A former Minnesota politician, Al Franken, once said about Ted Cruz that he liked Cruz more than most of Cruz's Senate colleagues did -- and he couldn't stand Ted Cruz.
He probably has lousy taste in beer, too.
If there are actual experts on the legal issues involved in this case, I'm sure they will weigh in eventually. Lawyers, some may be surprised to learn, are not fungible. Most know a lot about a few areas of the law and can give useful guidance on those areas based on what I call their "walking around knowledge," not requiring extensive research. Many know enough about some areas of law outside their expertise to make an intelligent contribution to a discussion among lay persons on the same basis. But on many areas, they know too little to pipe up based on their walking around knowledge, or even based on a few hours' research. Em, for example, knows a lot about criminal law and can talk intelligently about it without doing the kind of work she would have to do in representing a client with a truly complicated criminal law issue. But I'd be shocked if she knows anything about admiralty. (Few lawyers know anything about admiralty, or have any reason to.) If someone demanded her views on a truly complex criminal law issue, or on anything about admiralty law, she would be well within her rights to decline unless someone compensated her for the time it would take for her to get up to speed. Based on what I've seen from the other lawyers here, no one has the kind of expertise that would permit them to opine responsibly based on their walking around knowledge.
As for Musk's case, I know a little about antitrust law, which is the only plausible line of attack, but my walking around knowledge isn't sufficient to say anything useful about concerted refusals to deal, conscious parallelsim, or the like. I think if I devoted a full day of library work to it, I could come to the point where I'd be able to discuss it intelligently, though not expertly, but I can't steal that kind of time from the work I know how to do and am paid to do. Indeed, even in my own areas of expertise, I've sometimes been asked here to provide, in effect, a fully footnoted version of what anyone in my line already knows as the ABCs of the specialty. That's the kind of thing clients are entitled to ask for if they are willing to pay for it. They're usually not because they have engaged the lawyers they have hired precisely because those lawyers can just tell them what the ABCs are and, having done that, put the effort and expense into the truly complicated stuff. For example, if someone who was caught in traffic because some private citizens blocked a bridge came to me and asked if he could bring a Section 1983 action against them, I would tell him "no," maybe give him a paragraph-length explanation of the color of law requirement, and send him on his way at no charge. If he insisted on arguing with me and demanded a full-blown, footnoted memo explaining why he didn't have a case, I would respectfully decline. Unless he wanted to pay me and I had a few spare hours.
I'm not supporting Kazzy, and I'm not not supporting him. I'm not talking about Kazzy at all. I'm talking about you and the mistake you made. Which you have every right not to address and have decided, for whatever reason, not to.
Slightly off-topic, but when would you say that the political and administrative abilities of the King or Queen largely ceased to matter as opposed to the political and administrative abilities of the PM? What would it be like for a King or Queen who has real governing talent to have to sit and watch future Liz Trusses and Boris Johnsons make a hash of things while they are helpless to intervene?
No, it isn't. You're repeating a common misunderstanding. For something to be an ad hominem argument, it has to purport to be an argument in the first place. For example: "Density Duck says 'X.' Density Duck is an a*****e. Therefore, X is wrong." That's an ad hominem argument. The "therefore" is the giveaway. The claim is that X is wrong because Density Duck is an a*****e. That's an argument, and it's fallacious because X is right or wrong independently of whether Density Duck is an a*****e. But let's change it around a bit: "Density Duck says 'X.' Density Duck is an a*****e." That isn't an ad hominem argument because it's not an argument at all, just a plain statement of fact. It doesn't address the truth or falsity of X at all, let alone claim that the truth or falsity of X is connected in any way with whether Density Duck is an a*****e. "I am not going to address your argument but I am going to criticize you personally" is not an ad hominem fallacy. It's not a fallacy at all, just personal abuse.
Madison wasn't Jefferson's VP. They were both Virginia's, so the 12th Amendment got in the way. He was, rather, Secretary of State, which, in those days, was also a stepping stone to the Presidency.
That must explain why almost everything I have heard from the right in recent years is only minor variations on what I heard in dorm room bull sessions 50 years ago.
A few years ago, a philosophy professor no one had ever heard of, for excellent reasons, got his 15 minutes with a book that combined a Classic Comics Illustrated version of economics 101 and freshman philosophy to prove that democracy was a bad idea and advocated a not very well worked out notion of epistocracy -- rule of the wise, knowledgeable, and informed -- instead.
