Link love

This week I have a deadline so I said “no twitter except docrocktx26 this week” partly because it’s a distraction and partly because the coverage (even from so-called liberal men) about HRC daring to not tell people she had pneumonia the minute she was diagnosed last Friday and waiting OMG until Monday was driving me nuts.  Oh, and all the mansplaining about how “basket of deplorables” was a gaffe, when I’m pretty sure it was not at all.  I hate the patriarchy so much.  (btw, there were some twitter lookings last saturday before I decided to stop– this guy does real investigative reporting.)

Still, we do have some political links.

Here’s an excellent take-down of why it doesn’t @#$234ing matter if HRC has health problems.  Well worth watching the video– you find some stuff about script writing with the West Wing too.  Here’s Historiann’s contribution on the subject.  Here is docrocktex‘s.

How Trump’s business ties could upend national security.

This article does a really good job explaining how companies contributed to the Trump foundation as a way for Trump to dodge income tax.

Truly sickening.  Brazen and stupid (and I don’t even have a link for his holocaust jokes this week).

We are numb.

I endorse this article as a professional economist.

I hope this guy wins his court case.  F the police.

This is the best kind of political post.  Also we are going to totally try it out.  It sounds easy and delicious.


Smash the patriarchy!

Treat high income when you’re young as a windfall (that you save and don’t blow).

Save money by not switching your taxable stocks to betterment!

I had forgotten this post.


New teeny kittens.

11 Responses to “Link love”

  1. Historiann Says:

    Thanks for the linky love!

  2. Becca Says:

    “Basket of deplorables” wasn’t a gaffe. It was “half of them” that was a gaffe. For much the same reason Romney’s 47% was a gaffe and Trumps recent “50%” of the country was a gaffe. It’s bad strategy to dismiss that many potential voters, particularly if you show you are disgusted by them.
    (If Clinton caught more flak than Romney, IBTP. The media ignoring Trump’s obvious distain for everyone is more baffling, but I guess it is the outcome of short attention spans plus saturation of awfulness [i.e. we are just numb]).

    I very much need to try the spell for calm.

    • nicoleandmaggie Says:

      which is why she apologized for the “half” part, but I’m not sure even that was a gaffe given that the % is actually higher by almost every metric

      However, these white dudes are seizing on basket of deplorables as a gaffe even without the %, because it is true that the number is larger.

      And by some metrics she’s talking about 2% of the population and I don’t actually think she needs the overt racist vote.

      I do not think she has caught more flack than Romney for that statement. I also think it has fired up a segment of the base and brought more attention to how supporting Trump means you’re a racist. Romney’s statement had the benefit of being said behind closed doors and secretly taped which made it more newsworthy.

      • Becca Says:

        It’s hard too, because I don’t know that societally we are at a level where having a racist view or two is enough to qualify one as “deplorable” in polite society generally. I mean, everybody has that dumb uncle on Facebook or the equivalent. I think we should call out their *views* as deplorable, but “half of Trumps supporters espouse deplorable racist/sexist/homophobic/Islamophobic views of some kind, and support him knowing there will be significant negative impacts on these groups under his leadership” isn’t as catchy, and also is nuanced enough that thinking people will realize an uncomfortably huge chunk of Clinton supporters also espouse some of those views.

        As an aside, I really enjoyed the Vox article about how the “left” of US economics has shifted. I think there’s still more of the older version among the economists who get quoted by the press (there was an exchange on twitter that popped up in my feed with the Upjohn institute replying with several names to a tweet asking “why don’t more economists study inequality?”).

      • nicoleandmaggie Says:

        More economists compared to what? There are a lot of the best economists working on inequality. It is also “in” right now. You would not believe the number of major panels I went to on the topic last year.

      • nicoleandmaggie Says:

        p.s. Our wednesday post outlines why Trump supporters are deplorable and why they should be recognized as such.

        Don’t want to be deplorable? Get out of the basket. Vote for Gary Johnson or stay home if you don’t want to vote for a democrat (though if you’re in a swing state, really there’s only one sane option). The only consistent position that Trump has is that of promoting bigotry. Therefore the only reason a person would support him is because he is deplorable and by extension, so are they. None of this “hate the sin but love the sinner” bullshit. You are what you do (note: we were both raised Catholic– belief is secondary to action).

      • yuppiemillennial Says:

        “I don’t know that societally we are at a level where having a racist view or two is enough to qualify one as “deplorable” in polite society generally… I think we should call out their *views* as deplorable”

        This is pretty much how I feel about the whole thing too. People can have terrible, wicked opinions about race (especially if they live in communities where they rarely interact with a diverse population) and still be on the whole okay human beings in their own circles. Calling them “deplorables” just puts those folks on the defensive and makes it harder to re-educate them with more tolerant views.

      • nicoleandmaggie Says:

        “in their own circles” What fresh hell is this?

        You know, minorities are PEOPLE.

        Naming and shaming goes a lot further than “re-educating”. Either these folks have to be put in a situation where they realize all their views are wrong by being surrounded by people they hate and seeing that they’re people, but without harming those people in the process, or they have to be shamed into not acting on their views. Voting for Trump, supporting Trump, has real harm on real people. They *are* deplorable. Not just their views. If they want to be not deplorable, they can stop hurting people.

        Good grief. Y’all need to follow more people of color on social media.

        As I believe Jaime Boulle recently said, seems like there’s a lot of white folks who have more empathy for the racists than the minorities. (A preview of Wednesday’s post.)

      • yuppiemillennial Says:

        First I would say people are complex. A person can try to be good in their community (and may have a limited perception of their community), perceive themselves as being good people, but absorb racial rhetoric of their immediate circle. And if they are not surrounded by PoC in their communities who they interact with (btw, I would totally support integration policy) those views never get truly challenged. I think these are people whose positions are malleable and reached out to. They can be flipped, so to speak, but I don’t think by external shaming the entirety of their character but rather by focusing on those views which are problematic.

        I’m not saying these folks do not have bad views. And clearly the actions they take based on those views can be very very harmful. But I also do not think shaming people as bad people as having altogether irredeemable is an effective means of changing opinion. Especially as someone outside their circle, shame works much better when from a member within a person’s community.

        Also, I am not white.

      • nicoleandmaggie Says:

        People who support nazis are nazis even if they think the nazi way is the right way. Nazis are deplorable. Their views are deplorable AND they are deplorable.

        Shame works to keep little neonazi KKK groups isolated from the greater community. Yes it would be lovely to “save” them but they’re not worth the effort. Best to keep them where they can’t do real harm dressing up in their white robes going to their weekly costume parties not actually interacting with real people. We don’t need them, we just need them to stop hurting people.

      • yuppiemillennial Says:

        You’re right. Shame does help us to alienate and limit growth of ideas. And I believe having “racism is bad” message permeate a broad swath of communities is a good thing to reinforce. But I still do not think character shaming from external groups actually works to change minds. And when you have 25-50% of the population buying into racist rhetoric, I feel like that is a large enough contingent that it can’t just be ignored but rather minds need changing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: