Saturday assorted links

1. “There are dozens of us!  Dozens!”  Recommended.

2. Xavier University to get North America’s first pizza ATM.  And I didn’t even know what a “Keurig” was, much less a “Keurig for cocktails.

3. Lovers of trashy films are highly educated cultural omnivores.

4. I say blame the voters but still there is a grain of truth to this.  Still, the ethic of individual responsibility should be paramount here, and that leads us back to the voters.

5. “The committee set up to investigate lack of transparency in Panama’s financial system itself lacks transparency, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz told Reuters on Friday after resigning from the “Panama Papers” commission.”  Link here.


'And I didn’t even know what a “Keurig” was'

So coy, though it is certainly possible that Nespresso said more to you than an American made product -

On the one hand, maybe Tyler is being willfully ignorant and Luddite, as with his lack of knowledge of the usefulness of microwave ovens in the home.

OTOH, I share some of his ignorance about Keurigs (partly because I don't drink coffee): what makes a Keurig different from an ordinary coffee machine? On the rare occasions when I was in a hotel and made myself a cup of coffee, I used the standard coffee machine in the room. It was fast and easy and I could even choose exactly how much coffee to make; what are the advantages of a Keurig?

The Keurig machine has an ultra-efficient heating element that produces a cup of coffee almost instantly, about 15-30 seconds. Just as importantly, the coffee is packaged in self-contained, disposable pods ("K-cups"), which means that there is no clean-up of the machine or pots required (other than throwing the K-cup away).

My impression was that, at least initially, the main market for Keurig machines was actually small offices rather than homes. Employees could choose from a variety of different coffees with no one responsible for washing coffee machines or pots. I think the home market developed after people became familiar with the machines from work.

Excellent explanation, thanks. I'm starting to see Keurig machines in hotel rooms, I wonder if the no clean-up is a big factor or if they're putting them there because customers are demanding them.

On power-up a Keurig does a pre-heat, and then maintains power for quick brewing. It makes sense for an office, but I personally would not want a 24 hour power cycle for 1 or 2 cups in the morning. I use a gas stove and a cone filter.

Excessive detail of power consumption here:

I generally keep mind unplugged (well really the wife likes to move it out of the way during the week) but I can plug it in, add water and have a good cup of coffee within 5 minutes. So, it's not like you need to keep the pre-heat active to be useful.

"I generally keep mine unplugged ..."

Though I occasionally keep the mind unplugged too....

A kuerig is actually a great deal. The trick is to buy the steel cup insert, and then you can place your own ground coffee beans in. It takes advantage of an incredibly easy to use coffee maker without paying for the individual, absurdly expensive Kuerig brand coffee inserts.

I'm surprised prior approval isn't commenting, as the design is genius. It's also easily exploitable as the machine is a loss leader for their mediocre insert coffee. Using your own coffee turns a $1 a cup coffee into 5 cents a coffee, with all the ease of a Kuerig

Or, that particular post was by Tabarrok.

Keurig for cocktails looks loser-esque. Only 6 liquid inputs allowed? can't make a Singapore Sling, that's for sure!

Keurig is a very interesting story of invention, patent, monopoly, too-tight enforcement, and retreat.

I'm surprised an economist would have missed it.

How is it irresponsible for voters to tune out the anti-Republican hysteria from the media? They're voting for Trump for policy and style reasons - they want a real anti-immigrant and anti-globalist candidate, and they want someone who attacks liberals instead of backing down in the face of libelous sluts like "racist". No other Republican offered that, so Trump is the responsible choice.

There is a lot of truth to the idea that Trump is popular due the desire to have some push back against the left's continual use of libelous attacks.

Sadly, this has played into the left's hands and now they will win an election, perhaps in a landslide, that they had no business even competing in. It is a shame.

Liberal pundits are hyperbolic in their discussions of Republicans, and conservative pundits are equally hyperbolic in their discussions of Democrats. That Daily Beast piece is silly nonsense. Blaming Paul Krugman for Donald Trump is like blaming Larry Kudlow for Bernie Sanders.

