HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Mike 03 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

Mike 03

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Modesto California
Home country: United States
Current location: Arizona
Member since: Mon Oct 27, 2008, 05:14 PM
Number of posts: 16,616

Journal Archives

That can't be the litmus test because at that point it's way too late.

You've already lost your country.

Our news media, which has been good, should have called out the erosion of our institutions when it first happened. We entered a Constitutional Crisis when the Executive Branch disabled the oversight function of our Congress, ignored subpoenas and document requests.

Like Timothy Snyder says, at the point where you are waiting to be rescued, it's already too late.

Masha Gessen's first warning: "Your institutions won't save you."

The media keeps waiting for our Constitutional Crisis.

We've been in a Constitutional Crisis from the first day that the White House refused to obey a subpoena or turn over demanded documents.

The moment the Executive Branch disabled the oversight function of the Congress, we were in trouble.

That was years ago.

Kick and Rec.

Really hope so. The second point is the strongest.

The other two don't really stand up historically.

Point One:

No politician of his stripe has ever achieved the presidency.

This is true of almost every authoritarian regime that has taken root since the early 20th century. They are always novel for their time. This is why they arouse the difficult-to-understand devotion they do. (For explanations and examples, see Ruth Ben-Ghiat's new book Strongmen)

Point Two:

He has largely abandoned any pretense that he thinks about anything other than his personal resentments, or that he is trying to harness his movement to big ideas that will improve the lives of citizens.

If people are bothered by this, it might be important. It didn't stop people from supporting Mussolini, who was preoccupied only with gratifying his personal needs. I think that's true of of Berlusconi as well, and perhaps many others (I hate to mix Communist regimes with Western examples, but there are some to think about here). These movements are about saying no to and attacking everything, they are never about a vision for the future. They always concentrate on a life-and-death struggle in the present that is imaginary. But it is a good point.

Point Three:

Politics never stands still, but Trump largely does.

Fascist time, as Timothy Snyder calls it, is flat and independent of factual reality, and it is nihilistic in the sense that it doesn't worry itself about "future". Authoritarians remain in power by animating nostalgia for a past that didn't happen, and a false future, or no future at all, and just making the present about a fabricated life-or-death conflict between his supporters and the vague need to survive against some "enemies." That game can run on a long time. You'll notice, for example, when you look around the world at current authoritarians, that they never speak about Global Warming unless it is to declare it a hoax and part of a larger conspiracy against the autonomy of the state. It's "muslims," 'immigrants", conspiracies by Western Democracies, anti-Christians, etc...

There are some real epiphanies in the book The Death of Democracy by Benjamin Carter Hett, and also Ruth Ben-Ghiat's new book Strongmen. Ben-Ghiat takes us across a timespan of 100 years explaining how people like Trump gain, keep and (hopefully) lose power.

I, frankly, hope to Christ this Politico analysis is correct. It just feels out of touch with history.

Stronger arguments against a Trump run might focus on his physical and mental decline; those two factors have brought down regimes, especially since "virility" is one of the factors that makes an authoritarian charismatic in the eyes of his fanatics.

Kick and Rec

I vaguely recall this event being the "Reichstag Fire"

North Hollywood shootout

The North Hollywood shootout was a confrontation between two heavily armed and armored bank robbers, Larry Phillips Jr. and Emil Mătăsăreanu, and members of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in the North Hollywood district of Los Angeles, California, United States on February 28, 1997. Both robbers were killed, 12 police officers and eight other civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition fired by the robbers and police.[1]


The shootout contributed to motivating the arming of rank-and-file police officers in Los Angeles and nationwide with semi-automatic, selective fire, and automatic rifles.[28][29]

The ineffectiveness of the standard police patrol pistols and shotguns in penetrating the robbers' body armor led to a trend in the United States toward arming selected police patrol officers, not just SWAT teams, with heavier firepower such as semi-automatic AR-15 style rifles. SWAT teams, whose close quarters battle weaponry usually consisted of submachine guns that fired pistol cartridges such as the Heckler & Koch MP5, began supplementing them with AR-15 rifles and carbines.[16]

