tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post1673993033222964157..comments2024-03-28T20:50:49.311-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Political scandals and moreDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72520386272611619542018-11-22T07:26:36.602-08:002018-11-22T07:26:36.602-08:00I agree with your description of Republican values...I agree with your description of Republican values about divorce and vice.<br /><br />And I agree with your priority for the new Congress to:<br /> 1. Repeal the 2001 War Powers Resolution<br />I have this priority as well:<br /> 2. Create a new voters' Rights Bill. Voting needs to be encoded as a right - for *all* citizens.<br />And this priority which will not happen:<br /> 3. Have Congress have the same definitions of bribery for itself that the people have for it.<br />Howard Brazeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08837948125432719131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9194439055667072372018-11-21T20:10:15.742-08:002018-11-21T20:10:15.742-08:00Skimming past, I noticed a lot of BOLDFACE!!!!!! ...Skimming past, I noticed a lot of BOLDFACE!!!!!! Someone be our designated locum-reader and tell us if he says anything, ever, that follows the rules of sapience, honesty and basic decency I mentioned earlier... or if he tips into bona fide bannable trollery. Barring either extreme, I am sparing myself the ever-so-slight nausea, glancing down at an ankle-biter.<br /><br />onward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73919159552311943112018-11-21T19:39:34.563-08:002018-11-21T19:39:34.563-08:00Ilithi Dragon to locumranch:
You, sir, are either...Ilithi Dragon to locumranch:<br /><i><br />You, sir, are either failing to understand the simple words that I am saying...<br /><br />Or you are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting and slandering myself (and others), which makes you a goddamn liar.<br /></i><br /><br />The two are not mutually exclusive. He can do both things.<br />Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75481669304233934002018-11-21T18:36:17.944-08:002018-11-21T18:36:17.944-08:00I like the first idea the most, but they become we...I like the first idea the most, but they become weaker with each section. A lot of what we want would flow out of the first two ideas anyway.<br /><br />Forcing antitrust is a weak solution, requiring good judgement and lack of bias.<br /><br />Paying us for our data isn't going to happen, or even work. It would only stand a chance if we were willing to pay for all the digital service we suck up.<br /><br />All of this is as much use as Das Capital.<br />dimonichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08376291816780380800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45386926025526094362018-11-21T18:26:56.104-08:002018-11-21T18:26:56.104-08:00Are you suggesting that land ownership is equal to...<br /><br /><b>Are you suggesting that land ownership is equal to participation?</b><br /><br />Alfred does a good job explaining things.<br /><br />Citizenship implies ownership; ownership implies responsibilities; and responsibilities imply rights & privileges.<br /><br />Property subject to shared public ownership is commonly referred to as 'The Commons'. It is subject to shared responsibilities, privileges & rights.<br /><br />Privately owned property is reserved for individual use and, aside from license fees that many know as 'taxation', all responsibilities, rights & privileges that are associated with the privately owned accrue to the private owner. <br /><br /><b>The concept of participatory skin-in-the-game applies to more than just property.</b><br /><br />Those (who do not 'own') do not risk and those (who do not risk) cannot 'own' related reward or privilege; those who do not sow cannot then reap; and those non-participants who do not have 'skin-on-the-game' cannot enrich themselves off someone else's game play.<br /><br />This is the YUGE problem that brings us to where we are now, politically speaking, the unequal sharing of responsibility, risk & reward.<br /><br /><b>A Privileged Class is one that does not share public risk.</b><br /><br />These 'privileged classes' include, but are not limited to, (1) those who attack others but are immune from retaliation, (2) the wealthy who force austerity upon the poor, (3) the poor who demand 'largesse' from private purses, (4) those non-combatants who are eager to send others to fight, bleed & die in their stead, and (5) the expert castes who insist that they 'serve others' when they compel others to do as they say.<br /><br /><b>And, finally, Ilithi_D argues that I have unfairly misrepresented his self-sacrifice & public service as authoritarianism.