Bruce fails as Mr. Exposition. He can't help Buck prepare for an encounter with the Big Bad and he can't help the reader understand how this story is supposed to work. He doesn't know what the rules are because the authors don't know either.
This week, DF has seemed incredibly slow for some people, sometimes. Here’s a Twitter search for tweets to me with the word “slow” this week. This was killing me, because I pride myself on Daring Fireball being a fast-loading website, and because this was a pretty big week content-wise.
It was not my server, and had nothing to do with higher levels of traffic from my iPhone XS and Series 4 Apple Watch reviews. When DF itself is slow — which happens rarely but does happen — you almost always see DF’s trademark #4a525a slate gray background first, then the elements of the page slowly fill in. If you experienced slowness this week, you probably just saw a white background in your browser tab, and then all of a sudden the whole thing filled in. This sometimes took 30-60 seconds. Long story short, it was taking that long for the initial request to even get to my server; once it did, everything after that was as fast as usual. I’m still not sure what exactly was causing this, but I’ve worked around it by having Cloudflare act as an HTTP/S proxy for daringfireball.net. If any of you continue to see slow page loads, let me know.
Second, there was an issue where requests using the “www” prefix over HTTPS were triggering an SSL certificate warning from Safari that the site might not be legitimate. Only when using the “www” prefix, and only over HTTPS, not HTTP, because it was an SSL problem. I hadn’t changed anything on my end, but the latest version of Safari has tightened its SSL security. (Which is good.) I’ve never made use of a “www” prefix at Daring Fireball — I hate that prefix. But you have to support it, because so many people type it out of habit. So I’ve always redirected requests for “www.daringfireball.net” to “daringfireball.net”. The problem is, because I don’t actually use the “www” domain, I never properly supported it in my SSL certificate. Until a few weeks ago, Safari would just let you get redirected; now it doesn’t.
I solved this problem using Cloudflare too. In fact both problems were fixed the same way — by clicking one button in Cloudflare’s list of my DNS entries to allow Cloudflare to proxy HTTP/S requests. I switched to Cloudflare a year or so ago for managing my DNS, and I couldn’t be happier. It’s like magic. DNS can seem like voodoo (at least to me) but Cloudflare makes it easy. I don’t even pay them — I’m just using their free basic account level. This is not a sponsorship or ad — I just had to thank them for their wonderful service.
Anyway, I want to apologize to any of you affected by either of these issues.
With all that Buck has just seen and heard, it would seem reasonable for him to question whether or not he was still reasonable. He ought to at least consider the possibility that he’s losing his mind.
The authors have accomplished something truly remarkable here. By adding the Antichrist and the End of the World into the mix, they’ve made their story less interesting than it otherwise might have been.
Derby’s a cool dude. I’m not sure there’s enough bitter apple in the world to discourage my idiot little dogs from treating prosthetic limbs as chew toys!
Earlier versions of Derby’s prosthetics shown here.
Apart from feeling good to watch a dog smile, what’s on the agenda as we wrap up the “holidays” and prepare to buckle down for 2016?
The Avantco IC3600 easily boils a standard 20 litre batch.
In my pursuit in making great beer, there are two things that I strive for in my home brewing process: 1) to achieve consistent results every time I brew; 2) ease of brewing. I achieve the second goal by using an electric brewing system using an induction range.
Induction Range Setup
I purchased the Avantco IC3500 Countertop Induction Range for my brewing process. It’s a 3500 watt unit that has plenty of power for a 20 litre (5 US gallon) batch. It can bring 10 C (55 F) water to 100 C (212 F) in about 40 minutes. At the time of this posting, I brewed four batches with it with no issues. I used two layers of Reflectix Bubble Pack Insulation (a heat resistant insulation) to insulate the kettle and secured it using some aluminum foil tape. Although the range can sustain the boil without the lid, I noticed that I get a raging, rolling boil with the lid half-on. I like that, so I went with it and I have great results. I still leave plenty of room for the vapour to escape the kettle (which allows the Dimethyl Sulfides, a.k.a: DMS) to escape as they evaporate.
The Pros
For me, everything has been good so far. These are some of the ways that it helped my brew day.
Ease of Use: What I like most about induction brewing is that it’s very easy to apply heat; you just turn it on and away you go.
Heat Control: There is no messing around with a burner that can be difficult to control the heat. The control panel on the front of the unit allows you to control the heat if needed.