Seven months after the incident, the Department of Defense gave 600 surplus M16s to the LAPD, which were issued to each patrol sergeant;[41] LAPD patrol vehicles now carry AR-15s as standard issue, with bullet-resistant Kevlar plating in their doors as well.[42] Also as a result of this incident LAPD authorized its officers to carry .45 ACP caliber semiautomatic pistols as duty sidearms, specifically the Smith & Wesson Models 4506 and 4566. Prior to 1997, only LAPD SWAT officers were authorized to carry .45 ACP caliber pistols, specifically the Model 1911A1 .45 ACP semiautomatic pistol.[43]


The police were being outgunned, and the slippery slope turned into a waterslide.

I never ridicule DUers for being concerned.

Many of those who do are whistling past a graveyard IMO. I'm concerned about a lot of things--not particularly this lawsuit, but the "inside job" on Joe, Kamala and our Democracy.

Res judicata:

a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.

What is principle of res judicata?

Overview. Generally, res judicata is the principle that a cause of action may not be relitigated once it has been judged on the merits. "Finality" is the term which refers to when a court renders a final judgment on the merits.

Thank you for teaching me a new phrase.

Because it involves Bill Gross

I do find this interesting. I wish my dad were alive, because at one point he really studied Bill Gross and invested quite a bit with him. But Bill Gross' fall has been a spectacular tale of griping, accusations back and forth of betrayal and incompetence, and lawsuits galore, and included a terrible and vicious falling out with his closest and brightest protege, Mohamed A. El-Erian, who basically accused Gross of being senile. And the way Gross subsequently ran his bond funds, I don't entirely doubt it.

Yes, I'm used to calling his efforts "desperate" but this is beneath

even "desperate." This is more like that trickle of blood that oozes out of the mouth of a movie character that's already dead.

The Uphill Climb Faced by Fleetwood Mac biographers (satire)

Stevie Nicks: "All of us were drug addicts, but I was the worst"


Christine McVie was asked to describe the significant moment in Fleetwood Mac history, the recording of the album Mirage:

Rather than Sausalito, for Mirage you went to France. Do you recall anything particular about recording at the Château d’Hérouville?

McVie: Well, I don’t think any of us remember a huge amount about it! But I don’t remember there being anything bad about it, how about that [laughs]?

And the number of times she doesn't know or can't remember something important:

In contrast to the long tour behind Tusk, the Mirage tour was relatively brief – just two months in the fall of 1982. Was there a reason for such an abbreviated run?

McVie: I don’t know why that was. Maybe Stevie was going off to do a tour. I can’t remember if Lindsey had a tour. But it was short, and then we did another vanishing act for another couple years before we came back and did Tango in the Night.

Do you recall as much?

And I’d be the first one to admit that none of us were stone-cold sober. There was a fair degree of alcohol and drugs going on. But everyone was doing it, so it was kind of the norm.


Other headlines I'm imagining:

Mick Fleetwood has "no recollection" of recording Tusk, which took an entire year

Fleetwood Mac biographers "frustrated" that Lindsey Buckingham was in a "Blacked-Out State" During Historic Concerts

John McVie "no memory" of Buckingham throwing guitar at Stevie Nicks in New Zealand

Tusk world tour sold out every show, made no money, but none of the band members remember why

Buckingham: I might have kicked Stevie, but I don't remember throwing a guitar at her head

Just kidding around. I love Fleetwood Mac, but they don't remember a whole lot. Hopefully some great biographer can breach the Mac Curtain. (I rearranged one of the McVie quotes for effect).

Indeed. This two-track trend in some Western Democracies towards

nationalism and isolationism (amid fantasies of Autarky and Empire) is deeply worrying. We have problems to solve that can't be solved unless we cooperate and join forces. All that we achieved in the post WW2 era is slowly crumbling.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »