As a person whose native language is Spanish, LatinX is one of the most stupid, most culturally insensitive, well meaning but totally clueless gringos have ever done. Way worse than Hawaiian Pizza or whatever the issue was with the sushi in Oberlin that triggered Rod Dreher a couple of years ago.
Except for certain limited exceptions like cows and bulls, every group that includes members of more than one gender (there’s no upper limit to the number of genders in the group, as long as there’s more than one) is referred to using the male gender suffix. End of story. Anything else sounds stupid to us, probably because it is.
We are not going to change our language to assuage the sensibilities of clueless Americans. If you want to honor the Latino culture and heritage, that’s great, go learn about it. If you want to change it so that it looks better to you, well that’s as imperialist as the things you were supposed to be fighting.
[Excuse me, is there a place nearby where I can tie my high horse while I grab a coffee, pard’ner?]
I don't think God is evil or powerless. He is just remote - A big picture guy.
The Lion King's dad had it right. A lion eating a baby gazelle is not evil, just as a man eating a baby rooster is not evil. Meteorites wiping out millions of dinosaurs is not evil. The Patriots winning this coming Thursday or Biden becoming president is not evil. And inserting tab A in the wrong slot is also not evil, in case someone wondered.
It's just how the big scheme was designed to work.
And it is an awesome big design. But you have to consider it as a whole. To focus on the gazelle, the chicken, the dinosaur, the Rams team, Trump's supporters, or the tab is just smallmindness, and a bit narcissistic. You are just a bit in a larger scheme. It's not about you. It is most definitely not about you.
Many (most?) people expect the last 14 billion years since the Universe's creation to just be a prologue to their own personal existence. Indeed dinosaurs only telos was to provide gasoline to their SUVs. And, if and when they stop being around, they expect, in the words of Arthur C Clarke that "Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.(*)" because, what's their use now that he's not there to watch them.
(*) Arthur C. Clark, the Nine Billion names of God (1953) - In case you haven't read it, here it is https://urbigenous.net/library/nine_billion_names_of_god.html
It's one of the best uses of five minutes in your whole existence. You are welcome
I appreciate the response. The only comment I would add is that most people actually believe they are acting morally. That includes Biden voters as well as Trump voters.
No one really goes out with skulls in their helmets.
As a general philosophical observation, I think most major religions have not addressed the discoveries of the last few centuries.
From the discovery that billions of people in far off lands do not know about your religion, and yet God does not seem to punish them, to the discovery that the Earth is 4 billion years old, and God apparently ignored all but the last 100,000 years (why did He create dinosaurs? Just so we would have gasoline for our SUVs?), to the discovery that there are billions of galaxies and trillions of starts and planets, and yet God is supposed to care only about this rock because we are special.
I don't see any religion or theologian really trying to align their teachings to what we now know, as opposed to what Paul or Mohammed might have known then. There is a dissonance between what everybody knows it's true about the world and the universe, and the framework of the major {Abrahamic} religions. Religion is not even showing in the field, so the Universe seems to be winning by forfeit
Its interesting culturally how this has evolved, to the ancients a god that does not personally intervene is a completely useless god not worth bothering with, regardless of whether they exist or not.
Tis is a consequence of the "death" of the God of the Gaps. Ancients prayed not to be smitten by lightning until the lightning rod was invented. They prayed to survive smallpox until vaccines were invented. They prayed for mothers to survive childbirth and puerperal fever until microbes and asepsis were discovered. Then God was no longer needed for those purposes.
First of all, I don’t see anything odd about praying for the results of an election. It’s both scriptural and instinctive to offer intercessory prayer. It’d be strange if one believed in an all-powerful God, loved one’s country, and didn’t think to offer up a prayer for it. If one believed that a candidate was being unjustly denied the presidency, it’d be expected to ask God to change the outcome.
Please don't take what follows as snark, but as an honest question, using a extreme hypothetical
I am told that there's n oncoming Patriot-Rams game in a few days. I've heard the Patriots are a good team (I don't follow the NFL), and apparently the rams are also an OK team. I am sure plenty of people will pray for victory in that game
So how does God decide who wins? Does He take a tally of the prayers He hears, and gives the win to the one team that got more intercessory prayers? So, Cam Newton or Jared Goff don't really have anything to do with the result?