Indoor Brewing: As it is electric, there no propane fumes to exhaust, making indoor brewing possible.
Protability: I used to brew in the kitchen and my family hated it. Now I’m able to brew in my garage, which is perfect for me. I could have chosen to brew anywhere I needed.
Cost Saving: I like that I can still brew electric because I’m saving money on energy costs (electricity is fairly cheap where I live compared to other energy alternatives). Plus, the unit itself is very reasonably priced.
Unit Cost: The unit is only $179.99 USD. No other manufacturer has even come close to the cost of the unit, and it’s great value for what you get.
Easy to Clean: Unlike immersion elements, there is no element coil to clean. The bottom of the pot where the heat is created gets a little dirty but that is very easily cleaned with an oxygen based detergent. There are no crevasses where old kettle trub can hide, so I can get everything nice and tidy in a very short time.
Range Features: The features of the range are handy. It has an automatic timer that shuts off after a period of time. It’s a safety feature that I’m glad is there. The range itself very sturdy. It can hold plenty of weight, so there are no issues there.
The Cons
There are a lot of little things that may turn you off of induction brewing altogether.
Induction Kettle Requirement: You need a kettle that is magnetic for this to work, and most kettles are not. I had to buy a new kettle for this, but in my case, I was looking to upgrade to something bigger anyway.
Kettle Size: I use a 60 litre (15.85 US gallons) kettle in my brewing process, and my pot is a little too big for the range. It still works, but the circumference does exceed the recommended capacity of the range. The edges of the kettle hang over the edges of the appliance, and according to the manufacturer, that could affect the ability of the range. Getting a pot that fits onto the 25 cm (10 1/4 inch) maximum diameter that the range is said to require could be tricky.
Mixed Reliability Reports: The reliability reviews for this pot are mixed. Some claim to have used it for two years without any issues, and others claim that after the six month warranty period is over, it broke shortly afterword. I’ve seen some online claims that the fan that fails, whereas some claim that the unit can burnout due to lack of airflow at the bottom of the unit. My range is sitting on a mobile kitchen island with grated shelves that allows excellent airflow for the unit to mitigate heat issues.
Soldered, Built-in Fuse: Some have had trouble with the 15 A, 240 v fuse built onto the circuit board. The fuse amp capacity is probably a little too low for the unit. 3500 watts divided by 240 volts equals 14.58 amps, so it gets very close to the 15 A threshold. With the odd power surge, that could cause the fuse to burn-out, and it’s not easily replaced. If you have the right skills, you’d have to open-up the unit and solder a new one in place.
No International Warranty: Regarding that warranty, it’s only valid in the United States. Ouch! So if you order this outside of the U.S.A., don’t count on having the warranty honoured. It’s not going to happen. If you get stuck with a unit that breaks shortly after you buy it, you’re going to be stuck with it.
Efficiency Compared to Immersion Elements: The energy exchange is never going to be as efficient as immersion elements. I’ve read that induction range loose roughly about 60% – 70% of their total energy to inefficiencies and the environment. So the full 3500 watts does not go into the boil, whereas immersion elements is completely submerged in the wort where virtually 99% of the energy goes right into the volume in your kettle.
240 v, 20 a Requirement: To use this, you need a 240 v 20 A outlet. The unit simply needs this kind of power to deliver 3500 watts of energy. I had to have a special, dedicated receptacle installed to accomplish this.
Conclusion
This solution has worked out well for me so far. For the low cost of the unit, I think that it’s worth giving it a try in spite of some of the reported reliability issues. If you’re in the U.S.A., you are at least somewhat protected by the 6 month warranty. Plus, you can get great customer support if you have any issues if you buy it from the right place. I bought mine from the Westaurant Store, and I can tell you that their customer service is second to none!
William Van Hecke made an interesting video showing a difference in iOS 7 and 8 from all prior versions of iOS — touch gestures are now ignored during system animations. For example, when you unlock your iPhone and the home screen animates into place. It used to be that you could start swiping between home screens during the animation. Now, you can’t.
I’d more or less gotten used to this, but now that he’s called my attention to it, it does seem rather annoying, and an inexplicable regression. A seven-year-old original iPhone shouldn’t feel more responsive than a brand new iPhone 6.
