Octopus Overlords

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:27 pm

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.

The other, of course, involves orcs."

I'm sure the quote has been around forever, but I saw it for the first time over the weekend.

Slightly younger for one, slightly older for the other (though about on the money for The Fountainhead). I never fell in love Rand fiction, though I found it to be what I believe is an interesting insight in to who I believe she was. Oddly enough, she was probably the first author I was truly critical of all on my own. I suppose that is the invitation of the claim of being a philosopher. She truly opened my eyes to the humanities, even if it wasn't in the way she intended. I still value her reads, though not her fiction, and even listed Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology as one the 10 most influential books of my life. I ultimately came to reject her as someone who knew how to deconstruct but failed because that's all her philosophy does. A is A, a tautology is ultimately useless by itself, and teaches us nothing about the world. And she helped me learn that on my own. She also encouraged me to read Emerson and Thoreau with an active mind, and in doing so, allowed me to see that her critiques provide no context to expose he flaws of not being able to build a world view, even if she starts by asking many of the right questions, IMO.

But I will never try to pick up any of her non fiction again. Torture. If you don't let you mind wander in to who the fuck writes this? you'll never through it or remember anything at all from page to page. Or at least I never could.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:30 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:25 pm
Man, there is so much vitriol toward Democrats/liberals/progressives in the R party right now, it's unbelievable.

Take it to the streets and it goes both ways. The way to guarantee our downfall is to win in 2018/20, then spend the next few years stigginit to the Republicans.

Any steps taken to reverse the damage Trump has caused and restore normalcy will be seen as stigginit to the Republicans. They're a tender bunch.

That anger is defensive, in my opinion. The GOP has been facing dwindling numbers and a more progressive population for years. Their only strategy, being so outnumbered, is to rally the troops and demonize the enemy. And they've done a damn fine job of it.

I think the left has to keep their heads on straight and understand that the GOP is fighting from a position of weakness. Don't waste time fighting that battle, but appeal to the majority of the country that believes in the same thing they do.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:45 am Oh, hey, nothing to look at here - just some commentary about how Mitch McConnell responded to the director of the CIA telling him about the Russian involvement with our democratic process in 2016:

Yikes. WaPo's @GregPMiller describes a tense moment from 2016 involving a CIA director trying to sound the alarm on Russia and a senior U.S. senator wanting none of it...

Even with Kavanaugh's spit-flinging lies and Trump's idiot antics, this is what has made me angriest this month.

And a month is a damn long time in Trump's America.

Do you suppose when it's all said and done McConnell will approach McCarthy or Benedict Arnold when it comes to lore for being among the worst specimens in US history? They weren't the most violent but the detriment they cause has to be among the farthest reaching and most impactful.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:27 pm

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.

The other, of course, involves orcs."

I'm sure the quote has been around forever, but I saw it for the first time over the weekend.

I read that quote and immediately assumed it was referring to Atlas. I don't mean I figured it out and realized, I mean I literally thought it was referring to Atlas as a matter of course. I think I defaulted to this thought because I think it's impossible for me to hear LotR described as childish. While Atlas Shrugged is an obvious fantasy for many reasons, not the least of which is because everyone are both inherently takers and makers at the same time. There's no line down the middle of society.

Again, I'm not tooting my own horn here, I'm saying that on an instinct level I just assumed it was Atlas Shrugged.

Weird.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:48 pm Do you suppose when it's all said and done McConnell will approach McCarthy or Benedict Arnold when it comes to lore for being among the worst specimens in US history? They weren't the most violent but the detriment they cause has to be among the farthest reaching and most impactful.

No. He's a hero to 1/2 the population and I don't mean that facetiously. I mean he's doing what a significant portion of the population wants, and the ends justify the means.

That's not going to change in the near future. Perhaps he could get his own section of a political science textbook though.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:52 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:48 pm Do you suppose when it's all said and done McConnell will approach McCarthy or Benedict Arnold when it comes to lore for being among the worst specimens in US history? They weren't the most violent but the detriment they cause has to be among the farthest reaching and most impactful.

No. He's a hero to 1/2 the population and I don't mean that facetiously. I mean he's doing what a significant portion of the population wants, and the ends justify the means.

That's not going to change in the near future. Perhaps he could get his own section of a political science textbook though.

So was McCarthy/Arnold at the time.

God, I can't wait to explain to my kids who Scaramucci was. We live in exciting (read: horrifying) times.

Fitzy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:19 pm Daddy’s money, tax evasion, and outright fraud.

I’m shocked he wanted his finances off limit to examination.

Fraud just means he's smart!

Also why couldn’t the NYT have done this before the election?

BecauseHerEmails, of course.

OMG I thought I was joking.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:42 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:30 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:25 pm
Man, there is so much vitriol toward Democrats/liberals/progressives in the R party right now, it's unbelievable.

Take it to the streets and it goes both ways. The way to guarantee our downfall is to win in 2018/20, then spend the next few years stigginit to the Republicans.

Any steps taken to reverse the damage Trump has caused and restore normalcy will be seen as stigginit to the Republicans. They're a tender bunch.

First, I agree with Blackhawk.

Second, I don't believe Alefroth's point is inherently true, but it will be true for a certain part of the population. But that has always been true for that part of the population. they are under the impression that democratic politics are by design stigginit to them, and that's why they are so gleeful about turning the tables, so to speak. That it is an unhinged, intellectually bankrupt and emotionally stunted view doesn't alter their belief.

For the rest of right leaning America it will be grumble worthy and "those darn liberals" but that's a normal response of anyone to politics that they don't agree with. Nothing wrong with being pissed about who's in power or what direction the country is going. Believing that it is the end of the world is a different story, one that is pushed by right wing media, but isn't factually true.

I'd like to believe that I've learned my lesson about what's the end of the world vs. just politics I don't like, but we're all susceptible to our own prejudices. In the meantime I've been thinking a lot about what it means to be conservative (not in the fox news sense, but in a reasonable sense) and there is a lot of value there, if you exclude regressive social policies. I'm surprised to find that I am to the right of many on this forum. I find Sanders to be an awful candidate for example, based on his platform alone.

Eel Snave wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:54 pm So was McCarthy/Arnold at the time.

God, I can't wait to explain to my kids who Scaramucci was. We live in exciting (read: horrifying) times.

Ok, I'll give you McCarthy, but I am unsure about Arnold.

I'd argue that while McCarthy might be seen as a villain by the majority of Americans today, many people haven't learned a god damn thing from him or *why* he's a villain, with many people on both sides of the aisle pursuing paths that lead right back to McCarthyism with a different name.

I'll take your point though.

As a counter, I'd suggest that McCarthyism was a very visible and active paranoia that permeated many aspects of American society at the time, whereas McConnell is mostly behind the scenes. Maybe it'll all come to light in a way that America as a whole sees it as villainous, but I have my doubts.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:03 pm OMG I thought I was joking.

Just so long as Fox dude acknowledges that people go to jail for tax fraud and for good reason, he can praise the behaviour all he wants.

New York State investigating.

The New York Times flat out accused Trump of fraud. And the NYT article pretty much ends in the 1990s. Anyone think Trump stopped committing crimes? With Daddy gone, who did he turn to for money?

Could someone else... maybe someone who has won a few convictions against people around Trump be looking deeper?

I do have to credit where it’s due. Donald J. Trump deserves accolades for pulling off what has to be the biggest con in history.

Now can we put him in jail so he can enjoy his victory?

That is a HOLY MOTHERFUCKING SHIT article. You do NOT accuse someone of tax fraud unless you are DAMN sure.

In the end, the story will be that Trump relied on Daddy and fraud to keep afloat until Daddy died.

After that, his efforts at celebrity grift weren't good enough, and he started mining the Rolodex for other opportunities. The most productive of these connections were in the Russian mob. Then Putin noticed.

The President of the United States, ladies and gentlemen.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:42 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:30 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:25 pm
Man, there is so much vitriol toward Democrats/liberals/progressives in the R party right now, it's unbelievable.

Take it to the streets and it goes both ways. The way to guarantee our downfall is to win in 2018/20, then spend the next few years stigginit to the Republicans.

Any steps taken to reverse the damage Trump has caused and restore normalcy will be seen as stigginit to the Republicans. They're a tender bunch.

There is a difference between changing legislation (which, yes, will be seen as an attack by many regardless) and returning the legislative pettiness in kind. There's a difference between changing a law and going, "Neener neener neener!" - which is what Republicans are doing right now.

