chasfh

Yeah, maybe that's all it is. I can see it. As with everything else controversial or divisive in this country, hatred of socialism has racist roots. The Origins of the Socialist Slur - The Atlantic The accusation of “socialism” had sharp teeth in the 1950s, as Americans recoiled from the growing influence of the Soviet Union and the rise of Communist China. But Republicans’ use of the word typically had little to do with actual, Bolshevik-style socialism. The theory that the people would rise up and take control of the means of production has never been popular in the United States. The best a Socialist Party candidate has ever done in an American presidential election was when Eugene V. Debs won about 6 percent of the popular vote in 1912. Rather, in the United States, the political charge of socialism tended to carry a peculiar meaning, one forged in the white-supremacist backlash to Black civil rights in the 1870s. During the Civil War, the Republicans in charge of the government both created national taxation and abolished legal slavery (except as punishment for crime). For the first time in U.S. history, voting in federal elections had a direct impact on people’s pocketbooks. Then, in 1867, Congress passed the Military Reconstruction Act, extending the vote to Black men in the South. White southerners who hated the idea of Black people using the vote to protect themselves started to terrorize their Black neighbors. Pretending to be the ghosts of dead Confederate soldiers, they dressed in white robes with hoods to cover their faces and warned formerly enslaved people not to show up at the polls. But in 1870, Congress created the Department of Justice to enable the federal government to protect the right of Black men to vote. Attorney General Amos Akerman oversaw the prosecution of more than 3,000 members of the Ku Klux Klan, winning more than 1,000 convictions. Meanwhile, Congress passed laws to protect Black voting. Suddenly, it was harder for white southerners to object to Black rights on racial grounds. So they turned to a new argument, one based in economics. They did not want Black men voting, they said, because formerly enslaved people were poor, and they would vote for leaders who promised to build things such as roads and hospitals. Those public investments could be paid for only with tax levies, and most of the people in the South with property after the war were white. Thus, although the infrastructure in which the southern legislatures were investing would help everyone, reactionaries claimed that Black voting amounted to a redistribution of wealth from white men to Black people, who wanted something for nothing.

I don't know how much I buy this as being accurate, but I gotta laugh at Michigan's.

I want to know how they are selling it on the RWM to rank and file red hats. There’s got to be something they’re saying to them that they think is a benefit, doesn’t there? Such as, every subsidy is going only to illegals, or welfare queens, or something like that to make them hate the idea. That’s what I’m trying to get at. I can’t locate anything along those lines.

Stay classy.

Can anyone tell me what the intellectual argument against healthcare subsidies is? Why is it a bad thing? Serious question.

Random thought that popped into my head: I don't know whether I should be a little surprised or not at all surprised that apps like ChatGPT, Anthropic, Gemini, et al. have never been referred to as LLAMAs, which strikes me as a reasonable acronym for Large LAnguage Model Agents. I mean, come on, it's sitting right there in plain sight ...

You could also say that if it weren't for the ten-year struggle Poland went through, it would have taken Hungary, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia a lot longer than ten months, ten weeks, or ten days.

Because I disliked driving on the wrong side of the car so much in England, I opted out of driving in ANZAC when I was there.

There were also 119 Americans who died, along with 49 Syrians, 20 Canadians, 3 South Africans, 3 Uruguayans, 2 Chinese, an Australian, and a Mexican person.

Local tastes.

Just 243,000 (0.9%) Of People In Australia Live In The Red Area

Where Men & Women Are Most & Least Likely To be Friends

Map Of The Town of Springfield From The Simpsons

Oakland > Macomb and Wayne

What else is there to do in Iceland?

I think I figured out a hack to get at time in between pitches. Fangraphs has pitches per game at the team level for both batting and pitching, in their Leaders area. Reference has time of game by team under Seasons/Other. My simple hack is, take the total number of pitches faced by batters and thrown by pitchers for each team, and divide that by the average time of game multiplied by 162 for each team. For example: the Tigers threw 24,044 pitches and faced 23,339 pitches as hitters, for a total of 47,383 total pitches thrown in their games. Their games averaged 158 minutes in length—multiply by 162, and we conclude that they played baseball for a total of 25,596 minutes during the regular season. (Apropos of nothing, that works out to almost 18 full days spent playing regular season baseball during the year.) Forty-seven thousand three hundred and eighty-three total pitches divided by 25,596 total minutes equals 1.85 pitches per minute on average in Tiger games during the regular season. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's probably good enough. Here's the resulting table for 2025. Team Pit/Min NYY 1.75 TOR 1.77 NYM 1.78 SDP 1.78 TEX 1.78 HOU 1.78 MIA 1.79 BAL 1.80 ARI 1.80 TBR 1.81 SEA 1.81 BOS 1.81 PHI 1.81 LAA 1.81 CHC 1.82 STL 1.82 LAD 1.82 CHW 1.83 MIN 1.83 WSN 1.84 KCR 1.84 COL 1.84 PIT 1.84 ATH 1.85 MIL 1.85 DET 1.85 CIN 1.85 CLE 1.85 SFG 1.87 ATL 1.87 MLB 1.82 The team's in red are the playoffs teams from last season. My takeaways: Yeah, the Yankees are decidedly the slowest team in between pitches. The best teams are not necessarily the slowest teams. Those Yankees/Blue Jays regular season games must have been murder to sit through.

Perhaps because world war was being waged there during ten of the previous 34 years.

Time between pitches could probably be extracted from freely-available Statcast data. There’s a guy who makes them available on his GitHub.

If it’s a free and fair election, yes, it will be a blowout.

If he’s even allowed to run, then democracy and the Constitution are literally over. At that point it will be Xi, Putin, and Trump explicitly carving up the world among them, and EU Europe will basically become the Warsaw ghetto.

TDS has been fully embraced by Trump as a nice little cudgel, although I don’t think he could ever have come up with it, because he truly has no innate idea people could ever not love or respect him, except for mentally disabled (or, as he and MAGA would say, “retarded”) people. I think someone had to come up with it for him to explain to him how anyone could ever not love him.

Murdering drug smugglers? I thought Trump was pardoning drug smugglers? 🤔

Trump wants to be all things to all people at the same time. He wants to be both the president who satisfies most people by keeping us out of war unlike those RINOs and Democrats, and be the guy who thrills soldier sniffers with the rapacious overseas adventures they crave. This is not unlike Jesus who is also all things to all people—he’s the Prince of Peace to most Catholics and mainline Christians, and, at the same time, the ass-kicking no-prisoner-taking architect of the Apocalypse to the evangelicals.