"the framers didn’t have nearly as much of a historical record of rules-lawyering to inform their drafting as we do"
Meh. The term "inhabitant" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, Senators and Representatives must be inhabitants of the state they represent. Hillary Clinton, and the other Robert Kennedy were from New York. If the drafters were concerned about people moving to a location to establish ephemeral relationships with a state they would have added a term of years. They knew how to do that: A President must be a U.S. resident for fourteen years.
I think the primary underlying policy relevant here was that the Federalist were aware that they would be seen as having engaged in some sort of a coup with this new Constitution and were seeking to legitimize the national government by presenting it as truly national in its components, drawing from all states. There was this notion that there is talent out there known locally that would be beneficial nationally, so the electors are a means of communicating information. Leaving states to vote for favorite sons wasn't a problem, it would be useful to hear about people from as far away as say Delaware, but if everybody simply chooses favorite sons, then the electoral college process is largely meaningless; the House will decide the President and the Senate will decide the Vice President. But with the rise of political parties that function has been outsourced, and the framers didn't anticipate or want that.
A key part of that argument that needs to be included is that the phrase "officer of the United States" is used in other places in the Constitution to refer to appointed officers in the executive branch, i.e. not the President or Vice President. The issue with the provision is not only is the President and Vice President not listed, but use of the phrase "officer of the United States" restates the intent not to include them. Here is a short summary with a table of the different categories of officers in the Constitution:
A few interesting points about the link. It's written by Professor William Baude about the writings of Professor Seth Tillman in a largely approving manner. The Colorado Supreme Court decision relies heavily on an article by Baude & Paulson, while the dissent relies heavily on an article by Blackman & Tillman's lengthy critique of the article.
Tillman has been writing a long time about this issue, and it became a central point of discussion in whether Hilary Clinton could be disqualified from the Office of the Presidency if found guilty of recordkeeping violations pursuant to statute that forbid such a person from holding an "office under the United States." Tillman's point then was no, the Presidency is not an "office under the United States."
Re Berger: The difficulty in considering elected officials being expelled from the House or Senate is that both chambers have always had the authority to expel a member on a two-thirds vote. It's not at all clear Berger was expelled pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. That says something about history, and also about how political bodies act in ways different than judicial ones.
Re Griffin: The district court decision was appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court, but Griffin failed to file a statement of issues, so the case was dismissed for a paperwork omission. (Probably representing himself?) I find it suspect that the Colorado Supreme Court references this New Mexico trial court decision, but makes a point of saying that Chief Justice Chase's opinion in another "Griffin's case" is "non-binding," as the Chief Justice was acting as a circuit judge at the time.
Chase's opinion was that Section 3 is not self-executing and Congress needs to promulgate laws since "proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions . . . are indispensable." Congress then passed the Enforcement act of 1870. Chase was formerly the Secretary of Treasury under Lincoln, tasked with overseeing the confiscation of enemy contraband (mainly cotton) and engaged in negotiations with Congress on the confiscation acts. He was allied and close to the Radical Republicans who drafted the 14th Amendment and its enforcement acts. If the SCOTUS chooses to go this route, they will see his opinion as contemporaneous understanding of the 14th Amendment's Section 3 & 5.
From what I read, it's simply that not all defendants consented to removal to federal court, which is required for that type of removal. The Colorado Secretary of State did not agree to the removal.
The main reason to be skeptical that the SCOTUS would uphold Trump's disqualification is that there are several difficult issues and the plaintiffs need to prevail as to all of them, while Trump needs only win on one. And the SCOTUS needs only address one issue to rule in favor of Trump.
Which is to say, you could be correct, but the SCOTUS might rule on some other issue for convenience, simplicity or public consumption. I think the advantage of your point is that it puts the onus on the legislature for not keeping the Enforcement Act of 1870 in place.