Eel Snave wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:30 pm That is a HOLY MOTHERFUCKING SHIT article. You do NOT accuse someone of tax fraud unless you are DAMN sure.

My thoughts exactly. Also it strikes me that we elected stupid Lex Luthor...knowing he was stupid Lex Luthor. None of this is a surprise. Not even close yet here we are and yet again nothing will happen.

That is a serious article. I mean serious in the amount of detail, the amount of research, the hard work involved, not the tone of the article. I don't see any bloggers doing that kind of journalism. I lament that we are nearing the end of the serious journalist, even when 90% of the articles are fluff pieces you can find on the 'net for free, if you'd even bother.

I've barely read 1/2 of it so far.

Enough of the article was already known (as mentioned by referring to multiple journalists who had already poked holes in the Drumpf narrative) that none of it surprises me, not even the magnitude.

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but this is the behaviour I expect from anyone with a sizeable fortune and children to bequeath it to. Is it shady? Of course. Is it unexpected? No. The drumpfs aren't alone in this, but only drumpf is stupid enough to pretend it is otherwise, and then draw public attention to it for literally decades. I'm sure he felt he was bullet proof, and it may turn out that he is, but man, don't taunt the bear so to speak.

On the one hand, I don't doubt that the narrative was "suggested" to him when he was young by the fawning media who love a good "American boy makes good" story. I'm sure it was hinted at by over zealous writers and then seized upon by drumpf himself at a young age, eventually coming to believe his own hype. It doesn't help that it appears he could do no wrong in his father's eyes, despite doing wrong many times. That's no excuse for a lifetime of shady and downright illegal behaviour though.

What gets my attention is just how badly he must have squandered his father's fortunes to end up in the pocket of Russian gangsters and oligarchs. Given the hundreds of millions filtered into his coffers from his father, and hundreds of millions more from his amazing promotion of his brand, just where did all the money go? Why couldn't he remain in good stead with NA banks? Why did he have to go to the rich person's version of loan sharks?

That said, he wouldn't be the first playboy son to destroy the wealth his father spent a life time creating (and even that was shady as hell, and he's regarded as the legitimate one!).

His life is nuts in a train wreck sort of way.

And now he's president. The whole thing boggles the mind.

Remember when it was suggested that Drumpf could have taken his starting fortune, put it into an index tracking fund, and come out further ahead that he did through all his wheelings and dealings?

That was based on a starting fortune far, far smaller than what the NYT article tells us he received.

If that doesn't suggest just how terrible he is with money I don't know what would. Not only is the narrative that he's a self made billionaire and real estate mogul not true, the exact opposite is true. He's not amazing. He's not great. He's not average. He's not poor. He's TERRIBLE at it.

As mentioned many times when referring to drumpf, including just several posts above, what he is good at is conning people. He's a street hustler at best backed by nuclear weapons (his father's fortune).

gbasden wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:40 pmI've never felt the kind of long-running rage I do right now.

I'll second that. I met murderers and rapists when I worked in the county jail, and kept myself dispassionate and distant. I'm almost impossible to offend. I keep to myself and believe in honest work, honest pay. I like to think hate and anger are a waste of energy.

But holy shit, do I harbor some intense rage and disgust for the president and GOP leaders. It's hard to even think of them as human, and it's easier to rationalize what they're doing as some kind of alien body snatching invasion or Elder God cultist takeover scenario.

I'm so mad I tweeted Bill Kristol last night.

YellowKing wrote:I'm so mad I tweeted Bill Kristol last night.

What did he say that set you off?

Pyperkub wrote:What did he say that set you off?

Actually I agreed with him. He was posting about how the GOP's actions were releasing his "inner liberal" to which I replied how I had been a reliably conservative voter for decades and their actions had pushed me to abandon the party completely. And how it was a shame that they were willing to abandon moderate old-school conservatives in order to slake their thirst for power and play to their extremist base.

While I no longer agree with many principles of conservatism, I still consider Kristol one of the good guys. He knows the current state of the GOP is wrong, he's not a Trump supporter, and he understands that we need a healthy/sane Republican party as a balance to the left. I don't think it's ever going to happen, but I applaud him for sticking to his principles.

The oddity in me tweeting to a "celebrity" is that I don't typically bother - it's not like they're going to read one of the thousands of replies headed their way. But his comments just reminded me how angry I was at the GOP's behavior.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:17 am

Pyperkub wrote:What did he say that set you off?

