Yes on the Bush campaign rhetoric, but no... the Neo-cons had a deathgrip on the foreign policy apparatus in the Republican Party since Bush I left office. They had a very strong presence during Reagan (and Bush I), but there were some dissenting players with juice. Not so much by 2000.
I realize after I hit post that it was much too long and rambling for a comment and much too short and ill-prepared for a post... so any failure to articulate what I was going after is my fault.
However, even though I post pseudonymously I really do have advanced degrees in Foreign Relations and in History... so my interest in this is, as I state, academic and not partisan. I think your comment suffers more for it than mine.
I fully acknowledge, and it's in the post clearly (I thought) that the Bush Doctrine is indistinguishable from a Cheney/Neo-Con doctrine right quick. There is, however an analysis gap between Afghanistan and Iraq - which you are quick to skip because you want to get to the Iraq blunder while I'm contemplating the fleeting moment when we entered Afghanistan as we exit Afghanistan (TBD) -- a moment where the Internationalist/Police model was being sundered and hadn't yet been replaced. You specifically state I'm justifying sentiments in 2003... but the period I'm talking about is 2001/2002 based on the original Ultimatum to Afghanistan (from wikipedia for reference) and prior to the first official formulation of the Bush Doctrine in Sept 2002 which set the stage for the Iraq invasion in 2003:
---
On 20 September 2001, the U.S. stated that Osama bin Laden was behind the 11 September attacks in 2001. The US made a five-point ultimatum to the Taliban:[41]
*Deliver to the U.S. all of the leaders of al-Qaeda
*Release all imprisoned foreign nationals
*Close immediately every terrorist training camp
*Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities
*Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection
On 21 September 2001, the Taliban rejected this ultimatum, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.
---
There were boots on the ground and airstrikes in October 2001. Unanimous UN Security council Resolutions in Nov 2001 (#1378) and a UN/Nato Security presence (#1386) by Dec 2001.
The Bush Doctrine as we know it is what you say... it's what *I* say: "the more aggressive doctrine of Pre-Emption and Regime Change tied to Strategic Global interests." My point, perhaps not communicated well in a comment, or perhaps not well apprehended by you with your partisan dander up... is that the movement from one dominant framework to the next was not foreordained and was shaped on the fly. Ultimately the opportunity was maximalized by the Neo-Con faction into their image. They won.
I do guarantee, however, that dissertations will be written about that move... it's interesting... it's interesting to see how Bush is (mis-)remembering it, because he's remembering it more like Afghanistan than Iraq.
I honestly can't say whether the Ultimatum and whatever was happening between 2001 and 2003 would have been better than what we got because we never stopped and assessed... and whatever started in 2001 became 2003 and Iraq... which in turn became the new and enduring Afghanistan policy...which is what we're laboring under after various iterations 20-yrs later.
So you and I both agree (and have agreed here in the past) that what has been the dominant framework since 2003 is a bad framework...
Next up, we can wonder what would have happened if we hadn't ridden a boozy Yeltsin to Nato Expansion and Oligarchic Orgies.
There's a future PhD to earn his wings on the (swift) evolution of the Bush Doctrine under the influence of Cheney and the NeoCons. I remember the original formulation (being once a student of these things) and it was a pretty radical departure from the Clintonian Terrorists and Criminals structure. In Bush's own memoires, he articulates it thus:
"Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them — and hold both to account."
To be sure, this is a significant departure (and much debatable, if desired), but in itself might have provided a good framework to pressure some states with financial, economic, and ultimately military sanctions lest they themselves participated in the suppression of the organizations waging asymmetcial war from within their borders. Doubtless the reaction of the state itself would drive responses... it isn't simply carte blanche for pre-emptive war/invasion.
It hinges too on the challenges/restraint of identifying the right organizations (and the proliferation post-9/11 suggests we were going to fail in this area) and the targeted deterrence of costly military or economic actions directed at the state until it agreed that the sub-group was not worth the cost.
Afghanistan could have been a test-case and possible triumph of demonstrating the dangers of hiding groups that it could not control and/or quickly disabusing the legal fiction that a state could hide behind a pretense of criminal proceedings against individuals as per the prevailing international opinion at the time.
Not without legitimate criticisms and concerns... but, possibly a framework to navigate out of the 'Criminal Mastermind / State Plausible Deniability' framework that international law was operating under. And to be sure, opening up new risks of operating under the dangers posed by 'collective guilt' and 'lack of proportionality' in any potential response.
