Not sure you have to fire 'most everyone' that's not required. The tradition of accountability is pretty good at identifying who's accountable for what; it just seems that the tradition of accountability is becoming exceedingly lax at the flag officer levels.
A few flags needed to be taken -- publicly -- for the good of the service and the country.
Yes. My question, though, is what does this tell us about the US Military? In years past, we mostly assumed it was a self-correcting institution owing to the competition for limited commands and willingness to end one career so that another might bloom.
If it no longer is that, the potential danger is that it sees everyone as part of the imperium and the goal is to make the imperium stronger and bigger. Who can stand-up to the imperium?
I said at the time that this was obviously a case where more than one Senior Commander needed to have their career ended. Not necessarily 'cashiered' or put on trial... just publicly acknowledge as having failed to execute to the best of their abilities the orders given by the Commander-in-Chief.
It isn't Biden's job to execute the withdrawal, just to set it's date and own the strategic (not tactical) consequences.
We both know that Biden has no interest in institutional reform (esp. the Military)... but my question remains, does anyone? And if they did, could they? And if they could, would the Military agree to it? Does a $1T economy answer to anything other than itself?
Yeah, there are a lot of set-pieces that really benefit from strong AoE... mostly I've been cheesing them by saving, then changing the party when the first battle goes awry.
My inner roleplayer dies a little each time, but my achiever just qq and off we go.
I also really like how you can re-spec and add hirelings for almost nothing. Which I tend to abuse.
On the one hand, you have to live with Macro choices no matter the party, but I appreciate how my Micro party/character choices are practically unlimited. Of course, DMs everywhere cringe at the very thought.
I'll get back to you right after I figure out this whole forge thing...
Guys? guys where are you?
I got mouthy with an apparition of the Queen... how bad could it be? It's an apparition.
Oh, that bad.
Worst part? I hadn't saved... so had to do the who battle over again. Then, a little less mouthy.
I downloaded a mod that basically jacks you to Level 6 -- I'd slogged through 1-5 in Beta too many times to keep doing it. Also, D&D isn't really fun in a video game setting until at least level 5.
Week 2 of using a Mac at work and can confirm that the business user experience is pretty bad. In fairness(?) I think the badness is compounded by the company *also* using Gmail for corporate mail which just creates a mess of browser-tabs and Mac is really bad at working with multiple 'windows' of the same app -- or just multiple windows.
I've been furiously clicking settings trying to get rational behavior out of the laptop... but all it seems to do is launch the Music app every third day - desperately hoping it can assuage it's failures by distracting me with music. Trying its best, I guess.
The command vs. control button hasn't been an issue at all, it's Apple's design decisions on how it thinks I want to interact with Apps. In a nutshell, it behaves like a phone and wants to single thread the display.
And seriously, building anything on Google is like building on sand... you shouldn't do it... nothing is plumb... third-party integration is second-rate and desultory because everyone knows that eventually Google will abandon whatever it has built - so everything feels like your first apartment... keeps you dry at night but all you can do is think about getting a real place to live.
No it isn't... I mean, it could be, but the way it is actually used is by Pro-Life folks who aren't simply Republican Partisans is: "birth control, low cost childcare, single payer health insurance and robust job training with living wages"
Heh, was it me? Sounds like something I'd say. Not exactly, but yes... while overturning Roe is good [Full Stop] building a Pro-Life 'narrative' and culture has to a much bigger project than counting weeks. Going back decades, it was clear that Team Red was not interested in all the other things that would be necessary to reduce demand and strengthen a culture in favor of life, but all that was overlooked in favor of the SCOTUS route.
It's not exactly that Team Red didn't think Roe would ever be overturned, but to InMD's point below [erm above], as long as it was in place they didn't have to *do* anything on any other front to keep the votes/dollars in line.
As some of us like to say, the game is iterated... whether or not R's really care and develop a full policy/platform/'narrative' agenda post-SCOTUS/Roe? Possible, but I didn't have confidence in the R's 25-yrs ago, and have even less in it's current form. But absent that, the iteration will favor any abortion over none... and if iterations continue, will settle at 'first trimester' 12-15 week policies with Medical approval thereafter.
Is there a reason why a State Constitution shouldn't allow for a Legislative Referendum rather than Amending the Constitution?
That seems to me a distinction no one is making. I don't care if States want to moot popular Legislative issues via referenda, but I disagree that Constitutional Frameworks at the State Level should be subject to 50% alterations.
Now, there might be a prudential argument against mooting Legislation via referenda, but who am I to judge?
As far as I can tell, I'm the only one calling the spade a spade, everyone else is calling it a rose because they like the outcome.
What I'd like to bookmark for possible future reference is if/when the abortion amendment passes the threshold limit is 'revisited' and passed with a rider (or a second amendment) that increases the threshold based on a 50%+1 standard. At which point, all the rose people will continue to describe the spade as a rose.
