Re: Saturday WTFuckery

1

It's funny how much they believe their bullshit that 11year olds are scary criminals because they have brown skin and don't speak English as their first language. My wife works with a lot of immigrant kids in her schools and she said, sure, we'd take a bunch of refugee kids, go ahead and send them.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 04-13-19 7:47 AM
horizontal rule
2

I'm pretty sure DJT is going to be running for re-election on immigration from now until November 2020. So I expect the ideas to get nastier still. I mean, who knows what Stephen Miller's capable of—he went to Duke.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-13-19 8:27 AM
horizontal rule
3

The "send immigrants to sanctuary cities" policy could also be called the "send immigrants to cities where there are established immigrant communities, lower unemployment than average, and lower likelihood of being arrested or deported." Also, the U.S. pays the way. If it is instituted, it would be a vast improvement over dumping people at the El Paso bus station.


Posted by: unimaginative | Link to this comment | 04-13-19 9:30 AM
horizontal rule
4

And Trump also said he'd pardon CBP/ICE officers who break the law. And he's inciting an assassination attempt on Ilhan Omar. Weak responses from most Dems, Bernie and Warren excepted.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-13-19 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
5

Pelosi's response was utterly shameful.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-13-19 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
6

Pelosi's response is basic complicity.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-13-19 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
7

how much they believe their bullshit that 11year olds are scary criminals because they have brown skin and don't speak English as their first language

I think a lot of what's going on when they call immigrant children criminals is an attempt to distance their policy goals from direct racism. If they just say no immigrants of a particular race because of race, there's no plausible deniability that it's about race. But if they say no immigrants because criminals, then they can put some of the responsibility for the policy on immigrants themselves. It's still racist, but it's the racism of "just quoting statistics, let me point out these few exemplary cases of immigrants who've committed crimes, if immigrants don't want to be called criminals they should do less crime" rather than the racism of inherent qualities.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-13-19 11:41 AM
horizontal rule
8

What I find a little shocking is not that some smart 17-year old has his head turned by a stupid book -- but that nothing in the next 17 years suggests to him that he might have been wrong. On the other hand, I suppose that rising to a senier position through the ranks of wingnut welfare would not predispose a man to self-criticism.


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 04-13-19 11:56 AM
horizontal rule
9

These days it's pretty rare to have a Big Science achievement that was mostly done by one person. However, the useless news media wants to have a single point of reference, and they can't stop themselves if there is one that presents itself and checks all their boxes. Happy, personable, young woman in STEM? It was inevitable, and a lot of media sites either said or implied she was totally responsible for the feat. She, being a normal person, has been careful to repeat that she was one of several hundred researchers. I'm sure she's already tired of that, but I give her a lot of credit for doing so. It's hard, and easy to slip up. (I've been there.)

Trolls are despicable, and the media are despicable.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 04-13-19 12:33 PM
horizontal rule
10

3 was my first thought. I don't think Trump's staff was against that because it was illegal. I think it's going to be counterproductive from their point of view.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 5:39 AM
horizontal rule
11

At the same time, Trump was also proposing horrible things like letting ICE do what it wants and he'll pardon them. Which is a whole different thing and basically proposing dictatorship. But spreading out refugees seems reasonable.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 5:46 AM
horizontal rule
12

Anyway, I think the administration can try to force the choices on immigration policy to be reduced to Wall (with insta-deport hearings) or large-scale concentration camps. I think just dumping people all over the country is going to piss off even Trump voters and actually dispersing people reasonably and with support is too likely to result in successful immigration.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 6:24 AM
horizontal rule
13

My Trump-supporting acquaintance on FB is sharing memes, the gist of which is, "Trump to send immigrants to sanctuary cities / Turns out these sanctuary cities don't want immigrants after all! Zing!" And I think that's the real point here: to tell a (false) story about Trump pwning the libs yet again.

Plus it reinforces the excuse that Trump could have accomplished more, but the Deep State keeps thwarting him, just like they want to thwart this sanctuary-city policy.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
14

Join my NATO.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/join-my-nato-or-watch-critical-thinking-die-sl5sdqv5v


Posted by: Charlie W | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 8:58 AM
horizontal rule
15

Business Insider has the scoop on Pelosi's shameful complicity with Trump. Had Business Insider not revealed Pelosi's thinking, it never would have occurred to me to think that she was talking about Omar.

