt. Worst case scenario he's forced to sell the house to cover the debt. On the other hand, if he doesn't own the house it's likely a no-asset Chapter 7 or a straightforward Chapter 13.
-
Dumb: People do dumb things all the time. He could mortgage the house to buy a boat and leave her vulnerable if he can't make the payments. He could neglect to pay property taxes. He could try to save a little money by not insuring the property. He could decide to rent out an extra bedroom to a hobo. Those examples are downright idiotic, but even well-intentioned gestures can fit this category. Say he wants to do some kitchen renovations. His mother thinks he's just paying for them, but in reality he took out a home equity loan. Six months later he loses his job and can't make the payments. Now she's looking at foreclosure as the result of actions she had no control over.
ToD deeds were created as an attempt to mitigate the effects of the five Ds. By creating a revocable future interest in the property instead of an irrevocable present interest, the beneficiary can't really do anything to affect the property while the grantor is still living. Sounds good, but this creates its own problems; by taking assets out of probate, any issues must be dealt with outside of the probate process. Probate isn't a boogeyman. It's a process specifically put in place to deal with these kinds of issues. Wills allow you the flexibility to provide precise instructions regarding your intentions, and allow you to appoint an executor to ensure that these instructions are carried out. Probate courts provide a forum to resolve any issues that arise. Outside of probate court and it's centralized process; you're out of luck. Just a few issues I can think of the top of my head, using the above case as an example:
-
Instead of conveying the house outright, the woman executes a ToD deed naming her son as the beneficiary. Several years later, the son becomes disabled and cannot work, and relies on government benefits. The mother then dies. The son now has an asset that cuts off his eligibility. Hod the house been transferred by will, she could have created a provision that created a testementary trust in the event that any named beneficiary were receiving benefits at the time of her death, and the trustee would have been able to ensure that the house would remain property of the trust for the son's benefit and that he could continue living there and receiving benefits.
-
The woman executes a ToD deed conveying the house to her son and two other children in equal proportion upon her death, at which time the house is worth $300,000. Two of the children want to sell the house and get their $100,000 share. But the son, who is still living there, doesn't want to sell, and correctly claims that as part owner he has the right to the premises. He further refuses to buy out his sisters' interests. If the sisters want anything out of the deal, they'll have to file a partition action, which will cost 5 figures and could take years to resolve. They're also unlikely to get their full shares, since the son will be able to claim any mortgage payments, taxes, repairs, insurance, or any other allowable expense he made towards the house over the course of his time living there. The house will be sold at auction, invariable resulting in a lower sale price than could be had if it were properly marketed. A will could expressly include buyout provisions (I usually included these if a child was living in the family home), expressly direct the executor to sell (though he could sell to the son), or give any number of other guidelines. Even in the absence of these, this is a dispute the probate court would be able to resolve before title ever transfers. It could get complicated, but nowhere near as complicated as a partition.
-
The son gets married and has a child. The woman executes a ToD deed naming the son as beneficiary and the child as contingent benificiary. The son predeceases the woman. The woman then dies while the child is still a minor. The mother is still alive. The mother now has to petition a court to establish a legal guardian for the child's estate, so that the real property can be managed for the child's benefit until she is of legal majority. This is a complicated and expensive procedure. If the guardian wishes to sell the house to use the money for the child's ongoing support, they need to get a court order. If they sell the house and get the cash, they're required to invest the money and only spend the interest; if they need to dip into the principal, they need a court order. They need to file an annual accounting with the court. It's a complicated process. On the other hand, and will would contain automatic trust provisions for the event that a minor had to inherit a major asset. The trustee could be named in advance, and the trust set up shortly after death without court involvement. The trustee doesn't need court approval to do anything, and the accounting requirements are much looser.
-
The woman executes a ToD deed with her three children as beneficiaries in equal proportion. The house is the only item of value in the estate. Shortly after the woman's death, the children sell the house to a third party. They do not consult an attorney because they believe that since they aren't opening an estate and there's only one asset they don't need to. A year later, a man claiming to be a creditor of the woman calls the son, asking about the money he is owed. After the son tells him that his mother passed and no estate was opened, the man discovers the ToD deed and subsequent sale to the third party. He then sues all three of the woman's children for their pro-rata share of the debt. If the woman had a will, or died intestate, the estate would have been advertised and the creditor would have had a chance to make a claim. The executor could have settled the matter out of the proceeds of the sale before the money was distributed.
