I've always wanted to bring back Zeus-ism and the Olympian pantheon. The world is run by a committee and all its members are working at cross-purposes. Seems to be the best fit to the facts.
Whenever Ross Douthat -- who long ago revealed himself to be immature and lacking in honor on such matters -- writes about sex, I get the urge to slap him and say, "Shut up, kid. The grownups are talking."
It isn't easy to be more cynical than I am, but I think you have me beat. As I read Breyer, all he was saying was that if you can send a fire truck to keep the church school from burning down and killing the kids, and everyone seems to agree you can, you can pay for rubber matting in the playground to keep the kids from splitting their skulls when they fall off the monkey bars.
I have always thought that the Supremes will uphold vouchers anyway, on the theory that -- to use NYC examples -- if you give money (or its equivalent) to parents who can use it for either Horace Mann or Regis, they, and not the government, are deciding who gets it.
I generally dislike Breyer opinions (though not as much as I dislike Kennedy opinions) both when he's right and when he's wrong. So I was surprised to see him write something short and sweet, coming to what seemed to me the right conclusion for a simple and sufficient reason, and then shutting up. In some recent opinions, various Justices have tut-tutted their colleagues about saying or doing more than needs to be done or said to decide the case at hand, but then turn right around and spew when they feel the need to get something off their own chests.
As an old soldier once explained to me, unless you are willing to go to the point where you annihilate the other side, a war ends only when the loser says it ends. Only a handful of countries could cause the US even to break a sweat if we were willing to fight to the point of annihilation. But who would do anything to us that would justify a war of annihilation? What goal we could reasonably want to accomplish short of national survival would justify a war of annihilation? So when we get involved in discretionary disputes over which contending bunch of thugs runs what crappy country, if the answer to that question matters more to the thugs we don't like or their respective supporters than it does to us, we can't justify turning the crappy country into a parking lot and we eventually have to find a way to give up without looking like losers.
Actually, I've lived long enough to know who has already been shown to know better and I think I have a pretty good idea about who is likely to know better going forward. Hard to swallow, I'll admit, and somewhat humbling, but I can't look honestly at my own life and deny it. I doubt you can either.
The idea behind the philosophy is that nobody knows better than you which person or choice is the least bad.
Which is almost certainly not true. A vast number of people know far better than I what I ought to do about almost every aspect of my life. I'm pretty sure your life is no different.
To be sure, it is irksome to have to listen to people who know better than I what I ought to be doing in order to advance my own interests as I myself perceive them, and I might just prefer being allowed to go to Hell in my own way. But that is very different from the question of who knows best.
Indeed, so let them come up with some small-government way to solve the problem. Unless not solving the problem is the real point and yelling "big government" is the cover -- as it so often is.
Since the medical information issue seems to be a sticking point, how about a system where the relevant agency, but not the parties, know who is who and when adopted kid needs medical information the agency gets it from biological parent and gives it to the adopted kid's doctor? As far as the parent and kid are concerned, everything goes into or comes out of a black box.
I know a fair number of purple-state districts that went for Obama went for Trump. But was that because John Smith changed his mind or because John Smith stayed home and Fred Jones, who never voted for Obama, showed up? Just how many actual human voters, as opposed to districts, changed?
About 2020, if we leave aside the very real possibility of a foreign policy clusterf**k that gets people behind the President, whoever he is and whatever he does, in which case all bets are off, here is what I see:
A. Past Facts
1. The Dems won the popular vote this time
2. A lot of Dems sat out or voted for 3d-parties
3. The EV turned on c. 80K votes in 3 purple states
4. Hillary had been the subject of vicious attacks for over 20 years
B. Likely Future Facts
1. Trump won't have accomplished much
2. His core voters won't care about (1)
3. But ordinary Republicans will be unenthusiastic because of (1) and will turn out somewhat less
4. Whoever the Dem candidate is, he or she won't have Hillary's 20 years of baggage
5. Long-term demographic trends continue to run in Dems' favor
6. The desperate desire to be rid of Trump will reduce defections to 3d parties and boost turnout
Enough of what I say is verifiable that you might want to consider believing me.
Today is Thursday
Donald Trump is President
The Cleveland Cavaliers have a small lead for best record in the NBA East
Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize for Literature
[Random batshit crazy assertion that I can't possibly know]
Eighty percent of what I say is verifiable. You ought to consider the rest.
In states that have elected judiciaries, it is generally regarded as unethical to promise to vote a certain way. I don't have strong views about the relative merits of electing or appointing judges, except to the extent that one method or the other increases my own chances, but there is something odd about electing judges when the candidates can't tell the voters anything they might want to base their votes on.
On “Morning Ed: Religion {2017.08.10.Th}”
I've always wanted to bring back Zeus-ism and the Olympian pantheon. The world is run by a committee and all its members are working at cross-purposes. Seems to be the best fit to the facts.
On “Electoral College Concentration”
"Dense urban centers" are dense because they have more people than rural areas. Acreage doesn't get a vote.
On “Ross Douthat Reads Them For The Articles”
It's just you.
"
Whenever Ross Douthat -- who long ago revealed himself to be immature and lacking in honor on such matters -- writes about sex, I get the urge to slap him and say, "Shut up, kid. The grownups are talking."
On “Big Monday 2017: Here’s Gorsuch!”
It isn't easy to be more cynical than I am, but I think you have me beat. As I read Breyer, all he was saying was that if you can send a fire truck to keep the church school from burning down and killing the kids, and everyone seems to agree you can, you can pay for rubber matting in the playground to keep the kids from splitting their skulls when they fall off the monkey bars.