The description of the 14th Amendment in the OP isn't quite accurate. The 14th Amendment clearly allows traitors to hold office. What it prohibits is people from violating their oaths from holding certain offices. I don't know the details of all the people arrested for their activities on January 6th, but unless they have some particular biographical background, they can all be elected to any office in theory.
There weren't many living former Presidents by the time the Amendment was passed. A reasonable explanation for excluding the President was that the drafters weren't concerned about any of them, were more worried by state officials in the South, and thought it might be too devise to assess whether James Buchanan gave aid and comfort to the Confederacy by failing to enforce federal laws and protect federal property.
Thanks for the link, a picture is worth more numbers than I can jot down here.
I assumed that adjustments were made relative to that data collection issue, but I don't know. If you throw out 2019, CPI-adjusted median house income still declined in Pennsylvania from 2020 to 2023, from 2021 to 2023 and from 2022 to 2023. Same for Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin, but not as pronounced. Georgia declined from 2020 to 2021, but increased from 2021 to 2022.
I have no idea how to link/embed to Federal Reserve graphs, but real median household income in Pennsylvania was $80,390 in 2019 and $72,210 in 2022. That's household income failing to keep up with rising prices. That's a lot of people poorer because their incomes have fallen relative to prices.
Since this is a political post, I pointed to a potential swing state, and could also point to Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin as well.
I've got children in college and both have told me that people firmly on either side of the issue don't appear to know what they're talking about. Is there a role for education? This is from Professor Ron Hasser, Poli Sci at U.C. Berkley:
"When college students who sympathize with Palestinians chant “From the river to the sea,” do they know what they’re talking about? I hired a survey firm to poll 250 students from a variety of backgrounds across the U.S. Most said they supported the chant, some enthusiastically so (32.8%) and others to a lesser extent (53.2%).
"But only 47% of the students who embrace the slogan were able to name the river and the sea. Some of the alternative answers were the Nile and the Euphrates, the Caribbean, the Dead Sea (which is a lake) and the Atlantic. . . . .
"Would learning basic political facts about the conflict moderate students’ opinions? A Latino engineering student from a southern university reported “definitely” supporting “from the river to the sea” because “Palestinians and Israelis should live in two separate countries, side by side.” Shown on a map of the region that a Palestinian state would stretch from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, leaving no room for Israel, he downgraded his enthusiasm for the mantra to “probably not.” Of the 80 students who saw the map, 75% similarly changed their view.
"An art student from a liberal arts college in New England “probably” supported the slogan because “Palestinians and Israelis should live together in one state.” But when informed of recent polls in which most Palestinians and Israelis rejected the one-state solution, this student lost his enthusiasm. So did 41% of students in that group.
"A third group of students claimed the chant called for a Palestine to replace Israel. Sixty percent of those students reduced their support for the slogan when they learned it would entail the subjugation, expulsion or annihilation of seven million Jewish and two million Arab Israelis. Yet another 14% of students reconsidered their stance when they read that many American Jews considered the chant to be threatening, even racist. (This argument had a weaker effect on students who self-identified as progressive, despite their alleged sensitivity to offensive speech.)
"In all, after learning a handful of basic facts about the Middle East, 67.8% of students went from supporting “from the river to sea” to rejecting the mantra. These students had never seen a map of the Mideast and knew little about the region’s geography, history or demography. Those who hope to encourage extremism depend on the political ignorance of their audiences. It is time for good teachers to join the fray and combat bias with education."
Well, there has been actual violence at college campuses. One of my alma matters has had violence, apparently the campus is decorated in "from the river to the sea" graffiti, and the feds have launched a civil rights investigation. I think the situation is well beyond the charge of Gen Z snowflakes. The Israel/Palestinian conflict is seen as existential to the actual participants, and through variety of connections (ethnic, religious, immigrant, shared sense of liberation struggle, etc.), non-participants on the other side of the world are treating the situation as existential to one degree or other.