Update: I’m not sure that Van Hecke’s description of how older versions of iOS worked is quite right. I think it’s more like the old animations ended abruptly, whereas starting in iOS 7 they ease out slowly. The difference isn’t between being interruptible or not, but rather between ending quickly and ending slowly. The result, though, is what matters, and the result is that it feels slower.
Looking for something else, I came across Adam Gopnik’s 2008 New Yorker essay: “The Back of the World: The troubling genius of G.K. Chesterton,” which was published to mark the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the writer’s dazzling masterpiece, The Man Who Was Thursday. (That novel really is an astonishing thing — creepy and hilarious, enlightening and bewildering. You should read it. You’re welcome.)
Chesterton is, like Oscar Wilde, more quoted than read, and he is, as Gopnik writes, “an easy writer to love …”
– a brilliant sentence-maker, a humorist, a journalist of endless appetite and invention. His aphorisms alone are worth the price of admission, better than any but Wilde’s. Even his standard-issue zingers are first-class — “Americans are the people who describe their use of alcohol and tobacco as vices;” “There is more simplicity in the man who eats caviar on impulse than in the man who eats grape-nuts on principle;” “‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no true patriot would think of saying. … It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober’” — while the deeper ones are genuine Catholic koans, pregnant and profound: “Blasphemy depends on belief, and is fading with it. If anyone doubts this, let him sit down seriously and try to think blasphemous thoughts about Thor.” Or: “The function of the imagination is not to make strange things settled, so much as to make settled things strange.” Or: “A key has no logic to its shape. Its logic is: it turns the lock.”
That’s terrific stuff. Chesterton had a knack for making his insights sound like jokes and his jokes sound like insights. But he is also, to use the current euphemism, problematic, as Gopnik also discusses: “Those of us who are used to pressing his writing on friends have the hard job of protecting him from his detractors, who think he was a nasty anti-Semite and medievalizing reactionary, and the still harder one of protecting him from his admirers, who pretend that he was not.”
Gopnik’s essay is particularly sharp in confronting, and trying to understand, Chesterton’s “Jew-hating”:
A reader with a casual interest in Chesterton’s life may have a reassuring sense, from his fans and friendly biographers, that his anti-Semitism really isn’t all that bad: that there’s not much of it; that a lot of it came from loyalty to his younger brother Cecil, a polemical journalist in the pre-war years, and to his anti-Dreyfusard friend Belloc; that he had flushed it out of his system by the mid-twenties; and, anyway, that it was part of the time he lived in. …
Unfortunately, a little reading shows that there’s a lot of it, that it comes all the time, and that the more Chesterton tries to justify it the worse it gets.
And towards the end of his essay, Gopnik grapples with the fact that Chesterton’s anti-Semitism “is not incidental” but is inextricably tied up with the underlying logic and philosophy at the core of his thinking. As with Martin Luther, “The anti-Semitism is easy to excise from his arguments when it’s explicit. It’s harder to excise the spirit that leads to it.”
That concluding argument is, I think, a smart and wise discussion and a helpful one for anyone who admires Chesterton and his often otherwise admirable writing. But here I’m not so much interested in Chesterton himself as I am in what we can learn from him about how bigotry works.
Here was a brilliant, educated man with a nimble wit, religious devotion, and a capacity for empathy, irony and humility. And yet even he managed to wind up obsessively consumed by the willful ignorance, stupidity, blasphemy and arrogance of bigotry. He had education, Jesus, and a sense of humor — three things that it seems ought to preclude such crude prejudice and hate. Yet they did not rescue him. Or, at least, he did not allow them to rescue him. He still swallowed whole all the cognitive tricks that such bigotry teaches and requires — and then fortified them with his formidable intellect, religious fervor, and wit.
After World War I, Gopnik writes, “Chesterton’s hatreds became ugly and obsessive”:
From then on, however, Chesterton hammers relentlessly at the idea that there is “a Jewish problem,” the problem being that Jews are foreigners, innately alien to the nations into which they’ve insinuated themselves. Writing in 1920, he tells us that Jews are regarded, by the Arabs in Palestine, as “parasites that feed on a community by a thousand methods of financial intrigue and economic exploitation.” Chesterton then adds that this charge may not be entirely true but needs to be addressed by the Jews — as though they were compelled to consider themselves permanently on trial by their persecutors. Later in the decade, writing about a journey to America, he says, in defense of Henry Ford, “No extravagance of hatred merely following on experience of Jews can properly be called a prejudice. … These people of the plains have found the Jewish problem exactly as they might have struck oil; because it is there, and not even because they were looking for it.”
