I'm on vacation all this week, since coming back from New York on Monday. It's been nice. In fact, I don't remember enjoying just being at home quite so much. Doing whatever I feel like doing.
I've pretty much stepped away from social media — that alone made the week pleasant. Surprisingly so. I didn't realize what a pain in the ass it was, just how much Twitter is the death of a thousand cuts, and what a time sink Facebook can be. I'm going to try to dial back my presence there permanently. Let the groundlings have at each other without me.
I did dip my toe back into Twitter Thursday, and noticed the above, which I had reposted. It's the sort of dry wit that can redeems social media, sorta. Not a criticism of The Economist, I rush to add. I like to tell people that reading The Economist is like having an extra brain. But a reminder that when one writes something, there is always, or often, an aspect that is not considered. In this case, the hard right have previously guided Germany, into the greatest catastrophe and bloodletting of the 20th century.
Odd that they would flirt with it again. Then again, there's a lot of oddness going around. It's odd that nearly half of all Americans would stand solidly behind the clown we saw on rampant display at the presidential debate Tuesday night. "They're eating the dogs. They're eating the cats. They're eating the pets." What an imbecile. And then, when challenged, for him to say, "I saw it on television." What a moron. I have a hard time understanding how even one person can vote for this guy. Then again, as I've said before, once you get in the habit of ignoring reality, the exact nature of the reality being ignored hardly matter.
Speaking of ignoring stuff, I think I'll wrap up here. No law says these posts have to go on and on. One may be brief.
Some people vote for trump just to try and aggravate people like you and me. You know liberals. They are tired of identity politics. Want to reestablish a dynamic where white christians are in charge of everything. They know we have a visceral hatred of trump and have found the perfect way to stick their thumb in our eye.
ReplyDeleteRemember people voted for George Wallace
Some support him because he was a tv star.
Some because they find him attractive .
Some because he presents an alternative to the traditional two parties, he's somehow managed to hijack the GOP. . Witness the republicans supporting Harris
He has new supporters after the assassination attempt because he presents super macho alpha male
There are many people who are one issue voters roe v wade, isolationists, anti immigrant, 2nd amendment.
He could still win the election
George Wallace attractive????
DeleteFor that remark, I question your eyesight & sanity!
My grammar skills are lacking clark Street, but I believe that if you look at the verb and it's tense, you can see that I'm talking about Trump in the present tense and that as an aside, I brought up Wallace in the past tense
DeleteStill your observation about Wallace are also true about Trump. It's hard to believe there are people who find him attractive. I guess power can be a great aphrodisiac
"he presents super macho alpha male" in much the same way that a 5-year-old boy wearing chaps, a holster, and drawing a toy pistol does. To wit: It's a ridiculously transparent bit of make-believe. In actuality, he's one of the least macho public figures I can think of.
DeleteGood points, Jakash.
DeleteJakash, macho means showing aggressive pride in ones masculinity. not necessarily a positive trait, yet one that appeals to his base. Comparing him to a five year old is apt.
DeleteIt's grotesque that nearly half of voters will vote for TFG and other republican candidates. They try to call it economic anxiety, but I think they're turned on by racism and hatred. It's the same reason Europeans are turning to the right; they hate all those migrants and immigrants. Then there's misogyny. It seems like a lot of men across all income, class and racial/ethnic lines really don't like women. They've been fed a steady diet about how "something's wrong with men," and they blame it on the success (such as it is) of women (college attendance, career achievement, etc.).
ReplyDeleteJust as with Joe in 2020, Harris voters and never-Trumpers are fully aware of what the outcome will be if he wins. They are fired up, now that Joe's out of the race. Ever since late July,, they have become re-energized--and they, too are motivated enough to vote. Persuading the unaffiliated and unregistered is the key to victory.
Delete"Uncharted territory"?
ReplyDeleteWho are these half-wits that are employed to write "headlines"? You know full well where authoritarianism goes, "The" Economist. Ask Shirer. Ask Solzhenitsyn.
I wish the media or candidates would address the national debt. Not one question for either candidate asking what is your plan to lower the debt.
ReplyDeleteThe "i saw it on TV" defense is infuriating and frightening. If a story makes it onto a *news* program, the lie becomes reality and the internet can't rein back the lie. There are folks "swatting" (calling in fake police calls), then posting a transcript of the 911 call, to legitimize their lies. I once scoffed at those who discredited reality by calling it "fake news". I was too naive to believe "fake news" could become a deliberate and effective strategy. But here we are. My first inkling of what was to come came during a heated discussion with friends over climate change. I found myself defending against editorials and Michael Creighton! These (educated) friends could not discern an opinion piece from a researched article, and insisted works of fiction were based on fact because the back of the book included a long list of references. I used to believe Trump spouted nonsense to provoke opponents or win votes, but didnt actually believe the crazy things he said. I've changed my mind. He becomes so self-righteously indignant when fact-checked, that i suspect he was fed nonsense by trusted advisors and actually believes it.