It's not easy for schools to prevent a rally from turning into mob violence, but it happens. They need to be more preemptively active and perhaps put a moratorium on rallies on campus. Maybe be more active in directing the dialogue in a more productive fashion.
I think the underlying legal point of the Skokie march was that people just shouldn't go to the march. It was scheduled for a date and time, so it would be easy to avoid. I don't think it captures this issues on a college campus, particularly ones receiving federal money and thus have an affirmative obligation to respond to anti-Jewish sentiment under anti-discrimination laws. A march is a forum that local governments permit, and thus must not-discriminate based upon view-points. Colleges are places of higher learning that have a role under civil rights law to be available regardless of race and ethnicity. The horrific speech that was protected by the First Amendment in Brandenburg v. Ohio doesn't mean that a University would still not have obligations to address such speech if it happened on campus.
This is the flip side of how weird it strikes me that Americans make a colonialism argument; European complaints framed around hostility to ethnic states are weird coming from countries that are ethnic states, or at least relatively recently were founded as such. Many European states (as well as Near East states) were founded/originated from the same partition of empires as Israel (Ottoman, Austro-Hungary and Russia) for fairly similar reasons and historical contingencies.
America is a bit different than the white dominions though in that war is a quite important part of its national identity. The country was created by a war and a war decided the issue of slavery. War is how difficult, intractable problems sometimes must be resolved.
(Also, for what it's worth, America didn't recognize a right of return to loyalists that fled behind enemy lines.)
I don't understand the settler-colonist framework from an American p.o.v. I sort of get that Europeans have continuing and fraught questions about the responsibility towards former colonies, and to the extent to which taking action on that responsibility perpetrates colonial frameworks themselves. France and the simmering crisis in Francophone Africa is the current example. At the very least, pointing to what the Israelis are doing changes the topic.
My favorite history podcast, The Rest Is History, is currently in the middle of an 8 episode series on the Fall of the Aztecs. Fairly long for even my taste, but I always think its worth pointing out that there are multiple interpretations of events which the podcast is doing.
Anyway, it appears that the most recent scholarship has the Spaniards being recruited by a local confederacy in their ongoing conflict with Montezuma, which is a reversal of the previous orthodox account that the Spaniards recruited or forced indigenous groups to rise up against the Empire.
At least as far as I've listened, the skulls aren't making an important contribution to the story. Cortez is allying with people that refuse to pay tribute to the Aztec Empire and thus are in constant armed conflict with each other.
"Arab residents of East Jerusalem have the option of obtaining Israeli citizenship, though most decline for political reasons. According to official government figures, those who have attempted to obtain citizenship face significant delays and are rejected in 66 percent of cases. While these noncitizens are entitled to vote in municipal as well as Palestinian Authority (PA) elections, most have traditionally boycotted Israeli municipal balloting, and Israel has restricted PA election activity in the city."
That's from Freedom House. Many Palestinians (which is what I believe this group in East Jerusalem identifies as) have Jordanian citizenship, and for reasons that aren't surprising many don't want to legitimize the Israeli annexation of E. Jerusalem.
From what I recall Israeli Arabs enjoy all of the same civil rights as other Israelis except they are exempt from the draft. Freedom House rates Israel as the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. The occupied territories aren't rated.
I think this is a rather important part of the Quebec opinion: "The international law principle of self-determination has evolved within a framework of respect for the territorial integrity of existing states. The various international documents that support the existence of a people's right to self-determination also contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to an existing state's territorial integrity or the stability of relations between sovereign states." I see very little interest in critics of Israel to any concern for threats to Israel, particularly the other post up here yesterday that justifies symbolic or at least minimization of the hostages. This is what Israel's defenders are most eager to talk about.
I have no problem untangling the network limitation. We lost all of our primary care and specialist doctors a couple of years ago because our insurer (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) determined that the costs at the largest physician group in the area were too high and they couldn't read an agreement. The local hospital systems weren't capable of meeting the new demand, but we slowly established new physician relations for the four of us. I think the physician group had a nicer set-up and was qualitatively different, but I now suspect that I was fed to a specialist for biannual check-ups that could have been performed by my GP. I wish I had the option of not changing and paying more out-of-pocket. In Canada, they apparently have private insurance for additional medical services that take place in another province. I wonder how much that would cost in the U.S.?
I'm kind of tuned into ambulance policy now. Where I live two emergency workers were charged with first degree murder for how they strapped the patient to a gurney. It seems like they were burnt-out and disgruntled about having to work another weekend night shift, and a lot of people are blaming the profit-motive of private ambulance services for staff shortages. But it turns out that it would be prohibitively expensive for the city to operate such a service without imposing similar cost controls that are blamed for the murder. It looks like we are moving towards having fire fighters who are trained as EMTs or paramedics riding inside when they are on the scene and there is a need.
From what I've read, transport is simply treated different and there is no particular reason to believe a new system would necessarily include it. In Canada, ambulance services are provided by province health care plans, but are generally not portable outside one's home province/ territory.
I don't think single-payer would necessarily fix this. All healthcare systems have some boundaries surrounding what it considers to be essential medical care, and those that are adjacent (mental health, midwifery, and nursing care come to mind). I'm skeptical that even if the U.S. became a single-payer system that "transport" would suddenly come within essential medical care (it's currently not at the national level). It could, but a reason it wouldn't is that it would reduce the cost of transition.
Oh yeah, good to hear you survived the U.S. healthcare system.
I generally agree with Yglesias' take, but it overlooks that there are a lot of educated people saying vile things like the 30ish y.o. lawyer praising Hitler's use of gas chambers to exterminate Jews as part of the discourse about the Hamas hospital. If we are going to have open dialogue, it should include where did something like that come from? I don't believe she was born that way, her views are a product of her environment and what exactly is that environment? Her college experience is probably the most important factor. "In America, Jews feel very comfortable, but there are islands of anti-Semitism: the American college campus." —Natan Sharansky (2005).
My own er community organizing experience on local matters has been that there are two basic best approaches to take. One is to make a statement that is generalizable to the public at large. The other is to bring some personal insight to bear that might be overlooked. Anonymity lacks personality and any sense that these people will ever do anything consequential if you take an opposing position since they are unwilling to bear the consequences of owning the statement.
One thing about John Brown that doesn't seem to get discussed is how much he inspired John Wilkes Booth. Booth joined a militia in the wake of the raid on Harper's Ferry and guarded Booth and watched his execution with a strange sort of admiration mingled with contempt. He accumulated souvenirs, a piece of wood from a box that contained Brown's coffin and one of the pikes Brown had given freed slaves.
Booth thought Brown was one of the grandest characters of the century, he described him as "that rugged old hero." He seems to have admired Booth's courage and will to answer a higher calling. After killing Lincoln, he wrote: "If BROWN were living I doubt whether he himself would set slavery against the Union." I think he saw Brown as a man of action, whereas Lincoln was some frumpy, odd-looking legal clerk working to corrupt institutions: "open force is holier than hidden craft. The Lion is more noble than the fox."
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “DeSantis Drops Out”
"the framers didn’t have nearly as much of a historical record of rules-lawyering to inform their drafting as we do"
Meh. The term "inhabitant" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, Senators and Representatives must be inhabitants of the state they represent. Hillary Clinton, and the other Robert Kennedy were from New York. If the drafters were concerned about people moving to a location to establish ephemeral relationships with a state they would have added a term of years. They knew how to do that: A President must be a U.S. resident for fourteen years.
