Voting against interests

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Why would Trump have had to campaign on something in order for him to support and implement that policy?

You claim to have read The Fifth Risk; had you done so you wouldn't be making such a silly assertion. Trump's whole approach to government is that it's bad, and deserves to be done away with. Of course, neither he nor his appointees knew nothing about what the government really did . . . and had no interest in finding out. Like Mc, they presumed they knew it all because they'd nodded heads with like-minded folks for years, and got comfortable with their ignorance. Just ask Rick Perry . . . .

My take is that Trump only knew he wanted to implement a "kill the beast" GOP strategy rather than actually govern.

1. We are talking about why a voter concerned with the Hanford site would have voted for Trump in 2016. What he did after he got into office would be irrelevant. And there is an assumption in talking about that that voters base their vote, at least in part, on what the candidate campaigns on.

2. I do "claim" to have read The Fifth Risk. Because I did, when it first came out. If you want to call my assertion (which one?) silly, fine, but I'm not sure why you are now implying I lied about reading the book? Maybe I forgot certain parts? Or maybe I'm providing reports now that might conflict with what Lewis wrote? In any event, if you want to dispute the AP source or the DOE source, I'd love to hear it. Calling it silly doesn't do that, however.

3. You say "Trump's whole approach to government is that it's bad, and deserves to be done away with." That is over-the-top exaggeration. That's his whole approach? That might be his instinct (which is an instinct of many a Republican or free market Democrat) but it was not his whole approach.

 

[Sope Creek]

1. We are talking about why a voter concerned with the Hanford site would have voted for Trump in 2016. What he did after he got into office would be irrelevant. And there is an assumption in talking about that that voters base their vote, at least in part, on what the candidate campaigns on.

2. I do "claim" to have read The Fifth Risk. Because I did, when it first came out. If you want to call my assertion (which one?) silly, fine, but I'm not sure why you are now implying I lied about reading the book? Maybe I forgot certain parts? Or maybe I'm providing reports now that might conflict with what Lewis wrote? In any event, if you want to dispute the AP source or the DOE source, I'd love to hear it. Calling it silly doesn't do that, however.

3. You say "Trump's whole approach to government is that it's bad, and deserves to be done away with." That is over-the-top exaggeration. That's his whole approach? That might be his instinct (which is an instinct of many a Republican or free market Democrat) but it was not his whole approach.

1. Did he campaign on Hanford at all? Your assumption that voters base their votes today on what a candidate campaigns on is just as silly as your assumption that Trump campaigned on issues.

2. Had you read The Fifth Risk the only conclusion that you could have possibly come to is that Trump and his administration disrespected government to an extent that they wouldn't - and didn't - know anything about Hanford or any other governmental service. How could you have forgotten that? I think your biases are showing . . . .

3. I'm a "free market" independent . . . and that is not my instinct. My instinct is to have government inject itself into economic behavior where markets do not define behaviors that are harmful to the population at large. Hanford is a great example . . . and so are the Kiel Bros. Oil Co. oil spills* that cost taxpayers millions.

* https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cl...as-stations-costing-taxpayers-millions-report

 

[Sope Creek]

You touch on my take so far in 5th, and in life in general. Traditional real conservatives (William F Buckley, Ike) want a working functional small government. Populists want a failing government to no government.

I can gladly discuss and debate issues with conservatives, we disagree on degrees but we agree up is up and down is down. Trump populists come in with up is blue and down is kale (so do Bernie populists). So it becomes impossible. Which is where I disagree with Brad. I know no way to have meaningful dialog with up is blue and down is kale.

So Trump and his supporters have purposely elected to reject everything we have built. The know Nothings, gold standard, Bircher lineage has long existed and until Trump, thoroughly repudiated.

Just for the record, have you looked at the sky recently?

 

[mcmurtry66]

1. Did he campaign on Hanford at all? Your assumption that voters base their votes today on what a candidate campaigns on is just as silly as your assumption that Trump campaigned on issues.

2. Had you read The Fifth Risk the only conclusion that you could have possibly come to is that Trump and his administration disrespected government to an extent that they wouldn't - and didn't - know anything about Hanford or any other governmental service. How could you have forgotten that? I think your biases are showing . . . .

3. I'm a "free market" independent . . . and that is not my instinct. My instinct is to have government inject itself into economic behavior where markets do not define behaviors that are harmful to the population at large. Hanford is a great example . . . and so are the Kiel Bros. Oil Co. oil spills* that cost taxpayers millions.

* https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cl...as-stations-costing-taxpayers-millions-report

cost taxpayers millions. the fed gov taxes us to the tune of 4 trillion a year. i think the latter is far more concerning than the former. your bias is showing

 

[Sope Creek]

cost taxpayers millions. the fed gov taxes us to the tune of 4 trillion a year. i think the latter is far more concerning than the former. your bias is showing

What are we spending the $4 trillion on?

Wouldn't it be helpful - and fiscally prudent - not to incur the oil spills that cost taxpayers millions?

Otherwise, any expense can be justified in light of a $4 trillion pot of money. And you'd try to do so . . . so long as the expense were imposed by a business.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

1. Did he campaign on Hanford at all? Your assumption that voters base their votes today on what a candidate campaigns on is just as silly as your assumption that Trump campaigned on issues.

2. Had you read The Fifth Risk the only conclusion that you could have possibly come to is that Trump and his administration disrespected government to an extent that they wouldn't - and didn't - know anything about Hanford or any other governmental service. How could you have forgotten that? I think your biases are showing . . . .

