Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Rock Du Jour: 3/30/21 - Schullenberger On The Impetus Towards "Saving Lives" As A Modern Political Imperative


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

But Trump support is an instant disqualifier. History will prove Dubya to have been 100x more ruinous than the current president, but support of him wasn't intellectually disqualifying because he was at least tacitly representing his party's aims. But the man in the White House is Pee Wee Herman with his hair on fire and those who don't pray for the demise of this anomaly simply can't be taken seriously.

This remains to be seen. There were some arguments I think about the geopolitical consequences of Iraq, and maybe the domestic consequences of the crash, but largely, to me, it seems that Trump is rapidly accelerating those consequences. Trump did not create these breaches but he is an extremely destabilizing force within them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 345
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I guess this is where I post my musings. Today I'm struck by the movement towards diffuse yet personalized blame for police brutality. We know of the black man in Kenosha shot in the back, and the bla

The best response to any troll is to ignore him. Unfortunately, it’s not realistic to expect the entire country, including all of its media, to simply ignore the President of the United States.

I feel the honest burden of raising me ol' peeps to their graves, but never had much use for either of em. Me 95yo Ma always kept a book on everyone, classic Irish grudgekeeper, and the next time me o

Just now, wikkidpissah said:

But support is an instant disqualifier. History will prove Dubya to have been 100x more ruinous than the current president, but support of him wasn't intellectually disqualifying because he was at least tacitly representing his party's aims. The current president is Pee Wee Herman with his hair on fire and those who don't pray for the demise of this anomaly simply can't be taken seriously.

Yeah, I don't support Donald Trump in any real definitional sense and I don't think many people I came of age with or worked for do. I think there's an element of domestic realpolitik at work, and there's simply no other way to describe it. 

I'm thinking of support as being an actual endorsement of the man and his policies and appointments.  The problem is the last one. When the GOP is at loggerheads with their own figurehead, what do they do? 

I'm not sure they have an answer. He wasn't so much the cleaving element within conservatism as he was the product of two really ideologically different outlooks within a movement that had been cobbled together but were really actually not consistent with each other. Once communism fell, that common unifier that had bound radically different factions of conservatism together dissipated, and we got this.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This remains to be seen. There were some arguments I think about the geopolitical consequences of Iraq, and maybe the domestic consequences of the crash, but largely, to me, it seems that Trump is rapidly accelerating those consequences. Trump did not create these breaches but he is an extremely destabilizing force within them.

Don't forget the institutionalizing of K Street, but that's not the point. THAT's an argument, Trump can't be. The difference between this administration (and the legislature's enabling, btw) and the last 5 minutes of Supermarket Sweepstakes are indistinguishable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some articles for today: 

Law review of Justice Harlan's concurrence in the famous Katz case (the privacy thread in the FFA got me thinking). The third and second-to-last page include predictions on Gorsuch's views on Katz and privacy law:

https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/85-Geo.-Wash.-L.-Rev.-Arguendo-140.pdf

For those interested, here is an advocacy group's (EPIC) view of Kavanaugh. Hint: It's not positive: 

https://epic.org/privacy/kavanaugh/

Interview by Scotusblog of Joan Biskupic about her book "Mr. Everything," which is about John Roberts. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/ask-the-author-mr-everything-joan-biskupic-on-chief-justice-john-roberts/#more-284658

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Taibbi And The Broadcast Boogie

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russiagate-fiasco-taibbi-news-media-826246/amp/

"You know what was fake news? Most of the Russiagate story. There was no Trump-Russia conspiracy, that thing we just spent three years chasing. The Mueller Report is crystal clear on this.

He didn’t just “fail to establish” evidence of crime. His report is full of incredibly damning passages, like one about Russian officialdom’s efforts to reach the Trump campaign after the election: “They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect.”

Not only was there no “collusion,” the two camps didn’t even have each others’ phone numbers!" - Matt Taibbi

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^ :lmao:

So ####### funny. Taibbi kills it. 

The whole thing. Anyone in the PSF duped was indeed just that -- a dupe. Congrats, fellas, for wasting your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russiagate-fiasco-taibbi-news-media-826246/amp/

"You know what was fake news? Most of the Russiagate story. There was no Trump-Russia conspiracy, that thing we just spent three years chasing. The Mueller Report is crystal clear on this.

He didn’t just “fail to establish” evidence of crime. His report is full of incredibly damning passages, like one about Russian officialdom’s efforts to reach the Trump campaign after the election: “They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect.”

Not only was there no “collusion,” the two camps didn’t even have each others’ phone numbers!" - Matt Taibbi

This is Taibbi after the Helsinki press conference, right around 13:00 is the money part. On the whole it is a totally different tone though.

- I like Taibbi, not because of his politics so much as his history in Russia with his business partner Mark Ames, but he's been wronger than the item you have above, particularly his equivocation about Russia's hacking and dissemination. I think it was just a few weeks ago that he repeated yet again the single server claim on the DNC hack, and that's standard hoax pusher stuff. And I don't see anyone saying he was right about Russian hacking or about dissemination. However if you watch that interview above you'll see that he is totally aware of Putin as a man and his motives and way of operating. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is Taibbi after the Helsinki press conference, right around 13:00 is the money part. On the whole it is a totally different tone though.

