Geoff > Status Update

No but for real this was one of my more unsubtle, thoughtless posts. Just angry in the morning like all straight working men. What I guess I'm saying is yeah you Trump folks have legit concerns because global capitalism has failed pretty much everyone. But I sure don't like that guy you guys think is gonna fix it. I mean, Trump's pretty much the opposite of everything I find good in humanity. But I guess I can see how you can still be a good person and vote for him. Like, even though everything he says is pretty much empty of content or a lie or straight up stupid and offensive, or stupidly offensive. I mean, if you knew Trump, you'd really hate to even have to take a longish elevator ride with him. He just seems like such a piece of living filth. But his supporters are just looking for ways out of problems like everyone.

An imaginary solution to a set of real problems

Seriously tho, I may now be locked in mortal struggle with a Trump supporter in the comment section of one of my reviews, so my position is changing fast from love & understanding to Exterminate them all...

David wrote: "Seriously tho, I may now be locked in mortal struggle with a Trump supporter in the comment section of one of my reviews, so my position is changing fast from love & understanding to Exterminate th..."

Ooh link plz?

I'm learning to play "The Number Of The Beast" to the melody of "When The Saints Go Marching In". Better hedge my bets.

Following is a very good point - and more or less goes back to what David said the other day about pop culture and this election:

"But Trump is objectively a piece of shit!" you say. "He insults people, he objectifies women, and cheats whenever possible! And he's not an everyman; he's a smarmy, arrogant billionaire!"

Wait, are you talking about Donald Trump, or this guy:

[pic of Tony Stark/Iron Man]

You've never rooted for somebody like that? Someone powerful who gives your enemies the insults they deserve? Somebody with big fun appetites who screws up just enough to make them relatable? Like Dr. House or Walter White? Or any of the several million renegade cop characters who can break all the rules because they get shit done? Who only get shit done because they don't care about the rules?

"But those are fictional characters!" Okay, what about all those millionaire left-leaning talk show hosts? You think they keep their insults classy? Tune into any bit about Chris Christie and start counting down the seconds until the fat joke. Google David Letterman's sex scandals. But it's okay, because they're on our side, and everybody wants an asshole on their team -- a spiked bat to smash their enemies with. That's all Trump is. The howls of elite outrage are like the sounds of bombs landing on the enemy's fortress. The louder the better.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons...

An hour or so ago I read your post saying you wouldn't rule out being friends with Trump supporters, and [given how I differentiate friends from amicable acquaintances] I thought, well, you're a better person than I am. Then shortly afterwards went on to read a blog post by a writer I respect that made me conclude there might be a handful of exceptions. (You guys are grown up enough to understand that respect doesn't mean you agree with everything a person says, right?)
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co...
Which is maybe not so far from the way I can understand Brexit vote as a lashing out, let's see how they like it, thing; I feel that way about some issues myself, but the difference is, not on that issue that was at stake in the voting.

I'm actually not sure she's a Trump supporter. She objects to something or other in my review of Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right, though so far she hasn't said what exactly. Just my all-around low level of education, I guess.

A generalised "you don't get it" kind of remark, characteristic of the splitting into two cultures that's increasing. Takes a lot of effort for one side to feel what it's like on the other. And for the most part it does seem to be the left and moderates who do the emotional labour, when it's attempted at all.

Prediction markets give Trump only about a 33% chance of winning, so it isn't quite as-likely-as-not. Also, although I won't deny support for Donald Trump shows a certain lack of sanity and morality, supporting a candidate that is completely okay with America being in ~7 (mostly undeclared) wars simultaneously isn't obviously a whole lot better. Interesting times.

Geoff, what are you doing for the Clinton campaign? Manning phone-banks? Going door-to-door in swing states? Reminding your friends to vote?

Damn, I wish I was in the US this week.

Manny wrote: "Geoff, what are you doing for the Clinton campaign? Manning phone-banks? Going door-to-door in swing states? Reminding your friends to vote?

Damn, I wish I was in the US this week."

