The direction of society lately

[Scott G.]

Does Vermont still have that civil defense plan to blow up all the bridges into the state in case of invasion?

Yes, but I think New England and the Left Coast will commit to the Acts of Union 2025 to form Great Canada.

2025-01-26_19-33-00.jpg

[bigbill]

The Time magazine article was something. I knew her from 4th grade through high school, we grew up in the same neighborhood. I’ve seen her once since that happened, but did not get a chance to talk.

PS Bill, three top-level military women relieved of command in a week. The same week a known misogynist was sworn in as commander-in-chief, and the now-confirmed Secdef is on record saying that standards were lowered to include women in combat, and that commanders were given quotas. Coincidence is a tough sell at this moment.

The highest ranked woman doesn't report to the SECDEF and the other firings would have been in motion well before the inauguration. I'm curious to read about the Coast Guard relief.

[72gmc]

Yes, but I think New England and the Left Coast will commit to the Acts of Union 2025 to form Great Canada.

2025-01-26_19-33-00.jpg

From America’s Hat to America’s Helmet.

[htwoopup]

To say these firings were in the works for weeks may be true…but disingenuous or not believable or whatever the right word is. I believe that in working on Project 2025 they have been planning these firings (and the inspectors general) for months or longer but not in the institutions of the military or executive branch but in the “court in waiting” of the folks plotting how to “purify” the system. And, would you say that the removal of the Tuskegee Airmen films and so on and any video in training films of female pilots in the Air Force was “in the works for weeks” within the pre-existing Air Force or the previous executive branch?

[bigbill]

To say these firings were in the works for weeks may be true…but disingenuous or not believable or whatever the right word is. I believe that in working on Project 2025 they have been planning these firings (and the inspectors general) for months or longer but not in the institutions of the military or executive branch but in the “court in waiting” of the folks plotting how to “purify” the system. And, would you say that the removal of the Tuskegee Airmen films and so on and any video in training films of female pilots in the Air Force was “in the works for weeks” within the pre-existing Air Force or the previous executive branch?

I think you're connecting dots on different pages. The Tuskegee Airman deletion was an overreach by someone ignorant of history and it has been reversed. Two female Commanders (0-5) are hardly targets in cross hairs. They were in charge of training commands, shore duty in California and Virginia. I'll wait for the investigation to come out. I think the Inspectors General are case by case and I believe Congress has a say in it. People believe the military should look like the country with percentages of race, gender, and ethnicity. African Americans represent 13% of the U.S. population but 20% of the Army. 9% of college graduates with a four year degree are African American, and 67% are white, so in a given pool of candidates, assuming they have the right degrees, officers of color will be in the minority. IME, many officers are like me, they came up through the enlisted ranks, finishing college while on active duty and commissioning as an officer. Other than pilots, about half of the African American officers I worked with were Mustangs (prior enlisted) like me. We need diversity and equity, but the numbers don't support a military that looks like the U.S., especially in the officer corps.

[sk_tle]

The approach is classic. Start with the powerless and move up. Point to people who do not have citizenship and say we should not allow them to become citizens because their presence here is a crime, which means they are criminals and criminals (or their children) cannot become citizens. Then it moves on to people who are here legally but not citizens. Then it moves on to people who are here legally and are citizens but have violated the law. Then create a system of regulations that govern citizens' status as citizens in good standing with law-like penalties. People who have violated those regulations must then keep themselves in good standing in order to avoid jeopardizing their citizenship. The regulations then become a bureaucracy of enforcement and penalties that can be modified and shaped to satisfy the government's goals for a particular area or with a particular segment of the community - areas with high value resources or ethnicities that have been deemed a threat. Tax penalties where inability to pay creates targeted legal jeopardy that is effectively inescapable is one method that has been used.

Reichsfluchtsteuer

Judenvermögensabgabe

All in the name of the common good.

We are remembering today the 80 years of Auschwitz-Birkenau liberation. Let's keep in mind that Hitler didn't start away with the gas chamber. They came after a long process that started with the idea of a greater Germany from which not everybody were deemed worthy of based on their origin, a failed coup, a hatred towards minorities, a general disdain towards democracy and the safeguards that separate the legislative, executive and justice powers, territory claims and expansion.

