Yeah, this. There may be no policy area in which there is less unity amongst folks on the left side of the aisle. Which breeds soupy thought about how to better educational outcomes as a policy matter and soupier thought about how to explain what they're trying to do to a skeptical public. The headline from Oregon Jaybird cites below is an example of reform advocates being unclear.
Speaker Mike Johnson on the prison death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny:
“Vladimir Putin is a vicious dictator and the world knows he is likely directly responsible for the sudden death of his most prominent political opponent, Alexei Navalny. Putin has shown his willingness to use extreme measures, including the use of radioactive material, to attack his enemies and expand his power.
"If confirmed, this action is emblematic of Putin's global pattern of silencing critics and eliminating opponents out of fear and dissent. This is the latest attempt to send a message to those working to confront Moscow's aggression.
"In the coming days, as international leaders are meeting in Munich, we must be clear that Putin will be met with united opposition. As Congress debates the best path forward to support Ukraine, the United States, and our partners, must be using every means available to cut off Putin's ability to fund his unprovoked war in Ukraine and aggression against the Baltic states."
If only Johnson had a ready and politically feasible means at hand to "cut off Putin's ability to fund his unprovoked war in Ukraine and aggression against the Baltic states" and make it "clear that Putin will be met with united opposition." And to get border security, which he held up the last aid package to get and is a big demand of his party! AND to get aid to Israel, another big demand of his party!
Mayorkas impeachment failed.
Israel-alone aid failed.
Comprehensive Israel-Taiwan-Ukraine-Gaza (humanitarian)-Border Security bill failed.
All because Republicans either can't their act together or because they don't actually want the things they demanded (like more money for border security). All they want is political theater and they can't even do that.
Truman did very well running against the "Do-Nothing Congress" in 1948. I wouldn't say Dewey was an afterthought but Truman knew how to take it to the people. Seems to me the GOP is teeing that up for Biden & Co. pretty nicely, despite their best efforts to gin up issues for themselves.
Not quite the same thing, but an interesting read nevertheless. Basically, the argument there is that preparatory academic experience is a good predictor of higher-level academic performance. Implied, standardized tests do a pretty good job of quantifying the quality of that preparatory academic experience.
We got the story of the kid who graduated high in his class at an inner-city L.A. school but struggled at Berkeley. It was a little heartbreaking, but it wasn't what I was looking for. Top-tier student from low-tier high school probably ought to go to CC before going to Flagship U. -- no one here is arguing against a proposition like that.
The question was low-tier student from high-tier college. Graduates, but with mediocre at best grades. What happens to that person? I suspect they wind up doing alright in life. I suspect they wind up using the skills and knowledge they got in college in some way, even if their grades weren't great.
But no, I've not done any sort of research to verify that suspicion, particularly not at a statistical level as opposed to an anecdotal one. I'm just taking it as an article of faith that more education > less education.
Elsewhere Jay suggests that more education + more debt < less education + no (or less) debt. I can't say that's wrong in the abstract, but I couldn't say it's right in the abstract, either. I'd substitute the indeterminacy symbol (which I don't know how to make on my keyboard).
Well, it's not always clear that someone who has a middling to low score on the LSAT is going to not pass the bar; it's less clear that someone with a middling undergraduate GPA is going to either pass or fail it. Nor is bar passage necessarily an indicator of ability to practice law at any particular level of quality. That's because the bar tests a blend of memorization of selected legal rules and a particular mode of thinking. It doesn't test for a comprehensive knowledge of the law and the rules that are tested on the bar are not necessarily the rules that one would use in practice. (The particular mode of thinking, however, is actually pretty on point.)
So there are a substantial number of people who have J.D.'s but didn't pass the bar. I would submit that generally speaking, such a person is better off than someone without the J.D., because the J.D. indicates that the person has studied and understood complex and often arcane principles of law, and those principles have application and utility beyond the courtroom. These people sometimes need to exercise a bit of creativity in applying their knowledge in ways that don't count as practicing law. I know JD/MBAs who have become corporate executives, real estate brokers (not salespeople, but the supervising brokers who can fix problems the salespeople can't), insurance adjusters and examiners, and politicians.
Which isn't to say that these people aren't disappointed when they take the bar and fail. Failing the bar closes off some pretty obvious and potentially lucrative career options. Plus it can look bad when you're competing for these sorts of more elite jobs or trying to attract customers. So I'm not suggesting that failing the bar is a good thing -- but I am suggesting that more education is better than less, and for those who don't pass the bar, it's not like the world is a bleak pit devoid of opportunity.
