Just returned from my first speaking tour in 2+ years. Vaxxed & masked in public areas but pretty relaxed holding small meetings with brilliant researchers at UIUC Champagne.
Only now... how about some science?
Let's start with a fabulous rundown by Peter Diamandis of the 5 top things we may learn from the newly-launched James Webb Space Telescope! And yes, I was a skeptic about this hugely complex machine. The fact that it appears to be... well... perfect suggests that maybe you ought to consider yourself a mamber of a fantastically competent civilization... whenever our anti-modernist cousins stop dragging at our ankles.
Strange things keep manifesting! (Ain't it cool?) Pairs and clusters of strands stretch for nearly 150 light-years in the galactic center region and are equally spaced. The bizarre structures are a few million years old and vary in appearance. Some of them resemble harp strings, waterfalls or even the rings around Saturn. But the true nature of the filaments remains elusive.
Giant radio galaxies are yet another mystery in a Universe full of mysteries. They consist of a host galaxy (that's the cluster of stars orbiting a galactic nucleus containing a supermassive black hole), as well as colossal jets and lobes that erupt forth from the galactic center. Now, an utterly humongous one has been found with radio lobes reaching 5 megaparsecs.
And meta cosmological -- If the physics theory of cosmological coupling is correct, the expansion of the universe causes black holes to gain mass.
And even more meta! “A spiderweb of wormholes could solve a fundamental “information paradox” first proposed by Stephen Hawking.”
== And within our solar system ==
2020 XL5 is an Earth Trojan — an asteroid companion to Earth that orbits the Sun along the same path as our planet does, only 60 degrees ahead at L4. These are far more rare than the large numbers collected 60 degrees ahead or behind Jupiter. Over a kilometer wide, it is speculated as a potentially useful base (especially if the Type C asteroid contains volatiles like water)… but also as a place we ought to scan for “lurker” interstellar observation probes… as I describe in EXISTENCE.
Large-scale liquid on Mars existed much longer than suspected, according to this Caltech report. Martian salt deposits are often found in shallow depressions, sometimes perched above much larger craters that are devoid of the deposits. MRO data showing shallow salt plains above craters suggests that some wet patches endured rather late, as recently as 2.3 billion years ago. Some of these deposits are on terrain that's a billion years younger than the ground the Perseverance Rover is rolling across right now.
The European Space Agency said that its Solar Orbiter – which was launched in 2020 on a mission to study the sun – quite by accident passed through this comet’s tail in late 2021. While within the tail, one of the sensors aboard Solar Orbiter measured particles that were definitively from the comet and not the solar wind. It detected ions of oxygen, carbon, molecular nitrogen, and molecules of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and possibly water. Visible light images can hint at the rate at which the comet is ejecting dust, while the ultraviolet images can give the water production rate.
Three prominent features on the Kuiper Belt object Arrokoth – the farthest planetary body ever explored, by NASA's New Horizons spacecraft – now have official names. Proposed by the New Horizons team and approved by the International Astronomical Union, the names follow a theme set by "Arrokoth" itself, which means "sky" in the Powhatan/Algonquin Native American language.
Ice roofed worlds might be a majority of all life worlds. Tidal heating is foremost, but also radioactivity and a weird effect of serpentine rocks relaxing slowly into a lower energy structure!
Ah, balmy Venus: “Venus, our closest planetary neighbor, is called Earth's twin because of the similarity in size and density of both planets. Otherwise, the planets differ radically… While previous studies suggested Venus might have once been covered in oceans, new research has found the opposite: Venus has likely never been able to support oceans.” Any water clouds that did form fled to the night side, where they did not reflect sunlight (albedo) but did trap in heat. So the place never cooled down.
Still, oceans may yet come to Venus! See how in my novella “The Tumbledowns of Cleopatra Abyss”! On my website and in Best of David Brin stories… my top stuff!
Scientists have identified what appears to be a small chunk of the moon – possibly blasted off it by an impact 100,000 years ago. Kamo`oalewa is one of Earth’s quasi-satellites, a category of asteroid that orbits the Sun passing frequently by Earth. Also a perfect place for an alien observation post!
An interesting theory about the origin of Earth’s water: the solar wind - charged particles from the Sun largely made of hydrogen ions - created water on the surface of dust grains carried on asteroids that smashed into the Earth during the early days of the Solar System, helping to explain how lighter isotopes and hydrogen complemented water arriving from early comets and carbonaceous chondrites. It also suggests “astronauts may be able to process fresh supplies of water straight from the dust on a planet's surface, such as the Moon."
At 100 km across, comet Bernardinelli-Bernstein (BB) is the largest comet ever discovered by far, and it is active, even though farther from the sun than the planet Uranus. The size of comet BB and its distance from the sun suggests that the vaporizing ice forming the coma is dominated by carbon monoxide. To understand this better, you might go to my doctoral dissertation. Or else the best look at these objects… a novel… Heart of the Comet!
The solar system’s strangest moon? Saturn's Iapetus. Well… after Titan of course. Tropical-balmy beach resort Titan. Ahhhh! Yet, read about the curious, unexplained features of Iapetus.
138 comments:
Dr Brin in the previous comments:
The experiment with loosened moderation rules appears to be okay... for now. Though I doubt it will last.
I've never been in favor of banning posts because of content. I support moderation to keep from being spammed to the extent that the list becomes unreadable, and to keep the place from being threatening to regulars (your "No shitting on the rug" rule).
I suspect that some of the worst trolls from before are not allowed on the US internet because of Russian blocking. Or because of US blocking of Russians. Either way works for me.
I'll not complain if you go back to moderation, but for now, it's been nice to see my posts as soon as I hit "submit".
Dr Brin redux:
I am back (tired) from my first speaking tour in 2+ years.
It was a hoot finally meeting you in person and introducing you to my lovely wife, who is also a fan (sci-fi in general and you in particular).
Thinking about "moderation" and Twitter it strikes me that there are some more tools that could be used
(1) - Delay
(2) - Banning of specific Tweets only
I'm thinking of a "first level filter" - fully automatic that lets most through on zero delay
Questionable "Tweets" get a delay - One hour, One Day, One Week
Tweets getting a delay go through the second level filter
As automatic a process as possible - weighting the posters "history" (Tweets delayed) and the "content"
If it can be a fully automatic process with no human intervention and an open source algorithm then it answers some of the worries about bias
Maybe the one hour and one day delays are automatic - the one week ones go to an administrator
I posted belatedly post-onward today so wanted to take a second cut: this is a website containing all of the windofchange letters from a purported active FSB agent who is unhappy with his job:
https://www.igorsushko.com/2022/03/all-fsbletters-translated-as-of-march.html
I'm sure some of you are already familiar with them (I'd seen the first one but didn't realize there were this many) but I just stumbled across this website today. Interesting reading.
Any thoughts on authenticity?
The anonymous writer is expecting a lot of social tension in Russia as the offensive grinds to a halt. He expects to see full mobilization and a declaration of war, but also expects that to prompt large scale unrest within Russia. Some of his reasoning strikes me as deluded, but a lot of it seems very plausible.
I found 'Alfy' mildly irritating at first, but then I thought about it and chuckled all night. The last person to call me that was a girl friend from the 80's. You've all seen her likeness before. Think Roman Statuesque. My brother's unspoken comment went something like "How the Hell did you get her?"
So, the poaster who wants to irritate me is just helping me remember her fondl(e)y.
———
As for "Obama was in his mightiest"… well… someone doesn't understand how things work over here.
We don't really 'rescue' anyone. When we go to war in a way that gets sold as 'rescue', it's really a lot of killing (not of us anymore) washed over with a smile and our own war propaganda. The people who get 'rescued' are the ones to survive it all.
So… if Ukraine is going to be free, they will have to rescue themselves. We can fund that. We can arm them. We can economically assault their opponent. We can do all sorts of things except show up with our own forces because then the nukes fly.
If Ukraine is to be free, they'll have to fight for it. That's the only way this works. Hard to swallow, but it's just not worth it to have the nukes fly.
———
As for Ukraine giving up its nukes years ago… thank goodness. It's bad enough that Pakistan and India have them. They aren't weapons for winning wars. They are for ensuring everyone loses.
Walnut moon. I suppose that equatorial bulge could be a pressure ridge, but then someone would have to explain the motion driving the pressure. It looks like a ridge you might get from a contraction underneath, but water expands when it freezes. I don't get it.
First time I saw the Phoebe explanation for Iapetus being two-toned, my mind when biological. One moon inseminating another. 8)
My own suggestions to help ameliorate social media disinformation can be found here. They were offered to Facebook after the 2016 election spooked them. They did not nibble. I just sent them to Elon but do not expect an answer.
https://david-brin.medium.com/can-we-fix-social-media-without-ruining-them-4e14a155703b
Hi Dr Brin
Your suggestions give more "information" - good idea
I'm thinking in terms of delays for questionable content - not blocks delays - and possibly some sort of delay on sharing to slow down the spread of misinformation
How about a system where the greater the number of "followers" the LONGER the delays?
Or a user charge - the more followers you have the more it costs?
Or a charge for the followers - if following somebody who already has a large number of followers it will cost you a few pence?
.
Blogger Alfred Differ said...
So, the poaster who wants to irritate me is just helping me remember her fondl(e)y.
Yes. That is good tactics of evasion, Alfy.
As for "Obama was in his mightiest"… well… someone doesn't understand how things work over here.
More like... I do not want to understand.
And what you can charge me with? While you doing the same with information you do not like.
We don't really 'rescue' anyone. When we go to war in a way that gets sold as 'rescue', it's really a lot of killing (not of us anymore) washed over with a smile and our own war propaganda. The people who get 'rescued' are the ones to survive it all.
So, giving up is better? More "humane" as RFia's propaganda puttting it.
Thank you, but no, thank you.
We was going through that path in previous centuries.
Result, Holodomor(s) and Devastative wars, and Enslavment.
So… if Ukraine is going to be free, they will have to rescue themselves. We can fund that. We can arm them. We can economically assault their opponent. We can do all sorts of things except show up with our own forces because then the nukes fly.
Korea. Vietnam. Cuba. That times you was not that afraid of nukes flying.
Seems like something happen with your courage in passing decades.
If Ukraine is to be free, they'll have to fight for it. That's the only way this works. Hard to swallow, but it's just not worth it to have the nukes fly.
That's just stupid. And will be used AGAIST you.
Like with testing NATO on terms of "do you ready to die for Narva?" aka nuking of Baltic countries.
What? You'd say it the same way? "If Baltics want to be free, they must fight, but we will not... because we fear nukes flying"????
As for Ukraine giving up its nukes years ago… thank goodness. It's bad enough that Pakistan and India have them. They aren't weapons for winning wars. They are for ensuring everyone loses.
Never the less.
Two lists.
Iraq. Yugoslavia. Iraq again. Syria.
and
North Korea. China. RFia.
Easy to see what I'm talking about, isn't it?
Whom you bombing. And with whom you trying to negotiate.
Do you think all Uns, Xis and Putins wannabe of the world DO NOT see it, do not understand???? That the same as century ago rite of passage to be *civilized* is basicly the same "we have Maxim machine gun(nukes) and they do not".
They even send to you prompt message -- like with that missile directed at Kyiv and UN secretary Guterres, and which killed our journalist Vira while she was sleeping in her bed -- "back off, do not piss us off". And with this your attitude you just encouraging em.
Blogger Larry Hart said...
Biden is at least helping, which is more than Trump would have done.
Remind me? Bt isn't Biden was VP under Obama? So, 8 years to provide help??? Well, Trump have some time to slack under such standard. Especially as he was first one to give us Javellines.
DISLAIMER. It's not like I do not see flaws of Trump or have reason to placate or support him.
I have NO PLAY in your political games. And talk ONLY about what concerns my Ukraine best interests here.
The space mystery I'd like to see answered is the number of Brown Dwarfs there are between the stars. A few for every visible star? Dozens? Hundreds? They do not give off visible light, but radiate enough heat to allow liquid water on orbiting moons (and infrared photosynthesis based life).
So maybe we won't have to make giant leaps to actual stars. Maybe we can take small steps to these Brown Dwarfs (can't we come up with a cooler name, like Dark Stars?) that occupy the vast space between the stars.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/could-nasa-wide-infrared-survey.html
"The other headline would be the discovery of a brown dwarf that is even closer to Earth than the nearest star, the Alpha Centauri system at 4.3 light-years. Brown dwarfs are objects that form along with stars but do not have enough mass to trigger or sustain nuclear fusion. They are so cool and dim very little is known about their distribution in the galaxy"
and:
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue183/labnotes.html
"What if space is littered with these failed stars, scattered between the bright ones like a stellar Polynesia, making interstellar travel a series of short hops, rather than a single gigantic one? What if a simple fusion reactor carried just enough fuel to push a spacecraft to our solar system's Planet X in reasonable time? What if it could refuel there, harvesting just enough hydrogen or deuterium or helium to limp along to another dark neighbor, and another, and another? Granted, it would take a long, long time to get to Alpha Centauri that way, and probably a much, much longer time to find a planet somewhere that looked even remotely like our rain- and sun-drenched Earth. But given the likelihood of tidally warmed moons, and the obvious possibilities for life there, we may just find that the cold, dark spaces are where most of the action is anyway."
There may be dozens or hundreds of mini-solar systems between Sol and Alpha Centauri. With the discovery of BDs, free floating planets between the stars, and extra-solar planetoids like Sedna, future space explorers may find plenty to keep them occupied in our own solar neighborhood for centuries to come. While not the galaxy spanning empires and federations of science fiction, it would be enough for our species to explore far into the future.
And since these mini-solar systems and planets are a stone's throw away, they can be reached without exotic warp drives or hyperspace jumps. Simple solar sails, laser sails or nuclear rockets will do just fine. Exploration missions can visit and return in a matter of years, instead of centuries or millennium. Interstellar "empires" and "federations" can be created using slower than light space travel, and colonize with para-terraforming and/or underground tunnel warrens. Maybe Capt. Kirk and Obi Wan Kenobi wouldn't be impressed, but we’ll be half way to Alpha Centauri.
There are fascinating computer models showing that it is relatively easy to colonize the galaxy just by taking advantage of those times when star orbiting the galaxy's spiral arms (or rotate in the galaxy's "halo" where stars orbit perpendicular to the galactic plane) pass close enough to allow for easy visits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7OeeGcMFMc
But if there are hundreds or thousands of BDs for every visible star, we don't have to wait for theses stepping stones to arrive to hop on them. BDs already do that for us.
Some ideas (based on back of the envelope calculations) for terraforming Venus.
1. The Bosch Reaction
Paul Birch proposed using the Bosch reaction to rapidly terraform Venus in less than a century. And on paper it looks like a possibility since the process is relatively simple, but the size of the task is truly staggering. Begin with the mass of the Venusian atmosphere (almost 100 times more massive than Earth’s). Utilizing the Bosch reaction (CO2 + 2H2 -> C + 2H2O), combining hydrogen with carbon dioxide to make carbon graphite and water, you would need a ball of solid hydrogen slightly larger than the dwarf planet Ceres. Granted, this massive reaction would create an ocean nearly as large as 1/4 of the Earth’s Ocean. But it would also result in the deposition of a layer of graphite with an average thickness over the entire surface of Venus roughly equal to a 40-story building.
And where will this hydrogen come from? We could try the water bearing Type C asteroids of the asteroid belt. These make up 75% of all asteroids and have a water ice content between 10% and 15%. But even if we used all of their water, we would only have 80% of the amount of hydrogen required. Comets, being far more numerous with a typical 40% water ice content, seem to be a better choice, though farther away and more expensive to retrieve, we would only need 0.003% of available comets.
2. Mine the Venusian atmosphere for carbon fiber.
Suppose we instead convert all that carbon into physical structures (sun shades, floating habitats, etc.) made out of carbon fiber which is stronger than steel? We would create a mass of carbon fiber equivalent to a layer almost two football fields thick over the entire planet’s surface.
There's a recently developed process from extracting and making carbon nanofiber (stronger than steel and used to build everything from tennis racquets to 747s) from atmospheric CO2.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33998697
Assuming the process is scalable we have a motherload of CO2 which can be mined from the massive (100x denser than Earth's) atmosphere of Venus located just next door. So don't terraform Venus, mine its atmosphere using factories floating in Venus' atmosphere with rail guns that would shoot the finished carbon fiber loads into orbit.
What to build with all that carbon nanofiber?
How about Bishop Rings, space structures that make O'Neal Cylinders look like tool sheds? With a radius of 1,000 km and a width of 500 km it creates an inner surface area equivalent to the land area of India. Raised side walls only 3 km high contain the atmosphere (it does not need top containment, so the interior of the ring is open to space).
Assuming that for radiation protection, rugged long term durability to micro meteors, and resistance to tensile forces created by its gravity inducing spin the wall thickness is a solid 10 m. We could build 0ver 2,000 of them.
Together, they provide the equivalent total living area of 12 new Earths
That still leaves Venus with a massive atmosphere of mostly oxygen (put up the "no smoking" signs) just right for a massive dump of frozen hydrogen to create world spanning oceans. However, that still leaves us with a mostly nitrogen atmosphere 3x denser than Earth's total atmosphere. But since nitrogen = fertilizer the next stage can be a seed dump of genetically optimized plants, algae, etc.
Also put some carbon fiber aside for a partial sun shield at its Lagrange point and orbiting mirrors to create an artificial day/night cycle.
(cont.)
(cont.)
3. Venusian Chinampas
Carl Sagan's original idea for terraforming Venus relied on biological processes (though he envisioned the used of genetically modified algae dumped into Venus's atmosphere). But it is still possible to convert Venusian CO2 into biomass.
A blimp filled with Earth atmosphere gases would by buoyant in the upper reaches of Venus' atmosphere (where ironically the air pressure and temperature are the most Earth like in the solar system). So if we can build floating settlements in the Venusian stratosphere, why not farms that resemble the floating chinampas used by the Aztecs to feed an empire.
However, using one of the best carbon sequestration plants known, fast growing redwoods, the process would still take a trillion years (Annual Biomass Sequestration Rate = 10.000 tonne/ha of CO2 and Total Annual Biomass Sequestration over the entire surface of Venus = 4.602E+11 tonne, requires 1.01 x 10^9 years for complete sequestration.
But this photosynthesis process also requires additional water. Photosynthesis requires 6 atoms of H2O (molecular weight of 18) to convert 6 atoms of CO2 (molecular weight of 44) into carbohydrates and 6 additional O2 molecules. With a required mass of water being 41% (18/44) of the existing mass of CO2 in Venus' atmosphere (4.63E+20 kg) you would need 1.9E+20 kg of water. This is equivalent to 1.9E+17 M^3 of water, or 1.9E+8 kM^3, or about 15% of the Earth's oceans.
Again, only a rain of comets could do this. But you would need far fewer comets than required for extracting hydrogen for the Bosch process - about 0.0015% of their estimated mass of water ice. But you are still left with a massive almost pure oxygen atmosphere that would crush any visitor to the surface.
4. Magic Tech
Something like nanobots that would propagate throughout the the Venusian atmosphere, turning the carbon into multiple copies of themselves until the entire atmosphere is gone. In effect turning the Venusian atmosphere into "grey goo" hundre3ds of feet thick covering the surface - what we do with the mess afterwards is anyone's guess (especially if the nanobots decide to start eating Venusian regolith).
5. Some combination of all of the above.
My choice would be mining the atmosphere. Terraforming appears to be neither necessary nor desirable – a complete waste of time and energy when all the living space you need can be had quickly with para-terraforming - via floating cities in the upper reaches of Venus' atmosphere.
And unlike cities on Mars, floating cities in the atmosphere of Venus would have an economic justification for existing: they would mine the atmosphere for carbon to create carbon nanotubes and carbon fiber for the raw building materials for space habitats, facilities and infrastructure.
(Mars OTOH is an irradiated toxic waste dump with zero economic value - the most worthless rock in the solar system)
And since Venus is half as far from the Sun as Earth, solar energy per area of collector would be 4 times greater due to the inverse square law. Orbiting solar power satellites of the same size would generate 4 times the power. Beamed energy from an SPS can be use to power a mass driver that could propel loads of processed carbon fiber into orbit for sale to buyers elsewhere in the solar system or to construct sun shades at the Venus/Sun Lagrange point.
So why bother terraforming Venus at all? It's a ready-made source of advanced building materials for space industries and construction.
I often come to this blog to gain a sense of perspective in this harrowing world; "a candle in the darkness" if I may quote Sagan. I've noticed that you haven't made much mention of the war in Ukraine for almost half a month. Considering how much anxiety there is out there about the prospect of nuclear conflict ( source ), your thoughts would be welcome on what a modern conflict would mean today considering the current number of warheads on both sides, along with prospects on what we can be doing now to try and protect ourselves and out loved ones.
(evil?) Ukrainian,
More like... I do not want to understand.
Then you do not want allies.
I'll let Larry speak to the details of our past. I'd add to it a little bit from Obama's era that wasn't Obama or Clinton's doing, but it's rather moot right now.
If you want your freedom, you need allies and you need to bury your adversary. I don't need or want details regarding what you are personally doing, but I sincerely hope it's something useful. Liberty secured is MUCH more meaningful than liberty declared.
Okay.I do not mind argumentation and it is acceptable to complain that Obama could have done more or that US imperial errors in Vietnam etc were culpable. I will not make the case that the overall US-led pax HAS led to the conditions allowing Ukrainian independence...
...though I will note that folks in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and now Finland and Sweden have no trouble telling the difference between a fumbling-but-good-hearted giant and an evil empire.
Still, let me make this very clear. I have proved that I can exile people VERY efficiently from this comment community. I can and I will, whenever our guest tumbles into another hate tantrum.
Or posts more than once per day.
Or if he ever and I mean EVER again uses "Alfy" or "Davy" or any of that immature, puerile crap on us.
He has a smart side and a nasty side. The former is welcome to share insights here.
Leave the other ass at home.
And Slava Ukraine.
Re: first speaking tour in 2+ years
My speaking days ended 15 years ago, and I was only a corporate trainer, not a luminary or expert. However I do know how disorienting it can be (esp cross-timezone travel).
One thing that worked for me to shake it off rapidly was a quick trip to the backyard or park to get some DIY aromatherapy. I would just crush a wee bit of grass/leaves/bark in my fingers and take a sniff. Seemed to immediately reset my 'home' clock/mood. Nothing mystical, probably just some reassurance to the endocrine system. And sleep, but I'm sure everyone already knows that.