3. I'm a "free market" independent . . . and that is not my instinct. My instinct is to have government inject itself into economic behavior where markets do not define behaviors that are harmful to the population at large. Hanford is a great example . . . and so are the Kiel Bros. Oil Co. oil spills* that cost taxpayers millions.

* https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cl...as-stations-costing-taxpayers-millions-report

I guess you think I'm trying to mount some grand defense of Trump, so you feel comfortable writing in this manner, but you are wrong if that is what you are thinking. As to your responses:

1. I don't think he did campaign on it, I don't know., and think I've admitted as much. Which is why Marvin's previous statements wouldn't make sense. IF Trump never said anything about Hanford or what he would do there, then how could the people there be consciously voting "against their interests" by voting for him?

Am I right that your second sentence there amounts to this: Voters today do not base their votes, at all, based on what the candidate campaigns on and to think so is silly. Is that right? You think that a "silly" assumption? If I'm mischaracterizing your statement, please correct it because I'm not sure what you think is silly about that notion. You don't think people learn who a candidate is, and what he stands for, based on what he says in a campaign? How else do they learn it?

2. I guess you are doubling down on your implication that I am lying about reading the Fifth Risk. I did read it and I did "come away with" the impression you have now shifted to. But you are now moving the goal posts on what I claimed vs. what was being said. There is a marked difference between Trump "not knowing anything about Hanford" and Trump pushing a policy that eliminated all clean-up efforts there (either in his campaign or his presidency). Do you understand that difference? And do you understand that Dept of Energy DID NOT end clean -up efforts at Hanford during the Trump presidency, according to the AP and DOE's own website?

Your implying I have pro-Trump or conservative or anti-government or Repubican biases is ignorant and wrong.

3. I agree with having government take care of market externalities.

It's odd for you to compare Hanford and the Kiel Bros. Oil Co. spills, though--there was no private actor involved in the Hanford contamination that I know of. I am all for private and govt. lawsuits to sue companies and individuals for all environmental contamination and think we should have regs/etc. (see the first sentence of this point) to prevent and deter such conduct.

That was part of an earlier point I was trying to make about different incentives for private vs. public actors regarding pollution and why a Hanford resident might rationally vote for a privatization candidate in 2016, depending on his world view, gauge of the candidate's abilites, etc. (see Post #74).

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

You touch on my take so far in 5th, and in life in general. Traditional real conservatives (William F Buckley, Ike) want a working functional small government. Populists want a failing government to no government.

I can gladly discuss and debate issues with conservatives, we disagree on degrees but we agree up is up and down is down. Trump populists come in with up is blue and down is kale (so do Bernie populists). So it becomes impossible. Which is where I disagree with Brad. I know no way to have meaningful dialog with up is blue and down is kale.

So Trump and his supporters have purposely elected to reject everything we have built. The know Nothings, gold standard, Bircher lineage has long existed and until Trump, thoroughly repudiated.

I agree with you regarding people who disregard facts, logic, and proof. I agree that the diehard Trump cultists fit that mold. Not sure I'd admit that about the Bernie populists. But I think it is an apt description of the far-left identitarian wing that buys into the thinking of DiAngelo and Kendi.

But not everyone who voted for Trump is a cultist, and not everyone who believes in diversity, equity, and inclusion is a dyed-in-the-wool true-believer in CRT.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I agree with you regarding people who disregard facts, logic, and proof. I agree that the diehard Trump cultists fit that mold. Not sure I'd admit that about the Bernie populists. But I think it is an apt description of the far-left identitarian wing that buys into the thinking of DiAngelo and Kendi.

But not everyone who voted for Trump is a cultist, and not everyone who believes in diversity, equity, and inclusion is a dyed-in-the-wool true-believer in CRT.

I agree, not all Trump backers are cultist.

We have huge issues we cannot make any progress on. Look at a huge number of wildfires this year in the west. Look at the huge lakes being at record lows. Water supplies to tens of millions are threatened. Yet any mention of AGW is dismissed by huge swaths of people for no other reason than scientists say it is true. Enough people that we have no hope of addressing the issue at all.

If snowfall this winter is low, the entire west faces a huge problem.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I agree, not all Trump backers are cultist.

We have huge issues we cannot make any progress on. Look at a huge number of wildfires this year in the west. Look at the huge lakes being at record lows. Water supplies to tens of millions are threatened. Yet any mention of AGW is dismissed by huge swaths of people for no other reason than scientists say it is true. Enough people that we have no hope of addressing the issue at all.

If snowfall this winter is low, the entire west faces a huge problem.

I agree with all of this except the part about why big groups of people deny global warming exists. I don't think that the majority of those people do so "for no other reason than scientists say it is true."

If you replaced "scientists" with "liberal" or "Democrats," I'd probably agree, though, and therein lies our nation's current problem with dialogue in a nutshell.

​

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I agree with all of this except the part about why big groups of people deny global warming exists. I don't think that the majority of those people do so "for no other reason than scientists say it is true."

If you replaced "scientists" with "liberal" or "Democrats," I'd probably agree, though, and therein lies our nation's current problem with dialogue in a nutshell.

​

The cult requires the dismissal of experts. So yes, the cult requires the dismissal for no other reason than the experts say something. It doesn't matter if it is evolution, or global warming, or vaccines, or trade. A sizeable number of Americans reject experts. It is why so many conspiracy theories like Truthers, moon hoax, antivaxx, flat earth, birthers, etc, exist. Sure, each doesn't make up large numbers individually, but combined (though Truthers are a fairly large number).

