Maybe Disney won’t suck at this.
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Mary Sue Steals the Death Star Plans? Really?
God help us all when Disney decides to Remake/Reboot/Reimagine Raiders
Marion Ravenwood will need Indiana Jones like a fish needs a bicycle.
Greetings:
Trans.
“Maybe Disney won’t suck at this.”
For my own part I’m just getting over a case of maybe the Orioles won’t suck at this, and then that happened. (9-7) 6-0. Can’t be. But is, nevertheless. On Price and Kimbrel, no less. Life? What gives with the surprises?
I assure you, the toys, product tie-ins and marketing campaign will be flawless.
The movie, on the other hand…
I predict everybody’s favorite Corellean smuggler with have a surprise cameo at the end.
As fantasylands go, have y’all been noticing the doozy the Trumpers have been cooking up in re Colorado these last few days? Peeps done lost their thread, and yet somehow imagine that trumpeting their incompetence is a winning strategy. Oh well, must be in fantasyland script.
Their drive to be PC and imagine women can beat up men handily will make for ridiculous though perhaps fun action. As long as you’re willing to suspend disbelief enough and keep expectations low you will be satisfied.
It’s hard to know if you’re talking about the Disney company or the Trump campaign
he said provacatively
provaca(tively), that’s standing up for the cows who find themselves tipping over.
Turning serious for a moment, I get why Trump and his surrogates are turning the populist dial up to 11 on Colorado. I just hope most people aren’t buying what he’s selling.
Joy Division – disorder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFepPFvijMk
But I’m kiddding myself. We’re supposed to be a democracy is right up there with Mak[ing] America Great Again as far as bromides for nodding chin strokers go.
trump – bullshit ny values artits
Joy Division – Atmosphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpa9LtunUcg
Just beccause he’s a bullshit artist doesn’t mean he’s a stupid bullshit artist. Ted Cruz Tool of the Establishment is the smart play. Anybody who’s been paying attention these last four, six years knows it isn’t so. But then again, how many are really paying attention?
The smart play is one of those strange (but interesting) turns of phrase — used correctly there I think, in that sense of the cunning it implies — which turns of phrase are generally indicators of the rhetorical topsy-turvy at hand: having done the dumb thing, i.e. not being carefully prepared under the rules to win in Colorado, the “smart” thing then is to whine and pretend to an injury, to be the victim of a cheat, or what-not. Whereas to have been preparing carefully isn’t presumed to be the smart thing to have done (at least by those who are taken in by this new ruse).
Odd, right? But the thing about the ruse which we admit tacitly as being a rhetorically effective thing, on the possibility it works — effective that is as to the purpose of (meaning to Trump’s purpose) fooling others to the benefit of this loser.
So, “effective” is the pivot word in that sense . . . which maybe should harken us all the way back to Machiavelli’s “verita effetuale” (Prince, 15). And there we see how nicely imagination comes back in here where Machiavelli could be presumed to have banished it: that is, imagination comes in to play in what seems to have been a lost game, by now making another new game altogether, a new game to take the place of or to stand in for the lost game.
Still appears a loser to me, but then I wouldn’t be the one to judge of that, owing to my refusal to be fooled by it.
The question to the targets would seem to be, do they recognize that their putative outrage must be in the service of one so easily taken (in the falsely claimed “cheat”) as by his own admission — contrasted to his counter-claim that he’s a great negotiator incapable of being had in such a ploy? God, wot a lotta work for them. Surely too much . . . and there’s the grift.
What if Trump sandbagged Colorado because he’s looking for an excuse to get out?
What if angels danced on pinheads?
“looking for an excuse”
Heh, committing an act of moral probity would ruin the brand . . . is how many angels are dancing there.
Does Colorado usually not have the participation of the people in their primary, or is it just this time cuz of how Trump is dumb?
