« Friday open thread literary cage match | Main | Yet another mysterious lost culture Friday open thread »

October 14, 2021

Comments

Second! (To mess with people's minds.)

I used to answer with, "Generally pretty good. But if you like, I'm sure I can find something to whine about."

I was just teaching my child this: "How are you" is an English greeting, and not an actual question. You always answer "fine", and only later continue, if the other person seems intrested, about your actual situation: "There's just this small matter of my bleeding to death. Otherwise, couldn't be better."

My frequent answer to "How are you?" is "Vertical." Which is a) true and b) not preordained -- in an era of Zoom meetings, meeting while reclining is increasing.

I love this for the title: The tough lessons British pigs can teach Republicans about immigration **
Although the substance makes a good point as well.

** For those who missed it, Britain is looking to admit (temporarily, or so they say) some 800 foreign butchers.

Surely that's only lying by commission, LJ.

American: "I would like to have a conversation where I give you a whole bunch of embarrassing personal information."
Japanese: "Mmmm . . . choh-toh . . ."

In celebration of the human ability to see patterns (or conspiracies) where there are none.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap211016.html

The idea that we can know ourselves is... an ideal. Thanks to decades of depression, I am very well aware that I don't know myself; that I am biochemically disposed to emotional and mental reactions that aren't congruent with my actual beliefs and/or knowledge.

IOW, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, applied to one's inner quantum physics.

But in the same sense that almost everyone is better at giving advice than following it, there is a distinct possibility it may be easier to know someone else's mind than our own. We can see other people more clearly than we can see ourselves, and analyze their thought-behavior patterns more accurately precisely because we're not bogged down by their sea-of-shifting-tides.

The idea that we can know ourselves is... an ideal.

...and a rather old one too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself

I had a dorm mate in college and the first time I met him, we said hello and shook hands and just as I opened my mouth to form the rote "H" in "How are you?", he shot back "Fine. And you?".

It was awkwardly hilarious and disorienting (I gave up talking altogether for a few days), but I learned to loosen up pretty quickly.

True, the door to his room later during water fights in the dorm hallways somehow became of repeated interest to me in practicing the optimum angle to lean a garbage barrel full of water for maximum water velocity into his residence.


Just ran across a note about Ascend West Virginia. It's a program to attrach remote workers to live in West Virginia. Guess nobody told them about Texas's experience: those people tend to be way more liberal than current residents. Not to mention even the (relatively) conservative ones being anti-Trump. Oops.

Colin Powell just died of COVID.

Expect a major focus, in some circles, to be on the fact that he was fully vaccinated.

And in celebration of Powell's passing .... a perfectly just in time genocidal advisory by the fascist murderous conservative movement:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/its-time-to-disobey-covid-mandates/

The anti-American subhuman conservative republican movement, in all of its poisonous guises, IS the Wuhan Lab.

Nuke it.

It's time to disobey all fucking conservative law- and rule-making from every one of their legislatures, courts, and at every level of their governments.

Donald, perhaps, has already read this:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/11/the-ship-that-became-a-bomb

The conservative movement is highly disappointed with these numbers, as they are inverse to the murderous death cult's indices of freedumb:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-has-disappeared-worldwide-during-the-covid-pandemic1/

For the conservative death cult, a vibrant free economy is one in which citizens drop dead in vast numbers with no recourse to medical assistance and insurance, and where they break the law even by practcing preventative measures.

And now if you'll excuse me, it's breastfeeding time for enfant terrible succubus Tucker Carlson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb0bflhdmOo

Expect a major focus, in some circles, to be on the fact that he was fully vaccinated.

And not on the likelihood that more than one person in Powell's infection chain wasn't vaccinated and that he likely wouldn't have gotten COVID in the first place if had they been. But all that "likely" stuff is too fuzzy and ambiguous. Yes or no. 100% or 0%. People like that.

What, nooneithink, don't you believe the author of the American Conservative when he says:
"I doubt I would be advocating against strict health measures if the Black Death were to resurrect itself on American shores."

Hey, at least it gives you an index of how high the death count would have to be to get his attention.

It's time to disobey all fucking conservative law- and rule-making from every one of their legislatures, courts, and at every level of their governments.

Just bear in mind that real civil disobedience, such as the Civil Right movement used, involves a) breaking the laws in question publicly and nonviolently, and b) completely accepting that you will be arrested (and probably found guilty) and accepting the punishment involved. NOT violently resisting enforcement.

Expect a major focus, in some circles, to be on the fact that he was fully vaccinated.

while ignoring that he had multiple myeloma.

for example, WaPa has a long career-spanning article that leads off with "died from complications due to COVID-19" but never uses the words "blood", "disease", "cancer" or "myeloma".

details schmetails.