However, it would have had baked into it a minimal requirement for self-defence in that absent an actual action, it wasn't simple Pre-emptive justification for anything based on prefabricated nonsense. In theory. If, say, the Powel/Rice faction had prevailed and adapted.
The Powel/Rice faction did not prevail (I'm not sure if they adapted... that would be the role of the PhD candidate to suss out once all the documents are available)... and we know that the initial 'doctrine' became the much more aggressive doctrine of Pre-Emption and Regime Change tied to Strategic Global interests -- which (pre-)determined the targets rather than responding to actual threats or actual provocations.
Afghanistan, therefore, is not the test-case of the original Bush Doctrine, but of the Bush Doctrine his administration evolved into. And we can judge it to have failed in all of it's stated objectives.
The way forward shouldn't be the Neo-Con Bush Doctrine, I'm not sure its a return to the (mere) criminalization of terrorism, I doubt we've the stomach for true imperialism, but sometimes I wonder if a restrained realism that co-opted or opted-in certain states might not be a better starting point.
So now we exit, having 'won' in the short term by inflicting substantial costs on the Taliban for prevaricating and harboring bin Laden, but having 'lost' for failing in regime change and providing a foil against which the Taliban could rebuild. Does a destabilized Taliban rebuild? Perhaps. Does it seek revenge knowing that plausible deniability is no shield? I suspect not. Is it in a position to execute any frontal retribution? No. Power has its own rewards... and destroying those rewards and forcing a rebuild carries its own rhetorical power. Just ask Gaddafi.
Sure, I could be persuaded to support proportional at the state level... especially with appropriate openings for lower threshold third parties.
A possible downside I'd consider real would be disassociating representatives from any particular constituency (other than state)... possibly a hybrid geography plus at large (for smoothing and 3rd parties -- for states with enough districts) might assuage my concerns.
But my point remains that 'bespoke' gerrymandering by commission is still gerrymandering (who picks the pickers?)... it's the rules, the algorithm, that needs general agreement. Which is why I keep linking to 538 because it visually illustrates that the order of our preference for the rules will determine the outcome.
Cards on the table, I'm in favor of redistricting changes... preferably starting with the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929... but ultimately we have to build consensus around one particular algorithmic standard that is applied consistently... not the "its not gerrymandering if we have a select committee gerrymander one way in this state, but another way in that state."
The fact that the 538 tool hasn't been updated since 2018 seems to me to be a signal that coming up with an agreed upon framework for *not* gerrymandering is probably not a very high concern for 538 policy influencers.
I kinda like Highly competitive... but we all know that's a dead-letter since the last thing congress wants is competition.
My second favorite would be Compact (I could go either with or without counties, but would start with counties)
Pretty much ends majority minority districts... unless that's your specific pick. Then, well, we're making a particular case in *favor* of gerrymandering.
Sure, but I think that's more of a discussion around what to do when most, if not all, adults are vaccinated. Another area where the CDC/FDA seem to be failing the 'psychology' test.
My guess is that the Biden-Harris administration has already signaled that it will curb-stomp the CDC come July 4 no matter where we are on vaccinations... or put another way, with approx 50% of the 18+ adult population already receiving 1-dose we're already at the point where Biden will declare victory on July 4. The interesting question is where the final 18+ number lands... and whether it gets extended to 16+ or 12+.
My political bet is that Biden ignores the Covid-Hawks starting July 4.
If I'm following you correctly, it seems we are nearing a point at which the risk of 'overwhelming' the health system is or nearly is past. That's a thing, but not the only thing.
My point (below) is that the FDA and CDC have publicly stated that they are attempting to navigate the 'psychology' of vaccinations, and honestly, they aren't really that good at it... and that aspect of Public Health leadership is political not strictly bureaucratic in nature.
The fact that you are using the term 'questionable vaccine' based on this data is sort of the point. Unless we want to start using the term 'questionable birth control' too. Or questionable every drug on TV that quite literally posts all of the nasty and potentially fatal side-effects on the screen.
Honestly seems like a situation where you update the 'monitoring' status with a note that (ultra-)rare Blood Clotting events have happened... and continue with the vaccinations.
