chasfh

This is instructive.

This is instructive. https://brilliantmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/for-important-family-decisions-men-should-have-a-final-say-.jpg

This is really wild! Here is an explanation for them: France: 49.3 Why it’s funny/political: Article 49.3 of the French Constitution allows the government to pass a law without a parliamentary vote. French governments use it during political crises. Because it bypasses debate, it became a running joke and meme in French politics. People joke about “using 49.3” to force anything through. Italy: 104 Why it’s funny: Law 104 (Legge 104) gives benefits and time off work to people caring for disabled family members. In Italian memes, people joke that some workers fake needing “104 days” to skip work. So “taking a 104” became shorthand for suspicious time off. Turkey: 31 Why it’s funny: In Turkish slang, 31 means masturbation. The joke dates back decades and became widespread in internet humor. So when Turks see 31, it’s instantly interpreted as a dirty joke. Spain: 5 Why it’s funny: In Spanish grading systems, 5/10 is the minimum passing grade. Because of that, “un cinco” is often used jokingly to describe barely succeeding or mediocrity. It’s used ironically in memes when something is just barely acceptable. Greece: 6 Why it’s funny: The Greek word for six (έξι — “exi”) sounds similar to “sexy” in English. Because of this phonetic similarity, the number 6 gets used in wordplay jokes. Albania: 9 Why it’s funny: In Albanian slang/internet jokes, 9 is used in sexual humor and meme contexts. It often appears in jokes similar to how other cultures use 69. Russia: 300 Why it’s funny: “Cargo 300” (Груз 300) is a Soviet/Russian military code for wounded soldiers. It became a widely used internet meme and reference. The number 300 is now commonly used jokingly in online Russian culture. Any other numbers you can think of (besides 6-7)?

Wow, I didn't realize how not affluent much of the UK really is.

These are super interesting to me. This also explains why my super-Teutonic last name is no big deal for people around here to get, but completely flummoxes people when I travel to the Confederate states.

Quite concerning, I assume, to people who are animated by the idea of an existential threat to western civilization or whatever

Not a map, but interesting like a map.

lol ohio yeah right

Map of the 1796 US Presidential Election From The National Atlas of the United States (now sadly permanently offline) Other US Presidential Election Maps: 1788 1792 1796 1800 1804 1808 1812 1816 1820 1824 1828 1832 1836 1840 1844 1848 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024

I quite like this!