Re - American "Culpability"
I would argue that the current Russian situation is "America's fault" - specifically Bush Senior
But that "fault" was not "America CAUSED" the situation
so much as "America did NOT fix it when given the opportunity"
Which is a much much lower level of culpability
Thinking back to that period the collapse of the Soviet Union was so completely unexpected that there were probably no "Contingency plans" and America was forced to "wing it"
Duncan one of two major (and many minor) reasons that I cal GHW Bush the worst US president of the 20th Century is the way he sent Cheney clan crooks over to 'help' Yeltsin convert the USSR from state enterprises to competitive market ones... in exactly perfect ways designed to bleed the ex soviet citizens and create an oligarchy.
That doesn't mean most blame isn't still home grown. After 80 years of lessons about vile capitalists, they weren't ready to be suspicious?
I'm not convinced we could have fixed it.
I AM convinced we should have tried.
Some will argue we did try. Ex Ante I might have agreed. No longer.
Ah well. Took us more than one try with Germany too.
---
There are days when I wonder if we'd be better off giving each nation around Russia three nukes and offering crews to maintain them. Yah. Some of those nations aren't friendly to us, but still...
I will, again, have to check with our tame astrophysicist about Kamo`oalewa. Now that they have the time frame nailed down, it shouldn't be too hard to find out exactly what locale the chunk came from. Just look for a selection of the newest craters on the Moon that could conceivably have had a rock that size blasted into orbit! Of course, it might be on the less well known far side of the Moon.
I finally gave in and began watching Don't Look Up on Netfilx. I'm about a third of the way through it, but my main reaction is that I had no idea that it was a comedy.
Re: Bush 41, Cheney. This article quotes Arbatov back then as saying,
“we are going to deprive you of an enemy.” That we needed the evil empire as a foil. Later in Bush’s term, as you write, Russia was oligarchized with a bit of assistance from Cheneyization.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-12-12-me-14-story.html
Duncan, I had a similar idea. Short term delays for certain types of rude, nasty tweets...a person gets an time-out lasting an hour, a few hours, or a day. A person can appeal, and at some point a human being will take a look. There should be penalties for people who make bad-faith complaints...a time-out from making comments or a time-out for making complaints. If at all possible, create a system that is self-enforcing.
David Brin does an excellent job of moderating the debate here; we don't see too many personal attacks. But it seems to me it is rather labor intensive on his part. I assume he uses some AI to assist in his moderation.
Fairness in reporting, I never learned how to use Twitter effectively; I just don't have time to pay attention to my phone all day.
GMT -5 HU32:
Fairness in reporting, I never learned how to use Twitter effectively; I just don't have time to pay attention to my phone all day.
I never had the inclination to start on Twitter or Facebook, and the more I hear about them, the less inclined I am.
BTW, ok, I'll bite. What's with the "HU32"?
* * *
@Ukrainian,
This is not Twitter. It's Dr Brin's own living room, into which he invites us. There's nothing wrong or "feudal" about him setting the rules of decorum. If you don't like the atmosphere here, your option is to leave. That doesn't harm you at all.
Or are you implying that anyone who wishes should have the right to push their way into someone else's home and act however he damn well pleases in there? 'Cause that would be an unexpected position to be advocating at this particular time in history.
Quick skim. glimpsed one word. Was enough to know the rest would be a fecal spew. The fellow is clearly a psycho nut-job unable to exert even slight self-control. Of course he will obsessively try desperately to get back in, but I have it sussed.
Yawn.........
In fact, I remain stunned by how LITTLE such sewer stuff I get! Every other public figure I know seems to get much more. Even vastly more. Is it because I am - along with my community - so NERDY?
What I DO get is a lot of gossip. I learn of some 4th-hand. Backbiting stabs by cowards who know they'll be crushed if I get a chance to refute. But that's human nature. Gossip is the most-evil thing that is done routinely, even daily... even compulsively.... by humans who actually believe themselves to be fine and decent people.
"...we are going to deprive you of an enemy."
I remember, in early 2001, the Bush administration's attempts to provoke China into being the next evil empire - not China isn't an empire, and not that empires aren't by default at least somewhat evil, but it needed to be the New Threat to justify military expenditures and Republican foreign policy dominance.
Then 9/11 happened, and for 20 years they rode that threat.
Now we can go back to Evil Russia. Only Russia has now become the right-wing one-party corrupt corporate state Republicans have always dreamt of installing here, so there is a lot of whiplash.
Alfred,
The attack on Ukraine may well spur nuclear proliferation in other countries. Relative safety for small nations makes for less safety for humanity as a whole, though.
And yes, putting free market fanatics in charge of the New Russian Economy (tm applied for) was plainly a bad idea at the time - they seem to have kept the corruption and removed any protection for the working class.
Pappenheimer
I'd like to see new ESA/JAXA/NASA joint ventures - manned and unmanned - for space science and exploration, but one thing is bothering me:
One of the reasons Putin's Big Adventure crashed and burned is that satellite imagery removed any secrecy from his preparations. Satellite communications are apparently being used very effectively by the Ukrainian military to hamper Russian forces. Would it be in his interest to destroy/degrade those satellite networks, filling low orbit with debris? And how easily could it be done?
Pappenheimer
Dr Brin:
Every other public figure I know seems to get much more. Even vastly more. Is it because I am - along with my community - so NERDY?
Yeah, I think we're beneath most notice. That's a good thing as far as keeping the comment section livable. Not so much as far as our influence on the world at large.
We're kind of like that chef in the movie Who is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe? who faked his own attempted murder, because the fact that the real killer hadn't tried to kill him looked bad for his reputation.
Gossip is the most-evil thing that is done routinely, even daily... even compulsively.... by humans who actually believe themselves to be fine and decent people.
Dave Sim had some thoughts on gossip which he expounded on in the "Cerebus" storyline. His go-to phrase was "Gossip cleaves," in both (opposite) senses of that verb. It binds people together (those who are "in on" the gossip), and it tears people apart (when one betrays another through gossip). He saw it as a whole economic system, entirely separate from the financial sector. Gossip is a valuable commodity which can be traded for other value, but which also incurs a cost.
Star Trek Continues was fun to watch, thanks for the tip (Locumranch and Paradoctor I think). The last (double) episode, "To Boldy Go" was written by Robert J. Sawyer and is all about "uplift". Fascinating [raises one Spockian eyebrow].
Pappenheimer,
I wouldn't really call Cheney's clade 'free market fanatics'. That is a bit too much willingness on our part to use their self assigned label.
Better just to call them sharks. Free markets have sharks, but you'd best not let them define the rules of good behavior.
A real free market fan would have helped set one up instead of arranging 'free market thefts'. I don't use that term often, but in places where people don't have free market skills, it can happen. (A lot of US subprime loans 15 years ago were essentially thefts.)
I recognized the Ukrainian poaster from awhile ago. He spewed in the comment section on my blog, so I deleted it all and closed things off.
Spewing on my unread blog has got to be one of the most useless things a person can do. It's right up there with counting grains of sand on a beach. Seriously... tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it kinda stuff.
For a more uplifting Ukrainian message, check out an interview by "Everyday Astronaut" with Tom Markusic (CEO) at Firefly Aerospace. It's a walk through and goes for quite some time, but Markusic goes into some detail about where the tech comes from in the rockets his team builds. (I don't know what his options are with the war underway, but I hope for the best.)
https://youtu.be/ac-V8mO0lWo
On Ukraine, this particular American Ukraine-ophile has been a regular guest (via Zoom) on Hal Sparks's Saturday radio show for I don't remember how many weeks now. When the invasion began, he went to Lviv as he had promised his Ukrainian friends he would do back in 2014. He is very good at describing the situation there, and as he has specifically asked for his vlog to be spread far an wide, I am doing so.
Our pal locumranch says that a people have no right to self-government unless they can defend themselves from aggressors. According to this man, that might be exactly the outcome we see.
Philip Ittner (one "l", two "t"s) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLOIXq03WrQ
Ok, just finished the conclusion of Don't Look Up.
I'm amazed that it was done as a kind of Blake Edwards style comedy, even with the ending I didn't think they'd have the nerve to do. And what can I say about the slapstick post-credits scenes?
I literally don't know what else to say. Words fail me.
Testing after re-setting for troll-prevention.
Alfred,
I'm happy to accept your correction about 'free market theft' in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In contrast to say, China, where the Party kept power by incorporation - all the theft stayed in the family.
Larry,
I rather liked "Don't Look Up". It's not on a par with "Dr. Strangelove", but some points need to be struck home the same way - with a large mallet. Humans are hardwired to come together to fight a war but are really bad at dealing with nature, particularly if the danger is remote in time. In both movies, our predilections led to our destruction.
Pappenheimer
This METI madness almost makes me glad for the Great Silence.
@Pappenheimer,
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that I didn't like Don't Look Up.
I was commenting that the style was nothing like what I was expecting. And you're right that it was probably more effective that way.
@George:
Any thoughts on authenticity?
I am not quite sure. One main point of critique was the vast area/scope of influence/overview the analyst seems to have. OTOH, intransparent organizations like the FSB often develop lateral information structures, so that could be explained away.
This might be a "Well, duh!" observation, but Don't Look Up works just as well as an allegory with the approaching danger being climate change or the authoritarian putsches against democracy as it does concerning a planet-killing comet.
President Biden at the White House correspondents' dinner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2L78cJazk
"Everyone [here] had to prove they were fully vaccinated and boosted. So if you're at home watching this, and you're wondering how to do that, just contact your favorite FOX News reporter. Because they're all here."
With Fauci calling covid endemic, and Biden calling out Fox vaccine hypocrisy, I'd say that the controversial phase of covid is over. The agreement is: mask or not as you wish, vaccinate if you aren't a fool, and fools regret on their deathbeds.
Larry Hart:
As I like to put it:
Rosie the Riveter, and Wendy the well, duh!
An even more intense vlog from Philip Ittner out of Ukraine. He dives into the details about the Russian narrative, including where the whole "de-Nazification" thing comes from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNCvhLGHHa0
I wore N95s all through airports and in planes, last week. So far... no sign yet of the crud.
----
As it happens, those idiots in the "Azov Battalion" wore plenty of Nazi symbols that RF media could then point to. And what nation doesn't have offensive your idiots eager to tweak their elders and screech "fuck you!" to conventional morality?
"We got Nazis, Russia gots Nazis, all God's chillun got Nazis."
I am trying a different approach to moderating. It may be excluding some of you - alas - but it's less work for me. If you want the trick, write to some of the fellows who you see above.
Dr Brin:
"We got Nazis, Russia gots Nazis, all God's chillun got Nazis."
But it takes chutzpah for the Trumpists to praise Putin for fighting Nazis when so many of them wave actual Nazi flags at rallies.
Pappenheimer,
Sharks gonna be sharks no matter in which sea they swim apparently. 8)
As for China, their experiment with communism ended long ago. They reverted to emperor rule in all but name. So... sharks and their boffins.
Lots of things were invented first in China. I include among them (on suspicion) the corruptions associated with bureaucracy. They don't have a monopoly on it (by far), but they know it ALL too well.
Speaking of sharks:
https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/30/disney-still-must-pay/#pay-the-writer
Pseudo-feudal economics seems unsustainable.
I think you may have written in half-jest, but I doubt China invented corruption...
Who shall doubt the "secret hid
Under Cheops' pyramid"
Was that the contractor did
Cheops out of several million?
R Kipling
Pappenheimer
@Larry: Thanks for the video.