These are just a few things I can think of off the top of my head. The point is, DIY estate planning is a bad idea. I talked to a lot of people, smart people, who thought they were doing something really smart by avoiding paying a lawyer to have a proper estate plan done. These people usually ended up doing things that would cost their estates significantly more than the most expensive estate planning lawyer in the area would charge. A couple thousand bucks may sound like a lot, but you have no idea how easy it is to spend that much when an estate goes haywire. People who tell horror stories about probate are usually referring to instances where something got fucked up and the matter was held up or needed to be litigated. These are unfortunate circumstances, but in no case was there some easy self-help fix that could have avoided the situation. Please, consult with an attorney as soon as you can.
oats_son
8mo ago
So I got into an Elon argument. I said that he's autistic and made an unusual hand gesture to convey the idea he said at the time, which is "my heart goes out to you". I failed to mention Occam's Razor, which is the most obvious to me, and in this case it goes "but wtf would he even gain out of doing a dogwhistle here?" Hitler worshippers aren't worth many votes, even if they did like lip service... I guess you could argue he did it for Moloch and engagement, which seems to be why Trump says all the outrageous things he says.
But I digress. In the incredulous argumentation by the other parties that Elon was obviously a neo-Nazi and this wasn't accidental at all, I was linked five articles that they themselves got from someone else, so for all I know, these are making the rounds in a ton of spaces. I was not satisfied with any of them, but we'll go through 'em, mmkay.
I. Business Insider: Musk Faces Consequences for Calling Antisemitic Tweet 'Actual Truth'.
This was paywalled for me at the time of the actual argument, so I said as such and moved on. Reading it now, I suppose I'm glad it was, since it's more difficult to defend to a normie lib than the others were. If it's paywalled for you, it's about Musk's affirmative reply to this tweet. It's been written about before here, but I think progressives like to apply identity politics to many different groups, but do not appreciate when it's applied to white people.
However, I don't think I agree with its framing, taking such a wide swathe of Jewish groups and then saying that those same Jewish groups are appealing for help from, I dunno, the Muslims? I certainly wouldn't have agreed with it on social media, because it's a Bad Look. I'm not here to say Elon Musk is innocent or anything, in fact, I think he's dumb as hell, at least politically. I just don't think he's a Nazi, neo or otherwise. Certainly some neo-Nazis I know would be happy if he was.
Anyway, I don't think applying group status to white people is a Nazi thing to do, nor is it a Nazi thing to admit that Muslim communities have problems with anti-semitism, nor is it a Nazi thing to say that Jewish groups tend to slam white people because it's safe to do so and because half the time, they don't even mean white people.
II. Futurism: Elon Musk Deletes Nazi Apologist Tweet After Near-Universal Backlash.
The flailing executive deleted a quote-tweet in which he called a Tucker Carlson podcast featuring a Nazi apologist "very interesting" and "worth watching" after near-universal backlash.
In the original Carlson post, which is still live, the ex-Fox pundit interviews purported historian Darryl Cooper, an apparent Holocaust denier who says, among other things, that then-UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill was the "chief villain" of World War II.
Okay, he shared a Tucker Carlson interview. Who gives a shit?
Okay, but he interviewed a Nazi apologist. Okay. I've done that too. I was sent a podcast called Stone Choir telling me about how the Holocaust was faked, and I linked it elsewhere and shared clips of it to mock it. Damn, that's crazy! I've shared Holocaust denial podcasts. Who gives a shit?
Okay, but he called it very interesting and worth watching. Well, in Liberalism World, it is not a requirement to dismiss everything someone says just because they're part of a group that is disliked. Certainly, it is not only neo-Nazis who like dunking on Churchill. Slaughterhouse Five bordered on outright saying Winston Churchill was wrong to bomb Dresden, and it even used the inflated statistic of current-but-not-at-the-time Holocaust denier David Irving. I've also seen numerous articles on Lew Rockwell slamming the guy, though frankly, they're anti-establishment to the point of insanity, and certainly not above conspiracies themselves. But Tucker Carlson wouldn't have done the interview if it wasn't going to be interesting to anyone who wasn't a neo-Nazi.
Furthermore, Elon Musk probably didn't even know he was a neo-Nazi when he shared that podcast and said he liked it. How do I know? Because he deleted it. Why would he delete it if he already knew all the facts when he made the post? Occam's Razor, again! Please! But I don't really know for sure, I guess. Whatever, man.
