...if you don’t want the effect, don’t produce the cause. And, again, I know it’s not a solution to others who do ill will, but it’d be a place to start, rather than continue.
Is it? What you're doing is arm chair quarterbacking long after the fact, not only with perfect information but without solving the issues of the moment. Further you're also assuming things would not have been worse if we'd just left them alone.
Applied to Syria, presumably this line of thought means we stay out, which is fine as long as you're willing to own up to letting children be nerve gassed. Maybe we can claim we don't care about them because of their race or religion.
Applying this logic to the big wars of history, what do we do with WW2 and the civil war? Stay out because they're going to be ugly? The first gulf war?
‘We are threatening to kill all your civilians if you kill ours.’….which is also *separately* illegal under international law. (Reprisals are illegal, threatening reprisals is illegal, and threatening civilians is illegal.)
The Ukraine traded it's nukes for a piece of legal paper saying Russia would respect it's sovereignty and borders.
Expecting the law to deal with situations that it can't deal with is problematic. The law is a means, not an ends.
What doesn’t make sense to me is the rush to accept this narrative as fact, particularly in light of past intelligence failures on these types of issues. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but does mean skepticism is warranted.
The problem is the undisputed facts are pretty damning.
Assad has an extensive history of dropping chemical weapons (CW) on his civilians (and for having this kind of CW). That's why we and the Russians had an agreement to remove these weapons from him. The Rebels don't have aircraft, chemical weapons, or a history of doing this. None of that is even disputed.
Since the agreement, we've had a lot of reports of Assad continuing to drop (mostly industrial) chemicals on his civilians (as well as blowing up Hospitals, etc). Him dropping nerve gas isn't a big change in technique or method, the only real difference is the media's reaction.
So this isn't really "intelligence" so much as "common knowledge of what everyone on all sides already knows he's doing". Everyone else lacks the motivation, means, opportunity, history, or all four.
I suppose it's possible that the US nerve gassed them to make Assad look bad, but that's getting into real tin-hat territory. Otherwise there's... the Russians doing it for him? The Rebels gassing their own people to make him look bad? Maybe the rebels got their hands on some gas and the Russians blew it up?
Note even that last one has serious problems. The rebels can't make nerve gas, so who did? Worse, no one is claiming this, presumably because gassing civilians is so common that they don't want to claim every specific event. What is disputed is whether or not chemical weapons were used at all. A little inelegant but that's the party line for all of these sorts of things.
the people chose the guy saying that he would move us out of Iraq.
That sounds like one of those promises that should be honored in form but not substance. Pull some or most everyone out but leave enough that the Iraqi military is stronger than "a JV team".
Sort of like how I expect (hope?) Trump's getting rid of immigrants will become "criminal immigrants" (yes, just like Obama), and so forth.
It's very hard to argue to the public that the world (and the US) is better off if the guys on the airbase nerve gassing folk should just be allowed to do their thing without interference.
Worse, the Obama-style "the US military is bad, just pull out" style of planning is how we turned a stable but unpleasant Iraq into ISIS. WW2 proved "no global cop" can result in the USA paying a larger price for peace long term. The flip side is not every genocide needs the global cop involved.
My feeling on this one is we blew up an airfield, that's a really cheap price if it buys us some respect and convinces Assad that he should be killing people without nerve gas for a while. I don't buy the slippery slope argument, tit-for-tat is normally pretty workable.
As far as I can tell...
1) There are no viable "moderates" running around
2) Assad might actually be the lesser of all the available evils.
3) The Russians care about this a lot more than we do and they're there.
4) ISIS.
5) This is on Europe's front door, if they want to spend the blood and treasure, let them.
6) If they *can't* because they're too weak, then this could be a learning experience on why that's a bad idea.
The fact that the VRA could, arguably, have been better from a policy standpoint is hardly a reason for the SCOTUS to strike it down.
The didn't strike it down, they just ruled that you need something more recent than 40 year old data proving it's needed (or alternatively, that it could be applied less selectively)
So... according to you, how old can the data be? 80 years? 120? Does it matter if *no* *one* who was trying to do unconstitutional acts is still alive? How about if no one who was in power then still is?
Can we use the old racism data from the founding fathers? Whoops. If we do that then every single state has problems and it's just these special ones we care about.
At what point does singling out "special" people/states for "special" treatment become unconstitutional?