Re: Azow: Just imagine what would happen if the Queen of England decided that your experiment lasted long enough and invaded the US. Which political camp the earliest civilian militias would most likely belong to?
Beau of the Fifth column made a nice commentary on the situation.
And then, there are electoral results:
Poland, Hungary: Far Right government coalitions
Trump: 4X% of votes
Le Pen: 33% of votes
Our AfD: 10%
Ukraine Right-Wing parties: approx. 2% (all taken together)
Keep in mind that Ukraine is a multi ethnic, multi religious democratic state.
Finally, two days ago, Lawrov lost it, saying Selenskiy is a Nazi because he is a jew, as jewishness is an integral part of Nazism ... and Hitler had been partly of Jewish blood, too. Pissing of Israel (which remained neutral), of course, but also demasking himself further.
My advice: Quietly ignore it. Point out that we can talk about that after the war, now its not the time. Find a liberal group that fights Russia, and point to them.
Like, the LGBT unit fighting not only for their country, but also for their personal freedom.
Concentrate on what makes the world better, not worse.
Der Oger:
Find a liberal group that fights Russia, and point to them.
Well, I don't know if he counts as "liberal", but there's no better exemplar of America than Malcolm Nance--ex-special forces counterterrorism expert who is now in Ukraine actually fighting the Russian army.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/29/malcolm-nance-msnbc-pundit-ukraine-soldier-michael-harriot
...
As a personal and professional acquaintance of Nance, I wasn’t the least bit surprised when the literary agent to whom I had introduced him a few months ago, interrogated me about whether I knew that Nance had joined the International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine in March.
...
One of the criticisms leveled against you is that you are willing to fight for an army that has been accused of mistreating people of African descent and serving an international training ground for white supremacists.
The Ukrainian army is 250,000 people who are mostly white and mostly male. You know where I can actually show you more Nazis? Aside from the US army, that is? Russia’s Wagner Group is filled with Nazis. The leader of their group of mercenaries has all sorts of Nazi tattoos all over his body. Look, this is a country of 42 million Caucasians, so, statistically, the US probably has a bigger Nazi contingent. I traveled around this country with Terrell Starr and the Afro-Ukrainian community here and I’ve seen fewer Nazis than I’ve seen in America.
...
But I know there is a lot of criticism. And to be honest, what upsets them the most is that I’m Black. It’s not about how we view the rest of the world. It’s about how we view ourselves in that world – as free people. And that’s what upsets them the most. People have a problem with believing African Americans have ideals and that we stand for what we believe. When you compare the percentage of African Americans in the country to the percentage in the armed forces, we fight disproportionately for the country.
...
What do you think your ultimate value is here?
My ultimate value is that I have experience at this. Now, look, I’m not an infantry guy. But despite what critics on Twitter who watch Rambo may think, combat isn’t about being a murdering, Seal Team Six assassin; it’s mainly about precision, accurate fire, selective fire, keeping people calm, getting on the line and moving forward. For almost 15 of my 20 years, my middle name was, ‘I need a Black guy who speaks Arabic’. When I was at NSA, I was being loaned out everywhere, so I’ve seen a lot and conducted missions behind or near enemy lines. If I was a white guy, I would be a hero. But with some people, it’s just as simple as: ‘You are Black; you can’t have done anything exceptional in your life, nothing.’ They can’t imagine that I’m here for altruistic reasons.
...
But at least...Hillary's e-mails.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Senate/Maps/May03.html#item-1
...
We are not lawyers, but even we can see the problems with this [supreme court draft] snippet, which is just one page out of 98. The ones that stick out to us:
+ Washington v. Glucksberg was a case in which the Court said that the Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee Americans access to physician-assisted suicide. We can see why it's being invoked here, since that is a vaguely similar issue to abortion, and since the decision was unanimous. However, physician-assisted suicide didn't really exist until the 20th century, at least in part because the modern medical profession didn't really exist until the mid-19th century. By contrast, abortion has been a part of American life since before there was a United States. So, to deploy the "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" bit doesn't really fly here.
+ It is true that, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, abortion was illegal in the majority of states. Here are some things that were illegal in all states: women's suffrage, Black suffrage, sodomy, interracial marriage, and gay marriage. Meanwhile, here are some things that were legal in all states: imbalanced Congressional districts, segregation, discrimination on the basis of gender, and discrimination on the basis of social class.
+ The Fourteenth Amendment justified, at least in part, subsequent constitutional amendments, or subsequent court decisions, or both, that reversed these various states of affairs. Making use of originalism, and referring back to the way the country was on July 9, 1868 (when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified), is profoundly intellectually dishonest, from where we sit. Certainly, Alito is being a bit cavalier in his claim that abortion is "fundamentally different" from these other things, and in his implication that this decision won't lead to assaults on other rights rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment. How can he possibly know that? In fact, the odds are that the opposite is true and that something like gay marriage is next.
+ It is interesting that Roe was such an obviously bad decision, and yet it took 50 years for judges to figure that out.
+ It is also remarkable that Alito can suggest, with a straight face, that this decision will solve the problem of abortion having "enflamed debate and deepened division."
+ When you use, as key evidence in support of your conclusions, a dissenting decision from the most conservative justice of the last half century, it's called "cherry picking," and it is a sign of a weak argument.
...
@Dr Brin,
At your e-mail request, this is a test post.
Never thought you'd actually request that I post more than I do already. :)
Apparently, I'm the only one who can post here now. :)
When the tv version of A Handmaid's Tale was announced, I was skeptical as I always am about tv or movie versions of intellectually-engaging books. However, seeing the leaked opinion from the supreme court which welcomes us to Gilead, I'm glad (in a pyrrhic sense) that at least a wider audience is aware of the reference I just made.
Make no mistake--they're not going to stop with abortion. Contraception and unconventional sexual activities will be next on the list for bountying and banning. I wouldn't bet against anti-miscegenation laws being on the table again either. Think I'm hysterical? "Loving vs Virginia" was decided on the same sort of privacy right that the court is currently masturbating at overturning. The oft-quoted Nazi-era stanza about "First they came for...and I did not speak out because I was not..." is relevant here.
I posted this speech from Katniss Everdeen in one of the Hunger Games films when Russia started bombing the f*** out of Ukraine, but the bottom two lines are just as appropriate relative to this abomination.
If you think...for one second...that the Capital will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourselves. Because we know who they are and what they do. THIS is what they do! And we must fight back.
I have a message for President Snow. You can torture us, and bomb us, and burn our districts to the ground. But do you see that? Fire is catching. And if we burn...you burn with us!
JOIN
THE
MOCKINGJAY
Now just $0.99 the e-version of HEAVEN'S REACH, final volume of the Uplift Storm Trilogy! (UST) These sales come along now and then. A little while ago BRIGHTNESS REEF. I try to announce.
UST is some of my best stuff. Even better characters (and some the same) as in Startide Rising.
(Kobo may have the same sale price later, tonight.)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B091YQ72YL/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=f0cd4-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=B091YQ72YL&linkId=6b38109a369cf36ae212b0d00e3f0820
I will make my test post here. The leak from the Supreme Court is a serious breach of institutional integrity. The decision would be coming out anyways, leaking it this way was unprofessional. Hopefully it was done by a low level, non professional staffer.
Oy, I am typing on my phone now...much too challenging.
GMT
"The leak from the Supreme Court is a serious breach of institutional integrity."
No!
Quite the opposite - it was somebody taking their oath to the Constitution more seriously than their responsibility to an "institution"
Duncan, what was gained? The decision will be published in due course. This was not a case like the Pentagon Paper.
I am an attorney and I spent much of my career dealing with privileged or confidential information. It is unprofessional to violate these professional rules. Would you trust a lawyer with your confidences if you thought that the lawyer might run to the press if they did not like you?
GMT, this is not a case of someone "running to the press" with confidential information about a human being. This was a "leak" of an upcoming "decision" which, so far as I can tell, has no case attached, one in which fifty years of judicial precedent is being thrown overboard. Further, the "reasoning" presented applies equally well to Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges, Griswold v Connecticut, and even Loving v Virginia. Any or all of those could be overturned using this decision as precedent - and I wouldn't bet long odds against someone trying immediately afterward. (In fact, I've heard that the state of Texas plans an immediate suit against Obergefell after this decision is announced.)
Do you think that "Deep Throat" was a traitor to the country for revealing Nixon's plans to reporters? How about Daniel Ellsberg, who told us about the Pentagon Papers? And those were actually classified documents, not a legal draft.
I don't think Mark Felt (AKA Deep Throat) was a traitor. Nixon deserved to be removed from office because of his misconduct. And I also feel that the country is better off now that we supposedly no longer tolerate this kind of misconduct by our Presidents (whereas many Presidents were quite happy to sic the IRS or the FBI on their political enemies and the agencies were all to happy to comply).
I am a lawyer. This leak involved the judicial process. It was a violation of the trust that judges place in their staff. Professionalism matters to me. I don't think you appreciate how shocking this leak is to the legal profession.
GMT-5:
Professionalism matters to me. I don't think you appreciate how shocking this leak is to the legal profession.
I don't think you appreciate how the obvious capture of the supreme court by the Republican right wing is to the integrity of the rule of law. You realize that even chief justice roberts isn't one of the five man majority. Why do you think that is?
Y'know, just because Marbury vs Madison has been established law for 200 years is no reason not to decide not to honor it.
GMT-5 (redux) :
Professionalism matters to me. I don't think you appreciate how shocking this leak is to the legal profession.
Ok, seriously...
Do you think it was professionalism when Mitch McConnell refused to do his job by having a vote on President Obama's nomination? By excusing the obvious deficiencies of kavanaugh and barrett? By shoving barrett our throats when Trump had already been voted out?
Do you think it's professionalism when clarence thomas doesn't recuse himself from cases involving his wife?
Point being, the "unprofessional" bridge has been burned long ago. Republicans no longer stand for decorum or playing by the rules, and they suffer not at all for it? Why shouldn't the rest of us follow suit?
You confuse politics by legislative leaders with professionalism. You accuse Thomas of unethical behavior regarding his wife, but when you dig in to the facts you find that there is a lot of heat and not a lot of substance concerning Thomas' purported violations.
The leak here is unprecedented and serious. There is no ambiguity.
The dog has caught the car.
So now what? Will red states post border guards? Fund vigilantes? Pass a federal Fugitive Woman Act? Will the Reds execute women who miscarry?
Now consider RU-486. How about another drug war? Look at how well the last one worked.
GMT: "The leak here is unprecedented and serious. There is no ambiguity."
Jonathan Peters: “Supreme Court leaks are rare and remarkable, but they are not unprecedented” you can look it up yourself, 1852, 1854, 1968, 1972, 1977, 1979, 1986.
Amy Kapczynski “I clerked at the Supreme Court. Last night, I assumed a liberal clerk leaked the draft opinion overturning Roe. Now I think MUCH more likely it was leaked by a conservative fanatically committed to every word of Alito’s monstrous opinion.”
NPR: "Legal ethics experts agree: Justice Thomas must recuse in insurrection cases.."
GMT "the leak involved the judicial process. It was a violation of the trust that judges place in their staff. Professionalism matters to me. I don't think you appreciate how shocking this leak is to the legal profession."
Can you explain to us non lawyers how Barrett, Kavanaugh, & Norsuch's answers to questions on Roe v Wade and abortion precedent during their Senate confirmation hearings wasn't perjury.
