There's probably a dot or two that I'm missing, but if the cost of production for shrimpers to enter the US market is higher (owing to the more expensive netting), but the price received for turtle-free-shrimp is also higher (owing to the more expensive netting) - why does the equation not balance?
I see this all the time in my side-business of organic farming... lots of folks would like the premium (or unfair competitive advantage) without the added cost of production.
They have... either way for industrial farmers it is all a function the price of corn. Now, the science is indeed indicating that the way in which animals are fattened will affect all sorts of things in their gut, their meat and their fat... but that's another argument.
via Huffington post Oct 2012:
"With a drought continuing to affect agricultural and farming operations across the Midwest, exorbitant corn prices are forcing ranchers to seek alternative ways to feed their cattle....
...[snip]...
Watson feeds his 1,400 cattle a diet of second-hand candy unfit to sell in stores that's been mixed with an ethanol by-product and a mineral nutrient. He says the animals haven't shown any health problems, and are on track with weight gain."
The post that I thought about, but never wrote, was a non-snarky look at the pain caused to both Gun-rights and Abortion-rights advocates at even symbolic and relatively useless regulations. Leading to an odd situation where the extremes of both positions are the rule of the land for fear of the tiniest crack in the dam letting loose the deluge. I thought, perhaps, it would be an unwelcome conflation, no matter how tempered.
Heh, yes... I thought for a moment he was going to slide into some dangerous vernacular; in his mind he was thinking that quarterbacks get one thing, and rather clumsily translated that "thing" into "Pretty Girls."
I don't think so, Mike. I was at ND for the '88 championship and have enjoyed watching them in good years and bad... Alabama is bigger, faster, stronger, and every other meliorative adjective in the book than Notre Dame - or, in a word, better.
I agree with you that ND put together a perfectly justifiable #1 season under the old milieu. What honestly concerns me is that the SEC appears to be a completely different league and that means that the old milieu doesn't mean much for college football anymore.
Not sure if this is just a temporary phenomenon as the rest of the teams rush to upgrade their hookers and blow, or if there is some sort of long-term bias that will only get bigger with each win by an SEC team.
I take nothing away from ND... they played like they did all year: well coached college team with a lot of solid players and a few stand-outs. In the old days of College Football, that was all you could really ask for - and usually enough to compete. They were obliterated by a team that played with the mechanical precision of a (semi-)pro team; they were awesome to watch, but it wasn't college football.
Chris, Perhaps an occasion where the Religious Left was in advance of the Secular Left? The elision(s) among American Catholics certainly picked up steam after Humanae Vitae in 1968, and has been in full force my entire adult life.
But here I rather agree with Mark that the term has been fully appropriated by non-Catholics (and why not, it's not a particularly Catholic term that should merit copyright protection) and means lots of things to lots of people. But you got me thinking about the use of the term (Social Justice) itself and its origins for Catholics, so I went back to the primary Catholic texts on the subject: Rerum Novarum (1891), Quadragesimo Anno (1931), Populorum Progressio (1967), and Centissimus Annus (1991).
The term is never mentioned in RN. Social Justice is specifically referenced at least 5 times in QA and is very clearly used to defend a Just and Living wage for workers. Interestingly, in PP it is referenced specifically four times and always in reference to Rich Nations owing Justice to Poor nations. CA makes three references and somewhat officially "blesses" the terms Social Doctrine and Social Magisterium as originating with RN and continuing through the other encyclicals; otherwise the use of Social Justice in CA is with regards the injustices of Marxism (which, incidentally, led some of my co-religionists to perhaps overstate CA with regards Market Capitalism... but that's another kettle of fish).
I take your point that Secular Liberals can and do make the argument for reproductive rights as a form of social justice vis-a-vis the independence of women. That is rather the point of the original kerfuffle about the term and its use.
The encyclicals, however, very clearly articulate that the first functioning unit the living wage is to defend is the family, and specifically decries the state of affairs which forces both spouses to work outside the home as an injustice. Total independence and atomization of society is squarely in the crosshairs when the encyclicals tackle justice. One might, I suppose, finesse the matter by standing on the principle of just wages for the support of families and remain silent on who precisely earns that wage. But arguing that "reproductive rights" are a positive good so that both spouses may work is not something supported by the terms... not specifically owing the the "reproductive" part, but owing to the injustice it inflicts on the family.
