I don't know the esoteric rules of the Vatican as well as some here, but is the Pope supposed to verbally "go to war" with someone (e.g. as Rod implied, going to war with AI)? My impression is that his position is to be the center - someone who in his person unifies and leads the entire dizzying range of Catholics and regulates their relationship with the world. A person in that role has some strong incentives not to rush to radical positions, and many incentives to be diplomatic, measured and conciliatory.
I have two thoughts on this, but I don't know which one is right. Option 1 is that Rod is being a bit unfair to the Pope, putting too much value on the standards of the social media era, which valorize strong and authentic takes. By this argument, Rod is not considering that a more traditional institution like the Catholic Church has an old-fashioned way of communicating (not just legacy media, but legacy legacy media), putting more priority on stately, intricate and academicy language.
Option 2 is that back in the pre-Vatican II (or pre-Francis) era, all the Popes were (so to say) "going to war" for the right reasons, and Pope Leo is acting against Papal tradition.
Any experts in Vaticanology want to explain to me which of these options is correct?
I think the Pope is acting within his remit; Popes have often had things to say about the human relationship with technology, such as Humanae Vitae.
But I also think his take (from what I understand of it) is full of dopey liberal pablum that sounds profound without actually meaning anything at all. Like WTF does it mean to “rebuild Jerusalem” vs “construct Babel” in the context of developing AI technology? Great sentiment, but that’s all it is. And in typical liberal fashion, what “dialogue” really means is “you will do it how we tell you to according to all of our moral demands, or we will use social pressure to destroy you”.
“you will do it how we tell you to according to all of our moral demands, or we will use social pressure to destroy you”.
Is that your read on Leo? He seems like a quiet, bookish and conciliatory person to me. If he's like that (like Francis, I think you're implying), he is hiding it pretty well.
Yes, that is my read on him. He’s less blustery than Francis because he’s Anglo, but the same underlying authoritarianism is there. It’s just softened by his relative dignity and (frankly) femininity, in which the authoritarian impulse is masked by a pretense of seeking “consensus” and “dialogue”.
The threat will never be voiced, but it doesn’t need to be; Leo is firmly aligned with the Western left, and the language he uses both signals this and provides a roadmap for fellow liberals in responding to the AI revolution - they will seek “dialogue” in order to entangle AI companies and data center developers in fundamentally political processes that will appear consensual but will grant liberals effective control over their operations - when and where they can build data centers, what AI can be used for, and perhaps most importantly, who will benefit from it, especially politically. The demand for dialogue is thus partly an implied threat - if dialogue is refused, increasing social and political pressure will be exerted. Leo is simply contributing to a campaign that has already begun to bring the AI industry to heel in much the same way that social media companies were put under pressure starting in the late aughts.
On the word "Anglo" - I'm not sure I see why an American would be less feisty than an Argentinian. It's true that Leo is more soft-spoken, but I actually think it's more of a Leo thing, not necessarily an American thing.
The stereotype in Europe is that everyone to the west of the Atlantic has a bit more passion in their veins than the people in the Old World. Well, other than Canadians that is.
It sounds like you’re maybe not familiar with Latino male culture. Look up “machismo” - Francis’ occasional bouts of bombast and posturing were characteristic of the breed.
You can get American guys like that too, don’t get me wrong (*cough* Trump *cough*), but the typical elite Anglo-American man takes after the British model of restrained dignity over bombast. They are gentlemen. Think Mitt Romney or John Kerry. Leo is cut from that cloth.
Eh, I kinda see what you're saying. Although, America has kind of a mixed relationship with its Anglo heritage. A love-hate relationship, if you will. Different sectors of the American population work out this conflict in different ways too. There's definitely a sector (I guess East Coast WASP?) who is more at one with their Anglo origins than some other parts.
If someone wants a potentially interesting idea for a novel, I propose a novel that explores the strange father-son relationship of Britain and America with some stand-in characters (a gentlemanly and stodgy British dad and the rebellious and ambitious American son). It's almost as twisting and complex as an actual father-son relationship.
Well, as I said, I haven't read the encyclical, so I don't have a firm opinion. But I've read analyses by people who have, and they confirm (to me) Walther's judgment. If the Pope thinks AI is nothing more than a tool, I think he's vastly understating what it threatens to do to us.
It's hard for me to judge as well, since I am not 100% on what the expected Papal response would be. But there seem to be some Vaticanologists in the comments section, maybe they can give some interesting historical parallels 🤔.
One thought that gave me some pause (about being too harsh on the Pope) was the question of the Internet. I have criticized AI myself and find it quite sinister and amoral. However, a lot of the cultural and spiritual destruction has been conducted equally effectively by the Internet (which can be a very effective conduit for people with dark intent). Defenders of AI would say that AI will end up like the Internet - a force of both productivity and prosperity but also genuine evil.
So if the Pope is still in the "wait and see" phase of discernment, I could understand him, somewhat.
You are on the right track, Sarhaddon. A good podcast by Eric Sammons at Crisis magazine (who actually read the encyclical) is not at all laudatory but does point to things that Pope Leo got right.
A first, somewhat archaic, thought. I don't have the time, and it would perhaps be superfluous, to rehearse "the papal dogmas" of 1870 or, indeed, the whole changing concept or nature of "papal authority" from Pope Victor, Pope Julius, Pope Damasus, Pope Leo the Great, or Pope Gelasius onward. The point it, they are limited. Nowhere in them is there anything to support that popes have the "magisterial competence," authority, or just plain competence to address emergent secular circumstances. At most, they could (and should) address matters directly impinging on the lives of faithful Catholics: the matter of Henry VIII;s marital claims and desires ca. 1530 (the popes responded too little and too late) OR the matter of Louis XVI's anxious inquiry of the pope whether he, as a good Catholic, could give his approval to the Civil Constitution of the clergy in 1790 (the pope's resounding NO arrived a week after Louis, amidst much agonizing, gave it his approval - the episode which, most significantly among others, probably turned Louis's attitude towards what was going on from a thing which could be affirmed but guided from getting out of control to a process on a negative trajectory that had to be reversed at all costs) OR the responsibilities - we may expect something about this from Charlie Rosenberg - of believing and conscientious Catholics active in politics when confronted with the question to voting on matters of moral principal and Church doctrine (e.g., abortion, "gay marriage" or transgender nonsense, the last, perhaps, marking a transition from voting on matters informed by one's faith commitment and informed conscience to one based on the use of reason alone).
But what about modern papal vaticinations. Did Pope Leo XIII have any competence or "magisterial authority" in the matter of his "Rallliement" addressed to French Catholics in 1892
It made no difference, given the Laicite Laws of 1905. Better simply to have told the French Catholics to use their own judgment in the matter, and he would pray for them, One can( and should, IMO), on the other hand, commend Pius XI's Mit brennender Sorge of 1937 or Pius XII 1948 and 1949 decrees against Italian Catholics voting for, or publicly professing support for, Communist parties - a decree (how many people remember this?) made worldwide by "good Pope John XXIII" in 1959. Or that endless flow of papal encyclicals from Paul VI's papacy onward that have addressed all sorts of political, social, and "emergent" issues, many of them far from any compelling addressing in the light of Church doctrine, and most of them being more-or-less expressions of informed opinions having no obvious "magisterial status" even when popes, like Pope Francis on the death penalty, wanted somehow to nail to the wall his own "me no like" on the practice (John Paul II had the same "me no like" attitude, but he was honest enough and intelligent enough that his view did not have "magisterial status" but was his own application of broader Church teaching to"today's conditions).
On the other hand, Castii Connubii (1930) and Humanae Vitae (1968), unavoidable statements of Catholic doctrine in the face of a hostile and uncomprehending world.
When it comes to popes opining on AI I think that papal silence, save fora brief monition calling for reflection and not proceeding at haste and having to repent at leisure, reculer pour mieux sauter again, and maybe on some of the "technical aspects" of modern warfare - but on the whole I strongly prefer your Option 2.
Thanks for this really erudite take. I see that there are sides my options didn't even consider. That's why I was hoping someone with more real knowledge about the Vatican could give an input of greater weight.