One big difference seems to be that, while there are many conservative pundits that have disavowed Trump, there seem to be relatively few (if any?) liberal pundits that concede that Hillary Clinton's conduct disqualifies her for high office. (And, no, disavowing her for not being liberal enough doesn't count.) So, while there seem to be at least some conservative pundits with enough credibility to warn us about Republican wolves even when liberal pundits call every Republican a wolf, there don't seem to be any liberal pundits to warn us about Democratic wolves.

Regarding Tyler's point, yes, voters are responsible for their own votes just as villagers are responsible for developing their own wolf warning systems when the local shepherd boy proves unreliable. However, the Boy Who Cried Wolf is responsible for his own loss of credibility. Paul Krugman may not be responsible for Donald Trump, but he is responsible for why no one takes seriously his criticisms of Donald Trump.

@BC: "but he is responsible for why no one takes seriously his criticisms of Donald Trump."

This is very true, but it's a much smaller claim than the article makes. Basically the article is more partisan bs, just like Krugman is nothing but partisan bs. Krugman is such a knee jerk lefty that his opinion isn't needed, we know what it is. But he's not why Trumpistas are Trumping.

We know in advance what Krugman, Maddow, and Stewart are going to think of any Republican presidential nominee. We also know in advance what Kudlow, Hannity, and Limbaugh are going to think of any Democratic one. This is why partisanship is so useless and unintelligent.

One big difference seems to be that, while there are many conservative pundits that have disavowed Trump, there seem to be relatively few (if any?) liberal pundits that concede that Hillary Clinton’s conduct disqualifies her for high office.

Meg Whitman must drive you nuts.

The interesting question is does Trump now inoculate the Rep party somewhat in the future? Whomever they nominate in 2020 to take on Hillary will surely get the usual partisan treatment from Maddow, Krugman, etc. But now maybe it's "well he's not so bad, he's not like Trump"?

Clinton is IMO a one term president, just like Bush I and for similar reasons (3rd term same party, likely recession on her watch, plus she will be old and still divisive as hell). So the Reps get another shot in 4 years. Paul Ryan could have easily been president this year though.

I will go ahead and make an outlier prediction: Clinton will be low key, patient, and ultimately consensus building. She might even pick up Republican votes in the new, shattered Republican Congress.

To go all the way ... Paul Ryan will say "screw it" and begin working for bi-partisan legislation. He won't be pulled as speaker, or primaried, because that's over.

The dividing down, dumbing down, of the Republican Party, after many rehersals, finally jumped the shark.

That's an outlier for sure. And I gotta say, no, Clinton will not be winning over any Reps. 4 more years of this partisan bullshit.

It's just that "do nothing and wait for the nation to fail" was such a resounding failure itself over the last 8 years. It allowed Obama to won all of the recovery, and not just part of it. It left Republicans with nothing to run on in 2016 except spit and hate.

They have to be asking themselves, if we "do nothing and wait for the nation to fail" again, will it? Or "God help us, what if the nation prospers?"

I can't think Ryan and anyone near "grownup" wants another 4 years without being part of something, part of the American dream.

ere seem to be relatively few (if any?) liberal pundits that concede that Hillary Clinton’s conduct disqualifies her for high office. (And, no, disavowing her for not being liberal enough doesn’t count.)

That is because few liberals think Clinton's conduct disqualified her from high office. Apparently the FBI and law enforcement and everyone else agrees. And based on her approval ratings while in the Senate, her constituents thought she was qualified enough for office. Now if you disagree, that's fine. Go ahead and run on that platform then. Run a racist to really get that message out too!

Paul Krugman may not be responsible for Donald Trump, but he is responsible for why no one takes seriously his criticisms of Donald Trump.

You must be living under a rock. Trump is on pace to get trounced in the election with the possibility of losing once solidly red states like Georgia, Missouri and even Utah. Maybe no one takes Krugman's criticisms seriously because they have eight hundred other sources of criticism to sift through. He is the most disliked presidential candidate in history, by a wide margin. You must have lost your damn mind. Lol.

"That is because few liberals think Clinton’s conduct disqualified her from high office."

Yes, that's the problem. The FBI found that Clinton's conduct would normally get a person fired and/or that person would lose her security clearance, even if her conduct would not land her in jail due to insufficient evidence of intent. The standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is much different from fit for office. Presumably, if someone is unfit for lower office, then she is also unfit for the highest office.

"Trump is on pace to get trounced."

