Geoff > Status Update

Nandakishore wrote: "1984 is here - in 2017."

Yup. Orwell jumped the gun. Too bad he wasn't simply wrong. But you could see it coming for a while now.

I was in agreement with Isaac Asimov that 1984 was too paranoid and can never occur in real life - that people were too intelligent to be brainwashed like that. But unfortunately, I think both of us were wrong.

Yes, the press needs to step up and not let this stuff happen uncontested. What's-his-name Todd was grilling Conway on her bullshit pretty hard.

But, how can one not be repulsed and terrified by these first few days? The petulance, childishness, anger, aggression, lack of regard for truth or for the intelligence of the people they are supposed to be governing. For someone who ran as a populist, he sure is giving the finger to his countrymen pretty hard.

I think it's the usual Trump diversionary tactic. He creates synthetic outrage by doing something despicable but essentially meaningless, so that people forget things like the fact that he's installing a personal friend of Putin as Secretary of State. You gotta admit it, the guy's pretty slick.

I'm not convinced it's a tactic. I think they're incompetent and this is barely-controlled chaos. Of course that's optimistic. If it's a tactic, a long con, that's much worse.

Manny wrote: "...things like the fact..."

Sorry to interrupt, but from now on the word "fact" has to be prefixed with "true" or "alternative".

Yes. Its all very well writing a snooty New York Times editorial on this bullshit, but if the administration is going to completely disregard the norms of press/president relations, the press need to hit back much harder.

And also, why isn't this style of disregard for the intelligence of the "common man" considered the kind of elitism the Right uses to denigrate the Left with all the time? It's utter contempt for the intelligence of the people.

He's gonna cut, like, 75% of Regulations! That's, like, the most bigly regulation cut EVER. Man, he really is looking after the little guy.

And the violence specific to this administration begins. Global Gag Rule. Not surprising that women are his first target.

I really don't feel bad about those broken windows now.

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "And the violence specific to this administration begins. Global Gag Rule. Not surprising that women are his first target.

I really don't feel bad about those broken windows now."

Don't worry. As he's assured us, no one respects women more than him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pm6g...
(for Nathan in particular)

Nils wrote: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pm6g...
(for Nathan in particular)"

Oh man. I just fell down a HOLE.

Oh hey, that's Travis from Cattle!

My favorite Mexicans ::
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGJzM...

Geoff wrote: "I'm not convinced it's a tactic. I think they're incompetent and this is barely-controlled chaos. Of course that's optimistic. If it's a tactic, a long con, that's much worse."

I'd like to think that it was incompetence, and at one level it perhaps was. But Tillerson's confirmation is proceeding smoothly with remarkably little opposition. Once again, things have mysteriously worked out well for Trump.

To be fair, in context the "alternative facts" line actually did make sense, it seems. From the exchange in context, I'm pretty sure Conway's point was that regarding the claim under dispute, the crowd being the biggest ever, critics had put forward some facts (like the photo) to dispute the claim, while Spicer had put forward other facts (like the supposed metro numbers) to support the claim. The idea was of evidence in both directions - I don't think she intended for a moment to suggest that they were 'alternative facts' in the sense of an alternative to reality, merely other true facts that supported an alternative interpretation.

Of course, I do think it's legitimate to use the phrase to criticise the administration. Because the misconstrued meaning perfectly fits the approach of the administration, and the fact that many of their 'facts' are not in fact true. But we should still distinguish between an unfortunate, ironic gaffe and an actual admission of Orwellianism.

And this is nothing like 1984, and pretending that it is - crying wolf - just reduces the impact when we have to warn of an actual 1984 situation. [Which we will never have to do*, but we're closer to it now than we have been in a long time]

*there are demagogues, and there are authoritarian rulers. There are authoritarian rulers and there are dictators. There are dictators and there are tyrants. There are tyrants and there are totalitarians. There are totalitarians and there is dystopia. There is dystopia and there is 1984. Currently Trump is only on the first rung of that scale and gesturing in the direction of maybe stepping up to the second rung. That's alarming, but saying that he's already at the top of the ladder just makes the warning less convincing for those who can plainly see that he's not.