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

So yes, the cult requires the dismissal for no other reason than the experts say something.

The main reason this exists, and I am making the very simplified 80/20 assertion here, WE DO NOT trust the integrity of the government. It is well beyond conspiracy theory that once government is allowed to be bought, it WILL (HAS) be.

As to the early comments about unintended gov consequences, and how/ why some "cultist" have lost faith and choose a private pathway. I am researching building an airplane hanger on a small grass strip airport in the south. I want to build it with a living quarters so I can vacation there. This is on a "fly in" community airport with several houses with unattached Hangers. I now find out that IF this airport ever has or will in the future receive FAA money to improve the runway or taxiways, FAA won't allow "living quarters" inside hangers.
For those who have no idea of aviation, it literally is the same as having an attached garage to your house. @JBS!!!

 

[mcmurtry66]

The main reason this exists, and I am making the very simplified 80/20 assertion here, WE DO NOT trust the integrity of the government. It is well beyond conspiracy theory that once government is allowed to be bought, it WILL (HAS) be.

As to the early comments about unintended gov consequences, and how/ why some "cultist" have lost faith and choose a private pathway. I am researching building an airplane hanger on a small grass strip airport in the south. I want to build it with a living quarters so I can vacation there. This is on a "fly in" community airport with several houses with unattached Hangers. I now find out that IF this airport ever has or will in the future receive FAA money to improve the runway or taxiways, FAA won't allow "living quarters" inside hangers.
For those who have no idea of aviation, it literally is the same as having an attached garage to your house. @JBS!!!

that's funny joe. an older buddy of mine owns a couple of planes. he owns a hanger in this crazy community of airplane hangers that look like massive sheds all right next to each other. they have apartments up stairs (some of them) and they have their cars in there, and man caves, and their planes and helicopters, and there's roads in between and they all travel around and check out what each other are doing on golf carts. all older guys. they have big competition bbq grills and on saturdays they bbq in the common area. happiest crew of people i've ever seen. and they all kind of look alike. it's just outside the burbs of saint louis. they are living their heaven. i think the hangers are between 100k and 150k to buy.

http://crevecoeurairport.com/

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

The cult requires the dismissal of experts. So yes, the cult requires the dismissal for no other reason than the experts say something. It doesn't matter if it is evolution, or global warming, or vaccines, or trade. A sizeable number of Americans reject experts. It is why so many conspiracy theories like Truthers, moon hoax, antivaxx, flat earth, birthers, etc, exist. Sure, each doesn't make up large numbers individually, but combined (though Truthers are a fairly large number).

View embedded media

So I agree that the cult requires the dismissal of experts but only insofar as those expert challenge beliefs of the cult. But you seem to imply there are people who look at a field and say "what do the experts think? Whatever it is, I'll believe the opposite?" I guess I've never met anyone like that, even from my small Indiana home town (where lots of my friends are so small town, my parents live in the same small town. ). Do you know people like that where you are?

The people I hear or read or talk to have belief B and don't want to examine it (because it's scary or too difficult or its against their economic interests) and then look for, cite, and lionize those who support B (especially when they are experts), while castigating, downplaying, and ad hominem attacking anyone who believes ~B.

 

[Sope Creek]

The main reason this exists, and I am making the very simplified 80/20 assertion here, WE DO NOT trust the integrity of the government. It is well beyond conspiracy theory that once government is allowed to be bought, it WILL (HAS) be.

As to the early comments about unintended gov consequences, and how/ why some "cultist" have lost faith and choose a private pathway. I am researching building an airplane hanger on a small grass strip airport in the south. I want to build it with a living quarters so I can vacation there. This is on a "fly in" community airport with several houses with unattached Hangers. I now find out that IF this airport ever has or will in the future receive FAA money to improve the runway or taxiways, FAA won't allow "living quarters" inside hangers.
For those who have no idea of aviation, it literally is the same as having an attached garage to your house. @JBS!!!

GrandSope had 28,000 hours in the captain's chair when he retired.* Steered me away from flying . . . he said I was thinking about anything and everything but what I was doing all the time, which is death for a pilot.

* You might be thinking about how in the world someone could have 28,000 hours . . . well, back when he started the planes were really slow. He flew freight in the North Africa theater during WWII.

 

[Sope Creek]

I guess you think I'm trying to mount some grand defense of Trump, so you feel comfortable writing in this manner, but you are wrong if that is what you are thinking. As to your responses:

1. I don't think he did campaign on it, I don't know., and think I've admitted as much. Which is why Marvin's previous statements wouldn't make sense. IF Trump never said anything about Hanford or what he would do there, then how could the people there be consciously voting "against their interests" by voting for him?

Am I right that your second sentence there amounts to this: Voters today do not base their votes, at all, based on what the candidate campaigns on and to think so is silly. Is that right? You think that a "silly" assumption? If I'm mischaracterizing your statement, please correct it because I'm not sure what you think is silly about that notion. You don't think people learn who a candidate is, and what he stands for, based on what he says in a campaign? How else do they learn it?