- I like Taibbi, not because of his politics so much as his history in Russia with his business partner Mark Ames, but he's been wronger than the item you have above, particularly his equivocation about Russia's hacking and dissemination. I think it was just a few weeks ago that he repeated yet again the single server claim on the DNC hack, and that's standard hoax pusher stuff. And I don't see anyone saying he was right about Russian hacking or about dissemination. However if you watch that interview above you'll see that he is totally aware of Putin as a man and his motives and way of operating. 

I'll have to check out the interview when Game Seven between WSH/CAR is over. Sounds interesting.

eta* I think very few right-thinking people put much past Putin, by the way. 

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A Song For Henry Ford, Or, A River Runs Through It, Standing

Our favorite legal expert might be interested in knowing that New Zealand granted a river standing

https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/587689/river-me/

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rockaction said:

Conservatives and liberals have a different idea of what "fair" means

Shocker

I just hate the whole idea. Words like “fair” and “just” should have no role in government proposals. They presume that we already live in a fair or just society. We don’t and never have. 

The sole question to consider with every proposal should be: “does it benefit us?” That’s it. If the answer is clearly yes or no, that should be the only consideration. If the answer is murky (it usually is) then we have to get in the weeds and try to weigh the good vs the bad. But fair and just aren’t relevant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2019 at 2:35 PM, timschochet said:

I just hate the whole idea. Words like “fair” and “just” should have no role in government proposals. They presume that we already live in a fair or just society. We don’t and never have. 

The sole question to consider with every proposal should be: “does it benefit us?” That’s it. If the answer is clearly yes or no, that should be the only consideration. If the answer is murky (it usually is) then we have to get in the weeds and try to weigh the good vs the bad. But fair and just aren’t relevant. 

That's not how people view proposals. At all. It's not even, as you insist, the correct way to view a bill or policy proposal. Equitable concerns are always a concern when it comes to public policy and the compulsory turning over of one's wages. If it's not a fair nor representative bill, then it won't be passed in general, nor should it be. 

This is a bizarre declaratory statement even from the strictest of utile concerns.  It totally disregards the notion that our system of laws might have been based on the fairest system one could have comprehended at the time and that any policy concern will be judged up against not that which functions the best (a million hypotheticals about command economy and the like could be proffered here) but rather, that which functions most justly. In the interests of the effective, should we trample individual rights? That's what you're saying, in a nutshell.

What a silly statement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yr Autonomous Car And The Right To Drive

The right to drive and autonomous cars, as profiled in the New Yorker.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-fight-for-the-right-to-drive?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, msommer said:

which constitutional right is that?

The link is an article about autonomous cars and the threat of mandatory usage. The centerpiece of the article is a person who has started a group lobbying for laws and a constitutional right to drive, which doesn't exist. Your point is snarky, you didn't click the link, and you're disproving an argument that was never made by me -- or by anyone remotely related to the link you didn't even click in a show of your splendorous Dutch knowledge. Congratulations.

Is that what they call knowledge that doesn't work? Dutch? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, dystopic, short story linked from the above link that was written about being subject to the machinations of AI by both the State and corporations. Subtle story related to the right to drive freely. (In this story, to drive "retro.")

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/11/asleep-at-the-wheel

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, rockaction said:

The link is an article about autonomous cars and the threat of mandatory usage. The centerpiece of the article is a person who has started a group lobbying for laws and a constitutional right to drive, which doesn't exist. Your point is snarky, you didn't click the link, and you're disproving an argument that was never made by me -- or by anyone remotely related to the link you didn't even click in a show of your splendorous Dutch knowledge. Congratulations.

Is that what they call knowledge that doesn't work? Dutch? 

I did ckick the link. The argument for this supposed/proposed right is laughable and deserves derision

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, msommer said:

I did ckick the link. The argument for this supposed/proposed right is laughable and deserves derision

When they do the double dutch...

eta* I also find it hard to believe you had clicked the link before you commented because you wouldn't have asked the question the way you did. It's nonsensical to phrase it that way or to do so.

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Baby No

On animal rights and sport. Sally Jenkins (famous female WaPo sportswriter) op-ed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/05/05/forget-maximum-securitys-misstep-whole-horse-racing-is-foul/?utm_source=pocket-newtab&utm_term=.2f4b91d07e9d

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing Screams Revolution Like A Coachella Appearance Or A $125 T-Shirt

Fela Kuti, The Roots's Okayplayer Store, and Carhartt team up for this foray into fashion. Serious Working Man's swag.

Also today, in completely unrelated but fitting news: IDLES release Mercedes Marxist, their new single.

 

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I’m not familiar with the author of that article, but quoting Nina Teicholz for support isn’t a great way to come across as a serious dietary journalist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I’m not familiar with the author of that article, but quoting Nina Teicholz for support isn’t a great way to come across as a serious dietary journalist.