Heh, he did that for his own protection... Imagine coming back to the office, "Whelp folks, we now have to prosecute the President whenever he lies." Chaos.
I was a little surprised that the indictment specifically cited the ECA. I don't know whether there was a legal/procedural reason he had to, but I'd've remained silent on the ECA in my indictment. Now it almost invites a potentially tedious battle over the meaning of a statute that should have been removed/updated decades ago. And, which will easily be pointed out *was* amended in 2022 to eliminate any of those tedious arguments we might now have to have.
1. Ideally written into the text of the Constitution...IMO the point of the constitution is to be a framework that requires super-majorities to alter. Legislation within the framework is 50%+1.
2. I'm glad your pleased; but my point in commenting on something where 'my side' is wrong (on procedure) is to point out that what I'm suggesting is bad governance regardless the outcome.
3. Right, as clarified in #1 we're in agreement here... Constitutional Frameworks are just that, frameworks that require broad consensus to pass or amend. They ought, by design, to be somewhat counter-majoritarian. As to how much? That's a prudential matter, so I'm fine leaving thresholds open raising/lowering. But the principal ought to be: to raise, you'd have to pass the very threshold you're proposing to raise it to -- precisely to prevent amending the constitution then pulling up the ladder behind you.
But if the State Constitution was written to allow amendments at 50% (that strikes me as imprudent at the constitutional level) my principled position would be that any Constitution level change to the 50% threshold would require votes at the new threshold (no less than current threshold). So, if 50% is current, change to 60% would require 60% votes to pass.
Doesn't change the outcome here and doesn't fit into the Abortion narrative, but strikes me as unwise to allow 50% to increase the threshold to 60%. Just bad Constitutioning to 1) set it at 50% and 2) not put a provision protecting the threshold.
Yeah, baffled at weird 1st amendment claims; seems pretty simple to me. Either they have insiders willing to come forward to corroborate (compellingly) that Trump himself knew it was all lies and therefore it rises to the level of conspiracy to obstruct/defraud, or they don't. If they don't, well, you take your chances in court.
The third key-grip on the set won't be enough, unless the entire rest of the production team corroborates. Do we know what Meadows himself is going to say? Anyone else likely to come forward? Pence seems a wild-card at this point.
I'd be surprised if the defense was 1st amendment; the defense will likely be this: If there's fraud in the election, the President and the DOJ are required to investigate, which they vigorously did (pause for clapping); the DOJ and the courts eventually ruled there was insufficient evidence of fraud, but the President was continuously advised (deceived? We all know he'll throw anyone under the bus) that there was more evidence of Fraud that wasn't yet determined; eventually he lost confidence that the DOJ was serious about investigating which is why he felt that there was no other choice than following the Law as set forth in the ECA: (state) elections where the results are in doubt have a framework for further adjudication. Some State Legislators/Officials agreed with him and it is *their* duty to pursue whatever actions are required in their states to contest the electors. Ultimately those objections were raised (PA and NM) which were duly voted upon and rejected and Trump left office on Jan 20. There was an unfortunate riot on Jan 6 where over-enthusiastic supporters broke in to the Capitol building, but that was beyond the President's control, and not a conspiracy. [Here Adams would have to connect the Oathkeeper conspiracy directly back to the President - which seems possible - but if it were probable, I feel like we'd already have heard about it]
That's the nut Adams will have to crack.
I'd be very surprised if the defense gets up there and says the President like all Americans can lie about anything he likes. I'd be surprised, but not gobsmacked; there's a difference.
This week I started a with a new company and it wasn't until after I signed the offer that I found out they *only* give Macs to their employees. So this weekend will be spent in recovery from that trauma.
On “Columbia Up And Left Kabul”
Not sure you have to fire 'most everyone' that's not required. The tradition of accountability is pretty good at identifying who's accountable for what; it just seems that the tradition of accountability is becoming exceedingly lax at the flag officer levels.
A few flags needed to be taken -- publicly -- for the good of the service and the country.
"
Yes. My question, though, is what does this tell us about the US Military? In years past, we mostly assumed it was a self-correcting institution owing to the competition for limited commands and willingness to end one career so that another might bloom.
If it no longer is that, the potential danger is that it sees everyone as part of the imperium and the goal is to make the imperium stronger and bigger. Who can stand-up to the imperium?
I said at the time that this was obviously a case where more than one Senior Commander needed to have their career ended. Not necessarily 'cashiered' or put on trial... just publicly acknowledge as having failed to execute to the best of their abilities the orders given by the Commander-in-Chief.
It isn't Biden's job to execute the withdrawal, just to set it's date and own the strategic (not tactical) consequences.