I voted for Cornyn in the primaries, but not voting for Paxton in November would only help Talarico get elected. Can't do that, so I will reluctantly vote for Paxton. I was born in Texas and have lived here my whole life. I'm not going to just give up and let the Democrats have it.
Maybe you or Paul should run as an independent. Talarico is looking worse and worse, Paxton is darn near unacceptable. You might win. It seems Trump has a grip on a significant majority of Republican primary voters in most states, but loyal party voters are shrinking minorities for both parties. A lot of people who couldn't be motivate to vote for Cornyn might vote for you over Talarico or Paxton.
Well….how much of that was “Solid South” inertia? LBJ essentially conducted a bait and switch on his own state party as he shifted over to the national stage. I understand that the recriminations were bitter. Shortly thereafter, Nixon’s ultracynical “Southern Strategy” was born. And here we are.
Part of Nixon's Southern strategy was him flying into Fayetteville, AK for the big Texas-Arkansas football game in 1969 which essentially decided the National champion that year. Texas won 15-14. After watching a re-play of the game a few years ago, I wonder if Nixon paid off Arkansas quarterback Bill Montgomery to throw the game with two fourth quarter interceptions.
All the political action was in the Democratic Party until 1961 when the accidental Senator, John Tower, was elected Senator with something like 17 % in a jungle primary to replace Lyndon Johnson who had been elected Vice-President in 1960. Tower was the only Republican in a very fractured field of Democrats.
Cornyn lost because he's an amnesty hugging, soft-open-borders fanatic, meaning, he will declare that he supports upholding the law, but will always look the other way, (just can't resist the Siren of cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap labor) like most Republicans. Look where the lust for cheap labor has gotten Europe. Mass immigration, H-1B inundation is the ONLY issue, at this point. Cornyn failed 100% on this matter. If you can't grasp this just stay home. Personally, I would have preferred Talarico any day over any of these worthless cucks. Cucks must be destroyed at all costs. It's probably too late, but I will go down resisting.
Progressivism and liberal democracy do not play well together. The famous “ratchet effect” will always be in play whenever there are progressives around. Liberal democracy presumes all policies are subject to transactional revision. Progressive politics aims to close off opportunities for revision as the vanguard succeeds in instituting one policy after another. The idea is to make government so large a presence in ordinary lives that any change in policy will feel like an existential threat.
I have news for Ramesh Ponnuru. Most voters have gender issue way down on their priority list. They are focused on costs of gas, food and other items. Get off of Twitter and speak with real people.
Given that most kids have a greater risk, even today, of becoming drug addicts (and OD stats), drunks, fatal accident statistics, and either teen pregnancy or teen abortion-getting stats than they do of being trans, the whole brouhaha strikes me as hyped-to-exaggeration just like fears of plane crashes and shark attacks when the real dangers are shrugged off.
A quick search on Grok shows the rate of transgenderism in teens is higher than the rate of teen pregnancy. 3.3% vs 2.5%.
Also it’s not that I’m afraid of my kids becoming trans, but I am afraid of my daughter having to play against males in sports or share bathrooms or locker rooms with males.
It’s super annoying as a social conservative to be constantly lectured to that my concerns are not real or valid and I should care more about x y or z issue. Both parties do it and I’m sick of it.
We try to keep politics out of the conversation at my church (I'm talking about fellowshipping time after the Liturgy and etc. - it's definitely kept out of the pulpit.) Last Sunday I made the mistake, at coffee hour, of checking my news feed and seeing the news of Trump's claim of a new peace deal with Iran. The commentary on the Iran War of the guys I was with was uniformally harsh about that war and its effects on our economy.
The TX situation has turned bitterly sour, as you note. Not sure I can pinch my nose hard enough to vote in November, which--as you note--is something that advantages Talarico. When the 2nd-in-charge and several other fine, talented, honorable attorneys resigned from the TX Attorney General's office several years ago in protest, it was obvious something was deeply wrong. Very frustrating to see voters fail to demand character of their leaders.
As a second input for today, I highly recommend Rod watch this interview between Tucker and Ryan Montgomery. Ryan exposes some incredibly creepy online trends, involving Satanic child abuse cults.
Yes. But its probable that there are a few, a very few. In a population of 340 million, several thousand village idiots can find each other on line and declare themselves some kind of "community."
The allegations are more a very disturbing edition of the creeps on "To Catch A Predator" than Satanic cults congregating in basements. A lot of it you would have probably heard about in isolated news stories.
I haven't seen the interview yet, but I know what he's talking about. It's not at all the RSA thing from forever ago. This is really happening. People have been arrested, and if I'm not mistaken, the FBI issued a warning about it.
There's innocent people and children being prayed on in Discord channels, in children's games like Roblox and social media at large. I think that's a problem relevant enough to learn about.
And what the Tucker interview shows is the most extreme tip of the iceberg. The less severe (but much more common) phenomenon is also worth considering. For instance, in most online games today, you have people in the regular chatrooms chattering away about femboys, BDSM concepts and the like. Some of the people chatting away are social dropouts and people with strange fetishes who are happy to spread their dysfunctional mentality around. Abusers are rare and difficult to find, whereas this could be stumbled upon within an hour of so of entering any online game. It's just a part of the online social scene these days.
To put it simply, If I had children or cared about the state of public culture (and its impact on future generations), I would want to know such dangers exist.
FWIW, outside of once leasing a truck I really wanted but couldn't afford when I was in my early 20's, I've always bought. I don't know how much driving you intend to do around the country, for speaking engagements and the like, but with the way things are going with the airlines nowadays, you might end up doing more driving than you think you will. Those mileage limits on a lease may hurt you.
Plus the car market is so screwed ever since Covid that used cars are holding their value better than ever before. If you're buying outright, you'll never have to worry about being upside down on a loan if you have to get rid of it sooner than you think.
Solid choice on Honda. I drive a Chevrolet pickup for myself, but it's Hondas for the wife and kid.
I've never understood the leasing thing. Actually I do. Guys I know lease Mercedes and Beamers because it makes it look like they have more money than they actually do. It's just throwing money out the window. I haven't looked at the numbers lately, but back when I was an analyst most people kept their cars for 12 years.
Just checked. Yep. Eight to 12 years. People aren't as stupid as our masters believe.
Back in my day (60s, 70s) it was a celebratory milestone that a car ever made it to 100K miles. Nowadays, I'm obsessed with getting nothing less than 300K out of my original engine and transmission. One of my vehicles is a pickup truck. Even if I blew out the engine or tranny it would be way more economical to install a rebuilt unit than to purchase a new (or even used) pickup.
Leasing might be good for a business owner. Otherwise I don’t see the point. Never bought a new car in my life until in 2017 I replaced my 2001 Subaru Forester with a 2017 due to being offered 0% financing for 48 month loan term. It’s paid off, has only 68K miles on it and at 72 years old, I’ll probably drive it until my kids have to take the keys away. My son in law is a mechanic & he bought the old Subbie from my granddaughter after I passed it on to her and he still drives it to work. It has I think about 400K miles on it. They’ll run till the wheels fall off. Hondas are good too.
Hence the current round of rent-seeking technology being shoved into cars, and being mandated by the feds for "safety" reasons. Some of this is, of course, in the form of paying a fee so the OEM will enable hardware already present, but with all the microphones and cameras now layered into these cars, several OEMs have been exposed for selling your personal data to brokers, or (worst of all) to your own insurance company without your consent.
Doesn't do them any good when you keep a car for 8-12 years - that's lost revenue.
All good points but it should be noted that you can generally get a better deal on a new vehicle if you take the dealer's financing. You can then pay the loan off in short order.
A few years ago I was shopping for a new car and found the one I wanted at a good price, but the vehicle suddenly became "unavailable" when it was learned that I was paying the whole purchase price upfront.
So I went elsewhere, agreed to do the financing, which got me the price I wanted plus a discount of $1,000, and then paid it off after six months. In fact, the dealer knew and approved my plan, telling me that's how the game is played.
If I were Rod, I'd go with a USED Honda Odyssey or a USED Toyota Sienna. Just don't buy from an Indian Used Car lot. I was ripped off once. Never again.
