[y66]

Bill Kristol said:

You’ve got to admire Ted Cruz, in a way, for going full Marie Antoinette. None of that modern conservatism or compassionate conservatism or reform conservatism or Christian conservatism for him. We’re talking Ancien Regime lord-it-over-the-peasants old world conservatism!

[Winstonm]

Quote

Bill Kristol said:

You’ve got to admire Ted Cruz, in a way, for going full Marie Antoinette. None of that modern conservatism or compassionate conservatism or reform conservatism or Christian conservatism for him. We’re talking Ancien Regime lord-it-over-the-peasants old world conservatism!

I believe feudalism covers Kristol's point, not conservatism.

[y66]

Emily Cochrane and Jim Tankersley at NYT said:

WASHINGTON — Republicans are struggling to persuade voters to oppose President Biden’s $1.9 trillion economic rescue plan, which enjoys strong, bipartisan support nationwide even as it is moving through Congress with just Democratic backing.

Democrats who control the House are preparing to approve the package by the end of next week, with the Senate aiming to soon follow with its own party-line vote before unemployment benefits are set to lapse in mid-March. On Friday, the House Budget Committee unveiled the nearly 600-page text for the proposal, which includes billions of dollars for unemployment benefits, small businesses and stimulus checks.

Republican leaders, searching for a way to derail the proposal, on Friday led a final attempt to tarnish the package, labeling it a “payoff to progressives.” The bill, they said, spends too much and includes a liberal wish list of programs like aid to state and local governments — which they call a “blue state bailout,” though many states facing shortfalls are controlled by Republicans — and increased benefits for the unemployed, which they argued would discourage people from looking for work.

Those attacks have followed weeks of varying Republican objections to the package, including warnings that it would do little to help the economy recover and grow, that it would add to the federal budget deficit and possibly unleash faster inflation, and that Democrats were violating Mr. Biden’s calls for “unity” by proceeding without bipartisan consensus.

The arguments have so far failed to connect, in part because many of its core provisions poll strongly — even with Republicans.

More than 7 in 10 Americans now back Mr. Biden’s aid package, according to new polling from the online research firm SurveyMonkey for The New York Times. That includes support from three-quarters of independent voters, 2 in 5 Republicans and nearly all Democrats. The overall support for the bill is even larger than the substantial majority of voters who said in January that they favored an end-of-year economic aid bill signed into law by President Donald J. Trump.

https://www.nytimes....t.co/vXQcsTr5gP

[Zelandakh]

 y66 said:

Emily Cochrane and Jim Tankersley at NYT said:

The $1.9t cost of the stimulus can easily be put in context against the roughly $1.5t cost of the Trump tax cuts. It would be interesting to ask Republicans which they thought was a better use of that money in the current circumstances.

[y66]

Kathleen Kingsbury at NYT said:

Times Opinion doesn’t often publish four pieces reflecting on the death of one person, but few Americans have left as big a mark on politics, media and culture as Rush Limbaugh did over the past three decades.

We decided to bring readers this week two voices from inside The Times — the columnists Ross Douthat and Frank Bruni — and two voices from outside The Times. Each has a distinctive and authoritative point of view on Limbaugh’s legacy. A big part of our mission is to convene the most compelling voices on issues of wide public interest, and, given the urgent discourse about the future of conservatism, we have tried to do that here.

Jill Filipovic, a journalist and lawyer whose work focuses on gender and politics, captures the enduring power of Limbaugh’s misogyny and bigotry. She writes in her Op-Ed, “But perhaps one of Mr. Limbaugh’s most significant and longest-lasting impacts, and one that will persist even if the Republican Party returns to a post-Trump ‘normal,’ stemmed from his loud opposition to women’s rights: He was the right wing’s misogynist id. His belligerent chauvinism was key in making the Republican Party the party of anti-feminism.”

Frank Bruni reminds readers of the role Limbaugh recently assumed as he “sought to undermine democracy by ardently promoting the fiction that the 2020 election was stolen from his beloved Donald Trump.” Yet Frank also worries about the longer-term effect of the vitriol aimed at Limbaugh after his death.

Ben Shapiro, the conservative commentator, is perhaps among Limbaugh’s most obvious heirs. One of the most popular voices on the American right, Shapiro is well positioned to carry Limbaugh’s message to a new generation of listeners through his podcast — and, like his mentor, has attracted intense criticism for his trollish online presence and, to me, unpalatable views. In his essay for us, Shapiro describes the vacuum Limbaugh filled in the media landscape for millions of Americans. “Conservatives, in deep and abiding ways, occupy the house that Rush built,” Shapiro writes.

Like Shapiro, Ross Douthat is a prominent voice in American conservatism today, but he disagrees with Shapiro’s assessment of Limbaugh’s legacy. Ross’s column, like Frank’s, is a lament, but for the role that Limbaugh has played in the decline of the American conservative movement.

I encourage you to read their essays.

[y66]

From The Life and Death of a Woman-Hater by Jill Filipovic at NYT:

Quote

Mr. Trump is out of the White House, and Mr. Limbaugh is dead. But the animus that animated the Limbaughian, Trumpian public remains, and the misogyny that financed Mr. Limbaugh’s plush lifestyle, padded his $85 million a year salary and won him a Presidential Medal of Freedom will be difficult to unwind.

In the aftermath of a disastrous presidency, some Republicans may think they’re choosing between being the party of Trump and Limbaugh, the party of unapologetic hatreds and white resentment, or of being the party of Ronald Reagan, the party of freedom and family values.

But the two have long been intertwined, aiding and abetting each other. When the Limbaughs and the Trumps of the party offered their fans rank chauvinism and abject bigotry, they created more space for family-friendly sexism to be built into conservative policy.

That is Mr. Limbaugh’s legacy: not his crass language, but his militant anti-feminism, and how effective he was at ensuring that misogyny translated into policy. The Republicans who say they want their party back from the carnival barkers of bigotry need to reject more than profane words and an uncouth political aesthetic. They need to turn away from the ugly ideology that undergirds it all, which was always foul, whether or not the language was polite.

[y66]

 Winstonm, on 2021-February-15, 10:48, said:

Well, there is the Tucker Carlson/Sean Hannity poll question: A group of patriotic Americans were required to force their will on Capitol Police in order to engage with their elected representatives. Do you agree or disagree with their action?

y66 said:

Required by their contract with Roger Stone?

winstonm said:

And Alex Jones.

> U.S. investigating possible ties between Roger Stone, Alex Jones and Capitol rioters

[kenberg]

To the best of my recollection, I have never heard a word Rush Limbaugh said. I at least like to think that I can be interested in the thoughts of someone who sees things differently than I do, but of course, there are limits. How do I know he is on the other side of those limits? I guess I have read enough from others to get the idea, and the details of his trash aren't needed.

I realize that this doesn't solve the problem. I don't know how to solve the problem.

[pilowsky]

Perhaps one useful way to imagine health care, and education and minimum care for all citizens, are as "matters of national security".

It is generally accepted - even in America - that an Army is important to all citizens. It protects all the citizens from external threats so that the Country as a whole can thrive and survive.

To me, there is no difference between an Army and Health Education and Welfare. There is no charge for vaccination in Australia. Everyone has access to roads, hospitals and education.

Health Education and Welfare are fundamental to the national security of a nation.

What is the point of making a vaccine (or treatment for any disease) if there is not equality of access? This is most obvious with an infectious disease. It is the premise of the entire Zombie/nuclear holocaust genre.
Climate change falls into this category. Preserving jobs that are toxic to society as a whole makes no sense.

It's a little bit like saying "sure, concentration camps and torture chambers are a bad thing, but what about the Guards? If we stop imprisoning people for political reasons and torturing them to 'improve' their thinking, where will these guards find work to support their families?"

Or as someone once said in a film "sure the Death Star is bad and shouldn't be there, but if we blow it up, what happens to all the contractors?"

https://junkee.com/news-corp-death-star-resignation/237728


"To: sheev.palpatine@gemail.com
From: N567433.trooper@gemail.com
CC: storm.trooperz.net, deathstaff@gemail.com, deathstarhr@gemail.com, sebulba@bing.net

Hi Sheev,

Thank you for the hologram regarding fundraising and support initiatives in relation to the exploding of Alderaan by the Death Star’s devastating super laser.

