I don't disagree, but that's too much to ask of this bunch. I don't mind kicking the ultimate can down the road, when Presidents may be more law-abiding and the Supreme Court less deranged.
The Presidential immunity case is thorny and complicated only because some of the Supremes decided to make it so. Philosopher-King manque Gorsuch openly aspires to write "an opinion for the ages," which it can do only by gratuitously reaching out and deciding issues that are not in this case and may never come up. (He and Kavanaugh are prone to this.) Unless they are willing to rule that there is absolute Presidential immunity, even for shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, which I am almost certain they aren't, they do not have to set out the metes and bounds of hypothetical cases where immunity might be appropriate. They can easily say that the conduct alleged here is not covered by any conceivable notion of Presidential immunity and leave it at that.
Or they could have not taken the case, for the same reasons.
All four are actually crude cultural stereotypes. The idea, such as it is, is that the Anglo-American system presupposes that people should do what they want unless some law says otherwise, and that Germans should do what they're told unless some law gives permission.
A very old joke among people interested in comparative law: In Anglo-American law, everything is permitted unless it is forbidden; in German law, everything is forbidden unless it is permitted; in Russian law, everything is forbidden especially what's permitted; in French law, everything is permitted, especially what's forbidden.
I didn't say it was funny.
A lot of us do remember that Freddie has had mental health issues. I don't know enough about his current condition to say, in the present tense, that he's nuts, and I doubt most of the rest of us know more. I also don't remember more than an occasional mention of his past mental health issues in past criticism, certainly nothing recent enough to qualify as "until, it seems, this very column." I suspect that the reason it hasn't come up more often or recently is simple decency.
From stabbing someone to death to walking free in less than seven years is, I’m willing say, not an ideal outcome. Call me a fascist for it if you wish.
If he was nuts, he was not criminally responsible for the killing, tragic though it was. He was released after, so far as Freddie is willing to tell us, he was no longer nuts or a threat to anyone else. (If he were still nuts or dangerous, Freddie would surely have told us.) Took only seven years to get from homicidal nut to sane and safe. Sounds pretty close to ideal.
I'll leave it to others whether to call Freddie a fascist.
People post about drinking leaded gasoline in the '70s? I was driving in the '70s and never heard of such a thing. Probably somebody in some ER somewhere had drunk some kind of gasoline, leaded or otherwise, but it can't have been common.
If I thought I had something useful to say that would lend itself to a relatively short comment, I'd say it. Waiting until I have something useful to say about something may cut down on my commenting volume, but I'm not sure that's a problem.
Chip, you should know better than to take it seriously when Jaybird, of all people, tries to police keeping a discussion on some topic. Changing topics is one of his signature moves.
I didn't ignore what you said. You called people scabs who weren't scabs. Several comments later, you admitted that scabs were people who crossed picket lines, but insisted that you were drawing an analogy rather than making a mistake. That's your story and I guess you're sticking to it. But people who saw how long it took you to get there, instead of saying it right away, which is what someone who was being truthful would have done, are entitled to be skeptical of your explanation.
Ten.
If you'd rather respond to Phil and Chip than defend what you said, that's your prerogative. But everyone here can read and count. There comes a point where the witness has done the lawyer's work and, as Irving Younger explained, the thing to do when that happens is shut up and sit down.
That's six comments in which you have declined either to admit your mistake or make a case for changing the long-standing meaning of "scab." Just a matter of counting.
No, what I argue is that, as you yourself point out, a scab is someone who crosses a picket line. That is what it has always meant. If and when immigrants cross picket lines, you can call them "scabs," and not until then.
A mistake is not an analogy.
You brought up the term "scab," which you insist on using in a way no one who knows anything about the subject would use. You've now had three opportunities to admit the mistake or argue for the expanded usage and have done neither. That's three strikes. With the usual consequences.
If you want to re-define a larger labor pool, with its attendant economic effects, as "scabs," a long-established term with a well-known meaning, knock yourself out and see what traction you get as an arbiter of language. I'll stick with the usage familiar to anyone familiar with the labor movement. I'd ask Jimmy Hoffa to back me up, but I don't know where he is.
Won't speak for Chip, though the answer is obvious, but I was, in the long ago times, a Teamster, walked a picket line, and knew what a "scab" was and that it was a slur. What it wasn't was a general increase in the size of the potential labor force, whether caused by immigration or by people f*****g more often.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Conservative Supreme Court Takes On The Right”
I don't disagree, but that's too much to ask of this bunch. I don't mind kicking the ultimate can down the road, when Presidents may be more law-abiding and the Supreme Court less deranged.
"
The Presidential immunity case is thorny and complicated only because some of the Supremes decided to make it so. Philosopher-King manque Gorsuch openly aspires to write "an opinion for the ages," which it can do only by gratuitously reaching out and deciding issues that are not in this case and may never come up. (He and Kavanaugh are prone to this.) Unless they are willing to rule that there is absolute Presidential immunity, even for shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, which I am almost certain they aren't, they do not have to set out the metes and bounds of hypothetical cases where immunity might be appropriate. They can easily say that the conduct alleged here is not covered by any conceivable notion of Presidential immunity and leave it at that.