</b><br /><br />I once thought this way myself. Described above as (5), this is also know as the Servant Master trope. "I serve," I said, "Those experts who stand with me also serve. We are all public servants".<br /><br />Except for the small fact that we were authorities who gave commands as in "Take these pills" (said the cardiologist), "No talking" (said the librarian), "No smoking" (said the bus driver), "Pay what we say you owe" (said the IRS) and "Hands up & obey or I'll shoot" (said the police officer).<br /><br />This results in the most oppressive of all authoritarian tyrannies, one sincerely exercised for the benefit of its unwilling victims.<br /><br /><br />Best<br />____<br /><br />The earnest expert says "I will serve & protect you". "No thank you & please don't," replies the civilian. "You must obey," replies the expert, "You cannot refuse because I am your Servant Master".<br />locumranchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06812045410916208141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87320194558830221432018-11-21T18:15:11.522-08:002018-11-21T18:15:11.522-08:00Catfish: re War Powers - "the War Powers Reso...Catfish: re War Powers - <i>"the War Powers Resolution itself spells out procedures for revoking an AUMF."</i><br />It does - but it remains to be tested. I'm unaware of any time a court has actually balanced the WPR v. presidential action: every instance I'm aware of became nonjusticiable/unripe/moot. But that's just my bias, and I'm not really refuting or disputing you: I don't believe any law does what it claims to do until I see it tested and proven out through the ordinary legal processes. To my mind, the WPR is an interesting 'theory' - which the players in the Executive and Legislature work hard to avoid being tested. There's a pretty powerful constitutional argument that the resolution has never been good law, and a pretty right-leaning court...and of the four liberal judges on that court, Kagan is the only one whose health is consistent.<br /><br />re voting: well, so long as the challenge is recognized and not left alone, I'm all for it. Orange County actually has an excellent registrar of voters (who implements many excellent California laws on this) - and automatic registration (with an opt-out option) gets us a pretty good distance toward where we'd need to be. Yet much of America looks at California as precisely what they must avoid becoming (esp. gerrymandering...California's solution of public transparency scares the bejeezus out of many of them).donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39259828269378650822018-11-21T18:09:10.214-08:002018-11-21T18:09:10.214-08:00@Duncan: then never get e-textbooks... what a rack...@Duncan: then never get e-textbooks... what a racket.<br /><br />@Dr. Brin: I’ll need to look more closely, but it does remind me of a throwaway idea in a different Heinlein story.<br /><br />@Jerry: Sure a society with lots of highly competent people is great, but it’s also not very common. Americans come much closer than a lot of nations did, but there just is too much complexity out there now for it to be realistic. At best you can be competent at a sparse but diverse set of skills. <br /><br />I love Heinlein dearly, but when he puts those words into the mouth of the most hypercompetent Marty Stu imaginable, it reads as a little less than reasonable.<br /><br />@Alfred: This is a bit deeper than most memes are able to go, but you’re not wrong. I’m collapsing “legitimate voter” into “valid” for brevity, but it can be expanded again if you meet someone willing to actually have a reasonable discussion.<br /><br />And @everyone: There’s no coddled and infantile group quite like an upper-class rural scion. At least in the cities they run into others of the same ilk. It’s so much easier to start thinking like a lord of the manor when you’re thinly spread out.Catfish N. Codnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52590603756824281052018-11-21T17:58:21.701-08:002018-11-21T17:58:21.701-08:00Okay. I've read the chapter summaries and can ...Okay. I've read the chapter summaries and can offer comments. Obviously I haven't read the book or thought deep on it, but some of what the authors look at I HAVE read about and considered.<br /><br />Property is Monopoly | Well... yah. That's sorta the point. Your property is yours to control and that system goes back to before we were human. Good luck altering it. That's only partially what they propose though. COST is essentially a wealth tax with a trick to discourage people from self-assessing the value of their property too low. Assess it low and one is forced to sell at that price if someone makes an offer. How this is enforced is not discussed in the summary, but my libertarian hackles came up.<br /><br />The main problem with this (besides being a wealth tax) is that it flies in the face of what 'price' actually means. If I have a widget, I can assign a cash value to it, but I can't assign a price. Prices are agreed upon values between buyer and seller. Prices only exist at the moment of the exchange and come accompanied by a price range where the buyer and seller might have been willing to settle in an alt.universe. The so-called price upon which the tax is drawn isn't legitimate. That may not sound like a serious problem, but without legitimacy, we are likely to see compensatory behaviors. In other words, unintented consequences are likely to focus on the illegitimacy of the valuation system. I'm not sure what those would be (if I could, I'd invest accordingly), but I can see what the target would be. Maybe we'd enact rules about who could buy? Got citizenship papers? Maybe we'd expand zoning uses? I don't know. However, the fact that we are at least partially xenophobic would likely limit those who would be allowed to buy at the self-assessed price and that would lead to circling of wagons and a reduction of the threat of losing low assessed properties.<br /><br />Interesting idea, but wealth taxes are tricky. Look at what happened in the recent financial meltdown. Wealth owners got slaughtered because property values dropped. They recovered later, but for a while, some of them lost half their wealth. That fact demonstrates what 'price' really means. It is a value that emerges when buyers and sellers are in equilibrium. If buyers go home as they do during bond market collapses, the assets become illiquid. There is NO price on such assets at that point. Even the last agreed upon price is meaningless. In the language of software developers, the price is assigned a null pointer. Ain't nothing there and that is the reality behind our markets. Want to base a tax system on something like that? Of course not. Pretending a self-assessed 'price' will work, though, is a misunderstanding of human nature. That's not a price. That is a different data type. Pretending they aren't is a type assignment error we should try to catch at compile time.<br /><br />I'll comment on the other four shortly.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63153333330470211862018-11-21T17:55:38.390-08:002018-11-21T17:55:38.390-08:00Catfish: On Bush II: I am somewhere between donze...Catfish: <i>On Bush II: I am somewhere between donzelion and Dr. Brin. I do think he sincerely tried to do his best</i><br /><br />IIRC, Dr. Brin thinks Bush I was the worst president of the 20th century, largely on account of his conduct in Gulf War I. I think he wasn't <i>that</i> bad, but vastly prefer his successor's approach to both domestic and international affairs.<br /><br />I suspect the main difference between us is over the role of the Saudis in Bush I & II administrations: Dr. Brin read some reports, I fixed the problems (or tried to). There were a lot of them. Generally, the times major links become public tends to be when problems arise (e.g., Talal's stake in NewsCorp/Citibank, Sanea's stake in HSBC) - few talked about the arms sale to the Saudis until after Kashoggi (even though Obama worked hard to win that deal). When things go smoothly (as in Silicon Valley), the ties stay quiet, the money magically appears from somewhere for the next mezzanine tranche of finance - and the players stay hidden behind major investment houses.<br /><br />Bear in mind that when Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977, a host of problems emerged for business as usual. The UK Bribery Act of 2011 passed for the same reasons. Same prince played same role in both cases (though in the FCPA story, you'll hear more about Japanese and Germans...). I cannot go much further into the details, but if you research both, you'll understand why the claims of close friendship aren't quite what they seem. Research Adnan Kashoggi while you're at it, and some of the dots will appear...but I will not connect them.<br /><br /><i>"I do think he [Bush II] sincerely tried to do his best..."</i><br />Agreed...I don't think he was intentionally vile. But he did teach Pence everything he knows about how to play religious politics.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73213048329442484632018-11-21T16:10:00.740-08:002018-11-21T16:10:00.740-08:00Radical Markets
$22 US for a Kindle book
My innate...Radical Markets<br />$22 US for a Kindle book<br />My innate Scottishness has just rebelled - that is too much for an e-book duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72133341407409929012018-11-21T16:09:09.663-08:002018-11-21T16:09:09.663-08:00Locum...
