erez
LightNews LightNews
chalkdust.bsky.social
erez
@chalkdust.bsky.social
340 followers 270 following 18 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
chalkdust.bsky.social
We should’ve at least gotten in a full reign of terror before the backlash
November 13, 2025 at 1:00 PM
chalkdust.bsky.social
it's probably copied from like a mailing list or something (and he was a moron). peter mandelson is also in there twice. "gambat ehud" is maybe transliterated from hebrew (גם בת אהוד - also ehud's daughter)
November 13, 2025 at 10:07 AM
chalkdust.bsky.social
great piece. sadly i don't have the temperament to wave it in people's faces and go "see? i wasn't crazy for liking After the Hunt"
November 6, 2025 at 10:46 PM
chalkdust.bsky.social
the latter i think
October 27, 2025 at 9:54 AM
chalkdust.bsky.social
Classic FIRE shit. They're equally upset at the school for calling in police snipers against student protestors and at the students for yelling at the Libs of Tiktok lady.
October 25, 2025 at 8:01 PM
Reposted by erez
merrittk.com
that isn't a "saying" it's an official saudi tourism slogan lmao
October 8, 2025 at 9:29 PM
Reposted by erez
ositanwanevu.com
Anyway, if you'd like a history of the concept of bipartisanship in American politics, I wrote one a few years ago. Politicians didn't start talking this way until fairly recently. newrepublic.com/article/1635...
Most Americans would be surprised to learn how recently our positivity about bipartisanship came to be. Ahead of the 1960 presidential election, for instance, some political analysts anxiously warned the public against a repeat of the divided government Washington had seen for the majority of Eisenhower’s term. In January of that year, the subhead of a New York Times article by the journalist Douglass Cater said that the split in partisan control of the White House and Congress had “given ‘bipartisanship’ a new—and disturbing—twist.” “Protracted bipartisanship leads to a minimal kind of politics with everything played in low key,” Cater argued. “It reduces the incentive for bold, new initiatives on the part of the Administration in power.” Cater even suggested that bipartisanship might undermine American foreign policy by producing a broad but muddy consensus on national priorities. “It may be questioned whether … ‘bipartisanship’ presents a proper image abroad,” he mused. “What our allies and enemies both may have occasion to wonder is who speaks for America in an effective way.” This was far from a fringe perspective. Upon Kennedy’s election, the historian Henry Graff echoed Cater in another piece for the Times: “In domestic matters, bipartisanship is, naturally, impossible and undesirable. Although some legislation will, as heretofore, enjoy bipartisan support, our politics remain by nature partisan.” And a full eight years later, the Times ran an editorial making the same argument. “Except in time of war ... history suggests that self-conscious bipartisanship does not work very well in this country,” the editors wrote. “A peacetime coalition could only serve to blur the lines of responsibility to no real purpose.” Of all the sea changes that have occurred over the last half-century in American politics, the shift from a political mainstream skeptical or ambivalent about bipartisanship to a mainstream that celebrates it is among the most under-examined. The creation of our current paradigm is a very long story—one that seems to begin, as a great many things did last century, with World War I.
August 27, 2025 at 1:57 PM