A similar dynamic, I suspect, applies to an undergraduate degree from Dartmouth, even if you're in the 90th percentile. Low GPA B.A. from Dartmouth > no B.A. from Dartmouth; "some college" at Dartmouth > "some college" at Compass Point State. The quantum of differential may not be so great, but it does exist.
Maybe the question this poses is, is a low GPA B.A. from Dartmouth > high GPA B.A. from Compass Point State? And the answer is presently unclear. (To me; maybe you have a more definitive opinion.)
Okay, but then we get to a much more rigid distinction between "community college," "compass directional state," "geographical area state university," and "University of State."
As it is, someone who graduates in the 50th percentile at University of State could seem kind of fuzzily equal to someone who graduates in the 10th percentile at Compass Directional State University. Those two people can compete for the same post-graduate job. But if we stratify University of State more definitively above Compass Point State then a higher GPA at Compass Point State won't really count for anything, and employers and graduate schools will begin to assemble lists of acceptable degrees and unacceptable degrees. I don't think we want that result, because it will lead to class stratification: getting in to University of State in the first place will matter more than how one gets out of it.
Kind of like what has already happened with the Ivy League. Getting in to Harvard means more than how you get out of it (with exceptions for the very top of the class). I suppose you can say that's good, but I think that's the fundamental problem with the Ivies -- not questioning that the school does teach the things higher ed schools should teach, but unless you're the valedictorian, you're kind of a homogenous "Harvard grad" -- a likely smart person who comes from at least some money -- as opposed to the more graduated spectrum of ability that seems to prevail at University of State (plus an examination of GPA).
(I say it leads to class stratification because to a significant degree, any grade point average at any university reflects not just the academic rigor but the student's aptitude and preparedness to meet whatever level of rigor is there. Lots of students come in to higher education at all levels unprepared for the academic challenge that meets them and acquire those skills on the way. Hopefully the year-by-year GPA is continually increasing, but you're much likelier to start out higher on that curve and therefore get a higher multi-year GPA if you come from resources that can prepare you.)
There might also be a universe where she's dating Aaron Rodgers, and more specifically, dating an Aaron Rodgers who didn't get injured seventy-five seconds into his first game and is right now in that parallel universe leading the Jets to their first Super Bowl since the days of Joe Namath.
Just imagine what sports reporting would look and sound like in that universe.
If we cared about factsthe law is being enforced. Detentions, arrests, and deportations are through the roof since the Biden Administration took over. (See: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics.) But it's not that Mayorkas isn't enforcing the law at all. It's that he isn't being cruel about it by keeping the bulk of the people concerned in the CBP "encounters" detained in prison-like conditions for the months and months it will take for their cases to be processed.
To the extent that there will be a substantive criticism of Mayorkas floated in the upcoming impeachment, it'll be that not enough kids have been separated from their parents with inadequate recordkeeping to reunite them later; not enough of those kids are sleeping on concrete floors with astronaut blankets; not enough strip searches are being done; not enough contacting oppressive governments back home is underway to ostensibly verify identities and lack of other criminal activities but also to tip off those oppressive governments whose families ought be harassed.
IMHO Kari Lake's continued adherence to, and insistence upon, the "Democratic election cheating" myth is a significant plus in her column. She has proven she will parrot whatever lies Trump disseminates to the point of making a fool of herself in court and lose multiple elections based upon it. That's damn strong proof of her loyalty.
What sequence of events would be most humiliating to Haley before she, too, debases herself by kissing Trump's ring, as predicted in the OP?
Haley will not embarrass Trump. She lacks the ability to do that, because she lacks the ability to command a majority of Republican primary voters in any state; she lacks the ability to gain a sufficient number of delegates to broker the convention.
This despite her admittedly sensational resume, a remarkably good manner of delivery, and her status as the Republican's most credible choice of a person who could actually be President. (Particularly given DeSantis' showing as the updated version of Scott Walker.) She just isn't Trump, and the GOP wants Trump.
What would be the timing of the most humiliating possible series of events for Haley to drop out and endorse Trump, clearing his path to re-nomination? Probably the morning after losing her home state to him. So that could be as long as a month from now.
Yes, but it might turn out to really be only a small problem. The 12th Amendment means that if a hypothetical Trump-DeSantis ticket carries Florida, Florida's electors could not cast their electoral votes for DeSantis for Vice-President. But if that GOP ticket gets 300 or more electoral votes, Florida could sit out voting for VP and DeSantis might still get 270 electoral votes for VP and thereafter serve.