We leased a minivan in April of 2024 and the value of the vehicle is currently more than the payoff amount. We would have had to put up a lot more $$ to buy it with a loan than to lease it, and the difference in total outlay over the time period was a little less than $3,000 more for the lease.
Buy vs lease = it depends. I drive my cars into the ground, so buying is always my preference. You really can't go wrong buying a good mid-level Honda, Mazda, or Toyota. And yes, they hold their value well. I sold my seven year old, 68k Mazda last year for 60% of what I paid new.
The missus has a wholly different philosophy on cars, which I graciously (mostly) indulge.
Will you still want to drive a Honda when you learn that they are now crammed full of motherboards and so are complex and fragile. If you can find a 2014, which precedes the deluge, it might make more sense to buy and ride it into the ground.
I've owned a 2015 Honda Civic for almost a decade. The reliability studies from Consumer Reports said that the Civic started going downhill in 2016, so I made sure to buy something older than that. (But things may be somewhat different with other models, and in a few years I'm going to have to buy something from the 2020s, regardless of whatever electronic thingamabobs it may have.)
I have heard rumors that car manufacturers are pulling back from some of the excesses and going back to things like actual dials and buttons for important functions.
Gee, maybe we'll even see crank-down handles for windows. (I have those in 2015 Jeep Wrangler). The only modern innovation I wish I had for my car is a backup camera.
Sorry, but power windows are most likely here to stay 😋
From what I’ve seen it’s mostly some of the important stuff they either put into touch screens or transformed into haptic steering wheel controls (which are horrible). Climate controls and volume in particular.
I have a 2024 with a touchscreen and I hate it. It’s downright dangerous because you cannot operate a touch screen without looking at it, which necessarily means not looking at the road while you’re doing it. And unfortunately, that’s the only way I can access climate controls and the radio tuner.
I love the way the car drives, but the interior controls are a big step down from what they were doing in 2014.
I was just talking with my mechanic today. We both agreed that the new cars aren't worth it. And they have too many devices like censors that can go wrong.
My 2013 Chevy Sonic has manual handles for the windows. I hate power windows - they're nothing but another spastic electrical thing to deal with- but then I'm a weirdo who is deathly afraid of driving off a bridge and being unable to open power doors or windows underwater. :)
It's slowly happening, but automotive design cycles are on a 7ish year clock: 2-3 years in design, in production for 4-5 years between major changes. Unfortunately we've not quite yet hit peak stupid here, and the bean counters and rent-seekers are putting up a helluva fight. The bean counters love the digital dashes because they're absolutely cheaper to design and build - fewer parts (and thus fewer parts design reviews, smaller BOM, less labor to install), and the rent seekers love them because they make it easier to turn your car into a revenue stream by hiding everything under layers of software you have to pay to unlock.
What's forcing their hand is consumer revulsion. But they won't give up easily - too many egos, too many sacred cows.
Which is a shame because up through about 2012 they were often fantastic. At one point we were an all-Toyota household, driving them well north of 200k miles. And then they got just Fugly in the 2010s, and they got cheap-feeling and plasticky, with weirdly kludgy controls.
We've transitioned into an all Ford house in the last decade, and they've been just solid, with sensible controls (though their 2024+ models I'm avoiding as they have the digital-dash nonsense).
Texas politics is never as simple as it looks. The GOPe in Texas was mostly a pro-business party as it came to power. The state legislature always has had a mix of pro-business types and conservative types, with pro-business folks working with Democrats to limit conservatism. Year after year, election after election, politicians go to Austin or DC after claiming to be conservatives and just continue pro-business politics, instead of ensuring conservative victories. The voters are done with amnesty-lite Republicans. Cruz is going down next cycle.
Paxton will win. Better the slimey guy rather than the crazy Democrat.
Paxton has more baggage than United Van Lines. So did Clinton, look where he went. BTW, the last balanced budget was courtesy of Bill. The six sex Talarico brings his own unique er intangibles. Vote against the person you think will hurt you the most. If you vote for anybody, welp, steady yourself for disappointment.
"MAGA is very good at tearing things down.....But it can't build." Really? Here is a short list of what MAGA has built, just in Trump's second term.
1. Immigration and Border Security.
2. One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
3. Brokered ceasfire or peace agreements in the Middle East and Armemia-Azerbaijan. Got the HAMAS hostages realeased.
4. Increased NATO defense spending comittments.
5. Issued over 225 executive orders focusing on regulatory rollbacks in energy, environment, contracting and more.
6. Helped increase US energy production.
7. Facilited billions, if not trillions, of foreign investment in the US, including vital chip manufacturing.
8. Brought about declines in the national homicide rates, largly through better run FBI and ICE.
9. Started the Trump Accounts, savings accounts for young people.
I'm sure there are more items that could be added, and will be added, but this will do for now. The jury is still out regarding Iran. But at a mimimum, Trump has reduced the Iranian threat, and may eventually broker lasting peace in the Middle East.
A horrible bill which is tearing down whatever was left of fiscal probity in the Federal government. I've seen dog sh** piles more beautiful.
Re: Issued over 225 executive orders focusing on regulatory rollbacks in energy, environment, contracting and more.
Er. um, that's very definition of tearing down.
Re: . Helped increase US energy production.
That's been ongoing for years. We were already (in principle) energy independent when Trump took office.
Re: Brought about declines in the national homicide rates, largly through better run FBI and ICE.
Nope, not at all. Apart from things like terrorism and organized crime the Federal Government is largely irrelevant to crime rates. That's a state and local matter-- and should be. Crime rates were already falling precipitously when Trump took office-- and it's really not clear why.
The Bill reduced the federal tax burden and allocated money for border security, energy production, and reduced Medicaid and SNAP payments, among other things. I get that it was not aimed primarily at deficit reduction, but much of the deficit should be offset by economic growth, tarriffs, and elimination of Democratic fraud (the size of which appears to be mind-numbing.) The 225 executive orders may appear to be "tearing down" to someone content with Democrat dystopia, but I think it helped build a more efficient, fair, and healthy federal government. Patel de-centalized and reallocated FBI agents and shifted the focus to immigration enforcement and violent crime. I believe he also de-politicized the FBI. He built a better agency, which will help with crime reduction across the board.
Re: and reduced Medicaid and SNAP payments, among other things.
And that's a good thing? Do you also think the pre-Christmas Scrooge was the hero of A Christmas Tale?
At this point those tax cuts are toxic as plutonium fallout from a nuclear blast.
Re: the 225 executive orders may appear to be "tearing down" to someone content with Democrat dystopia
By definition that is tearing down. Maybe that's a good thing like tearing down derelict, collapsing old houses-- but it is not remotely building up.
Re: He built a better agency, which will help with crime reduction across the board.
The FBI does not and should not have a role in local crime fighting-- the sole exceptions being assistance when a suspected perp flees across state lines and when law enforcement agents at any level are killed in unclear circumstances. Gee, I remember when people on the Right believed in Federalism-- or said they did. Anyway, the fall in crime rates (which began in 2023) is a mystery-- we should look into it without presuppositions-- something interesting may be hiding down there. But unless the future has started causing the past the Trump administration did not start the trend.
Re: much of the deficit should be offset by economic growth, tarriffs, and elimination of Democratic fraud
Oh. brother! Fact: Every time the deficit has come down in my adult life a Democrat has been president. Whenever a Republican has been president it has risen, sometimes to dizzying heights. Ask yourself if you cut back to part time hours (and salary) at work and expect your finances to improve.
Re: the size of which appears to be mind-numbing.
Propaganda, which some people are so addicted to they are like junkies mainlining fentanyl. Not to mention there's been plenty of Republican fraud and grifting too. I give you HealthSouth while Rick Scott was CEO-- bilked Medicare for almost two billion dollars. Maybe Scott was not personally repsonsible-- but if not it points to bare-faced incompetence on his part for not minding the store.
I understand the cuts mainly target the people newly included during The COVID-era Medicaid expansion. So, yes it was good by reducing government expenditure and reversing an expanded federal program, which happens far too little. Any claim that we need to continue those programs in the post-COVID era is, in fact, a humbug.