Unfortunately however, this does not offset the impact the Death Star has had on Alderaan in the past few parsecs. I have been severely impacted by the Death’s Star’s super laser in relation to the extreme explosion of the planet, in particular the misinformation that has diverted attention away from the real issue — which is moon sized super lasers — to focus on rebel forces (including disintegration of Bothan spies).

I find it unconscionable to continue working for the Galactic Empire, knowing that I am contributing to the spreading of ‘super’ laser beams over mono-topographical planets."

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2021-February-20, 15:28, said:

To the best of my recollection, I have never heard a word Rush Limbaugh said. I at least like to think that I can be interested in the thoughts of someone who sees things differently than I do, but of course, there are limits. How do I know he is on the other side of those limits? I guess I have read enough from others to get the idea, and the details of his trash aren't needed.



I realize that this doesn't solve the problem. I don't know how to solve the problem.

I read today that the place to start is with our own self-deceptions . That’s probably good advice but I haven’t totally processed it as of yet.

[kenberg]

 pilowsky, on 2021-February-20, 18:03, said:

Perhaps one useful way to imagine health care, and education and minimum care for all citizens, are as "matters of national security".

It is generally accepted - even in America - that an Army is important to all citizens. It protects all the citizens from external threats so that the Country as a whole can thrive and survive.

To me, there is no difference between an Army and Health Education and Welfare. There is no charge for vaccination in Australia. Everyone has access to roads, hospitals and education.

Health Education and Welfare are fundamental to the national security of a nation.

What is the point of making a vaccine (or treatment for any disease) if there is not equality of access? This is most obvious with an infectious disease. It is the premise of the entire Zombie/nuclear holocaust genre.
Climate change falls into this category. Preserving jobs that are toxic to society as a whole makes no sense.

It's a little bit like saying "sure, concentration camps and torture chambers are a bad thing, but what about the Guards? If we stop imprisoning people for political reasons and torturing them to 'improve' their thinking, where will these guards find work to support their families?"

Or as someone once said in a film "sure the Death Star is bad and shouldn't be there, but if we blow it up, what happens to all the contractors?"

https://junkee.com/news-corp-death-star-resignation/237728


"To: sheev.palpatine@gemail.com
From: N567433.trooper@gemail.com
CC: storm.trooperz.net, deathstaff@gemail.com, deathstarhr@gemail.com, sebulba@bing.net

Hi Sheev,

Thank you for the hologram regarding fundraising and support initiatives in relation to the exploding of Alderaan by the Death Star's devastating super laser.

Unfortunately however, this does not offset the impact the Death Star has had on Alderaan in the past few parsecs. I have been severely impacted by the Death's Star's super laser in relation to the extreme explosion of the planet, in particular the misinformation that has diverted attention away from the real issue — which is moon sized super lasers — to focus on rebel forces (including disintegration of Bothan spies).

I find it unconscionable to continue working for the Galactic Empire, knowing that I am contributing to the spreading of 'super' laser beams over mono-topographical planets."

I agree with your first sentence ( and with more but I want to focus on the first sentence), and I agree with Winson's post saying
"I read today that the place to start is with our own self-deception. That's probably good advice but I haven't totally processed it as of yet."


But now let's think a bit. The vaccine gives us an opportunity to look at our views and see about self-deception.


Recently Biden spoke of getting more vaccine so that by sometime in July there should be enough, meaning enough to get almost every American vaccinated.
He did not go on to say "However, it is important that people in developing counties get the vaccine so half of what we develop by July will be sent abroad. We ask for your understanding as we plan for equitable distribution, we will get to the rest of Americans later."
WHO would have liked hearing that, but among Americans who would have liked hearing that? Of course, Biden did not say we would be keeping only half the vaccine in the US, and I doubt anyone expected him to.

Believing that Biden, or any US president, would cut back on American vaccinations in order to send vaccines to some poor country might be a textbook case of self-deception. Myself, I mentioned earlier that I believe parents of young children should have had priority over me, although once I was placed in a line I showed up and have now had both shots. At any rate, I confess, and I expect this surprises no one, that I was thinking that the American vaccination program should prioritize American parents with young children over me, I was not thinking worldwide.