It’s a deeply racial, not merely religious, bigotry; it’s not the Jews’ cupidity or their class role — it’s them. In his autobiography, Chesterton tries to defend himself by explaining what it is that makes people naturally mistrust Jews. All schoolboys recognized Jews as Jews, he says, and when they did so “what they saw was not Semites or Schismatics or capitalists or revolutionists, but foreigners, only foreigners that were not called foreigners.” Even a seemingly assimilated Jew, in Chesterton’s world, remains a foreigner. No one born a Jew can become a good Englishman: if England had sunk into the Atlantic, he says, Disraeli would have run off to America.
The dynamics here, the mental mechanics and gymnastics at work, are all too familiar to anyone who has ever visited the United States. Everything Chesterton says there about “the Jews” is precisely what white American culture has been teaching for centuries about “the blacks.” Them. Perpetual foreigners whose citizenship is always, and will always be, suspect. Parasites. Self-evidently other. “People naturally mistrust” them because they’re a separate category — not a part of the category of “people.”
And then, in our more generously liberal moments, a passing acknowledgement that all of these accusations may not be entirely true in every case, but that they still need to be addressed by the accused who are “compelled to consider themselves permanently on trial.” The existence of the prejudice is thereby acknowledged, but only in order to claim that its existence somehow is self-justifying. Where there’s smoke there must be fire. Guilty unless proven somewhat less guilty. We couldn’t possibly be treating them this way if they didn’t somehow deserve it.
“Foreigners, only foreigners that were not called foreigners.”
Chesterton’s crooked construct of what he insisted on calling “the Jewish problem” can help us better understand the crooked lies embedded in white American culture that insist on imagining white America has a “Black Problem.” They are the same lies — the same deliberate deceptions and delusions. This is the infernal mechanism, the cognitive machinery of hate. This is how bigotry works, and how it persists.
A grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, is preparing to announce whether or not charges will be filed against a white police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager. Watch the way this is discussed and the way this discussion is framed. It will be, as it has been, discussed in corrosive, corrupt terms that echo Chesterton’s vile anti-Semitism. The other is identified, classified as a perpetual foreigner, and defined as a “problem” that must somehow be dealt with. We will be given “both sides” of this debate — the side that argues that it is sad and regrettable when lethal police violence is administered lawlessly in response to the Black Problem, and the side that argues that such extra-legal lethal violence may sometimes be appropriate and necessary as a response to the Black Problem.
Both sides will lament that it has come to this, and they will shake their heads sadly that, after so many generations, the Black Problem remains intractable.
And here we come to Ground Zero of conservative commitment. The conservative believes in excellence, as Douthat says, but it is a vision of excellence defined as and dependent on “overcoming.” It’s a vision that abhors the easy path of acceptance, of tolerating human frailty and need, not because that path is wrong but because it is easy. Or, to put it differently, it’s wrong precisely because it is easy. And though that vision often claims Aristotle as its inspiration, its true sources are Nietzschean.
The conservative believes the excellent person is a kind of mountain climber, a moral athlete who is constantly overcoming or trying to overcome his limits, pushing himself ever higher and higher. When it comes to sex, he’s not unlike the Foucauldian transgressor, that sexual athlete of novelty and experiment: but where Foucault believes that taboos against sex are all too easily reached (that’s why, if we are to attain the peaks of experience, we have to move beyond those limits), the conservative’s remain out of reach. The value of a rule lies in its difficulty and potential unattainability, the ardor of the struggle it imposes upon us. We might call this ethic the ardor of adversity.*
Very much so, yes. And it gives us another opportunity to revisit Holbo’s classic David Frum essay:
“Contemporary conservatives still value that old American character. William Bennett in his lectures reads admiringly from an account of the Donner party written by a survivor that tells the story in spare, stoic style. He puts the letter down and asks incredulously, “Where did those people go?” But if you believe that early Americans possessed a fortitude that present-day Americans lack, and if you think the loss is an important one, then you have to think hard about why that fortitude disappeared. Merely exhorting Americans to show more fortitude is going to have about as much effect on them as a lecture from the student council president on school spirit. Reorganizing the method by which they select and finance their schools won’t do it either, and neither will the line-item veto, or discharge petitions, or entrusting Congress with the power to deny individual NEA grants, or court decisions strinking down any and all acts of politically correct tyranny emanating from the offices of America’s deans of students – worthwhile though each and every one of those things may be. It is socials that form character, as another conservative hero, Alexis de Tocqueville, demonstrated, and if our characters are now less virtuous than formerly, we must identify in what way our social conditions have changed in order to understand why.
