Koronavirus - Page 15 - General Nonsense - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

Koronavirus


capitanus

Recommended Posts

Just now, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Is there really such a thing as the 'far-left' in the US though? 

Yes. It's an electoral irrelevance at the national level, but culturally it's very powerful in many urban areas, such as the Bay Area, Portland, and Seattle. The unique factor (and depending on your perspective, either its greatest success or its greatest failing) is how neatly it intersects with corporate and local government power. Prime example: when anarchists in Seattle proclaimed an 'autonomous zone' near downtown, they did so with the explicit blessing of the city's mayor, and the tacit blessing of Amazon, who are the power behind the throne in many coastal cities. Soixante-huitards cracked their first stauners since the Y2K bug. The few remaining onlookers from the old, union-power American center-left, meanwhile, were wholly unimpressed - presciently, as it turned out. 

I have all kinds of theories about why this grotesque and deadly spectacle was allowed to play out as it did, is but the most obvious ones are: 1) the power brokers see which way the wind is blowing, and want to be eaten last, 2) they actually believe the Maoist horseshit that is increasingly prevalent in the universities, and 3) most importantly, if you have a Baby's First Revolution, brought to you by Pfizer and the Washington Post, this proto-Cultural Revolution will stay anchored in the culture wars without ever reaching that pesky redistribution phase. 

To be clear, the vast majority of Americans can avoid this simply by avoiding urban areas. If you don't live in Oakland or Minneapolis or Madison you'll be pretty well insulated. But the number of urban areas trending this way is only going up, not down. 

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 387
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, TRVMP said:

Yes. It's an electoral irrelevance at the national level, but culturally it's very powerful in many urban areas, such as the Bay Area, Portland, and Seattle. The unique factor (and depending on your perspective, either its greatest success or its greatest failing) is how neatly it intersects with corporate and local government power. Prime example: when anarchists in Seattle proclaimed an 'autonomous zone' near downtown, they did so with the explicit blessing of the city's mayor, and the tacit blessing of Amazon, who are the power behind the throne in many coastal cities. Soixante-huitards cracked their first stauners since the Y2K bug. The few remaining onlookers from the old, union-power American center-left, meanwhile, were wholly unimpressed - presciently, as it turned out. 

I have all kinds of theories about why this grotesque and deadly spectacle was allowed to play out as it did, is but the most obvious ones are: 1) the power brokers see which way the wind is blowing, and want to be eaten last, 2) they actually believe the Maoist horseshit that is increasingly prevalent in the universities, and 3) most importantly, if you have a Baby's First Revolution, brought to you by Pfizer and the Washington Post, this proto-Cultural Revolution will stay anchored in the culture wars without ever reaching that pesky redistribution phase. 

To be clear, the vast majority of Americans can avoid this simply by avoiding urban areas. If you don't live in Oakland or Minneapolis or Madison you'll be pretty well insulated. But the number of urban areas trending this way is only going up, not down. 

Interesting. Looking from the outside, and this may be skewed by the type of media I read, politics in the US seems to be becoming increasingly polarised. The thing I find strange is the far-right, despite being on the ascendancy electorally (may change on November?), seem to getting angrier by the day. It takes a special kind of angry to get so worked up about wearing a face-mask in the middle of a global pandemic.

Same goes for the far-right in the UK , funnily enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Interesting. Looking from the outside, and this may be skewed by the type of media I read, politics in the US seems to be becoming increasing polarised. The thing I find strange is the far-right, despite being on the ascendancy electorally (may change on November?), seem to getting angrier by the day. It takes a special kind of angry to get so worked up about wearing a face-mask in the middle of a global pandemic.

Same goes for the far-right in the UK , funnily enough.

I'm glad you recognize the part in bold: perception is reality. This is why a not-inconsiderable number of Europeans are eminently familiar with the Westboro Baptists - not because it's powerful, not because it's meaningful, but because there have been as many documentaries on it as there are members of the church. Meanwhile I guarantee you that less than 1% of the people who are aware of this group and its activities could identify 5 out of the top 10 Christian sects in the US, and I imagine that fewer than one in five could name 3 out of the top 5. 