Not that I expect secular leftists to necessarily find the above persuasive, but there is much in Catholic Social doctrine that might make for good neighbors, even when we need good fences.
It might depend on what one means by "descended" from Aquinas... but "Social Justice" as used in SWE (in homage to BlaiseP) is indeed a catch-all that includes, among many other things, "Reproductive Rights." A perfunctory google search yields a wikipedia page dedicated to Reproductive Justice, 7,160 Google Scholar articles (restricted to 2012 alone), plus you just missed the "Reproductive Rights as a Social Justice Issue" hosted by the Center for Reproductive Rights this past October 5th.
As a Catholic who does take seriously Social Justice, I merely point out that the term as it is commonly used today has wandered down many different roads that may or may not lead back to Aquinas; at this point, it is an appropriated term.
I suppose it is his section 3 (and beyond) that promises to discuss the differences in movement between capital and labor (and goods). Cards, we might say, will be put on the table.
Agreed, but advice best given by members of that team; I'd caution against believing the demography as destiny triumphalism. Not because I think the Republicans will capitalize on it (they may or may not) but because it opens opportunities for parts of the democratic coalition to renegotiate their current arrangements is ways that might not fit the expected narrative.
Certainly. I merely observe that there are large segments of both parties that are held in place less by successful policy than team loyalty. Break that, and who knows what possibilities might open up.
I concur: "Because from where I sit, the clear message the public sent to Washington wasn’t that they wanted to be governed by Democrats. It was that they really, really don’t want to be governed by Republicans."
Still, the Democratic Party is not so coherent a party that all interests will remain aligned for any length of time. They may find that in the absence of a credible Republican Party, opportunities for realignment will emerge from within.
Romney carries these toss-ups: FL, VA, NC and CO. That's it.
Democratic turn-out will be ordinary (but down from 2008) but Republican turn-out will also be ordinary (only slightly up from 2008). There are a lot of sparks from this cycle, but not a lot of heat; Romney ultimately won't get the nose-holder vote he needs to win. Obama will limp into the White House with no mandate, and no clear reason why he's there rather than the other guy.
(If Romney wins, just invert everything I wrote above).
"Generally speaking, I find mandated speech abhorrent. It seems just as much an infringement on freedom of speech as censorship."
Not sure where abhorence comes in to play... are you currently appalled that every food product has a nutritional guide and list of ingredients?
Now, if that list of ingredients had a * next to Corn, High Fructose Corn Syrup, and/or Soy (or Soy products) denoting that they are derived from GMO's... does that really rise to the level of categorical abhorence? Or is that just informed consent?
Yes, this is a fruitful line of inquiry... what is the current status (relevance?) of the History and Philosophy of Science? I've long since been out of academia, but in the late 80's I had opportunity to work with scholars in this area... their research was fascinating and while not subversive of science itself, did help shed light on the capture of science for many reasons not purely scientific.
It is not completely true that the right is not scientific; the right uses science mercilessly in Agriculture. In fact, most of my practical day-to-day issues come from the right/corporate capture of science with regards Agricultural and Food science.
Which is just to say that our notions of science as a methodology are not what folks commonly object to when folks rail against science. The funding of studies and what gets framed as the question that needs answering was a big part of HPS (above) research... and the results were/are (to my observation) fairly persuasive that "science" (vs. the theory of science) is simultaneously constrained and driven by cultural [and here I struggle for the right word] norms? goals? disputes?
Just curious... is there any political response that might focus on providing a family living wage to a single wage earner so that families might have the flexibility to opt out of the two-income trap?
Yeah... I don't think the Romney team fully appreciates how many *conservatives* he loses with his neo-con/neo-liberal foreign policy nonsense.
I'll not go so far as to say that a majority or "true" conservatives have given up the neo-con fantasies... but the backlash is building and, for now, acts as a minor drag and vote suppression. The fact that they think it is a "safe" zone might prove the losing difference if the race comes down to the margins.