The conservative movement is extravagantly armed.

Fascist elements in their police forces around the country are refusing Covid-19 vaccinations and safety protocols.

Yet another deadly weapon on their belt.

Black kids and men and women nonviolently resist enforcement by walking or running away or perhaps moving a hand while sitting in their cars and are gunned down in the back just like the ones who violently and illegally resist enforcement.

I won't be loaded on to the republican party's boxcars without putting up savage resistance.

"But all that "likely" stuff is too fuzzy and ambiguous."

Powell could well have been infected by a fully vaccinated individual who was infected but remained asymptomatic.

My brother several weeks ago was possibly infected by his fully vaccinated good friend while sitting in a car with him for about an hour.

The guy, who is very, very wealthy, thought he had the regular flu. He had just returned from a round trip flight to Europe and a subsequent short jaunt to LA; he had tested negative for Covid three times, in Europe and in the states, but the symptoms persisted and he finally tested postive.

After a week of mild symptoms and thinking he was free and clear because of the negative tests, the virus set in for a couple of weeks of miserable suffering for the guy once he tested positive. He just got over the worst and is on his way to recovery without hospitalization, probably becuase he was protected from the worst by the vaccine.

His wife also exhibited symptoms but thankfully they were mild and of short duration.

My fully vaccinated brother over the several week period has tested negative (his buddy paid the tests), showed no symptoms and kept to himself, including sleeping in the basement away from the rest of his family.

He has no prior complicating medical conditions.

Powell could possibly have contracted the disease during a visit to a medical facility for treatment of his cancer.

I have one friend, who I hadn't seen for years, enter the hospital last Spring, for a routine several day in-patient procedure (he had survived colon cancer from years ago).

He contracted Covid-19 in the hospital and never left the hospital again, dying a few weeks later.

This thing, as all of you know, is nothing to fuck with, and the presence of fascist conservative and religiously genocidal ideologues and dumbass anti-mainstream health paranoiacs freely circulating among us is despicable.

I get a booster in two weeks. If Tucker Carlson doesn't like, he knows where I am, the punk cocksucker. Please get in my face, Tucker. There will nothing "non" about what happens to you.

But hey, the First Amendment protects the freedom and speech of despicable jagoff assholes, thanks to the founding wiseguys, who didn't care to write another draft.

The Covid-19 virus loves America for its freedom and hardheaded resistance to even commonsense regulation. It hates government. It hates taxes.

Just like that other death-dealing scourge infesting this country.

The virus is applying for American citizenship because it senses a kindred libertarian, conservative vibe among too many of our citizens.

The Republican Party, if they take over the federal government again (it will be the last government this country will have, I tell you), will shunt the virus and its kin-viruses to the front of the immigration and citizenship lines, way ahead of Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Africans, and gay folks of all races and genders.

The Covid-19 is converting to Orthodox Catholicism and will host its own rightwing FOXNews show.

I can't think how non-violence is of any use against these filth.

Give peace a chance and watch conservatism ... Chinese, American, Russian .... shit on it at every turn.

Powell tried.

His lifelong mistake was rubbing shoulders with the conservative movement, thinking his moderate sensibilities could triangulate with conservative subhuman evil.

He didn't go into his kneepadded suborning of principle to Cheney with overwhelming force, ignoring his own military creed.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/colin-powell-scrubbed-u-n-testimony-in-2003-of-all-but-2-to-5-of-flawed-intelligence-on-iraq-weapons-says-longtime-ally-11634566861?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

I'll pass on weighing in on Powell's decisions as a general and a cabinet member because that sort of thing strikes me as needing a book-length assessment. Instead, I will say that he was a figure of tremendous importance in the US military as the first African-American to break into the ranks of the Joint Chiefs. And the US military is one of the few engines of opportunity for minority Americans from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I'm ambivalent towards the necessity and the exploitation that such an engine represents, but I won't downplay its importance.

Powell made a big impact there, and one hopes that his influence continues to inspire change.

DeSantis is a genocidal murderer:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2021/10/18/comfort-zones-open-thread/

But just the type to get elected President in this conservative pigfuckery we assume is a country.

It's a rough competition DeSantis and Abbott are engaged in. (With Noem as a serious wannabe.) Who can manage to kill off the largest number of their constituents? Without going over the (obviously high) threshold that will get them blamed at the ballot box.

Oh, Florida - where up is down and down is up.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/miami-school-says-vaccinated-students-114210566.html

The view from Iraq is unsurprisingly rather scathing:

https://www.newsweek.com/iraqis-say-colin-powell-lied-2003-us-invasion-resulting-never-ending-wars-1640013

The view from Iraq is unsurprisingly rather scathing...as is the view from LGM.

You know how to find the place.

perhaps our house moderates could weigh in on this little squib from Paul Campos. I'd be curious to hear your take.

Other than that....have a nice day.

Campos' has enraged himself by picking the wrong definition of "moderate". in the political context, "moderate" doesn't mean "ameliorate", it's not a verb; it means "not extreme".

there was a sale on mislabeled punctuation at Costco today. i grabbed a few bundles.

perhaps our house moderates could weigh in on this little squib from Paul Campos.

Gotta agree with cleek. Manchin (and Simena even more) are not so much moderates as bought and paid for. "Moderation", on their context, is a marketing term, rather than an ideological one.

Were it otherwise, some of those broadly popular policies would have sailed thru already. Without all the agonizing over the cost (gross, not net).

And on a totally different note, there are few things more massively irritating than sitting in what is supposedly a technical discussion and having to listen to a radical libertarian proclaiming.

Frankly, much as I find the rantings of radical liberals tedious (and not too tightly based in reality, in my observation), the extreme libertarians are worse. I will now go off and froth at the mouth in private....

cleek, wj: If I understand your points correctly (may not be the case!) so-called moderates can take not so moderate positions against policies that are broadly popular (i.e., not "extreme" and thus "moderate") but still be called "moderates" without assaulting the common English meaning of the word?

I remain a bit confused. I agree with Campos, calling Manchin and Sinema "moderates" is to use the term incorrectly. "Muddled" seems more appropriate. "Bought and paid for" might be correct. The evidence is there, but does not strike me as dispositive, and like you, I can't read their minds.

And what the heck is a "radical liberal"?

Take care. Thanks. :)

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/10/dennis-prager-successfully-acquires-covid-in-order-to-protect-himself-from-covid

Psychotic murderous conservative movement vermin.

He's a walking radical conservative suicide bomber.

His rotten heart is an IED with our names on it.

Along with automatic military grade weaponry in the hands of the every Joe, I doubt our blinkered, all-seeing, all-knowing founders thought we might come to this, but then they missed a lot.

Manchin wants means testing or we'll become a society of dependents.

Sez the fuck who lives by free-ass payoffs from conservative monied filth and gummint subsidization of every coal ash breath he takes.

The barnacles on his stinking houseboat are cleaned up by some level of fucking gummint.

Well, I can't speak for cleek, obviously. But what I take "moderate" to mean is, when change is required, given to generally making small (or medium) changes, possible a series of them, rather than radical overhauls all at once. "Small" having to do with the size of the change, NOT with the expense required to get it done. I confess I'm not seeing much (a bit, but not much) in the way of radical overhauls in Biden's agenda.

Sinema definitely doesn't qualify on my definition. In so far as she has any philosophical substance at all -- which I'm not seeing much evidence for.

Manchin, I would say, qualifies as a "corporate conservative" -- OK with small changes, so long as they have no negative impact on the businesses, specifically the big businesses, in his state.

P.S. To answer your question, I use "radical liberal" in order to differentiate from "radical conservatives." (And "radical libertarians", I suppose.) Otherwise, in the jargon of my youth, I would just say "radical", as opposed to liberal. Meaning someone enthusiastic about major changes, without reference to a) whether they are needed to actually address the problem or b) what blatantly obvious unintended consequences will result.

Call in the tanker trucks full of raw sewage for this psychotic republican freak:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/10/18/2058816/--We-don-t-need-your-lectures-thanks-mate-Australian-politician-roasts-Ted-Cruz

So many guns in Texas, so little violent justice.

Heh. "Radical liberals"?

Not as mind-croggling as "radical fundamentalist Buddhists".

Did someone mention David Shor? Well, perhaps not.

Is this moderation? Views differ.

Perhaps this will help, bobby:

  • Raise the top threshold for MedicAid, to close the existing gap for coverage? Moderate
  • Let (or even require) Medicare to negotiate drug prices? Definitely moderate
  • Make something resembling Medicare an option for everyone (with premiums, of course)? Marginally moderate.
  • Blanket government medical insurance (ala the UK system)? Not moderate
Does that help?

I call myself moderately moderate.

By which I mean that I am willing to consider moderation a virtue, but not a goal.

Reducing needless suffering is a goal. It may not be everybody's goal, but so what? Those who care to argue that some particular policy will not, in fact, reduce suffering in the world are welcome to try to persuade me. Any who claim that reducing suffering too much would be immoderate can bite me.

Not disputing anybody's definition, here or elsewhere; just describing my own.

--TP

My governor strikes. Good on him.

Was his radical action immoderate? We await the unintended consequences with relish.

Was his radical action immoderate?

Can't tell until you come up with a radical action on the part of your governor. Firing an idiot who refuses to get vaccinated doesn't qualify.

Believe it or not, I'm a very moderate person by nature.