CNN thought she was criticizing Trump.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
16

I wonder how many of the men tweeting about how women can't do science are capable of doing science. Because I think most sexist men on science are more circumspect.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
17

I also wonder how many of the people who ask "Who is the Tolstoy of the Zulu?" have read any more Tolstoy than the average African. Honestly, Tolstoy is extremely dull.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
18

I can't answer for 17 because I'm an unread ignoramus, but 16 is none. All else being equal women are always more impressive than men in tech and science, and if a man in science doesn't realize that he's a moron and deserves to be used by people with bad agendas.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 3:55 PM
horizontal rule
19

Tolstoy's dullness doesn't seem that extreme, in the context of the history of world literature.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 4:19 PM
horizontal rule
20

Literature mostly sucks, but what can you do?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 4:26 PM
horizontal rule
21

17: I'm pretty sure Saul Bellow read Tolstoy.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 4:48 PM
horizontal rule
22

I've long thought, and undoubtedly said here, that the bigger question is who will be the Russian Mandela.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 4:49 PM
horizontal rule
23

Who is the Russia Gorbachev?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 5:11 PM
horizontal rule
24

21:. I'm pretty sure I'll read Tolstoy before I read Bellow.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 5:20 PM
horizontal rule
25

Bellow isn't that bad, in the permanently middle-aged, permanently mid century male novelist canon.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 6:33 PM
horizontal rule
26

Mandela is overrated. The question is, who will be the J.H. Hofmeyr of the Russians?


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-14-19 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
27

Tolstoy kicks ass. I was once on a long bus trip where I only had War and Peace to read. At first I thought I'd made a terrible mistake, but by the time the bus arrived I was pissed off I had to get off the bus and stop reading.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 12:01 AM
horizontal rule
28

Stockholm syndrome is a terrible thing.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 12:04 AM
horizontal rule
29

the bigger question is who will be the Russian Mandela.

Lenin, surely? Lenin didn't necklace his political opponents, true, but that's because rubber was too precious in 1917 Russia to waste on things like that.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 3:21 AM
horizontal rule
30

While it reflects credit on ajay's wokeness that he assumes "Mandela" to refer to Winnie rather than Nelson, I think fairness requires the two be disambiguated.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 3:35 AM
horizontal rule
31

Outside of a bus, it's too dark to read.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 5:19 AM
horizontal rule
32

And I think that's the real point here: to tell a (false) story about Trump pwning the libs yet again.

Could you elaborate on the falseness of the story, please?


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 5:22 AM
horizontal rule
33

32: The New York Daily News, for example, is willing to call Trump's bluff. The thing about sanctuary cities is that the level of irrational hatred of immigrants really is less in those places.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 5:35 AM
horizontal rule
34

32: It's false that Trump is sending migrants to sanctuary cities. It's false that sending migrants to sanctuary cities would reveal liberals as hypocrites. It's false that Trump is constantly pwning the libs.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 5:38 AM
horizontal rule
35

It's false that Republicans care about truth and falsity.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 5:44 AM
horizontal rule
36

Liberals are the new Trotskyists.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 6:21 AM
horizontal rule
37

I think fairness requires the two be disambiguated.

I have no reason to suppose that their opinions on necklacing differed significantly.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 6:22 AM
horizontal rule
38

Except I don't have the beard thing. It doesn't look right on my face.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 6:22 AM
horizontal rule
39

I have no reason to suppose that their opinions on necklacing differed significantly.
Nor do I (like I said, overrated). For the great bulk of the necklacings in question, however, he was incarcerated and mostly incommunicado, giving him sadly few opportunities to endorse said necklacings on the record.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 6:57 AM
horizontal rule
40

And now the stochastic terrorism angle, previously requiring a bit of elucidation for the casual observer, is abundantly obvious with the targeting of Omar.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 7:21 AM
horizontal rule
41

This article popped up in my inbox today: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/22/guantanamos-darkest-secret


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 7:55 AM
horizontal rule
42

That article is heartbreaking. But as you know better than the rest of us, it's not even a tiny bit surprising. We knew way way back that many or most of the Guantanamo inmates were no one in particular.

Bush: still the worst president ever (oh, of the last century, say). Trump's got a ways to go.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
43

George Bush basically tossed money at my parents. Trump has cost mom a lot. I'm not sure what ethical system gives that primary significance, but there's probably one.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:27 AM
horizontal rule
44

Bush: still the worst president ever (oh, of the last century, say). Trump's got a ways to go.