Does Colorado usually not have the participation of the people in their primary, or is it just this time cuz of how Trump is
dumbincompetent?Oh well, I guess it doesn’t matter, the Colorado Republican establishment as pretty much guaranteed Colorado will be blue forever by blatantly disenfranchising a third (at least) of their voters.
Oops, I mean Trump has given Colorado to Hillary because he secretly wants her to win.
So for purposes of exercising our imaginations we’re to play the new game here? Probably it would be best if actual Coloradans take up that gioco (spiel, jeu), if they’re interested in playing.
Elsewhere online Coloradans say their fundamental caucus procedures haven’t changed since circa 1912-1916, variously, and remain open to any Coloradan with proper party registration who chooses to make the efforts to participate. However that may be, they also say that the current rules had been publicly promulgated long ago, sufficiently long enough ago that anyone who desired to learn those rules has had ample time — their rules aren’t terribly complex. More generally, Coloradans seem largely to be scoffing at those who do not know what the Coloradans themselves have easily absorbed. Evidently some 40% of those who have actually just participated in Colorado are newcomers to the process (first-timers) and they managed to figure it out.
Well, if they did it this time the same as last time then no one should complain. I’m pretty sure that those that feel they have been excluded from the process won’t be feeling any love for the process though. Human nature being even more unchanging than Colorado’s primary rules and all…
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/former-co-gop-chair-message-sending-vote-doesnt-matter-doesnt-count-audio/
What primary again? You must mean caucus rules, yes?
As to human nature, yes, that ordinarily doesn’t change over time-spans smaller than multiple generations, save perhaps in instances of terrible catastrophe, like say in the presence of the Black Death winnowing out the non-immunes. And feelz, so the saying goes, are the new truths.
Pity poor Jim Hoft. That’s a sad, s’far as feelz go.
Colorado went to a caucus/convention system in 2004, as I understand it. Sometime around 2012 or thereafter they dropped their non-binding primary (i.e. “beauty contest”) because the RNC decreed that primary votes had to have delegates attached to them.
Cruz understood this. Trump, for whatever reason, didn’t.
Here’s a blog post by a Coloradan named Ari Armstrong, detailing his experience in the caucuses and including a precis of Colorado’s party nominating history: “Setting the record straight about Colorado’s Republican caucus“
He’s a shill for the Establishment engaging in GESTAPO like intimidation!
“that’s standing up for the cows who find themselves tipping over ”
Point of order: cows generally sleep lying down. Corollary: drunkard frat boys is big-time liars.
From Aug 25, 2015
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote
So this is yet another pathetic Trump lie like ‘steaks on a table’, or ‘GDP less than zero last year’.
Secondary point of order: was speaking surreptitiously of people having cows and not actual cows, though didn’t presume to let on.
The corrupt system is rigged against drunkard frat boys. It’s disgusting.
I’m not sure the cows are getting a good deal either.
Well, one can always hope they do a decent job on the movie.
Otherwise, I guess I can read some novel series I’ve come to like.
Ernst Schreiber says April 12, 2016 at 12:19 pm
Hi Ernst, ok heres the way I understand the situation, I could have it wrong, but I don’t think so. To make it as unbiased as possible as I lay it out I’m going to make it generic, I’ll just use candidate A and candidate B.
So, as far as Colorado goes, there had a system in place for a very long time where the delegates caucus and pick the candidate, but there WAS a primary, basically a “beauty contest” because the delegates weren’t bound to the primary vote. But, even though that was the case, there was still a level of accountability in that if the primary was 25% for candidate A and 75% for B, and the caucus awarded all the delegates to A anyway, the voters would see it and be righteously pissed. I doubt such a thing ever happened, even at much smaller deviations.
So now we come to last August, and the National Committee says if there is a primary, the delegates MUST be bound to the results, so the Colorado Republicans decide that rather than be bound by the voters wishes, they will just cut them out altogether.
