Mau-Mauing the Wealth Taxers

On today’s Ruminant, an addled and isolated Jonah is haunted by Muppets and their irresistibly ...

By

On today’s Ruminant, an addled and isolated Jonah is haunted by Muppets and their irresistibly catchy songs. He’s also fascinated by the Mark Milley affair, irritated by political figures who disregard the importance of rules, and amused by elites who’ve clearly never read “Radical Chic.” Why are politicians more interested in trolling the opposition than actually doing their jobs? Was the Cigarette Smoking Man really behind the Kennedy assassination? And how many people had to sample poison berries before mankind perfected the art of cooking?

Show Notes:

– The ultimate tweet

– You’re welcome

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (50)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I totally wasn’t expecting that cousin’s friend thing at the end and I wasn’t paying close attention so it took about 10 seconds to filter in what you’d actually said and it made me laugh out loud. Way to bring it back to your offhand Nikki Minaj reference.

    And I take it the bit at the end was another monopsony ear worm gift for those of us who listen all the way to the end.

    Collapse
  2. Jason Runyan

    My question for Trumpublicans, how is what General Milley did with China different from what General Flynn did with the Russian foreign minister during their transition? Seems they both contacted adversaries during transitions to calm tensions?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    I have a minor quibble about the stoplight and perhaps that is due to my ignorance of Rule Utilitarianism which I plan to rectify. The reason for the stoplight may or may not be arbitrary but the current consensus around how to behave when approaching stoplights is not arbitrary, it is the law. Predictable, as Jonah pointed out.

    Suppose some people on Twitter suddenly decide that conflating the color red with the action of stopping is placing an unnecessary stigma on the color red. And this lobby starts doing the usual crazy things like painting themselves red and holding drum circles in the middle of traffic to make their point. And let's say the city of Seattle cowers itself to mobs of angry people in red sweatpants and ski masks throwing rocks through windows and shouting at commuters.

    Maybe Seattle passes legislation and approves a law that says in Seattle, green means stop and red means go. Green has had the advantage of meaning go for so long and it's time to rectify the wrongs of the past. I'm sure there's a bunch of federal precedent around traffic laws and the like but the point is, that isn't arbitrary. It's how the system works. It's ugly, unfair and in that moment undemocratic. Democracy comes when the people throw the fools out at the next election because accidents skyrocket.

    But if Joe Biden suddenly declares that he sympathizes with Seattle and he is dictating that red means go and green means stop for the sake of the oppressed color red: THAT is arbitrary. There's a system in place to change the rules and he's ignoring it because he knows damned well that he isn't going to be able to do it through the proper mechanisms. But he knows that all of the red sympathizers will vote for his party in the midterms and him in the next election so he's content with casting aside the norms discussed in the podcast.

    I agree with Jonah: this is the kind of behavior that is destroying the fabric of liberalism. It isn't the angry red mobs, though they are ignorant fools to be sure. It's the elected representatives who cater to those mobs and pretend that giving them what they want is easy rather than difficult.

    Chief example: Donald Trump's failure to concede his election. There is no law forcing him to admit defeat but his failure to do so was the direct cause of that mob that rioted at the Capitol on January 6. There didn't have to be any planning or any intention behind it beyond Trump's juvenile stupidity. Hillary gets an honorable mention for demanding that Joe Biden not concede before the election was even over but Trump owns the riot.

    Let's compare that with Al Gore, who conceded a much closer election and who could have crafted a far more believable story about fraud and conspiracy against him. And, as you might recall, many fools spent a lot of time making exactly those arguments on Al Gore's behalf. But Al Gore did not. Al Gore held this country together at a time that he could have torn it apart.