I think the primary underlying policy relevant here was that the Federalist were aware that they would be seen as having engaged in some sort of a coup with this new Constitution and were seeking to legitimize the national government by presenting it as truly national in its components, drawing from all states. There was this notion that there is talent out there known locally that would be beneficial nationally, so the electors are a means of communicating information. Leaving states to vote for favorite sons wasn't a problem, it would be useful to hear about people from as far away as say Delaware, but if everybody simply chooses favorite sons, then the electoral college process is largely meaningless; the House will decide the President and the Senate will decide the Vice President. But with the rise of political parties that function has been outsourced, and the framers didn't anticipate or want that.
On “A Deep Dive Into the Trump Ballot Ban”
A key part of that argument that needs to be included is that the phrase "officer of the United States" is used in other places in the Constitution to refer to appointed officers in the executive branch, i.e. not the President or Vice President. The issue with the provision is not only is the President and Vice President not listed, but use of the phrase "officer of the United States" restates the intent not to include them. Here is a short summary with a table of the different categories of officers in the Constitution:
https://conlaw.jotwell.com/constitutional-officers-a-very-close-reading/
A few interesting points about the link. It's written by Professor William Baude about the writings of Professor Seth Tillman in a largely approving manner. The Colorado Supreme Court decision relies heavily on an article by Baude & Paulson, while the dissent relies heavily on an article by Blackman & Tillman's lengthy critique of the article.
Tillman has been writing a long time about this issue, and it became a central point of discussion in whether Hilary Clinton could be disqualified from the Office of the Presidency if found guilty of recordkeeping violations pursuant to statute that forbid such a person from holding an "office under the United States." Tillman's point then was no, the Presidency is not an "office under the United States."
"
Re Berger: The difficulty in considering elected officials being expelled from the House or Senate is that both chambers have always had the authority to expel a member on a two-thirds vote. It's not at all clear Berger was expelled pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. That says something about history, and also about how political bodies act in ways different than judicial ones.
Re Griffin: The district court decision was appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court, but Griffin failed to file a statement of issues, so the case was dismissed for a paperwork omission. (Probably representing himself?) I find it suspect that the Colorado Supreme Court references this New Mexico trial court decision, but makes a point of saying that Chief Justice Chase's opinion in another "Griffin's case" is "non-binding," as the Chief Justice was acting as a circuit judge at the time.
Chase's opinion was that Section 3 is not self-executing and Congress needs to promulgate laws since "proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions . . . are indispensable." Congress then passed the Enforcement act of 1870. Chase was formerly the Secretary of Treasury under Lincoln, tasked with overseeing the confiscation of enemy contraband (mainly cotton) and engaged in negotiations with Congress on the confiscation acts. He was allied and close to the Radical Republicans who drafted the 14th Amendment and its enforcement acts. If the SCOTUS chooses to go this route, they will see his opinion as contemporaneous understanding of the 14th Amendment's Section 3 & 5.
On “Colorado Supreme Court Disqualifies Trump From 2024 Primary Ballot”
From what I read, it's simply that not all defendants consented to removal to federal court, which is required for that type of removal. The Colorado Secretary of State did not agree to the removal.
"
The main reason to be skeptical that the SCOTUS would uphold Trump's disqualification is that there are several difficult issues and the plaintiffs need to prevail as to all of them, while Trump needs only win on one. And the SCOTUS needs only address one issue to rule in favor of Trump.
Which is to say, you could be correct, but the SCOTUS might rule on some other issue for convenience, simplicity or public consumption. I think the advantage of your point is that it puts the onus on the legislature for not keeping the Enforcement Act of 1870 in place.
On “Colorado to Trump: Drop Dead”
The description of the 14th Amendment in the OP isn't quite accurate. The 14th Amendment clearly allows traitors to hold office. What it prohibits is people from violating their oaths from holding certain offices. I don't know the details of all the people arrested for their activities on January 6th, but unless they have some particular biographical background, they can all be elected to any office in theory.
There weren't many living former Presidents by the time the Amendment was passed. A reasonable explanation for excluding the President was that the drafters weren't concerned about any of them, were more worried by state officials in the South, and thought it might be too devise to assess whether James Buchanan gave aid and comfort to the Confederacy by failing to enforce federal laws and protect federal property.