Of course there have been hundreds of such changes – never mind since the Donner party’s day, just since 1945 … But the expansion of government is the only one we can do anything about.
All of these changes have had the same effect: the emancipation of the individual appetite from restrictions imposed on it by limited resources, or religious dread, or community disapproval, or the risk of disease or personal catastophe.” (p. 202-3)
Words fail me; links not much better. The Donner party? Where did all these people go? Into each other, to a dismaying extent. A passage from one of those moving, stoical diary entries:
“…Mrs. Murphy said here yesterday that [she] thought she would commence on Milt and eat him. I don’t think she has done so yet, [but] it is distresing. The Donno[r]s told the California folks that they [would] commence to eat the dead people 4 days ago, if they did not succeed in finding their cattle then under ten or twelve feet of snow & did not know the spot or near it, I suppose they have [cannibalized] …ere this time.”
The stoical endurance of the Donner party in the face of almost unimaginable suffering is indeed moving. The perseverance of the survivors is a lasting testament to the endurance of the human spirit. (On the other hand, the deaths of all who stoically refused to cannibalize their fellows might be deemed an equal, perhaps a greater testament.) But it is by no means obvious – some further demonstration would seem in order – that lawmakers and formulators of public policy should therefore make concerted efforts to emulate the Donner’s dire circumstances. What will the bumper-stickers say? “It’s the economy, stupid! We need to bury it under ten to twelve feet of snow so that we will be forced to cannibalize the dead and generally be objects of moral edification to future generations.”
I think we are beginning to see why Frum feels that his philosophy may be a loser come election time. I think the Donner party – who, be it noted, set out seeking economic prosperity in the West, not snow and starvation – would not vote Republican on the strength of William Bennett’s comfortable edification at the spectacle of their abject misery. (“Let’s start with the fat one over there in the corner, playing the slots. We can eat off him for a week. See how he likes it.”)
To put what is surely rather an obvious point yet another way: if the Donner party is really what you want, the policy riddle (how to reproduce these conditions, since the Donner party was not political, per se?) already has an answer: Stalinism.
…Warren Terra in comments:
I had heard the term “Donner Party Conservatism” before, but it had never occurred to me that it reflected actual sentiments from a famous Conservative Thought Leader in praise of the Donner party – I assumed it was just an insult hurled at the party that professes to represent some sort of Conservative ideals, and that in reality so well recapitulates the experience of the Donner Party.
Think of it: a bunch of god-fearing but frankly ignorant buffoons were sold promises of wealth and opportunity if only they’d pledge themselves to a grand venture. They were then taken advantage of by profiteers who badly outfitted them for the undertaking, and were literally misguided, as in sent along the wrong path, at the wrong time. When they became trapped, the few survivors made it by eating their own; others more principled or more circumspect did not – or were perhaps slain to be food. It’s like the George W Bush administration, plus literal cannibalism. It is, in short, what the Conservatives deliver, but not what they claim to seek. Except, apparently, Bill Bennett.
Unlike most of my colleagues here at Lawyers, Guns, and Money, I do a lot of work within the Democratic Party – not just working to try to get my candidate elected in a primary or getting the nominated/endorsed Democrat elected in the general, but day-to-day Party Central Committee work and serving as a Convention delegate. The upside of doing this work is that you can push the Democratic Party from the inside by influencing endorsements, platforms, and elected officers and caucus officers; the downside is that you get on every fundraising email list ever.
Sometimes that’s a good thing, because I get emails like this one:
Hey Steven, question for you. Ever taken an Uber or a Lyft to get where you’re going? How about Airbnb – have you used it to book yourself a room?
You’re not alone if you haven’t, and some of you may not have even heard of these. But trust me – they’re just the tip of the iceberg in what’s known as the “sharing economy.”
For the uninitiated, here’s the basic idea: you’re connected through your computer or mobile device to someone offering a service, whether that’s a ride to work or someone to pick up your clothes at the cleaner.