[j44ke]

I think you're connecting dots on different pages. The Tuskegee Airman deletion was an overreach by someone ignorant of history and it has been reversed. Two female Commanders (0-5) are hardly targets in cross hairs. They were in charge of training commands, shore duty in California and Virginia. I'll wait for the investigation to come out. I think the Inspectors General are case by case and I believe Congress has a say in it. People believe the military should look like the country with percentages of race, gender, and ethnicity. African Americans represent 13% of the U.S. population but 20% of the Army. 9% of college graduates with a four year degree are African American, and 67% are white, so in a given pool of candidates, assuming they have the right degrees, officers of color will be in the minority. IME, many officers are like me, they came up through the enlisted ranks, finishing college while on active duty and commissioning as an officer. Other than pilots, about half of the African American officers I worked with were Mustangs (prior enlisted) like me. We need diversity and equity, but the numbers don't support a military that looks like the U.S., especially in the officer corps.

Not clear what you are saying here. Are you saying that Americans want a military that mirrors the percentages of ethnicity in total population? I am not convinced that Americans are interested in who is in the military on that granular a level. I think they do want anyone who volunteers for the military to have a fair and equitable chance to succeed in their career, but other than that, most Americans ignore the military as an institution. And because the military is a volunteer institution, the most likely sector of the population the military will mirror is working class poor, under-employed and under-educated.

But as I said, I am not sure I am following your point there.

[suspectdevice]

Federal jobs were the primary way African American families were able to join the middle class over the last 60 years. Going back to Woodrow Wilson era segregationist policies in federal hiring (the policies that INSPIRED the fucking nazi’s in the first place) is certainly the opposite of justice.

Un-personing trans people? Attempting to strip citizenship from Indigenous people? Deporting students who are anti-colonialist or anti genocide, defunding the NIH…
None of this is acceptable. All of this is predictable.
I doubt the US constitution as we know it makes it through this year.

[Too Tall]

Be optimistic Mickey, we'll always have the Republic of Floyd ;)

What does it take for a huge swath of America to vote for something else? There is not a dumpster fire or trashing of values and norms large enough is what I say will move people in that direction.

A voice we do not hear yet, leaders who inspire are something. Lawsuits and waiting for court decisions ain't gonna do it. The court of public opinion is the most power thing we as a nation possess.

Sez me

[suspectdevice]

I spend lots of time working and talking with potential voters across this land when I am in the field building trails.
40 years of de-funding public education combined with 40 years of neoliberal economic policy has left so many Americans unfathomably confused and scared and powerless.
Some kind of Revolution of Love… is not going to happen. Young American men have been raised on bloodsport, are told they are effeminate, and know nothing but loosing endless wars, predicated on lies, to serve the very narrow interests of a very very small number of unassailably powerful people.

There’s no way out. Today is just a day you may, or may not survive wildfire or mass violence!
Enjoy!

[Too Tall]

Man hugs Mickey. It ain't that bad when you know for a fact there are many porches where you are welcome.

Society does not turn on a dime. Go get a haircut from Ann @ Brambelton Barber for some perspective.

[BBB]

Be optimistic Mickey, we'll always have the Republic of Floyd ;)

What does it take for a huge swath of America to vote for something else? There is not a dumpster fire or trashing of values and norms large enough is what I say will move people in that direction.

A voice we do not hear yet, leaders who inspire are something. Lawsuits and waiting for court decisions ain't gonna do it. The court of public opinion is the most power thing we as a nation possess.

Sez me

The reality is that you don't need a huge swath of people to change their votes to change the government, and hence the direction of society. Trump's victory was fairly fine in the grand scheme of things (despite how he chooses to present it), but it (the victory) is probably amplified by your electoral college system. If he makes a mess of things like he did the first time around, it won't take that many people in the so-called 'swing states' to change their vote from Republican to Democrat and hence cause there to be a change in government.

That of course doesn't really fix things in so far as the issues that causes people to change their vote in the first place will still be there. How do you provide for the people who have lost jobs/self-esteem etc etc by the big economic changes that took place from the 1980s onwards, or re-assure people given the potential changes as the global community transitions from fossil fuels to renewables (there is big $$ in oil, gas and coal after all)? And so on. This requires leadership and vision. Pointing the finger at immigrants does not.

So yes you do need leaders who inspire. You also need ideas and practical plans to implement them. And plans that don't leave people behind (you're only as strong as the weakest link etc).

I also think you need lawsuits along with those other things. When people transgress, an open and transparent justice system allows people to see justice being done (noting justice could also be done by an acquittal). This is why the Nazis weren't shot after WW2 and instead were tried in Nuremburg for example.* This is also why the ICC wants to try Netanyahu as you can't ethically cleanse a region without consequences (alas, the ICC can't really try the Hamas leadership as the Israelis seem to have knocked those in charge off). Trump should have been tried for his role in the 6 January uprising and if found guilty, sent to jail. Period. Instead the process was delayed and then stymied by a 'friendly' judge. Now the whole thing is subject to revisionism (winners re-write history etc).