Abundance of caution would be to steer (younger) women towards mRNA, if concerned about risk.
The weird confluence of CDC/FDA admitted attempts to manage public 'psychology' is precisely the area where political leaders should step in and override their 'guesses' which have proven mostly wrong.
heh... yeah she came to just fine and realized the fainting is just something she does... so she got the jab. They kept her an extra 15 minutes for observations.
Now, If I'd have been allowed there I might (or might not) have shouted... "quick, now's your chance" We'll never know.
We forget (I know I certainly do) that Prince Philippos had some significant Royal 'chops' belonging to both the Royal houses of Greece and Denmark.
My family were staunch Greek Royalists and I have a battered picture of my Great Grandfather (artist) with a young Prince Constantine I (c. 1890s) in the palace they are decorating. King Constantine was Philip's Uncle. My Great Grandfather broke tradition and named my Grandfather, Constantine after his patron.
Interestingly, my Grand Mother's family fled Smyrna in 1922 as a result of King Constantine's failed attack on Kemal's Ankara.
Not sure if the families spoke of these matters one they were in America.
If I ran a satire site and had mad meme skills, I'd make a political cartoon of the Supreme Court issuing it's press release on the Blue Ribbon bi-partisan colloquium it is holding on the judicial theories behind the Unitary Executive.
In intellectual history Canons are generally considered works which grapple (consciously or not) the previous work upon which they build. There's an endless debate whether there's a Meta-Canon of 'Being' where all Canons are really just a single Canon addressing timeless questions. I fall in the camp that says the Meta-Discussion is fruitless, because even if true, the Distinct Canons are themselves rational inquiries that cannot be discussed or defeated without reference to their internal Canons.
So, there are always overlapping Canons depending upon the tradition of inquiry whence they come. Sometimes the Canons overlap, sometimes they don't. It absolutely makes sense to identify a Canon in which your laws/ethics are building upon... lest you start having incommensurate Canon discussions... which, as you know, is the MacIntyre thesis writ large.
It's the fact that we can no longer identify the Canon which underpins our "Comparative Canoning" that is the problem. We all have a Canon... most of us are ignorant of it's origin and boundaries... hence fruitless 'aesthetic' canon wars.
But Canons? You can't do Philosophy without Canons and, I'd argue, you can't really do law either ... until you settle the Canon via war, divorce or separation.
Not J&J related, but my Daughter Fainted after her first Pfizer Shot.
Shew was convinced she had a 'reaction' - she's a bit of a hypochondriac, though - and not the first time she's fainted... but she was convinced.
Anyhow... time for her second shot and she started to get cold-feet reading the warnings on the websites about reactions... etc. I took her to the site, but they wouldn't let me go with her. Bad tactical move on their part. After going in circles a few times, they finally asked "Do *you* think you should get the second shot?" to which she relpied... "I'm relying on you to advise me" Checkmate, bet you wish her Therapy Father was there now, don't you.
While they were stewing on this impasse: she fainted.
So at least we got clarity on the whole reaction vs. nerves thing... after which they promptly jabbed her.
She stayed in bed the entire next day... but mostly on the phone telling people about her 'ordeal' and how bad she felt.
Having had to fill out multiple forms with invasive PII disclosures (in triplicate, in the olden days) I have no problems documenting firearm purchases.
I'm not particularly sanguine about the 'magic' that people think Background Checks will do other than thwart someone with a big obvious prohibition... usually a felony. Other than that... mostly wishful thinking owing to the fragmentation of data across multiple states/authorities/medical professionals, etc.
You could, perhaps, campaign on a massive National ID project ... hey, we could use it for Voting, and Vaccinations, and Citizenship, and Jobs, and Health Care too! But your mileage may vary on the enthusiasm of various constituencies. But that would be a consistent way to track who's eligible to own a firearm (and vote, and get a job, and travel, and etc. etc.) Funnily, despite the obvious dangers, I think modern states could make a case for this... but we'd have to make it (and build it) with eyes-wide-open vis-a-vis civil liberties and privacy (and Government desire to control actions... for the children, of course). So I'm potentially 'gettable' but realistically skeptical that anyone want this - except for the things they'd like to control/restirct.
So, the next obvious thing is to ignore the person and track the S/N... like a VIN. You *never* give away a VIN without telling the State that, hey, *I* don't have that VIN, this other guy, Ted, has the VIN... deal with him if there are any problems.