A thought: we have a lot of media portrayals of scientists, doctors, and people in related disciplines. They can be portrayed in any number of moral lights and with all manner of personalities, but it seems pretty rare to see them portrayed as both well-intentioned and fallible. (Often it's useful dramatically to have an antagonist make a mistake.) So people don't have a strong model of scientists saying "This is the best we can do right now and it might not turn out to be right later on based on stuff we have no way of knowing just yet. But it's still the best advice we can give based on what we do know." Maybe it's just that this is simply too nuanced a message under any circumstances or any media model, but I believe that how the lay public sees science portrayed in fiction lends itself to particular kinds of mental models that are often not congruent with reality.
When I return home from the memorial service and family visit resulting therefrom, I'll get back to Starfield. The good: the main quest somehow feels engaging, if pretty tightly railed; the two rival nations feel more realistic; the cities feel like actual cities. Also the minigame for lockpicking is better than the Skyrim/Fallout mechanic. The bad: there's a lot of walking around barren planets with little to do. The ugly: Bethesda has never ever figured out how to handle inventory.
I would agree that are in favor of leopards eating most other peoples' faces, but dislike it when the leopard tries to eat their face.
No, I really think that these folks want a king, in practical reality if not necessarily in name. That's one reason why it's important to them that the leader think like they do, why the leader like and dislike the same things they do, and less important that the leader take power and govern through legal channels.
Since power is seen in absolute terms (the king can do anything, it's for the rest of us to obey, and that's the way it should be) that's how they can be confident that the leopard won't eat their faces.
Whenever I see an instance of people who obviously know full well who Donald Trump really is and choosing him nevertheless, I recall 1 Samuel 8.
When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain, and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, 'You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.'
But when they said, 'Give us a king to lead us,' this displeased Samuel. ...[God drops some wisdom on Samuel] ... Samuel said to the people who were asking him for a king, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to play his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your men-servants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and when you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you that day.'
But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' They said. 'We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.'
Some people just plain want a king. You can tell them, "A king will bring war," and they won't care. You can tell them, "A king will leave you less prosperous than before" and they won't care. You can tell them, "A king will make you less free," and they won't care. They want what they want.
How you can look at people like Vladimir Putin or Viktor Orban and say, "Yeah, I want that!" is beyond me, but I'm not someone who wants a king. When someone does want a king, they know who they want to be king, and that's what they want.
About all I can say after Iowa is, maybe they don't want the word "king" to be used, but it's evidently what they want.
This makes me think about the level of detailed citation in my law review article, which was pretty in line with how all law review articles wind up getting published.
Nearly every sentence is footnoted until you get to the section marked "Conclusion." Lots of citations to id or, if you prefer, ibid. (I used to know the fine distinction between those two but no longer care.) That avoids the "here's three sentences that are all drawn from the same source but how do you know where original writing ends and reference to citation begins" issue; every sentence is marked, sentence by sentence, as having come from the same source. It makes the final document a bit difficult to read but that's how you do it if you're as concerned about attribution as, say, a law review editor.
What's amusing is a lot of the cites are to case law, which is not copyrighted. But we want to make damn sure we know when you're reporting on research and when you're attempting actual original thought!
"...[Stone] was constantly planning violence with an NYPD officer and other militia groups,” the source said.
Not to derail too much, but notice how the quote identifies NYPD as one of many militia groups. This is probably unfair to NYPD officers, surely not all of whom are in militias.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/19/2024”
Yeah, this. There may be no policy area in which there is less unity amongst folks on the left side of the aisle. Which breeds soupy thought about how to better educational outcomes as a policy matter and soupier thought about how to explain what they're trying to do to a skeptical public. The headline from Oregon Jaybird cites below is an example of reform advocates being unclear.
On “Stewart Returns to the Airwaves”
I need to watch this soon. Very glad to see he's back; nobody does it better.
On “Republicans Sacrifice Border Security and Ukraine for Russia”
The statement itself? I heard it on the X.
"
Speaker Mike Johnson on the prison death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny:
“Vladimir Putin is a vicious dictator and the world knows he is likely directly responsible for the sudden death of his most prominent political opponent, Alexei Navalny. Putin has shown his willingness to use extreme measures, including the use of radioactive material, to attack his enemies and expand his power.
