I suppose it is the first step of thinking the smoking playbook will work.
Ultimately it's a cultural issue... I'd start with Hollywood making guns/violence un-cool first. Like they did with Smoking (while smoking behind the scenes because smoking is cool *and* sexy).
I understand Mitch's calculus that the Republican Party is more or less stuck with Trump in so far as he carries a constituency with him. In this sense Realignment and/or Third Parties just means that Republicans lose and Democrats win.
But what's less clear to me is how the Republican Brand survives the harrowing over time. At some point the Republican Party isn't Trump plus Republicans... it's just Trump, and re-alignment happens anyway.
I mean, the 2016 idea that Trump would work on the party and the party would work on Trump is pretty well sizzled. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz fronting Trump during Impeachment? Might as well be board-members of Gamestop planning their next quarter.
I clicked the link (as I do) thinking there was more to the statement than the OP... mildly surprised that the statement is the entirety. I suspect this will become more of a feature of future Presidents... aspirational guidance. And, that might actually be better fwiw.
But, to the aspirations themselves:
1. including requiring background checks on all gun sales
2. banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
3. eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.
1&2 we've hashed, re-hashed, fried and re-fried...
3? Big if true... but I have no idea what it means. Every gun is potentially a weapon of war. I suppose if that's the intent... stripping 'immunity' won't necessarily make them liable under ordinary jurisprudence. I mean, each gun I've bought has a manual with all the same warnings that my farm equipment has - with the same sort of warning stickmen pictures.
I could see a red wave in 2022... Trump's not on the ticket... sophomore slump kinda thing.
We're still waiting for the 'defining thing' of the Biden Presidency... so far it's promise to do slightly less than our current projections. But if we hit our current projections with Vaccines he gets that win anyhow...
So, other than running downhill on Covid... what's the Biden Presidency going to focus on for their one win before 2022? Covid relief package won't get him re-elected in 2022 on its own.
The Labor Laws and subsidiary bargaining laws are substantially different than the US. The default position isn't a 'Right-to-Work' status, but something closer to a global collective agreement that individual Unions and Companies further negotiate. This was updated in 2017 (IIRC), but still very far from the US starting point for labor.
Honestly on the fence on this one... not sure Trump really knew what to do with Power... I'm sure he liked being "The Man" but as you note, 30% of Presidential level funding is Yuge. Being "The Man" in Mara Lago with a constantly replenished Slush Fund might be even better.
I expect him to both run and not-run for president... having the Party come to him for approval and funding is win/win for Trump whether or not the candidates actually ever win.
Somewhat cynically I'd say his likelihood of running comes down to tax rates.
What's odd to me are the various Republicans who desperately think they will be able to harness a post-Presidential Trump with a PAC. In so far as Trump owns the Republican brand, those Republicans are screwed.
While they entered Beutler's testimony into the records... I can't quite fathom the leverage R's had that ended it at that. I'll admit that today was the first time I'd heard her story... I think it's not widely known and it's the sort of thing that potentially moves the needle.
Add in some rioters turning on Trump and exposing the big lie? I think you see public opinion... which among R's was already trending against Trump as leader of the party... possibly shift enough for other R's to make a move.
I didn't know they had Beutler who would go public about the call and Trump's dereliction... pointing the finger squarely at McCarthy. I admit that I thought 'witnesses' were just going to be more Congressmen and staffers testifying how afraid they were - making the impeachment about them - and therefore rhetorically useless. But Beutler? That's a thread you pull on.
I have no idea why Schumer doesn't play that hand.
Are they bringing in any of the Rioters who have been charged and who are now saying they feel 'betrayed' and 'lied to' by Trump?
Not that I expect the needle to move much among Republican Senators who haven't committed to impeachment... but if the needle is gonna move it's gonna move by Trump supporters talking about the betrayal to other Trump supporters.
Again, not that it will create a massive change... but if there's any chance of giving the R's a pathway, its through Trumpville not around it.
Makes sense... but if it's like the AP exams my kids were taking, you wouldn't be able to have two log-in's and the way the app (poorly) was built you couldn't create separate windows. So possible you'd be stuck in the app scrolling up/down for security/integrity reasons.