Now I get it, all legal and known, but really, you don’t see how missed up that is? I bet if they had decided to give them all to Kasich instead of Cruz you would…
“if there is a primary”
What does that mean? There hasn’t been a primary in Colorado in many years (2002-4 cycle). But we’re to take the beauty contest vote at the already constrained caucuses as a primary, which it is not and never has been?
Ernst said 2012. I saw elsewhere the rule change was last August. So this is the first primary season “we the people” of Colorado have had no say in the process. Even as non-binding (but with at least with some input) as it was.
Are you ok with that sdferr, if all the states worked that way? You get no vote for who your party’s candidate will be? Because I guarantee you, if every state worked that way Bush with his many hundreds of millions of big donor dollars and establishment ptessure would have been the nominee by now.
Incoherence isn’t necessary on this issue. First, did you read the Coloradan Ari Armstrong’s account of his experience along with his presentation of the history of Colorado’s Republican Party selection processes? Right there he quotes a wiki entry: “Colorado’s caucus system was first instituted in 1912 ‘as a way to limit the power of party bosses and to attract more grassroots involvement,’ then replaced by a primary in 1992, then restored in 2002 through 2004.”
State party organizations are free to make their decisions without the interference of people in other states, though in accord with a national party organization so long as that meets their (the various state members’ ) objects. Otherwise, one would reckon those state party members would leave the party if the rules don’t suit their interests as they perceive those.
Which brings me back to my first point. I reckon many Colorado state party members ARE going to be leaving the party because the rules don’t suit their purposes.
You wonder why Trump has support? It’s because the party is no longer interested in representing them, they want to rule them.
Trump had little support in Colorado, evidently because Coloradans don’t support him but do support Ted Cruz instead. This won’t be a cause of widespread abandonment in Colorado, if only because there is no widespread support for the Democrat Donald Trump there.
Straight from the horse’s you decide which orofice:
So Colorado last had a primary in 2002. From 2004 until 2012 Colorado held a non-binding straw poll, followed by a non-binding caucus. Last August, because the RNC had previously decided no more non-binding contests, Colorado decided to skip the straw poll and just have the caucus/convention.
Like they do in Iowa.
Only without the straw poll at the State Fair. And I suspect, though I’m too lazy to do the actual research, that the Iowa State Fair straw poll is a terrible predictor of who will win the Iowa Caucus.
Michelle Bachman, anyone?
Does it not appear that Coloradans who intend to rule themselves turn out for the local precinct level caucuses where they freely choose those of their neighbors who will represent them at the state level caucuses where representatives are selected to go on to the national party convention? Looks like the epitome of self-governance in action under the republican theory of self-governance spelled out in Philadelphia in 1787. Above board and fitted to the purpose. Peaceful and deliberative, which works just fine.
Maybe yes, maybe no. Those people are so detached from the party already that they really don’t have a party to leave. And that’s because they do get a vote for who their party’s candidate will be. All they have to do is show up, sit down in chair, drink some coffee, eat some cookies, listen to a couple of speeches, and then raise their hands. That’s how you vote in a caucus. Only, for whatever reason, those people seem to think that the process is too onerous and arcane to bother with.*
And here’s the ironic part. Your vote in a caucus is actually worth more than it is in a primary, as fewer people participate. So caucuses are to the advantage of insurgencies that understand and know how to work within the rules.** I know. I’ve seen it done.
They also level the paying for playing field because volunteers working their friends and neighbors are more important than advertising dollars. (Not that money doesn’t matter for targeted outreach, but that’s still cheaper than air time.)
*Which is true of the Democrats, what with their proportional rules that try to make sure every special snowflake gets to feel special and not only have their voice heard, but counted too.
**The biggest weakness insurgenices have isn’t that they don’t understand the rules, it’s that the lack staying power. People get pissed off at their local party officials or politicians or some issue that they feel like they’re getting screwed on. So they show up and take over the party. For a season. After a couple years hiding in the tall grass, all the old familiar faces are back running the party because the insurgents think they’ve won once and for all time –and lost interest, or they got creamed in the election –and lost interest.