The basic flaw in his argument was assuming that the case for democracy rested on the plainly false belief that it was the best method for enacting "correct" policies, as defined by the particular experts he preferred. In effect, he was criticizing automobiles for not being able to let you drive from San Francisco to Tokyo -- true, but irrelevant.
The first, and essential, feature of a system of government is that it be broadly acceptable to the governed. If the system is not broadly acceptable, the masses will, unless effectually repressed (which can, of course, be done, and has been many times), slaughter the rulers in their beds. In our time, the only form of government the governed will broadly accept is some form of democracy. They simply will not accept rule by self-certified, even objectively qualified, experts. Hell, we have had many discussions here about how they resent even being informed that, according to experts, their views on such things as crime, unemployment, and inflation, are just plain factually wrong.
That basic flaw aside, although some large classes of people are demonstrably better informed than the mass of voters on a wide variety of issues, experts themselves often disagree (You cite Friedman and Hayek, I cite Krugman and DeLong. Each of them knows far more than any of us on economics, and who are we to adjudicate between them?), and no one, no matter how smart and well-informed, can possibly have expertise, or even the ability to judge expertise, on the wide variety of policy issues that we face. So who makes up our "epistocracy," and why should the rest of us listen to them?
The "rational basis" for one adult, one vote is that the adults and voters will accept it, and will not willingly accept alternatives. That is all the basis it needs.
On “Trump News Conference: Watch It For Yourself”
TFG's getting Jerry and Willie Brown confused reminds me of this Miller Lite commercial:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=miller+lite+commercial+frank+and+brooks+robinson#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d57f4770,vid:LOz9JIPjAMk,st:0
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/5/2024”
A former Minnesota politician, Al Franken, once said about Ted Cruz that he liked Cruz more than most of Cruz's Senate colleagues did -- and he couldn't stand Ted Cruz.
He probably has lousy taste in beer, too.
"
If there are actual experts on the legal issues involved in this case, I'm sure they will weigh in eventually. Lawyers, some may be surprised to learn, are not fungible. Most know a lot about a few areas of the law and can give useful guidance on those areas based on what I call their "walking around knowledge," not requiring extensive research. Many know enough about some areas of law outside their expertise to make an intelligent contribution to a discussion among lay persons on the same basis. But on many areas, they know too little to pipe up based on their walking around knowledge, or even based on a few hours' research. Em, for example, knows a lot about criminal law and can talk intelligently about it without doing the kind of work she would have to do in representing a client with a truly complicated criminal law issue. But I'd be shocked if she knows anything about admiralty. (Few lawyers know anything about admiralty, or have any reason to.) If someone demanded her views on a truly complex criminal law issue, or on anything about admiralty law, she would be well within her rights to decline unless someone compensated her for the time it would take for her to get up to speed. Based on what I've seen from the other lawyers here, no one has the kind of expertise that would permit them to opine responsibly based on their walking around knowledge.
As for Musk's case, I know a little about antitrust law, which is the only plausible line of attack, but my walking around knowledge isn't sufficient to say anything useful about concerted refusals to deal, conscious parallelsim, or the like. I think if I devoted a full day of library work to it, I could come to the point where I'd be able to discuss it intelligently, though not expertly, but I can't steal that kind of time from the work I know how to do and am paid to do. Indeed, even in my own areas of expertise, I've sometimes been asked here to provide, in effect, a fully footnoted version of what anyone in my line already knows as the ABCs of the specialty. That's the kind of thing clients are entitled to ask for if they are willing to pay for it. They're usually not because they have engaged the lawyers they have hired precisely because those lawyers can just tell them what the ABCs are and, having done that, put the effort and expense into the truly complicated stuff. For example, if someone who was caught in traffic because some private citizens blocked a bridge came to me and asked if he could bring a Section 1983 action against them, I would tell him "no," maybe give him a paragraph-length explanation of the color of law requirement, and send him on his way at no charge. If he insisted on arguing with me and demanded a full-blown, footnoted memo explaining why he didn't have a case, I would respectfully decline. Unless he wanted to pay me and I had a few spare hours.
"
That tells us a lot.
"
A good term for a set of virtues and practices associated with roles and functions traditionally, though not exclusively, associated with men.
On “Walz-ing Towards Election Day”
No. Try again.
"
I'm not supporting Kazzy, and I'm not not supporting him. I'm not talking about Kazzy at all. I'm talking about you and the mistake you made. Which you have every right not to address and have decided, for whatever reason, not to.