Money generally changes hands through the app itself. Customers are served, and more importantly workers are given the chance to make a little – sometimes a lot – of extra money.
It isn’t perfect, but it’s taking hold. And it’s an example of how quickly the way we do business is changing thanks to the unprecedented interconnection we enjoy through the internet and our mobile devices.
It’s also a lesson for government leaders at all levels. Because sometimes, we simply aren’t keeping up. Rather than supporting these new and innovative technologies, too often we just get in the way.
Given my well-established issues with Uber, I’d say this is a failure as far as targeted marketing goes. However, for a jumping-off point for a discussion about the links between the Silicon Valley “sharing economy” and future conflicts within the Democratic Party, it’s excellent.
What’s interesting about this email in particular is the way it’s clearly pitched to putative progressives – the actual corporations are de-emphasized, and the shift towards casualization of labor is pitched as a pro-working people move (look at all those happy workers with all that extra money they’re earning!). For the skeptical, it allows that there are sometimes road bumps on the road to progress. And of course unions are airbrushed out of the picture, rather than demonized.
But what really separates the neoliberal from the arch-conservative is the way that government is positioned here. It’s not anti-statist per se; it just pivots the focus of government activism from consumers and workers to tech companies who need to be supported and protected. As scholars of neoliberalism have argued for quite some time, it’s not the case that neoliberalism is anti-statist – in fact, neoliberalism requires a lot of state intervention and protection in order to function, it’s just a very specific kind of state intervention:
The world is changing, and the government can play an important role. Protecting citizens from fraud and abuse. Holding businesses accountable for the way they treat customers and keep them safe. Maintaining the integrity of the systems we all depend on. This is where government needs to step up.
But if it gets in the way of progress, growth and new development – we’ve failed.
This interventionism, this activism, is crucial for Third Wayism to work – you have to convince people who identify as on the left that what you’re doing is not a betrayal of their old ideological commitments, but an extension of them to meet new challenges that somehow, never quite explicitly stated, mean that social democracy has to be abandoned. Look at the way that a kind of attenuated populism is threaded throughout that paragraph, the way that tropes of regulation and fighting against bad corporations are used to circumscribe the state. At the same time, there’s a tension there between the desire for post-industrial capitalism with a human face and the needs of post-industrial capitalism: government is allowed to regulate against fraud and abuse, to ensure good customer service, but not if it gets in the way of growth and innovation.
And from what source cometh this reimagining of parasitical middlemen apps that avoid taxes and bust unions as the savior of the working class?
It will take creativity. It will require open minds. But I know we can do this. There are big things on the horizon! Time to get ready.
Gavin [Newsom]
Not a surprise, for people who’ve been following Gavin Newsom’s career, or who’ve forced themselves to read his book Citizenville. As one of those Democratic Party activists with the fancy badges, I’ve actually gotten the chance to meet Gavin Newsom. In person, he comes off as a Lego Minifig, perfectly turned out in a slightly unreal way (and very good at charming the exact kind of idealistic but not policy-savvy youth that put so much energy into getting Obama elected in 2008) but nothing behind the eyes.
However, this Lego Minifig is the Lieutenant Governor of California, and when Jerry Brown retires, he’s going to run for Governor of California, and President thereafter if he can get his foot in the door. And he is full on-board with the “Uberization” of the Democratic Party – unlike other bête noirs of the left, he’s not in it for the grift, since he’s got plenty of his own money. He genuinely believes that the Democratic Party should become the champions of the so-called “disruptive” technologies of Silicon Valley, and that this will lead to the best of all worlds.
This is why I think it’s important for progressives to get active in the Democratic Party if they aren’t already. Because the fights over whether Gavin Newsom or Kamala Harris becomes the next Governor of California, or over whether Rahm Emmanuel or Andrew Cuomo or Martin O’Malley or Corey Booker get anywhere in national Democratic politics, and most importantly of all, the fights over who becomes a state senator or assembly member or city councilmember and gets to start climbing the ladder – these fights take place inside the Democratic Party. Often they take place in environments in which well-organized activists can have an outside impact on the process (see the caucus states in 2008, or the Tea Party).
And only progressives can make these fights about more than just which candidates win, but whether we want to live in a world in which Uber and its ilk disrupt full-time employment, a living wage, and economic security, or in a world in which all workers have those things by right.
https://medium.com/better-programming/functional-css-meet-tailwind-css-3897da4b63a2