Baylen Linnekin is more of a legal expert on food rather than a dietary guy/nutriotionist and says it in the article, as quoted below. Ron Bailey is more of a science guy. I probably should have linked to him and the article he wrote for Reason earlier in the week on whole-fat dairy and the new study on its health ramifications. 

"I'm not a nutritionist. I don't know if the science on cholesterol is settled. But the federal government has warned us for decades about cholesterol in our bodies and in our food. The fact those warnings are now changing means the government has, despite what I'm sure are the good intentions of everyone involved, been handing out poor dietary advice and developing regulations that reflect that poor advice." - Linnekin

Bolded and emphasis mine. That's what Linnekin said. He's more commenting on the role of government and its changing guidelines regarding carbohydrate and fat intake, changes it now looks like will be made for cholesterol.

Bailey's article about the Lancet study and whole-fat dairy

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

Eating Their Own - Beto For Breakfast, What's For Lunch?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/10/beto-orourke-2020-president-campaign-profile-failing-up-226866?utm_source=pocket-newtab

"[F]ailure...is a feature of his life and career."

Ouch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooked Up Feminism - Dispatches From The Frankfurt Kitchen

An article about interior design and architecture/appliance arrangement through a sociopolitical lens. 

https://www.citylab.com/design/2019/05/modern-kitchen-history-design-ideas-domestic-architecture/586345/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Just Another Case Of That Ol' EPA:

Slashing and burning the standards

https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-epa-seeks-to-slash-pesticide-protections-for-imperiled-wildlife-2019-05-10/

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Beneficence Of The Payday Industry? The Underserved Get Savings Lotteries

Interesting article on how payday lenders are using techniques started by non-profit credit unions to get low-income people without banking to save money on prepaid cards. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/how-to-trick-people-into-saving-money/521421/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unpaid Domestic Labor And The Woman Question (Communist Conundrums)

Barbara Ehrenreich weighs in on the division of labor in the household and the politics of hiring maids:

http://barbaraehrenreich.com/maid-to-order/

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wikkidpissah said:

is that allowed?

I think I broke the thingomometer that measures the discord. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

If there are chemicals in my daughters’ makeup stuff that could cause them to get cancer, I’d like to see it restricted. 

I just thought of the practical implications of the restriction of the discount supply.

Price will invariably go up and cosmetic counters at dept. stores in West Hartford and Fairfield will be mobbed.

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of those issues that made me quit being a libertarian- they always fight against all safety restrictions on products. I want to be able to go to the supermarket and drug store and trust that what I’m buying is safe, that I’m not going to get sick later on. That seems like a proper role for government. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

I just thought of the practical implications of the restriction of the supply.

Price will invariably go up and cosmetic counters at dept. stores in West Hartford and Fairfield will be mobbed.

Then let it go up. And as to your second point, I don’t know. You tell me something might make me sick, I’m not rushing to buy it because of a lower price point. No thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Then let it go up. And as to your second point, I don’t know. You tell me something might make me sick, I’m not rushing to buy it because of a lower price point. No thanks. 

My second point wasn't women rushing to get the old supply, it was a general comment about a reduction in supply in concert with a consistent demand. Prices are going to go up, people are going to have to adjust their purchasing habits. You think the women of WH and Fairfield aren't hitting the counters now? 

It's a light-hearted political interlude on my end, but CT is becoming the most officious state in the nation save for CA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also going to hurt lower-income women, whose demand for makeup would seem to be more inelastic than their demand elasticity for other products. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

My second point wasn't women rushing to get the old supply, it was a general comment about a reduction in supply in concert with a consistent demand. Prices are going to go up, people are going to have to adjust their purchasing habits. You think the women of WH and Fairfield aren't hitting the counters now? 

It's a light-hearted political interlude on my end, but CT is becoming the most officious state in the nation save for CA. 

I like living in CA. So it’s officious, so what? I feel safe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

It's also going to hurt lower-income women, whose demand for makeup would seem to be more inelastic than their demand elasticity for other products. 

Companies will meet the demand by coming up with new inexpensive items that satisfy the safety requirement. 

And if they can’t, then they can’t. I’d rather see lower income women with less makeup products, or with less money in their pocketbooks, than see them get sick over time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I like living in CA. So it’s officious, so what? I feel safe. 

I wasn't asking about you feeling safe. I was talking about an officious ban on cosmetics, one the article says is unlikely to pass. As far as the red herring of feeling safe, go to downtown LA and say the same to me. I was just there a year ago among the homeless at night.

Sounds safe: https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-juvenile-halls-doj-justice-department-inspection-20190523-story.html

As for officious, yes, I love begging for straws at restaurants and getting hit up for plastic bags every time I shop. Smells like...freedom. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • rockaction changed the title to Rock Du Jour: 3/30/21 - Schullenberger On The Impetus Towards "Saving Lives" As A Modern Political Imperative

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...