Colorado elected Obama in 2012 at a higher percentage than the National average by a point. Perhaps the state Republican machine should rethink how they do things instead of doubling down.
Nah, defeating Trump will keep the outsiders out and the establishment in
powercontrol and raking in donations even better than Perot. Once Trump is out, there will be no more nasty talk of borders and trade agreements in the nation’s interests. We can all settle in to a global utopia with teddy bears and soccer balls for all! We’ll all be natural born citizens of the world!Goodnight…
Yeah well, we’re supposed to be a democracy.
Like the man said.
The problem with that theory Lee is that Cruz is also an outsider. And any difficulties were he to have in taming the establishment would also be the same difficulties faced by Trump.
Or, to put it another way, there’s no doubt in my mind that were Cruz the frontrunner instead of Trump, that idiot establismentarian would have sent out the same “we did it!” tweet over a different hashtag.
Turnpike Trump
Dimwitted is no way to go through life, even if dimwittedly modified by an appellation “democrat”. Things don’t end well for democrats, as the world has shown time and again. Whether things can end well for republican procedures is what remains to be proved, or not, as the case may be (in result). Intentionally abandoning republican procedures is one means to insure a bad end for them (and such abandonment is the means chosen by our contemporary democrat fellow citizens, preeminent among them, the vile Obama).
Things don’t end well for democrats,
They end worse for socialists
That’s true of socialists and those the socialists enslave to their wills. It can go without saying for the nonce though, I think, at least as this minor online precinct attempts to deal with the ordinary democrats in our midst.
The outsider Trump is a wonderfully laughable proposition though, we gotta admit. Carney barkers unite, your marks await you.
Ernst, while I don’t agree that Cruz is as much as an outsider as advertised, Ill give you Cruz isn’t the establishments choice. In fact, I’m pretty certain if Trump doesn’t win the delegate count and it goes to a convention (the way it’s always been!), neither Trump or Cruz will come out as the nominee.
If anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it’s the republican establishment.
“if Trump doesn’t win the delegate count”
Then chances are he won’t be exposed to a crushing defeat in a national election, even if opposed by the criminal Hillary Clinton who ought to be in prison already today, but isn’t.
Trump is the ultimate outsider in an outsider’s year.
He’s running for the Republican nomination and he’s not even a Republican.
If it weren’t for superdelegates, the Democrats would be nominating a “S”ocialist.
They still might.
The proposition that Cruz can win the general, much less begin the process of uniting the nation (though to be fair I doubt that is even possible at this point, even if the founding fathers were reincarnated and put in charge) is what is laughable. He and his supporters air of superiority of intellect is noxious to anyone that hasn’t accepted their magnificence in total.Those that look down on others usually enjoy a very select gathering. Everyone else keeps well clear.
Depends on what happens with the rules committee. Right now, only Trump or Cruz can come out as the nominee. If that still holds come the convention, my guess (wishcast?) is that Cruz wins on the third or fourth ballot –maybe fifth.
The Rules Committee will of course try to change the rules. Blocking that will require the Trump and Cruz campaigns to cooperate when the delegates vote to ratify the rule.
’76 was almost contested. ’52 was contested, as was ’48 and every convention prior going all the way back to Chicago in 1860, and maybe even to whatever podunk town nominated Fremont in 1856.
Of course, those contests were fought out by insiders in the back of smoke-filled rooms.
Right now, the numbers say differently. Granted, today’s poll is not next November’s forecast.
Cruz has an unfortunate tendency to aim for the rousing rhetorical stemwinder note, ony to hit the condescending smug note instead. I don’t know about his supporters airs. Certainly this little cranny in the nook of a forgotten dusty corner of the internet is too small to be representative of anything.