Wastrel wrote: "while Spicer had put forward other facts (like the supposed metro numbers) to support the claim."

Not buying it. When we looked at that fact, the ridership was lower than an average work day. Pretty sure this was a case of fuck the facts. Principle of charity here just can't get a foothold.

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Wastrel wrote: "while Spicer had put forward other facts (like the supposed metro numbers) to support the claim."

Not buying it. When we looked at that fact, the ridership was lower than an averag..."

Oh, as I said, that "fact" wasn't true, no, or at least (as it's oddly specific to have been pulled out of the air) it was misleading.

But my point was that Conway pretty clearly didn't mean "I know those things weren't true, but there's no such thing as lies, there are just alternative facts". She meant "those are some facts that I can't disprove but here are some other facts that are also true."
And yes, it turns out that those facts were also probably not facts at all, or at best were misleading ones, but that just means Spicer was lying (or an idiot), which is politically commonplace, not that Conway was being Orwellian (which would be much more interesting).

And as I say, given that the administration DOES lie so pathologically that it's AS THOUGH they didn't understand the concept of falsehood, it's legitimate to take her terrible misphrasing to ironically characterise their approach to truth. But we should also not fall into the trap of being seduced by our own rhetoric and thinking that she actually intended it in such an Orwellian way herself. That would be not just uncharitable but strategically counterproductive, as it allows them to establish their foot on the next rung of the Orwellian ladder without them having to take the step themselves. [Every time they take a step into Corruption, they have to make a saving throw to avoid scaring off their supporters. The more you try to establish in the popular mind that they're already ten steps along that path, the easier it is for them to take one or two steps without anyone getting excited - people will say either "but they said that last time, so we can't trust what those guys say" or "apparently we've been ruled by Nazis all along, but things seem OK, so I guess I'm OK with being ruled by Nazis, so why would I protest when they start being openly Nazis..."]

And the principle of charity should always be given a foothold. Most people who voted for Trump are ordinary human beings, and even most of his administration will just be made of idiots and brownnosers, not actual satan-worshippers. There always has to be room for charity and understanding and respect. Otherwise we're just Trump with better taste in books.

Wastrel wrote: "Otherwise we're just Trump with better taste in books. "

Nope.

But. What was most chilling and is not quoted is when she said that thing about how they'd have to reconsider their relationship with the press. If the press isn't doing what they're told to do, well then there will be consequences. And as I noted above, the ball is sort of in the press's court now. Whatever the chilling whimsies of the administration are going to be, the press is now in a position where it will need to start taking serious hits in order to do what it's supposed to do. Talking about walkouts, boycotts, strikes. Even given the capitalist/corporate nature of the press, they remain our front line against this stuff.

Yes, of course, the press was threatened.
Maybe that's not such a daily occurance in the US? In the UK, it's been standard operating procedure for a long, long time.

Incidentally, coincidentally, I was just rewatching the first episode of The Thick of It, which revolves around alternative facts and intimidation of the press, based on the Blair government.

Lines include:
" Malcolm Tucker: Well, the announcement you didn't make today - you did.

Hugh Abbot: No, I didn't. And there were television cameras there while I was not doing it.

Malcolm Tucker: Fuck them.

Hugh Abbot: I'm not sure what level of reality I'm supposed to be operating on.

Malcolm Tucker: Look, this is what they run with. I tell them that you said it, they believe that you said it. They don't REALLY believe that you said it, they know that you never said it, but it's in their interest to say that you said it, because if they don't say that you said it, they're not gonna get what you say tomorrow or the next day, when I decide to tell them what it is you're saying. "

and:
"Because , you know, if she did that, she'd be dead. To me, to this department, to the government. And she'll never get another story, or even fucking whiff of a story as long as she kept her sorry hack bitch face lingering around Westminster, because I would call every editor I know, which, obviously, that's all of them and I'd tell them to gouge her name out of their adress books so she'd never even get a job on a hospital radio where the sad sack belongs. "

It's worth watching, for anyone who hasn't seen it. Although it doesn't become real genius until later in the run.