"If confirmed, this action is emblematic of Putin's global pattern of silencing critics and eliminating opponents out of fear and dissent. This is the latest attempt to send a message to those working to confront Moscow's aggression.
"In the coming days, as international leaders are meeting in Munich, we must be clear that Putin will be met with united opposition. As Congress debates the best path forward to support Ukraine, the United States, and our partners, must be using every means available to cut off Putin's ability to fund his unprovoked war in Ukraine and aggression against the Baltic states."
If only Johnson had a ready and politically feasible means at hand to "cut off Putin's ability to fund his unprovoked war in Ukraine and aggression against the Baltic states" and make it "clear that Putin will be met with united opposition." And to get border security, which he held up the last aid package to get and is a big demand of his party! AND to get aid to Israel, another big demand of his party!
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/5/2024”
Also, RIP Mojo Nixon.
"
Mayorkas impeachment failed.
Israel-alone aid failed.
Comprehensive Israel-Taiwan-Ukraine-Gaza (humanitarian)-Border Security bill failed.
All because Republicans either can't their act together or because they don't actually want the things they demanded (like more money for border security). All they want is political theater and they can't even do that.
Truman did very well running against the "Do-Nothing Congress" in 1948. I wouldn't say Dewey was an afterthought but Truman knew how to take it to the people. Seems to me the GOP is teeing that up for Biden & Co. pretty nicely, despite their best efforts to gin up issues for themselves.
On “Ivy League Bubbles: Dartmouth To Require Standardized Testing, Again”
Not quite the same thing, but an interesting read nevertheless. Basically, the argument there is that preparatory academic experience is a good predictor of higher-level academic performance. Implied, standardized tests do a pretty good job of quantifying the quality of that preparatory academic experience.
We got the story of the kid who graduated high in his class at an inner-city L.A. school but struggled at Berkeley. It was a little heartbreaking, but it wasn't what I was looking for. Top-tier student from low-tier high school probably ought to go to CC before going to Flagship U. -- no one here is arguing against a proposition like that.
The question was low-tier student from high-tier college. Graduates, but with mediocre at best grades. What happens to that person? I suspect they wind up doing alright in life. I suspect they wind up using the skills and knowledge they got in college in some way, even if their grades weren't great.
But no, I've not done any sort of research to verify that suspicion, particularly not at a statistical level as opposed to an anecdotal one. I'm just taking it as an article of faith that more education > less education.
Elsewhere Jay suggests that more education + more debt < less education + no (or less) debt. I can't say that's wrong in the abstract, but I couldn't say it's right in the abstract, either. I'd substitute the indeterminacy symbol (which I don't know how to make on my keyboard).
"
Well, it's not always clear that someone who has a middling to low score on the LSAT is going to not pass the bar; it's less clear that someone with a middling undergraduate GPA is going to either pass or fail it. Nor is bar passage necessarily an indicator of ability to practice law at any particular level of quality. That's because the bar tests a blend of memorization of selected legal rules and a particular mode of thinking. It doesn't test for a comprehensive knowledge of the law and the rules that are tested on the bar are not necessarily the rules that one would use in practice. (The particular mode of thinking, however, is actually pretty on point.)
So there are a substantial number of people who have J.D.'s but didn't pass the bar. I would submit that generally speaking, such a person is better off than someone without the J.D., because the J.D. indicates that the person has studied and understood complex and often arcane principles of law, and those principles have application and utility beyond the courtroom. These people sometimes need to exercise a bit of creativity in applying their knowledge in ways that don't count as practicing law. I know JD/MBAs who have become corporate executives, real estate brokers (not salespeople, but the supervising brokers who can fix problems the salespeople can't), insurance adjusters and examiners, and politicians.
Which isn't to say that these people aren't disappointed when they take the bar and fail. Failing the bar closes off some pretty obvious and potentially lucrative career options. Plus it can look bad when you're competing for these sorts of more elite jobs or trying to attract customers. So I'm not suggesting that failing the bar is a good thing -- but I am suggesting that more education is better than less, and for those who don't pass the bar, it's not like the world is a bleak pit devoid of opportunity.
A similar dynamic, I suspect, applies to an undergraduate degree from Dartmouth, even if you're in the 90th percentile. Low GPA B.A. from Dartmouth > no B.A. from Dartmouth; "some college" at Dartmouth > "some college" at Compass Point State. The quantum of differential may not be so great, but it does exist.
