In Tenure Veritas: Libations From The Ivory Tower

In yesterday's pre-debate post, I posed the argument that we should cancel all presidential debates going forward.  Forever. Are you with me yet?  Have you had enough yet? Look, I know Donald Trump is an extreme example of what can go wrong with these things, but they are never informative.  Yes, that was particularly bad, but have you ever seen a good  one?  No.  Never.  So let's just end these things and put us  out of our  misery.  Go away, Commission on Presidential Debates.  You are parasites. For this morning, I want to focus on the petty and the theatrical rather than the substantive.  In other words, that which is emblematic of the debates themselves.  Interruptions.  Do you remember the 2016 debates?  Donald Trump got on stage, interrupted the hell out of Hillary Clinton, and the commentary that followed was that it was sexism.  Why?  Well, there is a common notion that if a man interrupts a woman, it is sexism.  Also, Donald Trump is really, really sexist.  (Tha

Neil Postman published Amusing Ourselves To Death  in 1985.  He argued that culture was in the process of a great dumbing-down, with an emphasis on spectacle over substance through the emptiness of television.  Who would have thought that we'd look back on 1985 and see a glory era of intellectualism, by comparison? Tonight is the first presidential "debate" of the 2020 general election campaign.  Note my use of sarcasm quotes.  This will not be a debate by any coherent definition of the term.  It never is, but the Euclidean distance between our empirical observation and the Platonic ideal of "debate" will never be greater than when Donald Trump is on stage. Yet let's think about what a debate is, or even a "debate," given what the term means as the rules and spectacle are arranged by the Commission on Presidential Debates.  Does a candidate's ability to perform on that stage have anything to do with that candidate's ability to perform t

I need a break from the heavy stuff, so let's talk science fiction. If you haven't read Cixin Liu's The Three-Body Problem , you really should.  It is an outstanding book.  The second book in the series-- The Dark Forest -- had some interesting ideas, but some glaring flaws.  The third book, Death's End ... was a complete disaster.  And I'll get to that, along with the problems as they developed into the second book. In short, read Book 1, I'll make a case for reading Book 2, but don't waste your time with Book 3. However. As you have probably noticed, the entirety of the television and movie industry consists of adapting and remaking, because none of them have any original ideas anymore.  What number Dune  adaptation are they on now?  I suppose that depends on how you count Jodorowsky.  You know  they're going to make a mess of Sandman  (which kind of fell into the category of "glorious mess" anyway), and... seriously.  Adapting Founda

David Lindley, "Alien Invasion," from Mr. Dave .

This will be a simple observation about what political science can and cannot tell you about the precise nature of our bleak situation.  And yes, it is bleak, as my mid-week posts have argued.  (Additionally, I think I will likely post more frequently for a while.)  Of course, in laying the theoretical groundwork, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt got there first with How Democracies Die , but this morning, I have some empirical, political science-y observations about the relationship between their work, politics in the US, and what may happen going forward. Levitsky & Ziblatt discussed a process called "democratic backsliding," in which a small-d "democratic" country moves towards authoritarianism as a demagogic, authoritarian leader amasses unilateral power with the complicity of a political party engaged in "ideological collusion."  That party sees policy benefits to handing unchecked power to the demagog, so they go along with it, and the result

Derek Trucks Band, "Revolution," from Songlines .

I don't post enough Miles.  "There's A Boat That's Leaving Soon For New York."  Best version of Porgy & Bess  ever.  Despite the intended irony, given my mid-week posts.