On “It’s The Economy, Stupid, But That Depends on Your Definition of “Economy””
Thanks for the link, a picture is worth more numbers than I can jot down here.
I assumed that adjustments were made relative to that data collection issue, but I don't know. If you throw out 2019, CPI-adjusted median house income still declined in Pennsylvania from 2020 to 2023, from 2021 to 2023 and from 2022 to 2023. Same for Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin, but not as pronounced. Georgia declined from 2020 to 2021, but increased from 2021 to 2022.
"
I have no idea how to link/embed to Federal Reserve graphs, but real median household income in Pennsylvania was $80,390 in 2019 and $72,210 in 2022. That's household income failing to keep up with rising prices. That's a lot of people poorer because their incomes have fallen relative to prices.
Since this is a political post, I pointed to a potential swing state, and could also point to Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin as well.
On “Free Speech, Harassment and Hypocrisy: What the University Presidents Got Right and Wrong”
I've got children in college and both have told me that people firmly on either side of the issue don't appear to know what they're talking about. Is there a role for education? This is from Professor Ron Hasser, Poli Sci at U.C. Berkley:
"When college students who sympathize with Palestinians chant “From the river to the sea,” do they know what they’re talking about? I hired a survey firm to poll 250 students from a variety of backgrounds across the U.S. Most said they supported the chant, some enthusiastically so (32.8%) and others to a lesser extent (53.2%).
"But only 47% of the students who embrace the slogan were able to name the river and the sea. Some of the alternative answers were the Nile and the Euphrates, the Caribbean, the Dead Sea (which is a lake) and the Atlantic. . . . .
"Would learning basic political facts about the conflict moderate students’ opinions? A Latino engineering student from a southern university reported “definitely” supporting “from the river to the sea” because “Palestinians and Israelis should live in two separate countries, side by side.” Shown on a map of the region that a Palestinian state would stretch from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, leaving no room for Israel, he downgraded his enthusiasm for the mantra to “probably not.” Of the 80 students who saw the map, 75% similarly changed their view.
"An art student from a liberal arts college in New England “probably” supported the slogan because “Palestinians and Israelis should live together in one state.” But when informed of recent polls in which most Palestinians and Israelis rejected the one-state solution, this student lost his enthusiasm. So did 41% of students in that group.
"A third group of students claimed the chant called for a Palestine to replace Israel. Sixty percent of those students reduced their support for the slogan when they learned it would entail the subjugation, expulsion or annihilation of seven million Jewish and two million Arab Israelis. Yet another 14% of students reconsidered their stance when they read that many American Jews considered the chant to be threatening, even racist. (This argument had a weaker effect on students who self-identified as progressive, despite their alleged sensitivity to offensive speech.)
"In all, after learning a handful of basic facts about the Middle East, 67.8% of students went from supporting “from the river to sea” to rejecting the mantra. These students had never seen a map of the Mideast and knew little about the region’s geography, history or demography. Those who hope to encourage extremism depend on the political ignorance of their audiences. It is time for good teachers to join the fray and combat bias with education."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/from-which-river-to-which-sea-anti-israel-protests-college-student-ignorance-a682463b?st=3x0oam85a9wlu1s&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
"
Well, there has been actual violence at college campuses. One of my alma matters has had violence, apparently the campus is decorated in "from the river to the sea" graffiti, and the feds have launched a civil rights investigation. I think the situation is well beyond the charge of Gen Z snowflakes. The Israel/Palestinian conflict is seen as existential to the actual participants, and through variety of connections (ethnic, religious, immigrant, shared sense of liberation struggle, etc.), non-participants on the other side of the world are treating the situation as existential to one degree or other.
It's not easy for schools to prevent a rally from turning into mob violence, but it happens. They need to be more preemptively active and perhaps put a moratorium on rallies on campus. Maybe be more active in directing the dialogue in a more productive fashion.