Yes, but not because of anything Krugman or the liberal media have said. It's because there are enough Republican Never-Trumpers and Republican-leaning voters that are able to look past partisan labels. If there were similar objectivity on the Democratic side, then we might be looking at a realistic possibility of a President Gary Johnson now or, at the very least, a President Joe Biden.

BC, I thought the emails made up for, balanced, fraud at Trump University.

Then I heard they balanced, made up for, comments about American judges. Then they were used as ammunition against Trump's endorsement of war crimes. And on and on. Right down to disrespect for troops and their sacrifice.

They are truly the magic issue, that balances any amount of bad behavior on the other side.

"But now maybe it’s “well he’s not so bad, he’s not like Trump”?" Doubtful. Bush was literally Hitler, yet Romney didn't get the benefit of the "at least he's not Bush" treatment.

........So who should "responsible voters" therefore vote for in November, in TC's elevated view?

The DailyBeast indictment of extreme liberal bias in the media has of course been true for over half a century. And hard to blame Trump on the "voters", since so few actually voted for him so far in the Primaries--- well less than 20% of eligible voters even participated in Republican Primaries... and Trump got only s fraction of that small vote.

Trump is popular because he represents a slight chance of real change (any kind of change or disruption) in the behemoth Republican/Democrat uni-party ruling establishment.... and their lapdogs in the regime media.

Voter turnout in Presidential Elections averages about 60%; many citizens express their disgust with the ruling establishment and lack of genuine choice on the ballot... by boycotting elections.
The Establishment and its media do not like an uncooperative populace.

they want someone who attacks liberals instead of backing down in the face of libelous sluts like “racist”.

I saw a quip on Twitter that Trump was for white people who thought being called a racist was a worse crime than being one.

This plus a thousand.

White people are inherently racist. Some select few, like the virtuous posters above me, overcome their natural white devil and support the fair division of white America's wealth and status.

Yep yep. #Whitegenocide

What the right seems too stupid to understand is that the poor, which is disproportionately minority demographics would starve without redistribution. The racist system only provides for whites. When Republicans propose to cut spending, they are really proposing starving minorities and single moms. That's violence. That's why attacking Drumpf supporters in the streets is actually self-defense.

When parody turns out to be simple identity.

1. Re. Favoring redistribution: The assumption here is that the free market does not redistribute. There is no charity. There are no food banks, no soup kitchens, no Habitat for Humanity building homes for the poor, no foreign mission societies. There is only government that redistributes. Yet one should always observe that government first redistributes private income and wealth to itself. So government redistribution is first of all good for government and government employees. Government then redistributes what is left not only to "the poor," but all too frequently to the politically-connected wealthy. Then the remaining spoils, usually borrowed, go to ... retired people, who are not necessarily poor. Finally the last drops go to the poor, so long as they are the politically desirable poor, and reliable voters for the party of redistribution.

I guess, by this definition, I am a neoliberal.

I think your error is a common one. It is to view "doing charity" and "helping the poor" as equivalent. They are not. Doing charity is a personal or community act, usually focused on some action, but not thoroughly on a result. Yes, we can put some cans in the food drive. Yes, we can run in a 5K. But we didn't before or after measure the degree of hunger in our community. We just do the act.

In contrast, helping the poor starts with identifying the poor, all of them, and establishing a complete plan to serve them. Governments around the world are the only ones that attempt that level of universality. Yes, the programs can be flawed. Yes, improvement is possible. But what other choice is there?

So, if I am neoliberal, and reading the links correctly, we need government transfers because we want to help the poor, all of them, and not just do charity.

If you care about concepts, income redistribution is a market failure/distortion.....albeit a good distortion.

Re #4. Do you have a view parallel to this one as to why, say, the homicide rate among blacks in America is 8 times that among whites?

It is the natural reaction to 300 years of uniquely white racism and hatred. To expect black people to provide for their own welfare in a system that doesn't value anything but white concepts like working in a white-supremicist, patriarchal capitalism, is racist. Hillary Clinton is going to change all that. She will give hundreds of thousands of federal jobs to minorities and put hundreds of thousands of low skilled whites out of work. This needs to be celebrated. Equality comes at a cost to the oppressor and the good whites have gotten minority votes to do so!