And Trump is a bully and a braggart, but for some reason people eat it up. Kind of like how they marvelled at how well Clinton lied with a straight face. Also, Trump supporters have this annoying crybully tic that’s become ever more grating since Trump stopped winning.
But like I said….
Yeah Ernst, not sure if I’m still a republican these days. I know the republican leadership don’t really represent my interests anymore. As I’ve said before, at the very least Trump has shifted the Overton Window back in my direction more than any elected official has done since Reagan, and that’s just in his campaign for office. There’s not been anyone right of center since Reagan that’s been able to go past the media and do that. IMHO, the potential of the man is worth the gamble, anyone else will just be an acceptance of the status quo.
“I don’t know about his supporters airs. Certainly this little cranny in the nook of a forgotten dusty corner of the internet is too small to be representative of anything.”
Eh, forgive me my indulgence, I was just insulting Sdferr back.
To Trump being a bully and a braggart, and why people eat that up, for myself I see it as a grand departure from the crushing PC we’ve been enduring under, and look forward to his subjecting the SJW’s to some well deserved breakdowns. As conservatives, we’ve been fighting under the Queensbury rules against street fighters for way too long. Time to turn a Patton loose on their fascist asses.
Beatdowns, not breakdowns…
Trump a grand departure? Ha. To the extent that he’s a grasping moral cretin, oh yes, he’s big that way, so one could say a grand departure from decency in that respect. A return however and not a departure, insofar as he makes a return to the populism of Huey Long, so far more carney barker than opponent of a marxist derived political correctness. As a political departure from the uniquely American political philosophical basis, yes again he departs in this sense, if one would say that a complete ignorance of the American political philosophical basis is a departure from it. To the extent that Trump is a mere thief, this he has in common with his friends Hillary and Bill Clinton, and he departs not so much.
not sure if I’m still a republican these days.
I know the feeling.
Yeah. I don’t see anything particularly conservative about Trump’s populism. That doesn’t mean that some of Trump’s positions –securing the border and reining in illegal immigration particularly–, aren’t popular with conservatives.
And the problem with Trump’s F— You. Next question is that too much of the time, it’s actually F— You bitch. Next question. I mean, let’s face it. The guy is losing women to the woman who’s losing women* to the dirty old socialist who once wrote about women’s rape fantasies.
We can’t pretend that’s not a real problem. One I think (God help me) Ace of Spades nicely summed up as “you may not be interested in P.C., but P.C. remains very interested in you.” Or words to that effect.
*enough younger women at any rate
Trump is no more sincere about his immigration blither than he is about his supposed love of America. Trump is adept at using others’ concerns about illegal immigration without having the first principle to guide his proposals, apart from the principle that what’s good for Trump is good for all the fools who follow Trump. He shifts so readily from one stance to the next that there is simply no possible way to know what measures he would agree to once in possession of great power in Federal office. Last of all, surely, following the procedures set down in the Constitution in order to create a government of law and not men (a man). Trump’s all about Trump, his sole consistency.
That, in a nutshell, is why I’m not supporting Trump.
And there’s not a whole lot to be gained by calling people who arrive at a different calculus (e.g. I know the other guy’s a lying politician so I’ll take a chance on Trump –he may be a liar, but at least he’s not a politician) fools.
But I understand the frustration.
Just think of naming fools as fools as another step in resisting politically correct speech. Seems to be all the rage nowadays.
re: the laughable proposition that Cruz can win the general election
Jim Geraghty, commedian
Funny story (via drudge, whom Cruz decided would make a good enemy cuz that’s what Cruz likes to do, make enemies)
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/ted-cruz-dildo-ban-sex-devices-texas
Which leads to more comedy…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/ted-cruzs-ex-roommate-keeps-tweeting-bizarre-anecdotes-of-the-se/
“Ted Cruz thinks people don’t have a right to “stimulate their genitals.” I was his college roommate. This would be a new belief of his.”