"
I think the underlying legal point of the Skokie march was that people just shouldn't go to the march. It was scheduled for a date and time, so it would be easy to avoid. I don't think it captures this issues on a college campus, particularly ones receiving federal money and thus have an affirmative obligation to respond to anti-Jewish sentiment under anti-discrimination laws. A march is a forum that local governments permit, and thus must not-discriminate based upon view-points. Colleges are places of higher learning that have a role under civil rights law to be available regardless of race and ethnicity. The horrific speech that was protected by the First Amendment in Brandenburg v. Ohio doesn't mean that a University would still not have obligations to address such speech if it happened on campus.
On “Support for Israel is Strong, But….”
This is the flip side of how weird it strikes me that Americans make a colonialism argument; European complaints framed around hostility to ethnic states are weird coming from countries that are ethnic states, or at least relatively recently were founded as such. Many European states (as well as Near East states) were founded/originated from the same partition of empires as Israel (Ottoman, Austro-Hungary and Russia) for fairly similar reasons and historical contingencies.
On “Settler Colonialism is Just History”
America is a bit different than the white dominions though in that war is a quite important part of its national identity. The country was created by a war and a war decided the issue of slavery. War is how difficult, intractable problems sometimes must be resolved.
(Also, for what it's worth, America didn't recognize a right of return to loyalists that fled behind enemy lines.)
"
I don't understand the settler-colonist framework from an American p.o.v. I sort of get that Europeans have continuing and fraught questions about the responsibility towards former colonies, and to the extent to which taking action on that responsibility perpetrates colonial frameworks themselves. France and the simmering crisis in Francophone Africa is the current example. At the very least, pointing to what the Israelis are doing changes the topic.
"
My favorite history podcast, The Rest Is History, is currently in the middle of an 8 episode series on the Fall of the Aztecs. Fairly long for even my taste, but I always think its worth pointing out that there are multiple interpretations of events which the podcast is doing.
Anyway, it appears that the most recent scholarship has the Spaniards being recruited by a local confederacy in their ongoing conflict with Montezuma, which is a reversal of the previous orthodox account that the Spaniards recruited or forced indigenous groups to rise up against the Empire.
At least as far as I've listened, the skulls aren't making an important contribution to the story. Cortez is allying with people that refuse to pay tribute to the Aztec Empire and thus are in constant armed conflict with each other.
On “What Are the Pro-Palestine Demonstrators Thinking?”
"Arab residents of East Jerusalem have the option of obtaining Israeli citizenship, though most decline for political reasons. According to official government figures, those who have attempted to obtain citizenship face significant delays and are rejected in 66 percent of cases. While these noncitizens are entitled to vote in municipal as well as Palestinian Authority (PA) elections, most have traditionally boycotted Israeli municipal balloting, and Israel has restricted PA election activity in the city."
That's from Freedom House. Many Palestinians (which is what I believe this group in East Jerusalem identifies as) have Jordanian citizenship, and for reasons that aren't surprising many don't want to legitimize the Israeli annexation of E. Jerusalem.
"
From what I recall Israeli Arabs enjoy all of the same civil rights as other Israelis except they are exempt from the draft. Freedom House rates Israel as the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. The occupied territories aren't rated.
I think this is a rather important part of the Quebec opinion: "The international law principle of self-determination has evolved within a framework of respect for the territorial integrity of existing states. The various international documents that support the existence of a people's right to self-determination also contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to an existing state's territorial integrity or the stability of relations between sovereign states." I see very little interest in critics of Israel to any concern for threats to Israel, particularly the other post up here yesterday that justifies symbolic or at least minimization of the hostages. This is what Israel's defenders are most eager to talk about.