Federal crime affects people where they live, and more agents in those locations should help reduce it. Also, I believe Patel has enhanced FBI's cooperation with local police, which also should help. I am sure that a lot of FBI agents would disagree with your claim that they have very little role in local crime fighting.
Both sides come up short with deficit control. It's true that the last balanced budget was during Clinton's term, but the 90's Clinton would be shunned by today's Democrat Party. When was the last time a Democrat said "the era of big government is over?"
It is true that there is fraud by both sides, but Dem-run states like Minnesota and California seem to have turned it into a branch of government. And California is in the process of passing the Stop Nick Shirley Act, reportedly to stop the grift busting. Also, the cutbacks to the USAID program, among other benefits, stopped the Democrat money laundering program, which may help explain why the Dems are in a nation-wide funding deficit.
If my magic wand were working (more cheap Chinese junk I guess), Medicaid would be the final backstop in our healthcare coverage system-- for citizens under retirement age. Anyone lacking coverage from other sources (e.g., workplace, spouse) would be eligible-- but those adults with income over the current cutoff (verified with IRS and SSA records) would be required to pay a "premium" based on that income. At some level other coverage would be cheaper and more desirable.
It is a disgrace in the 21st century that there should be uninsured citizens in our nations when not only "rich" nations but even middle rank nations like Mexico are doing their best to cover all their people.
Grifting is not a partisan thing. Everyone who cares about public fraud and dishonesty needs to acknowledge that fact as the first step to fixing the problem.
Canceling (instead of sensibly reforming where needed) the USAID program ensured death on no small scale abroad. Elon Musk has blood on his hands and I would not care to be that man on Judgement Day (well, for multiple reasons of course)
A lot will be reversed and more bad stuff added. Which is why America needs to keep that from happening for as long as possible. My original post was a response to the knee-jerk claim that MAGA can't build anything. I know that what was built can be torn down.
Flat wrong. The FBI leadership worked with local forces, also sent a number of D.C. based FBI agents into the field. Hence historically low crime rates and 8 of the top 10 most wanted criminals captured. And a number of significant arrests foiling terrorist plots.
The second part of your essay belies the first. Paxton, for all his negatives, won because he's willing to "Fight the Power" that you recognize is destroying our nation, in a way that Cornyn, for all his positives, is not. This will become clearer as the election becomes closer.
That's what I ask too. Cornyn voted with Trump almost always. Texas is not my state, but I really don't want the GOP to lose the Senate. Trump helped make that more likely.
Oh, Paxton will win; do a dive into Talarico's record and you'll see. This may be like the Edward Edwards/David Duke election: "Vote for the adulterous slimeball - it's important!"
Well, if Texans vote AGAINST the man who fights against masking and isolating children, mRNA shot mandates, "transgender" mutilation of children, and shari'a-enforcement zones... then Texans must be a darn sight dumber than I remember...
I was about to jump in and say that kale was now pretty normal in the south but then I realized I am so far deep into the heirloom growing world that I no longer really have any clue on what is normal any more on what is grown and eaten.
This reminds me of your post yesterday and American culture. We are slowly being absorbed into one American blob. The foods of my grandfathers are slowly being erased except by niche people like me. Oh sure they might have the same names at times but the varieties are exceedingly different. Southern Apples and Pears are unique things unto themselves. They are inherently hardier because of the heat and humidity we have down in the deep south. After WWII as a country we just said screw it we are subsidizing these fruits in other places and the old orchards went away. We also lost connection to high quality foods like mulberries, figs, quince, medlars, and dandelion greens to just name a few. Don't get me started on the bean varieties that are no longer there. People are just not eating beans like they used to and cow peas are now seen as a thing of the past. When you take the food of your ancestors away and replace it with mass produced stuff shipped from far away you lose something important.
I've eaten them plenty of times over my life. For my family, my parents and grandparents grew up in small towns in Mississippi and basic Southern foods are still very common both at home and in restaurants that have Southern food.
I buy all my seeds from Baker Creek, they are all rare or heirloom seeds. I try to go for a mix of things that are unusual and fun and others that grow well in my area.
baker creek is a good company. I also buy from them. I am more of an orchardist that grows a veggie garden of good side. My specialties are in southern pears, figs, and blueberries. I am branching into southern apples. I am also a seed saver. I do have several heirloom seeds that I have been saving and using for years now.
As I commented to Rod's post, country people and plenty of people in the South still eat some of the same foods as previous generations. They also do eat stuff from other parts of the world too. It all depends. Country and small town people stick with the traditions more than people from urban areas.
There are lots of mulberry trees here in northern Virginia. I don't understand why people don't eat the fruit. We had a fruit-bearing mulberry tree at one of my childhood homes, and my mom used the berries like you would use other berries.
Kale was that inedible green leafy stuff that used be placed around the containers of edible plants at salad bars. That's where is still belongs...ghastly green decoration.
I love the lacinto/ black/dinosaur kale. Cut in fine shreds and add to soup right at the end of the cooking period. Great in caldo verde, as mentioned above, but also in my award-winning Galician bean soup: disks of good smoked sausage, onions, garlic, Great Northern beans, a diced potato, bay leaf, finished off with shredded kale. Or add the shreds to a fritatta or stir fry. But collards? Nooo.
Paxton reminds me of Mean Mr. Mustard.
He sleeps in a hole in the road?
Keeps a 10 pound note up his nose?
Always shouts out something obscene.
Such a dirty old man
Like the late Francis the Humble.
Perhaps, in honor of Rod's love of southern food, we should call him Mean Mr. Mustard Greens.
The chair will accept the motion.
Makes me think of the Zappa song Mr. Green Genes.
I don't know the esoteric rules of the Vatican as well as some here, but is the Pope supposed to verbally "go to war" with someone (e.g. as Rod implied, going to war with AI)? My impression is that his position is to be the center - someone who in his person unifies and leads the entire dizzying range of Catholics and regulates their relationship with the world. A person in that role has some strong incentives not to rush to radical positions, and many incentives to be diplomatic, measured and conciliatory.
I have two thoughts on this, but I don't know which one is right. Option 1 is that Rod is being a bit unfair to the Pope, putting too much value on the standards of the social media era, which valorize strong and authentic takes. By this argument, Rod is not considering that a more traditional institution like the Catholic Church has an old-fashioned way of communicating (not just legacy media, but legacy legacy media), putting more priority on stately, intricate and academicy language.
Option 2 is that back in the pre-Vatican II (or pre-Francis) era, all the Popes were (so to say) "going to war" for the right reasons, and Pope Leo is acting against Papal tradition.
Any experts in Vaticanology want to explain to me which of these options is correct?
I think the Pope is acting within his remit; Popes have often had things to say about the human relationship with technology, such as Humanae Vitae.
But I also think his take (from what I understand of it) is full of dopey liberal pablum that sounds profound without actually meaning anything at all. Like WTF does it mean to “rebuild Jerusalem” vs “construct Babel” in the context of developing AI technology? Great sentiment, but that’s all it is. And in typical liberal fashion, what “dialogue” really means is “you will do it how we tell you to according to all of our moral demands, or we will use social pressure to destroy you”.
“you will do it how we tell you to according to all of our moral demands, or we will use social pressure to destroy you”.
Is that your read on Leo? He seems like a quiet, bookish and conciliatory person to me. If he's like that (like Francis, I think you're implying), he is hiding it pretty well.
Yes, that is my read on him. He’s less blustery than Francis because he’s Anglo, but the same underlying authoritarianism is there. It’s just softened by his relative dignity and (frankly) femininity, in which the authoritarian impulse is masked by a pretense of seeking “consensus” and “dialogue”.
The threat will never be voiced, but it doesn’t need to be; Leo is firmly aligned with the Western left, and the language he uses both signals this and provides a roadmap for fellow liberals in responding to the AI revolution - they will seek “dialogue” in order to entangle AI companies and data center developers in fundamentally political processes that will appear consensual but will grant liberals effective control over their operations - when and where they can build data centers, what AI can be used for, and perhaps most importantly, who will benefit from it, especially politically. The demand for dialogue is thus partly an implied threat - if dialogue is refused, increasing social and political pressure will be exerted. Leo is simply contributing to a campaign that has already begun to bring the AI industry to heel in much the same way that social media companies were put under pressure starting in the late aughts.