III. International Business Times: Europeans Rebuke Elon Musk's Proposal For 'MEGA: Make Europe Great Again': 'Stay Away From Europe'.
I actually didn't even see a need to defend this one. He said Make Europe Great Again? Okay? Who gives a shit?
At the time, it felt like the baffling extension of the sentiment on /r/europe lately of "Elon, stop interfering in our elections, we're going to ban X if you don't." To which I call them vile hypocrites! Certainly no one cared if Biden or Harris or whatever establishment liberal institution endorsed whatever establishment liberal institution in Europe. Why is Elon any different? Leave Elon Alone!
Now, I see it was supposed to be a point that he's imperialistic or something, and the article compares saying MEGA to some rhetoric Viktor Orban used once. This is kind of a Trump situation for me, in that I don't really take him seriously. Who the hell would want Europe? Besides, MAGA has been memed to death at this point. And Elon likes memes.
IV. truthout: Elon Musk to Host X Event Promoting Neo-Nazi AfD Party Ahead of German Elections.
I feel like it's worth mentioning at this point that some of these links are pretty questionable and are only being talked about because they're with the right people. This sounds like a left wing tabloid? Have any of you heard of this site? Who the hell uses it? Anyway...
Mega-billionaire Elon Musk, owner of the social media site X, plans to hold an online audio discussion on the platform with the leader of a far right German party, amplifying the party’s fascist and neo-Nazi ideology.
The discussion between him and Alice Weidel, a leader for Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the party’s candidate for chancellor in the February 23 snap elections, will take place”very soon,” a spokesperson for Weidel said, indicating that it will “definitely” happen before the elections. The German-based newswire agency dpa reported that the talk between Weidel and Musk would occur on January 10.
Musk signaled his support for AfD in mid-December, writing in a post on X that “only the AfD can save Germany.” He also penned an op-ed in a German newspaper last week, describing the party as the “last spark of hope” for the country.
That sounds pretty bad! At least, it does to me. But I know from reading here and elsewhere that the AfD only made the headway that it did because it is basically the only party that doesn't support immigration and that people trust to stop the immigration, and possibly even "Auslander raus!" them. And to me, since that's the only thing I really know that the AfD supports, Elon Musk may have endorsed them based off of that alone. Or he may have wanted to signal boosted them since he saw other right wingers signal boosting them, and didn't look at their signal boost critically at all.
Whatever the case, I haven't actually heard him say what he likes about them, other than say that they're the last hope of Europe -- which they very well could be, if you take immigration as a serious issue (which people do, or the AfD wouldn't be where it is now). Frankly, I don't think Musk actually probably agrees with all their stances, because if they're actually far right, then they probably disagreed with his H1B stance pretty vehemently. You don't get a whole lot of white supremacists or xenophobes or Jew haters say that we need to import more engineers because Americans aren't good enough.
V. NBC News: Before Trump, neo-Nazis pushed false claims about Haitians as part of hate campaign.
You actually have this article to thank for this long wall of text. There was just too much to rage about and talk about with just this article to leave this post unwritten.
The day after the presidential debate at which former President Donald Trump spread a false story about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, Christopher Pohlhaus, leader of the national neo-Nazi group Blood Tribe, took to his Telegram channel to take credit.
Pohlhaus, a Marine-turned-tattoo artist known as “Hammer” to his hundreds of followers, wrote Blood Tribe had “pushed Springfield into the public consciousness.”
Members of his hate group agreed. “The president is talking about it now,” a member wrote on Gab, a Twitter-like service popular with extremists. “This is what real power looks like.”
Whoa! You mean to tell me that far right wingers were the originators behind the hateful Haitian rumor that Trump mentioned during the debate? Are Trump and other right wingers like Elon and Right Wing Twitter really sanewashing the hateful screeds of skinheads on Gab and Telegram that aren't even visible to normal people?
Trump’s line at the debate was the culmination of a weekslong rumor mill that appears to have at least been amplified by Blood Tribe, which has sought to demonize the local Haitian community online and in person. The debate drew more than 67 million viewers, according to the media analytics company Nielsen.
As with most rumors, the beginning of the baseless claims about Haitians eating pets in Springfield is hard to pinpoint, but Blood Tribe undoubtedly helped spread it.
Oh, they didn't. Actually these are just some crazy assholes online who probably just fed into a preexisting narrative. Good God, man, I thought we were onto something interesting.