War on drugs attacks the poor who sell to pay rent, + turf wars.

And the rest of that history stuff.

And if cops carded me 60 times a year and I got followed around every shop I went into ... I dunno, I think I'd be an awful lot more than 8 times as likely to shoot someone. Very composed and patient, all things considered, in an impressive share of cases.

Blame the voters... for Trump and Trump alone. But what options did the voters have viz. the Democratic party presidential race? Perpetual and chronic liar HRC, a 74-year-old socialist who has already said he's returning to VT as an independent, and a governor of whom few had ever heard. And how are the voters to blame for the DNC stacking the deck in favor of HRC? The Republicrats have a stranglehold on the U.S. political system.

Just curious, we have 50 governors.
How many can you name?

What is that old saying about casting the first stone?

The Terminator. And dubbya's bro?

"The committee set up to investigate lack of transparency in Panama’s financial system itself lacks transparency". A committee must be set up to investigate lack of transparency in the committee set up to investigate lack of transparency in Panama's financial system. In the future every American will serve on a committee for 15 minutes.

A committee must be set up to check such claims. I want dibs on not having to serve on it.

#1 - Excellent.

Except for point #9. Point #9 is, sadly, a slippery slope and further there are large agency issues. It is better, by far, to rely upon charity.

Point #7 is very strong, the author could have pressed his point far further with tremendous justification, but I suppose that would simply start a flame war with the horrible left.

Sorry. It's terrible. In #5 SB says "we base our beliefs in evidence, not principles". If so, he should have recognised that everywhere government is THE or A BIG problem but there is no reference to government at all in his statement. How can a liberal --old or new-- can ignore government and its long history? I think it's the most hypocritical definition of liberalism I have ever heard of.

For a lot of people "evidence" and "science" are just totems. In 1600 somebody claims that some line in the Bible really means XYZ, properly interpreted of course, and man does that interpretation happen to serve my interests. In 2016 somebody at some think tank twists some data until it says XYZ, which they happened to want to be true all along.

You'll notice in that list a grab bag that could be used to justify anything. The people who will determine what is and isn't justified are people at think tanks twisting data for their donors. Guess that the results will be.

How's the water quality in Mogadishu these days?

How about in Pyongyang?

Or maybe, when we talk about how large and powerful the federal government should be in the US, we're talking about relatively small changes from the current situation, rather than flipping a switch to either 1984 or Mad Max.

"How’s the water quality in Mogadishu these days?"

Probably worse than normal, even for a failed Communist country. Somalian is yet another example of why Socialist Democratic Republics never work and that the after effects are generally tragic.

"point #n. We're the nice rational people! We know it's really hard to be rational, but we've definitely managed it, unlike everyone else, so this is a key factor that differentiates us from our opponents. We believe that people should live the lives they want to live and be happy and satisfied, unless the lives they want to live don't pay sufficient respect to our values of liberal egalitarianism. We like empirical research, except when it conflicts with our beliefs."

I mean, fuck's sake.

Libertarians, and I suppose "neoliberals", do value rationality more than other groups. They remain humans (duh) and therefore likely to be biased and driven by emotions, but they are also more likely to be aware of it.

For example, this source finds that libertarians showed "a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional cognitive style".

Whether I distribute my money is my business. But I might try to persuade you that both of us should volunteer to distribute some of our money in a way that makes both distributors and distributees better off in some way - for instance, more secure in their life, liberty and property. I might seek to persuade you that this is likely to work only if large numbers of people act thus.

But I'm buggered if I'll call it "redistribute": why sell the pass before the contest has begun?

Effort and stuff matters. But a lot of stuff is a crapshoot. Now cough up - if you're complaining, you were clearly lucky enough to earn enough to make such complaints.

And before the extremists get going, I'm defending something along the lines of the status quo, not a 100% redistributive system that would have been extreme even for Marx.

#4: Meh. Paul Krugman is not "the media". Name-calling and baiting attacks have been coming from both sides for decades (we could just as easily blame everything on Rush Limbaugh as Paul Krugman, if shrill broadsides are what got us where we are today).

Tyler could've juxtarandomised (to use the term coined yesterday) the pizza ATM story in #2 with this one, because that story ended with this:

"Xavier's marketing director for auxiliary services, Jennifer Paiotti, tells WCPO-TV that she's a New Yorker but considers the machine-dispensed pizza to be the best she's ever had."

