Neo

I don't know Hope Solo as a person. I can't comment on who or what she is. I can say that she demonstrated, at least for a few post game minutes, a complete lack of understanding of everything competition can and should be. She missed gracious, too. She found petulant, immature and entitled. She missed "rise to the occasion". If she were 13, I'd whisper in her ear "hey, you missed an opportunity to approach it this way ... think of what each approach says about who YOU are ... when you talk about opponents, people learn more about YOU than the opponent you're describing" Ugh ... Hey, MODO .... we're not all like that!

^ Can I state, based upon your description, that we have an ALM matter brought to our attention as a BLM matter? I'd do that ... acknowledge BLM and invite all to join me in ALM solutions.

You got me for a moment! "Huh?!!?"

I'll stay away from justice, at least for the moment. I would love to hear MLK speak to #BLM and #ALM.

In.

Hmmm ... articulating "feel". That's hard. Both parties do, in my world. One does more than the other in the same world. And with that, I must be off. It's time to serve my corporate masters in activity designed to enrich them and me at the expense of others!

Bobis - I want your heart and mind. I want your time and fingertips. You can illuminate.

Aspirational HAS failed the black community. Segregating issues as their own has helped. I say the same thing about women's issues. There is not a woman's issue that doesn't apply to or interest me. Peeling black people, or woman, off and wanting to be their voice in a continuingly polarized world isn't my policy choice. I want rule and law for all. I reject rule and law assembled by some Byzantine monolith to sustain and ostensibly bring power to 53 different groups as ineffective, impossible, and undesirable. I joyfully say "too". #ALMToo. I've always read "too" into "all". That's me. I remember your post. I agree with everything except the conclusion that dad is necessarily a smart ass.

Common ground, you and me. #ALM is aspirational, not current state.

I don't think we're there yet, either. I think #ALM reflects where we want to go and #BLM reflects where we were. I'm not sure what hashtag reflects exactly where we are, today. What is "cop out" in acknowledging something and wanting to move forward to a better place?

Which leads me, if only me, to acknowledging our history and progressively using #ALM.

I'll acknowledge any history. Our disagreement arises around the question of what do we do about it today. I'd rather not perpetuate differences I acknowledge at the expense of advancing the commonality I seek. There is a policy chasm between acknowledging and perpetuating. Acknowledging begs for change. Perpetuating invites more of the same while tinkering with the power levers.

^. The uniqueness, with regard to lives, is something I'll never digest. I do want to take away the uniqueness. Emphasizing the difference, historically true or not, is not the unifying approach I'll ever find to be successful as policy. I'm so progressive! #ALM is not my way of diminishing anything unless you view my expanding a good thought to the many diminishes the good thought to the few. Inclusivity gathers common support among human beings.

^. Exhibit A.

Because I've not yet been controversial this morning, I'll go further. Think of #BlackLivesMatter vs #AllLivesMatter as an example currently in the news. The issue of police interaction with citizens is real. 1). One slogan emphasizes one group vis-a-vis another. One group is good (innocent black citizens) and one group is bad (white racist cops). Group vs. group. 2). The other slogan emphasizes a common approach good for all. Public servants with a stressful jobs interacting with the citizens they serve can act and behave better. 3). In number 2, any "solution" is good for all. Regardless of the race of the actors, I see common courtesies and responsibilities that apply to all as the desired end. I'm white. Any policy reform #BLM drives is good for me and has my support. I ask #BLM to join me in #ALM and I'm told I don't get it. Call me a curmudgeon pining away for the 1950s and I think you don't get it. Tell me I'm not liberal while you demonize cops ... Emphasis. The rich, the white, big banks, corporations. All are our either the citizenry or its institutions. Trump supporters are our last "group". In one sense, they're the last surviving members of a total population that's had its members peeled off into other identity groups such that the remainder, itself, becomes an identity group. Many identity groups violently speak the language of grievance and protest. Are you shocked that the residual group turns to a leader who uses provocative rhetoric? If Trump is thriving, it's because we've made "us" vs. "them" fertile ground and peeled away enough groups to create the last.

Good post. I don't believe Trump's Hitler. I believe you don't, either. I am thinking, and reading, more about the German condition that allowed an angry populist to thrive among otherwise good people. You mentioned twenty years. This is something I've considered for a long time. I think it goes back further. My thoughts are incomplete, but rooted in parties identifying subsets of people and representing "them" against "others". This is quite a bit different from parties identifying "this idea" against "that idea" on behalf of "all of us". Both approaches have been around since day one. The emphasis, and the resulting polarization of "identities, not ideas", has increased. My mind wanders at stop lights and on conference calls ...

I probably phrased the odds wrong. I was thinking "If Trump finishes, I give you $1. If Trump quits, you give me $2." Offering "only" 2:1 odds, for something that's never happened in our history*, evidence the strength of my hunch. My hunches are, well, my hunches. I had to Google the reference. Immediately after I did, I slapped myself in the head. "Of course ...." * calling all historians for edification (K9's awesome WoM inspiration saluted).

I could be persuaded, with some odds in my favor, to wager Trump simply quits before the election. The odds in my favor would not need to be significant. I'd simply have to negotiate some Assange like, Trump campaign saving, deus ex machina clause. The only argument for his staying in the race in my "take my ball and go home" scenario is his brand. Quitter doesn't fit the brand strategy. If I offered "Trump will quit, absent some bombshell catapulting him to the lead", and asked for 2:1, would you take the bet? Gut feel, at this moment.

Just a thought, because you're thoughtful. Trump uses inflammatory language. Because of that, he's been called a trailblazing politician by some, and a racist bigot by others. He's earned reaction. Isn't your last sentence an example of the same category of speech with a different class of people as the target? Acknowledgment - I'm no innocent. Hope - You see I'm not pointing out you, in particular. I'm reluctant to let go of my feeling regarding his supporters. They're angry, first and foremost. The angry are susceptible to the appeal, and use, of inflammatory language.

Over 50 thread!

^ I believe I did!

I don't begrudge Mr. Sanders having nice things. I don't think him having nice things is evidence of anything other than hard work and prudence.

That's TWO pop culture references I've had to Google in five days. I prefer Heddy Lamarr.

I am doctrinaire. Take me for what I'm worth. I think you do. My believe is we've over defined "nasty". I work toward my best interests every day. I strive. People I know strive. I recognize my best interests are more often than not also the best interests of others. Others working toward their best interests served mine. Nothing's perfect. LGR asked where we fell on the Trump comment. I fell "dangerously foolish and consistent with other comments of his". I think it fell short of maniacally encouraging something, but not so short that it doesn't matter. HRC was called reckless for emails. I use the word calculating. Trump was reckless. Neither danger exceeds the other. More talent with motive vs. less talent without constraint.

We're all different. I have more confidence that all my friends and families make the best decisions for themselves and all. Conservatives are optimists. The forefathers did not consider representatives elites. 180 degrees. It's my job to understand issues. I'm a voter. We're outsourcing thought, now! Who says private capital spends too little, or too much, attention on short term profits? Don't the "privates" get to decide the means, ends, and measurement if their capital? When I hear that, I say "says who?" Economists? Let them deploy their capital as they like. We privates have our own ideas. Oh, and we're awesome. Quarter to quarter is pressure. I do it month to month. None of us survive without investing for future quarters. Here's my boss's response to me if I ask if he wants short term or long term results. "Both." We're not visionaries, either.