You're strawmanning. Blatantly and p...Locum...<br /><br />You're strawmanning. Blatantly and painfully so.<br /><br />When have I ever said anything about ruling, or who should be dominant?<br /><br />Did you not note the specific language to which I referred to my job?<br /><br />I <i>serve</i>. The men and women who stand next to me <i>serve</i>. It is the U.S. military <i>service</i>. <br /><br />I specifically noted that I volunteered to be here, that others beside me all volunteered to be here, and I specifically noted that I volunteered to be here so that others would have the CHOICE to stand beside me, or do whatever else they will.<br /><br />How is that authoritarian? <br /><br />You, sir, are either failing to understand the simple words that I am saying...<br /><br />Or you are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting and slandering myself (and others), which makes you a goddamn liar.Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77827536954511459512018-11-21T15:32:06.799-08:002018-11-21T15:32:06.799-08:00I'll have a look when I get home, but my usual...I'll have a look when I get home, but my usual response is that our current definitions have survived trial and error tests for countless generations and solved problems we aren't even aware of anymore. Replacing them wholesale with anything is likely to lead to trauma and death in the millions and I'm not trying to exaggerate.<br /><br />Traditions = solutions to problems of which we might not be aware.<br />... and of course are the source of many more problems. Just like science answering some questions and uncovering a bazillion more.<br /><br />I'll look, though.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32175389430221333552018-11-21T15:03:20.205-08:002018-11-21T15:03:20.205-08:00I'd be interested in what Alfred and other mak...I'd be interested in what Alfred and other make of the radically different approach to property and the social contract in this fellow's book: (http://radicalmarkets.com) It's an interesting proposal that has zero chance of implementation short of imposition by some cosmic AI.<br /><br />But I may be on a panel with the authors, in February!<br /><br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58523926346975003322018-11-21T15:00:03.000-08:002018-11-21T15:00:03.000-08:00Of course it is possible to coddle or spoil kids. ...Of course it is possible to coddle or spoil kids. Ours elicit such grumbles from this old fart dad, from time to time. Still, with three black belts and two eagle scout badges, engineering abilities and trimly fit, I'd happily compare them to the output of the romantics' beloved feudalisms, which produced either broken serf-drudges or else lordlings who were the genuine article, spoiled, overprivileged brats. It is the confederacy that coddles plantation (and casino and carbon and inheritance) lords, while sucking down Big Macs. David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39474314716902912182018-11-21T14:33:49.782-08:002018-11-21T14:33:49.782-08:00Dominic Amann,
Land owners are people who have sk...Dominic Amann,<br /><br />Land owners are people who have skin in the game in the sense Taleb described. If you own land, you are going to care a great deal about what nearby land owners do and say, thus you will participate. If you fail to participate, you are an absentee land owner which was a big deal back then. Still is today to some extent.<br /><br />Land ownership is a proxy, though. If you have kids in a community, you are probably going to care about the local school system and be inclined to participate. If you have a job in a community or industry, you’ll probably care about what your ‘neighbors’ are doing even if they are somewhat abstracted and be inclined to participate.<br /><br />What counts AS skin in the game matters a great deal when it comes to voting. A CEO with a juicy contract that pays handsomely when the company does well and modestly when the company fails will be motivated to have the company succeed, but they won’t have skin in the game unless they can actually lose something precious when that failure occurs. Losing a bonus isn’t the same as losing your personal wealth. In the case of voting, what perturbs some of us is the option for some to ‘vote themselves cake.’ It doesn’t matter if it is rich people voting for tax breaks or poor people voting for tax increases. The question to ask about the underlying ethics is what skin in the game each voter has.<br />Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63192727976851598752018-11-21T14:32:13.137-08:002018-11-21T14:32:13.137-08:00Catfish N. Cod said: As much as I admire Heinlein...Catfish N. Cod said: <i>As much as I admire Heinlein, the attitude that "Specialization is for insects" is neither proper nor accurate.</i><br /><br />Wrong. Wrong. WRONG. This is a severe misreading of Heinlein.<br /><br />Heinlein was specifically referring to a "competent man" and not an idiot savant. A society can have a preponderance of competent humans. That doesn't mean that they should not specialize in their everyday work.<br /><br />Of course, specialization is the primary thing that makes <i>mutually-profitable exchanges</i> possible; and <i>mutually-profitable exchanges</i> are what makes positive-sum societies possible. <br /><br />The most competent societies are those with lots and lots of individuals who are competent at a great many things. Without this generalized level of competence by most people, it is impossible for people to evaluate whether one has made a mutually-profitable exchange or simply exchanged your labor or wealth for the shoddy workmanship by another. This seems to be an extremely difficult, but vitally important, concept for most people to grasp.