The problem with moderation in the political sphere, however, is that it is inherently biased in favour of the status quo. That's a human, all too human trait of course, but the problem is that it thereby legitimizes all sorts of awful things without any valid ethical reasoning and change is slowed down or prevented altogether.

To name just the most pressing issue of our times: The facts about the climate crisis have been known for some 50 years now, but nothing really happened because we just couldn't be bothered and now things are going to have to happen very quickly.

cleek, wj: If I understand your points correctly (may not be the case!) so-called moderates can take not so moderate positions against policies that are broadly popular

Manchin and Sinema are moderately left - they're +2 left, while Sanders could be +7 left (or whatever). they're closer to 'conservative' than Sanders, so you see more fiscal conservatism from them - aversion to doing big expensive things.

doesn't make them smart or reasonable or honedt or anything else, just makes them more conservative.

[this isn't news to anyone, right?]

The problem with moderation in the political sphere, however, is that it is inherently biased in favour of the status quo.

i'm personally (in my own finances) fairly conservative. i don't like to spend money i don't have or can't count on having.

this does bias me in favor of my own personal status quo, but i don't think of it that way. i think of it as not want to let my cash flow get too thin because i'm afraid of what could happen.

so when i think of political fiscal conservatives, i think of my own approach to money. they're afraid to spend. i can sympathize somewhat.

but of course, the government's finances are not like personal finances. so i also think they're wrong.

Moderation as used in this thread seems to be an analogue to Burkean conservatism. I admit to being a moderate and to preferring gradual changes over revolutionary ones to avoid unintended consequences and collateral damage.

It seems that one of the pitfalls to our current Facebook algorithm boosted divisiveness is on the one hand the urgency of using whatever window of opportunity that presents itself for major change is very attractive lest the window close for an extended period of time, but on the other hand the cost of inevitable unintended consequences will be even greater (at least politically) because the means will be seen as opportunistic and not conforming to regular order.

Until recently, I've been fairly sanguine that "this will all work out" as society learns to navigate the new social media landscape. Now with the persistence of anti-vax attitudes in the face overwhelming evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective, I'm more pessimistic than I can recall. Reading about the WSU coach that lost a $3 million per year job because he refused the vaccine has brought me to a breaking point. The misinformation campaign soaked in much deeper than I ever feared.

Until recently, I've been fairly sanguine that "this will all work out" as society learns to navigate the new social media landscape.

Same here. I thought it was a matter of cultural maturation or some such: "People don't know how to deal with this new stuff, but the chaos is transient and will settle down over time."

It still might work out that way, but not until a generation of people have mostly died off. In the meantime, fasten your seat belts.

i'm pretty sure it's going to get much much much worse.... for people who are alive after i'm gone.

Today's parting shot.

Enjoy your day.

coalitions are hard.

What cleek said (8:13)

With the caveat that, while governments don't need to be as concerned about debt as individuals, that doesn't mean they can spend without limit. We don't know where the threshold is, but history tells us that there is one out there somewhere. (It also tells us that it's probably a percentage-of-the-GDP thing, not a hard number. Although hard numbers are better if you're trying to skew the duscussion with scarier.)

Someday, someone will pick up a Nobel Prize in Economics for figuring out where that limit is really.

The mind boggles:
Florida private school bars students who’ve gotten a COVID shot

Amazing that this got thru Senate confirmation, when so many other appointments (e.g. in the diplomatic corps) are being bottled up by single Senator's posturing.
Rachel Levine, openly transgender health official, to be sworn in as four-star admiral

A senior Biden health appointee who made history when she became the nation’s highest-ranking openly transgender official is also set to become its first openly transgender four-star officer, the administration announced on Tuesday.

Someday, someone will pick up a Nobel Prize in Economics for figuring out where that limit is really.

I have a feeling the limit has a lot more to do with what the federal government spends money on than on how much money it spends.

Maybe if we called it "government investing" people would think differently about it. (I'm trying to imagine the dinner-table discussion about how Dad spent too much on those stocks that have been paying big dividends while doubling in price ever since he bought them.)

From wj's 1:16 PM link:

Some conservatives, meanwhile, dismissed the swearing-in as a political gesture. “Biden gang playing quota politics with public health service,” Tom Fitton, president of conservative legal group Judicial Watch, wrote on Facebook.

Well, duh... It's not possible that a transgender person could be a good pick for the position, right? Also, too, there's no quota system for cisgendered people, so need need to question when they're appointed to high-profile positions. It's simple logic.

“Biden gang playing quota politics with public health service,”

lol Republicans pretending to care about public health.

there's only one actual policy anyone believes they care anything about: lower taxes.

and do not doubt that they'll find a way to oppose that, too, should it looks like a Democrat could get a political win out of the idea.

there's only one actual policy anyone believes they care anything about: lower taxes.