{As an aside, the first covid AP exam my daughter took you had to actually cut/paste your answers into the application before the timer ran out... she did not beat the timer}
L1: I hold the Universal opinion of One that Hymns should be sung, loudly, often, and everywhere... except Church.
So, I'm desperately hoping that the Supreme court coalesces around a unanimous Roberts jurisprudence... and that it becomes a constitutional amendment.
Sorry (ex-)Choir Director... it's the law.
On all the other stuff... y'all are still wrong... as wrong as you were 12-months ago, 9-months ago, 6-months ago, 3-months ago and, according to my notes, 4-days ago.
L3: is interesting in the possible Physical limitations of taking an exam like the bar... according to the article, scrolling rather than having the full physical text in front of you may have reduced the effectiveness of online test takers...
I could see that... the physical text offers opportunity for notes/markings as well as a sort of mental map of where that interesting thing that's relevant now was located. I know I always go back to the physical book if I'm working through something larger than, say, a comment.
Or that's what the article implies anyhow... I'm not actually familiar with how the Bar exam works.
On the one hand I take your (and his) point... I'm not suggesting he's playing up some sort of "Fox-Watching-Red-State-Evangelical" grievance angle... more that the deconstruction of a false religion would benefit from religious wisdom. But on the other hand, that's not his angle.
Sure... I'm on the sidelines thinking he's getting his catholic/protestant religious metaphors mixed, and in order to succeed, he's kinda burning a potential ally in Christians by making his victory condition the recognition of the absurdity of Religious thinking... so, well... good luck storming the castle.
But, I will note that certain things... like w-r-d-s we can't say, write, or think are definitely a weird modern Blasphemy taboo. Blasphemy without sacredness. A twisted Blasphemy.
I'll read it... but as he says, it's not for me. My interest is in what the people it's for think of it... is there a prediction market for that set-up? I have some wagers I'd like to place.
I think it is interesting to me that the OP is more of a process/phenomenon post that specifically avoids content... and we have a natural tendency to try to skew it back to content. We can all say (even conservatives) in a particularly platitudinous way that culture and norms change... maybe we disagree on some norms maybe not on others. But...
I don't think the issue is content, the issue is process.
I'm not much of an enlightenmentarian, but burning the enlightenment process(es) to arrive at (post-)enlightenment ends? That's what this is really about. I don't think it ends well and we're no where near the end.
Everyone is the priority group eventually... the only folks who would stand in line (more than ordinary) would be people not in the priority group at that time hoping for an earlier access.
If we're concerned about SES, then add an SES score so poorer workers have a higher queue # than richer ones. Billionaire guys in their 40s would be #6 ... the math could make it so that Elon Musk is the last person in the US to be vaccinated. Everyone before him would be eligible for a shot... unless, of course, no one showed up to the distribution center and his was the only arm available. :-)
Certainly wouldn't preclude appointments or other forms of queue management...
Large open spaces... like the temporary facilities built in China (and NYC) in a matter of days.
But sure, could also blend it with a weekly lottery system for folks after group, say, group 2. Just to make sure there isn't a chaotic rush.
But part of the idea is to stop registering for 500 doses (now that the initial phase of Drs. and Nursing home immobiles have been vaccinated. Put the doses where the arms are and vice versa. Keep it simple, keep it moving.
The alternate that we're moving to seems to be wide-distribution via commercial entities - which is fine... it brings some efficiencies and adds some new in-efficiencies and ultimately will be *less* priority based than other systems.
I'm fine with that too... but sacrificing priorities (in practice, but not in hypothetical policy) just means people like me get vaccinated sooner... as long as we're all good with that.
Kinda think we should do a line-jumping scheme. Think of boarding zones where you're given a number 1-5 ... the 1's all queue and get vaccinated while 2's watch... once 1's are done, 2's get vaccinated... if a 1 shows up... they get vaccinated next... then back to 2's and so on. 5's? Yeah, not likely you'll get vaccinated unless there's no one there.. in which case, bully for you, bully for all of us... we win. This way there's always an arm for a dose and any priorities we want to prioritize are prioritized. Eventually lots of 3's, some 4's and a bunch of 5's will get in... 1's can always cut to the front if they have a change of heart.
Write the most convoluted stupid point system you want to determine who's a 1 and who's a 1a, who's a 2b, and who's a 5... I don't care (that much)... just get out of the way and get shots in arms.