We both know that Biden has no interest in institutional reform (esp. the Military)... but my question remains, does anyone? And if they did, could they? And if they could, would the Military agree to it? Does a $1T economy answer to anything other than itself?
On “Is Trump Ineligible For Another Term?”
Nice, legal scholars importing latae sententiae excommunicationes into the 14th amendment. I approve.
One step closer to the dream of the Empire of Guadeloupe.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: More Musings on Moral Choices”
Yeah, there are a lot of set-pieces that really benefit from strong AoE... mostly I've been cheesing them by saving, then changing the party when the first battle goes awry.
My inner roleplayer dies a little each time, but my achiever just qq and off we go.
I also really like how you can re-spec and add hirelings for almost nothing. Which I tend to abuse.
On the one hand, you have to live with Macro choices no matter the party, but I appreciate how my Micro party/character choices are practically unlimited. Of course, DMs everywhere cringe at the very thought.
"
Heh, yeah but it's been a while since I've done any in-person tabletop... so didn't want to assume.
"
I'll get back to you right after I figure out this whole forge thing...
Guys? guys where are you?
I got mouthy with an apparition of the Queen... how bad could it be? It's an apparition.
Oh, that bad.
Worst part? I hadn't saved... so had to do the who battle over again. Then, a little less mouthy.
I downloaded a mod that basically jacks you to Level 6 -- I'd slogged through 1-5 in Beta too many times to keep doing it. Also, D&D isn't really fun in a video game setting until at least level 5.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Situation is Normal”
heh, I love me some good ribbin' when there's an option to use a PC... but when forced to use Mac? My full ire.
Yeah, feels like an iPad with a mouse and physical keyboard.
"
Week 2 of using a Mac at work and can confirm that the business user experience is pretty bad. In fairness(?) I think the badness is compounded by the company *also* using Gmail for corporate mail which just creates a mess of browser-tabs and Mac is really bad at working with multiple 'windows' of the same app -- or just multiple windows.
I've been furiously clicking settings trying to get rational behavior out of the laptop... but all it seems to do is launch the Music app every third day - desperately hoping it can assuage it's failures by distracting me with music. Trying its best, I guess.
The command vs. control button hasn't been an issue at all, it's Apple's design decisions on how it thinks I want to interact with Apps. In a nutshell, it behaves like a phone and wants to single thread the display.
And seriously, building anything on Google is like building on sand... you shouldn't do it... nothing is plumb... third-party integration is second-rate and desultory because everyone knows that eventually Google will abandon whatever it has built - so everything feels like your first apartment... keeps you dry at night but all you can do is think about getting a real place to live.
Good enough for artists and teachers, I suppose.
:rantsuspend:
On “Ohio Issue 1 Soundly Defeated”
Right... break the duopoly. Solidarity ::fist::
Systemic failures, not just for lefties anymore.
"
As God intended.
"
No it isn't... I mean, it could be, but the way it is actually used is by Pro-Life folks who aren't simply Republican Partisans is: "birth control, low cost childcare, single payer health insurance and robust job training with living wages"
"
I see... you're one of those contract lawyers that just Amends the Master Agreement for every new transaction rather than doing an Exhibit? :-)
"
Heh, was it me? Sounds like something I'd say. Not exactly, but yes... while overturning Roe is good [Full Stop] building a Pro-Life 'narrative' and culture has to a much bigger project than counting weeks. Going back decades, it was clear that Team Red was not interested in all the other things that would be necessary to reduce demand and strengthen a culture in favor of life, but all that was overlooked in favor of the SCOTUS route.
It's not exactly that Team Red didn't think Roe would ever be overturned, but to InMD's point below [erm above], as long as it was in place they didn't have to *do* anything on any other front to keep the votes/dollars in line.
As some of us like to say, the game is iterated... whether or not R's really care and develop a full policy/platform/'narrative' agenda post-SCOTUS/Roe? Possible, but I didn't have confidence in the R's 25-yrs ago, and have even less in it's current form. But absent that, the iteration will favor any abortion over none... and if iterations continue, will settle at 'first trimester' 12-15 week policies with Medical approval thereafter.
"
Is there a reason why a State Constitution shouldn't allow for a Legislative Referendum rather than Amending the Constitution?
That seems to me a distinction no one is making. I don't care if States want to moot popular Legislative issues via referenda, but I disagree that Constitutional Frameworks at the State Level should be subject to 50% alterations.
Now, there might be a prudential argument against mooting Legislation via referenda, but who am I to judge?
"
As far as I can tell, I'm the only one calling the spade a spade, everyone else is calling it a rose because they like the outcome.
What I'd like to bookmark for possible future reference is if/when the abortion amendment passes the threshold limit is 'revisited' and passed with a rider (or a second amendment) that increases the threshold based on a 50%+1 standard. At which point, all the rose people will continue to describe the spade as a rose.