I have always thought that the Supremes will uphold vouchers anyway, on the theory that -- to use NYC examples -- if you give money (or its equivalent) to parents who can use it for either Horace Mann or Regis, they, and not the government, are deciding who gets it.
"
I generally dislike Breyer opinions (though not as much as I dislike Kennedy opinions) both when he's right and when he's wrong. So I was surprised to see him write something short and sweet, coming to what seemed to me the right conclusion for a simple and sufficient reason, and then shutting up. In some recent opinions, various Justices have tut-tutted their colleagues about saying or doing more than needs to be done or said to decide the case at hand, but then turn right around and spew when they feel the need to get something off their own chests.
On “The Contemporary Monomyth”
As an old soldier once explained to me, unless you are willing to go to the point where you annihilate the other side, a war ends only when the loser says it ends. Only a handful of countries could cause the US even to break a sweat if we were willing to fight to the point of annihilation. But who would do anything to us that would justify a war of annihilation? What goal we could reasonably want to accomplish short of national survival would justify a war of annihilation? So when we get involved in discretionary disputes over which contending bunch of thugs runs what crappy country, if the answer to that question matters more to the thugs we don't like or their respective supporters than it does to us, we can't justify turning the crappy country into a parking lot and we eventually have to find a way to give up without looking like losers.
On “For Democrats, Blue-Dogs are the way Forward”
Cuz really, if you think about the state of play as it is right now, what do inner city black folk have to lose at this point?
The usual, and probably best, way to get an answer to this question would be to ask some of them.
On “In Sadness and In Anger”
How many ordinary people actually are armed? I don't mean there's a shotgun or a .22 somewhere in the house, I mean armed in a practical sense.
"
That's as clear an example of the difference between lived experience and an ideological position as one could want.
"
Actually, I've lived long enough to know who has already been shown to know better and I think I have a pretty good idea about who is likely to know better going forward. Hard to swallow, I'll admit, and somewhat humbling, but I can't look honestly at my own life and deny it. I doubt you can either.
"
The idea behind the philosophy is that nobody knows better than you which person or choice is the least bad.
Which is almost certainly not true. A vast number of people know far better than I what I ought to do about almost every aspect of my life. I'm pretty sure your life is no different.
To be sure, it is irksome to have to listen to people who know better than I what I ought to be doing in order to advance my own interests as I myself perceive them, and I might just prefer being allowed to go to Hell in my own way. But that is very different from the question of who knows best.
"
Let's not go down that road. Nobody would have anything to scream about.
On “Secret Origins”
Indeed, so let them come up with some small-government way to solve the problem. Unless not solving the problem is the real point and yelling "big government" is the cover -- as it so often is.
"
Since the medical information issue seems to be a sticking point, how about a system where the relevant agency, but not the parties, know who is who and when adopted kid needs medical information the agency gets it from biological parent and gives it to the adopted kid's doctor? As far as the parent and kid are concerned, everything goes into or comes out of a black box.
On “The Fight for Federal Lands”
Disney?
On “Mugged By Reality: A Conservative for Universal Health Care”
I suspect that Democrats and Progressives would take that deal in a New York minute.
On “Niccoló and the Bully”
Nepotists is exactly what normal people are; they just can't get away with it in large, established institutions.
"
I know a fair number of purple-state districts that went for Obama went for Trump. But was that because John Smith changed his mind or because John Smith stayed home and Fred Jones, who never voted for Obama, showed up? Just how many actual human voters, as opposed to districts, changed?
"
About 2020, if we leave aside the very real possibility of a foreign policy clusterf**k that gets people behind the President, whoever he is and whatever he does, in which case all bets are off, here is what I see:
A. Past Facts
1. The Dems won the popular vote this time
2. A lot of Dems sat out or voted for 3d-parties
3. The EV turned on c. 80K votes in 3 purple states
4. Hillary had been the subject of vicious attacks for over 20 years
B. Likely Future Facts
1. Trump won't have accomplished much
2. His core voters won't care about (1)
3. But ordinary Republicans will be unenthusiastic because of (1) and will turn out somewhat less
4. Whoever the Dem candidate is, he or she won't have Hillary's 20 years of baggage
5. Long-term demographic trends continue to run in Dems' favor
6. The desperate desire to be rid of Trump will reduce defections to 3d parties and boost turnout
Am I missing something?
On “Apprentice: White House Edition”
Enough of what I say is verifiable that you might want to consider believing me.
Today is Thursday
Donald Trump is President
The Cleveland Cavaliers have a small lead for best record in the NBA East
Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize for Literature
[Random batshit crazy assertion that I can't possibly know]
Eighty percent of what I say is verifiable. You ought to consider the rest.
On “A Safer Response to Garland-Gorsuch”
In states that have elected judiciaries, it is generally regarded as unethical to promise to vote a certain way. I don't have strong views about the relative merits of electing or appointing judges, except to the extent that one method or the other increases my own chances, but there is something odd about electing judges when the candidates can't tell the voters anything they might want to base their votes on.
On “The Data Says Everything Is Fine”
You make that sound like a bad thing.
On “The Pence Policy”
Jemima still hasn't gotten over the breakup with Uncle Ben.
On “Conservatives should look to Robert Peel”
The people of the region had been betrayed and belittled, stabbed in the back, insulted, and lied to.
True, but they voted for him anyway.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.