Here's some fun bedtime reading: google this free atricle: "New Revelations Indicate Ginni Thomas Was a Key Author of Trump’s January 6 Coup Plot:"
And Dr. Brin, did you realize that much like you spam filter your KN95 keeps you from smelling farts and foul BO?
Slim Moldie:
If Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch perjured themselves before the Senate, then they are impeachable.
The current US crises are humorous ironies:
When the Right once insisted that the US Constitution was a sacred document which cannot be changed, the Left insisted that it was a LIVING document that must change with the times in order to create Roe v. Wade.
Yet, when the Right dares treat the US Constitution as a LIVING document that may be changed by the uncreation of Roe v Wade, the Left now insists that the US Constitution is a sacred document which cannot be changed.
The Left condemns the Right for doing what the Left does, as the Right condemns the Left for doing what the Right does, by (1) questioning the fairness & validity of our elections, (2) invalidating our Bill of Rights in order to save it and (3) challenging our unchallengeable US Supreme Court as the final arbiter.
And those who husbanded the Golden Grain,
And those who flung it to the Winds like Rain,
Alike to no such aureate Earth are turn'd
As, buried once, Men want dug up again.
Best
DP and Venus factories: wow - a lot of interesting ideas there! I'd always looked at Venus as a useless hellhole but these seem like real possibilities. You didn't say anything about the sulfuric acid clouds though; wouldn't that complicate floating factories? Like maybe dissolve them?
The wiki page for the Bosch reaction says it needs a temperature of 530 - 730 C and an iron catalyst. How would we get those conditions?
How about building sun shields to lower the temperature? If we could get enough solar panels in between the sun and the planet we could condense the atmosphere into liquid. With all that solar power converted into useful electric power it might be easier to process a cold liquid atmosphere than a hot one in vapor phase.
Anyway cool ideas; maybe someone will write a sci-fi novel about it. %^)
Gerold
Once you have climbed out of a gravity well there is no good reason to climb back down another!
There is plenty of material and energy in space - available in small enough lumps that you don't need to worry and your power supply does not move across the sky and hide for half the time
Duncan: you may be right about that, DP was suggesting all that CO2 in the atmosphere would be a valuable resource, but there's also a lot of carbon out among the ice giant moons. That's a long distance however; I wonder how the cost of getting back and forth compares to climbing out of the Venus gravity well.
Venus also has the advantage of strong solar power. Can't do anything without power and the inverse square law is our friend on the inner planets.
The moons of Jupiter also orbit in a hostile environment. Radiation levels might make human activity there impossible, but maybe not a problem for robot activity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere_of_Jupiter
Maybe asteroids would be the best source of carbon and water resources? Closer than the ice giants and without the radiation fields. Solar energy is weak there though.
What did you have in mind?
Gerold
Solar energy get weaker - but in free space you can build reflectors of any size you want and the fact that the sun does not move - or worse go and hide makes it much easier
I think the moons of Mars would be good first stop - escape velocity 20 km/HOUR ! a throwing arm on one of the moons could throw material to the habitat
And Mars is handy to do an aerocapture maneuver to save fuel on your trip from earth
One difference - we are used to looking for specific compounds - like water - but with lots of free solar power we should really be looking for the ELEMENTS - and not fixating on the compounds we would use on earth
With the coming SC ruling overturning RvW, have we entered a new phase of our never ending civil war?
Here's my test post:
The situation is hopeless. We must take the next step.
... and get that other piece of legislation passed by the Senate and signed. *
* yeah, I know.
@GMT
The leak from the Supreme Court is a serious breach of institutional integrity.
Even if so, from the outside it has the appearance that the SC itself is hopelessly compromised.
@DP
With the coming SC ruling overturning RvW, have we entered a new phase of our never ending civil war?
You might probably have an interesting summer, maybe like in 2020.
DP:
With the coming SC ruling overturning RvW, have we entered a new phase of our never ending civil war?
Make no mistake--this will not end with abortion. The hypo-Christian right is already salivating over outlawing contraception. Does anyone think same-sex marriage won't be next on deck, followed closely by any non-procreative sex act, even within the bounds of marriage?
I suspect they'll try to go even further, banning interracial marriage and possibly marriage outside one's faith. But maybe that's just me.
* * *
Paradoctor:
If Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch perjured themselves before the Senate, then they are impeachable.
Trump was impeachable, twice. He was even impeached twice. Doesn't matter; the Senate is complicit. You can't count on the Senate to police Republicans for the exact reason you can't count on the UN Security Council to police Russia.
* * *
GMT-5 8032:
The leak here is unprecedented and serious. There is no ambiguity.
It will be interesting to see if you keep singing this song if it turns out the leak came from the right.
* * *
Slim Moldie:
And Dr. Brin, did you realize that much like you spam filter your KN95 keeps you from smelling farts and foul BO?
Some still gets through. :)
I think the sulphuric acid clouds of Venus only occur at altitudes below where floating habitats have been proposed (50-65km)
@Larry Hart:
I actually followed Nance for a while, and he is usually on spot with his predictions and analyses. His report is an evidence for an integral part of repressive societies: Waste of talent. And from what I have seen in Ukraine so far - before and during this war - they are eager to use it, no matter where they come from. They have their issues, sure, but they address them.
If Nance survives this war, he will be a fine candidate for a political office.
If the leak was made by one of the conservative Justices they should be impeached.
Presented without further comment...
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/clarence-page/ct-column-supreme-court-roe-v-wade-page-20220503-scdvsot2jjfgdjmjygnjwqfe34-story.html
...
Contrary to the widespread belief that America’s “Religious Right” was born out of righteous fury against the 1973 Roe decision, writes Dartmouth University history professor Randall Balmer, “What prompted evangelical interest in politics, in fact, was a defense of racial segregation.”
In his 2021 book “Bad Faith: Race and the Rise of the Religious Right,” Balmer recounts how two years before Roe, the lesser known 1971 Green v. Connally decision threatened the tax-exempt status of racially discriminatory institutions. The suspect institutions included Bob Jones University, which had its tax-exempt status revoked in a 1976 dispute.
Citing Paul Weyrich, Grover Norquist and other leading conservatives of that period, Balmer describes how the moral crusade against abortion replaced school desegregation as the movement’s central issue later, “when a more palatable issue was needed to cover for what was becoming an increasingly unpopular position following the civil rights era.”
...
GMT-5:
You confuse politics by legislative leaders with professionalism.
The supreme court (which I no longer capitalize) has lost its claim to professionalism since Bush v Gore and Citizens United.
Ok, I'm going to go all "Darmok" here and use an allusion to illustrate my point. There's this historical novel called Munich by Robert Harris which revolves around Neville Chamberlain's visit to Germany to attempt to avert war over Czechoslovakia. It's also a movie on Netflix if anyone is interested. Anyway, I can't speak for the historical accuracy of the details, but in the book, a German attache leaks an internal Nazi memo to his English counterpart, describing Hitler's plans for continued territorial expansion in eastern Europe.
Metaphorically, you're condemning the leaker rather than acknowledging the dire circumstances which led to the necessity.
Der Oger:
Even if so, from the outside it has the appearance that the SC itself is hopelessly compromised.
The supreme court has been compromised for a long time now. You might as well call it the judicial wing of the Republican Party.
You might probably have an interesting summer, maybe like in 2020.
It's not going to happen in Illinois (thank God), but if I were on a jury charged with deciding a case on whether someone had or abetted an abortion, I would engage in jury nullification without batting an eye. I would even state my reason openly.
And it's not because I like the idea of killing babies. It's because I don't believe a woman should be forced into servitude as an incubator. And I don't believe that a legitimate miscarriage should be treated as a crime. And I don't believe that the pandering slime who pass anti-abortion laws even know what they're talking about medically, any more than the birther Republicans who tried to pass laws requiring a candidate for president to release his "long form birth certificate" understood that there is no such legal term.
emphasis mine...
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Senate/Maps/May04.html#item-3
...
Besides the Majority Leader, the senator with the most eyes on them yesterday was Susan Collins (R-ME), who said she only voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh after she was confident they would not vote to overturn Roe. Boy, does she have egg on her face now, amirite? Yesterday, she expressed her shock and dismay and said that the two justices' votes were "completely inconsistent" with what they "said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office."
We could make a joke about "being concerned" here, but let's lay our cards on the table, instead. Collins has been elected to the U.S. Senate five times, and she's not from a Southern state, nor is she a former football coach. That means you can be 100% certain she's plenty smart. Certainly smart enough to know that two Roman Catholics who were vetted by the Federalist Society were near-slam-dunks to vote to strike down Roe. She also thinks that the voters of Maine, the only ones she cares one whit about, are stupid. So stupid that they won't see through her crocodile tears. Collins cast the votes she did because she knew that she was facing a tough reelection bid, and that being the one to torpedo a Republican nomination to the Court would likely mean the end of her career. Any pretensions otherwise are just Moose crap, to use a term apropos to the state she serves.
McConnell, like all prominent Republicans, spent the 24 hours after the leak indignantly talking about his outrage over the leak. He described it as "an attack" on the independence of the Court, and said: "By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left's ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law." Please. This is nearly as large a pile of muskrat crap, to use a term apropos to the state he serves, as the pile of moose crap that Collins is peddling. McConnell has never once shown concern for the independence or the integrity of the Court, and he's not going to start this week. No, what he knows is that the actual decision is going to be wildly unpopular, and that the best chance he and the Republicans have is to focus outrage on the leak rather than the ruling. We don't even have to guess about this; Axios has laid hands on a memo hastily written and circulated by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) that instructs members to do just that. It contains this suggested statement:
The leak of this document is troubling and is indicative of the Radical Left's mission to undermine the institution of the Supreme Court and ultimately pack the Court with liberal judges who will rubber stamp the Democrats' radical agenda. It's wrong and the leaker should be found, fired and potentially prosecuted.
Sound vaguely familiar? Don't forget that the NRSC takes its marching orders from... Mitch McConnell.
In any case, this "focus on the leak" stuff be a viable strategy in the short term. But in a month or two, is anyone going to care exactly how the news was made public? We doubt it.
@Larry Hart
And it's not because I like the idea of killing babies.
I read a bit of the leak and commentary. The far greater danger I see here is the idea that there is no constitutional base for laws protecting privacy. So, while the next targets might be same-sex and mixed-race marriages, contraceptives and protection against involuntary sterilization, it theoretically goes much, much further. As cruel and patriarchal this decision might seem, it might be something like a bridgehead for worse things to come.
Der Oger:
As cruel and patriarchal this decision might seem, it might be something like a bridgehead for worse things to come.
That's exactly what I'm concerned with. Abortion is the foot in the door to undoing all sorts of personal rights.
The far greater danger I see here is the idea that there is no constitutional base for laws protecting privacy.
Although Jon Stewart pointed out that the supreme court sure values their right to privacy.
Funny (not ha-ha) how attempts to prevent judges from rubber-stamping the hypo-Christian right's agenda becomes characterized as "rubber stamping the Democrats' radical agenda."
The Republican mantra should be this line from Robert Shaw's character in The Sting:
"What was I supposed to do? Call him out for cheating better than me in front of the others?"