If my prayers can't help my team win (God, please bless the Barça!!) then they probably can't make Trump win the 2020 election. Games and elections are won and lost by people's actions, and to say that, if only one more person prays for a Rams win, then the Patriots will know bitter defeat takes away all agency from our lives.
After all, if God will give the win to the team with more prayers, He can make more people pray for His (God's) preferred team. It's turtles all the way down
God does not need a spaceship. But, more importantly, He doesn't want a spaceship.
And one last thought, if you pray for a win, and God rewards the other team, are you sure you are in God's team? have you thought, you might be in the baddies' team?
No, the real issue is not race or misogyny or whatever crap you want to assign to them so they can be othered. The real issue is that these people don’t want to hear that the life they have chosen for themselves, be it a small farmer, or a miner, or a factory line is a dying profession, and that it may very well die before they do.
Four years ago we had long discussions about coal miners, and coding, and whether Hillary was wrong, or just tone deaf.
In all of those discussions I kept coming to one essential thing: the mines were not going to reopen. And reopen they didn't.
The small farms that we used to know are dying. Most rural areas are trapped in a circle of farm consolidation and mechanization, which reduces labor requirements, which depresses the community and weakens the remaining farms, which end being consolidated into even bigger agribusiness, and so on.
The small farms are not coming back. No matter how many times the WI farmer votes for the party that tells him they will.
There's another party that is telling him that the life he knew is over, and it's time to analyze the alternatives: move from wheat or soy or milk to high end produce could be one selling organic eggs and arugula to urban restaurants at a premium. Agrotourism (very common in Europe) could be another.
A more robust welfare net, with accessible health care, and even social workers supporting stay at home senior citizens would like help strengthen rural communities.
That's how those godless Europeans support a much larger fraction of rural population than we do in America (28% to 19%)
Or they can keep voting themselves out of existence.
As I said about the miners: I am sorry that the world they knew is dying, but dying it is. We can manage and mitigate the impact of the changes, or we can let the chips fall where they may.
But the mines will not reopen, I mean, the old rural world is not coming back.
That’s basically the same as % of maximum capacity, which is number of per soft times useful área times a factor to minimize spread. It still does not consider customers turnaround (I can let in more people if they linger inside less) and type of activity (do they mostly just breathe, or are they expected to talk/sing/pray?
Costco is not just safer than a church, it’s also much safer than a restaurant. A church and an indoor sitting restaurant are in the same ballpark regarding the virus transmission.
Perhaps the best solution is to create a metric considering my three variables, or as many as reasonably appropriate, and have each church, restaurant, or supermarket apply for a COVID occupancy permit. The permit would establish people per 100 sq ft Niall virus threat conditions, with different values for green yellow, orange, red, maroon, dark violet, almost black, etc. local transmission levels.
I’m an engineer, I can’t help it making it into the weeds
I'm waiting for bars and restaurants to also claim that eating is an essential activity (at least as essential as praying) and that closure of eateries will have a devastating effect on the community.
Probably because it would make it extremely difficult to administer. Going by number of people inside is an easier criterium that is a proxy to the neutral objective, which is reduce the virus transmission.
I do agree that the order could have a preamble explaining the relationship between how many, how long, and doing what before actually setting up the limits in the different categories. But then I am an engineer, and I like explanations for everything.
From a legal point of view, I don't know if the preamble would have or have not made any difference. We know that the Supreme Court considers that A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, as surplusage. I suspect they would do the same here.
I know that small-o orthodox Christians consider Biden a godless atheist because he's pro-choice, but by being against the death penalty, Biden, a practicing Catholic, is actually following the recent Catholic teaching on that matter.
Following Amy Barret's famous legal article or Catholic judges and cooperation with sin, (https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=ustlj) I would argue that, as head of the executive branch with direct authority over federal executions, Biden has a more direct responsibility with respect to the death penalty than he might have with respect to abortions
I concur with Roberts that neutral is not just how many people are there, but how long they are there, and what people do when they are there.
When I go to Costco, I do not stand for 45 minutes shoulder to shoulder with the same exact people, while we are all talking (aka praying) or singing. I stay reasonably separated from every other person, we do not talk to each other, and we are all circulating around, minimizing the exposure to any specific person.