I do wish you the best of luck. Of course I have a vested interest in saying this as the US pulling out of a climate change agreement, or intending to leave the WHO impacts has a global ripple effect, and not in a good way.

* Naturally enough in this scenario it was the 'victors' who tried the 'losers'. There was very much an element of victors justice in this process, when certain actions, for example firebombing Dresden, left a lot to be desired.

[Too Tall]

Thanks BBB, a considered response is appreciated.

The need to hate something is a change force undeniable in politics. BBB you imply something else, if that is the case I'm interested.

It has been suggested that public service and/or public works are good examples with positive historic reference that do create a sense of unity, common direction....for instance.

[echappist]

The reality is that you don't need a huge swath of people to change their votes to change the government, and hence the direction of society. Trump's victory was fairly fine in the grand scheme of things (despite how he chooses to present it), but it (the victory) is probably amplified by your electoral college system. If he makes a mess of things like he did the first time around, it won't take that many people in the so-called 'swing states' to change their vote from Republican to Democrat and hence cause there to be a change in government.

That of course doesn't really fix things in so far as the issues that causes people to change their vote in the first place will still be there. How do you provide for the people who have lost jobs/self-esteem etc etc by the big economic changes that took place from the 1980s onwards, or re-assure people given the potential changes as the global community transitions from fossil fuels to renewables (there is big $$ in oil, gas and coal after all)? And so on. This requires leadership and vision. Pointing the finger at immigrants does not.

So yes you do need leaders who inspire. You also need ideas and practical plans to implement them. And plans that don't leave people behind (you're only as strong as the weakest link etc).

As you note, the votes that usually decide electoral college votes are most often swing votes, and participation of these voters manifests as either changing of party or sitting out an election.

And the particular swing is almost always reactionary lately.

Trump not doing a good job with the pandemic response? Out he goes.

Biden's inability to control inflation (I'll set aside how misguided this conclusion is)? Out he goes.

I'm of the opinion that had the pandemic not occurred, Trump would have served two consecutive terms. Alternatively, had inflation been bad in Trump's first term (say in 2019) but the pandemic had not occurred, he would have also been voted out of office.

Therein lies the main issue with such swing voters. Most just want some of change and are willing to upset the apple cart to show their displeasure. Whether a change in the head of the executive branch would lead to meaningful changes the swing voters hope for is a whole different story.

And here's one interesting tidbit. I live in one of these swing states. Down ballot was a race for a U.S. Senate seat between an Democrat incumbent and a GOP challenger. For whatever reason, there were significant number of Trump voters (~15k-20k) who didn't even bother with filling in the ballots for the other elections, and the Democrat incumbent squeaked by with the narrowest of margins. Statewide, earlier in 2023 was an election for a seat on the State Supreme Court, and the liberal-leaning judge won by 200k votes (yes, that's almost 7x the margin by which Trump won, and no, that's not a typo). One gets the distinct feeling that as voter turn-out increases, the additional voters (i.e. marginal ones in the economic sense of the word) who show up tend to be disgruntled and are casting votes to vent their frustration.

Having said that, identification of the issue is easy. Trying to address the wants and needs of the swing voters is much more difficult (and often out of control of policy makers).

[bigbill]

When electoral college discussion comes up, it's important to note that presidential candidates campaign based on winning the electoral college and if they also win the popular vote, that's just a bonus. In 2000, Bush 43 won the electoral and lost the popular, and in 2016, Trump won the electoral and lost the popular. If the electoral college was eliminated, candidates would change their strategy and focus on the large population areas of the country. When Trump won in 2016, there were calls to end the electoral college, but to say Hillary would have won with a popular vote is not necessarily true, because the election strategies would have different. Like Echappist pointed out addressing the needs of voters in swing states would be the strategy, except it would be swing regions with a popular vote. This means not spending time in my future home of Wyoming with its 580K citizens. The electoral college serves the purpose of making sure every state has a say, but places like Wyoming means its citizens wield more power per person than a larger state. Same for Senators, Wyoming has two but only one Representative.

The other issue is polling. How polls are conducted and who participates seems to be a dated process. Polls have been all over the place and wrong, especially in 2016 when Hillary was predicted with a 95% chance of winning on the morning of the election based on polls. Exit polls predicted a win, but apparently people were being less than truthful about who they voted for, and the wrong people were being polled.