The same people who are "surprised" that a bunch of Federalist Society-chosen judges who were picked specifically for their Catholic anti-abortion stance are probably the same people who were surprised that after surrounding Ukraine with Russian tanks, Putin actually rolled them in.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Senate/Maps/May04.html#item-3
If you thought our assessment of Collins, or possibly McConnell was... frank, you might want to buckle your seatbelt before you keep reading. John Roberts has made a farce of his high position, and can now be safely ranked among the 2-3 worst Chief Justices in history. Mind you, this assessment has nothing to do with our feelings about his personal political leanings. In part, our judgment is about the leak itself, which speaks to the low regard that one or more members of the Court's inner circle have for his leadership. In part, it is about the Chief's carefully-cultivated reputation for allegedly calling balls and strikes. Is there anyone in the entire country who thinks that Roberts' decisions are governed, first and foremost, by the law? From where we sit, it looks like "protecting the reputation of the Court" is foremost, and "my own personal political agenda" is second, with the law a distant third. Maybe those first two are reversed, we're open to being persuaded on that point. In any event, in trying so hard to demonstrate to everyone that he's about the balls and strikes, Roberts has caused everyone to notice that he is most certainly not about the balls and strikes at all. So, he's utterly failed in his primary objective. When he's all done, they're going to have to make sure to hang his memorial portrait right next to that of Roger Taney.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Senate/Maps/May04.html#item-4
International Commentators
Vinay Menon, The Toronto Star, With Roe v. Wade in danger of being overturned, it's time for Canada to offer gender asylum to American women: "Apparently, stare decisis is optional in the polarized culture wars. If you are in a same-sex relationship in America, I would strongly urge you to get hitched before gay marriage gets overturned next. That's where this is going. Somehow, American conservatives went from the party of Lincoln and Reagan to the party of QAnon and Marjorie Taylor Greene. The GOP writ large embraces conspiracy theories and old-timey bugaboos that no longer dovetail with majority consensus. It exists in a parallel universe where reality takes a back seat to seething rage over any threat of social change. Tucker Carlson's audience is made up of viewers shaking their fists at clouds."
Fr. Michael Coren, The Toronto Star, Nothing Christian about war on women's reproductive rights: "What does run through scripture, if we read it through the light-filled prism of Gospel love and empathy, is care for the marginalized and powerless. And it's poor and racialized women in particular who will suffer if the extremists have their way. This isn't about life and never has been. It's about control. Of women, freedom, and progress. As a Christian I know where I have to stand."
Moira Donegan, The Guardian, As the US supreme court moves to end abortion, is America still a free country?: "The question at hand is whether half of the country will have control over their own insides, or whether the government can be so intimately evil that it can enforce its vision of gender conformity even within its citizens' own organs. It is a question of whether an individual American can have the dignity and the freedom to choose her own family, to maintain her own health, and to shape the course of her own life—or whether that freedom is withheld based on her sex."
Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, A Supreme Court in crisis: "The veil of secrecy that has protected the court, carefully maintained even around the most significant and controversial decisions, has been shredded."
Is America a free country? The Supreme Court decides that one of society's most contentious issues must be decided by the country's elected representatives in their state governments, not by unelected judges.
Look at it this way, rulings by the Supreme Court can have nationwide effect. If the Court mandates that all governments must do something, that is mandatory nationwide. If the Court rules that a decision must be handled by lower levels of government, then those lower levels have the power.
One may not like the effect that this specific decision has on a specific issue, but overall, it means that citizens have greater control over what government may or may not do. If RvW had not created a nationwide rule, it is doubtful that the anti-abortion movement would have formed to the degree that it did. The issue of abortion would have been decided by state legislatures. Legal abortion would have been well insulated.
Here is a link to an excellent article describing why the abortion issue is so difficult:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/the-things-we-cant-face/600769/
The issue for abortion: women have a variety of reasons for wanting to end pregnancies. The absence of safe, legal means for abortion will cause many women to use unsafe methods that could harm or kill them. These stories are heartbreaking.
The issue against abortion: when does life begin? We will never really know. If we are going to err on the side of protecting life, where should we set the legal line? This is a similar argument to people who oppose capital punishment (and I know several ultra-right wing religious fundamentalists who vehemently oppose the death penalty).
The article above is very good because it accepts the arguments for both sides assuming positive intent for the proponents. If you ignore the extremists on both sides of this issue, you will find that most people are deeply troubled by this issue. They have a hard time coming to a decision because they recognize the issue from a variety of points of view. I have a difficult time dealing with this issue.
@Larry Hart
Michael Coren and I have crossed paths. One of the few PhD in Theology types I can stand.
GMT-5:
Is America a free country?
Is Texas a free country. Where anyone off the street is allowed (irrespective of standing) to sue anyone they don't like on dubious grounds, and even if the defendant wins, he's the one liable for all court costs on both sides?
The Supreme Court decides that one of society's most contentious issues must be decided by the country's elected representatives in their state governments, not by unelected judges.
There's a certain irony there--unelected judges deciding that unelected judges' decisions don't matter. Might come back to bite them some day. :)
The practical effect will be that contentious issues will be decided by lobbyists, megadonors, and FOX News pundits by a system that apportions gerrymandered House districts, Senators, and electoral votes in favorable proportion for Republicans compared to the numbers of actual voters.
You know that fascists always come for the lawyers, right?
I agree with GMT... in theory. Problem is that this is a direct attack upon POOR women, helping to ensure continued poverty and difficulty raising chosen children to levels where they can compete. Rich or moderate level women can cross state lines easily.
This is CLASS warfare which is what the GOP is entirely about.
Roberts does not have any priority higher than protecting gerrymandering and all the cheats that keep his blackmailers in unearned power.
@ GMT
Is America a free country?
If you are WASP, gunloving, wealthy, and a cis-hetero male? And you don't care about social and environmental issues? Sure. If not, your personal freedoms might be limited by the extend of your "social deviancy".
The Supreme Court decides that one of society's most contentious issues must be decided by the country's elected representatives in their state governments, not by unelected judges.
That argument basically attacks the principle of separation of powers, and would not hold. Imagine what would happen if a state legislature banned the possession of firearms, reintroduced bills of attainder, or ruled that criminals can be hanged, drawn and quartered in public again.
You’ve seen me tout NASA's Innovative & Advanced Concepts program - (NIAC) – on whose advisory council I serve. Look at their tiny seed grants to research concepts JUST this side of science fiction. These are fun, engaging, STEM books for grades 4-8 about the science and researchers behind the NIAC program. It includes information about their lives as young children and their inspiration. Produced in partnership with World Book, Inc., they recently won an award from the American Library Association (ALA). A third series is in early development. The two series help to support a big part of what we do as an early stage technology program- to inspire the next generation of scientists and innovators, children who may eventually be running NASA missions 20 years from now. You are welcome to view the sixteen Out of This World books online here:
Series 1 https://www.worldbook.com/nasa/out-of-this-world.htm
and Series 2 https://www.worldbookonline.com/training/look-inside/NASA-out-of-this-world-2.html
And yes, YOU are a member of a civilization that does stuff like this! Those waging war vs science... across the entire right-o-sphere and mad pockets of the left... are not serving that tradition or hope or interstellar posterity.
Dr Brin:
Rich or moderate level women can cross state lines easily.
That's why, if they regain Congress and the presidency, they will immediately abolish the filibuster and make abortion illegal nationwide. They'll probably justify eliminating the filibuster by reminding us that some Democrats and liberals wanted to do so. And McConnell will chuckle is his hideous, condescending way that "The American people" voted them into power to outlaw abortion.
And yes, YOU are a member of a civilization that does stuff like this!
Unfortunately, I'm also a member of a civilization determined to literally demonize me, my family, and my friends before showing us what "re-education camps" and "death panels" really look like. So I'm not sure it's worth it.
Der Oger:
Imagine what would happen if a state legislature banned the possession of firearms, reintroduced bills of attainder, or ruled that criminals can be hanged, drawn and quartered in public again.
Except for banning firearms, the deplorables would probably be in favor of those things.
Emphasis mine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/opinion/roe-v-wade-america-future.html
...
Today, when the populist right widely distrusts medical and scientific experts, legislatures are giving doctors less flexibility. Several states have passed laws that allow doctors to terminate only pregnancies that imperil a woman’s life or threaten “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” Women with health-endangering pregnancies may thus have to wait until they are in serious distress before getting the care they need.
This is not theoretical; it’s the sort of thing that happens when there are blanket abortion bans. In 2012 in Ireland, a 31-year-old dentist named Savita Halappanavar died of septicemia after developing an infection during a miscarriage; doctors refused to terminate the pregnancy as long as there was fetal cardiac activity. Halappanavar’s death, The New York Times reported, “set off outrage across the country and gave momentum to a growing call for change,” and in a 2018 referendum, Irish citizens voted overwhelmingly to repeal their country’s strict abortion ban.
...
For now, women who live in blue states are safe, but that may not last. As The Washington Post reported on Monday, anti-abortion groups and their congressional allies are already planning for a nationwide abortion ban if and when Republicans retake power. All those who can get pregnant, whether or not they think they’ll ever want or need an abortion, would be affected. The 2016 election, which allowed Donald Trump to reshape the Supreme Court, was, among other things, a referendum on women’s equality. Women’s equality lost.
@Larry Hart:
Except for banning firearms, the deplorables would probably be in favor of those things.
It amazes me to no end that they believe that a fascist-theocratic leadership would actually allow them to keep their toys.
GMT-5:
The Supreme Court decides that one of society's most contentious issues must be decided by the country's elected representatives in their state governments, not by unelected judges.
It will be interesting to see your reaction when those same unelected judges "find" fetal personhood and embryonic personhood hiding in the Constitution.
I am not a WASP. My wife is a person of color and 2 generations ago our marriage may have been illegal in some jurisdictions. I am glad that the Supreme Court looked into the Due Process Clauses of the 4th and 14th Amendments and expanded the protections provided to the people.
How far can the Court expand these protections? What qualifies as a right protected by the Constitution? Glenn Greenwald described the issues involved better than I ever could:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
When the Court strikes down a law that majorities support, it may be a form of judicial tyranny if the invalidated law does not violate any actual rights enshrined in the Constitution. But the mere judicial act of invalidating a law supported by a majority of citizens — though frequently condemned as “undemocratic" — is, in fact, a fulfillment of one of the Court's prime functions in a republic.
Unless one believes that the will of the majority should always prevail — that laws restricting or abolishing free speech, due process and the free exercise of religion should be permitted as long as enough citizens support it — then one must favor the Supreme Court's anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian powers. Rights can be violated by a small handful of tyrants, but they can also be violated by hateful and unhinged majorities. The Founders’ fear of majoritarian tyranny is why the U.S. was created as a republic rather than a pure democracy.
Whether the Court is acting properly or despotically when it strikes down a democratically elected law, or otherwise acts contrary to the will of the majority, depends upon only one question: whether the law in question violates a right guaranteed by the Constitution. A meaningful assessment of the Court's decisions is impossible without reference to that question. Yet each time the Court acts in a controversial case, judgments are applied without any consideration of that core question.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If this draft opinion becomes the final opinion, it will not make abortion illegal nationwide. It will not change the role of the Court. When I was in law school in the early 1980s, my law school professors expected Roe to be overturned very quickly. My professors, including David Goldberger, the Jewish ACLU attorney who represented the neo-NAZIs at Skokie (and my professor for Political and Civil Rights) cheered the opinion but were willing to discuss its weaknesses.
The most likely source of the leak of the Roe opinion is not outraged liberal clerks. It is one of the hardliner GOP justices, hoping to shore up the 5-person majority and prevent one of them from joining Roberts. Liberal clerks have no reason to leak. Conservative clerks and justices had a BIG reason to leak.