With the same amount of people, virus transmission is lower at Costco than in a religious service. Just focusing is the number of people and not their behavior is either special pleading or pure laziness. What it is not is a neutral analysis
I use Sky View Lite (it's free) on my phone every time I see a light in the sky - I sometimes I point it randomly and it will show what I would see if it wasn't for Houston's massive light pollution. Still it's fun to look at a yellowy sky with the naked eye, and then see the stars and planets through the phone
The shy Trump voter is a real thing. I have empirical evidence
In my Houston neighborhood (Oak Forest), there were lots of Biden/Harris yard signs, but no Trump/Pence ones.
But there were also several yard signs for Wendell Champion (*) as House Representative (TX 18th District). Under some obscure TX law -I think- those yard signs cannot identify the candidate's party. But Champion was the snowball-chance-in-hell Republican candidate in a district that Sheila Jackson Lee first won in 1994, re-elected this week with 73% of the votes.
Those Champion yard signs, they were all hidden shy Trump voters. Too uncomfortable to put a Trump/Pence sign in their front yard, but adding to the TX red wall.
(*) Champion is also one of the three individual plaintiffs suing over and over again for tossing out the 127k early votes in the ten drive through locations in Houston.
They planned, but didn't, and doing it is likely illegal
BTW, TX law will only authorize you a mail-in ballot if you are going to be out of the county but in the USA on election day. I tried to ask for one in 2016 because I was going to be in the UK, and nope, that doesn't count. You must include a valid USA address where you will be on election day.
Don't fret, I changed my flight and landed Monday eve. I voted.
And leftists are dedicated to ensuring every non-existent person votes because if you squint hard enough, it doesn’t look that bad.
Do I have to remind you that you are the one that repeated in this blog the false allegation from the Texas Secretary of State that 90,000 people (which included me, myself, I) had voted illegally in Texas, since our SSN was issued when we were not yet citizens.
An allegation which of course crumbled in 24 hours. but you didn't bother to look, because, of course, 90,000 illegal votes in Texas sounds like very normal to you
That's what I did in my only medical visit in Houston since the start of the pandemic. We were sent an email were we were told that once we arrived to the parking lot we had to tit a link in that email, which generated a text in my phone, which I responded to confirm I was at the parking lot. I was told to wait until another text will tell me that they were ready for me. Which i did, in my car. With A/C (in the Houston sun)
There was a time were you. @Aaron_David, believed, with zero proof, that 58,000 illegal immigrants (which, fun fact, included me, personally) had voted in Texas, and that 95,000 had registered illegally.
The thing to remember is that it’s not just Playin’ F-Ball, it’s the fact that college football is a significant income source for these schools and the towns around them.
One further note about the British Constitution, and the Queen in Parliament
Most other constitutional monarchies recognize the sovereignty of the people, and not that of the monarch, or of their parliament. As an example, Article 1 of the Spanish Constitution says:
Spain is hereby established as a social and democratic State, subject to the rule of law, which advocates freedom, justice, equality and political pluralism as highest values of its legal system.
National sovereignty belongs to the Spanish people, from whom all State powers emanate.
The political form of the Spanish State is the Parliamentary Monarchy,
Their constitutions then go on to establish the limits between the Executive and the Legislative branch. But in Britain, Executive and Legislative are merged into a single entity
The British constitution is based on a different conception of who the Sovereign is. The Sovereign is not the people, the Sovereign is "The Queen in Parliament". In this framework, the people are not really part of the sovereign, except insofar as the Queen in Parliament want to involve them.
The Queen in Parliament means that all the power resides on the Queen, when she is acting with the advice [and consent] of Parliament. Through the centuries, the balance between the two have moved from the queen (small letters intended) to the PARLIAMENT, but the the essential concept has not changed in centuries.
through a separate tug of war, the Prime Minister has stepped into all of the powers of the Queen. He can do anything, as long as it is within the letter of what Parliament has advised or consented to (via legislation and/or votes of confidence). The Prime Minister is whoever the Queen proposes that a majority of Parliament will not vote against. in practice, the leader of the largest faction in Parliament, and will retain his position for as long as a majority of MPs do not vote against him in a no confidence vote (Parliament itself, through the fixed Parliaments Act, established maximum five years period, but Parliament can change that tomorrow, if the "advise" the Queen to do so.
The franchise, who is allowed to vote for MPs, and the balance of powers between Lords and Commons, has changed a lot in the last 200 years, but again, The Queen in Parliament could change that tomorrow, legislation restricting the franchise to identical twins under the age of 15 months would be totally ok, if that is their good pleasure.