2. I guess you are doubling down on your implication that I am lying about reading the Fifth Risk. I did read it and I did "come away with" the impression you have now shifted to. But you are now moving the goal posts on what I claimed vs. what was being said. There is a marked difference between Trump "not knowing anything about Hanford" and Trump pushing a policy that eliminated all clean-up efforts there (either in his campaign or his presidency). Do you understand that difference? And do you understand that Dept of Energy DID NOT end clean -up efforts at Hanford during the Trump presidency, according to the AP and DOE's own website?

Your implying I have pro-Trump or conservative or anti-government or Repubican biases is ignorant and wrong.

3. I agree with having government take care of market externalities.

It's odd for you to compare Hanford and the Kiel Bros. Oil Co. spills, though--there was no private actor involved in the Hanford contamination that I know of. I am all for private and govt. lawsuits to sue companies and individuals for all environmental contamination and think we should have regs/etc. (see the first sentence of this point) to prevent and deter such conduct.

That was part of an earlier point I was trying to make about different incentives for private vs. public actors regarding pollution and why a Hanford resident might rationally vote for a privatization candidate in 2016, depending on his world view, gauge of the candidate's abilites, etc. (see Post #74).

Regarding your statement that I must think you're mounting a grand defense of Trump . . . where did I say that? That said, if the shoe fits . . . .

(1) Voters don't vote on issues any longer. They used to say that they did, but I think that we really have a quadrennial national (junior high school equivalent) popularity contest these days. That you (apparently) think voters act rationally is what is silly. They respond emotionally . . . and all of the ads today are designed to hook voters into a prevailing emotion and then manipulate those voters to vote as is desired by the ads sponsors.

(2) I haven't moved any goal posts, you are. My assertion was that Trump didn't know beans about government and didn't care . . . you're the one asserting that he was "pushing a policy that eliminated all clean-up efforts". And that's the bullshit I'm calling you out for. Of course he didn't push that policy during the campaign . . . he didn't know enough about Hanford to push that policy. Instead, he came into office and appointed people who didn't even show up for hand-offs for their departments. They whiffed. Entirely. If you want to try to use NUANCE to parse that out, that's bullshit that's entirely on you. I ain't having it.

(3) I didn't compare Hanford with Kiel Bros. I cited them both as examples of how government ought to serve to govern private businesses where the markets don't regulate - and actually reward - the harm done by those businesses. Your attempt to define that commentary as a comparison, and then your distinguishing those examples in a way that doesn't matter for the point I made, is just more bullshit.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

that's funny joe. an older buddy of mine owns a couple of planes. he owns a hanger in this crazy community of airplane hangers that look like massive sheds all right next to each other. they have apartments up stairs (some of them) and they have their cars in there, and man caves, and their planes and helicopters, and there's roads in between and they all travel around and check out what each other are doing on golf carts. all older guys. they have big competition bbq grills and on saturdays they bbq in the common area. happiest crew of people i've ever seen. and they all kind of look alike. it's just outside the burbs of saint louis. they are living their heaven. i think the hangers are between 100k and 150k to buy.

http://crevecoeurairport.com/

See, this type thing has me thinking of a new investment idea. I don't fly into large (class C - B ) airports much but I enjoy flying into smaller strips. Once you learn to fly and have a plane, it literally is like what we expected from The Jetson's carton. It really is that easy (Caveat, "easy" for one with mechanical ability and critical thinking skills).
What suck's, is arranging ground transportation and a hotel room close to small town "fly over" america. Actually it's not even fly over, I spend a lot of time in the northeast/ Mid atlantic area.
If FAA has some stupid rule that living quarters need to be detached from the hanger (a Friggin garage), even by 6 inches, it's STUPID and pointless. This is the type of the things that Gov "do for us" that many of us use to base a vote decision.

 

[Sope Creek]

See, this type thing has me thinking of a new investment idea. I don't fly into large (class C - B ) airports much but I enjoy flying into smaller strips. Once you learn to fly and have a plane, it literally is like what we expected from The Jetson's carton. It really is that easy (Caveat, "easy" for one with mechanical ability and critical thinking skills).
What suck's, is arranging ground transportation and a hotel room close to small town "fly over" america. Actually it's not even fly over, I spend a lot of time in the northeast/ Mid atlantic area.
If FAA has some stupid rule that living quarters need to be detached from the hanger (a Friggin garage), even by 6 inches, it's STUPID and pointless. This is the type of the things that Gov "do for us" that many of us use to base a vote decision.

I'll check with the FAA guy down in the cul-de-sac. There's a reason for that rule, I'm sure. You just don't know what it is . . . or just don't like the inconvenience of having to live with it. Doesn't mean that the rule isn't a good one . . . .

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

GrandSope had 28,000 hours in the captain's chair when he retired.* Steered me away from flying . . . he said I was thinking about anything and everything but what I was doing all the time, which is death for a pilot.

* You might be thinking about how in the world someone could have 28,000 hours . . . well, back when he started the planes were really slow. He flew freight in the North Africa theater during WWII.

Very nice! I know a few people who have around that many hours. All Cargo flyers pushing 747's and the like, internationally. Those guys in any WWII theater were MEN! I tip my hat and only wish I was half as de servant. Hell, they've logged 28k and I have trouble keeping my log book up to date after 200. I suck.