Since Roberts is not in the majority, the senior justice in the majority, Thomas, would get the right to assign the opinion. Thomas has spent his entire career gunning for Roe but he assigned the biggest opinion of his career to Alito.
Why would that be?
A look at the dates the opinion was written gives a big clue. When this opinion was being written, Thomas' name was all over the news for his wife being one of the architects of the attempted coup, as we now know. Thomas giving the opinion to Alito is a big glaring "Consciousness of Guilt" neon sign.
I am not going to guess who made the leak; I think we will find out eventually. If it was one of the Conservative Justices, they should be impeached. FWIW, Alan Dershowitz thinks that it was not one of the Justices; they would have leaked it to the NY Times or the Washington Post. Dershowitz thinks the choice of Politico as the news outlet suggests that it was a younger person.
I don't care whether it was a conservative or a liberal; the sanctions should be the same.
Der Ober:
It amazes me to no end that they believe that a fascist-theocratic leadership would actually allow them to keep their toys.
Yes, an authoritarian dictatorship isn't likely to allow an armed general populace. However, they may allow their Brownshirts to have an arsenal. And that's what these guys fantasize about being.
* * *
GMT -5 8032:
I don't care whether it was a conservative or a liberal; the sanctions should be the same.
I'll take you at your word regarding yourself, but Mitch McConnell and Tucker Carlson and those guys who are calling for a pound of flesh from the leaker are going to look awfully stupid when if they have to start praising him (probably a him) if they find out he's one of them. Luckily for them, blatant hypocrisy isn't embarrassing to them. It's more like a trademark. Or a point of honor--having the "courage" to be publicly seen as a hypocrite.
And any chance of you explaining the "8032"? :)
GMT-5 8032:
I am glad that the Supreme Court looked into the Due Process Clauses of the 4th and 14th Amendments and expanded the protections provided to the people.
How far can the Court expand these protections?
You're not reading the room. The question at hand is "How far can the Republicans, including those on the court claw back these protections?" And in typical Jewish fashion, I will answer the question with a question. "What would stop them?"
GMT quotes Glenn Greenwald:
When the Court strikes down a law that majorities support, it may be a form of judicial tyranny if the invalidated law does not violate any actual rights enshrined in the Constitution. But the mere judicial act of invalidating a law supported by a majority of citizens — though frequently condemned as “undemocratic" — is, in fact, a fulfillment of one of the Court's prime functions in a republic.
Unless one believes that the will of the majority should always prevail — that laws restricting or abolishing free speech, due process and the free exercise of religion should be permitted as long as enough citizens support it — then one must favor the Supreme Court's anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian powers.
I agree with the second paragraph, but don't see how it applies. The court is not striking down a law here--it is reversing its own precedents.
Legislatures should not be free to infringe on recognized rights of individuals. The court is doing just that with regard to women.
If this draft opinion becomes the final opinion, it will not make abortion illegal nationwide.
Since the court is removing a right presently enjoyed by individuals, the only possible justification is that they're protecting the rights of the fetus. So how much money would you be willing to stake against the next step being a supreme court decision recognizing fetal personhood and embryonic personhood and zygotean personhood? Which would make any and all abortions murder in any state. And make anything that leads to accidental miscarriage into manslaughter.
When that happens, I propose that the woman should counter with self-defense. An abortion to save the life of the mother is self-defense. An abortion to protect the mere health of the mother is "standing her ground".
Seriously--there is no other precedent in American law for a duty to keep another person alive. If women were making the laws, even the ones who are pro-life would charge a rapist with negligent homicide by the act of injecting a baby into a receptacle unwilling to function as its incubator.
Der Oger,
It's certainly possible that a Republican autocracy would allow American civilians to "keep their toys". First because, against the air/armor/artillery of the modern panoply, even assault rifles ARE toys, and second because most of those rifles are already in the hands of their supporters and likely to used against "enemies of the state" i.e. liberals. Saddam Hussein certainly encouraged every Iraqi household to be armed.
Pappenheimer
GMT-5
You are missing the point
The point is about a woman having control of their own bodies
If I need YOUR blood or one of YOUR kidneys to survive then you are NOT obliged by law to let me take it
If I was your son and I had the same needs then you are still NOT obliged to let me take it
Why would you give a clot of cells MORE rights than an actual living breathing human being??
If you gave that clot of cells THE SAME RIGHTS as an actual baby then it would still NOT be entitled to use the mothers organs
That is the "Law"
The limits on abortion are stealing the rights to bodily autonomy
Pappenheimer
Saddam Hussein certainly encouraged every Iraqi household to be armed.
As did Hitler who removed all restrictions on German Citizens owning guns
And I agree with David in a small part. I don’t see this as an attack on poor women, but I agree that it will have a disproportionate negative impact on poor women.
And the 80 and 32 are from the periodic table, the abbreviations are related to my name.
I deleted my previous comment and substituted this one to add the second sentence since I don’t want to spam the site with lots of little posts.
Talking about whether Roe V Wade is a good or bad decision has little to do with the debate over whether women have a right to determine what happens to themselves. Many on both sides treat these things as the same, but they aren't.
Roe V Wade fundamentally comes down to privacy, which in my not so humble opinion was a weak argument on which to hinge a woman's fundamental right to herself. It was the argument they could win back then, though. The better argument must be about liberty. Is a pregnant woman free? Who decides what her limits are with respect to the unborn fetus growing within her?
Privacy judgements protect communications and associations. They are poor choices on which to protect your property rights to your own body.
If the SCOTUS follows through and overturns Roe V Wade, that means we return to the original fight. Pick up your sharp implements and defend a woman's liberty instead of her privacy. State your objectives clearly for all to hear. LIBERTY is the issue.
(As for the leak, I don't give a f@#k who did it. If it was a low level staffer, I also don't mind them being fired for it. I suggest we celebrate such a person later for letting us know. It is occasionally important to remind the 'institutions' who holds the real power in the US.)
duncan - IIRC while there were severe restrictions on gun ownership in the UK, gun ownership was widespread in the Soviet Union.
Citizens with guns don't prevent a tyranny.
Alfred Differ:
If the SCOTUS follows through and overturns Roe V Wade, that means we return to the original fight. Pick up your sharp implements and defend a woman's liberty instead of her privacy. State your objectives clearly for all to hear. LIBERTY is the issue.
The first sharp implement I can think of is what I mentioned before. I get called to jury duty about every two years, and there's no way I will ever vote to convict anyone for having or abetting a medically appropriate abortion procedure.
I can't argue with the real issue being liberty rather than privacy. The same is true relative to contraception, same sex marriage, and interracial marriage. They really are liberty issues, but without the privacy ruling, we're going to have to fight those battles all over again.
For now, all the supreme court is doing is sending the decision back to the states. Neither you nor I live in a state which will undermine a woman's bodily integrity. But if Republicans get Congress and the presidency back, they seem set to pass a nationwide abortion ban. And they also seem to want the supreme court to establish full personhood for the unborn, enshrining a zygote's rights as superior to those of the mother, relegating her to the status of an incubator. And that wouldn't be subject to a future Democratic administration. We'd have to get the supreme court back.
(As for the leak, I don't give a f@#k who did it. If it was a low level staffer, I also don't mind them being fired for it. I suggest we celebrate such a person later for letting us know. It is occasionally important to remind the 'institutions' who holds the real power in the US.)
My argument here with the Grand Moff isn't that the leak doesn't damage the standing of the court, but that the court's own behavior has already done so much more. Dave Sim once explained to me, "Sometimes, jumping on the bandwagon is the best way to demonstrate that the wheels have already fallen off." I think that's what's going on here. The leak itself didn't do the most significant damage to the reputation of the court. Rather it made clear how toxic that reputation had already become.
The right-wing pundits and politicians are already trying to shift the conversation to the leak rather than the decision itself. That's in line with their claims that, say, calling someone a racist or a traitor is a more egregious act than actually being a racist or a traitor.
Philip Ittner at the Lviv Cat Cafe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GQeX5i1Qos
In fact, I see little merit to the constitutional arguments of BOTH sides in this imbroglio. Both "My body" and "sacred life of clusters of cells" ignore the fact that God did not make a binary world but a highly analog one, far too murky for clear distinctions.
I see us as crude primitives. Harlan Ellison said it is our task to make future generations who view us as monsters... or rather as talented cavemen who somehow managed to make the makers of the makers of gods.
Hence it is my pragmatic task to help the Enlightenment use its top tool of maximally empowered competitive creativity and accountability. And that HAS to mean letting poor women rise up with their children, who inarguably do vastly better and are better competitors/creators when they were born wanted.
In fact, this SHOULD be put before voters... and we need to crush the cheating that lets fanatics get away with the crap that gave us Gosuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas and Barrett. And if Biden won't do the obvious - offering pardons for blackmailed folks to come forward, then I pray some Russian will spill the files himself.
Reversing Roe v Wade might not literally outlaw abortion nationwide, but there are 23 states that have abortion bans already passed that will trigger automatically the moment the decision is overturned, and several others that have no protections in their own laws against such a ban. And while I'm generally cautious of slippery-slope arguments, the same reasoning in this decision would also apply to several other civil-rights cases. As I believe I mentioned earlier, Texas has already signaled that it'll challenge Obergefell v Hodges, and there are calls to challenge Griswold v Connecticut as well. Figure it's only a matter of time before Lawrence v Texas and Loving v Virginia get challenged - remember that while the Loving case was decided in 1967, Alabama kept their anti-miscegenation laws on the books until 2000 (and only 60% of Alabamans voted in favor of removing them - more than 525,000 Alabamans voted to keep them).
Anti-abortion crusades have proven to be good business for the right wing. It helped motivate conservative voters, get them to the polls, and support odious right-wing politicians. But this was a carrot held in front of a beast going round and round. If the beast gets to eat the carrot it loses its power. I think Republicans will rue the day if Row v. Wade is actually struck down.
As for a nationwide abortion ban: that would be a Republican disaster, triggering the final teardown of their rotten house. The American people won't stand for it. Could the Republicans be dumb enough to actually go there? Can't rule it out but I find it hard to believe. They do polling, they use focus groups, and that goes way beyond an own-goal. They'd be shooting themselves in the face.
But even just throwing abortion back to the states will hurt them. Many voters ignore state elections. They might come out for presidential campaigns, but otherwise they stay home. Republican control of state legislatures is already dependent on despicable gerrymandering, but those boundaries are drawn on the assumption that a high percentage of apathetic voters will abstain. Banning abortion will get a lot of apathetic voters off their ass.
23 States. Yup.
Y'all should try to remember that we live in a federal system where it is SUPPOSED to be difficult for one group to dictate what counts as moral law to another. (It goes both ways.)
That counts here. If a large fraction of people in State X feel abortion should be outlawed, they are supposed to be able to make that happen.
… unless it smacks of majoritarianism and we make the argument for protecting the liberty of a small group unable to protect itself.
———
What to do?
A. Get your state constitutions updated so the LIBERTY of women is protected. This will put future federal laws in conflict with state constitutions and put 'originalist' judges in a tricky bind.
B. Using the language of liberty for defending women makes you a kind of abolitionist. Use the terms properly. It's not that women are being relegated to being incubators. It is that they are being enslaved. Point out who enslaves them.
C. Donate to causes that support women who can't afford to cross state lines enabling them to cross state lines. Donate to legal defense funds. Just… donate.