Actually I agreed with him. He was posting about how the GOP's actions were releasing his "inner liberal" to which I replied how I had been a reliably conservative voter for decades and their actions had pushed me to abandon the party completely. And how it was a shame that they were willing to abandon moderate old-school conservatives in order to slake their thirst for power and play to their extremist base.

While I no longer agree with many principles of conservatism, I still consider Kristol one of the good guys. He knows the current state of the GOP is wrong, he's not a Trump supporter, and he understands that we need a healthy/sane Republican party as a balance to the left. I don't think it's ever going to happen, but I applaud him for sticking to his principles.

The whole Trump era is something of a saving throw for conservatives against insanity. He passed. On the one hand I'm mildly surprised, because for a long time I had viewed him as little more than a partisan hack who would parrot whatever the GOP line of the day was. On the other hand, foreign policy conservatives as a group have been the most reliable NeverTrumpers, and Kristol tends to care more about foreign than domestic policy.

Yeah, even at his most partisan hacky-iest, he still came across as level-headed, calm, and articulate. I have always enjoyed his commentary during election season. The fact that he's a NeverTrumper these days doesn't surprise me since he's always come across as one of the more rational talking heads.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:17 am

Pyperkub wrote:What did he say that set you off?

Actually I agreed with him. He was posting about how the GOP's actions were releasing his "inner liberal" to which I replied how I had been a reliably conservative voter for decades and their actions had pushed me to abandon the party completely. And how it was a shame that they were willing to abandon moderate old-school conservatives in order to slake their thirst for power and play to their extremist base.

While I no longer agree with many principles of conservatism, I still consider Kristol one of the good guys. He knows the current state of the GOP is wrong, he's not a Trump supporter, and he understands that we need a healthy/sane Republican party as a balance to the left. I don't think it's ever going to happen, but I applaud him for sticking to his principles.

The oddity in me tweeting to a "celebrity" is that I don't typically bother - it's not like they're going to read one of the thousands of replies headed their way. But his comments just reminded me how angry I was at the GOP's behavior.

Thanks for the reply. It's always enlightening.

YellowKing wrote: I think the left has to keep their heads on straight and understand that the GOP is fighting from a position of weakness.

One week away from a right-leaning SCOTUS
The Executive branch
The legislative branch.
A gerrymandered country mostly to benefit the GOP.

I would hate to see strength if you consider a stranglehold on all three branches ‘a position of weakness’!

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:03 pm

YellowKing wrote: I think the left has to keep their heads on straight and understand that the GOP is fighting from a position of weakness.

One week away from a right-leaning SCOTUS
The Executive branch
The legislative branch.
A gerrymandered country mostly to benefit the GOP.

I would hate to see strength if you consider a stranglehold on all three branches ‘a position of weakness’!

I took it to mean "3.6 million more people voted against Trump, and in the next election that number is going to grow and be hard to subdue"

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:03 pm I would hate to see strength if you consider a stranglehold on all three branches ‘a position of weakness’!

The country is clearly trending progressive when the last 50 years are reviewed. They are fighting for their worldview here, and enough Americans agree with them that they are getting away with some serious shenanigans.

I see "position of weakness" here as dinosaurs on their way to extinction, or at least marginalized.

I was certain that drumpf was not going to be the Republican nominee, but when it turns out he was, I was extremely cautious about what the outcome of the election could be. I was still confident that he would not be president, but I didn't think it was impossible, just really, really unlikely.

I feel the same way about him getting a second term. It's not impossible, and I have to be mentally prepared for it if it happens.

Maybe he means they've seized and are maintaining control from a minority position?

To me it seemed clear, right up until 2016 that they were a dying demographic. Now I'm quite sure I've underestimated just how large they are. I just have no idea what they reality is. It' seems clear it only takes about 35% to retain control if a voting district remains apathetic. So know I'm already shocked at the idea of 35% being numbers, but I can't tell if it's that small or if their numbers swell in the disengaged as well. I don't get it and I've been so clearly wrong in the past, so I don't know how to get it.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:33 pm To me it seemed clear, right up until 2016 that they were a dying demographic.

LM says it more clearly and succinctly.

I am humbled.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:03 pm

YellowKing wrote: I think the left has to keep their heads on straight and understand that the GOP is fighting from a position of weakness.