 

[mcmurtry66]

See, this type thing has me thinking of a new investment idea. I don't fly into large (class C - B ) airports much but I enjoy flying into smaller strips. Once you learn to fly and have a plane, it literally is like what we expected from The Jetson's carton. It really is that easy (Caveat, "easy" for one with mechanical ability and critical thinking skills).
What suck's, is arranging ground transportation and a hotel room close to small town "fly over" america. Actually it's not even fly over, I spend a lot of time in the northeast/ Mid atlantic area.
If FAA has some stupid rule that living quarters need to be detached from the hanger (a Friggin garage), even by 6 inches, it's STUPID and pointless. This is the type of the things that Gov "do for us" that many of us use to base a vote decision.

Check out the airport I linked and rules etc. it's an interesting place. As I said I've never met a happier "community" lol

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

I'll check with the FAA guy down in the cul-de-sac. There's a reason for that rule, I'm sure. You just don't know what it is . . . or just don't like the inconvenience of having to live with it. Doesn't mean that the rule isn't a good one . . . .

LOL, I am sure there is a reason and I am sure that I don't like the inconvenience of it. See, I told you we could agree on some things!

The last update I am finding to the FAA rules ("final conclusion"), it doesn't specifically say you can, but it leaves a mile wide void of why it doesn't prevent their intent, which is that nothing can prevent the standard movement and operation of aircraft (paraphrasing). I love gray area's, it is what drives me. But most are not as adventurous and stupid bureaucracy prevents innovation.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Check out the airport I linked and rules etc. it's an interesting place. As I said I've never met a happier "community" lol

Love it, under the St Louis Envelope. I fly down to Sikeston for luch quite a bit, I'll have to swing up there and give them a salute! Thanks for the tip man.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Love it, under the St Louis Envelope. I fly down to Sikeston for luch quite a bit, I'll have to swing up there and give them a salute! Thanks for the tip man.

Throwed rolls. Yep. I spent three hours there a few weeks back and didn't see a single one of them flying. They were all tinkering with planes and bullshitting. It's where they hide from their families and watch the games etc I think lol

 

[Sope Creek]

Very nice! I know a few people who have around that many hours. All Cargo flyers pushing 747's and the like, internationally. Those guys in any WWII theater were MEN! I tip my hat and only wish I was half as de servant. Hell, they've logged 28k and I have trouble keeping my log book up to date after 200. I suck.

Those C-47s had metal seats on metal posts . . . GrandSope had serious back issues from flying those things and running into air pockets . . .

. . . but he was the one who flew Cummins' first propjet and jet to Bakalar. He was good at what he did . . . he just hated to be on call . . . .

 

[Sope Creek]

Love it, under the St Louis Envelope. I fly down to Sikeston for luch quite a bit, I'll have to swing up there and give them a salute! Thanks for the tip man.

Whatttt? The only decent place to eat in Sikeston is at home. Maybe Dexter's BBQ . . . they closed the only Ruby Tuesdays there. It's now a Mexican place.

If you want something good, head over to The Glenns south of Charleston on the way to East Prarie.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Whatttt? The only decent place to eat in Sikeston is at home. Maybe Dexter's BBQ . . . they closed the only Ruby Tuesdays there. It's now a Mexican place.

If you want something good, head over to The Glenns south of Charleston on the way to East Prarie.

hahahah, Throwed rolls man, THROWED rolls. The send you a ride from the airport, free of charge, take you in the back door and return you when you are ready. It's pretty cool.

The wife fell in love with Lambert's down in Foley Alabama the first time we went. I ordered Liver and Onion's and the waitress simply told me "I won't carry that shit to the table, it stinks". I felt at home.

I've heard about Dexters, I may try that tomorrow. I'm off of Grampa Duty until 3 so it sounds fun.

 

[Sope Creek]

hahahah, Throwed rolls man, THROWED rolls. The send you a ride from the airport, free of charge, take you in the back door and return you when you are ready. It's pretty cool.

The wife fell in love with Lambert's down in Foley Alabama the first time we went. I ordered Liver and Onion's and the waitress simply told me "I won't carry that shit to the table, it stinks". I felt at home.

I've heard about Dexters, I may try that tomorrow. I'm off of Grampa Duty until 3 so it sounds fun.

The Glenn is the schnizit . . . best damned steak for 300 miles, and that includes Na-ish-ville and St. Louis and Memphis. Better than any steak I've had in Atlanta except the medium rare ones I cook on the kamado.

The Glenn - Charleston, MO

Delivery & Pickup Options - 14 reviews of The Glenn "I can't believe this exists where it does. I love food and I truly appreciated the twist on southern with shrimp grits and pork shoulder with apple and cabbage. If you need to make it a special night, order a good bottle of wine and enjoy the...

www.yelp.com

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Regarding your statement that I must think you're mounting a grand defense of Trump . . . where did I say that? That said, if the shoe fits . . . .

(1) Voters don't vote on issues any longer. They used to say that they did, but I think that we really have a quadrennial national (junior high school equivalent) popularity contest these days. That you (apparently) think voters act rationally is what is silly. They respond emotionally . . . and all of the ads today are designed to hook voters into a prevailing emotion and then manipulate those voters to vote as is desired by the ads sponsors.

(2) I haven't moved any goal posts, you are. My assertion was that Trump didn't know beans about government and didn't care . . . you're the one asserting that he was "pushing a policy that eliminated all clean-up efforts". And that's the bullshit I'm calling you out for. Of course he didn't push that policy during the campaign . . . he didn't know enough about Hanford to push that policy. Instead, he came into office and appointed people who didn't even show up for hand-offs for their departments. They whiffed. Entirely. If you want to try to use NUANCE to parse that out, that's bullshit that's entirely on you. I ain't having it.