Uh, complaining bitterly on Goodreads? Also talking to anyone I can about why Trump is the worst candidate in living memory. Look, I was a Bernie supporter, I'm not really a fan of the Clintons at all. But here there is clearly no comparison as to who should be elected, for the good of the world at large and America specifically.

I thought this article gave some pretty sensible advice...

I think I missed the title of that book!. I guess talking about politics and using hate speech is more suitable in Twitter than Goodreads. Chill out!

Good sneak preview of Trump reign is Duterte from the Philippines. An erratic egomaniac running off at the mouth and turning their back on established allies. I'm not sure we'll see death squads in though, but lots of ugly policy will result.

I must comment...

First, this is a delightful conversation to follow (accidentally, of course as I was perusing the Goodreads section of book reviews;)....

This is delightful because everyone here (so far) is doing what we all should do: be unafraid to express our feelings without getting persecuted by them. Of course, we still have to dignify ourselves and not go over the hill on our emotions, but just simply expressing what your ideas, convictions, feelings, ect...are is wonderful----AND, the fact that no one (so far) is threatening with killing one another for those thoughts/feelings/opinions.

Kudos to you Goodreads people---so refreshing as compared to the abhorrent ways people are cyber-stabbing one another on social media like Facebook and Twitter....

Perhaps it is because we love books....lol...:)

Javier wrote: "Chill out!"

Hi Javier, "chilling out" in the face of a potential Donald J Trump presidency where, again, an erratic, belligerent, bullying, lying, racist, xenophobic, fascistic, incomprehensibly unqualified and dangerous con artist would take control of the most powerful army in the history of humanity is about the stupidest fucking thing I could imagine. But thanks for the advice. And where exactly is that hate speech you mention?

James wrote: "Good sneak preview of Trump reign is Duterte from the Philippines. An erratic egomaniac running off at the mouth and turning their back on established allies. I'm not sure we'll see death squads in..."

Well, no, because the Phillipines does not play the role on the world stage that the US does. Much more is at stake.

Geoff, you hate insane nazis. Why don't you just admit it?

Manny wrote: "Geoff, you hate insane nazis. Why don't you just admit it?"

Oh yeah, truth!

Geoff wrote: "James wrote: "Good sneak preview of Trump reign is Duterte from the Philippines. An erratic egomaniac running off at the mouth and turning their back on established allies. I'm not sure we'll see d..."
I meant the behavior of turning your back on allies (NATO for US, China for Phillapines), immoderate speech to other foreign leaders, realigning with Russia (and for the Philippines -China), heavy handed tactics against poltical enemies. The stakes are lower because of the countries involved, but i think the behavior is going to be pretty close. Still, the movement of the Philippines towards China has huge consequences in the Pacific, especially from the U.S. point of view.

James wrote: "I meant the behavior of turning your back on allies (NATO for US, China for Phillapines.

Still, the movement of the Philippines towards China has huge consequences in the Pacific, especially from the U.S. point of view. "

With due respect, there's a difference between allies and clients. Why shouldn't two Asian neighbours with historical ties sit together to solve their disputes without the United States playing the umpire. It means less hostility in the neighbourhood, more cooperation, more peace. Oh wait. But that's detrimental to American superiority in the Pacific, so obviously that's something to worry about. But don't worry, America will find ways to invent political dissent and do something to oust the uncouth Filipino ape of a president if he gets out of control.

I can see why Duterte seems like a reasonable comparison for Trump, as a recently emerged right-wing leader who has hit the headlines with extreme policies that have shocked other countries, yet which are actually not entirely out of keeping with underlying values on the right.
But yes, it equally makes geopolitical sense for the Philippines to seek closer ties with China based on location and cultural commonality. Whoever wins this election, it is likely that the US' influence is going to continue to recede somewhat, it is no longer the only superpower in town as it was for a while after the collapse of the eastern bloc and before China was so strong economically. China is out there making a lot of deals (to use Trump's favourite phrase) with other countries, which don't all get widely reported in US and British media.