Well, you could count slashing any regulation which impacts the businesses of their donors....

With the caveat that, while governments don't need to be as concerned about debt as individuals, that doesn't mean they can spend without limit. We don't know where the threshold is, but history tells us that there is one out there somewhere.

Yes. But there is also the threshold of looming consequences that cannot be shirked and that demand fundamental change. And the caution-moderate response to these binds is generally to shift to passive voice and declare that nothing can be done about the impending consequence.

We can't declare bankruptcy in the face of ecological collapse.

There are no magic tech solutions to our energy bind. Change is coming. We can try to steer that or we can scream "Jesus, take the wheel" and pretend that is prudent moderation.

Not my preference.

Courage is doing the hard thing despite fear and foreknowledge.

Is that radical and liberal? It's Aristotle. Seeps pretty conservative and Western Civ to me.

there's only one actual policy anyone believes they care anything about: lower taxes.

and do not doubt that they'll find a way to oppose that, too, should it looks like a Democrat could get a political win out of the idea.

No need to wait since it has already happened.
One needs to be more precise btw: It's lower taxes for WEALTHY people. The GOP rejected proposed tax cuts by Dem presidents because too much of it (=anything) went to the lower and middle class.
Poor people will spend tax cuts on useless things like food, clothing etc. while rich people will (allegedly) spend it on useful stuff and investments only (that's why returns on investment (in particular capital) should not be taxed at all because that is a disincentive).

there is also the threshold of looming consequences that cannot be shirked and that demand fundamental change. And the caution-moderate response to these binds is generally to shift to passive voice and declare that nothing can be done about the impending consequence.

I would argue that an actual moderate response** is to look at the various fundamental changes proposed and insist that we consider how much improvement would result vs how much they would cost. Not with the goal of doing nothing, but with the goal of getting as much benefit as possible from the funds available. That is, we can't do everything which might help, at least at the margins. So we should focus on what would produce the biggest bang for the buck.

** Actually, I would say that a real conservative (as I use the term) would make exactly the same response. Sometimes, a big change in one area is the only way to avoid a catastrophic changes across the board. Not that today's pseudo-conservatives would admit it.

Was Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus a moderate or a radical action?

Radical but necessary? Radical but justified? What we need to combat global warming is radical change to the way we do things. So be it. The way we do things will be radically changed for us if we don't, and it will be far more unpleasant.

Was Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus a moderate or a radical action?

Definitely radical. Especially as it was (at least as I read the history) an attempt to control thought: to try to stem the spread of secessionist thought.

Before the pandemic I would have said "radical". With Florida suspending speedy trial with barely a whimper for over a year due to COVID, not so much.

With Lincoln I keep coming back to thinking that had he tried to preserve the constitutional order in that moment that we would likely not have a United States of America and the same constitution today.

I think FDR faced a similar moment.

Sometimes radical courses preserve institutions that would otherwise be destroyed by less radical choices, and choosing the radical course is the moderate course in the longer term.

Moderation is, to me, about speed of change. If you are at the center of hurricane, everything seems calm. Move further out, not so much. People are upset that they are no longer in the center, able to tell people on the outside that things are fine.

Before the pandemic I would have said "radical". With Florida suspending speedy trial with barely a whimper for over a year due to COVID, not so much.

I would still say radical. What happened in Florida was not, as you say, without precedent. But that doesn't necessarily make it other than radical.

In the specific case of trials, there were initial delays in most places. It took a while to figure out how to deal with a situation where a lot of people in a small room constituted a serious risk to the participants. (And even then, some types of cases got processed anyway.) A lot of courts now are routinely allowing remote participation, which is helping get things back on track.

Radical would be shutting down all court proceedings indefinitely (or even "just" for a year), and making no effort to get them going again. Moderate would be shutting down proceedings temporarily, and making a major effort to work out ways to get business done safely under the changed circumstances.

Moderation is, to me, about speed of change.

I would say it is about the speed and size of change, compared to the size and urgency of the problem. And factoring in the availability of smaller changes which will address the problem.

I would say it is about the speed and size of change, compared to the size and urgency of the problem.

One reason that moderate loses its meaning is because the size of the change is invoked repeatedly, becoming an argument against change. You change where the logout button is on a website, it's a tiny change for the designer, it's a massive change when multiplied thru all the users. When you have people wanting to use that to make money, they then argue that moderation is something that has to happen because any change is too big. And because the decision has not been shared with all the stakeholders, someone makes out like a bandit and then preaches being 'moderate' because it interferes with their business model. That's why moderation always has to be bought and paid for...