Feel free to say I am a selfish jerk if you that's what you get from the above. But please realize that if it makes me a selfish jerk then selfish jerks are in a very large majority.

[pilowsky]

 kenberg, on 2021-February-20, 19:55, said:

I agree with your first sentence ( and with more but I want to focus on the first sentence), and I agree with Winson's post saying
"I read today that the place to start is with our own self-deception. That's probably good advice but I haven't totally processed it as of yet."


But now let's think a bit. The vaccine gives us an opportunity to look at our views and see about self-deception.


Recently Biden spoke of getting more vaccine so that by sometime in July there should be enough, meaning enough to get almost every American vaccinated.
He did not go on to say "However, it is important that people in developing counties get the vaccine so half of what we develop by July will be sent abroad. We ask for your understanding as we plan for equitable distribution, we will get to the rest of Americans later."
WHO would have liked hearing that, but among Americans who would have liked hearing that? Of course, Biden did not say we would be keeping only half the vaccine in the US, and I doubt anyone expected him to.

Believing that Biden, or any US president, would cut back on American vaccinations in order to send vaccines to some poor country might be a textbook case of self-deception. Myself, I mentioned earlier that I believe parents of young children should have had priority over me, although once I was placed in a line I showed up and have now had both shots. At any rate, I confess, and I expect this surprises no one, that I was thinking that the American vaccination program should prioritize American parents with young children over me, I was not thinking worldwide.

Feel free to say I am a selfish jerk if you that's what you get from the above. But please realize that if it makes me a selfish jerk then selfish jerks are in a very large majority.

I would never cast aspersions in that way!
But, I would suggest that it is in your personal interest to ensure that as many people throughout the world are vaccinated as quickly as possible.
Unlike the ♠Q being either with East or West, infectious diseases are different.
LSCT (large scale clinical trials) tell us whether or not a compound (whatever it is) is safe and efficacious, but hidden in the numbers is a very broad range of individual variance.

The likelihood of getting any disease is dose-dependent, and the level of immunity that an individual obtains varies with the individual.
This means that your best (selfish) hope for preventing disease is to ensure that as many people around the world are vaccinated as rapidly as possible.

Vaccinating one population does not confer safety on that population if there is a vast reservoir of (possibly mutating) virus everywhere else.

To put it another way, it is in the national security interests of all Americans to ensure that the disease is eradicated (contained) everywhere.
It's the same reason that countries send their army to places where dangerous authoritarian regimes are threatening to gain a stranglehold on global security.

[kenberg]

 pilowsky, on 2021-February-20, 20:38, said:

I would never cast aspersions in that way!
But, I would suggest that it is in your personal interest to ensure that as many people throughout the world are vaccinated as quickly as possible.
Unlike the ♠Q being either with East or West, infectious diseases are different.
LSCT (large scale clinical trials) tell us whether or not a compound (whatever it is) is safe and efficacious, but hidden in the numbers is a very broad range of individual variance.

The likelihood of getting any disease is dose-dependent, and the level of immunity that an individual obtains varies with the individual.
This means that your best (selfish) hope for preventing disease is to ensure that as many people around the world are vaccinated as rapidly as possible.

Vaccinating one population does not confer safety on that population if there is a vast reservoir of (possibly mutating) virus everywhere else.

To put it another way, it is in the national security interests of all Americans to ensure that the disease is eradicated (contained) everywhere.
It's the same reason that countries send their army to places where dangerous authoritarian regimes are threatening to gain a stranglehold on global security.

This suits my views very well and applies in many areas. You are saying, I think, that selfish interests are often important in helping others. I agree wholeheartedly that self-interest is an important component, although, and perhaps you agree, that it is not the only component, Self-interest applies with vaccines, it applies with education, it applies broadly. Self-interest is not the only thing, but it can be a selling point.