Maybe the question this poses is, is a low GPA B.A. from Dartmouth > high GPA B.A. from Compass Point State? And the answer is presently unclear. (To me; maybe you have a more definitive opinion.)
"
Okay, but then we get to a much more rigid distinction between "community college," "compass directional state," "geographical area state university," and "University of State."
As it is, someone who graduates in the 50th percentile at University of State could seem kind of fuzzily equal to someone who graduates in the 10th percentile at Compass Directional State University. Those two people can compete for the same post-graduate job. But if we stratify University of State more definitively above Compass Point State then a higher GPA at Compass Point State won't really count for anything, and employers and graduate schools will begin to assemble lists of acceptable degrees and unacceptable degrees. I don't think we want that result, because it will lead to class stratification: getting in to University of State in the first place will matter more than how one gets out of it.
Kind of like what has already happened with the Ivy League. Getting in to Harvard means more than how you get out of it (with exceptions for the very top of the class). I suppose you can say that's good, but I think that's the fundamental problem with the Ivies -- not questioning that the school does teach the things higher ed schools should teach, but unless you're the valedictorian, you're kind of a homogenous "Harvard grad" -- a likely smart person who comes from at least some money -- as opposed to the more graduated spectrum of ability that seems to prevail at University of State (plus an examination of GPA).
(I say it leads to class stratification because to a significant degree, any grade point average at any university reflects not just the academic rigor but the student's aptitude and preparedness to meet whatever level of rigor is there. Lots of students come in to higher education at all levels unprepared for the academic challenge that meets them and acquire those skills on the way. Hopefully the year-by-year GPA is continually increasing, but you're much likelier to start out higher on that curve and therefore get a higher multi-year GPA if you come from resources that can prepare you.)
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/29/2024”
There might also be a universe where she's dating Aaron Rodgers, and more specifically, dating an Aaron Rodgers who didn't get injured seventy-five seconds into his first game and is right now in that parallel universe leading the Jets to their first Super Bowl since the days of Joe Namath.
Just imagine what sports reporting would look and sound like in that universe.
On “Two Things About The Impeachment of Gus Mayorkas”
Donald Trump wants to campaign on the myth that the border is out of control and there's some kind of invasion going on (as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott lied about in a recent press release of dubious Constitutionality that literally revives an antebellum political theory), and Biden is either tolerating it or actually happy about it. So that's part of what's going on here too. The GOP doesn't need facts about this, it needs noise.
If we cared about factsthe law is being enforced. Detentions, arrests, and deportations are through the roof since the Biden Administration took over. (See: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics.) But it's not that Mayorkas isn't enforcing the law at all. It's that he isn't being cruel about it by keeping the bulk of the people concerned in the CBP "encounters" detained in prison-like conditions for the months and months it will take for their cases to be processed.
To the extent that there will be a substantive criticism of Mayorkas floated in the upcoming impeachment, it'll be that not enough kids have been separated from their parents with inadequate recordkeeping to reunite them later; not enough of those kids are sleeping on concrete floors with astronaut blankets; not enough strip searches are being done; not enough contacting oppressive governments back home is underway to ostensibly verify identities and lack of other criminal activities but also to tip off those oppressive governments whose families ought be harassed.
On “Who Will Be Trump’s Running Mate?”
IMHO Kari Lake's continued adherence to, and insistence upon, the "Democratic election cheating" myth is a significant plus in her column. She has proven she will parrot whatever lies Trump disseminates to the point of making a fool of herself in court and lose multiple elections based upon it. That's damn strong proof of her loyalty.
On “A Pitiful Display in New Hampshire”
You misunderstand me.
What sequence of events would be most humiliating to Haley before she, too, debases herself by kissing Trump's ring, as predicted in the OP?
Haley will not embarrass Trump. She lacks the ability to do that, because she lacks the ability to command a majority of Republican primary voters in any state; she lacks the ability to gain a sufficient number of delegates to broker the convention.
This despite her admittedly sensational resume, a remarkably good manner of delivery, and her status as the Republican's most credible choice of a person who could actually be President. (Particularly given DeSantis' showing as the updated version of Scott Walker.) She just isn't Trump, and the GOP wants Trump.
"
What would be the timing of the most humiliating possible series of events for Haley to drop out and endorse Trump, clearing his path to re-nomination? Probably the morning after losing her home state to him. So that could be as long as a month from now.
