There's some minor schadenfreude for the Netanyahuists who learned that, no, actually, putting all your chips on the flakiest, scammiest, piece of shit around was not some brilliant strategy and that yes, you too are the mark; but not nearly enough to compensate for the pointless destructiveness of this whole mess. Other than that minor bit of schadenfreude, the only other upside is: it probably could have gone way worse?
Bibi still has leverage — he has a direct pipeline to super-wealthy US Zionists, who are taking up the "stabbed Israel in the back" calls, along with their GOPer senators. Don't let us kid ourselves, the IDF and IAF will continue operations throughout Lebanon, "in order to secure Israel's security — yadda-yadda-blah-blah", same old-same old.
It ain't over 'til it's over, and we here in the States are a long, long way from seeing this disaster area wound up without enduring yet more misery.
Yeah, my original draft had a "assuming this is actually winding down" clause that I dropped when I edited it to be shorter, but obviously there remains plenty of opportunity for the "way worse" stuff to still happen.
I had felt convinced that Mr Trump were going to use a tactical (he would say 'a so-tiny') nuclear weapon on one place or another in Iran, the sort of idea he and the cult would call 'brilliant—noöne else would have thought of that' where everyone would say that that's because anyone else would understand that this were a near-supremely bad idea. ('Near' only because a strategic weapon would be worse.)
It would be the 'inject disinfectant' of Gordean-knot–cutting.
"And there is a view that is rooted in how people make decisions—all of us, not just leaders—about what happens when someone finds themselves in what’s called the 'domain of loss.' It’s a psychological concept. And, almost counterintuitively, when people feel they are losing, they very frequently take greater risks. They double down on their behavior. And that’s what I’m now worried about. He’s lashing out. He’s demanding that we accept his version of reality, which is unhinged from the actual world that we live in and the actual consequences of his actions. So, I think we have to be extremely vigilant and ready to push back every chance we get."
There was that campaign quote along the lines of "we have these weapons so why can't we use them?" As long has this capricious, "roll the dice and we'll see what happens" meathead has unfettered access to all kinds of nukes, we are whistling past the proverbial graveyard. People don't really understand the danger.
While it is obviously a Great American Defeat/Suez moment, I appreciate that the US is capable of moving on from the failed venture because the comfort of the populace (aka gas prices) is still important. We are not Russia yet.
I thought Vance’s admonishment of the more extreme Israeli ministers was interesting and if I were an apologist for Israel, very concerning. The Nat Con’s support for Israel is an inch deep. They’re itching for a reason to break with Netanyahu and embrace their instinctive anti-semitism. Israel is in a really dangerous position and it’s all thanks to Bibi.
100%. JD Vance is Tucker's voice in the administration, and Tucker's remarks on Israel have gone way beyond good faith criticism. I note his recent appearance with his brother talking about how "they" hate white christians and made them desegregate their country clubs. I hope those on the left can see what he's doing.
Mmm. Counter-point: the Christian Zionists in the evangelical/Christian nationalist wing of the base are very committed to the Zionist alliance. That's a powerrful segment of the base the GOP can't afford to piss off. (ofc Xtn Zionism is perfectly compatible with antisemitism, that's another topic). So I don't think Tucker and his ilk are going to get their way any day soon
"If you ever thought Trump is capable of behaving strategically, let alone undertaking some “civilizational” plan, you are far dumber than he is."
I'll never comprehend this. The contingent of Washington Republicans who have claimed to be hard-nosed realists and advocates of US "strength" have put their chips on . . . . Donald Trump? The guy who says things like, "no one knows that the word dumb has a "b" in it"??
I totally agree, and you put it well. But the chorus of criticism of the “deal” makes me nervous. We should be cheering for it as the best way we could hope for out of a terrible war. Criticize the war, not the “deal.”
The deal is terrible for America and should also be criticized imo
Two wrongs don’t make a right and Trump is politically exposed due to this massive failure. I for one think every aspect of this debacle should be criticized to the maximum.
Whats more, an argument in favor of pacifism can be made at the same time. US aggression has not only caused senseless death and destruction, it has also caused loss of power and prestige.