On “The Differences in Identity Politics Between America and Britain”
Slightly off-topic, but when would you say that the political and administrative abilities of the King or Queen largely ceased to matter as opposed to the political and administrative abilities of the PM? What would it be like for a King or Queen who has real governing talent to have to sit and watch future Liz Trusses and Boris Johnsons make a hash of things while they are helpless to intervene?
On “Walz-ing Towards Election Day”
No, it isn't. You're repeating a common misunderstanding. For something to be an ad hominem argument, it has to purport to be an argument in the first place. For example: "Density Duck says 'X.' Density Duck is an a*****e. Therefore, X is wrong." That's an ad hominem argument. The "therefore" is the giveaway. The claim is that X is wrong because Density Duck is an a*****e. That's an argument, and it's fallacious because X is right or wrong independently of whether Density Duck is an a*****e. But let's change it around a bit: "Density Duck says 'X.' Density Duck is an a*****e." That isn't an ad hominem argument because it's not an argument at all, just a plain statement of fact. It doesn't address the truth or falsity of X at all, let alone claim that the truth or falsity of X is connected in any way with whether Density Duck is an a*****e. "I am not going to address your argument but I am going to criticize you personally" is not an ad hominem fallacy. It's not a fallacy at all, just personal abuse.
"
And you never will. When the point is X, talk about Y. The only problem is if people actually want X addressed.
On “Tim Walz announced as Kamala Harris’s running mate”
Something definitely smells bad here, and it isn't black people or Asians or women.
"
You and I can treat each other as equals without coming to an agreement on religion or politics, right?
Try it sometime.
"
Is that all it took? Not that it would have worked in my all boys high school, but I have some grand-nephews who might profit from this advice.
"
I wish I had your optimism. It is actually very easy to lie about such stuff, and to get people to believe the lies.
On “Tim Walz Tapped to be VP Kamala Harris Running Mate”
You've said more than once that you're not a fan of stand-up comedy. We believe you; you don't have to prove it.
"
Madison wasn't Jefferson's VP. They were both Virginia's, so the 12th Amendment got in the way. He was, rather, Secretary of State, which, in those days, was also a stepping stone to the Presidency.
"
No point asking. Just let it sit there and speak for itself.
On “The Race Is On, And It’s Getting Weird”
That must explain why almost everything I have heard from the right in recent years is only minor variations on what I heard in dorm room bull sessions 50 years ago.
On “RFK and Dead Cubs”
Great routine, but moose is not lawful game in New York.
On “The Race Is On, And It’s Getting Weird”
A few years ago, a philosophy professor no one had ever heard of, for excellent reasons, got his 15 minutes with a book that combined a Classic Comics Illustrated version of economics 101 and freshman philosophy to prove that democracy was a bad idea and advocated a not very well worked out notion of epistocracy -- rule of the wise, knowledgeable, and informed -- instead.
The basic flaw in his argument was assuming that the case for democracy rested on the plainly false belief that it was the best method for enacting "correct" policies, as defined by the particular experts he preferred. In effect, he was criticizing automobiles for not being able to let you drive from San Francisco to Tokyo -- true, but irrelevant.
The first, and essential, feature of a system of government is that it be broadly acceptable to the governed. If the system is not broadly acceptable, the masses will, unless effectually repressed (which can, of course, be done, and has been many times), slaughter the rulers in their beds. In our time, the only form of government the governed will broadly accept is some form of democracy. They simply will not accept rule by self-certified, even objectively qualified, experts. Hell, we have had many discussions here about how they resent even being informed that, according to experts, their views on such things as crime, unemployment, and inflation, are just plain factually wrong.
That basic flaw aside, although some large classes of people are demonstrably better informed than the mass of voters on a wide variety of issues, experts themselves often disagree (You cite Friedman and Hayek, I cite Krugman and DeLong. Each of them knows far more than any of us on economics, and who are we to adjudicate between them?), and no one, no matter how smart and well-informed, can possibly have expertise, or even the ability to judge expertise, on the wide variety of policy issues that we face. So who makes up our "epistocracy," and why should the rest of us listen to them?
The "rational basis" for one adult, one vote is that the adults and voters will accept it, and will not willingly accept alternatives. That is all the basis it needs.
"
If anything, it's addicted to it.
"
That makes sense if you assume that Trump was trying to make sense.
On “Weekend Plans Post: The Best Album Titles and How Kids These Days Don’t Know About Them”
We're old.
"
Bob Dylan's Geatest Hits. In those days, I pronounced his name wrong.
"
That was one of the two albums that made up my first record purchase.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.