This is relevant because you're seeing a same thing with maskgate. Like most other news stories in the US, maskgate is an aesthetic and ideological battle, largely waged by media scolds roaming the countryside looking for survivors to shoot. It's harder to find such people than you'd think, hence you largely end up with kooky groups like the coalition of bar owners in SoCal who have declared mandated mask usage an illegitimate use of law, or the QAnon types in the article you linked to above.

These people exist. They exist in numbers probably far larger than in European countries. But any kind of organized protest against mask-wearing is vanishingly insignificant. That it's considered international news, much less news beyond the city in which it took place, says far more about aethetics and ideology than it does about objective reality. The fact of the matter is that in Austin mask usage is near-enough universal, and the object of news stories like these is to shoot survivors rather than to highlight a problem.

For what it's worth, Texas, the response of which to COVID has been fairly inconsistent, went full-on mask mandate last night (we all got an emergency text message telling us so), but in reality the population of Texas has been largely masked for weeks, because these things were first decided at the municipality and county level. So Dallas County, where I and around 9% of my fellow Texans live, have been doing this for ages. Harris County, where 15% of Texans live, has been on-and-off with masks for several weeks. Travis County, where Austin is and around 5% of the population, is pretty draconian about it. Suburban counties less so, and rural counties less so still - but rural Texas is sparsely populated and much more outdoors than urban and suburban Texas.

Anyway, I do expect to see significant pushback on mask usage outside because (and I'll say it a third time) much of the response of pretty much anyone in the US in a position of power has been aesthetic and ideological, hence the incredible sight of seeing beaches closed in Southern California for the 4th of July, despite there hardly being a safer place in the world than a windswept, sunkissed outdoor environment. Between this, the suspension of distancing orders for protests, and the fact that you can walk across a county line and find a different set of laws, people are just going to gravitate towards their own camp.

So to answer your question briefly - yes, this is polarized because everything is polarized, at least among the minority of the US population that takes an interest in politics. "They" will have their health experts, "we" will have ours, and never the twain shall meet.

Also, if you think what you've seen from the Republicans is "far right", I hate to break it to you but we're not even a quarter of the way to far right yet in this country. For what it's worth, I think Trump is on course to lose in November (this could change, but if the election were held tomorrow, it'd be a wipeout) in a blue wave election, which will at least have the bonus of taking many Republican incumbents out with him. Any kind of right-wing movement in the US can only coalesce as a response to this defeat, and when it comes it will make Bolsonaro look like Angela Merkel. (Edit: And to be clear, this isn't what I want to happen, but it's what I think will happen.)

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me qua me? Not really, in an "I'm alright Jack" kind of way.

The one thing I will say is that it worries me significantly less than the ongoing San Francisco-ing of US cities, which is I think the worst thing possible for "normal" people in this country (that is, people who are employed by other people, who have families, who value free expression,  who like being able to go outside without significant danger to self or property, etc.)

Most of all, I feel sad. The decay of elite America - the main cities, the main institutions of learning, of journalism, of science - has been apace for the best part of 20 years now, and we're really, really starting to feel it in our day-to-day lives in a way that we didn't before. It was preventable - easy to say in hindsight, but it was. I don't think it had to come to where we are now in the coastal metropolises, and in large part it's the utter abdication of our elite classes and the feckless delusion of Republicans in particular that has led us here. 

The only way for an individual or a family to live safely and sanely in such a reality is to tune out national politics as much as possible, which (don't laugh!) I do a pretty fine job of, and focusing and living locally has the side benefit of building trust and understanding among neighbors, so that's how I choose to live for the most part. The problem is, you can only do that so long before the culture war finds you. In Dallas, even in the hyper-liberal part of Dallas where I live, this is easy. But it's not easy in Seattle and in San Francisco, and my fear is that this is coming for all of our cities, and then the reaction is coming, and the reaction is not going to be pretty.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I'd give him a B minus. If you don't live here and follow this it can be hard to truly appreciate it but everyone is against him, including around 80% of his own party. What has been accomplished despite the fact he has virtually no allies (other than voters, who don't matter) is pretty incredible. However, a litany of unforced errors, of complacency, and - this is absolutely above all and by far the biggest failing of his presidency - staffing his administration almost entirely with people who hate him and then wondering why they're undermining him has meant many opportunities missed.

I am still 100% behind Trump if for no other reason than you can't spare a fighter, but one wonders what he could have achieved had he actually cared about detail-oriented recruitment. If Hillary's hubris was underestimating the electorate, Trump's hubris was overestimating his own power once in office and just expecting everyone to fall into line. It was the height of naviete from a guy who seemed to have everything figured out in the campaign and if he loses in November (as I expect he will) this will be the reason why: squandering political capital on tax cuts instead of infrastructure and jobs, focusing on "police reform" (which is a complete sop at the federal level) when even polling Democrats are crying out for law and order, and endlessly crowing about a stock market which might as well be on the moon for all it counts to 60% of American adults (including a good percentage of his white base.) Hubris.

2) It's hard to answer this question for "America" because there isn't really an "America" anymore and arguably hasn't been for decades. It's also hard to answer because you need to have something to compare it to. I am obviously biased but if I compare this timeline to a hypothetical Hillary timeline, we have at least avoided a ground war in Syria, we have restored some manufacturing capacity, we have worked very well with the AMLO administration to stop the horrific meat grinder of Central American migration across lawless Mexico, and a restoration of some measure of sovereignty and accountability to what was fast devolving into a borderless anarcho-capitalism.

But living where I do and having the friends I have, I also know that there are people who are genuinely terrified of every day under this administration. I think this is almost entirely because they've been gaslit by the media and by social media, and not because of any rational calculation of fear. I don't think it's going to fully shake out for a while but I think the mental and in some cases physical toll of this administration on (it has to be said) mostly female internet addicts will be measurable in life years. Many such cases!

I'd also say that from 2016 to mid-2019 he did a pretty excellent job of maintaining frame and setting the terms of debate, even amidst a fraudulent attempt at a soft coup that we've collectively just decided to pretend never happened, which doubtless contributed to the anxiety I reference above, but also returned American discourse away from the banal, end-of-history photo op neoliberalism of that cipheric fraud Obama and back towards concrete matters, but that's been completely derailed since COVID and Floyd, and until today (which might be a turning point - I doubt it but it might) he had completely lost the bully pulpit and the ability to steer national conversation, and steering it away from Obamaism is a net good.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does filling his administration with people who hate him include his family? You are clearly more versed in America than us tourists and visitors but from a distance Trump's insular take on the world is a backward step. Like CHC, I suspect my take on it is somewhat influenced by the news outlets I choose to visit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, HamCam said:

Does filling his administration with people who hate him include his family? You are clearly more versed in America than us tourists and visitors but from a distance Trump's insular take on the world is a backward step. Like CHC, I suspect my take on it is somewhat influenced by the news outlets I choose to visit. 

1) Hate would maybe not apply there, but listening to his family is perhaps the biggest single factor in his downfall. The only one who understands the zeitgeist and the electorate is Eric, and Eric hasn't the charisma nor shtick of his dad (which he'd acknowledge.) The rest range from dead weight to actively damaging. 

2) Anyone who quails at the idea of nationalism - and I was such a person until roughly 2012 - is obviously going to disapprove of Trump, and they'll hit the usual beats in doing so. It's not just that he's insular, it's that insularity is regressive - backward! - and only Progress is good.

I know this is a good-faith argument - I used to make it myself - but the raw fact of the matter is that American intervention overseas has with *very* few exception been an utter disaster both at home and overseas. Every military intervention since Korea has been in its own way an horrific failure. Spreading democracy as a universal value has failed. Opening markets in order to liberalize politics as well as economics has not only failed but failed doubly, as China's ascendency proves. (Only Nixon could have gone to Beijing - perhaps he should have stayed there. Lord knows enough Republicans will have second homes there soon enough.)

I alluded to it earlier in the thread but Trump's foreign policy depends on engagement at thr nation-state level, and here in the Western hemisphere he's been a remarkable success. Cooperation between the US and Mexico is greater now than at any time I've studied it (roughly 2003 onwards.) Mexico is also governed by a populist outsider - but this time a leftist one. 

Or let me ask this more simply - you think we'd be better off if the US was *more* involved in global affairs? 

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TRVMP said:

2) It's hard to answer this question for "America" because there isn't really an "America" anymore and arguably hasn't been for decades. It's also hard to answer because you need to have something to compare it to. I am obviously biased but if I compare this timeline to a hypothetical Hillary timeline, we have at least avoided a ground war in Syria, we have restored some manufacturing capacity, we have worked very well with the AMLO administration to stop the horrific meat grinder of Central American migration across lawless Mexico, and a restoration of some measure of sovereignty and accountability to what was fast devolving into a borderless anarcho-capitalism.

The bit in bold interested me, because I think Western attachment to restoring long-dead manufacturing industries is purely an emotional one, rather than economic. Jobs in mass-manufacturing industries are largely boring and repetitive. And, to compete with countries like China and India, where the gap in efficiency and productivity is narrowing by the day, it will be inherently low paid. There will be some exceptions of course, e.g., in very hi-tech or in low-volume, high-margin specialist 'niche' manufacturing, but as a generalisation, this is true. Trying to artificially level that playing field by introducing tariffs will ultimately lead to increased costs and higher inflation. And tariffs will of course be reciprocated in other areas of the economy, e.g., agriculture, weakening their export viability, so their net effectiveness in terms of creating jobs and wealth will be the square-root of hee-haw. Western economies will have to continue to evolve into other methods of wealth generation, and trying to buck that trend may in the short term win some votes in the blue collar states with high unemployment, but ultimately it's a policy that's doomed to failure, IMO. The investment made in trying to restore manufacturing industries would be far better spent on other job and wealth creation initiatives. Another strong  counter argument is of course environmental air and river pollution.

I liken that emotional attachment for manufacturing industry to that the British have for the NHS (I'm referring to the institution, not the NHS workers, who do fully deserve the affection and appreciation they're rightly receiving). In the 21st century, funding a healthcare system pretty much solely through direct taxation is not fit for purpose, yet it's seen by most Brits as utterly sacrosanct. There are far more efficient and effective ways of providing world-class universal healthcare, as can be demonstrated by many countries in mainland Europe, but trying to explain that to your average Brit will almost inevitably be dismissed by most as 'privatisation by the back door'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TRVMP said:

Or let me ask this more simply - you think we'd be better off if the US was *more* involved in global affairs? 

The problem with the US and other parties being involved in global affairs is it is almost always driven by narrow self-interest - what is in it for us? Too often, involvement on the global stage is viewed through the prism of military engagement and on that basis, I agree  there is little, if any evidence, that this produces a successful outcome. Acting collectively for the greater good should, however, be seen as a positive including membership of bodies such as the WHO. Turning inwards just seems to promote an unhealthy nationalism which is how I perceive the US under Trump and the UK under the Tories. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2020 at 1:23 PM, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Don't think many countries can claim to have handled this particularly well, some exceptions may be Germany, South Korea, New Zealand, and dare I say it, Scotland. But England, US and Brazil in particular seem to have made quite a spectacular Roger Hunt if it, due in a large part I believe because their respective right-wing leaders are  putting the economy before lives.

Norway, Ireland, Finland and Denmark all have less Covid-19 related deaths per capita than Scotland, which isn't a million miles away from England.  Canada also has a very low death rate per capita.

However, those facts won't support the anti-British agenda which you have.

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, capitanus said:

Norway, Ireland, Finland and Denmark all have less Covid-19 related deaths per capita than Scotland, which isn't a million miles away from England.  Canada also has a very low death rate per capita.

However, those facts won't support the anti-British agenda which you have.

That's the whole point though. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have worked through this with their fans tied behind them by a London based government who have put money over health time and time again  yet we've still came out of it with less deaths per capita.

The 'anti' agenda looks like it's all yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, capitanus said:

However, those facts won't support the anti-British agenda which you have.

Hahahaha! :D Scotland's infection and death rates are significantly lower than England's. That's not an 'anti-British agenda' that's a cold hard fact that you Brit Nats are absolutely seething about. Good :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Hahahaha! :D  Scotland's infection and death rates are significantly lower than England's. That's not an 'anti-British agenda' that's a cold hard fact that you Brit Nats are absolutely  raging about. Good :)

I think it's disgraceful that you find such a tragic statistic so amusing.

Scotland's infection rates and death rates have more in common with England than they do with the Scandinavian nations quoted.  

 

 

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it amusing that you think stating facts means I have 'anti-British agenda', aye. 

Scotland makes up 8.2% of the UK population, and has to date accounted for 5.5% of the UK death toll (2,458 out of 44.198). That is, by any reasonable assessment, a significant difference. The Scottish government have made mistakes for sure, but overall they handled it much better than the Westminster government - the facts prove that. And bear in mind that a lot of potential measures to limit the spread of the virus, like limiting who can enter the UK, are outwith the control of the Scottish government. So the fact that they have achieved this improved outcome with only limited powers at their disposal, is even more to their credit. Just a shame that you and the other Brit-Nats are so obsessed with your Anti-Scottish agenda that you can't acknowledge that. . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

I find it amusing that you think stating facts means I have 'anti-British agenda', aye. 

Scotland makes up 8.2% of the UK population, and has to date accounted for 5.5% of the UK death toll (2,458 out of 44.198). That is, by any reasonable assessment, a significant difference. The Scottish government have made mistakes for sure, but overall they handled it much better than the Westminster government - the facts prove that. And bear in mind that a lot of potential measures to limit the spread of the virus, like limiting who can enter the UK, are outwith the control of the Scottish government. So the fact that they have achieved this improved outcome with only limited powers at their disposal, is even more to their credit. Just a shame that you and the other Brit-Nats are so obsessed with your Anti-Scottish agenda that you can't acknowledge that. . 

To be honest with you, I am hard pushed to find fault with how either the Scottish Government or the English Government has managed this pandemic, with perhaps maybe the Dominic Cummings incident where Boris should have given him a real public flogging instead of backing him to the hilt.

Other than that, the NHS in both sides of the border have done a great job and worked very hard and tirelessly to manage the outcomes during what has been a very difficult time - it's a tragic and traumatic time for our nation/our nation's - we've lost nearly 50,000 of our fellow countrymen, other countries may have had less fatalities but that shouldn't be used as a point scoring exercise for some Brit-hating expat to put the boot in to further his own agenda.

 

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, capitanus said:

To be honest with you, I am hard pushed to find fault with how either the Scottish Government or the English Government has managed this pandemic, with perhaps maybe the Dominic Cummings incident where Boris should have given him a real public flogging instead of backing him to the hilt.

Other than that, the NHS in both sides of the border have done a great job and worked very hard and tirelessly to manage the outcomes during what has been a very difficult time - it's a tragic and traumatic time for our nation/our nation's - we've lost nearly 50,000 of our fellow countrymen, other countries may have had less fatalities but that shouldn't be used as a point scoring exercise for some Brit-hating expat to put the boot in to further his own agenda.

 

There is no such thing as the English Government. You already know my view that the UK and Scotland have mishandled the Covid-19 pandemic. From the nonsense of herd immunity to a lack of PPE to a failure to protect care homes to air bridges the list goes on and on. One thing in Scotland's favour is we have at least had more consistent messaging. People ahead of politics every time for me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...