One week away from a right-leaning SCOTUS
The Executive branch
The legislative branch.
A gerrymandered country mostly to benefit the GOP.

I would hate to see strength if you consider a stranglehold on all three branches ‘a position of weakness’!

Don't forget 3/4 of governorships and 2/3 of state legislatures (or is it the other way around?).

Yes, they are a shrinking demographic, but they have a lot of experience rigging elections and suppressing undesirable voters. When the SCOTUS is in the bag, they won't have any restrictions on that. We can't just vote our way out of this.

I hope I'll eat those words in November. It's possible that we might have one last chance before they can sew it up forever.

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:50 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:03 pm

YellowKing wrote: I think the left has to keep their heads on straight and understand that the GOP is fighting from a position of weakness.

One week away from a right-leaning SCOTUS
The Executive branch
The legislative branch.
A gerrymandered country mostly to benefit the GOP.

I would hate to see strength if you consider a stranglehold on all three branches ‘a position of weakness’!

Don't forget 3/4 of governorships and 2/3 of state legislatures (or is it the other way around?).

Yes, they are a shrinking demographic, but they have a lot of experience rigging elections and suppressing undesirable voters. When the SCOTUS is in the bag, they won't have any restrictions on that. We can't just vote our way out of this.

I hope I'll eat those words in November. It's possible that we might have one last chance before they can sew it up forever.

Personally, I doubt "rigging and suppressing" is a very big part of their success to date. Didn't hurt, but compared to say gerrymandering, or even bigger (I think), is our underestimation of 'liberal hate" that's out there, even if the total number of haters is in a minority. They are VERY motivated to show up and vote against their demons. People who aren't so filled with hate and fear are not going to be as motivated.

Stoking hatred and fear is key to the GOP's power, as Putin and the stoker-in-chief both understand. When they finally reach the point that every single angry white man in the US isn't enough, though, they are not going to let themselves be voted out of power. Not as long as they control the mechanisms that can prevent it. If they have to shred what's left of democracy to stay on top, they won't hesitate.

You also have to factor in that older people vote in greater numbers. And older people in this country are in general angry and white...and increasingly immortal. Some of this will shift when these dinosaurs start dying off. In the meantime they still are wreaking havoc.

Just to level set how pervasive this fixation that the elderly have to maintain control -- Pelosi has already said she will be speaker again if they take the House. The President is the oldest President we've ever had. The Supreme Court is holding onto near balance on the backs of 2 80 year olds. McConnell and Pelosi are both in their late 70s. And a good chunk of the House and Senate are older boomers and as a side note most are also wealthy. Hardly a body of the people representing us.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:11 pm And older people in this country are ... increasingly immortal. Some of this will shift when these dinosaurs start dying off.

Ummm.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:11 pm You also have to factor in that older people vote in greater numbers. And older people in this country are in general angry and white...and increasingly immortal. Some of this will shift when these dinosaurs start dying off. In the meantime they still are wreaking havoc.

Just to level set how pervasive this fixation that the elderly have to maintain control -- Pelosi has already said she will be speaker again if they take the House. The President is the oldest President we've ever had. The Supreme Court is holding onto near balance on the backs of 2 80 year olds. McConnell and Pelosi are both in their late 70s. And a good chunk of the House and Senate are older boomers and as a side note most are also wealthy. Hardly a body of the people representing us.

That will never change. Ten years from now the electorate will be even older on average than it is now.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:02 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:11 pm You also have to factor in that older people vote in greater numbers. And older people in this country are in general angry and white...and increasingly immortal. Some of this will shift when these dinosaurs start dying off. In the meantime they still are wreaking havoc.

Just to level set how pervasive this fixation that the elderly have to maintain control -- Pelosi has already said she will be speaker again if they take the House. The President is the oldest President we've ever had. The Supreme Court is holding onto near balance on the backs of 2 80 year olds. McConnell and Pelosi are both in their late 70s. And a good chunk of the House and Senate are older boomers and as a side note most are also wealthy. Hardly a body of the people representing us.

That will never change. Ten years from now the electorate will be even older on average than it is now.

Dammit. I was told that 80 is the new 50.

Brian wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:54 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:11 pm And older people in this country are ... increasingly immortal. Some of this will shift when these dinosaurs start dying off.

Ummm.

It was just a joke.