The kids have been hit hard with covid. They don't seem to get it as easily as adults, and the known long-term side effects don't appear to happen all that often, but their lives have been turned upside-down. This has a lot to do with why I would have favored getting the vaccine to their parents sooner. Now in strictly selfish terms, I am apt to be dead by the time today's six-year-olds become adults (I am not obsessed with age, but being 82 the statement sounds like a reasonable bet). Still, I have kids and grandkids and friends and so on. So I have no difficulty saying that for things that are important to me it is a really good idea to want the best for kids. A shorter version: I live here.

Selfishness is, I think, a great argument for supporting education. If kids grow up to be productive citizens we all benefit. Could anyone really disagree with that? And it is an argument for thinking education through a bit better. Not everyone needs to go to college. There was a recent PBS episode that I was going to watch (but I missed it somehow) about how there is getting to be a serious shortage of skilled workers. Convincing someone who could become a skilled plumber that he really should go to college and read Kant might not be a great idea, selfishly speaking.

I want good things for people because that's what I want. No doubt this is at least in part because I feel that I have had a lucky life. But I also believe that I can argue on strictly selfish terms why supporting many social benefits is a good idea.

And yes, getting everyone vaccinated is certainly a good idea. Still, I doubt any president would be re-elected if he decided that half of the vaccine available to the US should be shipped off to poorer countries. Later maybe, when things are much more under control. But not today.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2021-February-21, 08:36, said:

This suits my views very well and applies in many areas. You are saying, I think, that selfish interests are often important in helping others. I agree wholeheartedly that self-interest is an important component, although, and perhaps you agree, that it is not the only component, Self-interest applies with vaccines, it applies with education, it applies broadly. Self-interest is not the only thing, but it can be a selling point.

The kids have been hit hard with covid. They don't seem to get it as easily as adults, and the known long-term side effects don't appear to happen all that often, but their lives have been turned upside-down. This has a lot to do with why I would have favored getting the vaccine to their parents sooner. Now in strictly selfish terms, I am apt to be dead by the time today's six-year-olds become adults (I am not obsessed with age, but being 82 the statement sounds like a reasonable bet). Still, I have kids and grandkids and friends and so on. So I have no difficulty saying that for things that are important to me it is a really good idea to want the best for kids. A shorter version: I live here.

Selfishness is, I think, a great argument for supporting education. If kids grow up to be productive citizens we all benefit. Could anyone really disagree with that? And it is an argument for thinking education through a bit better. Not everyone needs to go to college. There was a recent PBS episode that I was going to watch (but I missed it somehow) about how there is getting to be a serious shortage of skilled workers. Convincing someone who could become a skilled plumber that he really should go to college and read Kant might not be a great idea, selfishly speaking.

I want good things for people because that's what I want. No doubt this is at least in part because I feel that I have had a lucky life. But I also believe that I can argue on strictly selfish terms why supporting many social benefits is a good idea.

And yes, getting everyone vaccinated is certainly a good idea. Still, I doubt any president would be re-elected if he decided that half of the vaccine available to the US should be shipped off to poorer countries. Later maybe, when things are much more under control. But not today.

I find it interesting that my understanding differs from yours in that I understand the message to be that altruism and self-interest are interchangeable.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2021-February-21, 10:02, said:

I find it interesting that my understanding differs from yours in that I understand the message to be that altruism and self-interest are interchangeable.

No, not interchangeable, not at all.


My view, I am not speaking for Pilowski but his might be along the same line, is that it is not realistic to think that most people are devoting a lot of time to how that can make the world better for others. Most people spend some time trying to make life better for some other people. how much time? This depends on the person, it also depends on his circumstances. I can easily give examples. I have mentioned that I don't think that the government should be sending me a stimulus check, but I will take it if they do. . My circumstances are that I don't need it and will not spend it. But my personality is such that if they send it, I will not send it back. Otherwise put, life has been good and I would like to see it be good for others, but I have no plans to join a monastery to serve mankind. It seems to me that this is pretty much how most people approach life.

Understanding this could change the way issues are approached.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2021-February-21, 11:19, said:

No, not interchangeable, not at all.


My view, I am not speaking for Pilowski but his might be along the same line, is that it is not realistic to think that most people are devoting a lot of time to how that can make the world better for others. Most people spend some time trying to make life better for some other people. how much time? This depends on the person, it also depends on his circumstances. I can easily give examples. I have mentioned that I don't think that the government should be sending me a stimulus check, but I will take it if they do. . My circumstances are that I don't need it and will not spend it. But my personality is such that if they send it, I will not send it back. Otherwise put, life has been good and I would like to see it be good for others, but I have no plans to join a monastery to serve mankind. It seems to me that this is pretty much how most people approach life.