(3) I didn't compare Hanford with Kiel Bros. I cited them both as examples of how government ought to serve to govern private businesses where the markets don't regulate - and actually reward - the harm done by those businesses. Your attempt to define that commentary as a comparison, and then your distinguishing those examples in a way that doesn't matter for the point I made, is just more bullshit.

Ok, this discussion isn't working. You don't understand what Marvin and I were talking about and are just vastly misinterpreting what I'm arguing. Maybe that's on me and I'm not being clear enough. Have a good rest of your holiday weekend.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

So I agree that the cult requires the dismissal of experts but only insofar as those expert challenge beliefs of the cult. But you seem to imply there are people who look at a field and say "what do the experts think? Whatever it is, I'll believe the opposite?" I guess I've never met anyone like that, even from my small Indiana home town (where lots of my friends are so small town, my parents live in the same small town. ). Do you know people like that where you are?

The people I hear or read or talk to have belief B and don't want to examine it (because it's scary or too difficult or its against their economic interests) and then look for, cite, and lionize those who support B (especially when they are experts), while castigating, downplaying, and ad hominem attacking anyone who believes ~B.

So when there is a distrust of the elite, it really is a distrust of specific elite on specific subjects?

The people I know would also dislike the Chaucer expert even though studying Chaucer says nothing about there politics.

American anti-intellectualism is back: And it's killing people

Richard Hofstadter's famous 1964 diagnosis of America has reached its apotheosis with Donald Trump and the pandemic

www.salon.com

I find it telling that Trump never received any flack from his base for saying he knows more about fighting war than his generals. The generals are part of the military, a group largely supported. But they are the elite of the military so someone who never served, never read a book on military history (Trump does not read books) could be better than people who studied it is a slam on the officer corps. More than even Hitler, who said the same things but at least served.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

So when there is a distrust of the elite, it really is a distrust of specific elite on specific subjects?

The people I know would also dislike the Chaucer expert even though studying Chaucer says nothing about there politics.

American anti-intellectualism is back: And it's killing people

Richard Hofstadter's famous 1964 diagnosis of America has reached its apotheosis with Donald Trump and the pandemic

www.salon.com

I find it telling that Trump never received any flack from his base for saying he knows more about fighting war than his generals. The generals are part of the military, a group largely supported. But they are the elite of the military so someone who never served, never read a book on military history (Trump does not read books) could be better than people who studied it is a slam on the officer corps. More than even Hitler, who said the same things but at least served.

It's hard for me to respond to this because I don't consider the words "elite" and "experts" synonymous. To me, elites are those with money and power; experts are those with the relevant advanced training and experience. I think most people would agree with my distinction, but maybe I'm wrong. (The article you link doesn't talk about "experts" but does use "elite" and "intellectuals" interchangeably. For those who use the term intellectual pejoratively, that might be right. Although I find the notion that anyone thinks of nurses as part of the elite, as the article argues, pretty funny.)

Like you, I have a big problem with people dismissing out of hand experts who disagree with their opinions on a subject in which that expert has experience. But I have no problem with people not paying extra attention to the opinions of people who think their opinion more worthy of consideration solely because of their wealthy, social status, fame, etc. I'm assuming you agree with that?

Back to how the Know Nothings or Birchers (can we call them KNOBs from now on?) argue or think, the one's I've talked to or read typically will fall back on the use of experts--they just want to use experts that support their belief or change the subject to something where the experts agree with them, while then tearing down the experts against them. I see it with global warming, I see it with antivaxxers and anti-maskers, hell, I think even the creationists point to experts in other fields to try to dispute evolution. To the point in your article though, it's really clear that KNOBs are, in fact, anti-intellectual. And yes, that strain of thought is as old as the Republic itself. Comparatively, though, I do wonder if that strain doesn't exist everywhere, in all cultures and nations, to some degree--I don't know.

 

[mcmurtry66]

It's hard for me to respond to this because I don't consider the words "elite" and "experts" synonymous. To me, elites are those with money and power; experts are those with the relevant advanced training and experience. I think most people would agree with my distinction, but maybe I'm wrong. (The article you link doesn't talk about "experts" but does use "elite" and "intellectuals" interchangeably. For those who use the term intellectual pejoratively, that might be right. Although I find the notion that anyone thinks of nurses as part of the elite, as the article argues, pretty funny.)

Like you, I have a big problem with people dismissing out of hand experts who disagree with their opinions on a subject in which that expert has experience. But I have no problem with people not paying extra attention to the opinions of people who think their opinion more worthy of consideration solely because of their wealthy, social status, fame, etc. I'm assuming you agree with that?

Back to how the Know Nothings or Birchers (can we call them KNOBs from now on?) argue or think, the one's I've talked to or read typically will fall back on the use of experts--they just want to use experts that support their belief or change the subject to something where the experts agree with them, while then tearing down the experts against them. I see it with global warming, I see it with antivaxxers and anti-maskers, hell, I think even the creationists point to experts in other fields to try to dispute evolution. To the point in your article though, it's really clear that KNOBs are, in fact, anti-intellectual. And yes, that strain of thought is as old as the Republic itself. Comparatively, though, I do wonder if that strain doesn't exist everywhere, in all cultures and nations, to some degree--I don't know.

