[pilowsky]

I couldn't decide how I felt.
Sometimes I wonder if people are unable to comprehend the difference between movie/television/video games and reality,


The defence attorney and the Judge seemed as Loius Gohmert as the defendant; this does not leave me with much hope for life on Earth.
Is it possible that Forrest Gump was a documentary?

[y66]

Aaron, Director of Research at The States Project said:

Britney is free and Steve Bannon is indicted, another promise delivered on by Joe Biden

[y66]

Here's another one which I am stepping back and appreciating:

Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg said:

There are probably few things more fun for a president than a major bill signing, and President Joe Biden got to have one on Monday that must have been especially satisfying. It’s rare for a president to be able to chalk up a major victory on a topic that had been a fiasco for the predecessor he defeated, but that’s what happened with the infrastructure legislation that has now become law. I can’t think of any comparable case for Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter, the last three presidents to defeat an incumbent. Biden was also able to tout infrastructure as a bipartisan victory, giving him a chance to say, “I told you so” to skeptics who doubted that such a thing was possible.

Granted, President Donald Trump’s commitment to infrastructure was less than impressive, given that he never got as far as actually having a bill introduced. And the last major bipartisan bill — the pandemic relief bill signed at the end of the previous Congress — is less than a year in the past, so it’s not entirely true that bipartisanship was previously dead. Nevertheless, the infrastructure bill is certainly a big deal.

Don’t expect it to have major direct effects on Biden’s popularity. At best, it might stay in the news for a few days, and it’s always better to have something positive in the news than something bad. But this isn’t the kind of thing that breaks through to most citizens. Swing voters pay relatively less attention to politics than others, and so they’re even less likely to be aware of legislative wins and to have their minds changed by them.

Could it have indirect effects? Possibly. If spending on roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects boosts the economy or dampens inflation it could help the incumbent president, even if those who are more likely to support him as a result have no idea that the project employing them or the extra money coming into their shop was generated by a government program. But this isn’t really an economic stimulus bill; to the extent that it might boost economic activity in the long-term, it’s unlikely to matter in electoral politics nearly as much as short-term fluctuations.

There’s also the possibility that legislative successes could have indirect effects on presidential popularity by changing how news organizations interpret Biden’s actions. Just as it’s possible that part of the current slump in Biden’s approval ratings is indirectly caused by media and other political elites doubting the administration’s competence after the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan last summer, passing major bills can create the impression of a White House that knows what it’s doing and a president who wins battles.

But don’t expect such things to be large effects. It’s more likely that presidential popularity (or lack thereof) as measured by public opinion polls drives media perceptions of presidential competence, rather than the other way around. And there’s just not much evidence that passing even very popular bills makes a president popular.

There’s more to politics than elections, however. If politics is less about who is in charge and more about who gets what, then it’s important that a whole lot of whos are about to get a whole lot of whats.

That is, we can look at politics less as a system of choosing leaders — perhaps think of that as a step towards a larger goal — and more as a way of collectively making policy choices, and we just made a bunch of big ones. We’ve decided to build and repair roads and bridges, to upgrade electrical grids, to move more quickly to electric vehicles, to spread broadband where previous choices have made it scarce, and on and on and on. And since this new law is only part of what Biden and many Democrats wanted, there were also decisions against spending more on all these things, and anything at all on others.

I’m not going to tell you which way of looking at politics is the correct one. What I can tell you is that the media tend to be more interested in questions about who is in charge — and who the winners and losers are — than in policy outcomes. So when a big policy change happens, it’s worth stepping back and appreciating it.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2021-November-16, 08:09, said:

Here's another one which I am stepping back and appreciating:

I'll try my hand as a political adviser. Bernstein speaks of media coverage as a problem for Biden. Sure, but it's like rain. A wise person brings a raincoat.

Here is the start of a WaPo article from a couple of days ago:

Quote

In June, senior White House officials promised that rising inflation was just "transitory."

In July, President Biden declared that "the virus is on the run."

And in August, White House press secretary Jen Psaki declared "the president continues to believe that it is not inevitable that the Taliban take over" Afghanistan.