I recognize I'm in Zone 5... I just want us to get to the "how come that underserving jerk is vaccinated and I'm not?" as soon as possible.
... and yeah, fix the messaging around vaccinations and masks.
Sure, but in the instance above, there's no possible defense since it would be defending against an event that hadn't happened and couldn't be foreseen -- except in a 'frivolous' hindsight lawsuit -- hence why QI would be appropriate because if we require police not to use excessive force subduing arrest candidates... then some greater number will not be arrested.
As you note, I think there's a possible play along the lines of Miranda (which is what I think JB is getting at).
You have the right to remain silent.
But
Anything you say can and will be used against you...
You have the right to a peaceable arrest
But
Anything you do to resist a peaceable arrest can and will...
That's only slightly tongue in cheek as many of the problems start with people disinclined to a peaceable arrest.
That said, I do think there's still a legitimate play to both codify in law and culture that the constitutional principle is that arrests must fundamentally be peaceable... I think we'll have to live with a greater number of failed arrests from people disinclined but also not posing a direct threat to public safety... and that might be a good thing too. Until the police are then accused of not using more force to remove *obviously* bad actor who subsequently does X.. but then that's what QI is for, I suppose.
Basically we have the policing we want and incentify... change the incentives if you can live with the policing we'll get.
On “President Biden Calls for “Commonsense Gun Law Reforms”: Read It For Yourself”
I suppose it is the first step of thinking the smoking playbook will work.
Ultimately it's a cultural issue... I'd start with Hollywood making guns/violence un-cool first. Like they did with Smoking (while smoking behind the scenes because smoking is cool *and* sexy).
On “One, Twice, Three Times A Maybe: A History of Presidential Losers and Potential Trump Run”
I understand Mitch's calculus that the Republican Party is more or less stuck with Trump in so far as he carries a constituency with him. In this sense Realignment and/or Third Parties just means that Republicans lose and Democrats win.
But what's less clear to me is how the Republican Brand survives the harrowing over time. At some point the Republican Party isn't Trump plus Republicans... it's just Trump, and re-alignment happens anyway.
I mean, the 2016 idea that Trump would work on the party and the party would work on Trump is pretty well sizzled. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz fronting Trump during Impeachment? Might as well be board-members of Gamestop planning their next quarter.
On “President Biden Calls for “Commonsense Gun Law Reforms”: Read It For Yourself”
I clicked the link (as I do) thinking there was more to the statement than the OP... mildly surprised that the statement is the entirety. I suspect this will become more of a feature of future Presidents... aspirational guidance. And, that might actually be better fwiw.
But, to the aspirations themselves:
1. including requiring background checks on all gun sales
2. banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
3. eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.
1&2 we've hashed, re-hashed, fried and re-fried...
3? Big if true... but I have no idea what it means. Every gun is potentially a weapon of war. I suppose if that's the intent... stripping 'immunity' won't necessarily make them liable under ordinary jurisprudence. I mean, each gun I've bought has a manual with all the same warnings that my farm equipment has - with the same sort of warning stickmen pictures.
We're leaving common sense behind at this point.
On “One, Twice, Three Times A Maybe: A History of Presidential Losers and Potential Trump Run”
I could see a red wave in 2022... Trump's not on the ticket... sophomore slump kinda thing.
We're still waiting for the 'defining thing' of the Biden Presidency... so far it's promise to do slightly less than our current projections. But if we hit our current projections with Vaccines he gets that win anyhow...
So, other than running downhill on Covid... what's the Biden Presidency going to focus on for their one win before 2022? Covid relief package won't get him re-elected in 2022 on its own.
On “Why Doesn’t the US Get to Have High Speed Rail?”
The Labor Laws and subsidiary bargaining laws are substantially different than the US. The default position isn't a 'Right-to-Work' status, but something closer to a global collective agreement that individual Unions and Companies further negotiate. This was updated in 2017 (IIRC), but still very far from the US starting point for labor.
On “One, Twice, Three Times A Maybe: A History of Presidential Losers and Potential Trump Run”
Honestly on the fence on this one... not sure Trump really knew what to do with Power... I'm sure he liked being "The Man" but as you note, 30% of Presidential level funding is Yuge. Being "The Man" in Mara Lago with a constantly replenished Slush Fund might be even better.
