End of the Week Tabs

Some stories of possible interest.

FILED UNDER: Tab Clearing, , , , , , , , , , ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter


  1. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Via the NYT: R.N.C. Is Said to Agree to Pay Up to $1.6 Million of Trump’s Personal Legal Bills.

    Perfect. A party of grifters gets conned.

    eta: And speaking of grifters: Capitol attack insurrectionists flock to fundraising websites to raise defense funds Guess who’s at the head of the line?

    the fundraising page titled American Gulag for Jan 6 Political Prisoners which has so far raised $41,000. The page, created by Jim Hoft, founder of the conspiracy site Gateway Pundit,

  2. mattbernius says:


    A party of grifters gets conned.

    Oh, I don’t think the Republicans are being conned at all. I think they are being extorted.

    What we are seeing is what happens when a party ties itself to a person who has made it clear he has no issue burning the entire party to the ground if he doesn’t get what he wants. So they will pay and keep hoping that, one way or another, Trump will go away prior to 2024.

  3. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @mattbernius: They put themselves into this situation. Maybe there is a god after all.

  4. MarkedMan says:

    @mattbernius: “Nice little political party you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.”

  5. Kathy says:


    Conned, offerings to the deity, sacrifices, tribute to the leader it’s all pretty much the same.

  6. Lynn says:

    I’ve gone to “y’all” for 2 reasons – first, my mother was from Tennessee so I’ve always had inclinations tht way. Second, “you guys” bothers some so I’ve largely quit using it.

  7. Sleeping Dog says:


    Growing up ‘you guys’ came out ‘youse guys’ for most us. Took a while for the kids to rid ourselves of that and the dem, dese and doeses for them, these and those, once we realized that anyone we admired didn’t speak piggin english.

  8. CSK says:

    I say “you all” on occasion, because it makes sense if you’re addressing a group of people. I don’t say “y’all,” not wanting to sound like a fake southerner.

  9. Stormy Dragon says:

    And yet for some reason the grammar Nazis who get the vapors over singular they don’t seem to be expending a similar level of energy on how “y’all” isn’t correct usage.

  10. Mu Yixiao says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    I picked up “y’all” after spending a couple years in Texas and Virginia.

    It had exactly zero to do with being “gender inclusive”. It’s about being lazy (while still being understood). And I’m going to say that the reason that “y’all” is being used in other countries also has zero to do with being “gender inclusive”. It’s just easier to say (easier than “y’inz”, which is a Pennsyltucky contraction of “you ones”–also gender neutral).

    On a side note:

    While living in Texas, I figured out the difference between “y’all” (which may be singular or small-plural) and “all y’all” (which is large plural).

    It’s the difference between the wrist and the elbow. If you can point at a group and encompass them all by only moving your wrist, it’s “y’all”. If you have to move at the elbow, it’s “all y’all”.


  11. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Stormy Dragon:
    And by grammar Nazis you mean people who have to write at a professional level and get paid actual money? It’s not about grammar, it’s about clarity.

    My challenge remains: write me a 2-3 page action scene involving multiple parties, including male and female characters, using the singular they.

  12. Michael Reynolds says:

    I have a question, on the off-chance anyone here as heard of this sort of thing and can clarify. A company has approached us, through my IP lawyer, to offer to ‘buy our cashflow.’ What they mean by this (we think) is that we’d sign over all future book royalties off existing books, and they’d give us a lump sum payment. They’re flexible on how they structure the deal – all, part, exclusions, etc… But their seat-of-the-pants estimate was kind of jaw dropping. In a good way. But also in a worrying way since by our own seat-of-the-pants estimate they’d be over-paying by a factor of 2 or 3 and antennae quiver when it seems someone wants to give you something.

    Has anyone heard of this kind of thing?

  13. CSK says:

    @Michael Reynolds:
    I think it means that they’re anticipating your books will outsell your and Katherine’s expectations. I’d be very careful about entering such a deal. If you have a lawyer handling your literary affairs, check closely with him or her.

    And no, I’ve never heard of this.

  14. Mister Bluster says:

    I live in a college town. I spend a lot of time in restaurants and cafe’s that are staffed by high school and college students and other citizens in their teens to 40’s or so.
    The most common greeting I hear the help (male and female) convey to customers of all ages and genders is: “Welcome to Chili’s guys.” or “I’ll be with you guys in a minute.”
    On the street or in the grocery store or anywhere a social encounter might occur I commonly hear girls meeting up with acquaintances of all genders address each other as guys. “What are you guys doing tonight?”
    It is a far cry from 50 years ago when I greeted Jill Pope and her hippie chick friend when I saw them about town.
    “Hi guys.” I said.
    “@!#%!&!! DO WE LOOK LIKE GUYS TO YOU?”
    She yelled as she ripped me a new one.
    We’ve come a long way baby!

  15. Joe says:

    @Michael Reynolds: This is not different than Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen selling their catalogues. The buyer is offering to reduce your future royalty income into a current lump sum payment or structured payment plan. I have heard of this. There’s a lot of money out there chasing a lot of income streams. And CSK is right to say you need to look at this closely with your lawyer.

    If you are getting anything other than cash, you need to know your buyer is good for the income stream. You need to know how your future work is handled and how you can add to any serials or characters that would be part of your catalogue. You would also have to determine whether you had any residual control of the derivative story lines they could otherwise have created. How would you feel about any of your favorite characters being turned into serial killers in the sequels?

    There’s also the John Fogarty issue. After selling his early catalogue, he was later accused by his buyer of infringing one of his own prior songs because the new one sounded so similar.

    It’s nice that the buyer has a higher view of your future income than you do. Have they done their due diligence yet (looked at all of your royalty statements and publishing agreements, etc.). The number might move a bit if they haven’t yet.

    If you enter this deal, it’s two things. First it’s a bet that your future royalties won’t increase in ways you didn’t see coming. Second, it’s turning over the control of your literary estate to a group of investors, which might actually be more productive than turning it over to your kids, grand kids etc. But YMMV

  16. JohnMcC says:

    In deep Appalachia they don’t use ‘y’all’. They have a contraction of ‘you one’s’ that sounds like ‘y-uns’ or ‘you-uns’.

    A friend tells of getting a college roomie who had never been in the south before who announced one day: ‘Youse guys talk funny.’

    Our regionalisms are basically gone and it’s a shame.

  17. Mu Yixiao says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    My challenge remains: write me a 2-3 page action scene involving multiple parties, including male and female characters, using the singular they.

    Oh for fuck’s sake!

    1) if they characters are explicitly male or female, then the gendered pronouns would be used.

    2) The point of “singular they” is that the gender is unknown, unspecified, or non-existent.

    3) Spoken Chinese has zero differentiation between he, she, and it. Their spoken stories have been understood for thousands of years.

    4) I actually did what you asked and posted it here. It was a confrontation of two non-gendered alien groups viewed by a gender non-specific human. I posted it here. You failed to respond.

    So: I’ve got the weekend off. Give me 3 criteria for the scene and I’ll write it.

    If the commentariate is able to differentiate the characters, will you–for the love of the gods!–sit down and shut up about this?

  18. gVOR08 says:

    @JohnMcC: I was in a diner in Kentucky (no, I wasn’t interviewing MAGAts). The waitress was apparently from NJ or somewhere close. Gave us a very friendly, “youse’all”.

  19. Sleeping Dog says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    It wouldn’t be a bad way of tidying up your estate. Assuming that the payout is cash or mostly cash. I suspect that this is the reason Dylan and Springsteen did it. Your benefit is in getting to diversify your wealth rather than have it tied up in your IP. Don’t forget the tax implications…

  20. Kathy says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    It seems a lot like viaticals or tax farming. I’ve also heard of people or companies that buy annuities. It’s also similar to tax accounting firms that offer to pay you your tax refund when you file with them, rather than wait for the check from the government. Or like getting a large lottery win in one lump sum rather than over several years. And as been noted, like musicians selling their catalog

    In all cases, the payee takes in less money nut gets it right away. Trading money for time, as it were.

    In the specific case of selling future royalties, is it only the money off royalties, or also the rights to your works? If the latter, which I’m assuming is the case, you may care more about what happens to your work than how much money you can make off it (seeing as you seem satisfied with what you’ve already made off it)

  21. dazedandconfused says:
  22. grumpy realist says:

    @Michael Reynolds: I suspect they want to get their hands on your present and future IP so they can collateralise it together with the IP from other authors and create the literary equivalent of a CDO. That’s my wild-ass guess.

    There’s a lot of investment money looking for a place to go and a lot of bright quants coming up with new products to address the demand.

    As an IP lawyer I would repeat what other people have said: get legal advice and discover EXACTLY what the metes and bounds are on what they want and future rights. If they’re aggressive at drawing links about supposed similarities you might find that you have inadvertently signed away future series you’ve come up with as well. In addition, you would lose all artistic control. They could farm out one of your series to a stable of ghost-writers and tell them to do X with the characters and you wouldn’t be able to say boo. Or hock a plot you came up with to Andrew Lloyd Webber for the basis of another Love Never Dies musical. The possibilities are endless.

  23. Moosebreath says:


    “In deep Appalachia they don’t use ‘y’all’. They have a contraction of ‘you one’s’ that sounds like ‘y-uns’ or ‘you-uns’. ”

    Or as they say in Pittsburgh, Yinz.

  24. MarkedMan says:

    @Michael Reynolds: Why is this challenge any different then writing the same scene if they are all male or all female and you use he or she? In both cases you have to use other identifiers.

  25. MarkedMan says:

    @Michael Reynolds: Happens in music all the time. It’s why Michael Jackson ended up owning the Beatles copyrights.

  26. Michael Reynolds says:

    Thanks all upstream re this strange rights offer. It’s not sitting right with either of us. Not yet at least. We’ve sent questions to the lawyer – what company, where’s their money come from, do they know some of our stuff is encumbered, what deals have they made, etc… The lawyer’s been my IP guy for a long time, name partner at a NY IP firm. But still. . . it feels like Tom Selleck selling me a reverse mortgage. But I’m willing to investigate further.

  27. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Mu Yixiao:
    One one side, Frank and Jane. Frank is male and prefers male pronouns. Jane is non-binary and prefers the singular, ‘they.’

    On the other side are two antagonists. We don’t know their names, but one appears female and the other appears nonbinary.

    Side one, in a car, chases side two on motorcycles. There’s a crash under an overpass. Knife fight ensues involving all four characters in different combinations. Police arrive and attempt to stop the fight. Gender the cops however you like.

    In the end Jane is dead, as is one of the bad guys.