ReplyDeleteAh, the age-old question: if he believes it, is it a lie?
Deletejohn
I didn't mean to provide an excuse or off-ramp for him! We can't trust what he says, regardless, and if he believes what he spews, he's far too gullible and subject to manipulation to be an effective leader. He's surrounded himself with scoundrels, from Bannon, to Loomer and Putin - actually too many to count.
DeleteI give little credence to polls but the fact that so many call this a tight race is disturbing. Who are these "undecided" voters who are going to determine the outcome? Who are the otherwise intelligent people who, after all the overwhelming evidence of cognitive decline, still pledge their allegiance to TFG? How is that even possible, other than racism and misogyny, and terror at the idea of a woman president?
ReplyDeleteLooks like the finish on your deck is holding up nicely. Well done.
ReplyDeleteIt is. Now I have to do something about that concrete patio area. Has seen better days.
DeleteI have become a 3-4 times a year Facebook user and find that my life is calmer and my blood pressure more moderate. Every time I do look, I am astonished by the increase in ads and the triviality of the content. I do miss some of my friends’ photos.
ReplyDeleteFor years, my wife and I sneered at the folks who were addicted to Farcebook and to their phones. I refused to deal with either one. Now, at 77, we're like junkies. She's on her phone all the time. I don't have one...imagine that...but I sit at a desktop and snark at strangers in 25 (yes, 25) groups.
DeleteDon't 'friend' anybody (I hate that term) or share family photos or chat with relatives. They don't even know I'm a "user." I just talk to strangers. Lots of strangers. When things get disagreeable, I block them. And I've blocked hundreds.
My Fakebook groups include the things I'm interested in...history, baseball, TV, streetcars, cats...but I also spend a great deal of time...to much of it...at a couple of Trump-hater pages. We commiserate over what's currently happening, and do battle with the "magats." Mr. S is right on the money...Fecesbook is a huge waste of time...which gets increasingly precious...and short...with age. Especially old age.
Smoked for 32 years (started at 13)...and FB is just as addictive, and probably just as toxic and unhealthy as tobacco. Maybe more. It merely wrecks your head, instead of your body. I rail at those on Fightbook who blame the Boomers for all their problems, and I become infuriated at being labeled a "cheater"--merely because both our names are on the account...connected by a hyphen. That really pisses some people off. I still don't understand why. It's neither illegal nor immoral. It's supposed to indicate a crumbling marriage. What bullshit. Thirty-two years, next December.
We used to be extremely active people. Now, as 80 approaches, we do less and less. We stay home more and more...even in the summertime. It's not a mobility issue as much as it is inertia, and even laziness. Easier to look at a screen...phone, TV, desktop...than to go out.
Perhaps my wife's hearing loss has a lot to do with that greatly increased screen time, and our decreasing motivation and activity level, and our lessened verbal communication. She can't...or won't...listen to my bitching anymore...so she turns to her screen, and I bitch about Trump to strangers.
There are outfits that help the addicted kick drugs and alcohol, and there's probably one out there that gives help to geezers who are becoming more and more Zucked-up. It's seems to be more and more apparent that I need to find it.
I don't find Facebook as terrible as most. Maybe because I don't scroll through my feed that often. I follow people or groups that I find interesting. I subscribe to a number of substacks. Some are behind pay walls so you don't get a lot of free content. You always have to pay to read the rest of the article. I get that they need to make money. The one political group that I am in is ScheerPost. They hate both parties. But I think more so Democrats because of what is going on in Gaza. There is way better stuff from independent journalists online than getting your news from the paper or tv.
Deletesanford , I agree indépendant journalists online can be better than the paper and certainly most television. But as a recent post by our esteemed host pointed out as a writer you need an editor and this is seriously lacking with online journalism.
DeleteA wide range of sources makes it more possible to parse out the facts if that is what you're looking for
"They hate both parties. But I think more so Democrats because of what is going on in Gaza."
DeleteHating Democrats because you're a billionaire and would like another tax cut is logical. Hating Democrats because you think every abortion should be prevented is misguided, in my opinion, but somewhat understandable. Hating Democrats because you'd like LGBTQ+ people to go away and you'd prefer to live in a Christian theocracy rather than a multicultural republic is repugnant, but seems to be popular in some quarters.