Of course, gun owners are familiar with the old joke that all his guns were lost in a boating accident... fair enough, we don't typically lose the things attached to our VIN#. But even then, there are a number of baby steps we could take in a solid Gun S/N registry... like warranty, specs/manuals, ease of use for transferring, and a serious fine that if you are ever found in possession of a gun that fell into a lake, be it yours or a real gun you found in a lake, then that's a big $$$ ticket... so don't carry/keep guns that aren't 'active' in the registry. Transferring ownership would be as simple as transferring a VIN... I don't have it, this guy over here has it. Which, is mostly how Gun show sales work anyway... but without the back-ground check that doesn't really work without the National ID. But, treating the S/N as something you the owner are responsible for... that's perhaps the only first step that's politically possible.
There are, I think limited steps we can take to manage the physical control of firearms that don't threaten/act like 'Voter Suppression' techniques... but that's the level of trust we have to build around to make these things work.
Plus I love the external hammer... all my firearms have external hammers... I assume there's safety plus half-cock? Have you seen the mechanics up close? Doesn't matter... box mag probably trumps.
On “President Biden Sets Date For Afghanistan Exit, For Real This Time, Supposedly”
Yes on the Bush campaign rhetoric, but no... the Neo-cons had a deathgrip on the foreign policy apparatus in the Republican Party since Bush I left office. They had a very strong presence during Reagan (and Bush I), but there were some dissenting players with juice. Not so much by 2000.
"
I realize after I hit post that it was much too long and rambling for a comment and much too short and ill-prepared for a post... so any failure to articulate what I was going after is my fault.
However, even though I post pseudonymously I really do have advanced degrees in Foreign Relations and in History... so my interest in this is, as I state, academic and not partisan. I think your comment suffers more for it than mine.
I fully acknowledge, and it's in the post clearly (I thought) that the Bush Doctrine is indistinguishable from a Cheney/Neo-Con doctrine right quick. There is, however an analysis gap between Afghanistan and Iraq - which you are quick to skip because you want to get to the Iraq blunder while I'm contemplating the fleeting moment when we entered Afghanistan as we exit Afghanistan (TBD) -- a moment where the Internationalist/Police model was being sundered and hadn't yet been replaced. You specifically state I'm justifying sentiments in 2003... but the period I'm talking about is 2001/2002 based on the original Ultimatum to Afghanistan (from wikipedia for reference) and prior to the first official formulation of the Bush Doctrine in Sept 2002 which set the stage for the Iraq invasion in 2003:
---
On 20 September 2001, the U.S. stated that Osama bin Laden was behind the 11 September attacks in 2001. The US made a five-point ultimatum to the Taliban:[41]
*Deliver to the U.S. all of the leaders of al-Qaeda
*Release all imprisoned foreign nationals
*Close immediately every terrorist training camp
*Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities
*Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection
On 21 September 2001, the Taliban rejected this ultimatum, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.
---
There were boots on the ground and airstrikes in October 2001. Unanimous UN Security council Resolutions in Nov 2001 (#1378) and a UN/Nato Security presence (#1386) by Dec 2001.
The Bush Doctrine as we know it is what you say... it's what *I* say: "the more aggressive doctrine of Pre-Emption and Regime Change tied to Strategic Global interests." My point, perhaps not communicated well in a comment, or perhaps not well apprehended by you with your partisan dander up... is that the movement from one dominant framework to the next was not foreordained and was shaped on the fly. Ultimately the opportunity was maximalized by the Neo-Con faction into their image. They won.
I do guarantee, however, that dissertations will be written about that move... it's interesting... it's interesting to see how Bush is (mis-)remembering it, because he's remembering it more like Afghanistan than Iraq.
I honestly can't say whether the Ultimatum and whatever was happening between 2001 and 2003 would have been better than what we got because we never stopped and assessed... and whatever started in 2001 became 2003 and Iraq... which in turn became the new and enduring Afghanistan policy...which is what we're laboring under after various iterations 20-yrs later.
So you and I both agree (and have agreed here in the past) that what has been the dominant framework since 2003 is a bad framework...
Next up, we can wonder what would have happened if we hadn't ridden a boozy Yeltsin to Nato Expansion and Oligarchic Orgies.