One major thing has happened in the last decade or two: first past the post, which essentially forces all political forces to consolidate into two opposite parties, have fused -as Tories or Labour- groups that are very different between them, and have very few common goals, except perhaps opposition to the other group.
Labour is now a very unstable alliance between actual socialists, SWJ/Bernie Bros -like leftists, and center left urban professionals. Keir Stormer represents the latter group, Corbyn, the middle one, while the former, historically predominant in the party, is petering away.
The Tories now encompass large capital and finance, center right professionals, retirees and senior citizens, and English nativists (aka litte English). Note that the Tories coalition is unable to win outside of England properly, though unlike Republicans, they are able to attract minority and working class voters.
In the particular case of Brexit, both parties are being fractured: Labour socialists, and Tory high finance and nativist wings all support Brexit (the high finance wing out of self-interest in the opportunities the post Brexit downturn will bring forth). The other wings oppose it. Because MPs do actually respond to their (limited) universe of voters, their individual support or opposition to Brexit depends on what wing of the party their voters come from. None of the two parties is thus in full control of their MPs.
Because in the case of Brexit the Prime Minister is not sure he can trust his MPs, he is acting more and more outside the supervision of Parliament. This supervision is not legally mandated. Parliament can always vote for a no confidence if they dislike being shut off from the process. The Prime Minister is, for all purposes, the "Queen" in The Queen in Parliament. He is sovereign for as long as Parliament allows him to.
One last note, as we discussed here at the time, the Referendum does not have a place in the British Constitution. There is no provision to ask the people anything. The Referendum is, and always was, advisory as a constitutional matter
England had Brits. France had French. Spain had Spaniards. China had Chinese. Ethiopia had Ethiopians. Japan had Japanese. India had Indians.
England did not have Brits. Britain had English.
The explicit, first, and implicit, later *imperial* domination of the UK by the English, without consideration of all the other communities, Welsh, Scots, Irish, has been a source of resentment of the latter for centuries. Brexit, forced by the English on all the other groups, is just the latest just manifestation, one that, perhaps, will be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and disunites Britain in its constituents.
With respect to Spain having Spaniards, well, the answer is no. 500 years has not been enough to create a single Spanish community out of a conglomerate of historical nations (*). It took France 250 years of continuous, unrelenting, centralizing efforts and pressure, from Richelieu to Napoleon III, to actually create a France that has French.
And Eritrea, Pakistan or Bangladesh may have something to say about Ethiopia having Ethiopians or India having Indians.
Hari Seldon said that history has inertia, and that it takes a very long time, or a really big conscious effort, or both (see France) to change history's direction. We should all remember that when thinking policies and politics
(*) As an actual Spaniard, I can tell you this with certainty.
I don't know if you realize it, Kristin, but this sounds to me very much like Justice's Kennedy's dignity argument in Obergefell. Telling gay people that the name marriage doesn't matter as long as they get some or all of the benefits benefits was disrespecting something, well, their marriage, that they held valuable.
I'm sure that you can make the opposite argument, that allowing gay people to get married disrespected, sullied, what gay marriage opponents considered sacred: a male-female only marriage.
Faced with two similarly equal disrespects, and the need to rule in favor of one or the other,I guess I would next go and test what harm(s) any of the groups are suffering.
Tl/dr, yes, other people value other things. That might not make them bigots per se, but it also doesn't make them perverts or traitors per se
Unlike the Pence ones, this one made me laugh out loud. Congrats
Double congrats for referring to steel as an alloy, which, of course it is. But people rarely say it out loud.
And, sorry, I still don’t get the Pence stories, and still intensely dislike your chosen hero. If they are a roman à clef, I desperately need a locksmith.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “All the President’s Myths”
As a person whose native language is Spanish, LatinX is one of the most stupid, most culturally insensitive, well meaning but totally clueless gringos have ever done. Way worse than Hawaiian Pizza or whatever the issue was with the sushi in Oberlin that triggered Rod Dreher a couple of years ago.
Except for certain limited exceptions like cows and bulls, every group that includes members of more than one gender (there’s no upper limit to the number of genders in the group, as long as there’s more than one) is referred to using the male gender suffix. End of story. Anything else sounds stupid to us, probably because it is.