James wrote: "Geoff wrote: "James wrote: "Good sneak preview of Trump reign is Duterte from the Philippines. An erratic egomaniac running off at the mouth and turning their back on established allies. I'm not su..."

That's all true, for sure. But Duterte is a much smaller player in potentially catastrophic events/decisions on a world scale than Trump would be. Also, population-wise, Trumps policies and decisions would have direct consequences on many many more people. But you are right in your comparison.

A reminder from the Post today (it might be behind a paywall)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...

Antonomasia wrote: "Whoever wins this election, it is likely that the US' influence is going to continue to recede somewhat."

US would have more allies if it treated them like allies. I agree with Putin when he says the US is not interested in mutual cooperation but dominating its partners and treating them like shit - and some of those "partners" don't like to be dictated to if they have any sense to protect their national interests. Chinese have very cleverly gained ground in territories which were hitherto part of American strategic nexus since the WWII, and the Chinese have done that without firing a bullet. They are doing that through direct investment and infrastructure development that actually helps those countries in real terms, without asking them to hand over their national sovereignty. African and Southeast Asian countries are prime examples.

Despite the large amount US spends in aid and buying off / propping up various regimes, setting up military bases, and invading troublesome countries, the overall benefits of American alliance on smaller countries is negligible. Who'd know this better than the South Asias. Recently, there has been a silent but major geostrategic shift of tectonic proportions in Pakistan. We were once the top non-NATO ally of the US but now with CPEC our major alliances have changed. It's causing quite a heartburn in the American establishment and among its client Arab sheikhdoms who see this route a threat to their trade domination. But I'm glad it's not being reported in the media. We'd like it to do it the Chinese way. Silently but resolutely.

Jibran, I think you're being fairly generous with your assessment of China's good works - their dealings in Africa have been pretty nefarious. It's odd you're so enthusiastic about one form of totalitarian capitalism and so horrified by another. They both serve the same master.

Geoff wrote: "Jibran, I think you're being fairly generous with your assessment of China's good works - their dealings in Africa have been pretty nefarious. It's odd you're so enthusiastic about one form of tota..."

I'm aware of the criticisms of Chinese-led capitalism. Some people over here have been asking if China would become another East India Company, or as dirty in its machinations as the US. This is a possibility. Smaller/weaker states have to make hard choices in the age of globalisation. It's never a free ride.

Here's a perspective: either we become fodder for the American military machine or search for another, better ally who does not threaten us to bomb back to the Stone Age if we refuse to tow the line. Chinese capitalism is not invading other countries, toppling governments, funding extremist elements, protecting murderous regimes around the world in the name of security. When it will do that, countries on the receiving end will find a way to resist it. Right now it is of paramount important to resist American-led neo-imperialism and not worry too much about China.

If the option is to be eaten or to be eaten, don't you think the solution would be to try to find a way out of the jaws? Anyway, China is certainly doing all those things you say they are not - silently, but resolutely.

Geoff wrote: "Anyway, China is certainly doing all those things you say they are not - silently, but resolutely."

I'd like to hear them. There's no gainsaying China exerts soft power where it can, like all emerging economies in and outside the region, but it is long, long road before we can start to look for parity between Chinese imperialism and US imperialism. Don't you think even post-Soviet Russia doesn't come close to competing with American (mis)adventures around the world.

What I'm saying is that to be a global capitalist superpower you topple governments, support murderous regimes in the name of security, fund or arm extremist elements, and hegemonize cultures - this is the bread and butter of global capitalism. To conclude that one form is evil but another is altruistic is simply playing a losing game on the winning team's terms. Or, to frame the situation as "whomever is slightly less evil at this particular moment is the good guy" is giving up entirely on the hope that there can be a better future that is not dominated by these kinds of capitalist empires.

Geoff: But doesn't it rather resemble the decision to vote for Hillary, as a less bad, and realistic, alternative?