I've got such tunnel vision around Trump that it's funny to step back and acknowledge that Trump is not responsible for the sheer number of deaths that Bush was.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
45

Funny in that bitterly horrifying kind of way things are funny now, of course.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:31 AM
horizontal rule
46

I do feel like "give 'em to sanctuary cities" is super effective. I wish California would say, enthusiastically, "we'll take 'em!". But for housing, I think it'd be great. I also do think it makes us look like super hypocrites to be objecting to the idea. I think the theme is a win for Miller/Trump.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:33 AM
horizontal rule
47

I just got a cold chill remembering my utter disbelief when we re-elected Bush, and extrapolating that this country is perfectly capable of re-electing Trump. Nothing is a foregone conclusion.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
48

It kind of reminds me of that discussion over having to choose between Shearer or mcmanus for President. Who knows? It could be that either of them would have been better Presidents than Bush or Trump.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:35 AM
horizontal rule
49

47 -- He'll win votes of white people going away. The critical question is whether we can have a nominee that gets people of color to vote at 2012 levels, and not at 2016 levels.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:38 AM
horizontal rule
50

I think we're now in a situation where in most countries in the world, the most anti-immigrant party is always going to win. For a while there was a truce on this issue especially in rich Western countries, since the leaders of major parties agreed that making immigration a major voting issue is unleashing a Pandora's box of mob violence and is therefore bad, but that's now over. The US may be one of the few exceptions based on our population possibly being the most pro-immigrant in the world, but it depends on what the media chooses to talk about.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
51

49: I hate to be that person, but I kinda want to say Not All White Voters. I do get the problems with the "not all", but, like, there are a ton of white Democrats who never did and never would vote for him.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
52

50: I honestly don't think this has happened in any European national election so far this year. It won't happen in Ukraine or Spain either when they have their elections.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
53

The US will re-elect Trump, but apart from that, where are you thinking? Vlaams Belang and the FN and AfD and so on are not winning elections. Even the Conservatives are not the most anti-immigrant party in the UK. There are two anti-immigrant parties, BP and UKIP, and they won't get a single seat between them.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:53 AM
horizontal rule
54

our population possibly being the most pro-immigrant in the world

It isn't. It's not even in the top five. https://www.pewglobal.org/2019/03/14/around-the-world-more-say-immigrants-are-a-strength-than-a-burden/


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:55 AM
horizontal rule
55

51: Sure, There's even of lot of us in Ohio. But there's not question that we're badly outnumbered.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:55 AM
horizontal rule
56

55: Sorry, I've only lived here for 55 years, and so still learning the language.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 8:57 AM
horizontal rule
57

Not outnumbered. Clinton got 3M more votes than Trump.
Not badly outnumbered. Even among white voters, the splits were 55% for Trump. (Sorta mostly.)

This isn't really a hill I want to die on, but "win white voters going away" isn't quite right. He'll win all the Republicans, but those aren't everyone. I get that in Republican states, it feels like everyone. But from here, they're irrelevant.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:13 AM
horizontal rule
58

57.1 We were talking about white people. 55% is badly outnumbered.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
59

When did Democrats recoil at the notion of migrants being bused in? It would be an arbitrary and lawless act, of course, and it was criticized for that, but I didn't hear prominent people saying "no, not that" in a way sounding hypocritical; Trump and his flying monkeys didn't even have to wait to hear that, of course, they could just proceed as if that was the obvious reaction. (Howdja like your sister to marry one?) And the media at large could headilineize pretty much any negative reaction as "slams" and let Republicans come away with that impression.

(Pelosi's comment: "Just another notion that is unworthy of the president of the United States and disrespectful of the challenges we face." No tweets or archived press statement fwict.)


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:29 AM
horizontal rule
60

And from my mayor, one of the most prominent sanctuary policy advocates on the national stage (I doubt Pelosi was ever gung-ho for the concept).


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
61

55% is badly outnumbered.

No it isn't. It's "barely outnumbered".


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:32 AM
horizontal rule
62

61: Ok, Polyannas.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
63

I don't mean to be Pollyanna-ish. And I doubt my own reaction of "not all white voters", because I know how the "not all" formulations are a problem. But I still want to stake that out! Because, like, not me! Or anyone I know!

60: Yeah, that's a good tweet.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:56 AM
horizontal rule
64

Quick search finds Ohio white folks in 2016 exit polls going 62% Trump, 33% Clinton. Same source: Calif white folks going 50% Clinton, 45% Trump, but white men going 50% Trump and 43% Clinton.

I'm a poster child for #notallwhitemen, but, really, now, obviously while some efforts to win white men are worth it -- we're not looking to lose by even more -- the key to winning the thing is mobilization of, and voting by, women and people of color. This is a fact that should be in the marrow of the candidates, their staffs, and their unpaid advocates.