On “Trump Indictment Is Not About Speech”
Heh, he did that for his own protection... Imagine coming back to the office, "Whelp folks, we now have to prosecute the President whenever he lies." Chaos.
I was a little surprised that the indictment specifically cited the ECA. I don't know whether there was a legal/procedural reason he had to, but I'd've remained silent on the ECA in my indictment. Now it almost invites a potentially tedious battle over the meaning of a statute that should have been removed/updated decades ago. And, which will easily be pointed out *was* amended in 2022 to eliminate any of those tedious arguments we might now have to have.
On “Ohio Issue 1 Soundly Defeated”
1. Ideally written into the text of the Constitution...IMO the point of the constitution is to be a framework that requires super-majorities to alter. Legislation within the framework is 50%+1.
2. I'm glad your pleased; but my point in commenting on something where 'my side' is wrong (on procedure) is to point out that what I'm suggesting is bad governance regardless the outcome.
3. Right, as clarified in #1 we're in agreement here... Constitutional Frameworks are just that, frameworks that require broad consensus to pass or amend. They ought, by design, to be somewhat counter-majoritarian. As to how much? That's a prudential matter, so I'm fine leaving thresholds open raising/lowering. But the principal ought to be: to raise, you'd have to pass the very threshold you're proposing to raise it to -- precisely to prevent amending the constitution then pulling up the ladder behind you.
"
Live by the 50% die by the 50%.
But if the State Constitution was written to allow amendments at 50% (that strikes me as imprudent at the constitutional level) my principled position would be that any Constitution level change to the 50% threshold would require votes at the new threshold (no less than current threshold). So, if 50% is current, change to 60% would require 60% votes to pass.
Doesn't change the outcome here and doesn't fit into the Abortion narrative, but strikes me as unwise to allow 50% to increase the threshold to 60%. Just bad Constitutioning to 1) set it at 50% and 2) not put a provision protecting the threshold.
On “Trump Indictment Is Not About Speech”
Yeah, baffled at weird 1st amendment claims; seems pretty simple to me. Either they have insiders willing to come forward to corroborate (compellingly) that Trump himself knew it was all lies and therefore it rises to the level of conspiracy to obstruct/defraud, or they don't. If they don't, well, you take your chances in court.
The third key-grip on the set won't be enough, unless the entire rest of the production team corroborates. Do we know what Meadows himself is going to say? Anyone else likely to come forward? Pence seems a wild-card at this point.
I'd be surprised if the defense was 1st amendment; the defense will likely be this: If there's fraud in the election, the President and the DOJ are required to investigate, which they vigorously did (pause for clapping); the DOJ and the courts eventually ruled there was insufficient evidence of fraud, but the President was continuously advised (deceived? We all know he'll throw anyone under the bus) that there was more evidence of Fraud that wasn't yet determined; eventually he lost confidence that the DOJ was serious about investigating which is why he felt that there was no other choice than following the Law as set forth in the ECA: (state) elections where the results are in doubt have a framework for further adjudication. Some State Legislators/Officials agreed with him and it is *their* duty to pursue whatever actions are required in their states to contest the electors. Ultimately those objections were raised (PA and NM) which were duly voted upon and rejected and Trump left office on Jan 20. There was an unfortunate riot on Jan 6 where over-enthusiastic supporters broke in to the Capitol building, but that was beyond the President's control, and not a conspiracy. [Here Adams would have to connect the Oathkeeper conspiracy directly back to the President - which seems possible - but if it were probable, I feel like we'd already have heard about it]
That's the nut Adams will have to crack.
I'd be very surprised if the defense gets up there and says the President like all Americans can lie about anything he likes. I'd be surprised, but not gobsmacked; there's a difference.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Baldur’s Gate III”
Oh great, now I have to go make a new Character. Not sure I'll play... but making D&D characters is kind of an addiction.
On “Weekend Plans Post: In the House of Charles Entertainment Cheese”
Tempted. Massive failure of due diligence on my part.
I mean sure, there are always a few execs running around with their prestige Macs at HQ, but for people doing actual work?
On “Should United States v Donald J Trump Be Televised?”
Sure, but the meltdown puts him in prison... no further questions.
Now, he might still win the primary and maybe the election, but I'll cross that hypothetical after he self incriminates for fraud.
On “Weekend Plans Post: In the House of Charles Entertainment Cheese”
This week I started a with a new company and it wasn't until after I signed the offer that I found out they *only* give Macs to their employees. So this weekend will be spent in recovery from that trauma.
On “Should United States v Donald J Trump Be Televised?”
Agreed. Absent some sort of Colonel Jessup meltdown hard to see an upside.
"
On the one hand I agree, on the other I disagree.
~ The Internet
If we're going to get a Code Red trial, then yes... if we're going to get an OJ trial, then no.