But just in the past week, inflation hit a 31-year high as prices rose 6.2 percent over a year ago, coronavirus cases are ticking up again and the United States announced that Qatar will serve as its diplomatic proxy in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan — head winds that come as the Democratic Party reels from a set of unexpected losses in elections around the country.

In these and other cases, a growing number of Democrats worry that the White House has repeatedly underestimated the scale of the challenges facing the country — exacerbating the party's political problems and making its already perilous path to holding Congress in 2022 even more difficult. They acknowledge the problems presented by the unpredictable nature of the pandemic and an uneven economic recovery, but fear that the administration's tendency to downplay the issues has only made things worse.

Full article at https://www.washingt...2eb7_story.html

Is the article unfair to Biden? Not really, I think. Take inflation. Before the increased inflation it was being mentioned as a concern but pooh-pooh by the WH. Then it happened and was described as "transitory". It is hard to imagine a worse choice of words. Life is transitory. If you have to jump from the fifth story of a burning building, hopefully landing in a safety net below, your descent is transitory. Being infected with covid is transitory. Basically, everything is transitory. "Transitory" is a four-syllable word but using it to describe inflation says nothing that is either calming or useful. The media is tough on Biden, it reports what he says.

Biden has an image problem. He can sound like "Elephant? What elephant? I don't see any elephant." Being taken by surprise with the way things unfolded in Afghanistan as we left, and then claiming that of course no one could possibly have foreseen it did not help.

There are plenty of us out there who wish him well. Except for DT, I have wished success for every president. I live here. I hope he comes to grips with this.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2021-November-16, 09:44, said:

I'll try my hand as a political adviser. Bernstein speaks of media coverage as a problem for Biden. Sure, but it's like rain. A wise person brings a raincoat.

Here is the start of a WaPo article from a couple of days ago:



Full article at https://www.washingt...2eb7_story.html

Is the article unfair to Biden? Not really, I think. Take inflation. Before the increased inflation it was being mentioned as a concern but pooh-pooh by the WH. Then it happened and was described as "transitory". It is hard to imagine a worse choice of words. Life is transitory. If you have to jump from the fifth story of a burning building, hopefully landing in a safety net below, your descent is transitory. Being infected with covid is transitory. Basically, everything is transitory. "Transitory" is a four-syllable word but using it to describe inflation says nothing that is either calming or useful. The media is tough on Biden, it reports what he says.

Biden has an image problem. He can sound like "Elephant? What elephant? I don't see any elephant." Being taken by surprise with the way things unfolded in Afghanistan as we left, and then claiming that of course no one could possibly have foreseen it did not help.

There are plenty of us out there who wish him well. Except for DT, I have wished success for every president. I live here. I hope he comes to grips with this.

My take is slightly - but not significantly - different.

I think Biden tends to answer as honestly as he can at the moment but with the most positive spin he can muster. If he has 3 advisers telling him it's terrible and one who says it's not so bad I think he listens to and tends to repeat the rosier presentation. Most likely a character flaw - but what politician doesn't have some flaw?

As for the previous guy, credit where credit is due. More than any other person, much less president, he understood and still understands that all he has to offer is illusion - that if he keeps the balls in the air that's what everyone will watch and the media will report.

A good example is current gasoline prices. I heard only this morning that the idea of releasing gasoline from the national strategic reserve is for emergency uses such as natural disasters and besides, tapping into that gasoline source would do little to alter prices and would only have a short term effect, so taking that action would not mollify pricing concerns. Therefore, I doubt Biden will tap into the reserve.

The former guy would not care. He would understand that the noise and grandiosity of appearing to take action would be enough to stall the concerns - at least, and hopefully, until someone else could truly correct the problem. Is there any doubt whatsoever that the last guy would have already stood in front of the cameras and loudly proclaimed that He will not allow this to happen, that He will help, and He had just taken action, and He had ordered the strategic reserve to release gasoline. The media would be all over it. Meet the Press would have someone form the Pentagon and another from the oil industry to talk about the pros and cons of the action taken by the former guy to help us solve the gasoline crisis. Even Rachel Maddow would have a piece about it. The message that would be repeated ad nauseum: Last Guy/Action, Last Guy/Action, Last Guy/Action. And that would be enough to con about 65 million voters that He was THE MAN.

