Where Harris and Trump stand on ten issues, including abortion

Much of political coverage in a presidential election year tends to focus on polls, personalities, and intrigues, with issue and policy differences taking a back seat. In some ways, this is understandable. By this time in the political calendar, likely voters have decided who they are going to vote for based on a whole set of factors both tangible and intangible, and policy platforms put out by the rival candidates and parties are unlikely to sway many people away from their original choice. Furthermore, any new policies that are proposed tend to be those designed to enthuse supporters to vote and even work for the candidate and to shore up support among groups that are disaffected for some reason. It is not at all clear if they have any chance of being implemented if the candidate gets elected. The party platforms that are adopted at the conventions are usually just wish lists designed to appeal to as wide an array of voters as possible, and have no real bite in terms of requiring specific actions.

For those who really want to know where the candidates stand on some of the most talked-about issues, the Associated Press has helpfully summarized the positions of the Harris and creepy Trump campaigns on 10 issues: Abortion, Climate/Energy, Democracy/Rule of Law, Federal government, Immigration, Israel/Gaza, LGBTQ+ issues, NATO/Ukraine, Tariffs/Trade, and Taxes.
[Read more…]

New policy on comments

As people know, I have moderated the comments with a very light hand, assuming that mature adults would know how to behave in a public space. It took outright hate speech targeting marginalized groups to cause me to ban people, and that has happened very rarely. But I have been getting increasingly irritated by the tedious and hostile exchanges among a few commenters that tend to fill up the comment thread with repeated posts about petty or off-topic issues.

So here is new new rule: No one will be able to make more than three comments in response to any blog post. Violation of that rule will result in banning.

But I also want to address a couple of deeper concerns for which a solution cannot be quantified but will require me to exercise my judgment.

It is well known that the comments sections on the internet can be a cesspool. I had hoped that the people who come to this site would be different, leading to more mature exchanges. But I was clearly too sanguine. We sometimes have absurdly repetitive exchanges seemingly based on the childish belief that having the last word means that you have won the argument or with increasingly angry repetitions being sprinkled with puerile justifications like “They started it!”

The other issue is the hostility that is often expressed, often triggered by the most trivial of things. People should remember that this is a blog, not a journal or magazine. There are no editors, proof readers, and fact checkers. In such a casual atmosphere, people (and that includes me) will often inadvertently be less than precise or accurate in what they say. If the error is trivial but the meaning is clear, the error should be ignored. If the meaning is not clear, clarification can be politely asked for. If it is a genuine error, a correction can be politely made. So in future, I will police the tone of the comments more closely. If I think people are being rude or condescending or insulting (and I do not mean just abusive language but also tone), I will ban the person.

A recent email sent to me privately by a long-time lurker brought home to me how people might be hesitant to join in the conversation here, even if they have something to say, out of fear that something that they write, however well-intentioned, will be seized upon and responded to in a hostile manner by some of the most egregious offenders.

Here is a portion of the email.

Are you aware that the comments in the comment sections of your posts can be perceived as dauntingly hostile?

It’s mostly one specific commenter named [name redacted], but there are a couple of others as well. In most cases… it’s not so much the actual, literal words but the general content and tone. And I know that makes the problem difficult to pin down. But there is so much arrogance and condescension and contempt and passive aggression in some of his (and some others’) comments that often there is hardly any productive discussion in the comment section anymore, just general grandstanding and bashing each other.

Also, in rather rare cases there is very open abusive language. A recent commenter called another commenter “demented fuckwit”. Even if their frustration with the other commenter was understandable, such open verbal abuse makes for rather painful reading.
 
This hostile atmosphere has kept me from commenting several times. I haven’t dared partaking in the discussions because I didn’t want to elicit such aggressions against my own person. And even just reading them being directed at others makes me feel very unsettled. It unsettles me to the point that I have increasingly skipped the comment sections; because I’d rather miss out on interesting contributions than stumble over frequent hostility. I know that I’m more vulnerable than many because of prior experiences with verbal abuse, but also I don’t believe I’m the only one who feels like that.
 
I know there are differing opinions about what constitutes (un)productive commenting, and about moderating comments. I totally get it if your opinions and preferences differ from mine. If nothing changes, I will simply stop reading the comments – and will continue to enjoy reading your original posts!

I thought the writer made a persuasive case that my earlier policy was not working and that I needed to do something different. It looks like I have swung from being highly lax to very strict. Maybe in the future I’ll find some middle ground but I am going to try this for a while.

So I would suggest that in future commenters think carefully before they post anything, taking into account what they say and how often they say something. They should try to put themselves in the shoes of the person they are arguing with and think about how they might feel if their comment had been directed at them. They should also think about how their comments might look to others. It surprises me that people do not realize how badly this kind of behavior reflects on themselves.

I realize that these guidelines are somewhat vague. So a good rule of thumb would be: If in doubt as to whether to post something because it might violate these boundaries, that is a good sign to not post it. I will be the sole judge of whether the boundary has been crossed.

The power of anger when channeled through joy

The Daily Show‘s Desi Lydic had a conversation with Rebecca Traister (an excellent writer whom I used to read and link to before her publication New York magazine went behind a paywall) and Brittney Cooper, and they both had very interesting insights into the current race for the presidency and the gender and masculinity dynamics at play, with Republicans appealing to the manosphere in an especially icky way while Democrats have become able to comfortably speak about traditionally feminist issues. They also talk about how anger is being channeled by the Harris-Walz campaign in a joyful way.

Well worth watching.

Expect a Trump campaign shake-up soon

When media pundits analyze campaigns, they tend to follow a predictable pattern. For the campaign that is leading, they point to things that they say are making it do well, while for the campaign that is losing they point to things that they say is hurting them. The problem is that these explanations are highly malleable and if for some reason fortunes get reversed, they will suddenly reverse their explanations as well.

Right now, the creepy Donald Trump-weird JD Vance campaign seems to be losing ground to the Kamala Harris-Tim Walz campaign and there is no shortage of explanations for why this is so. The chief one is that creepy Trump is undisciplined and is going off message to make rambling personal attacks on his opponents. But when creepy Trump was doing well just a month ago when Biden was the presumptive Democratic nominee, these things were not seen as major liabilities. It seems like when you are winning, you can do no wrong but when you are losing you can do nothing right.
[Read more…]

Good riddance to Columbia University president

Minouche Shafik resigned today. Her terrible handling of the protests at Columbia University, and her craven capitulation to hardline Israel supporters in the US congress infuriated both students and faculty.

Her resignation, effective immediately, was unexpected, with the university’s fall semester just weeks from beginning. It comes on the heels of two other Ivy League presidents’ resignations in the past year.

Immediately after the news, reports of pro-Palestinian protesters celebrating near the university began appearing on X as some members of the Columbia community voiced their support for the change of leadership.

Shafik, whose tenure began in July 2023 and made her the first woman to head the prestigious university in New York City, appeared before Congress in April, in highly publicized hearings regarding allegations of on-campus antisemitism. At about the same time, her decision to call the New York police department on to campus, in response to student protests, drew the ire of students and faculty.

“The dumbest climate conversation of all time”

I did not listen to the Elon Musk-creepy Donald Trump love fest. I did not want to waste two hours of my life listening to two egomaniacs fawning over each other. Apart from the disastrous start in which technical glitches delayed the start by 50 minutes, the reviews of the subsequent content have not been not good, justifying my decision.

Some of the most scathing comments have been about their discussion on climate change, where creepy Trump said we should drill for more oil, that rising sea levels will provide the benefit of more ocean front property (what??), and wondered why we are not talking about ‘nuclear warming’ (whatever the hell that is), while Musk seemed to think the only reason to going electric is because fossil fuels will eventually run out.
[Read more…]

Seth Meyers had a lot of catching up to do

The last three weeks have been a political whirlwind but the late night talk show that he hosts has been on hiatus during that time. They must have thought this was a good time to plan their break. It is the summer doldrums, the Republican convention had just ended, the Olympics were going to dominate the news for two weeks, and they would come back just before the Democratic convention

But things have been so crazy that when he returned on Monday, he had a lot of catching up to do and it was worth watching his summary to be reminded about how things have changed so dramatically.