gehringer_2

8 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I wonder what our resident Trump supporter makes of this? 🤔

 

I’ve been thinking about the Republican betrayal of the party’s own tradition because of a comment about my work by Glenn Loury, the conservative Black economist. When I was on The Glenn Show in December, he criticized my new book American Contradiction because of my “apparent disregard for the positive contributions of conservative thought and policy to American life.”

Loury and I could probably agree about many historical contributions of principled conservatism, including respect for America’s constitutional tradition and rule of law, skepticism about concentrated governmental power, and support for the independence of civil society and private initiative. I’m sure we’d agree about the importance of patriotism, civility, tolerance, and other values that have been part of a democratic conservatism—democratic in the sense of upholding the democratic “rules of the game,” including free speech and fair elections.

But as Trump has acted with reckless disregard for those principles, Republican leaders, major donors, and corporate supporters have either fallen silent or actively enabled his lawlessness and corruption. That complicity makes you wonder: Were they ever serious about those conservative principles? And since they don’t speak up for them now, what do they stand for?

Since when, for example, was it a conservative principle to concentrate all federal power in the president and deny Congress its constitutional role? How does a party that ostensibly opposes centralized state power square that opposition with the centralization of power in one man?

...

HOW DID REPUBLICANS COME TO BETRAY their own philosophy? A key factor has been the party’s weakness, the fear that it was only getting weaker, and a consequent openness to desperate measures that could enable it to entrench itself in power while it could.

In his 2017 book Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy, Daniel Ziblatt argues that the strength of conservative parties in the 19th and early 20th centuries determined whether a country followed a stable, settled path to democracy or an unsettled path with authoritarian reversals. Britain’s history is an example of the first; Italy’s, the second. Although Ziblatt’s book is about Europe, the political process he identifies seems to be playing out now in the United States.

“Strong conservative political parties,” Ziblatt argues, “led to a stable long-run path of democratization” for several reasons. Conservatives had “a realistic basis for assuming electoral success” and “the resources that allowed them to sideline their own radicals.” They accepted the “rules of the game” in a democracy because they believed they could win that game or at least keep radicals on the left out of power. But when conservative parties saw themselves as likely to lose, they often turned against democracy. That has been the story of recent American politics. In this case, Republicans have also turned against their old leadership and many of the defining elements in the conservative tradition.

...

In every election in which Trump has run, he has warned that this is Americans’ last chance and that they won’t have a country unless they elect him. If you’ve agreed that America is in extreme danger, it has made perfect sense to repudiate a conservatism that didn’t just fail to prevent the dire trends wrecking the country but contributed to them through its support of pro-immigration and free-trade measures.

Republican elites haven’t cared all that much about Trump’s betrayal of conservatism because of what he hasn’t betrayed: the party’s corporate and class allegiances. Trump’s populism is all in the rhetoric and the scapegoating, not the substance of government. His tax legislation in 2017 and again in 2025 has redistributed income upward; his government appointees side with corporations over workers. Pro-business policy is what many Republicans mean by free-market policy. They are not bothered if the “invisible hand” is replaced by a “conspicuous fist,” as long as that fist generally comes down on their enemies.

Republicans go along with the betrayal of conservatism also because they care more about results than rules, whether those are the rule of law, the rules-based international order, or the rules of civility and decency that Trump routinely flouts. They admire that Trump gets things done and look the other way at how he does it. Although they must know he is corrupt, because he hardly makes a secret of it, he is also delivering the result that matters most to them: power for “us” over “them.”

What Stephen Miller famously said about international politics—“we live in a world, in the real world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power”—reflects the mentality now dominating the Republican Party. Some analysts make the mistake of intellectualizing Trump and taking seriously the ideas of the various schools of right-wing thought that compete to provide fig leaves for the worship of power. But as Jan-Werner Müeller has suggested, it’s an error to assume that right-wing political leaders today are “inspired by comprehensive worldviews” or “that far-right parties succeed because voters find their philosophies attractive,” when the leaders are opportunistic and self-interested and “most citizens have no clue” about what right-wing intellectuals are saying.

The driving impulses on the right are old and primitive. As Never Trump conservative intellectuals discovered to their horror, ideas and principles don’t much matter in the party that Trump took over. It’s a world where, as Miller says, strength governs, power governs, force governs—and conservative thought is expected to be loyal and submit.

Probably not much because he hasn't read anything this long since Penn, if he ever even did then. 

