Never Fly Coach only? That hurts. You know what? I’m officially a communist now. Screw you guys. Are you happy, Matt Welch? Economy-flyers of the world, unite! Seize the means of podcast production!
(Just kidding, I love you all, I’m just too poor for NFC. I shall nevertheless continue to lick the boot of my Fifdom overlords.)
Welch, thank you for continuing to outdo yourself with the working for the weekend e-mail. It's more than fractional employment to thoughtfully compose and construct these heavily cross-referenced and linked masterpieces. It is worth telling you so, here in a snark-free sincere message. You're a good dude, thanks.
Damn! I would do Never Fly Coach but Substack is going to bankrupt our family. 🥴 Too many great writers and journalists on Substack. I wish there was some sort of bundling option. I will always subscribe but can’t swing higher level rn. Love you guys! You deserve to be filthy rich!!!!
I know what you mean about podcast subs bankrupting your family. I started a foot fetish OnlyFans account and that STILL doesn’t bring in enough $$ for NFC. I clearly need to invest in a stripper pole.
Radley Balko’s critique of Coleman’s article seemed pretty compelling, especially the part about the context of the maximum restraint technique or whatever it’s called within the MPD training manual. Seems like Coleman either overlooked a lot or left a lot out of his analysis.
I thought Balko's piece made it sounds like coleman wilfully misled his audience as he must come across the conflicting documents when researching his article. Not sure what make of that. Giving Colman the benefit of doubt, i would say he was way too credulous of the doc because it aligned with his priors and just didn't do basic fact checking. I like alot of what coleman does, but I think he was in over his head on that one.
I feel like what’s happened is that people who disagreed to the response and protests in summer 2020 as well as the over-the-top anti-police sentiment that’s still reverberating today have extended that to critiquing the Floyd case itself. I imagine it’s a case of implicitly not wanting to have any agreement with the far left, Antifa crowd so you start to doubt a case that seems to have pretty much been properly litigated. Honestly, something I fall victim to myself sometimes (this instance with that documentary included).
It would be great if we could get a cool headed discussion between Balko and Coleman on this (or at least some responses).
Talk about a fIREHOSE. Balko's critique was endless, and it was only Part One!
I liked the doc, and I was glad to see Coleman's commentary in The Free Press. I haven't re-read it, but it does seem Coleman (like Glenn and John, and Megyn and others) were too laudatory in their reviews. It the broader context of the last decade, from Ferguson to Minneapolis and beyond, the film still is a welcome addition to the national conversation on policing and race, alongside stronger efforts such as the Steeles' film on Michael Brown.
Trying to find and remain in any sort of middle ground seems virtually impossible. I walked away from the doc still thinking that, yes, Chauvin was horrifically negligent that day, perhaps criminally so. He has no business being a cop entrusted to protect and serve the public. But I also now think he's not a murderer and that he did not get a fair trial. The other officers with him that day even more so. If the doc was a case for the defense, then Balko's article made a strong rebuttal for the prosecution. Where Balko loses me, though, is his unflinching insistence to describe the doc, and those who are even somewhat swayed by it, as "far right", "conservative" ideologues who have little or no interest in criminal-justice reform. As long as this is the attitude--you're either on Team ACAB or Team Badge--there will be no meaningful reform.
I would love to see someone like Peter Moskos weigh in, but he does not appear all that keen to do so (https://twitter.com/PeterMoskos/status/1745483938871582829). I don't blame him, for the Floyd case more than any other has become a Man Who Shot Liberty Valance story: when the legend becomes fact, print the legend. As a result, we now have a national mythology with two opposing martyrs, Floyd and Chauvin. I am not confident that we will find, as a nation anytime soon, the tragic sensibility to productively escape our infinite loop of dual/dueling narratives.
Yeah, I'm wondering if this is the sort of thing that Balko, with a career of experience with police use of force minutia, can see things that a relatively inexperienced observer would miss.
Although the dramaturgical core of the whole thing (the "I can't breathe" part) does seem extremely weird to me, and I can understand why cops would treat someone who claimed they couldn't breathe from the first moment of the interaction as a fabulist who is "running game."
As a young budding music connoisseur, I got fiREHOSE and Firehouse confused and didn't understand why Sonic Youth and other cool bands were bigging up some hair metal group.
2) I am wondering semi-aloud if Coleman's book includes knowledge gleaned from his spicy conversation with Charles Murray
3) Kmele being described as libertarian-leaning and conservative within the same few sentences is NYT leaning into Matt and Michael's ongoing joke that they have converted Kmele to neoconservatism. My take is that he has moved a little, but is mostly polite to his cohosts since he doesn't feel as strongly or deontologically as he previously did about foreign policy. Also, just thought he was tired from doing the work, before you all mentioned him being back on speed
So looking forward to Zoom at 8:00 pm Eastern Time, but am curious about potential conflict with 1st Sunday “Smoke ‘Em” Zoom. I haven’t noticed anything referencing this issue, so I assume I am just clueless, and this has all been resolved--you get to watch the Superbowl, Nancy gets to make you sandwiches. And, I don’t know, Nancy and Sarah get to attend the Academy Awards or something, and you fill in in drag? Hope this is not another Sophie’s choice, like cats or boobs (the latest Sarah Hepola poll--prior to the boob landslide).