Here I side with Barack:
Should the federal government fund stem cell research?
Barack Obama: Yes (P2 C3 S)
Your similar answer: Yes, as long as they are non-fetal stem cells
However, here I side also with Mitt:
Should the federal government fund stem cell research?
Mitt Romney: No (P2 C3 S)
Your similar answer: Yes, as long as they are non-fetal stem cells
It says our answers are "similar" but really they are not; I disagree significantly with both... and though I answered YES, like Barack, my position in a binary-pistol-to-my-head-choice would be NO, like Mitt... but how do you equate my YES to (limited) research with Mitt's categorical NO?
So, while I was very excited about the "choose another stance" option, and (ab-)used it regularly... I'm afraid it characterized me as being catastrophically excited about Barack, Gary, Mitt, Virgil and Jill (she was lowest, but being a Green Communitarian Traditionalist, I expect this is only for lack of questions); Though I did learn that Rocky Anderson can go fish himself, bloody extremist.
Whereas I personally identify as "U" - that is, Un-enfranchised - I guess it is fair to say you don't make internet questionnaires to support the marginal cases.
On “Third World Factories Aren’t All Sweatshops…”
There's probably a dot or two that I'm missing, but if the cost of production for shrimpers to enter the US market is higher (owing to the more expensive netting), but the price received for turtle-free-shrimp is also higher (owing to the more expensive netting) - why does the equation not balance?
I see this all the time in my side-business of organic farming... lots of folks would like the premium (or unfair competitive advantage) without the added cost of production.
On ““Secret Children For Me, No Gay Marriage For Thee!””
This is well put.
The Greeks called it Akrasia and St. Paul rather famously observed: "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do."
Rightly done, one levels the charge of hypocrisy when one wants more of the thing undone by another's actions.
On “I’m Just a Black Man Trapped in This White World…”
Aren't we really beyond this? Shouldn't we just see a Dennis as the Protestant Gay Asperger Puerto Rican Republican he is?
On “Coca-Cola Is Just Bad For You”
They have... either way for industrial farmers it is all a function the price of corn. Now, the science is indeed indicating that the way in which animals are fattened will affect all sorts of things in their gut, their meat and their fat... but that's another argument.
via Huffington post Oct 2012:
"With a drought continuing to affect agricultural and farming operations across the Midwest, exorbitant corn prices are forcing ranchers to seek alternative ways to feed their cattle....
...[snip]...
Watson feeds his 1,400 cattle a diet of second-hand candy unfit to sell in stores that's been mixed with an ethanol by-product and a mineral nutrient. He says the animals haven't shown any health problems, and are on track with weight gain."
On “The Guns In America Symposium: Epilogue”
The post that I thought about, but never wrote, was a non-snarky look at the pain caused to both Gun-rights and Abortion-rights advocates at even symbolic and relatively useless regulations. Leading to an odd situation where the extremes of both positions are the rule of the land for fear of the tiniest crack in the dam letting loose the deluge. I thought, perhaps, it would be an unwelcome conflation, no matter how tempered.
On “If You Must Know…”
Heh, yes... I thought for a moment he was going to slide into some dangerous vernacular; in his mind he was thinking that quarterbacks get one thing, and rather clumsily translated that "thing" into "Pretty Girls."
"
I don't think so, Mike. I was at ND for the '88 championship and have enjoyed watching them in good years and bad... Alabama is bigger, faster, stronger, and every other meliorative adjective in the book than Notre Dame - or, in a word, better.
I agree with you that ND put together a perfectly justifiable #1 season under the old milieu. What honestly concerns me is that the SEC appears to be a completely different league and that means that the old milieu doesn't mean much for college football anymore.
Not sure if this is just a temporary phenomenon as the rest of the teams rush to upgrade their hookers and blow, or if there is some sort of long-term bias that will only get bigger with each win by an SEC team.