Antonomasia wrote: "Geoff: But doesn't it rather resemble the decision to vote for Hillary, as a less bad, and realistic, alternative?"

In a way, sure. But I always supported the way out of the jaws - I felt the Bern. I'm not campaigning for Hillary.

But I get it - you take the best available option you have at the moment. I like Zizek's (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) advice - vote for Hillary and then protest her inauguration.

Honestly, if it wasn't Trump, I probably wouldn't even vote.
https://youtu.be/EKxFY7-Ayjw

Geoff wrote: "What I'm saying is that to be a global capitalist superpower you topple governments, support murderous regimes in the name of security, fund or arm extremist elements, and hegemonize cultures - thi..."

Your scenario for the future is music to my ears, Geoff, but I don't have an answer to that. I'm happy to yearn for a world in which there is no global capitalist power to devour the smaller fish. But when and where will we have this system? The leftist dream is dead and a new dream hasn't been born yet. I doubt if our GR posts can change the world's status quo. If smaller/developing countries cut themselves off from the world they become failures to be laughed at. If they just open up, they are economically subsumed by foreign powers and lose their sovereignty. This is the most difficult conundrum for smaller countries. When idealism didn't work, people turned to capitalism on sufferance.

Jibran wrote: "The leftist dream is dead and a new dream hasn't been born yet"

Where there isn't a viable Left, fundamentalism tends to fill that void, as reaction to the overwhelmingly fast implementation of globalism. So the paramount task of modern intellectuals is to forge this new way forward, away from totalitarian capitalism and also away from religious or secular extreme fundamentalism. This should be our epoch's cause. However "When idealism didn't work, people turned to capitalism on sufferance." is more the state of things. But the worst mistake would be to give up on idealism.

Geoff wrote: "In a way, sure. But I always supported the way out of the jaws - I felt the Bern. I'm not campaigning for Hillary. "

Btw, is it pessimistic to say that I think Bernie wouldn't have made much of a difference to traditional American thinking on various policy matters even if he'd tried? There's always the Congress to put the deviant president in place. Just like Obama. But one may say that Obama didn't even try.

I'm not sure if Bernie could have made a difference - but he sure was on the right side of a hell of a lot of things - more so than any prominent politician of my times.

"I don't care who you pick, just take the 10 MINUTES it takes to look it up and decide."

Suppose your vote actually matters in some probabilistic sense (which, as an assumption, isn't exactly airtight). Then whether you vote for one candidate or another has real consequences. But if you aren't more wise/informed than the median voter, then your vote will, on the margin, lead to worse consequences (and if this assumption doesn't hold, then researching for 10 minutes wouldn't have any benefit over simply deciding by coin-flip). So, taking the "10 MINUTES" to vote makes the world a worse place (again, probabilistically), and is therefore an ethically suspect action under just about any consequentialist theory of ethics. Of course, that's assuming the median voter isn't even less wise/informed than someone that takes a mere "10 MINUTES" to decide just before voting.

"The president makes a LITTLE difference to you."

This would be true if I didn't care at all about people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and any other countries of which I'm not aware that the USG is currently dropping bombs on. As it turns out, the POTUS does have some say in these matters.

It's not exactly a ringing endorsement, but if there is something to be said for Trump over Clinton, it would be that his list of countries where he thinks we should have and should be dropping bombs on is a bit shorter.

Will wrote: "There's a lot of noise here, but I feel it a requirement to mention something since there's been mentioning the possibility of not voting at all, and please read the explanation before complaining...."