What presumption of innocence? The VRA (and the its pre clearance requirements) aren’t criminal punishments, and apply to governments, not individuals.
There are no constitutional issues in voters electing people and giving them power? Seriously?
At the end of the day you're suggesting the agents of voters in certain places can't be trusted to not engage in actions that won't be unconstitutional.
I actually agree fully with that. The part I disagree with is we can tell who from whom based on the actions of their grandparents.
If the VRA isn't a criminal punishment and it's a great thing, then why not apply it everywhere?
If it's because the states which are covered are far more likely to abuse their power, then why not prove it with something other than 40+ year old data? Nothing has shifted in more than 4 census counts?
Purely speculation, but I suspect that Kennedy and Roberts both regret their decision, given that two or more states immediately turned around and treated the decision as free license to discriminate openly, and get at least a couple of elections in before the DoJ could react.
So we need to assume all grandchildren of racists are racists and presumption of innocence doesn't apply?
Are there any other crimes and people we can constitutionally apply that to or is it just the GOP?
What about Shelby County is scary? At it's root, what the SC said was proving your great-grandfather was a racist isn't the same as proving you are. Everything about the voting rights act was fine except the part where they use 40+ year old data as "current".
An equally possible explanation is that society as a whole is moving in a progressive direction on social issues,
Agreed.
but is also becoming more polarized. In particular, first the internet followed by social media have empowered people to let their freak flag fly.
Partly... but the larger issue for many groups is, "what now?". Churches/Political Parties/Social Movements need to stay relevant or their leaders and true believers lose power/jobs.
If the dragon of racism is 99% dead, then the SJW need to focus really hard on that remaining 1% just so they have a source of funding and power.
Take the Catholic Church in Poland. When Communism was in charge and repressing people, the Priests were the center of the rebellion and powerful, important people.
And now that Communism is dead and gone, they need an enemy. Some reason for the people to rally to their banner. Abortion fills some of that need, but the church is struggling and will continue to struggle. Eventually they'll find another enemy or (disaster) people will lose the expectation that the church is going to lead. The later will be actively resisted every step along the way by the movements leaders and true believers.
So unions talk about the days when killing workers was legal and present 75+ year old murders as though they're current problems. Feminists talk about 79% cents per dollar as though it's legal to pay women less. Anti-Racists talk about lynchings, slavery, segregation, and link every quickly-arrested lone-wolf murderer to a vast wave of racism. All of them complain about the younger generation not remembering the struggle and claim the bad old days can instantly come back.
A movement is first about fixing problems. But after those problems are fixed, the organization stays on and becomes about political power for it's own sake. They find more to do, or they claim the problem isn't solved, or they find/make some new enemy.
Some of that "polarization" is between people who want these organizations to be relevant and treated seriously and people who see them as engaged in self serving exercises in political power, and who don't want to be blamed for the sins of many decades past.
Dark Matter: Then explain, if drug baselines is an actual problem
OG: It is, because thalidomide. Drug trials are often hesitant to accept women because of possible pregnancy complications, likewise they are loathe to explore possible pregnancy complications by testing on pregnant women, for obvious reasons.
So the obvious solution is to... force companies to test on pregnant women in the name of equality?
@francis If feminism has a solution to this problem other than what I just suggested, by all means put it on the table.
I don’t think we would agree on whether it paints McConnell in a particularly good light...
Since we had Biden walk us through the expected political actions in this situation about 15 years ago, the political logic goes back a lot further than McConnell.
And everyone directly involved is a professional, and knew their role in this dance. Obama/Biden/etc knew the situation the GOP was in (and if they didn't, McConnell told them the first day).
Obama's job was to make it as painful as possible. I'm surprised he didn't nominate a minority. If he'd been serious about putting someone on the SC he could have nominated a very moderate Republican judge (given who he was replacing, it'd still be a leftward swing... although I suppose Garland could be something close to that).
In any case most or all of this *outrage* by the professionals was show. McConnell had pretty much *zero* choice here.
And for that matter, McConnell had no choice but to go nuclear. The alternative to nuclear was Trump doesn't get to nominate Justices because he's Trump; And Trump is expected to nominate someone who will swing the court to the Left because the Dems are unhappy they weren't able to swing the court to the Left.
That's why the filibuster has survived so long for the SC. Not because it was useful, but because it wasn't. The first time it was used for crass political reasons would also be the last time it was used at all.
I don't know. If you're claiming it's a problem, then claim it's a problem, put up facts to support it, and don't suggest it might be so I'm expected to check and make your argument for you.
But afaict men mostly don't take the time they're already granted.
In how many companies is it routinely expected that men will take the same number of leave days per year as a woman for child care...
(Ignoring the rest of your sentence because child care days dwarfs the others)
Expected? This is a conversation that should happen between spouses. I don't see why it's desirable for a company to step into the middle of that. Families presumably do what makes economic sense for them.
If there are policies which say women, and not men, can take time off for childcare then point them out and file a lawsuit, but afaict those sorts of policies are already illegal.
How many women are CEOs, Congresspeople, receivers of patents?
Why is this a problem? Equal opportunity does not and should not result in equal results. You're not pointing to a problem here and you're also not suggesting a solution.
When baselines are created in any discipline — from drug responses to (at random) playing classical music — how often is the baseline set to women?
Oh good, this might be an actual problem. We can fix actual problems.
First, source that lack of women in drug baselines is a problem because the answer is "I don't know" but I've seen advertisements for women & men in drug trials.
Then explain why women play "classical music" differently than men to the degree they need a separate baseline (as opposed to say, what sounds good). Don't modern symphonies audition with screens between judges and musicians so they don't know their race/gender/etc?
Then explain, if drug baselines is an actual problem, why isn't this being presented as a problem/goal as opposed to 79% pay?
But this tilt in the reporting is not solely because he’s not a Democrat. It’s because of how he campaigned and the groups he tried to appeal to or at least tried not to offend.
*Everyone*, on both sides, agrees that the SC is super important.
If we allow the filibuster in this situation then we're going to end up with a bunch of no-history cyphers that no one can object to because no one knows how they'll rule.
We probably want the SC to have brilliant legal minds.
One of the big reasons why the SC is important is Congress isn't doing it's job. Congress is handing off poorly written laws filled with conflicting statements and just hoping judges make it work. Similarly Congress is punting on various social issues and so forth.
So we end up with the SC being an arm of Congress.
Long term I hope we push a ton of policy back to the States. Enough of them tried gay marriage that it became a lot less scary. Abortion was headed that way and might be a lot less poisonous if the SC hadn't stepped in. Also States can try things, blow up their budgets or prove they work, without risking the dollar.
Also, the idea that, at this point, which nominee is supposed to scare me more than Gorsuch does.
Presumably a nominee who didn't have the Dems marching lockstep to *support* him the previous time they had the chance. Every single Dem in the Senate was fine with his ethics, intellect, morals, and reasoning up until it became politically convenient for them to proclaim that he's an ax murderer.
If you're scared, it's because you believe the lies you've been told.
IMHO it'd be far more honest for the Dems to proclaim he's a great guy but they're voting against him because of their politics and not his ethics, sort of like what the GOP did with Garland.
Doctor Jay:
Can you tell me in one or two paragraphs, @Kimmi why feminism fails?I’m not being sarcastic.I’m unlikely to agree, but I want to hear what you have to say.
This wasn't directed to me, but I'll answer it.
Feminism's big problem is that it's already won.
Pay? Today is "Equal Pay Day". It's illegal to pay women less and has been for many years. So we have statements about how women earn 79 cents compared to men without mentioning that adjusted for experience, profession, and hours worked (etc), it's not true.
Education? Women are so over-represented in college that finding quality males is a serious issue.
The actual problems women face aren't ugly or serious enough to motivate people, so the powers that be must magnify (or invent) something being wrong to generate outrage. The current batch of problems are designed to not have solutions.
Or let's reverse the question, What would it take for feminism to win? At what point do it's leaders say "society has done enough, we're out of jobs now?
My point was that we should start from common ground and move from there to figuring out what to do.
We probably have a lot more common ground than not.
Rule of law is a good thing.
Infrastructure is a good thing and falls under the gov's mandate.
Women's rights are a good thing.
Racism is a bad thing.
Economic growth is a good thing.
Yes, but power cuts two ways, tho: it also creates the stability necessary for functioning economies and human flourishing.
Within limits, sure. The USSR (and various others) shows at the other extreme that too much gov causes the same problems as too little.
Of course a libertarian might argue, contra historical evidence, that we’ve reached the point where we can kick that stabilizing crutch away and do just fine. I remain dubious of that view, as always.
Arguing that there should be less government is not arguing that there should be *none*.
If the gov is so important that you *can't* trust the other side to use it, then that's a problem with the sides and it's also a big problem with big government.
...what do we do when we disagree about which one should give way to which.
The power of the government is the power of the gun. Putting a gun to someone's head and insisting he do it your way is something which should be used sparingly.
Further, insisting the gov *do* something creates multiple "agent" problems. These various spy agencies apparently being used for political purposes, the net worth of various high level politicians, etc.
We're fighting over control of the gov and the SC because they have become far too important to let the other people use them, and because that control is worth Billions of dollars to their agents. None of this is good.
It's horrible that someone would refuse to bake a cake because of someone else's sex life. I'm not sure it's worth tens of millions of society's dollars to force the matter by putting a gun to the baker's head, especially if there are other bakers.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “A Confession of Bias”
Is it? What you're doing is arm chair quarterbacking long after the fact, not only with perfect information but without solving the issues of the moment. Further you're also assuming things would not have been worse if we'd just left them alone.
Applied to Syria, presumably this line of thought means we stay out, which is fine as long as you're willing to own up to letting children be nerve gassed. Maybe we can claim we don't care about them because of their race or religion.
Applying this logic to the big wars of history, what do we do with WW2 and the civil war? Stay out because they're going to be ugly? The first gulf war?
"
The Ukraine traded it's nukes for a piece of legal paper saying Russia would respect it's sovereignty and borders.
Expecting the law to deal with situations that it can't deal with is problematic. The law is a means, not an ends.
"
The problem is the undisputed facts are pretty damning.
Assad has an extensive history of dropping chemical weapons (CW) on his civilians (and for having this kind of CW). That's why we and the Russians had an agreement to remove these weapons from him. The Rebels don't have aircraft, chemical weapons, or a history of doing this. None of that is even disputed.
Since the agreement, we've had a lot of reports of Assad continuing to drop (mostly industrial) chemicals on his civilians (as well as blowing up Hospitals, etc). Him dropping nerve gas isn't a big change in technique or method, the only real difference is the media's reaction.
So this isn't really "intelligence" so much as "common knowledge of what everyone on all sides already knows he's doing". Everyone else lacks the motivation, means, opportunity, history, or all four.
I suppose it's possible that the US nerve gassed them to make Assad look bad, but that's getting into real tin-hat territory. Otherwise there's... the Russians doing it for him? The Rebels gassing their own people to make him look bad? Maybe the rebels got their hands on some gas and the Russians blew it up?
Note even that last one has serious problems. The rebels can't make nerve gas, so who did? Worse, no one is claiming this, presumably because gassing civilians is so common that they don't want to claim every specific event. What is disputed is whether or not chemical weapons were used at all. A little inelegant but that's the party line for all of these sorts of things.
"
Agreed, but I'm assuming some of that was political pretext... "forcing" O to matching his campaign promises pretty closely.
"
That sounds like one of those promises that should be honored in form but not substance. Pull some or most everyone out but leave enough that the Iraqi military is stronger than "a JV team".
Sort of like how I expect (hope?) Trump's getting rid of immigrants will become "criminal immigrants" (yes, just like Obama), and so forth.
"
Assad killed maybe 50 children and we blew up maybe 20 of his airplanes. That's not a winning transaction for Assad.
"
It's very hard to argue to the public that the world (and the US) is better off if the guys on the airbase nerve gassing folk should just be allowed to do their thing without interference.
Worse, the Obama-style "the US military is bad, just pull out" style of planning is how we turned a stable but unpleasant Iraq into ISIS. WW2 proved "no global cop" can result in the USA paying a larger price for peace long term. The flip side is not every genocide needs the global cop involved.
My feeling on this one is we blew up an airfield, that's a really cheap price if it buys us some respect and convinces Assad that he should be killing people without nerve gas for a while. I don't buy the slippery slope argument, tit-for-tat is normally pretty workable.
As far as I can tell...
1) There are no viable "moderates" running around
2) Assad might actually be the lesser of all the available evils.
3) The Russians care about this a lot more than we do and they're there.
4) ISIS.
5) This is on Europe's front door, if they want to spend the blood and treasure, let them.
6) If they *can't* because they're too weak, then this could be a learning experience on why that's a bad idea.
On “A Safer Response to Garland-Gorsuch”
Sure. That's a problem. Sometimes the grandchild really is like the grandfather.
"
The didn't strike it down, they just ruled that you need something more recent than 40 year old data proving it's needed (or alternatively, that it could be applied less selectively)
So... according to you, how old can the data be? 80 years? 120? Does it matter if *no* *one* who was trying to do unconstitutional acts is still alive? How about if no one who was in power then still is?
Can we use the old racism data from the founding fathers? Whoops. If we do that then every single state has problems and it's just these special ones we care about.
At what point does singling out "special" people/states for "special" treatment become unconstitutional?
"
Err... did I get the logic of that right?
The agents of voters in certain places can be trusted to engage in actions that won’t be constitutional.
Is what I meant.
"
There are no constitutional issues in voters electing people and giving them power? Seriously?
At the end of the day you're suggesting the agents of voters in certain places can't be trusted to not engage in actions that won't be unconstitutional.
I actually agree fully with that. The part I disagree with is we can tell who from whom based on the actions of their grandparents.
If the VRA isn't a criminal punishment and it's a great thing, then why not apply it everywhere?
If it's because the states which are covered are far more likely to abuse their power, then why not prove it with something other than 40+ year old data? Nothing has shifted in more than 4 census counts?
"
So we need to assume all grandchildren of racists are racists and presumption of innocence doesn't apply?
Are there any other crimes and people we can constitutionally apply that to or is it just the GOP?
"
What about Shelby County is scary? At it's root, what the SC said was proving your great-grandfather was a racist isn't the same as proving you are. Everything about the voting rights act was fine except the part where they use 40+ year old data as "current".
On “The Data Says Everything Is Fine”
Agreed.
Partly... but the larger issue for many groups is, "what now?". Churches/Political Parties/Social Movements need to stay relevant or their leaders and true believers lose power/jobs.
If the dragon of racism is 99% dead, then the SJW need to focus really hard on that remaining 1% just so they have a source of funding and power.
Take the Catholic Church in Poland. When Communism was in charge and repressing people, the Priests were the center of the rebellion and powerful, important people.
And now that Communism is dead and gone, they need an enemy. Some reason for the people to rally to their banner. Abortion fills some of that need, but the church is struggling and will continue to struggle. Eventually they'll find another enemy or (disaster) people will lose the expectation that the church is going to lead. The later will be actively resisted every step along the way by the movements leaders and true believers.
So unions talk about the days when killing workers was legal and present 75+ year old murders as though they're current problems. Feminists talk about 79% cents per dollar as though it's legal to pay women less. Anti-Racists talk about lynchings, slavery, segregation, and link every quickly-arrested lone-wolf murderer to a vast wave of racism. All of them complain about the younger generation not remembering the struggle and claim the bad old days can instantly come back.
A movement is first about fixing problems. But after those problems are fixed, the organization stays on and becomes about political power for it's own sake. They find more to do, or they claim the problem isn't solved, or they find/make some new enemy.
Some of that "polarization" is between people who want these organizations to be relevant and treated seriously and people who see them as engaged in self serving exercises in political power, and who don't want to be blamed for the sins of many decades past.
"
So the obvious solution is to... force companies to test on pregnant women in the name of equality?
@francis If feminism has a solution to this problem other than what I just suggested, by all means put it on the table.
On “A Safer Response to Garland-Gorsuch”
Thank you.
Since we had Biden walk us through the expected political actions in this situation about 15 years ago, the political logic goes back a lot further than McConnell.
And everyone directly involved is a professional, and knew their role in this dance. Obama/Biden/etc knew the situation the GOP was in (and if they didn't, McConnell told them the first day).
Obama's job was to make it as painful as possible. I'm surprised he didn't nominate a minority. If he'd been serious about putting someone on the SC he could have nominated a very moderate Republican judge (given who he was replacing, it'd still be a leftward swing... although I suppose Garland could be something close to that).
In any case most or all of this *outrage* by the professionals was show. McConnell had pretty much *zero* choice here.
And for that matter, McConnell had no choice but to go nuclear. The alternative to nuclear was Trump doesn't get to nominate Justices because he's Trump; And Trump is expected to nominate someone who will swing the court to the Left because the Dems are unhappy they weren't able to swing the court to the Left.
That's why the filibuster has survived so long for the SC. Not because it was useful, but because it wasn't. The first time it was used for crass political reasons would also be the last time it was used at all.
On “The Data Says Everything Is Fine”
I don't know. If you're claiming it's a problem, then claim it's a problem, put up facts to support it, and don't suggest it might be so I'm expected to check and make your argument for you.