1 hour ago, buddha said:

if they went full tank, the move would have been to trade larkin.

Yup - I remember a long interview with Yzerman when he took the job and the concept he laid out was to bring in talent no older than Larkin and to have a cup challenging team while Larkin was still in  relatively prime production. He clearly thought at the time he could pull off a gradual build without going any further down. 20/20 as they say...

On 3/23/2026 at 10:24 PM, gehringer_2 said:

The talks announcement came out, the inside traders already had their bets down. Now it will take day or two when nothing good happens for that bit of false optimism to evaporate (or for everyone to figure out the announcement was purely a market play) and the S&P will resume its down trend and WTI will float back up to $100.

Ok, it was 4.

The markets are in freefall -  down 9% so far (that > $5 trillion in lost equity), WIT is back up to $99, the Strait is still closed, the mullahs are still in charge, US munition stocks are depleted, and NYT reports that now Trump is bored with the whole affair.

So much winning.

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

I can imagine that Patty Murray is Trump's idea of a humiliating person to lose to.  A woman of a certain age who hasn't warped her appearance and won't fawn over him no matter what.   Also, he probably doesn't even know who she is. 

I can't wait to see how the Dems somehow snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here.

38 minutes ago, buddha said:

i certainly dont feel he's some evil genius like you do, that he's holding back detroit sports teams by pinching pennies.  this tigers' summer sort of undercut your thesis on that one.

i think he's a nepo baby who hasnt done the work like his dad did.  i'm not sure why you think otherwise.

who said anything about evil genius? He's just a guy who his father picked to run things because he had shown himself to be at minimum the pick of the litter, who has spent his life around the management of professional sports, who has managed over a decade now not to muck up a multibillion dollar operation at LC/Olympia so I think the default assumption that he has some idea he knows what he doing is actually pretty strong. If you talk about evidence, what evidence is there to the contrary? He's brought in an apparently excellent management team at the Tigers and he has a lot more history around hockey than baseball. 

It's always enjoyable to completely dismiss people as idiots - I do it mostly in the political forum myself, but there really is a lot more evidence CI is a competent person than for the contrary. One problem with the Wings is that they probably make money even missing the playoffs so there isn't enough pressure from that direction.

21 minutes ago, Jason_R said:

What I said (or have been purported to say) is irrelevant. The players from Team USA all said they liked playing with Larkin. 

I said it was good for Detroit to have Larkin, Raymond, and Seider at the Olympics. On top of everyone on Team USA raving about Larkin, Seider was an assistant captain for Germany and Raymond was Sweden’s top scorer and third in the Olympics. Other teams may have had more players at the Olympics but the Wings were well represented.

This is all true, but there is a big additional step between, "I'd love to have D Larkin as a teammate" and "I'd love to be on a team that's going to miss the playoffs just to play with D Larkin." 🤷‍♂️   The latter is going to weigh heavier than the former!

1 hour ago, Jason_R said:

I don’t agree with the sentiment that nobody wants to come to Detroit. Detroit is the 12th largest media market in the NHL and an original six team. It is also home to many NHL players. It is a town known for an intensely supportive fan base. If you are a free agent and your choice is between Detroit and Ottawa does anyone really think that players will flock to Ottawa? Columbus? Calgary? Raleigh? Buffalo? Winnipeg? Maybe some prefer NYC, Vegas, LA. Maybe some prefer no tax states. But these guys want to get paid, they want to play, and they want to compete. Detroit wasn’t competitive five years ago or even three. They are on the cusp now. 

Also, maybe I’m forgetting someone but the only player I remember using a NMC to veto a trade to Detroit was Tyler Myers who apparently has a child with special needs, who was born and has family in Texas, and who ended up in Dallas. Faulk had a 15-team no trade clause, so either Detroit was not on it, or he willingly waived it. 

If your team has a rep for being inept, it's a big problem no matter who you are. Beyond that, most of these guys are Canadian or northern Euro. They're not dying to get to Florida or the SW desert.

1 minute ago, buddha said:

you "think its pretty certain" based on what?  again, you put stock in illitch having a plan other than yzerman falling into his lap and him saying "ok."  i think its more likely yzerman said "i'll take the job, but the farm system is **** and it will take ten years to rebuild and i want him, him, him, and him to come to my staff and a budget for whatever i want."

yzerman had all the leverage and illitch has no history of knowing anything about hockey or any connections in the league to make a judgment on who to hire.