When considering "if" scenarios, if Perot had not run in 1992, we might not have ever had a Clinton. If Hillary had run a better campaign in 2008, we might have missed out on Obama. And the big one, if Biden would have held a press conference in the fall of 2023 to announce that he would not seek a second term, either Harris would have been in a better position or an open primary would have chosen another candidate that likely would have beat Trump.

[72gmc]

Agree on that final point, bigbill. I told anyone who would listen to me (the dog, and occasionally my wife) that Joe should’ve run on a one-term pledge in 2020. The extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, his age, and the intransigence of the incumbent ideology all pointed to a one-term presidency anyway.

[bigbill]

Agree on that final point, bigbill. I told anyone who would listen to me (the dog, and occasionally my wife) that Joe should’ve run on a one-term pledge in 2020. The extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, his age, and the intransigence of the incumbent ideology all pointed to a one-term presidency anyway.

The democratic party backdoored Harris. In the short period of time she was given after Biden dropped out, she had to vet and choose a VP, establish her platform, and build a campaign. She was shoved off a ledge. If you look at the two term Democrat Presidents Clinton and Obama, the republicans seemed to sacrifice candidates to run against incumbent Democrat candidate like Dole and Romney. IMO, Harris was sacrificed so she wouldn't run again in 2028.

[Saab2000]

The democratic party backdoored Harris. In the short period of time she was given after Biden dropped out, she had to vet and choose a VP, establish her platform, and build a campaign. She was shoved off a ledge. If you look at the two term Democrat Presidents Clinton and Obama, the republicans seemed to sacrifice candidates to run against incumbent Democrat candidate like Dole and Romney. IMO, Harris was sacrificed so she wouldn't run again in 2028.

Your last point here may be true. If so, it’s an interesting take.

Clearly Joe Biden should have run as a one-term president. I like and approve of most of his policies but he’s clearly out of time.

One reason Harris was picked I remember seeing on one of the political commentator YT channels I check out was that she was the only one who would have legal access to the funds within the Biden campaign. They had run out of time to run any kind of primary at that point. She, as VP, was the only way to fund a campaign with money already pledged. In hindsight, she probably wasn’t the best candidate though I thought she did a great job given the short time available. And I really like Tim Walz.

[BBB]

Thanks BBB, a considered response is appreciated.

The need to hate something is a change force undeniable in politics. BBB you imply something else, if that is the case I'm interested.

It has been suggested that public service and/or public works are good examples with positive historic reference that do create a sense of unity, common direction....for instance.

Yes unfortunately negativity is a factor in politics.

It is easy to blame something or someone for society's problems and run a negative campaign, with a liberal dose of sweeteners for good measure. In an Australian context this could include law and order/crime (the something), immigrants, or particular groups, (the someone) and tax cuts (the sweeteners). Obviously enough, Trump used immigrants in his campaign and even went so far to suggest Haitian immigrants were eating domestic pets.

The alternative to negativity, is the small target. This type of approach is maddening, but often successful. It sees the opposition not saying a whole lot and not exposing their policies to detailed analysis and letting the government hang themselves. This ploy was used in 2022 in the federal election in Australia to great effect.

There are however examples of campaigns where one side advocated for positive change and took government on that basis. The "It's Time" campaign by the then Whitlam opposition in 1972 is a good example. This led to universal health care (Medibank, now Medicare), fee free university education (at least for a time) and ending Australia's involvement in Vietnam.

In 2025 we face many challenges as a global community and as individual countries. Negativity and a rose tinted view of the past will not cut it. Forcibly removing immigrants will not stop LA burning in the middle of your winter for example.

[zachateseverything]

Your last point here may be true. If so, it’s an interesting take.

Clearly Joe Biden should have run as a one-term president. I like and approve of most of his policies but he’s clearly out of time.

One reason Harris was picked I remember seeing on one of the political commentator YT channels I check out was that she was the only one who would have legal access to the funds within the Biden campaign. They had run out of time to run any kind of primary at that point. She, as VP, was the only way to fund a campaign with money already pledged. In hindsight, she probably wasn’t the best candidate though I thought she did a great job given the short time available. And I really like Tim Walz.

The Dems were up against the wall regardless of who they ran. They were going to get bludgeoned by legitimate concerns about inflation and the made up culture war issues the GOP has been harping on since they lost on gay marriage. Economic headwinds for certain chunks of the population led to incumbent parties taking L's in many elections across the world.