On “DeSantis Drops Out”
Yes, but it might turn out to really be only a small problem. The 12th Amendment means that if a hypothetical Trump-DeSantis ticket carries Florida, Florida's electors could not cast their electoral votes for DeSantis for Vice-President. But if that GOP ticket gets 300 or more electoral votes, Florida could sit out voting for VP and DeSantis might still get 270 electoral votes for VP and thereafter serve.
See also Philip H's response.
On “Fani Willis Allegations, and What To Make Of Them”
This whole situation is amazingly infuriating. Not much else to say about it.
On “About Last Night: Trump Wins Iowa”
Why? I've been using the same one since... forever, I think. Added the Portland flag in the background after I moved here, but other than that...
On “Vaccines Are A Billion Miracles”
A thought: we have a lot of media portrayals of scientists, doctors, and people in related disciplines. They can be portrayed in any number of moral lights and with all manner of personalities, but it seems pretty rare to see them portrayed as both well-intentioned and fallible. (Often it's useful dramatically to have an antagonist make a mistake.) So people don't have a strong model of scientists saying "This is the best we can do right now and it might not turn out to be right later on based on stuff we have no way of knowing just yet. But it's still the best advice we can give based on what we do know." Maybe it's just that this is simply too nuanced a message under any circumstances or any media model, but I believe that how the lay public sees science portrayed in fiction lends itself to particular kinds of mental models that are often not congruent with reality.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Backpack Hero”
When I return home from the memorial service and family visit resulting therefrom, I'll get back to Starfield. The good: the main quest somehow feels engaging, if pretty tightly railed; the two rival nations feel more realistic; the cities feel like actual cities. Also the minigame for lockpicking is better than the Skyrim/Fallout mechanic. The bad: there's a lot of walking around barren planets with little to do. The ugly: Bethesda has never ever figured out how to handle inventory.
On “It Was Always Going To Be Trump”
I would agree that are in favor of leopards eating most other peoples' faces, but dislike it when the leopard tries to eat their face.
No, I really think that these folks want a king, in practical reality if not necessarily in name. That's one reason why it's important to them that the leader think like they do, why the leader like and dislike the same things they do, and less important that the leader take power and govern through legal channels.
Since power is seen in absolute terms (the king can do anything, it's for the rest of us to obey, and that's the way it should be) that's how they can be confident that the leopard won't eat their faces.
"
Whenever I see an instance of people who obviously know full well who Donald Trump really is and choosing him nevertheless, I recall 1 Samuel 8.
When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain, and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, 'You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.'
But when they said, 'Give us a king to lead us,' this displeased Samuel. ...[God drops some wisdom on Samuel] ... Samuel said to the people who were asking him for a king, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to play his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your men-servants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and when you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you that day.'
But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' They said. 'We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.'
Some people just plain want a king. You can tell them, "A king will bring war," and they won't care. You can tell them, "A king will leave you less prosperous than before" and they won't care. You can tell them, "A king will make you less free," and they won't care. They want what they want.
How you can look at people like Vladimir Putin or Viktor Orban and say, "Yeah, I want that!" is beyond me, but I'm not someone who wants a king. When someone does want a king, they know who they want to be king, and that's what they want.
About all I can say after Iowa is, maybe they don't want the word "king" to be used, but it's evidently what they want.
On “From New York Magazine’s Intelligencer: Neri Oxman and Claudine Gay Cases Show We Need New Rules on Plagiarism”
This makes me think about the level of detailed citation in my law review article, which was pretty in line with how all law review articles wind up getting published.
Nearly every sentence is footnoted until you get to the section marked "Conclusion." Lots of citations to id or, if you prefer, ibid. (I used to know the fine distinction between those two but no longer care.) That avoids the "here's three sentences that are all drawn from the same source but how do you know where original writing ends and reference to citation begins" issue; every sentence is marked, sentence by sentence, as having come from the same source. It makes the final document a bit difficult to read but that's how you do it if you're as concerned about attribution as, say, a law review editor.
What's amusing is a lot of the cites are to case law, which is not copyrighted. But we want to make damn sure we know when you're reporting on research and when you're attempting actual original thought!
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/8/2024”
That's a delight to see!
On “The Truth About January 6”
"...[Stone] was constantly planning violence with an NYPD officer and other militia groups,” the source said.
Not to derail too much, but notice how the quote identifies NYPD as one of many militia groups. This is probably unfair to NYPD officers, surely not all of whom are in militias.
"
I do very much appreciate your plain, direct use of language here, David. It makes you a powerful writer.