One quick other thought related to thinking about today through the lens of Lincoln's moment. It's understandable that many people believe it is better to fight and break the US than to live under a communist dictatorship. It's less understandable when what that "communist dictatorship" most resembles is actually "everyday life in Northwest Europe."

That collapsing of positions is itself a radical act that renders everything else that relies on it absurd.

The calamitous confluence of two strains of pure homegrown American fascist horseshit, amplified and mainlined into the fucked up psyches of perhaps a hundred million self-realizing fork-tongued dumbasses by social media and demagogues, many armed by filthy republicans:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/17/eva-wiseman-conspirituality-the-dark-side-of-wellness-how-it-all-got-so-toxic?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Tinder, jet fuel, match, nuclear trigger.

many people believe it is better to fight and break the US than to live under a communist dictatorship. It's less understandable when what that "communist dictatorship" most resembles is actually "everyday life in Northwest Europe."

The rhetoric from politicians includes stuff like "communist dictatorship." But their constituents don't seem frantic about that prospect. What appears to motivate the bulk of them is their perception that "people who don't look like me," enabled by "elites who disrespect me"," are gaining power and influence.

The Second Amendment needs to be further clarified by conservative genocidal vermin to show that its original intent was that I, in this year of the bullet-headed Dog Shit GOD of Everlasting Freedom, should be permitted to shoot anyone I please, anywhere, under any circumstance I please.

I will not put up with "semi" anything.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/10/more-fun-with-scotus

Lugging all of the these guns and ammo around can't possibly mean we aren't meant to fire away at will.

A lethal weapon must be present at every personal, commercial and political transaction to ensure maximum freedom.

Military-grade weaponry must be carried into every Supreme Court hearing.

that "people who don't look like me," enabled by "elites who disrespect me"," are gaining power and influence.

which is why the most moderate acts by "those people" are taken as ne plus ultra of radicalism. I mean, how radical was taking a knee?

If Lincoln and Jesus rose to life again and marched arme-in-arm through any Texas city or red state small town repeating what they said the first time around, they'd be gunned down in a hail of bullets and strung up like Emmett Till in this piece of shit country.

nooneithink, how did you miss this one?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/10/conservatives-are-starting-to-say-covid-is-a-positive-good.html

The Second Amendment needs to be further clarified by conservative genocidal vermin to show that its original intent was that I, in this year of the bullet-headed Dog Shit GOD of Everlasting Freedom, should be permitted to shoot anyone I please, anywhere, under any circumstance I please.

Allow me to say that you're going at this all wrong. The solution on gun control is to follow the example of the Texas antiabortion law: enact drastic gun control laws, and outsource enforcement to private bounty hunters, so SCOTUS can't find them unconstitutional.

H/T the DoJ brief on the Texas law, which points out exactly that possibility.

Not off topic -- it's an open thread, no? -- but different. Does anyone have suggestions for a tablet/whatever computer/OS that can provide a person with progressive dementia with a "collection of pieces of paper" view? Occasionally, on good days, jump out to a browser, but always defaulting back to that collection of "paper" pages? Not a good day today.

There's stickies for mac and a widget that allows you to have it on an ipad

https://www.imore.com/ios-14-widget-puts-stickies-your-iphones-home-screen-just-your-macs-desktop

There are enough old ipads floating around (at least here in Japan) that it wouldn't be tough to repurpose one for that.

How did I miss it too, wj?

Praeger and his death cult of millions will propose as soon as next week that the staff of the Wuhan Lab receive not only the Nobel Prize for Advances in Medicine, but also the Annual Christian Bodybag Sweepstakes Achievement Award, the latter of which originated at Theresienstadt in 1942 as a sort of executive bonus system among Reichsfuhrers, said to be a proving ground for Young Republicans and other assorted ratfuckers.

This:

'Joy Pullmann, executive editor of the Federalist, wrote a column arguing that Christians should not treat the possibility of dying from COVID as a bad thing. Running under the headline “For Christians, Dying From COVID (Or Anything Else) Is a Good Thing.” Pullman concedes off the bat that her pro-death stance differs sharply with that of most Christian churches but argues that they are wrong: “It is time for Christians individually and corporately to repent for the way we and our institutions responded to the COVID-19 outbreak.”'

"Or Anything Else", she declares.

Pass the ammunition.

Her parents named her Joy.

Originally, Beelzubub went by Cookie, and then Butch, before finally settling on the real thing. But it was too late for folks to sit up and take notice.

Hitler was affectionately referred to as Meine Schwantz by his Mum and his confidants, while Joe Stalin answered to Dorogoy Tsvetok, (very) roughly translated as Fragrant Flower On My Grave.

Pol Pot was born Pol Pot and died same, his parents having an inkling of what might be in the offing, after which they bought constact lenses for themselves and his sister, Killjoy Pot.