Silver lining: the war hawks HATE this and are willing to speak up about it in a way they did not previously. Meanwhile, the MAGA base is frustrated with lack of action on affordability.
I’m hopeful this latest in a string of failures will continue to open massive cracks in the MAGA coalition ahead of the midterms. We need a blowout to overcome whatever cheating they will try and to have any hope of gaining control of the Senate.
I can imagine how hard it is to write about Trump at this point. His corruption is manifesting on his physical being. Curiously I am enjoying watching him melt. I thought I needed to see him in an orange jumpsuit.
Yeah, just the raw, banal, thick-as-a-post, unalloyed, relentless stupidity of MAGA and the Trump regime eventually can just have a kind of paralyzing effect. Not because you stop giving a shit (their behaviour is consequential and deadly) but more because it’s too brainless to give a shit about trying to explain.
I think part of it is the odd fact that Trump’s endless conflicts are strangely devoid of…conflict — of arguments, world views, ideas, of people taking things seriously, of serious things to think about.
Instead, it’s just a decrepit old slob almost bored with his own power, surrounded by sycophants in his gilded palace, everybody just bullshitting themselves and others, riffing on whatever WWE-style Baby Face vs. Heel script he’s got churning around in his brain, casually pocketing a few billion in side hustles on the public dime (almost just a Trump family hobby at this point, it’s so routine and unchallenged), boning things up, as always, then moving on to the next violent farce; after all, every week there’s a new script, new choreography coming down the pipe anyway, so who cares. The octagonization of the public sphere, empire as pay-per-view. Step right up.
Being old and having lived through the follies of Vietnam and the Iraq War, the sensation I have now is best captured by a phrase from Evelyn Waugh's "Brideshead Revisited" to describe the effects of an ongoing disaster: "a blow upon a bruise". And, being a New Yorker of Trump's generation, I have lived for many years (even before the Trump presidency) hearing that gentleman's "wisdom" thrown out, such that much of what he says now makes for yet another blow upon a bruise. But what worries me more than my blown bruises is that there is a whole cadre of people in this country disturbed that the Iran War (which I didn't want at all) did not go far enough (and how to deal with that?)--and also that various new international shifts, not all of them good, have taken place (with varying degrees of connectedness to this war and other Trumpian doings) which we will have to deal with going forward.
So now, instead of nursing my well-blown bruises, I am reading the many analyses coming out about the potential longer range--national and international--effects of the war and Trump to get a better idea of how I (we) need to move from now on. I am still mulling these over--for example, the journal Foreign Policy has just published a 10 part series "The End of the World as We Know It" (https://foreignpolicy.com/projects/the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/ ). For those who may be interested and can get past the paywall, here is the list.
By Anton Jäger, a lecturer in politics at the University of Oxford and the author of, most recently, Hyperpolitics: Extreme Politicization Without Political Consequences.
By Jonathan White, a professor of politics at the London School of Economics and the author of, most recently, In the Long Run: The Future as a Political Idea.
Besides stupid and evil, they’re all insane by one definition or another. And by any criterion other than tearing the nation down (and kissing Trump’s ass and looking good on TV by his standard(s)), completely unfit for their respective positions.
As for that 4D chess thing: In part, that’s the propagandistic establishment media’s ongoing project — no threat from the Don needed — of building up the insane, feral monster as some sort of normal. Too, I think at best, there’s little thought to what Trump does. Then factor in an effort to grift — the Iran warring was that, extremely lucrative for Trump — or nothing more than to be on TV and suck up attention.
Why is to say that the question why Trump does anything is, at best, of questionable importance.
Now, a much better, related question is: Why does the rest of the nation’s leadership support his acts?
Way too much in this but if John or anyone wants to take a stab and comment suggest or counter-recommend — appreciated
Trump as an hallucinating human leader is why he is so dangerous. Under that frame we assess his actions and words. It can be a much richer way to set up resistance to his MAGA projects than battling over intention and facts and morality.
I propose “hallucinating” as it could decouple morality or good v evil frame as primary event. No doubt his behavior is delusional but that’s a dead end argument compared to “watch this hallucination in action”.