LOL, c'mon Buddha, you think Chris Ilitch has been in a cocoon all his life as #1 son and heir apparent while his family ran a hockey team? Ok, sure.

I'm gonna say it's only in rare cases who is on a team impacts a player's choice either way as much as what that team is. In the case of Patrick Kane the fact the DeBrincat had come here probably was a factor, but I doubt anyone can come up with another case outside of family ties.

6 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont think illitch had anything to do with it.  i think it was all yzerman.  i doubt illitch is that involved in the day to day.

I think it's pretty certain Ilitch and Yzerman had talked through the immediate future of the team when he hired him and part of discussion would have to have been "I want this team improving starting tomorrow" vs "invest the time you need to make this team better". Once that was decided, sure it's all Yzerman, but any owner is involved enough to have made that initial guidance determination, and if you were hired as a GM and your owner didn't, you'd be a fool to take the job.

58 minutes ago, chasfh said:

So If I’m seeing this right, McGonigle might be only the 8th hitter in modern history to debut with four hits and six or more totals bases. I got J.P. Arencibia, Brant Alyea, Billy Bean, Willie McCovey, Ed Freed, Art Shires, and Mike Mitchell.

what's considered 'the modern era'? 

13 hours ago, buddha said:

if youre under the impression that i have never second guessed kenny holland, youre barking up the wrong tree.

yzerman was dealt the worst hand in the nhl because of kenny holland.  kenny holland is why we are here.  yzerman just hasnt been able to dig out of it.

bottom line is that Yzerman (and maybe Ilitch) didn't want to pay the price for Holland having let things get so bad, which was to be a bad team longer. In a capped league there are only so many levers. Outside of the three big draft hits, they haven't scouted better than the rest of the league, which is one of only three ways to get better. They didn't lose enough to collect more top picks, which is the 2nd way to get better, and Yzerman has not managed to pick any other GM's pocket in a trade, which is the third way to get better. If you don't do any of those, what can you expect the outcome to be? So they either need to go back to losing and collecting picks, they need to trade better, or they need to scout better. How do either of those last two things improve unless you upgrade the people tasked to do them who haven't done them well enough so far to produce the needed improvement?

Trump says he's 'signing an order' to move funds to pay TSA. I guess this counts as a TACO as TSA is going to get paid which relieves the pressure but the Dems haven't given him anything on the DHS budget. Of course it isn't clear he will have any legal authority for how he gets the money there, but I doubt anyone is going to challenge it.

Broadcast disclaimer by Bob Costas.

PTBDNS!

Holton not finishing his pitches

Just now, 1984Echoes said:

Expectations for McGonigle are now: ___________.

If he hasn't been sent down by June 1 it's already a massive success.

Just now, monkeytargets39 said:

That’s a tough error.  Should be called an infield hit

yeah - punished for making the attempt.  if Javy just eats it and makes no throw it's a hit all the way.

This telecast is so much better than Sinclair. Higher res, way less crap on the screen. Better camera work. They should have make the move away from Sinclair the last time.

Just now, monkeytargets39 said:

Harvey on the board with a hit.

if he doesn't challenge that one he gets another one even further away.

37 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

Yes, final game at Tiger Stadium. 

Beckman, ugh. 

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

a new channel has just appeared on my DirectTV - 663 - DSN

however while I can watch the stream, it will not record it. Odd.

2 hours ago, Screwball said:

Helium is also used in MRI machines as a coolant.

yup, anything which uses superconductor magnets needs helium. For the heat transfer applications, the only other gas that gives you the heat transfer coefficients Helium does is Hydrogen, but of course the fire hazard of H2 would complicate things immensely. You just can't plug it into a system set-up for Helium without likely blowing yourself up - not to mention it may react with the substrates and ruin them.

But we've just been told the US 'doesn't need' the Strait of Hormuz.

Market searching for a bottom today and not finding one so far....

1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

 

We don't need the Hormuz Strait? We are not effected by this? Um, has this dolt looked at gas prices lately?

Wait until US manufacturing comes to a halt because we can't get microchips because Helium for chip production from Qatar is stranded there. That should actually hit before the fertilizer shortage, which will be even worse.

But the real tell in that statement is that somebody finally got through to him with the fact we cannot open it. We will simply fail if we try to open it by force. So just like a 3 year old told he can't have the toy --- "Don't want bad toy anyway!"