But afaict men mostly don't take the time they're already granted.
(Ignoring the rest of your sentence because child care days dwarfs the others)
Expected? This is a conversation that should happen between spouses. I don't see why it's desirable for a company to step into the middle of that. Families presumably do what makes economic sense for them.
If there are policies which say women, and not men, can take time off for childcare then point them out and file a lawsuit, but afaict those sorts of policies are already illegal.
Why is this a problem? Equal opportunity does not and should not result in equal results. You're not pointing to a problem here and you're also not suggesting a solution.
Oh good, this might be an actual problem. We can fix actual problems.
First, source that lack of women in drug baselines is a problem because the answer is "I don't know" but I've seen advertisements for women & men in drug trials.
Then explain why women play "classical music" differently than men to the degree they need a separate baseline (as opposed to say, what sounds good). Don't modern symphonies audition with screens between judges and musicians so they don't know their race/gender/etc?
Then explain, if drug baselines is an actual problem, why isn't this being presented as a problem/goal as opposed to 79% pay?
"
That doesn't make this "tilt" any less dishonest.
On “A Safer Response to Garland-Gorsuch”
*Everyone*, on both sides, agrees that the SC is super important.
If we allow the filibuster in this situation then we're going to end up with a bunch of no-history cyphers that no one can object to because no one knows how they'll rule.
We probably want the SC to have brilliant legal minds.
One of the big reasons why the SC is important is Congress isn't doing it's job. Congress is handing off poorly written laws filled with conflicting statements and just hoping judges make it work. Similarly Congress is punting on various social issues and so forth.
So we end up with the SC being an arm of Congress.
Long term I hope we push a ton of policy back to the States. Enough of them tried gay marriage that it became a lot less scary. Abortion was headed that way and might be a lot less poisonous if the SC hadn't stepped in. Also States can try things, blow up their budgets or prove they work, without risking the dollar.
"
Tax reform, making the entire country right-to-work,... or if the Dems start using the filibuster to prevent *anything* from working.
"
Presumably a nominee who didn't have the Dems marching lockstep to *support* him the previous time they had the chance. Every single Dem in the Senate was fine with his ethics, intellect, morals, and reasoning up until it became politically convenient for them to proclaim that he's an ax murderer.
If you're scared, it's because you believe the lies you've been told.
IMHO it'd be far more honest for the Dems to proclaim he's a great guy but they're voting against him because of their politics and not his ethics, sort of like what the GOP did with Garland.
On “The Data Says Everything Is Fine”
This wasn't directed to me, but I'll answer it.
Feminism's big problem is that it's already won.
Pay? Today is "Equal Pay Day". It's illegal to pay women less and has been for many years. So we have statements about how women earn 79 cents compared to men without mentioning that adjusted for experience, profession, and hours worked (etc), it's not true.
Education? Women are so over-represented in college that finding quality males is a serious issue.
The actual problems women face aren't ugly or serious enough to motivate people, so the powers that be must magnify (or invent) something being wrong to generate outrage. The current batch of problems are designed to not have solutions.
Or let's reverse the question, What would it take for feminism to win? At what point do it's leaders say "society has done enough, we're out of jobs now?
"
We probably have a lot more common ground than not.
Rule of law is a good thing.
Infrastructure is a good thing and falls under the gov's mandate.
Women's rights are a good thing.
Racism is a bad thing.
Economic growth is a good thing.
Or did you mean something else?
"
Within limits, sure. The USSR (and various others) shows at the other extreme that too much gov causes the same problems as too little.
Arguing that there should be less government is not arguing that there should be *none*.
If the gov is so important that you *can't* trust the other side to use it, then that's a problem with the sides and it's also a big problem with big government.
"
The power of the government is the power of the gun. Putting a gun to someone's head and insisting he do it your way is something which should be used sparingly.
Further, insisting the gov *do* something creates multiple "agent" problems. These various spy agencies apparently being used for political purposes, the net worth of various high level politicians, etc.
We're fighting over control of the gov and the SC because they have become far too important to let the other people use them, and because that control is worth Billions of dollars to their agents. None of this is good.
It's horrible that someone would refuse to bake a cake because of someone else's sex life. I'm not sure it's worth tens of millions of society's dollars to force the matter by putting a gun to the baker's head, especially if there are other bakers.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.