On the word "Anglo" - I'm not sure I see why an American would be less feisty than an Argentinian. It's true that Leo is more soft-spoken, but I actually think it's more of a Leo thing, not necessarily an American thing.
The stereotype in Europe is that everyone to the west of the Atlantic has a bit more passion in their veins than the people in the Old World. Well, other than Canadians that is.
It sounds like you’re maybe not familiar with Latino male culture. Look up “machismo” - Francis’ occasional bouts of bombast and posturing were characteristic of the breed.
You can get American guys like that too, don’t get me wrong (*cough* Trump *cough*), but the typical elite Anglo-American man takes after the British model of restrained dignity over bombast. They are gentlemen. Think Mitt Romney or John Kerry. Leo is cut from that cloth.
Eh, I kinda see what you're saying. Although, America has kind of a mixed relationship with its Anglo heritage. A love-hate relationship, if you will. Different sectors of the American population work out this conflict in different ways too. There's definitely a sector (I guess East Coast WASP?) who is more at one with their Anglo origins than some other parts.
If someone wants a potentially interesting idea for a novel, I propose a novel that explores the strange father-son relationship of Britain and America with some stand-in characters (a gentlemanly and stodgy British dad and the rebellious and ambitious American son). It's almost as twisting and complex as an actual father-son relationship.
Leo is no more Anglo than Francis.
It's plausible, at least.
Well, as I said, I haven't read the encyclical, so I don't have a firm opinion. But I've read analyses by people who have, and they confirm (to me) Walther's judgment. If the Pope thinks AI is nothing more than a tool, I think he's vastly understating what it threatens to do to us.
It's hard for me to judge as well, since I am not 100% on what the expected Papal response would be. But there seem to be some Vaticanologists in the comments section, maybe they can give some interesting historical parallels 🤔.
One thought that gave me some pause (about being too harsh on the Pope) was the question of the Internet. I have criticized AI myself and find it quite sinister and amoral. However, a lot of the cultural and spiritual destruction has been conducted equally effectively by the Internet (which can be a very effective conduit for people with dark intent). Defenders of AI would say that AI will end up like the Internet - a force of both productivity and prosperity but also genuine evil.
So if the Pope is still in the "wait and see" phase of discernment, I could understand him, somewhat.
You are on the right track, Sarhaddon. A good podcast by Eric Sammons at Crisis magazine (who actually read the encyclical) is not at all laudatory but does point to things that Pope Leo got right.
A first, somewhat archaic, thought. I don't have the time, and it would perhaps be superfluous, to rehearse "the papal dogmas" of 1870 or, indeed, the whole changing concept or nature of "papal authority" from Pope Victor, Pope Julius, Pope Damasus, Pope Leo the Great, or Pope Gelasius onward. The point it, they are limited. Nowhere in them is there anything to support that popes have the "magisterial competence," authority, or just plain competence to address emergent secular circumstances. At most, they could (and should) address matters directly impinging on the lives of faithful Catholics: the matter of Henry VIII;s marital claims and desires ca. 1530 (the popes responded too little and too late) OR the matter of Louis XVI's anxious inquiry of the pope whether he, as a good Catholic, could give his approval to the Civil Constitution of the clergy in 1790 (the pope's resounding NO arrived a week after Louis, amidst much agonizing, gave it his approval - the episode which, most significantly among others, probably turned Louis's attitude towards what was going on from a thing which could be affirmed but guided from getting out of control to a process on a negative trajectory that had to be reversed at all costs) OR the responsibilities - we may expect something about this from Charlie Rosenberg - of believing and conscientious Catholics active in politics when confronted with the question to voting on matters of moral principal and Church doctrine (e.g., abortion, "gay marriage" or transgender nonsense, the last, perhaps, marking a transition from voting on matters informed by one's faith commitment and informed conscience to one based on the use of reason alone).
But what about modern papal vaticinations. Did Pope Leo XIII have any competence or "magisterial authority" in the matter of his "Rallliement" addressed to French Catholics in 1892
https://www.robertodemattei.it/en/the-ralliement-of-leo-xiii-a-pastoral-experience-that-moved-away-from-doctrine/
It made no difference, given the Laicite Laws of 1905. Better simply to have told the French Catholics to use their own judgment in the matter, and he would pray for them, One can( and should, IMO), on the other hand, commend Pius XI's Mit brennender Sorge of 1937 or Pius XII 1948 and 1949 decrees against Italian Catholics voting for, or publicly professing support for, Communist parties - a decree (how many people remember this?) made worldwide by "good Pope John XXIII" in 1959. Or that endless flow of papal encyclicals from Paul VI's papacy onward that have addressed all sorts of political, social, and "emergent" issues, many of them far from any compelling addressing in the light of Church doctrine, and most of them being more-or-less expressions of informed opinions having no obvious "magisterial status" even when popes, like Pope Francis on the death penalty, wanted somehow to nail to the wall his own "me no like" on the practice (John Paul II had the same "me no like" attitude, but he was honest enough and intelligent enough that his view did not have "magisterial status" but was his own application of broader Church teaching to"today's conditions).
On the other hand, Castii Connubii (1930) and Humanae Vitae (1968), unavoidable statements of Catholic doctrine in the face of a hostile and uncomprehending world.
When it comes to popes opining on AI I think that papal silence, save fora brief monition calling for reflection and not proceeding at haste and having to repent at leisure, reculer pour mieux sauter again, and maybe on some of the "technical aspects" of modern warfare - but on the whole I strongly prefer your Option 2.
Thanks for this really erudite take. I see that there are sides my options didn't even consider. That's why I was hoping someone with more real knowledge about the Vatican could give an input of greater weight.
I voted for Cornyn in the primaries, but not voting for Paxton in November would only help Talarico get elected. Can't do that, so I will reluctantly vote for Paxton. I was born in Texas and have lived here my whole life. I'm not going to just give up and let the Democrats have it.
Regrettably, I am in the same boat. Voted yesterday for Cornyn, but I cannot vote in the general for Talarico.
Maybe you or Paul should run as an independent. Talarico is looking worse and worse, Paxton is darn near unacceptable. You might win. It seems Trump has a grip on a significant majority of Republican primary voters in most states, but loyal party voters are shrinking minorities for both parties. A lot of people who couldn't be motivate to vote for Cornyn might vote for you over Talarico or Paxton.
I hate to tell you, but the Democrats have had their way with Texas for most of its history...
Well….how much of that was “Solid South” inertia? LBJ essentially conducted a bait and switch on his own state party as he shifted over to the national stage. I understand that the recriminations were bitter. Shortly thereafter, Nixon’s ultracynical “Southern Strategy” was born. And here we are.
Part of Nixon's Southern strategy was him flying into Fayetteville, AK for the big Texas-Arkansas football game in 1969 which essentially decided the National champion that year. Texas won 15-14. After watching a re-play of the game a few years ago, I wonder if Nixon paid off Arkansas quarterback Bill Montgomery to throw the game with two fourth quarter interceptions.
All the political action was in the Democratic Party until 1961 when the accidental Senator, John Tower, was elected Senator with something like 17 % in a jungle primary to replace Lyndon Johnson who had been elected Vice-President in 1960. Tower was the only Republican in a very fractured field of Democrats.
Cornyn lost because he's an amnesty hugging, soft-open-borders fanatic, meaning, he will declare that he supports upholding the law, but will always look the other way, (just can't resist the Siren of cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap labor) like most Republicans. Look where the lust for cheap labor has gotten Europe. Mass immigration, H-1B inundation is the ONLY issue, at this point. Cornyn failed 100% on this matter. If you can't grasp this just stay home. Personally, I would have preferred Talarico any day over any of these worthless cucks. Cucks must be destroyed at all costs. It's probably too late, but I will go down resisting.
Progressivism and liberal democracy do not play well together. The famous “ratchet effect” will always be in play whenever there are progressives around. Liberal democracy presumes all policies are subject to transactional revision. Progressive politics aims to close off opportunities for revision as the vanguard succeeds in instituting one policy after another. The idea is to make government so large a presence in ordinary lives that any change in policy will feel like an existential threat.