Understanding this could change the way issues are approached.

Maybe that's too literal. As interconnected peoples - globally connected - aiding others helps ourselves. That's the meaning I get.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2021-February-21, 12:15, said:

Maybe that's too literal. As interconnected peoples - globally connected - aiding others helps ourselves. That's the meaning I get.

So let me make a challenge:
Would you support taking half of the vaccine that is available to the USA and giving it to underdeveloped countries?
It would increase equity, would it not?
So you think Biden should do that, or attempt to do that?

I think the answer is important.

Almost everyone, not everyone, but a great many people, favor unselfish help on some matters at some time.
Few are totally unselfish.
So discussion in good faith could be productive.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2021-February-21, 13:00, said:

So let me make a challenge:
Would you support taking half of the vaccine that is available to the USA and giving it to underdeveloped countries?
It would increase equity, would it not?
So you think Biden should do that, or attempt to do that?

I think the answer is important.

Almost everyone, not everyone, but a great many people, favor unselfish help on some matters at some time.
Few are totally unselfish.
So discussion in good faith could be productive.

The question is not about immediacy but about long range benefits. At present, there is not enough vaccine to inoculate the U.S. population. It would do no practical good to divide too few does among too many people. So the question is essentially moot.

Once the U.S. has reached herd immunity, I think it is essential to help out other nations who need vaccine and expertise in delivery - because eliminating the virus globally is good for us individually.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2021-February-21, 13:11, said:

The question is not about immediacy but about long range benefits. At present, there is not enough vaccine to inoculate the U.S. population. It would do no practical good to divide too few does among too many people. So the question is essentially moot.

Once the U.S. has reached herd immunity, I think it is essential to help out other nations who need vaccine and expertise in delivery - because eliminating the virus globally is good for us individually.

Sure, you will get a lot of support for helping others once we take good care of ourselves.
I have heard repeated calls from WHO for dealing with the equity issue immediately.
I think that the US will not be giving its vaccine away until we have largely covered our population.

This is the sort of thing I am speaking of. I am not surprised that we, and I expect others, will want to watch out for ourselves first.
Accepting that people pay attention to their own needs in difficult times allows the discussion to move on to practical plans.
And then we can, perhaps, do some good.
If we waste time and emotional energy arguing about how awful people are for not being more generous than anyone would ever expect, that's not a good approach.

At any rate, I am not saying and I don't think P was saying that altruism and self-interest are interchangeable

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2021-February-21, 13:31, said:

Sure, you will get a lot of support for helping others once we take good care of ourselves.
I have heard repeated calls from WHO for dealing with the equity issue immediately.
I think that the US will not be giving its vaccine away until we have largely covered our population.

This is the sort of thing I am speaking of. I am not surprised that we, and I expect others, will want to watch out for ourselves first.
Accepting that people pay attention to their own needs in difficult times allows the discussion to move on to practical plans.
And then we can, perhaps, do some good.
If we waste time and emotional energy arguing about how awful people are for not being more generous than anyone would ever expect, that's not a good approach.

At any rate, I am not saying and I don't think P was saying that altruism and self-interest are interchangeable

Personally, I think a whole lot depends on how you are defining "ourselves". In a larger sense, the entire world population is "us", as you know.

I don't think the good doc was saying altruism is self-interest - that was my take - but I think it is accurate, again, in a larger sense. To get through this nightmare, we will have to reach herd immunity worldwide, it appears. That will take sacrifice and sharing. I would certainly be willing to go without the vaccine for another 3-6 months if it would help somewhere else in the world - but I am also part of the world so getting me vaccinated is equally important to others.

Rather than terming it as conflict, Us VS Them, it may be more helpful to think of geographic areas and take them one at a time until everyone has been covered. It makes sense to work on the areas of greatest economic development first as the quicker those areas regain a degree of normality the quicker they are financially capable of helping others not so fortunate.