Yes, this is happening. After Trump's most pointed statements to date acknowledging what I have been saying for years-- that he won't step down-- his fellow Republicans are finally being put to the test on the concept of democracy.  And in fact, I wrote about this!  Back in July, I posted about this very topic .  I wrote that there was no point continuing to ask  Trump  whether or not he will step down, because we already know he won't.  And he keeps demonstrating my point.  So, back in July, I wrote that what we needed to do was ask other Republicans  how they  will respond when Trump refuses to step down. That's happening.  And some  of them are saying that a peaceful transfer of power will happen, or something to that effect. But here's the thing.  Or, Thing #1.  They are not  taking on Trump directly.  They are not ripping into him for his blatant and brutal attacks on the concept of democracy.  They are making passive statements claiming that democracy ex

Yesterday, a reporter tried to get Donald Trump to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he lost in November.  Ha.  Ha.  In response, Trump lied about fraud, and said this:  "There won't be a transfer, frankly, there'll be a continuation."  Regarding the election, he says, "I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it's very important that we have nine Justices." These are his  words. Look, I've been beating this drum for a long time.  I've been pointing you to Bright Line Watch , as one of the political scientists in their sample.  Yet even among the political scientists in that sample, I am what you would call and "extreme outlier" in the extent to which I see the end of democracy in the United States. Yet here's the President of the United States, pointedly saying that he won't transfer power, that he will bring the case to the Supreme Court even without  seeing the events of the election itself, an

I keep reading commentary and analysis about what the Democrats should "do" about Trump and McConnell's push to fill the Supreme Court vacancy before the 2020 election.  Note the sarcasm-quote around the word, "do."  I'll get to that. And in fact, I'll do that now.  First, there's nothing they can  do.  They don't have the votes.  Collins and Murkowski will oppose filling the seat, and they don't matter.  Collins is siding with the Democrats because she is in a very  tough race, and she is trying to undo the damage of her Kavanaugh support, but McConnell has the votes.  Period.  Trump will get his appointment.  He could name Kushner, Ivanka, Meatloaf, Ted Nugent, Roy Moore, Alex Jones, David Duke... It wouldn't matter. Most of the commentaries show some understanding of this point, and are based on the idea that the Democrats have some post-appointment response available to them, be that court-packing (about which I have been writing

OK, just a quick one because I'm grumpy.  Er.  Than usual. I keep seeing the following foolish argument:  The Democrats would be in a better position now if Harry Reid hadn't used the nuclear option in 2013.  By using the nuclear option in 2013 for the DC Circuit, the argument goes, the Democrats escalated the judicial conflict, and if they hadn't done that, they would have been able to filibuster Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. So, you see, it's all Reid's fault for not surrendering the DC Circuit.  The key to dealing with the modern GOP, and bullies generally, is that you just need to show maximum weakness, and then they'll respect you and leave well enough alone! As a side-note, my longtime critique of Reid was that he caved too easily. But as I explained, he couldn't do that with the DC Circuit.  Regardless, let's just take a moment to think about this foolishness.  Think about McConnell.  He announced a total blockade of the DC Circuit Court.  When

This is a brief post to follow up on my latest comments regarding court-packing. In 2016, when Antonin Scalia died, I wrote that the Democrats' only real option in response to McConnell's Supreme Court blockade would be to resort to court-packing-- an expansion of the Supreme Court.  I can't link to those posts anymore, since The Unmutual Political Blog  is no more, but perhaps you recall that I've been beating this drum for years. Yeah, I know some things. Right now, the Democrats are just saying it out loud.  Court-packing.  McConnell has done what everyone with a brain knew he'd do-- renege on his bullshit, invented principle of "no Supreme Court confirmations in an election year," and he's promising to confirm whomever Trump nominates.  And Democrats are saying that they will respond by expanding the Supreme Court. So... here's the problem.  Game this out.  From the Republican side, this means what?  It means that if they cede power to

Back to science fiction.  This... is a hard post to write.  The word, "fanboy," would not be an inappropriate description, given my rantings and ravings about Nora K. Jemisin.  In my opinion, the Broken Earth trilogy is one of the greatest pieces of science fiction ever written.  I'll put it up against the best works of Asimov, Herbert, Butler, Stephenson... take your pick.  It is so great that it has overshadowed the still very worthy Inheritance trilogy and the Dreamblood duology.  Her compilation of short stories, How Long 'Til Black Future Month? , included some works that were, in some ways, rough drafts.  One was even a sketch for The Fifth Season , but Jemisin is so good that even her authorial napkin sketches beat to hell a mortal author's magnum opus.  Yes, I really like N.K. Jemisin's work. Yet, I find nothing tastier than a sacred cow (as yesterday's post on Ruth Bader Ginsburg demonstrated), and the best compliment anyone has ever paid me was