A marketing director saying that the pizza is the best she's ever had. Paul Krugman and the Huffington Post saying mean things about Republicans. Trump/Limbaugh/fill-in-the-name saying mean things about Democrats. All predictable.

I think this is fair to some extent. But only to the extent you classify Krugman as Limbaughs equivalent. Which is an idea that the Left always firmly rejects.

#1) So, neoliberals are people that start out with strong priors and are pre-disposed to accepting statism and collectivism because they don't really believe that economic liberty and property rights are that important in and of themselves. However, after careful consequentialist consideration, they concede that libertarians and classical liberals are right after all: markets, property rights, and limiting government really are essential. Does the prefix "neo" mean "reluctant"?

"Does the prefix 'neo' mean 'reluctant'”? No, it is an adjective, it means "the ones who care about facts and don't use just-so stories as excuses to prey on their neighbors". Latin is a very synthetic language, you know.

I heard a bit of Dean Kahneman today. He talked about the human tendency to face a hard problem, and to substitute an easy one. His example was that if you ask someone how things are going, they don't really examine their life too hard, they just answer with their mood. "Fine" "Great" "Whatever."

Is it possible that libertarianism is just one big substitution of that kind? What do we all need to have a happy life? "Economic freedom!"

Really, or is that simplification facile?

Opposed to what? Neo- liberalism always ends up looking like self dealing with a few crumbs to maintain status.

The question was "What do we all need to have a happy life?"

What if we need more than economic freedom? What if we need public parks? There are lots of things that governments do to contribute to general welfare that are not crumbs to maintain status.

Libertarianism taken to the extreme, the Libertarian Party Platform extreme, is about giving up all kinds of good things, because we'd need government to do them.

If one side calling the other dangerously out-of-bounds is responsible for Trump, I demand a full accounting.

#1: no all, 13 of us...

#3: Tyler is in full-swing rationalization mode with this one....

4. You can always find a madman on the other side. Round earth? Hitler believed in a round earth!

Once we dispense with the idea that "finding a madman" does not disprove an idea, we have to take up a harder question. Who would be the sane stewards of government? Can we support them? Can we keep the mad away from the wheels of power? That sounds simple, and easy, but it is just a harsh truth that the two major parties have not been equally good at it.

Yes, there are crazy or histrionic Democrats, but they are not candidates for high office.

The Presidency is a high office.

To be fair, Hillary's a crook not a crazy.

Anyone who saw the Romney in Massachusetts and the Romney that hit the national campaign would have plenty of reason to call him dishonest. I lived in Cambridge when they snatched the Gubernatorial nomination from poor Jane Swift off the birthing bed to give it to Romney and the guy who ran for President seemed like a different human being.

Krugman escalating the attacks could also indicate that the Republican's have been nominating increasingly bad candidates (Palin!) with increasingly bad policies (more top end tax cuts) for years as well. And I have serious doubts about how many in Trump's base are reading the NYT editorial pages. They are too 'economically anxious' for that sort of publication.

Oh please, we are routinely told about a "War on Women" because Republicans dare to suggest that they personally agree with the 46% of Americans who consider themselves pro-life or with the 55% of Americans of want it to be illegal under "most" circumstances. We routinely heard that Reagan was ignorant, that GHWB was ignorant, and the GWB was a dunce. McCain, Romney, and Dole were all pilloried in the press and even Ford was not treated particularly well. The fact of the matter is that a third to a half of the American electorate have been consistently told that their candidate for the presidency is always evil.

Frankly though, I highly doubt the pundits and the media have that much impact. Much more likely I think is the fact that Democrats have basically shut out a large faction of the Republican electorate from the governing game. Gay marriage was overturned through the judiciary and even the most benign of discrimination (as defined by many gay marriage advocates) is now being prosecuted by the state. When decades old law that forced the social half of the Republican electorate to endure criminals suing to sacrifice chickens to "devil worship" finally was invoked on behalf of the social conservatives, it was promptly abandoned by the ACLU and the Democratic party. When the bottom half of the Republican party campaigned against Obamacare and won both Senate and House majorities, when the Republicans tried to utilize the power of the purse to not fund a portion of the federal budget, Democrats nuked the entire budget to prevent the will of the electorate. From women in the military to education policy, pretty much absolutely nothing in the last eight years (and arguably 10) has gone for the 30% or so of the electorate that is socially conservative (at least culturally) and not economically affluent.