Wastrel wrote: "Yes, of course, the press was threatened.
Maybe that's not such a daily occurance in the US? In the UK, it's been standard operating procedure for a long, long time."

Our control of the press is much more subtle than what we've been seeing recently. Lines have been crossed. Push back, I think is appropriate.

Call me old fashioned, but I have a simpler word for "alternative fact". It is called a LIE.

'We Can Make the Nazis Back Down'

Just wanted to follow up on Richard Spencer and his oh-so-punchable face

Here's an interview with an activist from Montana who has able to shut down his neo-nazi march.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/al...

I am intrigued by soon-to-be-Secretary-of-State Tillerson's comments about the South China Sea. He compares China's policy of constructing artificial islands to Russia's annexation of the Crimea and says the US won't permit it. Does this mean

1. The US will strongly oppose both Russian expansion in Ukraine and Chinese expansion in the South China Sea.

2. The US will continue to oppose Russian expansion in Ukraine, but back down concerning Chinese plans in the South China Sea.

3. The US will change its mind about Russian plans in Ukraine, so that it can enlist them as an ally when aggressively opposing China in the South China Sea.

4. The US will back down on opposing China in the South China Sea, and argue that it is only consistent to recognise Russia's territorial gains in Ukraine and lift sanctions against them.

5. It doesn't mean anything at all. Trump has just forgotten that the campaign is now over and he actually has to make decisions.

Manny, you've already thought about this more than Trump.

Also, you know, as per Freud, sometimes inauguration attendance numbers are just inauguration attendance numbers; other times, they're penis sizes.

Wait, apparently it's controversial now to punch Nazis? Maybe there's something to this "PC culture is out of control" because my worldview is, you punch Nazis!

"...with diversity cohering around a central mission, building a nation that balances the dynamism of capitalism with biblical morality." --David Brooks

I'm a bible=scholar and I have not fucking clue what he means by "biblical morality". None. Anyone help us out here?

I mean, I am pretty certain that dynamic capitalism has pretty much obliterated any chance whatsoever of anything like 'biblical morality' getting a toe hold. But that's just my own take.

Does he mean something like that famous passage from Acts :: "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.... There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need." [4: 32-35, NRSV]

Nathan "N.R." wrote: ""...with diversity cohering around a central mission, building a nation that balances the dynamism of capitalism with biblical morality." --David Brooks

I'm a bible=scholar and I have not fucking ..."

Yeah, just saw this - holy shit!

Or maybe he has in mind the words of Paul :: "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." [Galatians 3:27-29]

or maybe he has in mind the words of Jesus, quoting Isaiah to the effect that the Jubilee system (the political vision presented in the Hebrew bible) is now at long last enacted :: "He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written: 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.'" [Luke 4: 16-19]

To say nothing of the fact that the entire biblical narrative is about an oppressed minority and its struggles in the face of massive Imperial powers.

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Or maybe he has in mind the words of Paul :: "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, the..."

Yeah, that whole thing about the Bible being essentially communist and anti-imperialist sure gets overlooked a lot by those family values Republicans. You get the impression some of them haven't even read it!

Geoff wrote: "You get the impression some of them haven't even read it! "

Well, it is kind of a difficult book. You think many of 'em read that wholesome family=values novel, Finnegans Wake? Or that one about saving a marriage, Ulysses?

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Geoff wrote: "You get the impression some of them haven't even read it! "

Well, it is kind of a difficult book. You think many of 'em read that wholesome family=values novel, Finnegans Wake? Or th..."

Ha! For real though, that's absolutely true - two of the most moral works of the century. Meaning, of course, they were initially labeled as dirty books and Ulysses was banned. That sounds right to me.

Good thing Judge Woolsey was a good reader.

the entire biblical narrative is about an oppressed minority and its struggles in the face of massive Imperial powers.