    Trump is tearing it apart at a time that he could hold it together and that is difference between leaders who are capable of sustaining republican government and leaders who aren't. They are surely a reflection of ourselves but they have a responsibility to rise above the petty banalities of factional bullshit when history calls them to. That is what Adams, Franklin and the rest meant when they warned us that only a moral society could sustain a republican government.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Between the reference to tax code Mau-Mauing and the Muppets' Mahna Mahnaing monopsomies, why couldn't you have worked in a reference to the promise you got (since broken) that there'd be no math in this gig, Jonah — with some Numa Numa numerals?

    Link: https://youtu.be/KmtzQCSh6xk

    Collapse
  5. Richard Fulmer

    Jonah's riff on the mountains of trial-and-error (and sometimes death) that went into our food recipes, brought to mind that rich people can afford more trial-and-error experimentation than can poor people. Wealth can buy second and third chances. As Jonah has pointed out, new ideas seldom work and, to people living on the edge of survival, the failure of a new idea could mean death.

    Thomas Edison famously failed 1,000 times before finding a filament that would work in his lightbulb. But a Stone Age Edison would have starved long before failing that many times. Just to survive, Caveman Edison would have had to spend much of his time gathering nuts and berries and hunting woolly mammoths to extinction. He wouldn't have had the luxury of so many trials and errors. Compared to Americans living today, Edison was miserably poor. Yet, compared to someone living in the Stone Age, he was fabulously wealthy, and that wealth bought him his 1,000 failures.

    A reason that wealth increases faster in already wealthy nations than it does in poor ones is that rich people can afford to experiment more, fail more, and – every now and then – succeed more.

    Collapse
    1. GregS

      Do you think deer civilization has gone through a bunch of trial and error to come up with rules regarding which berries and leaves are safe to eat, that they pass down from generation to generatio?

      Collapse
      1. Richard Fulmer

        No, they just pass the buck.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Angie

          Teehee
          While I don't always agree with your posts, you almost always make me giggle at times, and that makes up for a lot...lol..thanks

          Collapse
          1. Richard Fulmer

            Just wait, I'll convert you, my pretty! And your little dog, too!

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Anne W (Raw5254)

        Actually, that’s a good question. My husband and I have horses, and they have a pretty good sense of smell. They definitely avoid some plants, and if they didn’t, we’d probably have dead horses or some major vet bills. The deer are thriving nicely in our area, too!

        What I wonder about humans is did they figure out what was safe by watching animals eat?

        Collapse
        1. GregS

          We probably figured it out the same way as everyone else - evolution over millions of years. It's only in the last five to ten thousand years that we've had the ability to record knowledge by writing it down that we could really advance our knowledge beyond "these are the berries we eat "

          Collapse
          1. Richard Fulmer

            What was the Stone Age version of "Eat This Not That"?

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      I think you are forgetting time. Modern humans were hunter gatherers for over a hundred thousand years. Most of the trial and error regarding food occurred during that time and had little to do with wealth as we understand it.

      Collapse
      1. Richard Fulmer

        That must be when humans invented duck l’orange.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Narwhal

          Your argument about wealth affording more chances for failure and experimentation is much stronger about technology than food. No shame in just admitting that and focusing on having a stronger argument.

          Collapse
          1. Richard Fulmer

            Jonah’s food story gave me food for thought. My conjecture wasn’t based on his rumination, but his rumination did spark my conjecture.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Narwhal

          “Most of the trial and error”. And the most important.

          By the time duck l’orange was invented the human(s) who created it already knew how to cook food, how to store food, how to grow food and raise livestock, and that all the ingredients were safe to eat.

          Collapse
          1. Richard Fulmer

            Years ago, I coauthored a book on energy economics with a PhD Economist. He took exception to the following line that I included in the manuscript:
            "There is no problem so vast or so complex that it cannot be made infinitely worse by an act of Congress."

            His objection was to the word "infinitely." He felt that we needed to quantify the exact degree to which an act of Congress could make problems worse. I tried unsuccessfully to explain to him that the comment was meant to be humorous.

            Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Eric

    Starting my new punk band, Assistant Pissboy, next week.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Seth B

      For those who know not the reference:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OWMB3ewpNM

      Collapse
    2. El Peligroso

      Your first single should be “Feckless Crap Weasel”

      Collapse
  7. Jake Friedman

    So glad you said the phenomena thing.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Pastorfbt

    Jonah enjoys chewing ice cubes. A kindred spirit! (To the dismay of my dentist)

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Wow, Jonah. With affection and respect I find you wildly wrong on Milley. So wrong, in fact, that after enjoying your books, podcasts, and columns for so long…I think I must be misunderstanding you…but I don’t see how.

    You seem to claim not to be convinced it is even wrong (the pedantic diversion over “treason” notwithstanding) for a senior military leader upset over policy or POTUS behavior (rightly or wrongly upset) to choose collaboration with a foreign power (a bitter rival if not technically an enemy) as the best response. You mention Sarah’s points but then go at length into Twitter and other Trumpkins who have no standing to object. You don’t address the many anti-Trump conservatives at NR who are rightly aghast at Milley and the reported violation of civilian control. I note you do all this assuming The book version is true. That version includes a specific promise to alert a rival/enemy to impending US action. Whether “treason” or not, under what definition of “rules” (ironic additional topic) is that not so wrong as to render the culprit unfit?

    One can find hysteria over this from Trumpkins unconvincing while also objecting to military officers choosing this specific means to stand against dangerous POTUS impulses. Did I hear you right? Best.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

      The framers of the Constitution of the United States only chose to define one specific crime in it. Moreover, the framers choose for this crime, and this crime ONLY — out of all of American criminal law, including that which might apply to spies and agents of espionage — an evidentiary standard, above that otherwise required by law. Thus in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution, we read:

      "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

      If you're interested, there is a long, complicated, and shameful history of European monarchies, including Great Britain's, from which we draw almost all of our legal standards for civil and criminal law, using vague and nebulous charges of "treason" to imprison, exile, and even liquidate enemies who could not be proven guilty of other, supposedly lesser crimes. The framers wanted to take this particular potential lever of political overreaching out of the hands of the federal government, and its Executive Branch (which charges and prosecutes crimes including treason), as a political tool, for they believed otherwise its misuse would be irresistible in the cut and thrust of all politics, every-day and exceptional.

      The uniqueness of treason — its constitutional dimensions — has been taken very seriously by the federal courts who've considered such charges, up to and certainly including the SCOTUS. See, e.g., Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), link: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2809896451252158562

      ===begin quote===

      Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy — making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength — but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

      ===end quote===

      If ever there is an allegation which demands careful attention, by those making it, to precise definitions and the highest standards of truth, it is an allegation of treason.

      Overuse and misuse of the word "treason" is a leading cause of eyerolling among those who actually know those definitions and standards. It hurts, rather than helps, the arguments of those who are critical of Gen. Milley.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

        TL/DR: It's not a pedantic diversion to point out that nothing alleged against Milley so far, much less proven, can't possibly qualify as the crime of treason.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      Does the US launch surprise state on state attacks?

      Collapse
  10. GregS

    So Jonah, you make the following argument:
    If it is true that Trump was unstable and there was a real concern that he might launch a war with China in the final week of his presidency, then it would be absolutely appropriate for Milley to take actions to ensure that did not happen, even if this was norm breaking.
    2) Trump violated norms, so Democrats violated norms in order to keep him in check, and this is bad.
    3) Democrats are currently violating norms in a manner equivalent to Trump.

    If you grant (1) then (2) is a prudential question - i.e., you just happen to disagree that Democrats should have violated whichever norms you accused them of violating- but you concede that the violation is not in and of itself improper.
    Next, on (3) you continue to make the classic move that Buckley derided so much - those pushing little old ladies into the path of a bus and those pushing them out of the path of a bus are both classified by you as "people pushing little old ladies." You ignore both the difference in type and in degree.

    Collapse
Load More