We are not going to change our language to assuage the sensibilities of clueless Americans. If you want to honor the Latino culture and heritage, that’s great, go learn about it. If you want to change it so that it looks better to you, well that’s as imperialist as the things you were supposed to be fighting.
[Excuse me, is there a place nearby where I can tie my high horse while I grab a coffee, pard’ner?]
On “What Does God Need With a Political Starship?”
I don't think God is evil or powerless. He is just remote - A big picture guy.
The Lion King's dad had it right. A lion eating a baby gazelle is not evil, just as a man eating a baby rooster is not evil. Meteorites wiping out millions of dinosaurs is not evil. The Patriots winning this coming Thursday or Biden becoming president is not evil. And inserting tab A in the wrong slot is also not evil, in case someone wondered.
It's just how the big scheme was designed to work.
And it is an awesome big design. But you have to consider it as a whole. To focus on the gazelle, the chicken, the dinosaur, the Rams team, Trump's supporters, or the tab is just smallmindness, and a bit narcissistic. You are just a bit in a larger scheme. It's not about you. It is most definitely not about you.
Many (most?) people expect the last 14 billion years since the Universe's creation to just be a prologue to their own personal existence. Indeed dinosaurs only telos was to provide gasoline to their SUVs. And, if and when they stop being around, they expect, in the words of Arthur C Clarke that "Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.(*)" because, what's their use now that he's not there to watch them.
(*) Arthur C. Clark, the Nine Billion names of God (1953) - In case you haven't read it, here it is https://urbigenous.net/library/nine_billion_names_of_god.html
It's one of the best uses of five minutes in your whole existence. You are welcome
"
I appreciate the response. The only comment I would add is that most people actually believe they are acting morally. That includes Biden voters as well as Trump voters.
No one really goes out with skulls in their helmets.
"
As a general philosophical observation, I think most major religions have not addressed the discoveries of the last few centuries.
From the discovery that billions of people in far off lands do not know about your religion, and yet God does not seem to punish them, to the discovery that the Earth is 4 billion years old, and God apparently ignored all but the last 100,000 years (why did He create dinosaurs? Just so we would have gasoline for our SUVs?), to the discovery that there are billions of galaxies and trillions of starts and planets, and yet God is supposed to care only about this rock because we are special.
I don't see any religion or theologian really trying to align their teachings to what we now know, as opposed to what Paul or Mohammed might have known then. There is a dissonance between what everybody knows it's true about the world and the universe, and the framework of the major {Abrahamic} religions. Religion is not even showing in the field, so the Universe seems to be winning by forfeit
"
Its interesting culturally how this has evolved, to the ancients a god that does not personally intervene is a completely useless god not worth bothering with, regardless of whether they exist or not.
Tis is a consequence of the "death" of the God of the Gaps. Ancients prayed not to be smitten by lightning until the lightning rod was invented. They prayed to survive smallpox until vaccines were invented. They prayed for mothers to survive childbirth and puerperal fever until microbes and asepsis were discovered. Then God was no longer needed for those purposes.
"
First of all, I don’t see anything odd about praying for the results of an election. It’s both scriptural and instinctive to offer intercessory prayer. It’d be strange if one believed in an all-powerful God, loved one’s country, and didn’t think to offer up a prayer for it. If one believed that a candidate was being unjustly denied the presidency, it’d be expected to ask God to change the outcome.
Please don't take what follows as snark, but as an honest question, using a extreme hypothetical
I am told that there's n oncoming Patriot-Rams game in a few days. I've heard the Patriots are a good team (I don't follow the NFL), and apparently the rams are also an OK team. I am sure plenty of people will pray for victory in that game
So how does God decide who wins? Does He take a tally of the prayers He hears, and gives the win to the one team that got more intercessory prayers? So, Cam Newton or Jared Goff don't really have anything to do with the result?
If my prayers can't help my team win (God, please bless the Barça!!) then they probably can't make Trump win the 2020 election. Games and elections are won and lost by people's actions, and to say that, if only one more person prays for a Rams win, then the Patriots will know bitter defeat takes away all agency from our lives.
After all, if God will give the win to the team with more prayers, He can make more people pray for His (God's) preferred team. It's turtles all the way down
God does not need a spaceship. But, more importantly, He doesn't want a spaceship.
