2016年8月3日 星期三

squishy, aristocratic squishes, populist pitch/message

The gap between artificial brains and the real ones is narrowed even further

The brain: a squishy, imprecise biological version of a digital computer

GOFFSTOWN, N.H. — Former Sen. Rick Santorum expanded his populist message into education Saturday, accusing President Barack Obama and others of “snobbery” for pushing all kids to go to college. “We are leaving so many children behind,” Mr. Santorum said at a forum sponsored by the Atlantic, the National Journal and Saint Anselm College. “They’re not ready to go to [college.] They don’t want to go to college. They don’t need to go to college. I was so outraged that the President of the United States [said] every student should go to college. The article is in the Wall Street Journal.
Campaign Stops

The Bully Populist

Will the president's adoption of rhetorical populism help or hurt his re-election chances?

Obama Makes Populist Pitch
The president offered Americans a populist economic vision in the State of the Union address, seeking to draw a contrast with his eventual Republican rival.

American conservatives don’t think terribly highly of the British Tories — if, that is, they think of them at all. With the exception of the sainted Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s Conservatives have acquired a reputation among their more populist American cousins for being aristocratic squishes: part Bertie Wooster and part Arlen Specter.

Susan Etheridge for The New York TimesRoss Douthat's Evaluations

The columnist's blog on politics and culture.
Go to the Blog »

Readers' Comments

David Cameron, the Tory leader campaigning to become Britain’s next prime minister, fits this stereotype all too neatly. He’s an Eton man, an alumnus of Oxford’s posh and rowdy Bullingdon Club, and a direct descendant of King William IV. His early career as Tory leader was devoted to “modernizing” the Conservative Party after a decade of defeat. This meant riding a bicycle, appearing regularly without a tie, and talking as much as possible about the environment and other liberal-sounding issues.
Yet the American right — and Americans in general — should be paying close attention to how Cameron’s Tories fare in Britain’s election on May 6, and how well they govern if they win. That’s because for all his leftward feints and politically correct gestures, Cameron is campaigning on a vision of government that owes a great deal to the American conservative tradition.
The Tories’ election manifesto, released early last week, promises “a sweeping redistribution of power” — from London to local institutions, and “from the state to citizens.” In one of the most centralized countries in the Western world, Cameron is championing a dramatic transfer of responsibility — for schools, hospitals, police forces — to local governments and communities. In a nation with a vast and creaking welfare state, he’s urging people to put more faith in voluntarism, charity and the beleaguered two-parent family. (This last plank has attracted the ire of none other than J. K. Rowling, who recently attacked the Tories for stigmatizing single motherhood.) His emphasis, again and again, has been on a smaller, leaner, less intrusive government — and in its place, a “big society” that can bear the burden currently shouldered by social workers and bureaucracies.
Nobody would mistake the Cameron Tories for Tea Partiers. By the statist standards of British politics, though, their manifesto’s emphasis on localism and limited government is quite daring. The Tories may sit to the left of American conservatives on a host of issues, but Cameron is offering a more detailed and specific vision of what conservative reform might mean than almost any English-speaking politician since the Reagan-Thatcher era.
Essentially, the Tories are gambling that the fiscal crisis facing every Western government will create an opportunity for decentralization on an unprecedented scale. If that gamble succeeds, Cameron’s government will offer an example to right-of-center parties everywhere — and Britain will offer a model, in an era of tight budgets and diminished expectations, for how nations can succeed (to borrow a Cameron catchphrase) at “doing more with less.”
But first Cameron’s party has to actually win the election, which is hardly a sure thing. The Tories are asking for a mandate to transform the British state at a time when the British public is mainly concerned about how to kick-start economic growth. This may explain why the Tories have been clinging to a narrow lead over the incumbent, Gordon Brown, despite the Labor Party’s epic mismanagement of the economy. Many disillusioned Britons seem tempted to cast a vote for the Liberal Democrats, the perpetual bridesmaids of British politics. The Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, was the clear winner in last week’s television debate, and his party’s poll numbers are soaring while Conservative support is flatlining.
Even if they manage to pull out a win, the Tories will have to actually execute the transformation that they’ve promised. Here the American experience is not encouraging. From Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, almost every modern Republican president has pledged to decentralize government and empower local communities. But their successes have tended to be partial, and their failures glaring. Cameron’s decentralizing vision is much better thought out than Nixon’s “new federalism” or Bush’s promise of an “ownership society.” But it’s easy to imagine it meeting the same unhappy fate.
Finally, even if Cameronism could work, there may simply not be time to implement the kind of ambitious, long-term transformation he has in mind. Britain’s debt burden is worse even than that of the United States, and the fiscal crunch is looming. The window for big ideas may be closing, on both sides of the Atlantic and for right and left alike. In this election season, Cameron has tried to advance an idealistic politics of conservative reform. But he may find himself governing amid the grim politics of a permanent fiscal crisis.

Imagine hundreds of squishy millipedes swarming a train track, then let your imagination do the rest

Pronunciation: /skwɪʃ /

Definition of squish in English:


1Make a soft squelching sound when walked on or in:the mud squished under my shoes
1.1informal Yield or cause to yield easily to pressure;squash:[NO OBJECT]: strawberries so ripe that they squished if picked too firmly[WITH OBJECT]: Naomi was furiously squishing herice cream in her bowl


[IN SINGULAR]Back to top  
A soft squelching sound:the squish of wet sand between the toes


mid 17th century: imitative.

squish (skwĭsh) pronunciationv., squished, squish·ing, squish·es. v.tr.
To squeeze or crush together or into a flat mass; squash.

To emit the gurgling or sucking sound of soft mud being walked on.

  1. A squishing sound.
  2. Slang. A person regarded as weak and ineffective.
[Probably alteration of SQUASH2.]


1Make a soft squelching sound when walked on or in:the mud squished under my shoes
1.1informal Yield or cause to yield easily to pressure; squash:[NO OBJECT]: strawberries so ripe that they squished if picked too firmly[WITH OBJECT]: Naomi was furiously squishing her ice cream in her bowl


A soft squelching sound:the squish of wet sand between the toes


Mid 17th century: imitative.


  • 発音記号[pɑ'pjulist | pɔ'p-]

1 ポピュリスト, 大衆主義者.民粹
2 ((P-))《米国史》人民党員.