I wonder what our resident Trump supporter makes of this? 🤔 I’ve been thinking about the Republican betrayal of the party’s own tradition because of a comment about my work by Glenn Loury, the conservative Black economist. When I was on The Glenn Show in December, he criticized my new book American Contradiction because of my “apparent disregard for the positive contributions of conservative thought and policy to American life.” Loury and I could probably agree about many historical contributions of principled conservatism, including respect for America’s constitutional tradition and rule of law, skepticism about concentrated governmental power, and support for the independence of civil society and private initiative. I’m sure we’d agree about the importance of patriotism, civility, tolerance, and other values that have been part of a democratic conservatism—democratic in the sense of upholding the democratic “rules of the game,” including free speech and fair elections. But as Trump has acted with reckless disregard for those principles, Republican leaders, major donors, and corporate supporters have either fallen silent or actively enabled his lawlessness and corruption. That complicity makes you wonder: Were they ever serious about those conservative principles? And since they don’t speak up for them now, what do they stand for? Since when, for example, was it a conservative principle to concentrate all federal power in the president and deny Congress its constitutional role? How does a party that ostensibly opposes centralized state power square that opposition with the centralization of power in one man? ... HOW DID REPUBLICANS COME TO BETRAY their own philosophy? A key factor has been the party’s weakness, the fear that it was only getting weaker, and a consequent openness to desperate measures that could enable it to entrench itself in power while it could. In his 2017 book Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy, Daniel Ziblatt argues that the strength of conservative parties in the 19th and early 20th centuries determined whether a country followed a stable, settled path to democracy or an unsettled path with authoritarian reversals. Britain’s history is an example of the first; Italy’s, the second. Although Ziblatt’s book is about Europe, the political process he identifies seems to be playing out now in the United States. “Strong conservative political parties,” Ziblatt argues, “led to a stable long-run path of democratization” for several reasons. Conservatives had “a realistic basis for assuming electoral success” and “the resources that allowed them to sideline their own radicals.” They accepted the “rules of the game” in a democracy because they believed they could win that game or at least keep radicals on the left out of power. But when conservative parties saw themselves as likely to lose, they often turned against democracy. That has been the story of recent American politics. In this case, Republicans have also turned against their old leadership and many of the defining elements in the conservative tradition. ... In every election in which Trump has run, he has warned that this is Americans’ last chance and that they won’t have a country unless they elect him. If you’ve agreed that America is in extreme danger, it has made perfect sense to repudiate a conservatism that didn’t just fail to prevent the dire trends wrecking the country but contributed to them through its support of pro-immigration and free-trade measures. Republican elites haven’t cared all that much about Trump’s betrayal of conservatism because of what he hasn’t betrayed: the party’s corporate and class allegiances. Trump’s populism is all in the rhetoric and the scapegoating, not the substance of government. His tax legislation in 2017 and again in 2025 has redistributed income upward; his government appointees side with corporations over workers. Pro-business policy is what many Republicans mean by free-market policy. They are not bothered if the “invisible hand” is replaced by a “conspicuous fist,” as long as that fist generally comes down on their enemies. Republicans go along with the betrayal of conservatism also because they care more about results than rules, whether those are the rule of law, the rules-based international order, or the rules of civility and decency that Trump routinely flouts. They admire that Trump gets things done and look the other way at how he does it. Although they must know he is corrupt, because he hardly makes a secret of it, he is also delivering the result that matters most to them: power for “us” over “them.” What Stephen Miller famously said about international politics—“we live in a world, in the real world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power”—reflects the mentality now dominating the Republican Party. Some analysts make the mistake of intellectualizing Trump and taking seriously the ideas of the various schools of right-wing thought that compete to provide fig leaves for the worship of power. But as Jan-Werner Müeller has suggested, it’s an error to assume that right-wing political leaders today are “inspired by comprehensive worldviews” or “that far-right parties succeed because voters find their philosophies attractive,” when the leaders are opportunistic and self-interested and “most citizens have no clue” about what right-wing intellectuals are saying. The driving impulses on the right are old and primitive. As Never Trump conservative intellectuals discovered to their horror, ideas and principles don’t much matter in the party that Trump took over. It’s a world where, as Miller says, strength governs, power governs, force governs—and conservative thought is expected to be loyal and submit.

But hey, lemonade here: they are all making out like bandits in the regime.

Man, that groovy music anchored by the flute sounded old even by 1985 standards.

Fair, although if you’re 21, you have to go two on that particular hit.

We’ve had a dish since 1999, and occasional weather mishaps notwithstanding—which is 100% mitigated with Internet backup now, anyway—we have had almost no trouble outside of boxes failing, which happens every four to eight years or so. We just like how darned convenient it is just to touch one button and browse our recordings, or plug in a three-digit number we’ve memorized for a quarter century (like 254) to get a channel. For convenience, it beats navigating through frequently changing menus. The only thing even close to being as convenient is accessing recently viewed or up next from practically all the streamers centralized on the home page of the Apple TV app located on the Apple TV box. Everything else, it’s multiple pages and clicks to get to the thing we want, provided we can even easily locate it on the streamer home page.

So If I’m seeing this right, McGonigle might be only the 8th hitter in modern history to debut with four hits and six or more totals bases. I got J.P. Arencibia, Brant Alyea, Billy Bean, Willie McCovey, Ed Freed, Art Shires, and Mike Mitchell.

I think Lou did? Actually he was 3-for-5, so not even as good. Answer is no.

I have Sirius XM. Easy as it gets.

I guess it's a little more expensive, since my all-in cost for Extra Innings through DTV is $175 on the dot. I look online and see that MLB.tv alone costs $149.99. So I would have to consider the marginal cost of $25 as being worth it, and I think it is.

Maybe my sticking with DirecTV Extra Innings with the free mlb.TV add-on was not the geriatric bad idea I hear people tell me it is.

He also did the opening, name-checking the Tigers throughout. The so-called perks of an MLB-prodcued broadcast ...

Kevin McGonigle with a 4-for-5 debut and Dillon Dingler launching a bomb! Without no doubt:

Kevin McGonigle is definitely not done hitting today, unlike some players I can name ... 😏