And one last thought, if you pray for a win, and God rewards the other team, are you sure you are in God's team? have you thought, you might be in the baddies' team?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU
On “Voting for Nothing For the Last Time”
No, the real issue is not race or misogyny or whatever crap you want to assign to them so they can be othered. The real issue is that these people don’t want to hear that the life they have chosen for themselves, be it a small farmer, or a miner, or a factory line is a dying profession, and that it may very well die before they do.
Four years ago we had long discussions about coal miners, and coding, and whether Hillary was wrong, or just tone deaf.
In all of those discussions I kept coming to one essential thing: the mines were not going to reopen. And reopen they didn't.
The small farms that we used to know are dying. Most rural areas are trapped in a circle of farm consolidation and mechanization, which reduces labor requirements, which depresses the community and weakens the remaining farms, which end being consolidated into even bigger agribusiness, and so on.
The small farms are not coming back. No matter how many times the WI farmer votes for the party that tells him they will.
There's another party that is telling him that the life he knew is over, and it's time to analyze the alternatives: move from wheat or soy or milk to high end produce could be one selling organic eggs and arugula to urban restaurants at a premium. Agrotourism (very common in Europe) could be another.
A more robust welfare net, with accessible health care, and even social workers supporting stay at home senior citizens would like help strengthen rural communities.
That's how those godless Europeans support a much larger fraction of rural population than we do in America (28% to 19%)
Or they can keep voting themselves out of existence.
As I said about the miners: I am sorry that the world they knew is dying, but dying it is. We can manage and mitigate the impact of the changes, or we can let the chips fall where they may.
But the mines will not reopen, I mean, the old rural world is not coming back.
On “Supreme Court Strikes Down Cuomo Executive Order on Religious Service Attendance”
That’s basically the same as % of maximum capacity, which is number of per soft times useful área times a factor to minimize spread. It still does not consider customers turnaround (I can let in more people if they linger inside less) and type of activity (do they mostly just breathe, or are they expected to talk/sing/pray?
Costco is not just safer than a church, it’s also much safer than a restaurant. A church and an indoor sitting restaurant are in the same ballpark regarding the virus transmission.
Perhaps the best solution is to create a metric considering my three variables, or as many as reasonably appropriate, and have each church, restaurant, or supermarket apply for a COVID occupancy permit. The permit would establish people per 100 sq ft Niall virus threat conditions, with different values for green yellow, orange, red, maroon, dark violet, almost black, etc. local transmission levels.
I’m an engineer, I can’t help it making it into the weeds
"
I'm waiting for bars and restaurants to also claim that eating is an essential activity (at least as essential as praying) and that closure of eateries will have a devastating effect on the community.
"
Probably because it would make it extremely difficult to administer. Going by number of people inside is an easier criterium that is a proxy to the neutral objective, which is reduce the virus transmission.
I do agree that the order could have a preamble explaining the relationship between how many, how long, and doing what before actually setting up the limits in the different categories. But then I am an engineer, and I like explanations for everything.
From a legal point of view, I don't know if the preamble would have or have not made any difference. We know that the Supreme Court considers that A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, as surplusage. I suspect they would do the same here.
On “Wednesday Writs Pie Edition”
I know that small-o orthodox Christians consider Biden a godless atheist because he's pro-choice, but by being against the death penalty, Biden, a practicing Catholic, is actually following the recent Catholic teaching on that matter.
Following Amy Barret's famous legal article or Catholic judges and cooperation with sin, (https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=ustlj) I would argue that, as head of the executive branch with direct authority over federal executions, Biden has a more direct responsibility with respect to the death penalty than he might have with respect to abortions
On “Supreme Court Strikes Down Cuomo Executive Order on Religious Service Attendance”
I concur with Roberts that neutral is not just how many people are there, but how long they are there, and what people do when they are there.
When I go to Costco, I do not stand for 45 minutes shoulder to shoulder with the same exact people, while we are all talking (aka praying) or singing. I stay reasonably separated from every other person, we do not talk to each other, and we are all circulating around, minimizing the exposure to any specific person.
With the same amount of people, virus transmission is lower at Costco than in a religious service. Just focusing is the number of people and not their behavior is either special pleading or pure laziness. What it is not is a neutral analysis
On “Thursday Throughput: Masks Edition”
I use Sky View Lite (it's free) on my phone every time I see a light in the sky - I sometimes I point it randomly and it will show what I would see if it wasn't for Houston's massive light pollution. Still it's fun to look at a yellowy sky with the naked eye, and then see the stars and planets through the phone
On “Election Day, Jour Quatre et la Grosse Dame: UPDATED Recap, Open Thread, and Latest News”
I think depending on where you are, yes, you would be punished socially for being a [Biden]/[Trump] (delete one) supporter.