<br /><br /><br />Jerry Emanuelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14401970213448886158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80215195457259715922018-11-21T14:18:54.448-08:002018-11-21T14:18:54.448-08:00@Locumranch | I didn’t want to get in the way of I...@Locumranch | I didn’t want to get in the way of Ilithi Dragon ‘splainin’ things to you. Far better to have someone doing the actual defending explain why they do it than to have the rest of us try to explain why they do. You brought up a point, though, that deserves a serious beat-down because it demonstrates a belief system that is less than human.<br /><br /><i>Why do you cripple, handicap & infantilise them so? </i><br /><br />I get the argument against coddling people. Hover over a child too much and they fail to launch as an adult. I get it. However, if you don’t hover enough, they get eaten by wolves or fail to learn the social skills they need to launch as an adult. There is a middle ground where caring human beings help but avoid hindering.<br /><br /><i>Do you condemn others to utter dependency out of spite or because of your pathological need to be needed? </i><br /><br />Human beings are social animals. We DO depend on each other for advantages, but not so much that our day-to-day lives depend on our neighbors. When someone successfully launches as an adult, they are able to care and feed themselves… most of the time. They want to care and feed themselves... most of the time. Still… they probably pair up and start families. Many of us do, though not all. We are both individuals AND members of a social organism… at the same time. Multiple levels of social organism can be found as well. Family, community, and nation. Hobby groups, employment groups, and identity groups.<br /><br /><i>Let my people grow. </i><br /><br />Yes. Please. Get out of the way and let people be what they are. If you want to be more of an individual than a group member, go for it. Don’t piss on the people who want to go the other way, though. Most humans are social and go nuts without those close to them. Build your hermitorium and bark madly about how the rest of us are @#$%’d. Please stop all political activity, though. That’s for us. Hermits have no need of it.<br />Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89365650800800205262018-11-21T14:03:46.040-08:002018-11-21T14:03:46.040-08:00Dominic Amann
@locumranch you seem to be operatin...Dominic Amann<br /><i><br />@locumranch you seem to be operating under some assumption about the meaning of some details of the language that I don't share.<br /></i><br /><br />Loc uses words in his own thing, often adhering to a strict dictionary definition that no one else is using, other times to mean the exact opposite of what they mean.<br /><br />Caveat emptor.<br />Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70461098510162431972018-11-21T13:49:51.765-08:002018-11-21T13:49:51.765-08:00Given that he clearly does not care to read or und...Given that he clearly does not care to read or understand what we say, nor ask questions, nor offer factual evidence, nor address our refutations... I am back in ignoring mode.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5452126330616199152018-11-21T12:55:39.977-08:002018-11-21T12:55:39.977-08:00@locumranch you seem to be operating under some as...@locumranch you seem to be operating under some assumption about the meaning of some details of the language that I don't share.<br /><br />Are you suggesting that land ownership is equal to participation?dimonichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08376291816780380800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80785563208440569752018-11-21T12:10:12.857-08:002018-11-21T12:10:12.857-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85745186345241312582018-11-21T11:50:10.584-08:002018-11-21T11:50:10.584-08:00Something some of you might want to consider is th...Something some of you might want to consider is the distinction between 'valid' and 'legitimate'. Should we be asking for every valid vote or every legitimate vote? Every valid voter or every legitimate voter?<br /><br />Votes are validated by a legal process we are supposed to agree upon before the contest.<br />Voters are legitimized by a different process and upon being legitimized should be able to cast votes that can be successfully validated.<br /><br />These distinctions are important. Legitimizing a voter is the purpose of a registration process. Validating a vote is the purpose of an ID law. What we should be demanding on moral grounds is a broad approach to legitimizing voters and a fair and rigorous process for validating their votes.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49165440633162478722018-11-21T11:42:28.620-08:002018-11-21T11:42:28.620-08:00Even though David & Ilithi_D would never openl...<br />Even though David & Ilithi_D would never openly endorse oligarthic, aristocratic or minority-based authoritarian rule, <b>both are anti-populists who self-describe as minority-partisan authoritarians</b>.<br /><br />David endorses authoritarian rule by what he calls the 'fact-using caste', a caste that represents <5% of the total US population, because he believes that this minority deserves to rule because 'expertism'.<br /><br />Ilithi_D endorses authoritarian rule by a military (protector) caste, a caste that also represents <5% of the total US population, also because 'expertism', even though both he & David would laugh at the idea of authoritarian rule by the vanishingly small but equally expert agricultural or medical castes.<br /><br />It therefore follows that "creating a civilization (that) frees more people from the base level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" is NOT enough.