This is actually fucking incredible coming from NBC News. Tying Trump's talking about this to this random far right group that talked about the same thing is one of the most tenuous connections I've seen in a news article. It's a very "Trump drank water, so did Nazis" news article. This may even have gotten modded on The Motte. "Ah," says NBC News Commenter Amadan, "it appears you're trying to tie the actions of a reprehensible group to some mostly unrelated group in order to make statements about the mostly unrelated group. Stop it! You're better than this! Drop the knife! Drop the knife!"
At the time, someone pulled this quote from the article, only copy pasting the bolded part:
In response to a request for comment sent to Pohlhaus, Blood Tribe said in an email that it stood by its claims and that it would continue its activism, “making sure” Haitian immigrants “are all repatriated.”
I didn't even know who that was referring to, but I could tell that it was a horrible quotation. Why are "making sure" and "are all repatriated" in quotes, but "Haitian immigrants" is not? Because "Haitian immigrants" not being in quotes tells me that that was substituted into the original, and I really don't trust these journalists to make determinations on what the original author was saying. Maybe they could have linked the original email? It gets my hackles up, because the original could have been talking about asylum seekers in general, which is very much not a neo-Nazi thing to say. But it turns out I didn't even need to make sense of it, because Elon Musk is probably like me and has never even heard of Blood Tribe.
To cap it all off, making racist, baseless remarks about foreigners is far from being exclusive to Nazis. Dude, take any country on the fuckin' planet. That's how widespread it is. It goes higher than the ADL ever knew. Nazis have gone global.
I really thought NBC News was onto something here, but they blew it. But it's okay, because I'm better than NBC News. Where they failed to make the point, I will try to make the point that I wanted them to make non-frivolously.
I liked the Inverse Florida article about Hamas loving tumblr people for making the very excellent point that a lot of center left rhetoric is just sanewashed from insane left wing people. I am somewhat afraid that the center right may be similar, and their rhetoric is just sanewashed from insane right wing people. But I don't have any evidence. So I guess I'm actually not that much better than NBC News. Then again, at least I'm asking the question instead of just suggesting it.
Do you think that that NBC News article was closer than I give it credit for? And do any of you think that Trump or Elon take cues from people farther right than them? If so, why?
DoctorMonarch
♬We're so happy that we live in 1800's Alabama 'cause it's sunny and there is no crime!♬
8mo ago
Adding to the already odd protocol, it appears that Vice-President elect JD Vance will not even be present in Washington DC for the inauguration and will be sworn in at an undisclosed location somewhere else.
What are the chances that he does what he joked about?
"Hopefully everyone is cool with me skipping the inauguration so I can go to the national title game"
(For those unfamiliar or uninterested, the college football team of his undergrad alma mater Ohio State is facing Notre Dame roughly 7 hours after the inauguration)
gattsuru
8mo ago
As a metaphor, from Ames v. Ohio:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars employment discrimination against "any individual"—itself a phrase that is entirely clear—"because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin[.]" 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Thus, to state the obvious, the statute bars discrimination against "any individual" on the grounds specified therein. Yet our court and some others have construed this same provision to impose different burdens on different plaintiffs based on their membership in different demographic groups. Specifically—to establish a prima-facie case when (as in most cases) the plaintiff relies upon indirect evidence of discrimination—members of "majority" groups must make a showing that other plaintiffs need not make: namely, they must show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." Zambetti v. Cuyahoga Cmty. Coll., 314 F.3d 249, 255 (6th Cir. 2002) (cleaned up) (quoting Murray v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 770 F.2d 63, 67 (6th Cir. 1985)).
To be fair, SCOTUS is hearing this matter on appeal in February.. To be less naive, I included those very long citations because Murray v Thisledown dates back to 1985, aka over forty years of Some People Are More Equal before SCOTUS might slap their wrists.
Have you looked at the projected electoral college map after the 2030 census?
https://vhdshf2oms2wcnsvk7sdv3so.blob.core.windows.net/thearp-media/images/PEP_Estimates_2023_2030proj.max-1000x1000.png
Now look at 538 and try to figure out what path a D has to win here? Florida has been well lost (RDS doesn't get enough credit IMO) as has Ohio. So even if the D candidate wins the "blue wall" state and Nevada they still lose!
Of course, a lot can happen in 5 years. GA or NC might start to be in play, but even still, the Dems have to ring up a perfect set of victories with no margin for error. And their bench is not exactly exciting either: Newsom, AOC, Pete. Gretch is a good choice, which is why they probably won't chose her.
More options
Context Copy link