Hating Democrats more than Republicans because of what is going on in Gaza is remarkably short-sighted, nonsensical and, to the extent that it might lead to a second term for Netanyahu's good buddy Don the Con, dangerous. IMHO.
"There is way better stuff from independent journalists online than getting your news from the paper or tv." That seems like quite an overstatement, but even if it were true, there is also way *worse* stuff from folks online. It depends very significantly on *which* journalists online and *which* papers. I'm not very impressed with the independent sources often cited by the Biggest Loser, for example. : )
Just to be clear, "what is going on in Gaza" is clearly a huge problem, about which many are rightly upset. But the Democrats at least recognize that it's a problem and have worked to create a workable solution. It's hating Democrats MORE THAN REPUBLICANS because of it that I take issue with. I'm sure that hating both parties is very satisfying, but the election in November is going to be won by one of them.
DeleteAre we surprised that evangelicals deny reality? They grow up being taught to ignore the reality of science and believe the bible is the literal word of God. It doesn't matter how the earth could not have been created in 6 days. It doesn't matter that some parts of the bible contradict other parts of the bible. It doesn't matter their loving merciful God commanded his followers to slaughter countless innocent women and children. It doesn't matter that they are told to pray and when prayer doesn't get them the outcome they desire it is their fault and only God knows what they really need. Reality simply is dismissed because they know the "truth".
ReplyDeleteThese people believe that Trump was sent by God to restore the United States. Any evidence to the contrary is simply ignored.
Matt W
Having been raised in a bible belt, I have challenged the "believers" repeating such an assertion, asking them to show me biblically what raises Donald Trump to such status. They can only point to generalities whereby I try to, as gently as possible, show specific passages where the very bible they are referencing refutes their position, warns against it and says they will be rejected for worshipping such a false prophet. So far, I doubt it has done any good.
DeleteWell said, Matt W.
DeleteComrade Kamala, Sleepy Joe, Crooked Hillary. It never stops. Even 12-year-olds don't spew this much bullshit. And now...his swallowing and regurgitation of the eaten pets fable? JFC. His rantings and babblings should be ignored, totally, in the same way that the rantings and babblings of a lunatic on the street are ignored.
ReplyDeleteAnd when he starts yammering on TV, it's probably time to shut off the f'king camera. Enough already. It's gone beyond disgusting. That face, that voice...they're both becoming excruciating...and exposure to them is sheer torture. Almost had to watch the debate with a towel covering his half of the split screen.
Stable genius, my ass. When will we finally be be free at last...free at last...from this Unstable Jeebus? Probably not until he's dead. Can't happen soon enough.
"sheer torture"
DeleteSince long before he was president, I've ignored the Biggest Loser about as much as I can. I commented on this blog in 2015 that his "campaign" was certain to be much ado about nothing, and paid very little attention to it. (Uh, I may have been wrong about that! He's a fool, a traitor, a creep and an ignoramus, but I didn't realize what a successful charlatan he would turn out to be.)
I never watched his reality shows, nor any of his rallies or speeches. I believe I watched some of the debates against Hillary, but most of what I've seen of him since then are short snippets that folks put on Twitter or YouTube to mock him.
I didn't watch the debate against Biden, because I feared it would not go well. But I was excited about the possibility that Kamala would clean his clock, so I watched this one. She did well, but I found it almost physically upsetting to listen to his bullshit, spouted with such certainty and cockiness. How anyone finds him appealing or competent at all is beyond me.
How the hell have you managed to avoid and ignore him for almost a decade? That face is everywhere...like the face of Big Brother in Orwell's "1984"...
DeleteWhat you've managed to do is like someone in the Thirties ignoring Adolf. Kudos. But then came the Forties, and he was too big to avoid and ignore anymore, and the world was at war. Seven weeks left...to quite possibly prevent history from repeating itself.
I did say "about as much as I can," Grizz. Of course, since he became president, I read a lot about his so-called administration and policies and yes, you can't help seeing his orange visage, try as one might. It's not like I don't pay any attention to what's gone on.
ReplyDeleteBut I was primarily talking about actually watching him speak. We very rarely watch TV news or cable news channels, so it's not that hard to avoid hearing the guy, except, as I said, in brief clips of outrageous things that people highlight to ridicule.
Don't have that kind of will power. TV news junkie for almost 60 years.
DeleteBrevity dies not diminish the pleasure. Glad to be here.
ReplyDelete