———
Regarding jury nullification, this here libertarian is highly amused. Go for it. Be aware it has serious consequences in some jurisdictions. Most judges hate it and will react to it.
I recommend doing a little research on the subject, though. It threatens the Rule of Law which should not be done lightly.
Is America a free country?
Yes, if by "free" you mean "paid for".
Pappenheimer, Duncan Cairnross:
Looked up the Weapon Law of 1938. The provisions exclude Jews, Roma/Sinti/"Peddlers", "Non-Citizens", criminals, and those deemed dangerous to the state security for any reason (which of course was murky in definition).
Also, the law was used as an excuse for otherwise illegal house searches; one such was a raid on Albert Einsteins home which "found nothing more dangerous than a table knife".
gerold:
But this was a carrot held in front of a beast going round and round. If the beast gets to eat the carrot it loses its power. I think Republicans will rue the day if Row v. Wade is actually struck down.
I'd like to think you are right, but every time Republicans seem to hurt their own cause, they just get more powerful.
For the 2022 and 2044 elections, they can keep their base energized with promises to outlaw abortion nationwide. Think Mitch McConnell loves the filibuster so much he wouldn't eliminate it on day 1 in order to pass such a federal ban?
Once they're in power again, they will never again accept a democratic victory. We will become a de-facto one party country. Though Democrats will still control many states comprising a majority of the population, the formerly "States Rights" party will use federal muscle to outlaw any progressive initiative.
And for the coup de grace, it's only a matter of time before the five-deplorable majority on the court finds constitutional protection for the unborn, beginning at conception, making it impossible for even a theoretical future Democratic administration to liberate women from slavery. It's almost like the South actually won the Civil War.
Have a nice day.
* * *
Alfred Differ:
Using the language of liberty for defending women makes you a kind of abolitionist. Use the terms properly. It's not that women are being relegated to being incubators. It is that they are being enslaved.
Point taken about the language. I assume you know that "enslavement" is what I meant when I said they were relegating women to the role of machinery.
Point out who enslaves them.
That might backfire. A large swath of voters think that women should be subordinate to men. Often, they believe their God tells them so. They might be fer it rather than again' it.
* * *
As if I'm not pissed enough already this week, I'm hearing people in my middle class suburban neighborhood complaining about proposed hikes in natural gas rates. They're already blaming Biden. "Putin didn't print a whole lot of money." In other words, "What does the war in Ukraine have to do with anything? Gas prices are up because of COVID relief." I'm guessing that's a Tuck-yo Rose talking point.
To once again malign Michelle Obama, I have never been less proud of my country.
Excerpt from an e-mail from former Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn.
He speaks both to the idea that the real story is the leak, and to the inevitability that a future Republican congress will kill the filibuster to outlaw abortion no matter what Democrats do now. I agree with every word.
...
Boston Globe columnist Adrian Walker puts the situation bluntly in “The Supreme Court is coming after democracy itself”:
Who knows where they will stop? Who’s to say there are any boundaries?
Some will say that is a hysterical, overwrought reaction. Here’s what I will say to that: Since the 2016 presidential campaign and the ascent of Donald Trump, the centrist chorus arguing that “things won’t be that bad” has been consistently, unequivocally wrong.
Perhaps they will finally realize now that we are living in the midst of a revolution — a revolution most Americans never asked for and don’t want.
So stop the hand-wringing and piteous bleating about the leak and sanctity of the Supreme Court. It’s become just another grubby, agenda-driven political body, only one with suffocating power populated by members who never have to answer to the electorate.
Focus!
The issue right in front of us is whether the law should be able to force people to continue pregnancies against their will; if this is the sort of decision that should be subject to popular will and the vote of disinterested parties because it’s a matter of general concern, or if it’s a profoundly personal decision.
If the sleeping pro-abortion rights giant is awakened by this turn of events and voters come to see the direction we’re headed in, Republicans will come to rue the day they got this “victory.” This is not the terrain they want to fight the 2022 and 2024 elections on.
Another note: I’ve heard and read rumbling suggesting the Democrats attempt to codify abortion rights in Congress by creating a carve-out exception to the filibuster and passing such a bill through the U.S. Senate with a simple majority aided by several Republican senators who favor abortion rights.
The counter to this argument is that, well, yes, they might be able to do this, but that as soon as the Republicans regain simultaneous control of the House, Senate and White House — which they inevitably will as the political pendulum swings — they will invoke the same exception to the filibuster rule and pass a national ban on abortion rights.
And my answer to this counterargument is, what in God’s name makes anyone think the Republicans won’t ram through a national ban as soon as they get the chance no matter what the Democrats do? Today’s Republican leaders show little respect for norms and feel no need to exhibit consistency.
...
Larry,
I assume you know that "enslavement" is what I meant when I said…
Indeed I did.
That might backfire.
In more ways than one.
After California passed the ballot measure to make same sex marriage illegal (overturning our State Supreme Court) I pointed out (on a different board) that this was a civil rights issue. One lady I knew and liked took issue with my description. See… for her 'civil rights' was about black people struggling to get free. She was one of them and had history with their effort. She most certainly did NOT like me making the connection. (I probably ran afoul of her religious beliefs.)
I made the connection anyway. Some people have to be reminded that our rights are OUR rights.
Alfred Differ:
Some people have to be reminded that our rights are OUR rights.
Some people wonder why a middle-aged white Jewish suburbanite like me is so passionate about the rights of minorities and women. Even aside from the fact that I have a wife and daughter, the fact is that I am very conscious of the fact that if any subset of citizens can be dehumanized, then sooner or later I can be dehumanized as well. I used to think that perspective came from being Jewish. I'm as painfully surprised at Jewish support for the Republican Party as I am that there are still Log Cabin Republicans. I suppose it's like "The Simpsons"'s Krusty the Klown while pulling the lever to vote for Sideshow Bob:
"Well, he did frame me for armed robbery...but I'm itching for that upper class tax cut!"
It wouldn't surpise me at all if, around 1932 or thereabouts in Germany, there was a group like Juden fur Hitler.
Just watched pilot of ST Strange New Worlds - excellent. Daughter-in-law listed in credits. Happy and proud.
Larry: I don't think Moscow Mitch is an anti-abortion true-believer. He waves that carrot at the rubes because it scares up votes, but he's a pretty shrewd political tea reader. Remember when he loved Putin? That was when Russia was getting Republicans elected. Now he's all-in weapons to Kyiv. But a national abortion ban would not help Republicans. That's the kind of travesty that motivates the unmotivated.
gerold:
But a national abortion ban would not help Republicans. That's the kind of travesty that motivates the unmotivated.
But if they had the Congress and the presidency and they didn't pass such a ban, they'd lose their base.
Besides, it's not entirely up to McConnell. If the supreme court recognizes zygotean personhood, then not even a Democratic trifecta could reverse it.
Newsome is talking about putting abortion rights into the California constitution. That would draw the battle lines. I think I know which side would win.
I once had a co-worker (in a bike shop) flat out tell me he didn't want restrictions on the wealthy and powerful because he was going to be wealthy and powerful some day.
gerold:
Newsome is talking about putting abortion rights into the California constitution. That would draw the battle lines. I think I know which side would win.
From your lips to God's ear. Many southern states put slavery in their constitutions, and look how that turned out.
* * *
Don Gisselbeck:
I once had a co-worker (in a bike shop) flat out tell me he didn't want restrictions on the wealthy and powerful because he was going to be wealthy and powerful some day.
That's how they get people.
There's a passage in the novel Ragtime in which burlesque star Evelyn Nesbit asks the radical Emma Goldman how her profession contributes to the oppression of the masses. Emma writes in reply (I did have to look it up) :
“Goldman sent off a letter to Evelyn: I am often asked the question How can the masses permit themselves to be exploited by the few. The answer is By being persuaded to identify with them. Carrying his newspaper with your picture the laborer goes home to his wife, an exhausted workhorse with the veins standing out in her legs, and he dreams not of justice but of being rich.”
Doth protest much? I give 1:4 odds history will judge HIM the likely leader.
"John Roberts calls Supreme Court leak 'absolutely appalling'"
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEL9uR9yYRnvEX0tyIBJkDswqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMPrTpgU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
As for the 5 awfuls. I bet most (all) are eventually found to be blackmailed.
Larry,
But if they had the Congress and the presidency and they didn't pass such a ban, they'd lose their base.
No. Not really. All he'd have to do is find a way not to remove the filibuster. He could quietly tell a few in his camp that he doesn't really mind if they vote their way. He'd throw Collins a bone later when she expressed her concerns and voted to keep it. Etc.
As long as there are GOP senators in a few states where the anti-abortion folks aren't terribly strong, he doesn't HAVE to do anything he'd prefer not to do.
Many southern states put slavery in their constitutions, and look how that turned out.
Heh. You are in a seriously dark mood dude.
If the SCOTUS throws it back to the states and the states start amending their constitutions, their decision is going to be thrown in their faces when future conflict with federal law arises. They'd have to throw out another precedent (this one) to lend support to the attack.
Yah. I can hear you thinking it from over here. That's what their gonna do!
That's why this must be cast in the language of liberty.
Something worth fighting for.
If we START with the woman's right to control the use of her own organs the rest becomes a lot easier
Change the terms its NOT an Abortion - call it what it is an "Eviction"
The primary issue then changes to the way the “eviction” is performed
Early “eviction” would not take the fetus into account - its going to die anyway
Late term “eviction” should take the fetus’s possibilities into account
If it is already doomed - missing organs - then the eviction would not worry about it
If it is possibly viable THEN the doctor would need to at least try to keep it alive
Alfred Differ:
Heh. You are in a seriously dark mood dude.
You read that right. :)
Yah. I can hear you thinking it from over here. That's what their gonna do!
You have made a very accurate internal copy of me. I'm almost redundant.
That's why this must be cast in the language of liberty.
Something worth fighting for.
When in the course of human events...
duncan cairncross:
If it is possibly viable THEN the doctor would need to at least try to keep it alive
I'd be ok with that.
You didn't mention the possibility that the fetus is already dead before the procedure, in which case your conclusion is obvious. But the laws currently being passed wouldn't even allow removal in that case.
Alfred Differ:
"But if they had the Congress and the presidency and they didn't pass such a ban, they'd lose their base."
No. Not really. All he'd have to do is find a way not to remove the filibuster. He could quietly tell a few in his camp that he doesn't really mind if they vote their way.
McConnell might not personally care about abortion, but what makes you think he'd do any extra work to keep from instituting a national ban when so many Republicans are champing at the bit?
I mean, if he had been inclined to feign impotence on the issue, he could have kept the filibuster in place for USsc nominations. Instead he took active and controversial measures to ram three anti-abortion Catholics down our throats. It would have been easier not to do that than to pretend he's powerless to enact a Republican wet dream once they've got the trifecta.
After all, look what crap the Democrats are taking now for not eliminating the filibuster for voting reform, even though they don't have enough votes to do so even in their own caucus. Republicans wouldn't have that excuse.
Following up. You may recall that some folks reported they could not open the site for TASAT = There's a Story About That (how SciFi Nerds might save the world!) https://tasat.org/. .. nor sign up to be informed when the project gets legs.
We are very appreciative of those reports! The glitch has been fixed. Please do sign up and let me know if you have any problems. You'll be informed when the service is up and running.
@ Dr. Brin:
Please do sign up and let me know if you have any problems.
Signed up, no bugs or glitches detected.
I am looking forward to the project.
onward
onward
Post a Comment