Just as it isn't difficult to find an "expert" to counter Lewis' account of gov - a liberal ivy leaguer with a degree in art history who has been an author his whole life. People have predetermined beliefs - finding "experts" to comport with same isn't difficult. Hell it's no different in law. Find an issue and in ten minutes you can get an expert to opine something difft. sope loves this book because it's congruent with his beliefs.

marv chooses to focus on what he perceives as the benefits gov provides rural towns. i tend to focus on the detriment to doing business gov has on rural towns.

we're all at an impasse and i don't know a way forward other than to stay moderate - that pisses off the least people. like a good mediation as long as most of us are dissatisfied all should be okay

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It's hard for me to respond to this because I don't consider the words "elite" and "experts" synonymous. To me, elites are those with money and power; experts are those with the relevant advanced training and experience. I think most people would agree with my distinction, but maybe I'm wrong. (The article you link doesn't talk about "experts" but does use "elite" and "intellectuals" interchangeably. For those who use the term intellectual pejoratively, that might be right. Although I find the notion that anyone thinks of nurses as part of the elite, as the article argues, pretty funny.)

Like you, I have a big problem with people dismissing out of hand experts who disagree with their opinions on a subject in which that expert has experience. But I have no problem with people not paying extra attention to the opinions of people who think their opinion more worthy of consideration solely because of their wealthy, social status, fame, etc. I'm assuming you agree with that?

Back to how the Know Nothings or Birchers (can we call them KNOBs from now on?) argue or think, the one's I've talked to or read typically will fall back on the use of experts--they just want to use experts that support their belief or change the subject to something where the experts agree with them, while then tearing down the experts against them. I see it with global warming, I see it with antivaxxers and anti-maskers, hell, I think even the creationists point to experts in other fields to try to dispute evolution. To the point in your article though, it's really clear that KNOBs are, in fact, anti-intellectual. And yes, that strain of thought is as old as the Republic itself. Comparatively, though, I do wonder if that strain doesn't exist everywhere, in all cultures and nations, to some degree--I don't know.

It does exist everywhere, populists have won in Brazil, India, UK. Populists won in Germany and Italy in the 20s and 30s, took control in Spain. It is not solely a US issue.

But our education levels should be better than at least India and Brazil.

 

[Sope Creek]

Ok, this discussion isn't working. You don't understand what Marvin and I were talking about and are just vastly misinterpreting what I'm arguing. Maybe that's on me and I'm not being clear enough. Have a good rest of your holiday weekend.

Correct.

I've gone back and read the thread and stand by my posts.

At this point I'll leave you and Marv to discuss whatever it is you think you're discussing . . . .

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

It does exist everywhere, populists have won in Brazil, India, UK. Populists won in Germany and Italy in the 20s and 30s, took control in Spain. It is not solely a US issue.

But our education levels should be better than at least India and Brazil.

So do you think the way to address rising populism is with better education? If so, what would that look like?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Just as it isn't difficult to find an "expert" to counter Lewis' account of gov - a liberal ivy leaguer with a degree in art history who has been an author his whole life. People have predetermined beliefs - finding "experts" to comport with same isn't difficult. Hell it's no different in law. Find an issue and in ten minutes you can get an expert to opine something difft. sope loves this book because it's congruent with his beliefs.

marv chooses to focus on what he perceives as the benefits gov provides rural towns. i tend to focus on the detriment to doing business gov has on rural towns.

we're all at an impasse and i don't know a way forward other than to stay moderate - that pisses off the least people. like a good mediation as long as most of us are dissatisfied all should be okay

Regarding the impasse issue, which Marv has brought up in the context of not knowing how to talk to KNOBS (I have to admit I love this acronym now), I think you just have to recognize its a long-term project, it has to be done one-on-one to have any chance of success, you have to come from a place of respect, you have to be curious, not judgmental, and you probably are not going to succeed (as I write this, I realize this same mindset should be used with my kids, but I care more about that and end up not being so understanding). That's a lot of effort and won't be worth it most of the time. But I think it's a worthy project. I've changed the minds of a few of my friends from my hometown over the years using this approach. And I've done so with a 2 or 3 neighbors in my ultraliberal neck of the woods now.

I have a feeling that a lot of KNOBS are the way they are, in some meaningful part, because they've been talked down to most of their lives and feel left out. So they join the tribe that makes them feel good about themselves (and no, I'm not talking about the racial aspect, but the anti-intellectual one). But that's just arm-chair psychobabble without any real data to support it. Just my gut feeling based on growing up in a town that is pretty KNOBish.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

So do you think the way to address rising populism is with better education? If so, what would that look like?

Actually I don't think so, I was trying to suggest our education levels over India hasn't impacted much.

There are two factors. One is hereditary. Not really but one inherits a lot of beliefs from their family.

The other is disaffection. People who fall out the bottom seek external blame.

Education in any traditional sense is not going to help either.

In the first one, I have no good ideas.

On the second, educating them to government programs that help might help. Worker retraining being a big one, but as has come up before people in coal country largely rejected retraining, they only wanted a return to coal.

In the big irony, much of the problems we see in urban areas are from disaffection. Simply telling people they are not disaffected does not work. There are no good education models on removing disaffection.

We know in the US, socialism rose until WPA and other programs. Maybe we need massive jobs programs building infrastructure, or anything else. Maybe a government version of Habitat, again with an eye toward teaching the workers a skill along with creating housing. Maybe that will work, but I am not betting on it. But America did have a rise in the 1930s that went away so it might be we had the secret sauce.

 

[Sope Creek]

Actually I don't think so, I was trying to suggest our education levels over India hasn't impacted much.