One might ask our Joy how she feels about baptized fetuses being dispatched by Covid-19, but I'll betcha there is an abortion hidden in her checkered past, becuase I've never known a girl named (really, I've never met a goil named Joy) who could keep her legs together when among Repblican Congressmen.

I repeat:

Who believes that animals like this who commit mass suicide and encourage, nay, fullthroatedly cheer on their families and others to follow deadly suit will not come to their evil Christian Conservative senses and decide butchering and slaughtering all of us might be a more efficient path to reach their grostesque ends?

I repeat:

We can have America or we can have the Republican Party and the whacksick conservative movement.

If we allow the latter to survive, the former is a dead piece of smoldering refuse.

We are in dreadful trouble.

Joy Pullman’s argument only makes sense if one conflates following Jesus with opposing liberals. It’s pure Manichean tribalism that assumes that no Christian could ever agree to not have a big Sunday get-together as the one true marker of their faith.

And he spake unto them saying that if they keep Cleek’s Law, then they have fulfilled the whole of God’s law.

that no Christian could ever agree to...

no true Christian, amirite?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I like this redirect
For the practice of wearing a kilt without undergarments, see True Scotsman.

Those lazy slackers living off government money won’t work... wait, what? https://www.businessinsider.com/worker-applied-to-60-jobs-got-one-interview-labor-shortage-2021-10?fbclid=IwAR0mfQE0eTQasnc7kyxsHrM2yg0p8riBDOqyXmLJh-y6uQSN4AxeP4hY7aE

On a different subject, these guys have upgraded their website for retail, should Russell or others be interested in sampling products. https://www.bumpyroadfarmtally.com/

lazy slackers living off government money [who] won’t work

How many members of Congress does this describe?

It's a rough competition DeSantis and Abbott are engaged in.

But DeSantis, unlike Abbott, is a stand-up guy...

nous: Sometimes radical courses preserve institutions that would otherwise be destroyed by less radical choices, and choosing the radical course is the moderate course in the longer term.

Burke met similar arguments when he advocated for the American colonists’ tax rights in Parliament. I think my issue with your formulation is that I don’t believe radical courses are justified to preserve “institutions” but to preserve the fundamental concepts those institutions were designed to create or preserve. Obviously, it’s implied that the institution Lincoln was attempting to preserve was (compared to the alternatives) the best vehicle to promote the fundamental concepts of life, liberty and property, but that’s not always the case.

Continuing with Burke (who is complicated and no hero of mine, just a convenient label for a type of moderation or conservativism), he was willing to be somewhat radical in advocating for the rights of American colonists because they were Englishmen with shared traditions of liberty and property rights and even south Asian Indians because he admired their pre-existing laws and customs, but black slaves didn’t concern him much because African tribes enslaved each other before Europeans arrived. That result makes sense if all you are concerned with is preserving whatever institutions are in place without assessing if an institution serves a fundamental principle.

wj: Radical would be shutting down all court proceedings indefinitely (or even "just" for a year), and making no effort to get them going again. Moderate would be shutting down proceedings temporarily, and making a major effort to work out ways to get business done safely under the changed circumstances.

Arguably what your describe actually happened, but I don't think it was sufficent.

My issue with the Florida Supreme Court (which has gone from a bulwark of sanity in state government to another arm of the Republican party) is that if you are going to suspend speedy trial because there was no safe way to impanel a jury during a pandemic and a remote jury creates other Constitutional issues, then that needs to be coupled with serious institutionalized bail reform, at least temporarily. In practice there was ad hoc bail reform as the jails were obviously going to overflow otherwise, but the defendants who benefited from the relaxed bail requirements could afford private defense attorneys and/or were white.

Allow me to say that you're going at this all wrong. The solution on gun control is to follow the example of the Texas antiabortion law: enact drastic gun control laws, and outsource enforcement to private bounty hunters, so SCOTUS can't find them unconstitutional.

H/T the DoJ brief on the Texas law, which points out exactly that possibility.

That (wrongly I think) presupposes that the current SCOTUS majority (Roberts being the occasional exception) does care the least about consistency. (short-term) Expediency carries far more weight with them than precedent or consistency. They'll do the odd* numbers of 180° turns as often as it benefits the movement.

*for the hairsplitters: even 180° turns would be multiples of 360°.

The evidently time-critical nature of the climate crisis aside, how would a 'moderate' in their time have dealt with e.g. slavery, segregation, universal suffrage, criminalization of homosexuality etc. ?

And what does that say about today's moderates?

if you are going to suspend speedy trial because there was no safe way to impanel a jury during a pandemic and a remote jury creates other Constitutional issues, then that needs to be coupled with serious institutionalized bail reform, at least temporarily

But bail reform, especially institutional bail reform, takes time. That, and the logistics of remote jury participation, was the sort of thing that led me to say "a year" as opposed to indefinitely. And the latter, not requiring the state legislature to get involved, could happen more quickly of those two.