Not debating morality or evidence again. The emperor is plainly naked. Full stop. No well person could say otherwise about his Versailles event and what he said it says while having the text in hand.
Ask for facts of fraud in 2020 and he walks away from a professional journalist.
Say the Italian Prime Minister (a clear MAGA ally in any frame) begged him for a photo op.
Hallucinating persons can’t be trusted. It is not a moral proposition.
Any skeptic of AI trustworthiness to handle serious applications is based on an not trusting that AI might be “hallucinating”.
And fact is, yeah, it can. We have clear evidence that programming a bias and trying to slip it in skews answers to even unrelated prompts. Early GROK wildly, publicly, did it for all to see.
Yikes and WTF were the only non-delusional response.
The emperor without cloths is just f’ing obvious and up front and center in so many cases. It should that be said again and again as front page news. Full stop.
He’s playing a devious 4-dimension chess game — nice try. Percent of people buying that is sad fact but also not worth replying.
Statements of facts and conclusions directly in opposition to knowable facts and dynamics and previous proclamation —
in a leader of a nation? We wouldn’t let that slide if it was a business partner or an engineer we hired or our local mayor, nor a partner in our houseful decisions
Emergency is NOW. No moralizing and debating required. Rules in emergent require relentless for press and opposition and hopefully some who trusted before to just say NO.
Perhaps I, at least, can name this 'The War of Jerkassʼ Rear', after The War of Jenkinsʼ Ear and the site from which the need for this war and the plan therefor were pulled….
I share your frustration. I was trained and sometimes worked as an analyst of international affairs. It was a joy to work through why certain decisions were made, even to argue that they were mistaken, even foolish. But the assumption was always that decisionmakers were rational and the statements they made bore a reasonable relation to both factual truth and what they believed. But it is now all cloudcuckooland, where the irrational prevails and the honest remark is made as if by accident.
Hey John, first time/long time. Care to expand on the use of ‘schiesty’ in your column? Was just talking about this with my partner the other day (she, like yourself, is from NY). For me, it has the tang of weapons-grade Jew-hatred, up there with the k-slur, for her (not Jewish; neither am I) its sense is kinda neutral. Curious to hear.
See the Wikipedia entry on "Shyster." It doesn't have obviously anti-Semitic (or Yiddish, for that matter) origins, though it's so often used in a way that links unscrupulous lawyering to Jewishness that I guess I have to concede the point. Lisa Simpson calls Lionel Hutz a "shyster," IIRC.
My completely based on nothing concrete impression has always been that it was a much attenuated Merchant of Venice reference. Accordingly, it’s not a term I have ever used.
Please don’t misunderstand me: this is asked from genuine linguistic or semantic curiosity, it’s not a hidden bear trap. I suppose my instincts say that ‘schiesty’ (adj) when used as a noun would set off my alarm bells (“he’s a schiesty”), which is interestingly the reverse of “Jew”, when used as an adjective (I’ll not give an example, yall are welcome to supply them)
There's some minor schadenfreude for the Netanyahuists who learned that, no, actually, putting all your chips on the flakiest, scammiest, piece of shit around was not some brilliant strategy and that yes, you too are the mark; but not nearly enough to compensate for the pointless destructiveness of this whole mess. Other than that minor bit of schadenfreude, the only other upside is: it probably could have gone way worse?
Bibi still has leverage — he has a direct pipeline to super-wealthy US Zionists, who are taking up the "stabbed Israel in the back" calls, along with their GOPer senators. Don't let us kid ourselves, the IDF and IAF will continue operations throughout Lebanon, "in order to secure Israel's security — yadda-yadda-blah-blah", same old-same old.
It ain't over 'til it's over, and we here in the States are a long, long way from seeing this disaster area wound up without enduring yet more misery.
Tail wags dog, and all that.
Tail wags dog except Trump just gave up despite Israel wanting otherwise? How long are you going to keep this up?
Yeah, my original draft had a "assuming this is actually winding down" clause that I dropped when I edited it to be shorter, but obviously there remains plenty of opportunity for the "way worse" stuff to still happen.
