cá cược miễn phí 2019

Theresa May might as well legally change her name, so often is it prefaced by the word “humiliation.” She got another one today. It will not be the last. I admit that sometimes I do feel bad for her in spite of myself. Sure, she’s a right-wing hack who’s in way over her head and quite obviously values remaining in the job at any cost for as long as possible over anything else. And she set the conditions to make Brexit as bad as it possibly could be, having it drag on for years and distract attention from everything else, which no doubt makes the right-wing media barons who are her real constituency happy—yeah, look, it doesn’t make sense, she’s the absolute worst! But you can’t help but feel bad for somebody who gets punched in the face every single day, even if it’s their own damn fault. Empathy truly is a curse sometimes.

On the other hand, since apparently The?Thick?Of?It?is done for good, reality is supplying us with a pretty good version of what the show so routinely did, which I appreciate. But also it can never come back: how could you satirize reality as bonkers and tragic/hilarious as ours? It would be like this times a thousand:


Incoming Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) signaled “he would not go along with parts of lame-duck laws that curb his powers, suggesting that?GOP lawmakers or their supporters would have to sue him?over the issue,” the?Milwaukee Journal Sentinel?reports.

“The Democrat’s?stance changes the dynamic in the fight over the lame-duck legislation by prodding Republicans into initiating litigation instead of doing so himself.”

It’s noteworthy because Evers ran as a centrist uniter type. That he’s willing to give as good as he got is encouraging.

Lev filed this under: ,  

I’ll grant that there are perhaps some good reasons as to why it might not have been a good idea for elected Democrats to give voice to the rage that practically defines being a member of the Donkey Party in 2019. Wanting to defend civility and preserve (mostly imagined at this point) bipartisan bonds is not one of them, though I think it’s by far the biggest reason why we’ve had to swallow civility sanctimony during the Trump era. At any rate, it is particularly nice to have a new group of energetic and loud’n’proud freshmen giving voice to what Democrats actually feel. Inspiring, even. There are definitely days where I despair at the Democratic Party. I still have strong reservations as to whether they’re up to the task of defeating movement conservatism. Too many don’t want to do that, and seem to be unlikely to be persuaded that they should want to do it. In retrospect, Barack Obama’s greatest contribution to the Democratic Party may well turn out to be his total indifference to planting his stamp on it: had he filled the party with his protégés, the whole situation may well be unsalvageable.

At any rate, Reps. Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib (among others) are pissing off the right people and making voices heard on Capitol Hill that haven’t been heard so far. This is good!

Lev filed this under:  

One of my pet fascinations has been all of the rampant fraud in the cryptocurrency “market” over the past few years. A particularly dubious example comes to us via Ars Technica today:

In March 2018, Matthew Iles—the head of Civil, an ambitious blockchain-for-journalism [sic] startup [said] … “We’re feeling very bullish about the value of our tokens as it relates to the value that has been estimated in all of the agreements that we have shared with you guys so far.” Civil aims to orchestrate the creation, sale, and management of an Ethereum-based crypto-token, known as CVL, meant to serve as the underpinning of a slew of recently founded ambitious news sites.

“Blockchain-for-journalism“? Trust me, nowhere in the article does it make clear what that means exactly.

My favorite bit is about the company’s main backer:

Civil’s primary funder, ConsenSys, announced earlier this month that it would be cutting 13 percent of its workforce. How exactly this will impact Civil is anyone’s guess—but it can’t be beneficial.

Well, let’s see how that’s going:

Lol. For the Least-Reassuring Headline on a Company’s Media Website Award, “The sky is not falling” is a strong contender.

Metavirus filed this under: ,  

There are committed white supremacists in America. We all know that. But it’s really more of an unexamined assumption for most white people than an actively held principle. Sometimes it wins votes but sometimes it doesn’t. And quite a lot of white people are often willing to do…something…to help out people of color, but?only as a one time thing that is going to fix it all. That something could be the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it could be voting for Barack Obama, but pretty much some discrete thing as a one shot cure-all. Needless to say, it doesn’t work that way. Which leads to some backlash, you know, “Why aren’t they thankful?” That sort of thing.