I expect him to both run and not-run for president... having the Party come to him for approval and funding is win/win for Trump whether or not the candidates actually ever win.
Somewhat cynically I'd say his likelihood of running comes down to tax rates.
"
I think this is likely the case.
What's odd to me are the various Republicans who desperately think they will be able to harness a post-Presidential Trump with a PAC. In so far as Trump owns the Republican brand, those Republicans are screwed.
On “Impeachment Trial Day 5: And Then Things Got Interesting, Live Stream, Open Thread”
Well that was all very baffling.
While they entered Beutler's testimony into the records... I can't quite fathom the leverage R's had that ended it at that. I'll admit that today was the first time I'd heard her story... I think it's not widely known and it's the sort of thing that potentially moves the needle.
Add in some rioters turning on Trump and exposing the big lie? I think you see public opinion... which among R's was already trending against Trump as leader of the party... possibly shift enough for other R's to make a move.
I didn't know they had Beutler who would go public about the call and Trump's dereliction... pointing the finger squarely at McCarthy. I admit that I thought 'witnesses' were just going to be more Congressmen and staffers testifying how afraid they were - making the impeachment about them - and therefore rhetorically useless. But Beutler? That's a thread you pull on.
I have no idea why Schumer doesn't play that hand.
On “Trump Impeachment Trial Day 2: Live Steam, Day 1 Highlights, Open Thread”
Are they bringing in any of the Rioters who have been charged and who are now saying they feel 'betrayed' and 'lied to' by Trump?
Not that I expect the needle to move much among Republican Senators who haven't committed to impeachment... but if the needle is gonna move it's gonna move by Trump supporters talking about the betrayal to other Trump supporters.
Again, not that it will create a massive change... but if there's any chance of giving the R's a pathway, its through Trumpville not around it.
On “Wednesday Writs: South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Gavin Newsom”
Makes sense... but if it's like the AP exams my kids were taking, you wouldn't be able to have two log-in's and the way the app (poorly) was built you couldn't create separate windows. So possible you'd be stuck in the app scrolling up/down for security/integrity reasons.
{As an aside, the first covid AP exam my daughter took you had to actually cut/paste your answers into the application before the timer ran out... she did not beat the timer}
"
L1: I hold the Universal opinion of One that Hymns should be sung, loudly, often, and everywhere... except Church.
So, I'm desperately hoping that the Supreme court coalesces around a unanimous Roberts jurisprudence... and that it becomes a constitutional amendment.
Sorry (ex-)Choir Director... it's the law.
On all the other stuff... y'all are still wrong... as wrong as you were 12-months ago, 9-months ago, 6-months ago, 3-months ago and, according to my notes, 4-days ago.
"
L3: is interesting in the possible Physical limitations of taking an exam like the bar... according to the article, scrolling rather than having the full physical text in front of you may have reduced the effectiveness of online test takers...
I could see that... the physical text offers opportunity for notes/markings as well as a sort of mental map of where that interesting thing that's relevant now was located. I know I always go back to the physical book if I'm working through something larger than, say, a comment.
Or that's what the article implies anyhow... I'm not actually familiar with how the Bar exam works.
On “Who’s Afraid of Cancel Culture?”
On the one hand I take your (and his) point... I'm not suggesting he's playing up some sort of "Fox-Watching-Red-State-Evangelical" grievance angle... more that the deconstruction of a false religion would benefit from religious wisdom. But on the other hand, that's not his angle.
"
Sure... I'm on the sidelines thinking he's getting his catholic/protestant religious metaphors mixed, and in order to succeed, he's kinda burning a potential ally in Christians by making his victory condition the recognition of the absurdity of Religious thinking... so, well... good luck storming the castle.
But, I will note that certain things... like w-r-d-s we can't say, write, or think are definitely a weird modern Blasphemy taboo. Blasphemy without sacredness. A twisted Blasphemy.
"
I'll read it... but as he says, it's not for me. My interest is in what the people it's for think of it... is there a prediction market for that set-up? I have some wagers I'd like to place.