Or they could have not taken the case, for the same reasons.
On “Five New Rulings from The Supreme Court of the United States”
All four are actually crude cultural stereotypes. The idea, such as it is, is that the Anglo-American system presupposes that people should do what they want unless some law says otherwise, and that Germans should do what they're told unless some law gives permission.
"
A very old joke among people interested in comparative law: In Anglo-American law, everything is permitted unless it is forbidden; in German law, everything is forbidden unless it is permitted; in Russian law, everything is forbidden especially what's permitted; in French law, everything is permitted, especially what's forbidden.
I didn't say it was funny.
On “From NY Mag: Freddie deBoer On Forcibly Treating the Mentally Ill”
A lot of us do remember that Freddie has had mental health issues. I don't know enough about his current condition to say, in the present tense, that he's nuts, and I doubt most of the rest of us know more. I also don't remember more than an occasional mention of his past mental health issues in past criticism, certainly nothing recent enough to qualify as "until, it seems, this very column." I suspect that the reason it hasn't come up more often or recently is simple decency.
"
From stabbing someone to death to walking free in less than seven years is, I’m willing say, not an ideal outcome. Call me a fascist for it if you wish.
If he was nuts, he was not criminally responsible for the killing, tragic though it was. He was released after, so far as Freddie is willing to tell us, he was no longer nuts or a threat to anyone else. (If he were still nuts or dangerous, Freddie would surely have told us.) Took only seven years to get from homicidal nut to sane and safe. Sounds pretty close to ideal.
I'll leave it to others whether to call Freddie a fascist.
On “Open Mic for the week of 6/17/2024”
People post about drinking leaded gasoline in the '70s? I was driving in the '70s and never heard of such a thing. Probably somebody in some ER somewhere had drunk some kind of gasoline, leaded or otherwise, but it can't have been common.
On “Open Mic for the week of 6/10/2024”
Indeed. And even after diagraming, the sentence remains hopelessly obscure. At my day job I see that a lot.
"
You might want to diagram that sentence.
"
Let me? I've said all I plan to say about this today.
There will be other opportunities to address this.
"
If I thought I had something useful to say that would lend itself to a relatively short comment, I'd say it. Waiting until I have something useful to say about something may cut down on my commenting volume, but I'm not sure that's a problem.
"
Whatever I might want to argue with you about, you will probably change the subject. You do that a lot.
"
Chip, you should know better than to take it seriously when Jaybird, of all people, tries to police keeping a discussion on some topic. Changing topics is one of his signature moves.
"
Aw come on, Jesse, no fair bringing common sense into this.
On “Open Mic for the week of 6/3/2024”
I didn't ignore what you said. You called people scabs who weren't scabs. Several comments later, you admitted that scabs were people who crossed picket lines, but insisted that you were drawing an analogy rather than making a mistake. That's your story and I guess you're sticking to it. But people who saw how long it took you to get there, instead of saying it right away, which is what someone who was being truthful would have done, are entitled to be skeptical of your explanation.
Ten.
"
Nine. I can count easier than you can duck.
"
Eight.
"
If you'd rather respond to Phil and Chip than defend what you said, that's your prerogative. But everyone here can read and count. There comes a point where the witness has done the lawyer's work and, as Irving Younger explained, the thing to do when that happens is shut up and sit down.
"
That's six comments in which you have declined either to admit your mistake or make a case for changing the long-standing meaning of "scab." Just a matter of counting.
"
That's five strikes. Thanks for playing.
"
No, what I argue is that, as you yourself point out, a scab is someone who crosses a picket line. That is what it has always meant. If and when immigrants cross picket lines, you can call them "scabs," and not until then.
A mistake is not an analogy.
"
What "kicked this off" is:
Have you ever heard the word “scab” before?
With regards to labor, I mean.
Do you consider it to be a slur?
You brought up the term "scab," which you insist on using in a way no one who knows anything about the subject would use. You've now had three opportunities to admit the mistake or argue for the expanded usage and have done neither. That's three strikes. With the usual consequences.
"
Yes. I have. I'm also familiar with supply and demand, which would predict something like those numbers.
That doesn't make them "scabs."
"
If you want to re-define a larger labor pool, with its attendant economic effects, as "scabs," a long-established term with a well-known meaning, knock yourself out and see what traction you get as an arbiter of language. I'll stick with the usage familiar to anyone familiar with the labor movement. I'd ask Jimmy Hoffa to back me up, but I don't know where he is.
"
Won't speak for Chip, though the answer is obvious, but I was, in the long ago times, a Teamster, walked a picket line, and knew what a "scab" was and that it was a slur. What it wasn't was a general increase in the size of the potential labor force, whether caused by immigration or by people f*****g more often.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.