I think it is difficult for many of us older folks to grasp that normality is not what we remember normal to be. For me, I fully expected the Last Guy to be demolished totally in the 2020 election. That he came close enough to even attempt his coup is shocking to me - it means that 60+ million people watched this guy for 5 years including campaign and said to themselves, yeah, I want more of that.


It is not an American problem, either. It is a worldwide attack on liberal democracy. I hope we have the sense to play hardball when we need to and have to. I would like to have a better candidate than Biden in 2024 but I don't know who that would be.

I think these are not interesting times but incredibly dangerous times in which to live, and I hope we are up to the fight.

[Gilithin]

y66, on 2021-November-16, 08:09, said:

Here's another one which I am stepping back and appreciating:

I think this highlights one of the big things wrong with the US political system. The government signed a Bill into law. This is somehow seen as such a massive achievement that it becomes a major media event. Other governments around the world manage new laws on a regularly basis. Most of those governments involve multiple parties working together. And Americans then wonder why voters are so critical of their political leaders. It should be a normal thing for the government to do something positive for the country on a regular basis, not seen as something special that happens once every 4 years or so!

[akwoo]

Gilithin, on 2021-November-16, 14:59, said:

I think this highlights one of the big things wrong with the US political system. The government signed a Bill into law. This is somehow seen as such a massive achievement that it becomes a major media event. Other governments around the world manage new laws on a regularly basis. Most of those governments involve multiple parties working together. And Americans then wonder why voters are so critical of their political leaders. It should be a normal thing for the government to do something positive for the country on a regular basis, not seen as something special that happens once every 4 years or so!

I don't think it's the system - it's the electorate.

Imagine if, in the Netherlands, the PVV had 35% of the vote, or in Belgium, the Vlaams Belang had 30% (meaning a majority in Flemish areas). It took long enough (about a year!) to negotiate a government when these unacceptable parties had 10% of the seats. With one party having 35% or 40% and no acceptable coalition partners, there would never be a government.

When one third of the electorate wants to basically kick out another third, democracy is impossible.

[y66]

Quote

“Also, why are they even having a bill-signing celebration? Passing laws is their job. Nobody else gets to do that at their job. Like, after you make photocopies for your boss at the office, you don’t get to pose for pictures while shaking hands: [imitating boss] ‘I didn’t think you could get it double-sided. Well done, Billy, well done.’” — TREVOR NOAH

[Gilithin]

akwoo, on 2021-November-16, 16:19, said:

I don't think it's the system - it's the electorate.

I think you are seriously underestimating the American people here. One of the core reasons why so many Americans have migrated to the extremes is specifically because that is what FPTP supports. If the electoral system used a proportional method and there were 5 or 6 credible alternatives, I am sure you would see moderates being fully represented and parties working together to govern the country. Seeing leaders working together in turn helps the electorate to see (some of the) other parties not as the enemy but more as potentially friendly rivals. It is good both for democracy (more choice, closer representation of the electorate in elected officials) and for the wider society. Or to put it another way, if your friend was put in a real life Trolley Problem scenario, would you blame them for the resulting death(s) or would you assign blame to the person/people that created the situation?

[kenberg]

pilowsky, on 2021-November-11, 15:00, said:

I couldn't decide how I felt.
Sometimes I wonder if people are unable to comprehend the difference between movie/television/video games and reality,

The defence attorney and the Judge seemed as Louis Gohmert as the defendant; this does not leave me with much hope for life on Earth.
Is it possible that Forrest Gump was a documentary?

With the jury out, I gave some thought to what I would do if serving. I would try very hard to understand exactly what the law says, and I would try very hard to understand what happened. and then I would choose my verdict based on these two things. Roughly my thinking is that a person has a right to defend himself, but that doesn't mean a person can spit in the face of someone else and then shoot him when he hits you. Exactly where the law draws the line, and exactly what happened, is what I would go by. I would not take into account whether I agreed with where the law draws the line.

I have only been on a jury once, I thought we all did our best, I was pretty impressed with my fellow jurors.

Btw, I had to look up who Louis Gohmert is. It's ok, he probably doesn't know who I am either. We can leave it that way.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2021-November-17, 12:41, said:

I have only been on a jury once, I thought we all did our best, I was pretty impressed with my fellow jurors.

