Published at 23:21 on 6 November 2018
I’ve gotten a few mailings from the phone company advertising DSL internet service. The prices seemed very attractive (about one third the existing cost I’m paying the cable company). So I called to investigate, and found out that there was basically no bait-and-switch; it would be that much cheaper. It’s not as fast as the cable company’s service, but my calculations indicated it would be fast enough.
The vastly cheaper rates aren’t even the best part. That’s being able to finally sever my relationship with Comcast, which has a very well-deserved reputation for being the most hated company in the USA. Mind you, I’m replacing them with the phone company, which is it’s typical bureaucratic and inefficient self. I’ve had to call and go through phone trees for things that there should be self-serve options online for.
But, it’s still vastly better than dealing with Comcast. At least Century Link’s service options are simple, up front, and understandable. Want phone service? Order phone service. Want internet? Order internet. Want TV? Order that. Order more than one service and get a volume discount. No special “packages” that make it cheaper to order TV service you don’t need for 12 months (then you have to negotiate another deal, and it’s always confusing, and you can never just pay for what you want and leave it at that). No commitment in advance to subscribe for a minimum period of time.
Tomorrow I call Comcast and tell them goodbye. Can’t happen soon enough.
Published at 20:09 on 5 November 2018
Instability may well increase as a result of it. Here’s one example why.
Because of course they will. Any election that does not give fascism a victory will be proclaimed illegitimate by the fascists. I would not in the least be surprised to see losers refuse to give up their seats. The leadership in Congress may well even get in on this game.
Published at 16:13 on 3 November 2018
A bunch of people are flying off the handle at Sarah Lawrence College in suburban New York because one of the professors there happens to be politically conservative (or at least not liberal or leftist) and penned a mildly-worded op-ed in the New York Times. This basically proves that left-wing political correctness on campus is not a total myth.
The off-campus reaction to it further proves that right-wing political correctness isn’t a myth, either. Cue Reason magazine, which claimed “Abrams’ office door was vandalized” in response to the op-ed, but furnishes absolutely no evidence of this claim. They do show pictures of an office door covered in signs and notes, some using strongly-worded (but still nonthreatening) language. Sorry, taping notes and signs to a door is not “vandalism” by any stretch of the word.
It is still an overreaction, however. If Prof. Abrams had opined that LGBT students or students of color had no right to expect fair and equal treatment (he did not), and as such should basically like it or lump it (again, he did not), then plastering his door with notes that he should shut up or leave would have been appropriate. It would have been giving an intolerant bigot a taste of his own medicine.
It’s not the first time Abrams has penned such an op-ed, and it probably won’t be the last. If your ideology (wherever it falls on the political spectrum) is so fragile and weak that the only way it can prevail is if competing ideologies are not allowed at all, then your ideology is basically useless. There’s no way it can prevail in the big, bad world off campus.
What would have been a fair response? Prof. Abrams’ most recent op-ed contains a bunch of claims about statistical sampling Abrams has done, without divulging anything about how the sampling was done. Skepticism is certainly in order here: Abrams should be challenged to show his homework and furnish evidence that the sampling he did was conducted in a rigorous fashion. And if Abrams refuses the challenge, he should be dismissed as a hypersensitive right-winger with a persecution complex who is prone to blow smoke.
But, as it stands, his critics are the ones that have done the most to demonstrate hypersensitivity.
Published at 08:46 on 2 November 2018
That should be obvious, but Netanyahu’s apologists find the conflations useful, aggressively promote them, and manage to sucker all too many into falling for them. That, despite how the Netanyahu regime has grown increasingly corrupt, nationalistic, and distant from the norms of a free society over the years.
It’s not just hardcore right-wingers that fall for it, either. The more moderate right does, too: Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot recently reiterated the meme that the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement was nothing but a left-wing version of antisemitism in the wake of the shootings in Pittsburgh. It’s not just those on the political right, either: Cory Booker has fallen for it as well.
The conflations are easier to make than they should be for those who believe Israel can do no wrong, because feigned concern over the plight of the Palestinians is a trope sometimes employed by actual antisemites. That anti-Israel views can be motivated by antisemitism does not imply that they are necessarily motivated by it, however.
Furthermore, there is a difference between being opposed to the Netanyahu regime and being opposed to Israel. It’s entirely possible to support sanctions against Israel as a form of tough love.
The converse to the subject of this post is true as well. Supporting the Netanyahu regime is not the same thing as supporting Israel or supporting the Jewish people as a whole. In fact, the USA’s most rabid Netanyahu supporters tend to be fundamentalist Christians. Their support is motivated by the Book of Revelation, which prophesies a restored Israel as a prerequisite for an Armageddon and Second Coming that sees Israel being destroyed and the Jews condemned to eternal hellfire. Concern for the Jews has nothing whatsoever to do with their support for the Netanyahu regime.
Published at 07:48 on 1 November 2018
Tom Nichols recently tweeted:
I just visited the World War I museum in #KansasCity and it filled me with dread, because I feel like we’re in danger of heading toward another disaster fueled by ignorant nationalism. I have always been less worried about a reply [sic] of 1933 than about a mad rerun of July 1914.
First, when people talk about history repeating itself, they don’t mean that entire complex scenarios literally go into a scene-by-scene replay. Nobody named Adolf Hitler is going to be appointed chancellor of Germany, repudiate the Versailles sanctions, rearm, and start a new war. No archduke is going to be assassinated in Sarajevo and trigger a series of complex, interlocking, secret mutual defense pacts into touching off a world war. When “history repeats itself” it happens via a theme happening again in a different context, not as a whole complex context replaying itself.
Second, there’s a false dichotomy here: it’s not either/or. The resurgence of fascism is a real thing, as are the attacks on the multilateral internatonal institutions that emerged after World War II (fascism is nationalistic and opposed to that order). It’s entirely possible that we could be headed for a repeat of both 1914 and 1933. In fact, if we get a repeat of 1914, it will probably also involve the 1933 elements.