Right. Cornyn was always a Bushie.
We need term limits. One six year term for the Senate and two two year terms for the Congress. Cornyn was in for five terms. That's 30 years!
I have news for Ramesh Ponnuru. Most voters have gender issue way down on their priority list. They are focused on costs of gas, food and other items. Get off of Twitter and speak with real people.
Those three are the primary issues. Gender issues is important for people who have kids in particular.
Given that most kids have a greater risk, even today, of becoming drug addicts (and OD stats), drunks, fatal accident statistics, and either teen pregnancy or teen abortion-getting stats than they do of being trans, the whole brouhaha strikes me as hyped-to-exaggeration just like fears of plane crashes and shark attacks when the real dangers are shrugged off.
I know at least 5 trans kids in my children's circle. I don't know anyone who fits the other categories that you say are more common.
A quick search on Grok shows the rate of transgenderism in teens is higher than the rate of teen pregnancy. 3.3% vs 2.5%.
Also it’s not that I’m afraid of my kids becoming trans, but I am afraid of my daughter having to play against males in sports or share bathrooms or locker rooms with males.
It’s super annoying as a social conservative to be constantly lectured to that my concerns are not real or valid and I should care more about x y or z issue. Both parties do it and I’m sick of it.
We try to keep politics out of the conversation at my church (I'm talking about fellowshipping time after the Liturgy and etc. - it's definitely kept out of the pulpit.) Last Sunday I made the mistake, at coffee hour, of checking my news feed and seeing the news of Trump's claim of a new peace deal with Iran. The commentary on the Iran War of the guys I was with was uniformally harsh about that war and its effects on our economy.
A majority of conservatives right now are adopting an ostrich approach to the economic strain the Iran War is causing.
You are correct, Mr. Davidson. But Trump assures Americans that the rise in gas prices is "just peanuts." What an imbecile.
We Texans are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Subvert the dominant paradigm -- run someone else. Screw the self-appointed "Two Major Parties."
The TX situation has turned bitterly sour, as you note. Not sure I can pinch my nose hard enough to vote in November, which--as you note--is something that advantages Talarico. When the 2nd-in-charge and several other fine, talented, honorable attorneys resigned from the TX Attorney General's office several years ago in protest, it was obvious something was deeply wrong. Very frustrating to see voters fail to demand character of their leaders.
Maybe aging Establishment politicians don't count as "character." If its such an awful choice, maybe someone should run who is none of the above.
As a second input for today, I highly recommend Rod watch this interview between Tucker and Ryan Montgomery. Ryan exposes some incredibly creepy online trends, involving Satanic child abuse cults.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=750121sKIcU
Wasn't the supposed plague of "Ritual Satanic Abuse" discredited about 30 years ago?
Yes. But its probable that there are a few, a very few. In a population of 340 million, several thousand village idiots can find each other on line and declare themselves some kind of "community."
The allegations are more a very disturbing edition of the creeps on "To Catch A Predator" than Satanic cults congregating in basements. A lot of it you would have probably heard about in isolated news stories.
I haven't seen the interview yet, but I know what he's talking about. It's not at all the RSA thing from forever ago. This is really happening. People have been arrested, and if I'm not mistaken, the FBI issued a warning about it.
Sure...Satanic child abuse rituals are just what I want to hear about on a lovely Wednesday morning...
There's innocent people and children being prayed on in Discord channels, in children's games like Roblox and social media at large. I think that's a problem relevant enough to learn about.
And what the Tucker interview shows is the most extreme tip of the iceberg. The less severe (but much more common) phenomenon is also worth considering. For instance, in most online games today, you have people in the regular chatrooms chattering away about femboys, BDSM concepts and the like. Some of the people chatting away are social dropouts and people with strange fetishes who are happy to spread their dysfunctional mentality around. Abusers are rare and difficult to find, whereas this could be stumbled upon within an hour of so of entering any online game. It's just a part of the online social scene these days.
To put it simply, If I had children or cared about the state of public culture (and its impact on future generations), I would want to know such dangers exist.
FWIW, outside of once leasing a truck I really wanted but couldn't afford when I was in my early 20's, I've always bought. I don't know how much driving you intend to do around the country, for speaking engagements and the like, but with the way things are going with the airlines nowadays, you might end up doing more driving than you think you will. Those mileage limits on a lease may hurt you.
Plus the car market is so screwed ever since Covid that used cars are holding their value better than ever before. If you're buying outright, you'll never have to worry about being upside down on a loan if you have to get rid of it sooner than you think.
Solid choice on Honda. I drive a Chevrolet pickup for myself, but it's Hondas for the wife and kid.
I've never understood the leasing thing. Actually I do. Guys I know lease Mercedes and Beamers because it makes it look like they have more money than they actually do. It's just throwing money out the window. I haven't looked at the numbers lately, but back when I was an analyst most people kept their cars for 12 years.
Just checked. Yep. Eight to 12 years. People aren't as stupid as our masters believe.
Back in my day (60s, 70s) it was a celebratory milestone that a car ever made it to 100K miles. Nowadays, I'm obsessed with getting nothing less than 300K out of my original engine and transmission. One of my vehicles is a pickup truck. Even if I blew out the engine or tranny it would be way more economical to install a rebuilt unit than to purchase a new (or even used) pickup.
Leasing might be good for a business owner. Otherwise I don’t see the point. Never bought a new car in my life until in 2017 I replaced my 2001 Subaru Forester with a 2017 due to being offered 0% financing for 48 month loan term. It’s paid off, has only 68K miles on it and at 72 years old, I’ll probably drive it until my kids have to take the keys away. My son in law is a mechanic & he bought the old Subbie from my granddaughter after I passed it on to her and he still drives it to work. It has I think about 400K miles on it. They’ll run till the wheels fall off. Hondas are good too.
400,000 is pretty good. I ran 392,000 miles on my Highlander until the timing device burned the engine up.
Hence the current round of rent-seeking technology being shoved into cars, and being mandated by the feds for "safety" reasons. Some of this is, of course, in the form of paying a fee so the OEM will enable hardware already present, but with all the microphones and cameras now layered into these cars, several OEMs have been exposed for selling your personal data to brokers, or (worst of all) to your own insurance company without your consent.
Doesn't do them any good when you keep a car for 8-12 years - that's lost revenue.
My mom had her Chevy Nova (1971) for 44 years! True, my father was a mechanic, but still, that’s quite a good run for a $2,000 investment.
Wow. And the Nova was the typical American clunker of the 70s.
That hurts my heart, Derek!
My sister had a Nova. I almost fell out of it when the driver's door opened while I was driving about fifty miles an hour without a seat belt.
Wrong. The 1972 Ford Pinto my father inflicted on my and my sisters was the poster child of 1970s clunkers. My dad loved us deeply, I think.
My dad had a Pinto with a hatchback. It was garbage.
That's the one we had. Yellow with the brown vinyl top. Nasty, creepy little car.
All good points but it should be noted that you can generally get a better deal on a new vehicle if you take the dealer's financing. You can then pay the loan off in short order.
A few years ago I was shopping for a new car and found the one I wanted at a good price, but the vehicle suddenly became "unavailable" when it was learned that I was paying the whole purchase price upfront.
So I went elsewhere, agreed to do the financing, which got me the price I wanted plus a discount of $1,000, and then paid it off after six months. In fact, the dealer knew and approved my plan, telling me that's how the game is played.
I believe car dealer make most of their profit in the financing than the sale of the car itself in interest rate mark ups and lender kickbacks.
It's been a while but I remember when General Motors was described as a "financial company with a sideline in cars"
It's outrageous that today many car loans are of the 7-year variety.
If I were Rod, I'd go with a USED Honda Odyssey or a USED Toyota Sienna. Just don't buy from an Indian Used Car lot. I was ripped off once. Never again.
We leased a minivan in April of 2024 and the value of the vehicle is currently more than the payoff amount. We would have had to put up a lot more $$ to buy it with a loan than to lease it, and the difference in total outlay over the time period was a little less than $3,000 more for the lease.
Buy vs lease = it depends. I drive my cars into the ground, so buying is always my preference. You really can't go wrong buying a good mid-level Honda, Mazda, or Toyota. And yes, they hold their value well. I sold my seven year old, 68k Mazda last year for 60% of what I paid new.