I had felt convinced that Mr Trump were going to use a tactical (he would say 'a so-tiny') nuclear weapon on one place or another in Iran, the sort of idea he and the cult would call 'brilliant—noöne else would have thought of that' where everyone would say that that's because anyone else would understand that this were a near-supremely bad idea. ('Near' only because a strategic weapon would be worse.)
It would be the 'inject disinfectant' of Gordean-knot–cutting.
Hillary Clinton at newyorker.com:
"And there is a view that is rooted in how people make decisions—all of us, not just leaders—about what happens when someone finds themselves in what’s called the 'domain of loss.' It’s a psychological concept. And, almost counterintuitively, when people feel they are losing, they very frequently take greater risks. They double down on their behavior. And that’s what I’m now worried about. He’s lashing out. He’s demanding that we accept his version of reality, which is unhinged from the actual world that we live in and the actual consequences of his actions. So, I think we have to be extremely vigilant and ready to push back every chance we get."
There was that campaign quote along the lines of "we have these weapons so why can't we use them?" As long has this capricious, "roll the dice and we'll see what happens" meathead has unfettered access to all kinds of nukes, we are whistling past the proverbial graveyard. People don't really understand the danger.
You, thank you, gave the game away early. At the worst Scheiße is merely misanthropic, and certainly universal.
While it is obviously a Great American Defeat/Suez moment, I appreciate that the US is capable of moving on from the failed venture because the comfort of the populace (aka gas prices) is still important. We are not Russia yet.
and meat, per Zevon. we must have meat.
I thought Vance’s admonishment of the more extreme Israeli ministers was interesting and if I were an apologist for Israel, very concerning. The Nat Con’s support for Israel is an inch deep. They’re itching for a reason to break with Netanyahu and embrace their instinctive anti-semitism. Israel is in a really dangerous position and it’s all thanks to Bibi.
who could have predicted that the Israeli government getting into bed with the world’s worst anti-semites was not good for the jews?
Yoram Hazony in shambles
100%. JD Vance is Tucker's voice in the administration, and Tucker's remarks on Israel have gone way beyond good faith criticism. I note his recent appearance with his brother talking about how "they" hate white christians and made them desegregate their country clubs. I hope those on the left can see what he's doing.
Mmm. Counter-point: the Christian Zionists in the evangelical/Christian nationalist wing of the base are very committed to the Zionist alliance. That's a powerrful segment of the base the GOP can't afford to piss off. (ofc Xtn Zionism is perfectly compatible with antisemitism, that's another topic). So I don't think Tucker and his ilk are going to get their way any day soon
The evangelicals long for the Apocalypse and see this war as a sign prepping for Jesus to return soon.
Like, the Christian nationalists and the Israeli national-religious (Dati Leumi) recognise each other as kindred spirits, and they're not wrong.
"If you ever thought Trump is capable of behaving strategically, let alone undertaking some “civilizational” plan, you are far dumber than he is."
I'll never comprehend this. The contingent of Washington Republicans who have claimed to be hard-nosed realists and advocates of US "strength" have put their chips on . . . . Donald Trump? The guy who says things like, "no one knows that the word dumb has a "b" in it"??
I totally agree, and you put it well. But the chorus of criticism of the “deal” makes me nervous. We should be cheering for it as the best way we could hope for out of a terrible war. Criticize the war, not the “deal.”
The deal is terrible for America and should also be criticized imo
Two wrongs don’t make a right and Trump is politically exposed due to this massive failure. I for one think every aspect of this debacle should be criticized to the maximum.
Whats more, an argument in favor of pacifism can be made at the same time. US aggression has not only caused senseless death and destruction, it has also caused loss of power and prestige.
John, you nailed in three pithy paragraphs.
Silver lining: the war hawks HATE this and are willing to speak up about it in a way they did not previously. Meanwhile, the MAGA base is frustrated with lack of action on affordability.
I’m hopeful this latest in a string of failures will continue to open massive cracks in the MAGA coalition ahead of the midterms. We need a blowout to overcome whatever cheating they will try and to have any hope of gaining control of the Senate.
I can imagine how hard it is to write about Trump at this point. His corruption is manifesting on his physical being. Curiously I am enjoying watching him melt. I thought I needed to see him in an orange jumpsuit.