When you look at the "bipartisan" legislation that has made it through, it is mostly things for the fiscal side of the Republican party. I cannot even recall the last time any Democratic office holder in DC has even offered anything remotely contentious to social conservatives. Instead, I have seen a very large portion of the American electorate be thwarted even after they win. From the perspective of those whose positions are "unreasonable", the system does look crooked. They have, multiple times, elected a majority into the branch of government with the most statutory power. They have repeatedly been denied any change in policy towards their preferences. At best they have to fight to keep the status quo on things like immigration legislation, even as the executive implements policy outside of traditional channels.

Should we really be surprised that if Boehner, Ryan, and McConnell cannot deliver for this portion of the electorate that they will look for someone unlike the current incompetents? After all Pelosi and Reed managed to achieve an awful lot in 2006-2008. Similarly, when politicians talk about "morals" and "imperatives" for things like, oh say raising the debt ceiling or filibuster reform, and then flip positions as soon as they have power why exactly should Trump be viewed beyond the pale? Mark Steyn, I think explains it best "If the political culture forbids respectable politicians from raising certain topics, then the electorate will turn to unrespectable ones." For a lot of the American electorate they hate mass illegal immigration and are at least wary about mass immigration in general. They despise affirmative action and political correctness. They prefer a vaguely defined traditional set of values rather than a wholesale replacement of morals and social customs. None of these preferences have really seen the light of day in a decade. No respectable politician would advocate for them or sacrifice more respectable goals. Shockingly, the electorate turned to an unrespectable politician.

Thank you for explaining the true cause for Trump – not Krugman, but just sore loserism from social conservatives who are unable to comprehend that they live in a society with *other* people and not everything goes their way.

At least you are honest about this and present a more honest case that the writer of the Krugman article

“Shockingly, the electorate turned to an unrespectable politician.”

Oh brother. The electorate could have turned to Ted Cruz and got 85% of Trump what they want on the “political correctness” front and at least 150% of what they want on the “social conservatism” front. But no, they wanted the loudmouthed racist.

Racist meaning what? Running the US jurisdictions with the highest black murder rates?

Racist meaning the direct implication that a judge cannot preside over one's case on the basis of his ethnic (not national) heritage.

Now you go ahead and run all the mental gymanistics you wish to justify the remark, but at the end of the day, its racist behavior that is contrary to the "citizenist" "don't see race" "no identity politics" viewpoint the alt-right claims to hold. But the truth is, when it comes down to it, as soon as the alt right (ie Trump) sees someone they disagree with, the first thing they do is play identity politics.

My hunch is that even after explaining this to you, you either don't care or you will play mental gymnastics. And not surprisingly, this is what Trump thrives.

AJ is absolutely right, and that is why he is one of the good whites. We will destroy poor white folk and give the spoils to the minorities. If they could not become rich in this white-supremicist, patriarchal capitalist system, they are losers beyond hope.

Woah there AJ. I'm sure shouting racism gets you a standing ovation on gawker and Jezebel, but let's calm down and approach things rationally. Trump is an idiot and unfit to be president of a yacht club, but that's not the point. People are voting against something, they're voting against a surrender of their values and principles. You or I may disagree that their values have merit, but apparently there were enough of these people to decide a presidential candidate. Now many people see any voice against illegal immigration as pure racism and etc, but that's not a logical argument. Try again

I actually presented a "rational" argument as to why what Donald Trump said about the judge was racist. Do you care to address it?

Now many people see any voice against illegal immigration as pure racism and etc, but that’s not a logical argument.

I never said anything about illegal immigration. Do you ever read the post or do you automatically begin executing deflection tactics (in a comment section nonetheless, wtf?) as soon as Trump's name comes up.

People are voting against something, they’re voting against a surrender of their values and principles

These voters had the choice of Ted Cruz and pretty much every other candidate save Jeb and Rand to defend their values and principles. Something that I mentioned in the previous post you apparently glossed over.