We're not going to have a veteran of a 25 year smear campaign on the ballot in 2020; this'll make up for some of that. On the other hand, the economy (so far) hasn't melted down, and a whole lot of white men continue to be entertained by the reality show model of resentment governance.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:58 AM
horizontal rule
65

Megan, you are of course free to wish that our candidate did not have to win in places like Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Wisconsin. Wishing doesn't make it so, not in 2020 in any event.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
66

||
NMM to Gene Wolfe
|>


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 10:17 AM
horizontal rule
67

Having cast many manuscripts into the seas of time, he now begins again.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
68

We're not going to have a veteran of a 25 year smear campaign on the ballot in 2020

That will help a lot. It wasn't Clinton's fault, but it was a negative she bore.

Tactically, it's interesting that the right-wing smear apparatus has been targeting people who are definitely not in contention for 2020, namely Ilhan Omar and AOC, and maybe to a lesser degree Pelosi. Yes, they're all women, but so are quite a few of the 2020 candidates. Just the calm before the storm that'll occur once the field narrows down? I suspect it'll be hard to tie any of the current candidates to AOC/Omar except Bernie and maybe Warren, and any effort spent doing so has no effect beyond further disentanglish rank-and-file Republicans from reality (an important goal of theirs, but probably not tactically optimal).


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
69

42.2 It all depends on what you're measuring. Trump is unlikely to get to GWB's body count, unless he starts that war with Iran.* On the other hand, the role of cruelty under Trump is quite different from under GWB: wrt the latter, they were proceeding on an incorrect assumption that you had to be cruel to save lives. Under Trump, there's not even a pretense that this is what it is about: cruelty is so that members of the movement can feel good about themselves, and 'defeat' domestic 'enemies' who oppose cruelty.

Cheney didn't care what you thought. His goals were understandably within the range of what governance is supposed to be about, even if his chosen means were gross, illegal, and an ultimately unsuccessful method of accomplishing them. Trump seems to be completely motivated by what you think, and utterly uninterested in governance. (Except when it come to tax cuts: that he gets.)

Unless and until the Mad King starts burning people alive, though, or starting the war with Iran that Bolton wants so badly,* he'll not be "worse" than GWB.

* Trump is, imo, a moron, with poor long term thinking skills. He has people working for him, though, who understand that for maximum electoral effect, the war needs to get going no earlier than the summer of 2020. Maybe as late as early October.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
70

||

NMM to the Notre Dame Cathedral. This is tragic.

|>


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
71

To the OP and others, I stand by my brief comment six months ago that the country is as primed for misogyny as I have ever personally seen it. I also have no idea how consequential that will be; it's nice to think that it won't ultimately triumph over much of anything.

To 16/18, I think that's really the key. These guys think "male scientist:female scientist::me:women," and they really do not want to think that "male scientist:me::female scientist:me." I'm writing something vaguely related to this theme (not about science though, just about the psychological importance of modeling analogies), which I may or may not publish...


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
72

71 before seeing 70. I feel ill.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
73

70: Fuck that. They'll rebuild.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 11:12 AM
horizontal rule
74

Mossy


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
75

Barry, idk if you saw this? It's a little bit consoling.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
76

I feel ill.

Yes. Me too.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
77

I've seen similar for Palmyra. Not the same though.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
78

At least: https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1117850677626187782


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 12:27 PM
horizontal rule
79

Palmyra isn't a national symbol of a first world country with a functioning government. I would never say the same about Palmyra.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
80

(I also feel ill, just for record.)


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 1:14 PM
horizontal rule
81

Cool, now they can make a video game where you get to burn it down yourself.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
82

Let me be the first to blame the fire at Notre Dame on global warming.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
83

I'd like to blame the apocalypse. Can buildings be raptured?


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 5:11 PM
horizontal rule
84

75: But will people be able to view 3D renderings made with 21st century software in 900 years?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:02 PM
horizontal rule
85

No, but hopefully they can view them in nine months whenever they start planning to rebuild, which I assume is the point. (Boring earnest answer because I can't think of a snappy comeback, for which I sincerely apologize.)


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:12 PM
horizontal rule
86

85 cont'd: ...which I assume is the point of the tweet. Was 81 also to 75? This "we'll always have digital Paris" interpretive angle literally didn't occur to me. Maybe I've been inhaling more lead-paint dust than usual.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
87

I'm just saying tech often sets fire to its cathedrals on a regular basis and calls it upgrading. That's art history, not industry, so it will probably stay up.