Yeah, just the raw, banal, thick-as-a-post, unalloyed, relentless stupidity of MAGA and the Trump regime eventually can just have a kind of paralyzing effect. Not because you stop giving a shit (their behaviour is consequential and deadly) but more because it’s too brainless to give a shit about trying to explain.
I think part of it is the odd fact that Trump’s endless conflicts are strangely devoid of…conflict — of arguments, world views, ideas, of people taking things seriously, of serious things to think about.
Instead, it’s just a decrepit old slob almost bored with his own power, surrounded by sycophants in his gilded palace, everybody just bullshitting themselves and others, riffing on whatever WWE-style Baby Face vs. Heel script he’s got churning around in his brain, casually pocketing a few billion in side hustles on the public dime (almost just a Trump family hobby at this point, it’s so routine and unchallenged), boning things up, as always, then moving on to the next violent farce; after all, every week there’s a new script, new choreography coming down the pipe anyway, so who cares. The octagonization of the public sphere, empire as pay-per-view. Step right up.
Being old and having lived through the follies of Vietnam and the Iraq War, the sensation I have now is best captured by a phrase from Evelyn Waugh's "Brideshead Revisited" to describe the effects of an ongoing disaster: "a blow upon a bruise". And, being a New Yorker of Trump's generation, I have lived for many years (even before the Trump presidency) hearing that gentleman's "wisdom" thrown out, such that much of what he says now makes for yet another blow upon a bruise. But what worries me more than my blown bruises is that there is a whole cadre of people in this country disturbed that the Iran War (which I didn't want at all) did not go far enough (and how to deal with that?)--and also that various new international shifts, not all of them good, have taken place (with varying degrees of connectedness to this war and other Trumpian doings) which we will have to deal with going forward.
So now, instead of nursing my well-blown bruises, I am reading the many analyses coming out about the potential longer range--national and international--effects of the war and Trump to get a better idea of how I (we) need to move from now on. I am still mulling these over--for example, the journal Foreign Policy has just published a 10 part series "The End of the World as We Know It" (https://foreignpolicy.com/projects/the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/ ). For those who may be interested and can get past the paywall, here is the list.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The End of the U.S.-Israel Alliance
A joint war against Iran might be its apex.
By Joshua Leifer, a columnist for Haaretz.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The End of Neoliberalism
The virtues it extolled—cosmopolitanism and competition—led to its demise.
By Branko Milanovic, a research professor at the CUNY Graduate Center.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The End of Trans-Atlanticism
As an ideology, it’s over. But the relationship is not.
By Nathalie Tocci, a professor of the practice at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies Europe.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The End of Climate Politics
As the West debated a green energy future, Beijing was building it.
By Leah Aronowsky, an assistant professor at the Columbia Climate School.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The End of the United Nations
To its most powerful member, it is worth more alive than dead.
By James Traub, the author of books including The Best Intentions and, most recently, The Cradle of Citizenship.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The End of Asylum
States across the global north are shutting their doors permanently.
By Linda Kinstler, a contributing writer at the New York Times Magazine and junior fellow at Harvard University’s Society of Fellows.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The End of Political Parties
They are hardly prepared for the new system.
By Anton Jäger, a lecturer in politics at the University of Oxford and the author of, most recently, Hyperpolitics: Extreme Politicization Without Political Consequences.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The End of Chinese Growth
Beijing’s economic ambitions have been brought back to earth.
By James Palmer, a deputy editor at Foreign Policy.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The End of Morality
We may come to miss the hypocrisy.
By Rosa Brooks, a professor of law and policy at Georgetown Law.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The End of the Future
Only Silicon Valley looks ahead now.
By Jonathan White, a professor of politics at the London School of Economics and the author of, most recently, In the Long Run: The Future as a Political Idea.
Besides stupid and evil, they’re all insane by one definition or another. And by any criterion other than tearing the nation down (and kissing Trump’s ass and looking good on TV by his standard(s)), completely unfit for their respective positions.