The missus has a wholly different philosophy on cars, which I graciously (mostly) indulge.
Will you still want to drive a Honda when you learn that they are now crammed full of motherboards and so are complex and fragile. If you can find a 2014, which precedes the deluge, it might make more sense to buy and ride it into the ground.
That's my plan. Drive my 2014 forever, as long as forever might last.
I've owned a 2015 Honda Civic for almost a decade. The reliability studies from Consumer Reports said that the Civic started going downhill in 2016, so I made sure to buy something older than that. (But things may be somewhat different with other models, and in a few years I'm going to have to buy something from the 2020s, regardless of whatever electronic thingamabobs it may have.)
I have heard rumors that car manufacturers are pulling back from some of the excesses and going back to things like actual dials and buttons for important functions.
Gee, maybe we'll even see crank-down handles for windows. (I have those in 2015 Jeep Wrangler). The only modern innovation I wish I had for my car is a backup camera.
Sorry, but power windows are most likely here to stay 😋
From what I’ve seen it’s mostly some of the important stuff they either put into touch screens or transformed into haptic steering wheel controls (which are horrible). Climate controls and volume in particular.
I have a 2024 with a touchscreen and I hate it. It’s downright dangerous because you cannot operate a touch screen without looking at it, which necessarily means not looking at the road while you’re doing it. And unfortunately, that’s the only way I can access climate controls and the radio tuner.
I love the way the car drives, but the interior controls are a big step down from what they were doing in 2014.
Ugh, sounds terrible. Another reason why I will not buy a new car.
I was just talking with my mechanic today. We both agreed that the new cars aren't worth it. And they have too many devices like censors that can go wrong.
My 2013 Chevy Sonic has manual handles for the windows. I hate power windows - they're nothing but another spastic electrical thing to deal with- but then I'm a weirdo who is deathly afraid of driving off a bridge and being unable to open power doors or windows underwater. :)
That, and fire. I would never do bars on my windows at home no matter what the crime rate. People can be manipulated. Forces of nature can't
Good point. I'll add that to my list of things to fear...
It's slowly happening, but automotive design cycles are on a 7ish year clock: 2-3 years in design, in production for 4-5 years between major changes. Unfortunately we've not quite yet hit peak stupid here, and the bean counters and rent-seekers are putting up a helluva fight. The bean counters love the digital dashes because they're absolutely cheaper to design and build - fewer parts (and thus fewer parts design reviews, smaller BOM, less labor to install), and the rent seekers love them because they make it easier to turn your car into a revenue stream by hiding everything under layers of software you have to pay to unlock.
What's forcing their hand is consumer revulsion. But they won't give up easily - too many egos, too many sacred cows.
Just stay away from Toyota. Horrible.
Which is a shame because up through about 2012 they were often fantastic. At one point we were an all-Toyota household, driving them well north of 200k miles. And then they got just Fugly in the 2010s, and they got cheap-feeling and plasticky, with weirdly kludgy controls.
We've transitioned into an all Ford house in the last decade, and they've been just solid, with sensible controls (though their 2024+ models I'm avoiding as they have the digital-dash nonsense).
Our son will start driving this summer and we are looking at older model Mazdas (hubby is a big Mazda fan) that still come in a stick shift.
Mazda also offers naturally-aspirated engines; no turbos last I checked.
Good to know.
That's true, I have a 2005 CRV that is awesome. I would be reluctant to buy the new ones.
Texas politics is never as simple as it looks. The GOPe in Texas was mostly a pro-business party as it came to power. The state legislature always has had a mix of pro-business types and conservative types, with pro-business folks working with Democrats to limit conservatism. Year after year, election after election, politicians go to Austin or DC after claiming to be conservatives and just continue pro-business politics, instead of ensuring conservative victories. The voters are done with amnesty-lite Republicans. Cruz is going down next cycle.
Paxton will win. Better the slimey guy rather than the crazy Democrat.
Re: The voters are done with amnesty-lite Republicans.
Given that Cornyn has a near-perfect pro-Trump voting record, what does this say about Trump?
That he is Trump, nothing more and nothing less.
It says that those keyed into the immigration issue are fed up with Trump too.
Paxton has more baggage than United Van Lines. So did Clinton, look where he went. BTW, the last balanced budget was courtesy of Bill. The six sex Talarico brings his own unique er intangibles. Vote against the person you think will hurt you the most. If you vote for anybody, welp, steady yourself for disappointment.
Clinton's baggage, initially, was mainly about floozies.
If Paxton gets caught with a dead girl or a live boy in his car, he'll lose.
Love a Honda! A friend recently leased a Honda because it was an amazing deal. See what your deal has for you.
"MAGA is very good at tearing things down.....But it can't build." Really? Here is a short list of what MAGA has built, just in Trump's second term.
1. Immigration and Border Security.
2. One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
3. Brokered ceasfire or peace agreements in the Middle East and Armemia-Azerbaijan. Got the HAMAS hostages realeased.
4. Increased NATO defense spending comittments.
5. Issued over 225 executive orders focusing on regulatory rollbacks in energy, environment, contracting and more.
6. Helped increase US energy production.
7. Facilited billions, if not trillions, of foreign investment in the US, including vital chip manufacturing.
8. Brought about declines in the national homicide rates, largly through better run FBI and ICE.
9. Started the Trump Accounts, savings accounts for young people.
I'm sure there are more items that could be added, and will be added, but this will do for now. The jury is still out regarding Iran. But at a mimimum, Trump has reduced the Iranian threat, and may eventually broker lasting peace in the Middle East.
Re: . One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
A horrible bill which is tearing down whatever was left of fiscal probity in the Federal government. I've seen dog sh** piles more beautiful.
Re: Issued over 225 executive orders focusing on regulatory rollbacks in energy, environment, contracting and more.
Er. um, that's very definition of tearing down.
Re: . Helped increase US energy production.
That's been ongoing for years. We were already (in principle) energy independent when Trump took office.
Re: Brought about declines in the national homicide rates, largly through better run FBI and ICE.
Nope, not at all. Apart from things like terrorism and organized crime the Federal Government is largely irrelevant to crime rates. That's a state and local matter-- and should be. Crime rates were already falling precipitously when Trump took office-- and it's really not clear why.
The Bill reduced the federal tax burden and allocated money for border security, energy production, and reduced Medicaid and SNAP payments, among other things. I get that it was not aimed primarily at deficit reduction, but much of the deficit should be offset by economic growth, tarriffs, and elimination of Democratic fraud (the size of which appears to be mind-numbing.) The 225 executive orders may appear to be "tearing down" to someone content with Democrat dystopia, but I think it helped build a more efficient, fair, and healthy federal government. Patel de-centalized and reallocated FBI agents and shifted the focus to immigration enforcement and violent crime. I believe he also de-politicized the FBI. He built a better agency, which will help with crime reduction across the board.
Re: and reduced Medicaid and SNAP payments, among other things.
And that's a good thing? Do you also think the pre-Christmas Scrooge was the hero of A Christmas Tale?
At this point those tax cuts are toxic as plutonium fallout from a nuclear blast.
Re: the 225 executive orders may appear to be "tearing down" to someone content with Democrat dystopia
By definition that is tearing down. Maybe that's a good thing like tearing down derelict, collapsing old houses-- but it is not remotely building up.
Re: He built a better agency, which will help with crime reduction across the board.
The FBI does not and should not have a role in local crime fighting-- the sole exceptions being assistance when a suspected perp flees across state lines and when law enforcement agents at any level are killed in unclear circumstances. Gee, I remember when people on the Right believed in Federalism-- or said they did. Anyway, the fall in crime rates (which began in 2023) is a mystery-- we should look into it without presuppositions-- something interesting may be hiding down there. But unless the future has started causing the past the Trump administration did not start the trend.
Re: much of the deficit should be offset by economic growth, tarriffs, and elimination of Democratic fraud
Oh. brother! Fact: Every time the deficit has come down in my adult life a Democrat has been president. Whenever a Republican has been president it has risen, sometimes to dizzying heights. Ask yourself if you cut back to part time hours (and salary) at work and expect your finances to improve.