I don't have a strong opinion whether they should rebuild a replica or build something else, but I don't see why they would rule out building something new. Or is contemporary Paris more beholden to the past than 17th century London was when they rebuilt St. Paul's?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:22 PM
horizontal rule
88

87.1: I meant to say that art history is probably more likely to get a preservation treatment than the average 3D rendering. I'm not sure why I wrote "stay up".


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
89

||

Is x. trapnel still around? I'm thinking about doing a programming/software engineering bootcamp and I seem to remember him doing one in SF. I know ogged did something like that too, but I'm not in Chicago.

|>


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 9:58 PM
horizontal rule
90

60: replies to that tweet: "Trump says he'd bus immigrants to your city because you said you'd welcome them, and now you say you'd welcome them. How do you like that HYPOCRITE"

I'm assuming that a large percentage of those replies aren't just stupid but are actually paid for and/or organized via various online gathering places (the numbered chans, Facebook private groups, Discord chats, WhatsApp). I've been surprised how often that kind of organizing has come up in various news stories I've read or listened to via podcasts about politics and technology over the last year. I don't know how much information war is actually going on, but it seems like there's a lot more of it than I would have expected.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 10:55 PM
horizontal rule
91

87: Fire is now out and the cathedral walls and towers are (unsurprisingly) still standing. No, they are not going to knock it down and build something modern, you maniac. Old St Paul's was decrepit even before the fire and was virtually destroyed by it; repair would have been basically a complete rebuild anyway.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 11:24 PM
horizontal rule
92

85, 86 lurid's right of course, the plans I saw about Palmyra involved some silly holographic light show. This is good news and will allow them to restore it. I blame all the Jameson in me when I wrote 77.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 11:30 PM
horizontal rule
93

89: still lurking, yes. I did App Academy. I'd recommend it. Email me if you want more info.


Posted by: X. Trapnel | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 11:49 PM
horizontal rule
94

Thanks! That's the one I thought you might have done. I still have one job application I'm seeing through that wouldn't be a career change, and if that doesn't work out I'll probably try to get into software development. But looking at bootcamp dates it seems like I might need to start some prep just in case.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 1:43 AM
horizontal rule
95

91: I'm just saying I wouldn't call them maniacs if they did build according to a different plan. It's fine if they want to reconstruct.

I liked the existing church, though the couple times I've been in Paris and looking for a peacefulchurch to sit in, it wasn't my first choice.* That was largely because of the crowds, though.

* I always liked Saint-Eustache.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 2:06 AM
horizontal rule
96

s/b  


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 2:08 AM
horizontal rule
97

OT: I'm on a plane at 5:00am with a minor league baseball team (I think) and an about 100 junior high students from Iowa. And it's Southwest. They can't get the kids to sit in middle seats.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 3:14 AM
horizontal rule
98

85. I hope they rebuild it exactly as it was, except not crumbling. I remember visiting it and thinking it was wonderful but falling apart. Some of the coverage has pointed out that large sections of the cathedral were in terrible shape and that there hadn't been a major renovation in over 150 years. Is it the Catholic church or the French state or Paris that is the "owner"?

66. I am so sorry to hear of Wolfe's passing. He was my favorite SF author. I remember picking up his "new book" "The Shadow of the Torturer" at the old Harvard Coop back in the day, largely because I had read "The Fifth Head of Cerberus." When I saw what looked like a Conan cover, my first thought was "getting on the barbarians with swords" bandwagon, eh?" Boy, was I wrong, and boy, was I glad I bought it.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 4:55 AM
horizontal rule
99

Is it the Catholic church or the French state or Paris that is the "owner"?

Owned by the French state, rented to the Catholic church for a peppercorn rent on the understanding that the church is responsible for maintenance.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 5:57 AM
horizontal rule
100

Superb article and I would really like to thank for your article it's really helpful. Regards


Posted by: coupon code | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 6:21 AM
horizontal rule
101

87. Gothic architecture was well unfashionable in the mid 17th century, and even if that had not been the case it was generally agreed that old St Pauls was a pretty crappy example of it. Also, I doubt it they would have had the information to reconstruct it if they'd wanted to. There are probably pretty complete virtual models of Notre Dame, as well as piles of documentation. Completely different ball game.

Not that I'm belittling the awfulness of what has happened. I'm not. It's just that Macron can say it will be reconstructed and be fairly confident it will be; Charles II was putting out tenders for a new design by the end of the year.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 6:52 AM
horizontal rule
102

I put up a ND thread, I assume people will have interesting memories and historical stories to share.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 7:13 AM
horizontal rule