There are two factors. One is hereditary. Not really but one inherits a lot of beliefs from their family.

The other is disaffection. People who fall out the bottom seek external blame.

Education in any traditional sense is not going to help either.

In the first one, I have no good ideas.

On the second, educating them to government programs that help might help. Worker retraining being a big one, but as has come up before people in coal country largely rejected retraining, they only wanted a return to coal.

In the big irony, much of the problems we see in urban areas are from disaffection. Simply telling people they are not disaffected does not work. There are no good education models on removing disaffection.

We know in the US, socialism rose until WPA and other programs. Maybe we need massive jobs programs building infrastructure, or anything else. Maybe a government version of Habitat, again with an eye toward teaching the workers a skill along with creating housing. Maybe that will work, but I am not betting on it. But America did have a rise in the 1930s that went away so it might be we had the secret sauce.

Hmmm . . . you're a product of Columbus, IN for sure.

Cummins' articles of incorporation had 3 founding principles, none of which was to make money. They were:

(1) Create a school, with the purpose of building as nearly a perfect machine as is humanly possible.
(2) Training and development of the manpower of the community.
(3) A nonpaternal, but very earnest, interest in the affairs of the employees.

In 1939 WG Irwin, one of the early Cummins execs, said:

“ . . . had it not been our desire to have a place to develop the young men around Columbus we should not have taken the risks that we did . . . .”

The whole notion of extracting as much profit from each employee's service was not present in early Cummins' thinking. Perhaps moving away from that principle is a way to de-disaffect folks.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Hmmm . . . you're a product of Columbus, IN for sure.

Cummins' articles of incorporation had 3 founding principles, none of which was to make money. They were:

(1) Create a school, with the purpose of building as nearly a perfect machine as is humanly possible.
(2) Training and development of the manpower of the community.
(3) A nonpaternal, but very earnest, interest in the affairs of the employees.

In 1939 WG Irwin, one of the early Cummins execs, said:

“ . . . had it not been our desire to have a place to develop the young men around Columbus we should not have taken the risks that we did . . . .”

The whole notion of extracting as much profit from each employee's service was not present in early Cummins' thinking. Perhaps moving away from that principle is a way to de-disaffect folks.

I agree with that. For many years after our founding, to get incorporated the corporation had to pledge to serve the public good. Eventually return a profit to holders became rule 1.

As a nation, we far too much focus on money as if money alone brings happiness. There are a lot of unhappy billionaires so we should know better.

There are times we need a healthy dose of island time inside this country. But we scoff at countries like Sweden that get more vacation time, and by we I mean many of the KnoBs that Brad has coined even more than many of the rest. These countries get more vacation time and are happier. But if I suggest looking at what Sweden does, the far right populists tell me that is freaking crazy.

But there is not some secret cabal promoting corporations to destroy the little guy.

These countries have the longest & shortest working hours in the world

While some workers are burning the midnight oil, others are enjoying excellent work-life balance. Find out which countries have the shortest and longest working weeks.

www.instarem.com

And I do recall Miller coming to North and talking to us. It was clear he was not the profit above all type.

 

[Sope Creek]

I agree with that. For many years after our founding, to get incorporated the corporation had to pledge to serve the public good. Eventually return a profit to holders became rule 1.

As a nation, we far too much focus on money as if money alone brings happiness. There are a lot of unhappy billionaires so we should know better.

There are times we need a healthy dose of island time inside this country. But we scoff at countries like Sweden that get more vacation time, and by we I mean many of the KnoBs that Brad has coined even more than many of the rest. These countries get more vacation time and are happier. But if I suggest looking at what Sweden does, the far right populists tell me that is freaking crazy.

But there is not some secret cabal promoting corporations to destroy the little guy.

These countries have the longest & shortest working hours in the world

While some workers are burning the midnight oil, others are enjoying excellent work-life balance. Find out which countries have the shortest and longest working weeks.

www.instarem.com

And I do recall Miller coming to North and talking to us. It was clear he was not the profit above all type.

Miller used to say that profit is a by-product of a well-run business. So his focus was on the well-run company, not the profit per se . . . to him profit was just one measure of the health of a business.

 

[Sope Creek]

Eventually return a profit to holders became rule 1.

Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. "The Dodge brothers were frustrated that Ford had declined to distribute the company’s surplus funds to shareholders, and instead planned to expand the company’s manufacturing capacity, hire more workers, and reduce the prices of its cars."

Can a Corporation Have a Soul?

Henry Ford, who passed up profits to provide society with good jobs and cheap cars, thought so.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[mcmurtry66]

Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. "The Dodge brothers were frustrated that Ford had declined to distribute the company’s surplus funds to shareholders, and instead planned to expand the company’s manufacturing capacity, hire more workers, and reduce the prices of its cars."

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...-a-corporation-have-a-soul-dorff/504173/[/URL

methinks you have no clue what it costs to run a company

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-public-thinks-the-average-company-makes-a-36-profit-margin-which-is-about-5x-too-high-part-ii/

the margins on the sports equipment manufacturing businesses are tiny. they're squeezed to death by gov oversight/taxes/flsa/etc. and compete with overseas companies that comply w/ none of those things yet have unfettered rights to sell here in the US. same holds true for so many other manufacturing businesses.

the biggest hindrance to profitability for manufacturing in the US is gov itself. that's why so many liked trump. it's also why most small business owners are independents/republicans not dems.