I take nothing away from ND... they played like they did all year: well coached college team with a lot of solid players and a few stand-outs. In the old days of College Football, that was all you could really ask for - and usually enough to compete. They were obliterated by a team that played with the mechanical precision of a (semi-)pro team; they were awesome to watch, but it wasn't college football.
On “On Ross Douthat, More Children, and Less Decadence”
I think I prefer this style to your usual mortar shells of prose.
On “Thinking in Shorthand”
Chris, Perhaps an occasion where the Religious Left was in advance of the Secular Left? The elision(s) among American Catholics certainly picked up steam after Humanae Vitae in 1968, and has been in full force my entire adult life.
But here I rather agree with Mark that the term has been fully appropriated by non-Catholics (and why not, it's not a particularly Catholic term that should merit copyright protection) and means lots of things to lots of people. But you got me thinking about the use of the term (Social Justice) itself and its origins for Catholics, so I went back to the primary Catholic texts on the subject: Rerum Novarum (1891), Quadragesimo Anno (1931), Populorum Progressio (1967), and Centissimus Annus (1991).
The term is never mentioned in RN. Social Justice is specifically referenced at least 5 times in QA and is very clearly used to defend a Just and Living wage for workers. Interestingly, in PP it is referenced specifically four times and always in reference to Rich Nations owing Justice to Poor nations. CA makes three references and somewhat officially "blesses" the terms Social Doctrine and Social Magisterium as originating with RN and continuing through the other encyclicals; otherwise the use of Social Justice in CA is with regards the injustices of Marxism (which, incidentally, led some of my co-religionists to perhaps overstate CA with regards Market Capitalism... but that's another kettle of fish).
I take your point that Secular Liberals can and do make the argument for reproductive rights as a form of social justice vis-a-vis the independence of women. That is rather the point of the original kerfuffle about the term and its use.
The encyclicals, however, very clearly articulate that the first functioning unit the living wage is to defend is the family, and specifically decries the state of affairs which forces both spouses to work outside the home as an injustice. Total independence and atomization of society is squarely in the crosshairs when the encyclicals tackle justice. One might, I suppose, finesse the matter by standing on the principle of just wages for the support of families and remain silent on who precisely earns that wage. But arguing that "reproductive rights" are a positive good so that both spouses may work is not something supported by the terms... not specifically owing the the "reproductive" part, but owing to the injustice it inflicts on the family.
Not that I expect secular leftists to necessarily find the above persuasive, but there is much in Catholic Social doctrine that might make for good neighbors, even when we need good fences.
"
It might depend on what one means by "descended" from Aquinas... but "Social Justice" as used in SWE (in homage to BlaiseP) is indeed a catch-all that includes, among many other things, "Reproductive Rights." A perfunctory google search yields a wikipedia page dedicated to Reproductive Justice, 7,160 Google Scholar articles (restricted to 2012 alone), plus you just missed the "Reproductive Rights as a Social Justice Issue" hosted by the Center for Reproductive Rights this past October 5th.
As a Catholic who does take seriously Social Justice, I merely point out that the term as it is commonly used today has wandered down many different roads that may or may not lead back to Aquinas; at this point, it is an appropriated term.
On “Trade Sequence Part 2 – They Took Our Jobs!”
Agreed, and should always be used in conjunction with "irrational exuberance"
"
I suppose it is his section 3 (and beyond) that promises to discuss the differences in movement between capital and labor (and goods). Cards, we might say, will be put on the table.
"
Damn greedy mercenaries.
On “It’s the Party, Stupid: Despite what you might hear, the voters sent a clear mandate to Washington”
Agreed, but advice best given by members of that team; I'd caution against believing the demography as destiny triumphalism. Not because I think the Republicans will capitalize on it (they may or may not) but because it opens opportunities for parts of the democratic coalition to renegotiate their current arrangements is ways that might not fit the expected narrative.
"
Certainly. I merely observe that there are large segments of both parties that are held in place less by successful policy than team loyalty. Break that, and who knows what possibilities might open up.
"
I concur: "Because from where I sit, the clear message the public sent to Washington wasn’t that they wanted to be governed by Democrats. It was that they really, really don’t want to be governed by Republicans."