On “231 BPM”
I have no problem untangling the network limitation. We lost all of our primary care and specialist doctors a couple of years ago because our insurer (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) determined that the costs at the largest physician group in the area were too high and they couldn't read an agreement. The local hospital systems weren't capable of meeting the new demand, but we slowly established new physician relations for the four of us. I think the physician group had a nicer set-up and was qualitatively different, but I now suspect that I was fed to a specialist for biannual check-ups that could have been performed by my GP. I wish I had the option of not changing and paying more out-of-pocket. In Canada, they apparently have private insurance for additional medical services that take place in another province. I wonder how much that would cost in the U.S.?
"
I'm kind of tuned into ambulance policy now. Where I live two emergency workers were charged with first degree murder for how they strapped the patient to a gurney. It seems like they were burnt-out and disgruntled about having to work another weekend night shift, and a lot of people are blaming the profit-motive of private ambulance services for staff shortages. But it turns out that it would be prohibitively expensive for the city to operate such a service without imposing similar cost controls that are blamed for the murder. It looks like we are moving towards having fire fighters who are trained as EMTs or paramedics riding inside when they are on the scene and there is a need.
From what I've read, transport is simply treated different and there is no particular reason to believe a new system would necessarily include it. In Canada, ambulance services are provided by province health care plans, but are generally not portable outside one's home province/ territory.
"
I don't think single-payer would necessarily fix this. All healthcare systems have some boundaries surrounding what it considers to be essential medical care, and those that are adjacent (mental health, midwifery, and nursing care come to mind). I'm skeptical that even if the U.S. became a single-payer system that "transport" would suddenly come within essential medical care (it's currently not at the national level). It could, but a reason it wouldn't is that it would reduce the cost of transition.
Oh yeah, good to hear you survived the U.S. healthcare system.
On “From Matt Yglesias: Israel, Palestine, and the need for principled free speech”
I generally agree with Yglesias' take, but it overlooks that there are a lot of educated people saying vile things like the 30ish y.o. lawyer praising Hitler's use of gas chambers to exterminate Jews as part of the discourse about the Hamas hospital. If we are going to have open dialogue, it should include where did something like that come from? I don't believe she was born that way, her views are a product of her environment and what exactly is that environment? Her college experience is probably the most important factor. "In America, Jews feel very comfortable, but there are islands of anti-Semitism: the American college campus." —Natan Sharansky (2005).
On “From The New York Times: Editors’ Note: Gaza Hospital Coverage”
Not soon enough to prevent the secondary casualties.
https://capitolfax.com/2023/10/19/comptroller-fires-employee-after-she-admitted-posting-horribly-anti-semitic-comments-online/
On “From The HuffPost: More Than 400 Capitol Hill Staffers Call For Cease-Fire In Gaza”
My own er community organizing experience on local matters has been that there are two basic best approaches to take. One is to make a statement that is generalizable to the public at large. The other is to bring some personal insight to bear that might be overlooked. Anonymity lacks personality and any sense that these people will ever do anything consequential if you take an opposing position since they are unwilling to bear the consequences of owning the statement.
"
I'll show you once I've sent an anonymous letter on behalf of 4,110 people who think the Congressional staffers are doofases.
On “Of Course They Cheered The Murders”
One thing about John Brown that doesn't seem to get discussed is how much he inspired John Wilkes Booth. Booth joined a militia in the wake of the raid on Harper's Ferry and guarded Booth and watched his execution with a strange sort of admiration mingled with contempt. He accumulated souvenirs, a piece of wood from a box that contained Brown's coffin and one of the pikes Brown had given freed slaves.
Booth thought Brown was one of the grandest characters of the century, he described him as "that rugged old hero." He seems to have admired Booth's courage and will to answer a higher calling. After killing Lincoln, he wrote: "If BROWN were living I doubt whether he himself would set slavery against the Union." I think he saw Brown as a man of action, whereas Lincoln was some frumpy, odd-looking legal clerk working to corrupt institutions: "open force is holier than hidden craft. The Lion is more noble than the fox."
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.