Apropos of nothing this reminds me of the fact that I always get the podcasts Smoke Em If You Got Em and A Special Place in Hell mixed up largely because they are both hosted by two women and there is a Sarah on both. Further confounding me is the fact that the Sarah on Smoke Em has been a guest on the other podcast of the non-Sarah on A Special Place. I hope everyone is now as mixed up as I am.
He seems to have been very good when doing the ring scenes (yes most of the movie) but I would think you would have to be talented and durable to film them all.
Sometimes I think a lot of misleading articles would be fixed with a little accountability - they ought to print the name of the headline’s author next to the article’s author. That piece about Coleman is pretty fair, but the headline (which I’m sure had a different author) calling him a conservative is just absurd. If you’re going to add false and click-baity spin to an otherwise reasonable piece, you ought to attach your name to it.
I can’t remember where I read/heard this (maybe it was even here) but it was that editors often pick (or at least influence) the headlines while the writer(s) of the article have little say in it
It depends mostly on the publication, and occasionally the author. The chances of me coming up with the headline on something I write for Reason, for example, is around 90%.
Yes exactly. I think if the editor needed to put their name on it as writer of the headline, there might be fewer shenanigans. (Or maybe not, but it’s worth a try, right?)
Never Fly Coach only? That hurts. You know what? I’m officially a communist now. Screw you guys. Are you happy, Matt Welch? Economy-flyers of the world, unite! Seize the means of podcast production!
(Just kidding, I love you all, I’m just too poor for NFC. I shall nevertheless continue to lick the boot of my Fifdom overlords.)
I toil endlessly in “Biden’s America” to eke out mere subsistence and the lads betray me in my time of need. I’m now a Maoist.
But there is nothing wrong with revealed preferences due to economic circumstances. Hold onto your aspirations.
How many people showed up, I wonder?
Welch, thank you for continuing to outdo yourself with the working for the weekend e-mail. It's more than fractional employment to thoughtfully compose and construct these heavily cross-referenced and linked masterpieces. It is worth telling you so, here in a snark-free sincere message. You're a good dude, thanks.
Seconded!
canceling therapy to afford Never Fly Coach now
Damn! I would do Never Fly Coach but Substack is going to bankrupt our family. 🥴 Too many great writers and journalists on Substack. I wish there was some sort of bundling option. I will always subscribe but can’t swing higher level rn. Love you guys! You deserve to be filthy rich!!!!
Now I know what it is like to live in the back of the train.
I know what you mean about podcast subs bankrupting your family. I started a foot fetish OnlyFans account and that STILL doesn’t bring in enough $$ for NFC. I clearly need to invest in a stripper pole.
Radley Balko’s critique of Coleman’s article seemed pretty compelling, especially the part about the context of the maximum restraint technique or whatever it’s called within the MPD training manual. Seems like Coleman either overlooked a lot or left a lot out of his analysis.
I thought Balko's piece made it sounds like coleman wilfully misled his audience as he must come across the conflicting documents when researching his article. Not sure what make of that. Giving Colman the benefit of doubt, i would say he was way too credulous of the doc because it aligned with his priors and just didn't do basic fact checking. I like alot of what coleman does, but I think he was in over his head on that one.
I feel like what’s happened is that people who disagreed to the response and protests in summer 2020 as well as the over-the-top anti-police sentiment that’s still reverberating today have extended that to critiquing the Floyd case itself. I imagine it’s a case of implicitly not wanting to have any agreement with the far left, Antifa crowd so you start to doubt a case that seems to have pretty much been properly litigated. Honestly, something I fall victim to myself sometimes (this instance with that documentary included).
It would be great if we could get a cool headed discussion between Balko and Coleman on this (or at least some responses).
Great idea.
Talk about a fIREHOSE. Balko's critique was endless, and it was only Part One!
I liked the doc, and I was glad to see Coleman's commentary in The Free Press. I haven't re-read it, but it does seem Coleman (like Glenn and John, and Megyn and others) were too laudatory in their reviews. It the broader context of the last decade, from Ferguson to Minneapolis and beyond, the film still is a welcome addition to the national conversation on policing and race, alongside stronger efforts such as the Steeles' film on Michael Brown.
Trying to find and remain in any sort of middle ground seems virtually impossible. I walked away from the doc still thinking that, yes, Chauvin was horrifically negligent that day, perhaps criminally so. He has no business being a cop entrusted to protect and serve the public. But I also now think he's not a murderer and that he did not get a fair trial. The other officers with him that day even more so. If the doc was a case for the defense, then Balko's article made a strong rebuttal for the prosecution. Where Balko loses me, though, is his unflinching insistence to describe the doc, and those who are even somewhat swayed by it, as "far right", "conservative" ideologues who have little or no interest in criminal-justice reform. As long as this is the attitude--you're either on Team ACAB or Team Badge--there will be no meaningful reform.