Re: the size of which appears to be mind-numbing.
Propaganda, which some people are so addicted to they are like junkies mainlining fentanyl. Not to mention there's been plenty of Republican fraud and grifting too. I give you HealthSouth while Rick Scott was CEO-- bilked Medicare for almost two billion dollars. Maybe Scott was not personally repsonsible-- but if not it points to bare-faced incompetence on his part for not minding the store.
I understand the cuts mainly target the people newly included during The COVID-era Medicaid expansion. So, yes it was good by reducing government expenditure and reversing an expanded federal program, which happens far too little. Any claim that we need to continue those programs in the post-COVID era is, in fact, a humbug.
Federal crime affects people where they live, and more agents in those locations should help reduce it. Also, I believe Patel has enhanced FBI's cooperation with local police, which also should help. I am sure that a lot of FBI agents would disagree with your claim that they have very little role in local crime fighting.
Both sides come up short with deficit control. It's true that the last balanced budget was during Clinton's term, but the 90's Clinton would be shunned by today's Democrat Party. When was the last time a Democrat said "the era of big government is over?"
It is true that there is fraud by both sides, but Dem-run states like Minnesota and California seem to have turned it into a branch of government. And California is in the process of passing the Stop Nick Shirley Act, reportedly to stop the grift busting. Also, the cutbacks to the USAID program, among other benefits, stopped the Democrat money laundering program, which may help explain why the Dems are in a nation-wide funding deficit.
If my magic wand were working (more cheap Chinese junk I guess), Medicaid would be the final backstop in our healthcare coverage system-- for citizens under retirement age. Anyone lacking coverage from other sources (e.g., workplace, spouse) would be eligible-- but those adults with income over the current cutoff (verified with IRS and SSA records) would be required to pay a "premium" based on that income. At some level other coverage would be cheaper and more desirable.
It is a disgrace in the 21st century that there should be uninsured citizens in our nations when not only "rich" nations but even middle rank nations like Mexico are doing their best to cover all their people.
Grifting is not a partisan thing. Everyone who cares about public fraud and dishonesty needs to acknowledge that fact as the first step to fixing the problem.
Canceling (instead of sensibly reforming where needed) the USAID program ensured death on no small scale abroad. Elon Musk has blood on his hands and I would not care to be that man on Judgement Day (well, for multiple reasons of course)
Re: what MAGA has built: how much of it is a permanent legacy though? How much will simply be reversed by the next Democrat administration?
A lot will be reversed and more bad stuff added. Which is why America needs to keep that from happening for as long as possible. My original post was a response to the knee-jerk claim that MAGA can't build anything. I know that what was built can be torn down.
Dude, the FBI has nothing to do with national homicide rates.
You also forgot this achievement:
10. Massively increased the national debt.
Flat wrong. The FBI leadership worked with local forces, also sent a number of D.C. based FBI agents into the field. Hence historically low crime rates and 8 of the top 10 most wanted criminals captured. And a number of significant arrests foiling terrorist plots.
Nonsense. The FBI has minimal impact on homicide rates and terrorist plots were disrupted under previous administrations as well.
"The FBI leadership worked with local forces" -- what does this mean in a concrete sense?
Vince, my research argues otherwise.
Look at the no of terrorism arrests and you can see the results. But if you don’t want to…whatever.
Are you really arguing that TERRORISM (!!!) was the reason that homicides rates had increased pre-2024?
Don’t patronize me. You can reread my comment if need be.
God bless you, that said, no way we will agree on this
Welcome back :)
The second part of your essay belies the first. Paxton, for all his negatives, won because he's willing to "Fight the Power" that you recognize is destroying our nation, in a way that Cornyn, for all his positives, is not. This will become clearer as the election becomes closer.
What will Paxton do to "Fight the Power" that Cornyn wouldn't do?
That's what I ask too. Cornyn voted with Trump almost always. Texas is not my state, but I really don't want the GOP to lose the Senate. Trump helped make that more likely.
Oh, Paxton will win; do a dive into Talarico's record and you'll see. This may be like the Edward Edwards/David Duke election: "Vote for the adulterous slimeball - it's important!"
Or it might be like the Roy Moore/Doug Jones election. A Democrat can win in a deeply red state if the Republican is bad enough.
Well, if Texans vote AGAINST the man who fights against masking and isolating children, mRNA shot mandates, "transgender" mutilation of children, and shari'a-enforcement zones... then Texans must be a darn sight dumber than I remember...
I doubt that.
I was about to jump in and say that kale was now pretty normal in the south but then I realized I am so far deep into the heirloom growing world that I no longer really have any clue on what is normal any more on what is grown and eaten.
This reminds me of your post yesterday and American culture. We are slowly being absorbed into one American blob. The foods of my grandfathers are slowly being erased except by niche people like me. Oh sure they might have the same names at times but the varieties are exceedingly different. Southern Apples and Pears are unique things unto themselves. They are inherently hardier because of the heat and humidity we have down in the deep south. After WWII as a country we just said screw it we are subsidizing these fruits in other places and the old orchards went away. We also lost connection to high quality foods like mulberries, figs, quince, medlars, and dandelion greens to just name a few. Don't get me started on the bean varieties that are no longer there. People are just not eating beans like they used to and cow peas are now seen as a thing of the past. When you take the food of your ancestors away and replace it with mass produced stuff shipped from far away you lose something important.
I don't know that I have seen anybody under 40 eating blackeyed peas. We had them all the time when I was a kid.
I've eaten them plenty of times over my life. For my family, my parents and grandparents grew up in small towns in Mississippi and basic Southern foods are still very common both at home and in restaurants that have Southern food.
I cook them on New Year’s Day.
Every New Year’s Day at a minimum… Hoppin’ John… they make a great hummus at other times.
I love blackeyes peas but my kids don't eat them.
Have you tried putting them in chili?
No. Perhaps I will recommend your suggestion to my wife. Black-eyed peas in chili seems to me a good idea.
You do have to hunt for them.
Blackeyed peas with cornbread.... one of the greatest meals ever!
I buy all my seeds from Baker Creek, they are all rare or heirloom seeds. I try to go for a mix of things that are unusual and fun and others that grow well in my area.
baker creek is a good company. I also buy from them. I am more of an orchardist that grows a veggie garden of good side. My specialties are in southern pears, figs, and blueberries. I am branching into southern apples. I am also a seed saver. I do have several heirloom seeds that I have been saving and using for years now.
That sounds like a lot of fun!
As I commented to Rod's post, country people and plenty of people in the South still eat some of the same foods as previous generations. They also do eat stuff from other parts of the world too. It all depends. Country and small town people stick with the traditions more than people from urban areas.
We still do eat a lot of the old fashioned foods but it is dying out generation by generation. I am 41.
There are lots of mulberry trees here in northern Virginia. I don't understand why people don't eat the fruit. We had a fruit-bearing mulberry tree at one of my childhood homes, and my mom used the berries like you would use other berries.
I love them. Very sweet, very healthy, and produce copious amounts of fruit. Just don't ship well.
Kale was that inedible green leafy stuff that used be placed around the containers of edible plants at salad bars. That's where is still belongs...ghastly green decoration.
Not a big fan of it but my wife loves it. There are a lot of varieties of it and it is supposed to be healthy
I love it, and it's very tasty.
Some of it is better than others. I am a turnip man myself.
What about argula - or "rocket" as they call it in England? I love it; my wife hates it.
Amen!
Kale is loved by the Portuguese. It is the verde in caldo verde.
My wife has an excellent recipe that combines kale and Italian sausage.
I love the lacinto/ black/dinosaur kale. Cut in fine shreds and add to soup right at the end of the cooking period. Great in caldo verde, as mentioned above, but also in my award-winning Galician bean soup: disks of good smoked sausage, onions, garlic, Great Northern beans, a diced potato, bay leaf, finished off with shredded kale. Or add the shreds to a fritatta or stir fry. But collards? Nooo.
Lovely book review in CW, Sandra:
Sandra Miesel on "After the Spike:"
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/05/25/spiked/
Your receipe makes my mouth water!
Thank you for the plug!