I've had a few posts about musicians and politics lately, and on that topic, it came to my attention that Van Morrison is one of those crazy COVID conspiracy theory/anti-lockdown nutjobs.  Oy.  But you know what?  His music is still awesome.  And I'll still listen.  I don't know what sent his head off into the mystic.  Maybe he's just spent too much time stoned, but... whatever.

Do I have your attention? I know there's this thing where you aren't supposed to speak ill of the dead, but I'm me.  You don't come to this blog for empty social niceties. So here's the deal.  Yes, McConnell is a craven, shameless liar.  The stunt he pulled when Scalia died was completely disingenuous, and obviously  so to everyone with a brain.  No Supreme Court confirmation votes during an election year?  Anyone who believed he would hold to that under a Republican president would have to be the greatest idiot in the history of idiots.  Trump will have his third nominee.  The Court will be solidly conservative, by the modern definition of "conservative."  Roberts had a few  principles.  Roberts no longer matters. If you were thinking that Roberts will be a bulwark against a 2020 electoral theft?  Yeah, that ain't gonna happen.  Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and let's call him "Uber-Kavanaugh, the Re-Kavanaugh-ing" will

Chris Whitley, "Immortal Blues," from Terra Incognita .

Art Tatum, "It's the Talk of the Town."

Just a few references today.  I've been thinking about... the Post Office.  And... schemes surrounding the Post Office.  Today's theme:  as reality gets more absurd, absurdism becomes ever more difficult to craft in literature.  Or rather, as reality imitates absurdist literature, satire moves out of reach. More succinctly put:  life now resembles either a Terry Pratchett novel or a Charles Stross novel. Let's start with Stross, who is probably best known for "The Laundry Files," which is a long-running series of novels that is a weird cross between The X-Files , H.P. Lovecraft and, um... Dilbert, I guess.  Basically, if you perform certain dangerous mathematical calculations, you open the door to a universe in which Lovecraftian beasties come through and do bad things.  "The Laundry" is a British government agency charged with handling supernatural phenomena that result, but it is an underfunded bureaucracy staffed with bureaucratic twits.  That'

No references today.  However, this guy deserves some attention.  With the shutdown of music venues, I commented long ago that it is like "Couch-By-Couchwest," all day, every day.  This is hard on musicians, but this guy seems to be breaking through.  Dan Dubuque.  One of the most interesting lap-style slide guitarists I have heard in a very long time.  Yes, Ben Harper-influenced (that's a Weissenborn), but he is very much his own thing.  I am not, generally speaking, a Rage Against The Machine fan, but... just listen.  This guy is interesting.  He has done similar videos covering the Stones, Hendrix, The Pixies, and others.  Dan Dubuque.  I've got my eye on him.

OK, it's time.  Let's do this thing. Early in an election cycle, I will advise you to disregard the polls because voters are not sufficiently engaged in the election for the polls to be informative.  Over time, they become more informative.  There is no fixed date at which they become informative.  It is not as though the pre-convention polls are irrelevant, and the post-convention polls are mountaintop truth, but as election day approaches, the information we gain from looking at the polls becomes gradually more informative.  As of today, September 12, the election is close enough that we can begin to take the polls seriously.  As I type that, though, we need to address the elephant/gorilla chimera in the room, illegally constructed in a bioengineering lab by someone who read too many H.G. Wells books.  Could be worse, right?  Could be something squamous and eldritch, and thanks to tv, I guess more people get that reference.  Whatever.  (And in case you were wondering, no I