I would love to see someone like Peter Moskos weigh in, but he does not appear all that keen to do so (https://twitter.com/PeterMoskos/status/1745483938871582829). I don't blame him, for the Floyd case more than any other has become a Man Who Shot Liberty Valance story: when the legend becomes fact, print the legend. As a result, we now have a national mythology with two opposing martyrs, Floyd and Chauvin. I am not confident that we will find, as a nation anytime soon, the tragic sensibility to productively escape our infinite loop of dual/dueling narratives.
Yeah, I'm wondering if this is the sort of thing that Balko, with a career of experience with police use of force minutia, can see things that a relatively inexperienced observer would miss.
Although the dramaturgical core of the whole thing (the "I can't breathe" part) does seem extremely weird to me, and I can understand why cops would treat someone who claimed they couldn't breathe from the first moment of the interaction as a fabulist who is "running game."
More fIREHOSE!!
As a young budding music connoisseur, I got fiREHOSE and Firehouse confused and didn't understand why Sonic Youth and other cool bands were bigging up some hair metal group.
1) Matt, these are always incredible, thanks
2) I am wondering semi-aloud if Coleman's book includes knowledge gleaned from his spicy conversation with Charles Murray
3) Kmele being described as libertarian-leaning and conservative within the same few sentences is NYT leaning into Matt and Michael's ongoing joke that they have converted Kmele to neoconservatism. My take is that he has moved a little, but is mostly polite to his cohosts since he doesn't feel as strongly or deontologically as he previously did about foreign policy. Also, just thought he was tired from doing the work, before you all mentioned him being back on speed
fIREHOSE! Yes, please!
Looks at TFC subscription plans.
Looks at checking account.
Makes plans to be somewhere else all day.
Sighs.
Nathan Robinson looks like socialist Roger Stone. Here's his own bio photo: https://us.macmillan.com/author/nathanjrobinson
I keep thinking a good nickname would be Painfully Straight Talese
Non-binary mary poppins
"Labor-sexual"
In other words-
“My dude looks like the socialist Babadook”
#deepcut
Good lord, he looks like a taste- and humourless Oscar Wilde.
Always proud of MC5 for standing up to the Justified Ancients of Mummu
https://www.liquisearch.com/kick_out_the_jams/meaning_of_kick_out_the_jams
They've seen the fnords
So looking forward to Zoom at 8:00 pm Eastern Time, but am curious about potential conflict with 1st Sunday “Smoke ‘Em” Zoom. I haven’t noticed anything referencing this issue, so I assume I am just clueless, and this has all been resolved--you get to watch the Superbowl, Nancy gets to make you sandwiches. And, I don’t know, Nancy and Sarah get to attend the Academy Awards or something, and you fill in in drag? Hope this is not another Sophie’s choice, like cats or boobs (the latest Sarah Hepola poll--prior to the boob landslide).
You know too much.... We are indeed hoping to enjoy Nancy's cooking on Super Bowl Sunday!
I'd rearrange a Zoom to eat at Nancy's place too
Apropos of nothing this reminds me of the fact that I always get the podcasts Smoke Em If You Got Em and A Special Place in Hell mixed up largely because they are both hosted by two women and there is a Sarah on both. Further confounding me is the fact that the Sarah on Smoke Em has been a guest on the other podcast of the non-Sarah on A Special Place. I hope everyone is now as mixed up as I am.
Alright NFC folks, it's your time to shine and bring up the TFC Carl Weathers eulogy we need.
He seems to have been very good when doing the ring scenes (yes most of the movie) but I would think you would have to be talented and durable to film them all.
Sometimes I think a lot of misleading articles would be fixed with a little accountability - they ought to print the name of the headline’s author next to the article’s author. That piece about Coleman is pretty fair, but the headline (which I’m sure had a different author) calling him a conservative is just absurd. If you’re going to add false and click-baity spin to an otherwise reasonable piece, you ought to attach your name to it.
I can’t remember where I read/heard this (maybe it was even here) but it was that editors often pick (or at least influence) the headlines while the writer(s) of the article have little say in it
It depends mostly on the publication, and occasionally the author. The chances of me coming up with the headline on something I write for Reason, for example, is around 90%.
Yes exactly. I think if the editor needed to put their name on it as writer of the headline, there might be fewer shenanigans. (Or maybe not, but it’s worth a try, right?)
I’m stuck at the phoenix airport w a delayed flight. I’m killing time at a bar… too bad the call isn’t now.
By the time you leave Phoenix she’ll be……
Whoa, now that's a golden oldie!
I must not be that old. It made me think of Public Enemy.
I barely know what Public Enemy is, so I am that old.
Isn’t TCW already taken? It’s Tasty Coma Wife - from scrubs