<br /><br />As initially conceived, the US was created as a participatory democracy (a republic, actually) wherein only property-owning producers who had 'skin-in-the-game' were allowed to engage in collective rule. <br /><br />Once-was, PARTICIPATION was our 'expertism' (which, btw, is why & wherefore of both the Second Amendment & the constitutional PROHIBITION against the 'expertism' of a standing military & a deep state bureaucratic caste).<br /><br />Too bad, so bad, those times are long gone, and now both the US & EU are ruled by a minority-partisan expert class which claims to act in (and derive their supreme authority from) the 'best interests of' an infantilised, non-expert & non-participatory majority.<br /><br />Yet, this too shall pass, as the top-down authoritarian structures endorsed by David & Ilithi_D rely upon the ongoing participation & consent of the increasingly spoiled, entitled & infantilised masses who (quite soon) will refuse to follow expert direction.<br /><br /><br />Bestlocumranchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06812045410916208141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56223010304513665342018-11-21T09:52:06.742-08:002018-11-21T09:52:06.742-08:00On Bush II: I am somewhere between donzelion and D...On Bush II: I am somewhere between donzelion and Dr. Brin. I do think he sincerely tried to do his best... <i>as he understood it</i>. It's just that he was far enough inside the r'oil bubble of privilege that he didn't get the context needed to realize his family was part of the problem. (Remember, it took him <i>three years</i> and the actions of both Ashcroft and Comey for him to realize that Cheney was snookering him on interrogations.) In the end, he just wasn't sufficient to the tasks handed to him. <br /><br />That's no excuse. And Pence is the same problem, cubed. He brings the environs of his evangelical milieu with him, the notion that the White House chaplain should be guiding policy decisions through Bible study. In this he brings the American executive closer than ever before to the regime of the Ayatollahs. I don't know if Dr. Brin is right about Pence actively seeking to bring about Armageddon; but I do know, right down to my toes, that he would saturate the government with theocracy and feel divinely justified in destroying every religious protection the Constitution provides. <br /><br />@Twominds: Sadly that would count as a donation of labor.Catfish N. Codnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20453144121375508662018-11-21T09:40:54.145-08:002018-11-21T09:40:54.145-08:00@donzelion:It really depends on whether the 'W...@donzelion:<i>It really depends on whether the 'War Powers Resolution' is a resolution, or law.</i><br /><br />I'm going to disagree here, but only because <i>the War Powers Resolution itself</i> spells out procedures for revoking an AUMF. The AUMF of 2001 rests its authority squarely on the War Powers Resolution, and so revoking it outside the WPR context makes no sense unless you are replacing the WPR itself. <br /><br />@donzelion + Dr. Brin: Your add-ons are exactly what I want them to say next -- because if Voter ID blocks a <b>Valid Voter</b>, then <b>Every Valid Vote</b> is not being tallied. You must not fatigue or shortchange or tax either metaphorically or physically any <b>Valid Voter</b>. This extends even to the outrageous and capricious felon-reinstatement process that Florida just did away with -- the point was to make it too hard for due process to be a realistic option. Every Jim Crow trick ever devised was a way to deny a <b>Valid Voter</b>. And far from a digression, getting to pound that idea in at every opportunity -- while repeating the meme, repeating the meme, repeating the meme -- is exactly what we want in the discourse.<br /><br />Several @Illithi:<br />1) On <i>E. coli</i> -- seconded and re-seconded. This is no joke, people.<br />2) On "The Real World" -- <b><i>Bravo! Bravissimo! Encore!</i></b><br /><br />The notion that those who confront the Real World are somehow <i>better</i> is ancient and pervasive. <i>A Few Good Men</i> is one of the best modern renderings on this question, where Jack Nicholson's Col. Jessup despises anyone who doesn't face the Real World, and believes his position at the borders of the Real World justifies immunity from criticism. Contrast to the Marines on trial, who realize at the end that they truly are guilty of conduct unbecoming because <i>they didn't defend those who couldn't defend themselves</i>. <br /><br />Does that mean the defenseless are "dependent"? In one sense, yes. In another, if they contribute as much to civilization as even the least productive warrior, they are nothing of the sort -- they are <i>symbiotic</i>, mutually supporting, instead of the dragging boat anchor they are so frequently portrayed as.<br /><br />As much as I admire Heinlein, the attitude that "Specialization is for insects" is neither proper nor accurate. Some people are polymaths and really can be jacks-of-all-trades, and the idiot savant that really can only do one thing exists as well. But most of us have good skills and bad skills; and by combining our efforts <i>to each other's strengths</i> -- rather than wasting talent as Feudalism, Communism, Fascism, and Bananaism all do -- we can achieve more than we ever could apart. Such a civilization <i>outperforms</i> one based solely on individual achievement; this has been demonstrated numerous times in history. <br /><br />Even in Star Trek, outside the borders of the Federation lies the Real World; Starfleet is all about exploring and sometimes fighting so that the rest of the Federation can keep pushing back the Real World. That's what <i>final frontier</i> actually <i>means</i>.Catfish N. Codnoreply@blogger.com