That (wrongly I think) presupposes that the current SCOTUS majority (Roberts being the occasional exception) does care the least about consistency.

That (mostly) depends on how heartfelt is their (recently and loudly, if ineptly**) expressed desire not to be seen as mere political hacks. Which, especially for the serious political hacks, may be driven by how much inconsistency they feel they can get away with without triggering Court reforms.

** How obtuse do you have to be to choose a political rally to make such a complaint?

how would a 'moderate' in their time have dealt with e.g. slavery, segregation, universal suffrage, criminalization of homosexuality etc. ?

Take just the last one, since it's the one I was alive to see, and thus think thru. I would say flat criminalization could be just eliminated. Other aspects could take longer. For example, gay marriage. The moderate approach would be something like domestic partnerships. And, when that proved inadequate (not to mention having unfortunate side effects as written**), then gay marriage -- figuring that out only took this moderate 5 years or so.

** Turned out that the substantial majority of domestic partnerships (at least here in California) were not homosexual couples. They were heterosexual couples who could have married, but found partnerships a way to get the benefits of marriage without having to assume the responsibilities.

wj: But bail reform, especially institutional bail reform, takes time. That, and the logistics of remote jury participation, was the sort of thing that led me to say "a year" as opposed to indefinitely. And the latter, not requiring the state legislature to get involved, could happen more quickly of those two.

I used “institutionalized” to acknowledge that temporary bail reform could emerge from sources other than the legislature. The state supreme court suspended speedy trial by administrative order. They could have tolled it for 90 days pending DAs or the legislature coming up with a system to fairly administer cash bail under the circumstances. If DAs or the legislature were faced with a tidal wave speedy trial motions, they would figured out a temporary system. Instead they provided an open ended suspension of speedy trial that took a system of cash bail and civil forfeiture that disproportionately hurts the poor and put it on steroids.

Full disclosure: I think cash bail and civil forfeiture are greater social ills than the death penalty and I really hate the death penalty.

Facebook is changing its name to Upyours.com.

: I think cash bail and civil forfeiture are greater social ills than the death penalty and I really hate the death penalty.

It seems to me that something like bail is a reasonable way to motivate people to return for trial. But at minimum the amount should be tied to the circumstances and finances of the individual concerned. For some, $10,000 is sufficient to get their attention, but not crippling. For someone poor, it would force them to get what is essentially a high interest loan from a bail bondsman. And for others, it is such a trivial fraction of their wealth that it is no constraint whatever. Definitely in need of a major overhaul.

Civil asset forfeiture is a great example of something initially well intentioned, but which turns out to have substantial negative consequences. Not to mention having become nothing more than a cash cow for some jurisdictions. It should be junked. If the original motivation still has merit, another approach is needed. One idea: make sure the jurisdiction making the seizure gets zero financial benefit from it. Probably not the best solution, but at least a way to remove an incentive for abuse.

It is laughable (in a very bad and sad way) that folks can invest themselves with the attribute of being a "moderate" when they oppose policies such as "medicare for all". Look, abolishing the system of private property would be a "radical" step. Extending health care coverage to all citizens is not. Opposing such a policy by invoking the term "moderate" is simply a way to cut off the debate by using a term that, in our stupidly common political sense, has a lot of positive normative baggage.

I, for one, refuse to engage on those terms. FREEDOM!

If one desires to debate the policy, well, fine by me. Debate. But when I hear terms like "moderate", "making the perfect the enemy of the good", and "unintended consequences" I see nothing less than intellectual malpractice.

It is an old conservative trope....going all the way back (as mentioned above re Eddie Burke) to the French Revolution. If you do not want to be called a conservative, then stop using conservative rhetorical devices.

More on "Left v. moderates" here.

Where is the real divide in this country? Here is an interesting take.

Off to work. Have a good one!

one last thing...check out this book:

The Rhetoric of Reaction by Albert O. Hirschman.

Thanks.

I think my issue with your formulation is that I don’t believe radical courses are justified to preserve “institutions” but to preserve the fundamental concepts those institutions were designed to create or preserve. Obviously, it’s implied that the institution Lincoln was attempting to preserve was (compared to the alternatives) the best vehicle to promote the fundamental concepts of life, liberty and property, but that’s not always the case.

I agree, and would argue that your second sentence here is not a contradiction to my formulation, but another branch of the same thought that I had made no gestures towards.

"Moderates" tend to be institutionalists whose bedrock principle is continuity. This becomes a problem when the crises they are facing are a consequence of the institutions they are seeking to preserve.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad