Ben Alpers

An editorial from the NY Times, May 25, 1979: "Senator Hayakawa of California, a famous semanticist, has been having more than his share of language problems lately. Last week, the Republican Senator suggested that the solution to the gasoline crisis is higher prices — perhaps $2 or $3 a gallon. At such prices, only the well‐to‐do could afford to fill their tanks, which is all right with Senator Hayakawa: 'The poor don't need gas because they are not working.' Before the uproar died down, the Senator put his other foot in his mouth. In a speech at Pepperdine University, he argued that 'virtually all' the people lining up for gas in California 'need gasoline to get to work. They need to work in order to pay their taxes. They need to pay their taxes so the poor will be supported.' In short. let there be breadlines instead of...."[cont.]

[cont from other image] "lines. The Senator might be wise to stop explaining what he means and just eat his words."

Maybe the Trump administration can borrow the message it'll need in the weeks and months ahead from the late Sen. S.I. Hayakawa (R-CA).

For Americans struggling with high gas prices, remember that you can save money by taking little sips from the gas pump instead of big gulps

When all the other time travelers are busy killing Hitler, I’m gonna take out Laura Ingalls Wilder.

Remember when a bunch of idiot zoomer influencers were saying not to vote for Harris because she would bring back the draft in order to fight a war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel?

The name "Nellie Bowles" just sounds like it ought to belong to a significant person (good work, Nellie's parents, I guess). Sadly, it actually belongs to a deeply insignificant sociopath...who happens to be married to a much more significant sociopath, which is why the name pops up now and again.

This war is illegal, unpopular, and (at best) pointless. Democratic hawks in Congress who insist on supporting deserve to be primaried or driven from the caucus.

Gun

Since we're not at war with Israel, it's not treason. But it may, nevertheless, violate the law.

Wings (1966) and The Ascent (1977), both directed by Larisa Shepitko.

When such folks yell at the other wing, it's closer to performing a symbolic purge than it is trying to convince them of anything.

At least online, a lot of centrists seem to mistakenly believe that the Democratic party can win national elections without its progressive wing. And a lot of progressives seem to mistakenly believe it can win them without its centrist wing.

Yelling at people -- whether those people are voters, candidates, or elected officials -- is usually a poor strategy for changing minds, but that, often, yellers are not in fact trying to change the minds of those they're yelling at.

Brexit provided a pretty good model for the Republicans to follow.

No kidding.

And there _is_ an evangelical Christian on the court: Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson is a Baptist. Pretty clearly, by "evangelical Christian" they don't just mean "evangelical Christian."

I think the problem I have with it is that it sounds as if he's stating that as a _goal_ ("One of the great challenges is having..."), when I think he means that "It is a great challenge when one has..." (i.e. Dunning Kruger).

I get endless ads on YouTube for MasterClass featuring NDT saying something that sounds profound, but doesn't quite make sense: "One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong."

Certainly stiffer competition, but I'm going with "A Love Supreme."

Having once had a long conversation with him, I can assure you that Mullin is deeply dimwitted. When his sheer foolishness is a potential explanation for a baffling thing my junior senator does, it's probably the best explanation.

Mind destroyingly stupid NYT headline: Trump echoes fdr and grant in calling for “unconditional surrender”

In a year of stupid headlines, what to even say, this has to be among the stupidest and frankly most offensive yet

To the extent that the media still thinks Trump 2.0 might have been popular, I guess it shows that the absolutely appalling political coverage that the mainstream media has given us for decades now has been offered in good faith. They believe their own nonsense.

The media's sense on the eve of Trump's second inauguration that America had somehow been transformed and that Trump 2.0 might actually be popular was entirely vibes based. And the vibes were being produced by the media themselves, not the American public.

And, still, Trump won the popular vote by only 1.5% and failed to get a majority of it... running against a candidate who had entered the race very late and had to contend against misogynoir.

In all the areas in which Trump
was outpolling Harris, such as the economy, war and peace, and the border, the public preferred Trump based on lies and disinformation, about his plans, the Democrats' policies, and material reality.

As in 2016, in 2024 he ran as a peace candidate of sorts, warning that his Democratic opponent would lead us into wars. But this was clearly bullshit. Even in his first term, US drone strikes, e.g. dramatically increased.

Nothing Trump was proposing to do would actually lower prices. He ran in 2024 on nostalgia for a false memory of the economy during his first term, which actually hadn't been good for most Americans.

Did it look plausible, though? Trump was a deeply unpopular president throughout his first term. And policies well-informed people knew he'd implement in his second term have always been deeply unpopular.

Usually twice. As the cook in my household, I feel like I'm mailing it in a bit if I cook any one thing once a week.

To be honest, there happen to have been few films I love released in 1965. Had I been born a year earlier, this question would have been more interesting...and challenging.

The Saragossa Manuscript