In Houston, a little bit. Not rotten eggs in your front door bad, but *morons* whispered as an aside bad, probably yes
"
The shy Trump voter is a real thing. I have empirical evidence
In my Houston neighborhood (Oak Forest), there were lots of Biden/Harris yard signs, but no Trump/Pence ones.
But there were also several yard signs for Wendell Champion (*) as House Representative (TX 18th District). Under some obscure TX law -I think- those yard signs cannot identify the candidate's party. But Champion was the snowball-chance-in-hell Republican candidate in a district that Sheila Jackson Lee first won in 1994, re-elected this week with 73% of the votes.
Those Champion yard signs, they were all hidden shy Trump voters. Too uncomfortable to put a Trump/Pence sign in their front yard, but adding to the TX red wall.
(*) Champion is also one of the three individual plaintiffs suing over and over again for tossing out the 127k early votes in the ten drive through locations in Houston.
On “5th Circuit Upholds Texas Order to Limit Mail-in Ballot Drop Off Location”
They planned, but didn't, and doing it is likely illegal
BTW, TX law will only authorize you a mail-in ballot if you are going to be out of the county but in the USA on election day. I tried to ask for one in 2016 because I was going to be in the UK, and nope, that doesn't count. You must include a valid USA address where you will be on election day.
Don't fret, I changed my flight and landed Monday eve. I voted.
"
And leftists are dedicated to ensuring every non-existent person votes because if you squint hard enough, it doesn’t look that bad.
Do I have to remind you that you are the one that repeated in this blog the false allegation from the Texas Secretary of State that 90,000 people (which included me, myself, I) had voted illegally in Texas, since our SSN was issued when we were not yet citizens.
An allegation which of course crumbled in 24 hours. but you didn't bother to look, because, of course, 90,000 illegal votes in Texas sounds like very normal to you
On “Everybody Gets an F”
Maybe make people sit in their cars
That's what I did in my only medical visit in Houston since the start of the pandemic. We were sent an email were we were told that once we arrived to the parking lot we had to tit a link in that email, which generated a text in my phone, which I responded to confirm I was at the parking lot. I was told to wait until another text will tell me that they were ready for me. Which i did, in my car. With A/C (in the Houston sun)
Smartphones are a great thing :-)
On “A Few Things To Consider Before Crowning Kamala Harris”
There was a time were you. @Aaron_David, believed, with zero proof, that 58,000 illegal immigrants (which, fun fact, included me, personally) had voted in Texas, and that 95,000 had registered illegally.
On “Linky Friday: Troubles, Tribulations, and Totally Nuts”
In the immortal words of the poet Horace :
Dulce et decorum est mori pro copia ludis
On “For Want of a President: On the British Parliament and the Executive”
One further note about the British Constitution, and the Queen in Parliament
Most other constitutional monarchies recognize the sovereignty of the people, and not that of the monarch, or of their parliament. As an example, Article 1 of the Spanish Constitution says:
Spain is hereby established as a social and democratic State, subject to the rule of law, which advocates freedom, justice, equality and political pluralism as highest values of its legal system.
National sovereignty belongs to the Spanish people, from whom all State powers emanate.
The political form of the Spanish State is the Parliamentary Monarchy,
Their constitutions then go on to establish the limits between the Executive and the Legislative branch. But in Britain, Executive and Legislative are merged into a single entity
"
The British constitution is based on a different conception of who the Sovereign is. The Sovereign is not the people, the Sovereign is "The Queen in Parliament". In this framework, the people are not really part of the sovereign, except insofar as the Queen in Parliament want to involve them.
The Queen in Parliament means that all the power resides on the Queen, when she is acting with the advice [and consent] of Parliament. Through the centuries, the balance between the two have moved from the queen (small letters intended) to the PARLIAMENT, but the the essential concept has not changed in centuries.
through a separate tug of war, the Prime Minister has stepped into all of the powers of the Queen. He can do anything, as long as it is within the letter of what Parliament has advised or consented to (via legislation and/or votes of confidence). The Prime Minister is whoever the Queen proposes that a majority of Parliament will not vote against. in practice, the leader of the largest faction in Parliament, and will retain his position for as long as a majority of MPs do not vote against him in a no confidence vote (Parliament itself, through the fixed Parliaments Act, established maximum five years period, but Parliament can change that tomorrow, if the "advise" the Queen to do so.