"
I think it is interesting to me that the OP is more of a process/phenomenon post that specifically avoids content... and we have a natural tendency to try to skew it back to content. We can all say (even conservatives) in a particularly platitudinous way that culture and norms change... maybe we disagree on some norms maybe not on others. But...
I don't think the issue is content, the issue is process.
I'm not much of an enlightenmentarian, but burning the enlightenment process(es) to arrive at (post-)enlightenment ends? That's what this is really about. I don't think it ends well and we're no where near the end.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Living in a Haunted House”
JB is the only person on the Spam Callers DNC list.
On “Linky Friday: Money For Nothing, and Your Clicks For Free”
Ok, maybe Musk then Mark Zuckerberg. 30-yo billionaires definitely last.
Zuck's the last.
"
Everyone is the priority group eventually... the only folks who would stand in line (more than ordinary) would be people not in the priority group at that time hoping for an earlier access.
If we're concerned about SES, then add an SES score so poorer workers have a higher queue # than richer ones. Billionaire guys in their 40s would be #6 ... the math could make it so that Elon Musk is the last person in the US to be vaccinated. Everyone before him would be eligible for a shot... unless, of course, no one showed up to the distribution center and his was the only arm available. :-)
Certainly wouldn't preclude appointments or other forms of queue management...
"
Large open spaces... like the temporary facilities built in China (and NYC) in a matter of days.
But sure, could also blend it with a weekly lottery system for folks after group, say, group 2. Just to make sure there isn't a chaotic rush.
But part of the idea is to stop registering for 500 doses (now that the initial phase of Drs. and Nursing home immobiles have been vaccinated. Put the doses where the arms are and vice versa. Keep it simple, keep it moving.
The alternate that we're moving to seems to be wide-distribution via commercial entities - which is fine... it brings some efficiencies and adds some new in-efficiencies and ultimately will be *less* priority based than other systems.
I'm fine with that too... but sacrificing priorities (in practice, but not in hypothetical policy) just means people like me get vaccinated sooner... as long as we're all good with that.
"
Kinda think we should do a line-jumping scheme. Think of boarding zones where you're given a number 1-5 ... the 1's all queue and get vaccinated while 2's watch... once 1's are done, 2's get vaccinated... if a 1 shows up... they get vaccinated next... then back to 2's and so on. 5's? Yeah, not likely you'll get vaccinated unless there's no one there.. in which case, bully for you, bully for all of us... we win. This way there's always an arm for a dose and any priorities we want to prioritize are prioritized. Eventually lots of 3's, some 4's and a bunch of 5's will get in... 1's can always cut to the front if they have a change of heart.
Write the most convoluted stupid point system you want to determine who's a 1 and who's a 1a, who's a 2b, and who's a 5... I don't care (that much)... just get out of the way and get shots in arms.
I recognize I'm in Zone 5... I just want us to get to the "how come that underserving jerk is vaccinated and I'm not?" as soon as possible.
... and yeah, fix the messaging around vaccinations and masks.
"
Heh, just giving people what they want not what they ought to want... a kinder, gentler fascism.
"
LF1: Natalist UBI... it's breaking everything.
On “From RawStory: WATCH: Rochester Police Union president defends cop who pepper sprayed handcuffed 9-year-old-girl”
Sure, but in the instance above, there's no possible defense since it would be defending against an event that hadn't happened and couldn't be foreseen -- except in a 'frivolous' hindsight lawsuit -- hence why QI would be appropriate because if we require police not to use excessive force subduing arrest candidates... then some greater number will not be arrested.
"
As you note, I think there's a possible play along the lines of Miranda (which is what I think JB is getting at).
You have the right to remain silent.
But
Anything you say can and will be used against you...
You have the right to a peaceable arrest
But
Anything you do to resist a peaceable arrest can and will...
That's only slightly tongue in cheek as many of the problems start with people disinclined to a peaceable arrest.
That said, I do think there's still a legitimate play to both codify in law and culture that the constitutional principle is that arrests must fundamentally be peaceable... I think we'll have to live with a greater number of failed arrests from people disinclined but also not posing a direct threat to public safety... and that might be a good thing too. Until the police are then accused of not using more force to remove *obviously* bad actor who subsequently does X.. but then that's what QI is for, I suppose.
Basically we have the policing we want and incentify... change the incentives if you can live with the policing we'll get.