davulis.bsky.social
History editor, JHU Press. Got a book idea? Get in touch: [email protected]. No DMs, please. (I do not speak for my employer here, etc etc.)
1,682 posts
1,188 followers
195 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Vietnam.
comment in response to
post
Sure. But that’s not the point of the statement (which I’m fairly certain was written long before Trump descended that stupid escalator.)
comment in response to
post
I heard some variation of this over and over while door knocking last fall. “He’s a corrupt liar but so is everyone else, so, *shrug*” sort of response. It is an excuse that frees the speaker from the burden of actually figuring out who is a corrupt liar and who isn’t and then making a choice
comment in response to
post
I do not think we’re better off now that the dominant opinion is more or less “all politicians lie and are corrupt, so it doesn’t matter if the person I vote for lies and is corrupt.”
It’s not true, it’s lazy, and it gives people cover to vote for morally reprehensible things.
comment in response to
post
The statement isn’t about being morally watertight. It’s about public opinion and perception of the presidency (which is measurable and has been measured consistently.)
comment in response to
post
You’d think this might function as a kind of cautionary tale. Alas.
comment in response to
post
We’re still living with the wreckage caused by one guy’s ego, 60+ years later.
comment in response to
post
Did you know that when you tape a broken toe to the toe next to it, the unbroken toe is sometimes known as the buddy toe? This is one of my favorite facts. Buddy toe!
comment in response to
post
Trying to think if I know anyone who’s NOT a book cat. Coming up empty
comment in response to
post
I feel like you could do all 50 in a long weekend if you really put your mind to it
comment in response to
post
Not a bodega but the THB eggncheese on a Kaiser roll is decent. Also you should meet my pal @neilpbardhan.bsky.social, AKA “Breakfast Sandwiches Guy” (sadly based in Philly though) www.inquirer.com/food/best-br...
comment in response to
post
I’m honestly considering buying a copy because I just cannot imagine what is going on in this book
comment in response to
post
Uh.
comment in response to
post
Well, my opinion on Connecticut generally is that if you’re gonna be there, there’s no reason to venture more than 10 miles from New Haven anyways, so 🤷🏻♀️
comment in response to
post
I love this guy. Protective otter custody!!!!!
comment in response to
post
This is also a valid strategy! If you can make your argument and present your evidence in 50k (or 60k, or whatever) words… write those words then stop writing.
comment in response to
post
Ok good talk. Stay gold, Ponyboy(s).
comment in response to
post
🤣
comment in response to
post
100,000 words including citations and 12-15 illustrations. That’s your ideal-world target.
comment in response to
post
And hey, if you’re one of the dozens of historians who has said this to me, obviously I’m going to take your name to my grave, but also, please remember your desire for shorter books when writing peer reviews. “The author should add a chapter about…” is usually not compatible with a shorter book.
comment in response to
post
This is definitely outside his remit!
comment in response to
post
Neil.
comment in response to
post
It’s gonna take more than snacks
comment in response to
post
I remain uninterested in Big Thoughts about University Endowments at this time.
comment in response to
post
Interestingly, this specifies a “revocable” license but does not specify any process for rights reversion. That one is a head-scratcher.