The thing is, though, that a large swath of white people want to think of themselves as racially sensitive, and that American culture is fundamentally fair racially. Trump makes that impossible. He is going after all the ones who aren’t that way, of course, and there are a good amount of those. But there’s a reason why Lester Maddox, Richard Russell, Theodore Bilbo, etc., never were elected president. Not because America isn’t racist (it is!), but because Trump makes it impossible to pretend it isn’t, which is what white people desperately want to go back to doing. So I agree that this is not a good strategy Trump’s pursuing, but I suppose we’ll see next year.

Lev filed this under: ,  

It’s sort of a fuzzy concept but so far as I can tell it basically means “the state of being more tolerant of others than I am comfortable with.” This is why it’s so widespread, I think, because pretty much every single American has a sliding scale of tolerance on which their own views are just?right, while everything to the right of them is bigotry and everything to the left of them is political correctness. Some people might quibble at this but it does correspond with the phenomenon of, say, a federal judge sending a ton of racist emails and then insisting that he’s not racist. Of course not! There are bigger racists out there, after all. Ironically, this sort of dodge is even more plausible during the Trump era, where the increased prevalence of violent white supremacy provides an easy, “Now that’s what racism is!” to people who want one. And even now after everything, there are a lot more Bret Stephenses and Ross Douthats in the world than there are Richard Spencers. Lots more people wanting to play the “but is he actually racist” game still. This is what the game is.

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the modern internet is a bad actor in all this, that its nature is to stir up conflict for clicks that should sometimes stay un-stirred, that it prioritizes the quick and easy over the difficult and right. This is all true! And yet, there is a lot of racism out there in the country and pointing it out angers people (mainly white people) who want to believe that things are basically good. There’s not an easy answer for this. FWIW my personal belief is to listen to other people and to try your best. Humility is your best friend in this as in everything else. It’s not steered me wrong.

Lev filed this under: ,  

I feel like civility and norms are the new version of the critique of the second Bush Administration as lawless. Which it was! But it was also, you know, wrong in a lot of what it did. Immoral. No doubt such language made the focus groups edgy, but maybe they should have been edgy. Because Obama’s ultimate solution to Bush’s lawlessness was to…largely make the shit he did legal (or at least, tacitly so after it was institutionalized and this everybody was responsible for it). Needless to say, this didn’t do much to stop the bad stuff. Torture hasn’t officially come back yet but I submit to you that it has. Separating a child from his or her parents is torture, if anything is.

Obviously not everything is reducible to morality, and it’s sort of a blunt weapon to use in a debate. Not always what you want to go with. But sometimes a blunt weapon is exactly what’s called for.


This is from a few weeks ago but nothing lays bare the bankruptcy of the contemporary Army general staff than just listening to them:

“If we put more troops in [Afghanistan] and we fight forever, that’s not a good outcome either. I’m not sure what [is] the right answer. My best suggestion is to keep a limited number of forces there and just kind of muddle along and see what we can do,” [General McChrystal] said.

“But that means you’re gonna lose some people, and then it’s fair for Americans to ask, ‘why am I doing this? Why am I putting my sons and daughters in harm’s way?’ And the answer is, there’s a certain cost to doing things in the world, being engaged,” McChrystal said. “That’s not as satisfying. That’s not an applause line kind of answer, but that’s what I think, the only thing I could recommend.”

I never thought I’d read text that’s the equivalent of the shrug emoji, but I think we just found it!

I do so love how every year the generals implore us to look forward and not backward in terms of what they’re doing. Because if we did that, we wouldn’t listen to them at all, as continuing whatever we’re doing over there would seem obviously insane and doomed to failure after all that has come before. Don’t worry, this time we’ll finally create that powerful Afghan state that nobody else ever could! But as Tom Ricks’s The Generals teaches us, the Army general staff is widely seen even among junior officers as amoral and careerist. Hard to imagine why!