Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

malthaussen

malthaussen's Journal
malthaussen's Journal
July 26, 2016

We should start calling the GOP nominee "Comrade Trump."

He likes those pithy little nicknames, and tarring him with the Commie brush might actually make give some of his more rabid RW supporters pause.

-- Mal

July 24, 2016

Prescott Bush Interview, 1953

Stumbled across this vid on YT and thought it might be of interest.



Interesting that Mr Bush argues that accepting refugees from Eastern Europe was a victory in the Cold War.

-- Mal
July 20, 2016

Chronicles of Amber TV adaptatation planned:

Story here:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/walking-dead-creator-adapting-chronicles-912132


Whenever I hear that Hollywood is going to "adapt" something, I wonder how they're going to ruin it. And Roger's not around to keep them in line. But I'm sure it will be entertaining.

-- Mal

July 10, 2016

The American Flag Shoulder Patch

A question that only afflicts people like me with OCD and too much time on their hands. When did the U.S. Military begin displaying the U.S. flag shoulder patch with the Union field in the upper right to the observer (to indicate the troops "always moving forward," it sez here) rather than with the Union in the upper left (as is set forth in any set of rules for display of the flag). I know it was the latter during Vietnam and before, but it seems to have changed circa 1990. Anybody know offhand when the regulation changed, and what, if any, was the rationale?

-- Mal

July 10, 2016

Well, that proves there are trolls here.

I suppose this is Meta, but I just discovered that the tales I have heard about agitators signing up to DU to intentionally spread filth are true. I'm rather more tolerant than most here at DU (which is not necessarily a virtue), so I will put up with a lot of posts that many people would alert on in an instant. I have issued one alert in the past, when a poster restarted his thread that had already been locked, but I mostly ignore name-calling and invective, particularly if it happens to be directed at me (sticks and stones, y'know).

But when someone posts, as his first ever post to DU, the statement "black males should be shot down like the animals they are, it's not like they're worth anything anyway," (no sarcasm indication) I think one might reasonably conclude that a line has been crossed. Certainly a violation of the ToS, anyway.

Why anyone would waste his time with such conduct is a mystery to me.

-- Mal

July 9, 2016

Donald Trump: riding the tiger

How much of Mr Trump is schtick, and how much reality? The $64 question, and I have not completely satisfied myself on that point. But a successful con man -- and Mr Trump is certainly that -- must have some native intelligence, or at least shrewd cunning (and a low opinion of his fellow man). My instinct is that he is not fully in control of what is happening, that he is riding opportunity as far and fast as he can, at least in part because he doesn't know how to dismount the tiger. He keeps pushing the envelope farther and farther, as if he is asking the country how long he can keep on being so outrageous, how far he can go. I don't feel (I use the term advisedly, I have insufficient evidence to make a satisfactory determination) that things have gone exactly as he intended, in terms of specifics: he wanted the glory and the adulation, but didn't want to be threatened with actually having to make good on his act. I still don't think he really wants the job, but he has in a manner of speaking painted himself into a corner, unless the GOP does initiate a coup and precipitate a constitutional crisis.

He reminds me a bit of an author who said in his bio he wanted to be a writer, then immediately corrected himself: what he wanted was to have written. All the benefits, in other words, with none of the work. And he reminds me of certain other politicians who have pushed inflammatory rhetoric to absurd extremes, and then are horrified when they have to live up to it. This sort of thing has led to more than one war.

Scary either way, because he has tapped into a deep well of rage and fear, and by expressing it, validated it and given the crazies the knowledge that they aren't alone, them and their little militia buddies. And of course, other opportunistic politicians are now more inspired to tap into this wellspring, although it is to the credit (sort of) of many that even they won't stoop so low. In the end, the message matters more than the man, and that message is not without peril to the security of the nation. I have always believed the RW nuts were too cowardly to start anything serious, but the knowledge of their numbers may inspire some intemperate acts down the road. And if Mrs Clinton is elected president, which still seems to be the likely result, will the monster go back to sleep, or will it resort to those 2nd Amendment solutions the more fanatical make noise about? We may doubt that outcome, but I don't think we can disregard it out of hand.

-- Mal

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Sep 24, 2011, 10:36 AM
Number of posts: 17,193
Latest Discussions»malthaussen's Journal