I've never made onto a jury, but have spent hours reading during jury selection, only to be dismissed.

But once when I was in high school my dad took me to watch a trial where he was seated on the jury. When the jury went out to deliberate, I was still there waiting and reading and chatting with the bailiff now and then.

At 6 o'clock, the bailiff got dinner orders to bring to the jurors. The bailiff came over to me grinning and said that my dad had been elected foreman and had ordered eleven dinners and one bail of hay.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2021-November-17, 15:11, said:

I've never made onto a jury, but have spent hours reading during jury selection, only to be dismissed.

But once when I was in high school my dad took me to watch a trial where he was seated on the jury. When the jury went out to deliberate, I was still there waiting and reading and chatting with the bailiff now and then.

At 6 o'clock, the bailiff got dinner orders to bring to the jurors. The bailiff came over to me grinning and said that my dad had been elected foreman and had ordered eleven dinners and one bail of hay.

I have been working on this, but I surrender. The bail of hay was for ? One of the jurors was a donkey?

[pilowsky]

kenberg, on 2021-November-17, 20:35, said:

I have been working on this, but I surrender. The bail of hay was for ? One of the jurors was a donkey?

Maybe he was getting a bit ho(a)rse?

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2021-November-17, 20:35, said:

I have been working on this, but I surrender. The bail of hay was for ? One of the jurors was a donkey?

I'm guessing it was meant as, put on the feed bag, this is going to take awhile.

[awm]

Surely the implication is that 11 jurors agreed on a verdict and one stubborn mule was holding out and refusing to let them go home.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2021-November-18, 11:39, said:

I'm guessing it was meant as, put on the feed bag, this is going to take awhile.

awm, on 2021-November-18, 13:14, said:

Surely the implication is that 11 jurors agreed on a verdict and one stubborn mule was holding out and refusing to let them go home.

It turned out that dad meant it both of those ways, and he expected (correctly) that the bailiff would let me know that I would be waiting in the courtroom longer than I had expected.

My dad -- my whole family, now that I think of it -- was into humorous word play. I remember going out with my dad before sunrise for trout fishing in northern Wisconsin and stopping at a diner for coffee. The waitress asked my dad, "Do you want a roll with your coffee?"

"No," dad responded, "I'll just drink it."

I thought that dad's reply was hilarious. The waitress didn't.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2021-November-18, 13:44, said:

It turned out that dad meant it both of those ways, and he expected (correctly) that the bailiff would let me know that I would be waiting in the courtroom longer than I had expected.

My dad -- my whole family, now that I think of it -- was into humorous word play. I remember going out with my dad before sunrise for trout fishing in northern Wisconsin and stopping at a diner for coffee. The waitress asked my dad, "Do you want a roll with your coffee?"

"No," dad responded, "I'll just drink it."

I thought that dad's reply was hilarious. The waitress didn't.

Reminds me of an old Barbara Stanwyck movie where she dumps a cup of coffee on a guy and explains she was so thrilled by his suggestion she lost her balance. Gotta be careful with Barbara Stanwyck. Some early 30s pre-code movie I think.

[kenberg]

All such joking aside, the long jury huddle is worrisome. Video should make it pretty clear what happened. I hope they have a clear understanding of what the law sees as acceptable for a plea of self-defense. And, as mentioned before, I hope this guides them to a verdict. The jury's assignment does not involve philosophy or picking sides. Their task is to decide what happened, understand what the law says, and apply the law to what happened.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2021-November-18, 13:44, said:

It turned out that dad meant it both of those ways, and he expected (correctly) that the bailiff would let me know that I would be waiting in the courtroom longer than I had expected.

My dad -- my whole family, now that I think of it -- was into humorous word play. I remember going out with my dad before sunrise for trout fishing in northern Wisconsin and stopping at a diner for coffee. The waitress asked my dad, "Do you want a roll with your coffee?"

"No," dad responded, "I'll just drink it."

I thought that dad's reply was hilarious. The waitress didn't.

I would have liked your dad - or at least his sense of humor.
My response might have been, no, but if you can do the splits that would be nice .

[Chas_P]

PassedOut, on 2021-November-18, 13:44, said:

I thought that dad's reply was hilarious.

As they say on those Mastercard commercials, "Priceless".