Err, there's also all the stuff about butcher every man, woman and child and everything that breathes, the Lord gives you this as your promised land. Guess that works for the founding of the US too. So many medals of honor awarded at wounded knee...

howl of minerva wrote: "Err, there's also all the stuff about butcher every man, woman and child and everything that breathes, the Lord gives you this as your promised land."

Yep. There are definitely Homeric moments in there too. Stuff of legends.

Living legend. Another massive settlement bloc announced as Trump takes the reins (and starts shooting the horses). Who'da guessed...

howl of minerva wrote: "Living legend. Another massive settlement bloc announced as Trump takes the reins (and starts shooting the horses). Who'da guessed..."

Look. Legendary literature makes neither good theology nor good politics. Mistaking that legendary material for a political mandate is as mistaken as taking the opening mythology of Genesis as science. I did say it's a difficulty book, no? I mean, the Hebrew bible's got as much ambiguous stuff in it as does the history of the US.

But, yeah. No surprise that Trump ratchets up long standing foreign policy of the US.

My argument here is only that it's all too easy to yank out the bible from underneath the reactionaries of the Guns=God=Country party. They're pagans through and through.

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "My argument here is only that it's all too easy to yank out the bible from underneath the reactionaries of the Guns=God=Country party. They're pagans through and through."

Exactly. I went to Methodist church and bible school throughout my entire youth. The stuff they teach you there ain't what these new nihilists are preaching.

I'm with you that there's a massive progressive potential in the biblical literature, particularly the NT. Unfortunately it seems to be the most retrograde stuff that has the most potent political and social influence.

Yeah, the Methodists are voting Trump, is the thing.

howl of minerva wrote: "I'm with you that there's a massive progressive potential in the biblical literature, particularly the NT. Unfortunately it seems to be the most retrograde stuff that has the most potent political ..."

I'll only emphasize that there is great liberatory stuff in the OT too. Really great stuff. [much more so than the sometimes flaccid hippie Jesus gets turned into ; he was in fact leaning on some radical OT stuff]

And I can't even bring myself to blame the bible for the retrograde stuff people are saying is in there. It's just not (I mean it is, but not in the way they want it to be in there). Their stuff is straight out of American paganism, which is what the Religious Right is all about. It's totally unbiblical in the broadest sense.

One of my religious fundamentalist relatives on Facebook who supports Trump just posted "Drill Baby Drill!" Happy face, happy face, on the news Trump signed an executive order to restart the North Dakota Pipeline project.

Well, North Dakota IS a red state (Republican voters). They already have semi-poisoned water from the fracking. The relative who is happy about Trump lives on the coast. Her water is ok.

Geoff wrote: "Wait, apparently it's controversial now to punch Nazis? Maybe there's something to this "PC culture is out of control" because my worldview is, you punch Nazis!"

I don't know, violently assaulting people for their political opinions sounds pretty fascist to me.

Niklas wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Wait, apparently it's controversial now to punch Nazis? Maybe there's something to this "PC culture is out of control" because my worldview is, you punch Nazis!"

I don't know, violen..."

AHAHAHA!

No, sorry, you're right Niklas, we should be tolerant of Nazis and let the Nazis thrive. Nazis generally adhere to the golden rule for their neighbors too, right?

Niklas wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Wait, apparently it's controversial now to punch Nazis? Maybe there's something to this "PC culture is out of control" because my worldview is, you punch Nazis!"

I don't know, violen..."

It's a tactical question, in my opinion. In that jacobin piece I linked above, the Montana activist explains how he was able to get the anarchists to ratchet down their rhetoric a bit for the sake of an anti-nazi coalition. In this case it definitely sounds like that was the right way to go.

I believe a man's character is his fate. Richard Spencer's character fated him to be punched in the face on TV so the world could laugh at him over and over.

But I guess there is something to the fact that I wouldn't want to be punched for my political beliefs. Like, I expect people to be tolerant of my belief in climate change and financial regulation, so I should probably be tolerant of their belief in white world domination, and the extermination of all Jews, Blacks, Gays, and Muslims.