I think it stands to reason that TheBJ is right. The Republicans chose Drumpf because they are racist. The coal miners don't want to confront their white privilege. Fortunately educated whites like me exist and we can donate a few thousand dollars to Hillary and a few tens of thousands to the Clinton Foundation. Our money will be used to teach trailer trash about their privilege and we'll get Syrian composers and mathematicians in our buildings which will make for interesting parties!

And if we started to count the non-votes as No votes against whoever is running we would not have this type of problem and would be able to distinguish if the support for Trump is support for what he's saying or expression of complete dissatisfaction with the current status quo in political competition.

Cruz was not sufficient. Virtually every Republican candidate has offered lip service of support for things like traditional marriage, border security, repealing Obamacare, etc. The official positions of McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, Romney, and GWB were all pretty much in line with the vast majority of Trump supporters. The problem was that this portion of the electorate has repeatedly sent traditional politicians to DC who have not been able to enact their agenda when in the majority.

Some of the electorate believe that normal politicians like Cruz will sell out to the megadonors. Some believe that DC corrupts and only a complete outsider can affect change. Pretty much the most common refrain I hear from Trump supporters is that he will change things where traditional politicians, with whom they agree, have not been able. Actual nuance of positions with Trump matter far less than the perception that he will break the choke hold the left has had on cultural issues for the last decade, hence why he can walk back positions on a whim and not lose support. Normal politicians have repeatedly failed even when controlling the legislature and having at worst an evenly divided Supreme Court.

We tried shutting out a a large bloc of the electorate decades ago, it ended in mass demonstrations and riots. Why exactly should we expect cultural conservatives to be any happier about being shut out of power than African Americans or women were? Saying they are troglodytes and well "screw 'em" may be pleasing, but I suspect it will continue to lead to minimally effective government and a lot of social tension. Certainly if we actually want broad based action on major issues like climate change or healthcare access, something has been to given to their concerns to bring them into the fold.

What? Ted Cruz has actually walked the walk. He has been a belligerent right-wing asshole in Congress and he continued to act like one in the primaries. His father is a pastor. This is walking the walk.

Trump is a person who's positions on all social issues have been flexible, he is the person who is thrice married and pretty much engages in a lifestyle that would make any of the salt of the earth social conservatives puke.

We tried shutting out a a large bloc of the electorate decades ago, it ended in mass demonstrations and riots. Why exactly should we expect cultural conservatives to be any happier about being shut out of power than African Americans or women were? Saying they are troglodytes and well “screw ’em” may be pleasing, but I suspect it will continue to lead to minimally effective government and a lot of social tension. Certainly if we actually want broad based action on major issues like climate change or healthcare access, something has been to given to their concerns to bring them into the fold.

Incredible statements. Comparing social conservatives who are "shut out" with disenfrachised blacks in the 50s. And then you wonder where the (so-called) screw 'em attitude comes from . . . well yeah, most of us don't interpret your (relatively small) electoral losses as disenfrachisement and I'm sorry if you interpret not getting everything your way as "screw em." Maybe the lesson to be learned here is finding a way for social conservatives to join the field and become productive members of the political society rather than taking away the ball and going home when they get picked last.

Trump is getting the kiddie gloves treatment. Because the thin-skinned supporters of this thin-skinned man whose main instincts seem to revolve around insulting, badgering and suing people, well ... because they are thin-skinned, criticisms of his endless stupidities (which they generally are, no matter that a fair few people do not disagree) provide no particularly useful information for those expect nothing but disgrace from his lips and only serve to fuel the belief that anti-Trumpism is driven by the corrupt establishment, whereas the most anti-Trump noise almost certainly emanates primarily from the rather less corrupt part of the establishment.

As for Clinton. She's been raked over the coals for decades now, so I highly doubt there is much anyone can do to change the tone in any direction. But if IT security is the issue - no reason to worry, since the Secret Service does indeed provide the president with precisely the setup she had wanted as Secretary of State.

#3...A similar point from Stanley Cavell..."But my claim is that in the case of films, it is generally true that you do not really like the highest instances unless you also like typical ones. You don’t even know what the highest are instances of unless you know the typical as well."

Thank you for explaining the true cause for Trump - not Krugman, but just sore loserism from social conservatives who are unable to comprehend that they live in a society with *other* people and not everything goes their way.