On “Stacey Abrams’s Big Lie Has Real Consequences”
It would make it harder, sure. :-)
But my starting point would be lowest populated State as the baseline... so ~500k for Wyoming is the district sizing metric.
Approx 650 congressional districts plus 100 Sentate... so 750 (or 753 if we deal with DC as now).
377 to win is the new Presidential slogan.
On “President Biden Sets Date For Afghanistan Exit, For Real This Time, Supposedly”
There's a future PhD to earn his wings on the (swift) evolution of the Bush Doctrine under the influence of Cheney and the NeoCons. I remember the original formulation (being once a student of these things) and it was a pretty radical departure from the Clintonian Terrorists and Criminals structure. In Bush's own memoires, he articulates it thus:
"Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them — and hold both to account."
To be sure, this is a significant departure (and much debatable, if desired), but in itself might have provided a good framework to pressure some states with financial, economic, and ultimately military sanctions lest they themselves participated in the suppression of the organizations waging asymmetcial war from within their borders. Doubtless the reaction of the state itself would drive responses... it isn't simply carte blanche for pre-emptive war/invasion.
It hinges too on the challenges/restraint of identifying the right organizations (and the proliferation post-9/11 suggests we were going to fail in this area) and the targeted deterrence of costly military or economic actions directed at the state until it agreed that the sub-group was not worth the cost.
Afghanistan could have been a test-case and possible triumph of demonstrating the dangers of hiding groups that it could not control and/or quickly disabusing the legal fiction that a state could hide behind a pretense of criminal proceedings against individuals as per the prevailing international opinion at the time.
Not without legitimate criticisms and concerns... but, possibly a framework to navigate out of the 'Criminal Mastermind / State Plausible Deniability' framework that international law was operating under. And to be sure, opening up new risks of operating under the dangers posed by 'collective guilt' and 'lack of proportionality' in any potential response.
However, it would have had baked into it a minimal requirement for self-defence in that absent an actual action, it wasn't simple Pre-emptive justification for anything based on prefabricated nonsense. In theory. If, say, the Powel/Rice faction had prevailed and adapted.
The Powel/Rice faction did not prevail (I'm not sure if they adapted... that would be the role of the PhD candidate to suss out once all the documents are available)... and we know that the initial 'doctrine' became the much more aggressive doctrine of Pre-Emption and Regime Change tied to Strategic Global interests -- which (pre-)determined the targets rather than responding to actual threats or actual provocations.
Afghanistan, therefore, is not the test-case of the original Bush Doctrine, but of the Bush Doctrine his administration evolved into. And we can judge it to have failed in all of it's stated objectives.
The way forward shouldn't be the Neo-Con Bush Doctrine, I'm not sure its a return to the (mere) criminalization of terrorism, I doubt we've the stomach for true imperialism, but sometimes I wonder if a restrained realism that co-opted or opted-in certain states might not be a better starting point.
So now we exit, having 'won' in the short term by inflicting substantial costs on the Taliban for prevaricating and harboring bin Laden, but having 'lost' for failing in regime change and providing a foil against which the Taliban could rebuild. Does a destabilized Taliban rebuild? Perhaps. Does it seek revenge knowing that plausible deniability is no shield? I suspect not. Is it in a position to execute any frontal retribution? No. Power has its own rewards... and destroying those rewards and forcing a rebuild carries its own rhetorical power. Just ask Gaddafi.
On “Stacey Abrams’s Big Lie Has Real Consequences”
Sure, I could be persuaded to support proportional at the state level... especially with appropriate openings for lower threshold third parties.
A possible downside I'd consider real would be disassociating representatives from any particular constituency (other than state)... possibly a hybrid geography plus at large (for smoothing and 3rd parties -- for states with enough districts) might assuage my concerns.
But my point remains that 'bespoke' gerrymandering by commission is still gerrymandering (who picks the pickers?)... it's the rules, the algorithm, that needs general agreement. Which is why I keep linking to 538 because it visually illustrates that the order of our preference for the rules will determine the outcome.
On “The Caron Nazario Video: Watch It For Yourself”
decentralized fascism.
On “Stacey Abrams’s Big Lie Has Real Consequences”
Cards on the table, I'm in favor of redistricting changes... preferably starting with the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929... but ultimately we have to build consensus around one particular algorithmic standard that is applied consistently... not the "its not gerrymandering if we have a select committee gerrymander one way in this state, but another way in that state."