Still, the Democratic Party is not so coherent a party that all interests will remain aligned for any length of time. They may find that in the absence of a credible Republican Party, opportunities for realignment will emerge from within.
On “Locking in Election Predictions”
Obama wins 275 to 263.
Romney carries these toss-ups: FL, VA, NC and CO. That's it.
Democratic turn-out will be ordinary (but down from 2008) but Republican turn-out will also be ordinary (only slightly up from 2008). There are a lot of sparks from this cycle, but not a lot of heat; Romney ultimately won't get the nose-holder vote he needs to win. Obama will limp into the White House with no mandate, and no clear reason why he's there rather than the other guy.
(If Romney wins, just invert everything I wrote above).
On “Hmmmm…”
Heh, exactly... my first thought would be an ironic statement from the left.
On “Conservatives and Science”
"Generally speaking, I find mandated speech abhorrent. It seems just as much an infringement on freedom of speech as censorship."
Not sure where abhorence comes in to play... are you currently appalled that every food product has a nutritional guide and list of ingredients?
Now, if that list of ingredients had a * next to Corn, High Fructose Corn Syrup, and/or Soy (or Soy products) denoting that they are derived from GMO's... does that really rise to the level of categorical abhorence? Or is that just informed consent?
On “Town Hall Debate: Ten Points”
"And even if a serious response was forthcoming, it would be expressed between exasperated sighs."
and snark.
On “Conservatives and Science”
Yes, this is a fruitful line of inquiry... what is the current status (relevance?) of the History and Philosophy of Science? I've long since been out of academia, but in the late 80's I had opportunity to work with scholars in this area... their research was fascinating and while not subversive of science itself, did help shed light on the capture of science for many reasons not purely scientific.
It is not completely true that the right is not scientific; the right uses science mercilessly in Agriculture. In fact, most of my practical day-to-day issues come from the right/corporate capture of science with regards Agricultural and Food science.
Which is just to say that our notions of science as a methodology are not what folks commonly object to when folks rail against science. The funding of studies and what gets framed as the question that needs answering was a big part of HPS (above) research... and the results were/are (to my observation) fairly persuasive that "science" (vs. the theory of science) is simultaneously constrained and driven by cultural [and here I struggle for the right word] norms? goals? disputes?
On “Town Hall Debate: Ten Points”
Just curious... is there any political response that might focus on providing a family living wage to a single wage earner so that families might have the flexibility to opt out of the two-income trap?
"
Yeah... I don't think the Romney team fully appreciates how many *conservatives* he loses with his neo-con/neo-liberal foreign policy nonsense.
I'll not go so far as to say that a majority or "true" conservatives have given up the neo-con fantasies... but the backlash is building and, for now, acts as a minor drag and vote suppression. The fact that they think it is a "safe" zone might prove the losing difference if the race comes down to the margins.
On “Undecided No More!”
No harm in taking it... but to quibble:
Here I side with Barack:
Should the federal government fund stem cell research?
Barack Obama: Yes (P2 C3 S)
Your similar answer: Yes, as long as they are non-fetal stem cells
However, here I side also with Mitt:
Should the federal government fund stem cell research?
Mitt Romney: No (P2 C3 S)
Your similar answer: Yes, as long as they are non-fetal stem cells
It says our answers are "similar" but really they are not; I disagree significantly with both... and though I answered YES, like Barack, my position in a binary-pistol-to-my-head-choice would be NO, like Mitt... but how do you equate my YES to (limited) research with Mitt's categorical NO?
So, while I was very excited about the "choose another stance" option, and (ab-)used it regularly... I'm afraid it characterized me as being catastrophically excited about Barack, Gary, Mitt, Virgil and Jill (she was lowest, but being a Green Communitarian Traditionalist, I expect this is only for lack of questions); Though I did learn that Rocky Anderson can go fish himself, bloody extremist.
Whereas I personally identify as "U" - that is, Un-enfranchised - I guess it is fair to say you don't make internet questionnaires to support the marginal cases.
On “The Political Economy of Low-Cost Extradimensional Energy”
Some well placed certification boards, and bingo!
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.