The franchise, who is allowed to vote for MPs, and the balance of powers between Lords and Commons, has changed a lot in the last 200 years, but again, The Queen in Parliament could change that tomorrow, legislation restricting the franchise to identical twins under the age of 15 months would be totally ok, if that is their good pleasure.
One major thing has happened in the last decade or two: first past the post, which essentially forces all political forces to consolidate into two opposite parties, have fused -as Tories or Labour- groups that are very different between them, and have very few common goals, except perhaps opposition to the other group.
Labour is now a very unstable alliance between actual socialists, SWJ/Bernie Bros -like leftists, and center left urban professionals. Keir Stormer represents the latter group, Corbyn, the middle one, while the former, historically predominant in the party, is petering away.
The Tories now encompass large capital and finance, center right professionals, retirees and senior citizens, and English nativists (aka litte English). Note that the Tories coalition is unable to win outside of England properly, though unlike Republicans, they are able to attract minority and working class voters.
In the particular case of Brexit, both parties are being fractured: Labour socialists, and Tory high finance and nativist wings all support Brexit (the high finance wing out of self-interest in the opportunities the post Brexit downturn will bring forth). The other wings oppose it. Because MPs do actually respond to their (limited) universe of voters, their individual support or opposition to Brexit depends on what wing of the party their voters come from. None of the two parties is thus in full control of their MPs.
Because in the case of Brexit the Prime Minister is not sure he can trust his MPs, he is acting more and more outside the supervision of Parliament. This supervision is not legally mandated. Parliament can always vote for a no confidence if they dislike being shut off from the process. The Prime Minister is, for all purposes, the "Queen" in The Queen in Parliament. He is sovereign for as long as Parliament allows him to.
One last note, as we discussed here at the time, the Referendum does not have a place in the British Constitution. There is no provision to ask the people anything. The Referendum is, and always was, advisory as a constitutional matter
On “A Clash of Symbols”
England had Brits. France had French. Spain had Spaniards. China had Chinese. Ethiopia had Ethiopians. Japan had Japanese. India had Indians.
England did not have Brits. Britain had English.
The explicit, first, and implicit, later *imperial* domination of the UK by the English, without consideration of all the other communities, Welsh, Scots, Irish, has been a source of resentment of the latter for centuries. Brexit, forced by the English on all the other groups, is just the latest just manifestation, one that, perhaps, will be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and disunites Britain in its constituents.
With respect to Spain having Spaniards, well, the answer is no. 500 years has not been enough to create a single Spanish community out of a conglomerate of historical nations (*). It took France 250 years of continuous, unrelenting, centralizing efforts and pressure, from Richelieu to Napoleon III, to actually create a France that has French.
And Eritrea, Pakistan or Bangladesh may have something to say about Ethiopia having Ethiopians or India having Indians.
Hari Seldon said that history has inertia, and that it takes a very long time, or a really big conscious effort, or both (see France) to change history's direction. We should all remember that when thinking policies and politics
(*) As an actual Spaniard, I can tell you this with certainty.
"
I don't know if you realize it, Kristin, but this sounds to me very much like Justice's Kennedy's dignity argument in Obergefell. Telling gay people that the name marriage doesn't matter as long as they get some or all of the benefits benefits was disrespecting something, well, their marriage, that they held valuable.
I'm sure that you can make the opposite argument, that allowing gay people to get married disrespected, sullied, what gay marriage opponents considered sacred: a male-female only marriage.
Faced with two similarly equal disrespects, and the need to rule in favor of one or the other,I guess I would next go and test what harm(s) any of the groups are suffering.
Tl/dr, yes, other people value other things. That might not make them bigots per se, but it also doesn't make them perverts or traitors per se
On “The Misguidance Of Clark Kent”
Unlike the Pence ones, this one made me laugh out loud. Congrats
Double congrats for referring to steel as an alloy, which, of course it is. But people rarely say it out loud.
And, sorry, I still don’t get the Pence stories, and still intensely dislike your chosen hero. If they are a roman à clef, I desperately need a locksmith.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.