"
What does that even mean? Honest question.
What's the best way to build districts? Here's the 538 Tool from 2018.
The fact that the 538 tool hasn't been updated since 2018 seems to me to be a signal that coming up with an agreed upon framework for *not* gerrymandering is probably not a very high concern for 538 policy influencers.
I kinda like Highly competitive... but we all know that's a dead-letter since the last thing congress wants is competition.
My second favorite would be Compact (I could go either with or without counties, but would start with counties)
Pretty much ends majority minority districts... unless that's your specific pick. Then, well, we're making a particular case in *favor* of gerrymandering.
On “CDC and FDA Against Johnson & Johnson Vaccine”
Mostly social, I'd expect. Plus, signaling the end of political cover for Covid-Hawks.
"
Sure, but I think that's more of a discussion around what to do when most, if not all, adults are vaccinated. Another area where the CDC/FDA seem to be failing the 'psychology' test.
My guess is that the Biden-Harris administration has already signaled that it will curb-stomp the CDC come July 4 no matter where we are on vaccinations... or put another way, with approx 50% of the 18+ adult population already receiving 1-dose we're already at the point where Biden will declare victory on July 4. The interesting question is where the final 18+ number lands... and whether it gets extended to 16+ or 12+.
My political bet is that Biden ignores the Covid-Hawks starting July 4.
"
If I'm following you correctly, it seems we are nearing a point at which the risk of 'overwhelming' the health system is or nearly is past. That's a thing, but not the only thing.
My point (below) is that the FDA and CDC have publicly stated that they are attempting to navigate the 'psychology' of vaccinations, and honestly, they aren't really that good at it... and that aspect of Public Health leadership is political not strictly bureaucratic in nature.
The fact that you are using the term 'questionable vaccine' based on this data is sort of the point. Unless we want to start using the term 'questionable birth control' too. Or questionable every drug on TV that quite literally posts all of the nasty and potentially fatal side-effects on the screen.
"
Our post-Liberal, post-Christian, post-Science future beckons. Once you get a taste for killing gods, there's no real stopping.
"
Public health is not worth running afoul of fraught topics.
"
Honestly seems like a situation where you update the 'monitoring' status with a note that (ultra-)rare Blood Clotting events have happened... and continue with the vaccinations.
Abundance of caution would be to steer (younger) women towards mRNA, if concerned about risk.
The weird confluence of CDC/FDA admitted attempts to manage public 'psychology' is precisely the area where political leaders should step in and override their 'guesses' which have proven mostly wrong.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Champing at the Bit”
heh... yeah she came to just fine and realized the fainting is just something she does... so she got the jab. They kept her an extra 15 minutes for observations.
Now, If I'd have been allowed there I might (or might not) have shouted... "quick, now's your chance" We'll never know.
On “Prince Philip Dead at 99”
Well, when you think about it after WWI what's a poor Prince to do? The eligible pool had shrunk so much he had to settle for the English.
"
We forget (I know I certainly do) that Prince Philippos had some significant Royal 'chops' belonging to both the Royal houses of Greece and Denmark.
My family were staunch Greek Royalists and I have a battered picture of my Great Grandfather (artist) with a young Prince Constantine I (c. 1890s) in the palace they are decorating. King Constantine was Philip's Uncle. My Great Grandfather broke tradition and named my Grandfather, Constantine after his patron.
Interestingly, my Grand Mother's family fled Smyrna in 1922 as a result of King Constantine's failed attack on Kemal's Ankara.
Not sure if the families spoke of these matters one they were in America.
On “Presidential Commission on SCOTUS: Read It For Yourself”
If I ran a satire site and had mad meme skills, I'd make a political cartoon of the Supreme Court issuing it's press release on the Blue Ribbon bi-partisan colloquium it is holding on the judicial theories behind the Unitary Executive.
On “Explode the Canon: How to Fight a Better Canon War”
In intellectual history Canons are generally considered works which grapple (consciously or not) the previous work upon which they build. There's an endless debate whether there's a Meta-Canon of 'Being' where all Canons are really just a single Canon addressing timeless questions. I fall in the camp that says the Meta-Discussion is fruitless, because even if true, the Distinct Canons are themselves rational inquiries that cannot be discussed or defeated without reference to their internal Canons.