As for that 4D chess thing: In part, that’s the propagandistic establishment media’s ongoing project — no threat from the Don needed — of building up the insane, feral monster as some sort of normal. Too, I think at best, there’s little thought to what Trump does. Then factor in an effort to grift — the Iran warring was that, extremely lucrative for Trump — or nothing more than to be on TV and suck up attention.
Why is to say that the question why Trump does anything is, at best, of questionable importance.
Now, a much better, related question is: Why does the rest of the nation’s leadership support his acts?
Way too much in this but if John or anyone wants to take a stab and comment suggest or counter-recommend — appreciated
Trump as an hallucinating human leader is why he is so dangerous. Under that frame we assess his actions and words. It can be a much richer way to set up resistance to his MAGA projects than battling over intention and facts and morality.
I propose “hallucinating” as it could decouple morality or good v evil frame as primary event. No doubt his behavior is delusional but that’s a dead end argument compared to “watch this hallucination in action”.
Not debating morality or evidence again. The emperor is plainly naked. Full stop. No well person could say otherwise about his Versailles event and what he said it says while having the text in hand.
Ask for facts of fraud in 2020 and he walks away from a professional journalist.
Say the Italian Prime Minister (a clear MAGA ally in any frame) begged him for a photo op.
Hallucinating persons can’t be trusted. It is not a moral proposition.
Any skeptic of AI trustworthiness to handle serious applications is based on an not trusting that AI might be “hallucinating”.
And fact is, yeah, it can. We have clear evidence that programming a bias and trying to slip it in skews answers to even unrelated prompts. Early GROK wildly, publicly, did it for all to see.
Yikes and WTF were the only non-delusional response.
The emperor without cloths is just f’ing obvious and up front and center in so many cases. It should that be said again and again as front page news. Full stop.
He’s playing a devious 4-dimension chess game — nice try. Percent of people buying that is sad fact but also not worth replying.
Statements of facts and conclusions directly in opposition to knowable facts and dynamics and previous proclamation —
in a leader of a nation? We wouldn’t let that slide if it was a business partner or an engineer we hired or our local mayor, nor a partner in our houseful decisions
Emergency is NOW. No moralizing and debating required. Rules in emergent require relentless for press and opposition and hopefully some who trusted before to just say NO.
Perhaps I, at least, can name this 'The War of Jerkassʼ Rear', after The War of Jenkinsʼ Ear and the site from which the need for this war and the plan therefor were pulled….
I share your frustration. I was trained and sometimes worked as an analyst of international affairs. It was a joy to work through why certain decisions were made, even to argue that they were mistaken, even foolish. But the assumption was always that decisionmakers were rational and the statements they made bore a reasonable relation to both factual truth and what they believed. But it is now all cloudcuckooland, where the irrational prevails and the honest remark is made as if by accident.
Hey John, first time/long time. Care to expand on the use of ‘schiesty’ in your column? Was just talking about this with my partner the other day (she, like yourself, is from NY). For me, it has the tang of weapons-grade Jew-hatred, up there with the k-slur, for her (not Jewish; neither am I) its sense is kinda neutral. Curious to hear.
it's not antisemitic
I am Jewish
I guess in context it could be
And trump, perhaps more saliently, is not.
I’m aware!
It derives from 'scheisse', not 'Shylock', if that"s what's concerning you.
See the Wikipedia entry on "Shyster." It doesn't have obviously anti-Semitic (or Yiddish, for that matter) origins, though it's so often used in a way that links unscrupulous lawyering to Jewishness that I guess I have to concede the point. Lisa Simpson calls Lionel Hutz a "shyster," IIRC.
My completely based on nothing concrete impression has always been that it was a much attenuated Merchant of Venice reference. Accordingly, it’s not a term I have ever used.
Thanks, always assumed it was Yiddish, maybe as an effect of where I heard it growing up in NYC.
Please don’t misunderstand me: this is asked from genuine linguistic or semantic curiosity, it’s not a hidden bear trap. I suppose my instincts say that ‘schiesty’ (adj) when used as a noun would set off my alarm bells (“he’s a schiesty”), which is interestingly the reverse of “Jew”, when used as an adjective (I’ll not give an example, yall are welcome to supply them)
Hear, hear.