Psst - 100% right on. And anyway I early voted last Saturday

(I'm really glad there's people like Will around to screw my head back on straight - I need that every now and then for real)

I just wanna put a word in on behalf of knot=voting. I come from a centuries old tradition of non-voting, of non-participation in the violence of the state. We used to be known as "the quiet in the land" (Stille im Lande). It was a position religiously and theologically grounded in taking the NT teachings of Jesus seriously. Often referred to as "Two Kingdom Theology" ; we are not of this world but of that world and will not participate in what is an inherently violent institution. We've had our ups and downs over the years. I think it is fundamentally a correct position. But just as the life of the Amish is not a life for everyone, neither is not=voting an option for everyone. You get blamed for what happens if you don't vote ;; unless you are Amish (Anabaptist, one of the Historical Peach Churches, etc) or part of an anarchist collective actively working towards a better world. Both Trump and Clinton will assure us the the world will remain violent and our national role in causing that violence will be preeminent. But I did cast a vote for Clinton this week (almost enthusiastically, truth be told) because it is clear to me that the violence of Clinton's world is familiar, predictable and partially (ie, democratically?) contained. The violence which Trump will unleash is terrifying.

{and I love Zizek's remark about how the Amish are the true fundamentalists}

Thanks, Nathan.

The non-voters are (as Will says) the scum of the earth, and one day a great big scum will come wash the reign off these streets.

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "I just wanna put a word in on behalf of knot=voting. I come from a centuries old tradition of non-voting, of non-participation in the violence of the state. We used to be known as "the quiet in the..."

Thanks the gods there are people like Nathan around to come back by and screw my head on straight the other way!

Will wrote: " You can claim religion, you can claim ethics, you can claim anything you wan..."

Just sayin' :: there's a distinction to be made between principled and non=principled non=voting.* Just like between principled (justified) and non-principled (who cares why?) violence. Just sayin' :: there's folks who have some damn fine reasons for not votin' ; not that they're so concerned about whether you vote or not. Just sayin'. I mean, knot=voting's a political action too ;; just in this season, I don't think it's an option for most of us responsible upstanding citizens. Even us pacificist anti=statists can see there's an option here for us to reduce (slightly) the potential of violence that is caused in our names.

[I mean, no, it's not super=easy to knot=vote. That's the claim I wanna make. You sort of have to earn it.]

* We'll call it The Amish Test principle.

Trivia :: Mr Zappa (himself!) came out of retirement in 1988 to tour almost exclusively because he wanted to Get OUT The Vote!!! Even had League of Women Voters tabling at all of this US concerts registering folks. Times today are almost worse than then(?! damn the country we've made for ourselves!).

I know I'm going to regret this. But the ulcer I've grown this election cycle has gained sentience and its commands must be obeyed...

@Will, re: scum

People who don't vote are not scum. It is not their duty to vote, it's their choice. Choosing not to cast a ballot is as valid a choice as casting a ballot. Who are you to pass judgement on their motives?

That said, this year I've broken my onetime vow to abstain from voting.

ATJG wrote: "That said, this year I've broken my onetime vow to abstain from voting. "

Yep. That's what I'm talking about ;; some folks begin at such a point that an argument is required to (justify) not=vote(ing) ; whilst, other-sides, some of us begin at such a point that requires an argument to-vote. Really, folks do begin from such radically opposite initial assumptions, postulates. [and I'm with ATJG, I hear so much jingoistic* 'it's-your-duty-to-vote' stuff that, really]


* Not committed by Will in this exchange here whose position I hear as one of citizenship, not jingo-ism.

Even alongside ATJG's valid point, I'm tending to read an implicit "most" non-voters into that characterisation. I haven't reasearched how registration systems in the US work, but am presuming, given your politics, that you guys don't include as "scum" those who, for example, aren't registered because they are fleeing domestic violence or abusive families that they haven't felt able to report to the police; poorly supported disabled people who were too unwell to organise a postal vote in time and don't have a suitable free lift to the polling station on the day; homeless people (who can register here but it's a notoriously hard to reach group); those disorientated by experiences like very recent bereavement or just having left hospital. All entirely forgivable reasons for not voting that I've heard from real peoplein the UK who would have quite liked to vote.
I think there is a tendency on here to assume that those reading (or those close to them) couldn't possibly fall into categories like that.

I'm frankly amazed that anyone could be SO certain in their dismissal of just ONE of this entire field of candidates. They all are deeply flawed so hang on to your hats folks winds kickin' up!