At least you are honest about this and present a more honest case that the writer of the Krugman article

"Shockingly, the electorate turned to an unrespectable politician."

Oh brother. The electorate could have turned to Ted Cruz and got 85% of Trump what they want on the "political correctness" front and at least 150% of what they want on the "social conservatism" front. But no, they wanted the loudmouthed racist.

How many of Trump's biggest supporters actually wanted the religious conservativism? Or the ideological commitment to conservative ideas? Those were Cruz' strong points, and they're not strong points for Trump at all.

I suspect that Trump's support comes largely from people who admire his style and his larger-than-life persona. It's certainly not his likely policies--even Trump doesn't know what those will be, since he obviously has little interest in any detailed policy issues. It's not a desire for more ideological purity--Trump certainly doesn't have any of that, whereas Cruz did.

I've seen people (Steve Sailer, maybe) point out before that America would benefit from having some elected officials who had symbolic roles (like the royalty of various European countries), but few responsibilities in actually governing. Trump would work well as in such a symbolic role (I wouldn't like the symbolism, but it's the sort of thing he'd do well). But he will probably be a disaster in a position where he needs to actually take a detailed interest in policies, becuase so far, he's shown like zero interest in that stuff.

Trump is the least religious and least socially conservative presidential candidate the Republicans have run in... maybe ever?

Re #5 : I like good poetry and have zero desire to trade any moments I can spend with my friends, or walking in the outdoors, for moments with bad poetry. However, I can understand wanting to watch bad movies - there is the technical human interest in the history of styles; the measurable connections to distantly greater things; the amusing glimpse of a California pine against the horizon, in the background of a science fiction movie set in New England;; the ability to innocently wonder "who are these people". Then again, I think that Tourneur out-directed Welles, that Ernest Borgnine (and Wally Cox, for that matter) out-acted Marlon Brando every time they had a similar role, and that Roger Moore was the only believable James Bond of his day. Also, Peter Sellers wasn't often funny when he talked (but he moved in a funny way, sort of like Laurel if he lifted weights and worked out and had never met Hardy).

I feel like Tyler has posted #3 before.

In the U.S., the term "neoliberal" was used in the 1980s to depict the coterie of bright young Democratic pundits such as Michael Kinsley and Mickey Kaus who typically got their starts with Charles Peters' "Washington Monthly." The term neoliberal was used to distinguish them from the 1970s neoconservatives affiliated with "Commentary," "Public Interest," and the like.

In American terms, the prefix "neo" implied a movement with a predominantly (but not exclusively) Jewish leadership.

In Europe, "neoliberal" has typically had a similar but much less specialized meaning as those favoring market-oriented policies rather than old-fashioned government ownership. To Europeans, just about any American to the right of Bernie Sanders is a neoliberal.

#2b Never heard of coffee with digital copyright ??

"""its new brewer, which goes on sale this fall, has a mechanism that scans each pod for Keurig’s markings and locks out any unapproved capsules. It’s essentially digital rights management (DRM) — a mainstay in music and video — adapted for coffee."""


"""Keurig recently signed a deal with Coca-Cola to make a pod-based brewer for cold carbonated beverages, and another deal with Campbell's to make soup."""

Neoliberalism: Leftish impulses constrained by economic literacy.

The study of economics continues past second year college. The type of economic illiteracy required to demand that wealthy people redistribute to their less lucky fellows is nowhere near the kind of illiteracy where you convince working class people that tax cuts for billionaires is in their interest.

When I visited the US I saw vending machines but not a pizza ATM. Can anyone tell me how it works? I mean, does it merely dispense pre-cooked pizzas after heating them ? Or does it make a pizza from the scratch ?

#1. So neo-liberal is a European social-democrat. As such, nothing new or impressing.

Advanced vending machines (such as the Pizza ATM) are a sign of expensive labor. Japan is the perfect example: high wages, few immigrants, and lots of elaborate vending machines.

In Europe, restrictive working regulations make labor expensive; so vending machines are also fairly common. This is slowly changing as cheap immigrants enter the market. For example in the UK, automated car wash machines are falling into disrepair as customers turn to cheaper hand car washes staffed by immigrants. This is a significant reason behind the UK's falling productivity.

Comments for this post are closed