So, there are always overlapping Canons depending upon the tradition of inquiry whence they come. Sometimes the Canons overlap, sometimes they don't. It absolutely makes sense to identify a Canon in which your laws/ethics are building upon... lest you start having incommensurate Canon discussions... which, as you know, is the MacIntyre thesis writ large.
It's the fact that we can no longer identify the Canon which underpins our "Comparative Canoning" that is the problem. We all have a Canon... most of us are ignorant of it's origin and boundaries... hence fruitless 'aesthetic' canon wars.
But Canons? You can't do Philosophy without Canons and, I'd argue, you can't really do law either ... until you settle the Canon via war, divorce or separation.
[Ha!]
On “Weekend Plans Post: Champing at the Bit”
Not J&J related, but my Daughter Fainted after her first Pfizer Shot.
Shew was convinced she had a 'reaction' - she's a bit of a hypochondriac, though - and not the first time she's fainted... but she was convinced.
Anyhow... time for her second shot and she started to get cold-feet reading the warnings on the websites about reactions... etc. I took her to the site, but they wouldn't let me go with her. Bad tactical move on their part. After going in circles a few times, they finally asked "Do *you* think you should get the second shot?" to which she relpied... "I'm relying on you to advise me" Checkmate, bet you wish her Therapy Father was there now, don't you.
While they were stewing on this impasse: she fainted.
So at least we got clarity on the whole reaction vs. nerves thing... after which they promptly jabbed her.
She stayed in bed the entire next day... but mostly on the phone telling people about her 'ordeal' and how bad she felt.
...and she's GenZ, not Milennial :-)
On “President Biden Executive Actions On Gun Control: Read It For Yourself”
Having had to fill out multiple forms with invasive PII disclosures (in triplicate, in the olden days) I have no problems documenting firearm purchases.
I'm not particularly sanguine about the 'magic' that people think Background Checks will do other than thwart someone with a big obvious prohibition... usually a felony. Other than that... mostly wishful thinking owing to the fragmentation of data across multiple states/authorities/medical professionals, etc.
You could, perhaps, campaign on a massive National ID project ... hey, we could use it for Voting, and Vaccinations, and Citizenship, and Jobs, and Health Care too! But your mileage may vary on the enthusiasm of various constituencies. But that would be a consistent way to track who's eligible to own a firearm (and vote, and get a job, and travel, and etc. etc.) Funnily, despite the obvious dangers, I think modern states could make a case for this... but we'd have to make it (and build it) with eyes-wide-open vis-a-vis civil liberties and privacy (and Government desire to control actions... for the children, of course). So I'm potentially 'gettable' but realistically skeptical that anyone want this - except for the things they'd like to control/restirct.
So, the next obvious thing is to ignore the person and track the S/N... like a VIN. You *never* give away a VIN without telling the State that, hey, *I* don't have that VIN, this other guy, Ted, has the VIN... deal with him if there are any problems.
Of course, gun owners are familiar with the old joke that all his guns were lost in a boating accident... fair enough, we don't typically lose the things attached to our VIN#. But even then, there are a number of baby steps we could take in a solid Gun S/N registry... like warranty, specs/manuals, ease of use for transferring, and a serious fine that if you are ever found in possession of a gun that fell into a lake, be it yours or a real gun you found in a lake, then that's a big $$$ ticket... so don't carry/keep guns that aren't 'active' in the registry. Transferring ownership would be as simple as transferring a VIN... I don't have it, this guy over here has it. Which, is mostly how Gun show sales work anyway... but without the back-ground check that doesn't really work without the National ID. But, treating the S/N as something you the owner are responsible for... that's perhaps the only first step that's politically possible.
There are, I think limited steps we can take to manage the physical control of firearms that don't threaten/act like 'Voter Suppression' techniques... but that's the level of trust we have to build around to make these things work.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Relearning What My Grandparents Knew About Oatmeal, Of All Things”
Amazing how many things bump up a notch with some fermenting. Not sure we've tried it with oatmeal, but I'm primed to believe you.
On “Yes, Prime Minister: If The Right People Don’t Have Power”
Durham and LSE I suppose...
"
"Months of fruitful work."
On “Go Ahead and Take It”
Plus I love the external hammer... all my firearms have external hammers... I assume there's safety plus half-cock? Have you seen the mechanics up close? Doesn't matter... box mag probably trumps.