Jump to content

Gramarye

Moderators
  • Content Count

    7,653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

164 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I graduated OSU in 2004. I remember that with RPAC, the new Ohio Union, Oval renovation, etc. all in progress at the time, I thought that it would be really lucky to be entering school there in 2005--you'd finally have a finished campus instead of a permanent construction zone. I see now that Campus Partners and the other powers that be had more embraced the cosmology of the ourobouros. The Ohio State University will always be dying, always be being born, never grown, always growing.
  2. All: Please tie the immigration issue back to specific Democratic primary candidates or take it to the appropriate topical thread.
  3. I'm sorry, but we're going to have to disagree on this. But that's general election talk.
  4. I generally agree with that. But much of what Sanders says, and what openly socialist magazines like Jacobin (which I read almost daily, and which is deeply in the tank for Sanders, including frequently attacking his primary rivals) is beyond that. It is unconcerned with the Constitution and often expressly acknowledges the Constitution as an obstacle, because the Constitution does contain protections for private property (a.k.a. "capital") that they would rather ignore or abrogate. Much of what you're talking about--strong worker protections and taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations to fund a generous welfare state--could be perfectly consistent with a Buttigieg or Biden candidacy, too. Those are not inherently revolutionary and therefore calls for structural revolution to achieve them are unnecessary, implying such calls mean something more. I'm a little more wary when you say "where the government is democratically elected;" that may stray closer to the Sanders line of arguing for "revolution," because that is generally code for getting rid of some of the expressly counter-majoritarian elements in the Constitution (which would indeed be revolutionary, and a revolution I would gladly see four more years of Trump in order to prevent). That said, that's also a vague phrase that could mean anything from at least nominally independent commissions drawing House boundaries (we would of course disagree on whether such an inherently political function could be depoliticized, but I can also appreciate arguments of going through the motions of making the attempt even if inevitably futile) to significantly more dramatic changes to the political order such as abolishing the electoral college.
  5. Socialism is inherently authoritarian and Sanders openly proclaims that he is a socialist and in fact openly revolutionary. Don't act like it's irrational to view Sanders with an eye for authoritarian tendencies. As for democracy, democracy can be authoritarian; there is nothing internally contradictory about the view that Sanders seeks majority support for authoritarian ends. Yes, I read that paragraph in the article. I don't think it somehow cancels out all the other things in there that I read, particularly when the quote I quoted was Sanders himself and the one you quoted was just a spokesperson.
  6. The Court can be expanded constitutionally, though of course that immediately will become an arms race; if the liberals expand it to 11 whenever the next time comes that they have full control of all political branches, you can expect the conservatives to do likewise the next time around, just like we followed Harry Reid's lead on nominations. Lifetime appointment cannot be abrogated without a constitutional amendment, though I would actually support such a constitutional amendment. But that is wildly different from "rotation," which of course in practice is demotion--"approve my unconstitutional law or you'll be down at a district court in Erie and I'll find someone to do what I want."
  7. I read my article again and it seems to say exactly what I read it to say the first time. Therefore, no, I don't think there is anything wrong with my honesty or reading comprehension. Shall we talk about yours? "I do not believe in packing the court," Sanders said during the second of the first two 2020 Democratic presidential debates. "We’ve got a terrible 5-4 majority conservative court right now. But I do believe constitutionally we have the power to rotate judges to other courts and that brings in new blood into the Supreme Court and a majority I hope that will understand that a woman has a right to control her own body and that corporations cannot run the United States of America." How do you read that as anything other than "rotating" conservatives out and liberals on? I was not suggesting that he would "rotate" the entire conservative bloc all at once, but we both know that he wouldn't need to. He is expressly talking about creating a majority for his preferred policy outcomes by rotating judges off, not at random or by a neutral formula, but specifically tailored to getting the judges he wants. Again, it is not my honestly or reading comprehension at issue here. This isn't the first time Sanders has offered the idea rotating Supreme Court justices. "What may make sense is, if not term limits, then rotating judges to the appeals court as well," Sanders said at the We the People summit in Washington in April, according to CNN. "Letting them get out of the Supreme Court and bringing in new blood." In other words, he expressly phrased rotation as a possible alternative to term limits (and of course he might well want both, but he is expressly keeping them conceptually separate). The question is, did you know that before you posted? Or were you lying? The pattern seems to indicate dishonesty.
  8. Respect for our constitution? Bernie has openly floated the idea of "rotating" judges onto and off the Supreme Court, i.e., relegating conservatives to lower courts in order to pack the Supreme Court with liberals, arguing that judicial appointments could be recharacterized as just appointments to the Article III judiciary at no particular level. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/450800-bernie-sanders-says-he-would-move-to-rotate-supreme-court-justices-if Needless to say, that would be a fairly powerful politicization of the courts if it were constitutional--but it almost certainly isn't. He's also been confronted with the fact that some of his economic ideas are unconstitutional, and his was response could be adequately paraphrased as "so what?" https://www.insidesources.com/bernie-sanders-economic-proposals-may-be-unconstitutional-and-hes-ok-with-that/ Of course, if he had the ability to replace the 5 current conservatives on the Supreme Court all at once with whoever the 5 most economically liberal judges he could find from the entire body of hundreds of federal appellate judges, one could understand why he might dismiss a question of whether his economic policies are constitutional; he'll find the judges required to say that they are and make sure they're the ones hearing the case.
  9. Express To Close 100 Stores, But None In Columbus https://radio.wosu.org/post/express-close-100-stores-none-columbus#stream/0 Columbus-based Express, Inc. on Wednesday announced plans to close 100 stores around the country, although none of the closures are expected here in Central Ohio. A press release from the upscale retailer says the 100 closures include nine stores that closed in 2019, 31 that will close by the end of January, and another 35 that will close by January 2021. ========================= Express was one of my go-to brands in undergrad but I admit I haven't bought anything from them in more than a decade now.
  10. For ordinary users, you don't necessarily need to go all-in on security and privacy, for the same reason that you don't necessarily need a reinforced steel door with multiple biometric, tumbler, and deadbolt locks on the door of your home. For most purposes, a 4-digit password is sufficient because that 7-minute brute-force approach is something that most hackers won't commit the resources to do (they're looking for even easier prey ... or bigger payouts, i.e., a more difficult hack against a corporate target that might potentially reveal millions of passwords, not just one, if it succeeds). The more important digital security tip for regular users in ordinary settings is do not use the same password. That's more analogous to having your house key also start your car and open your safe deposit box. If a hacker steals my UO password, they don't get access to my bank accounts, my e-mail, my cloud storage, my shopping, etc. Needless to say, for political activists (especially in more repressive countries), federal legislators and judges, corporate executives, and others that have a much bigger target on their back because of their higher individual value, even a 6-digit passcode isn't likely adequate security and most such people will (I certainly hope) have enhanced third-party security on their phones in addition to regular passcodes.
  11. This is intellectually dishonest of you, because you would consider "self-regulation" to be self-annihilation for many of these industries. You don't think there should even be fossil fuel or insurance industries, and I strongly doubt that your feelings are all that different with the pharmaceutical or defense industries. Your vision of them "self-regulation" would probably mean the pharmaceutical industry putting most of its patents into the public domain and the defense industry canceling its own projects out of protest at America's foreign policy or some such. This is a constant refrain from many fringe parts of the political world--the notion that "everyone who hasn't made their opinion known secretly agrees with me." Newsflash: No they don't. The notion that 4 in 10 Americans are secretly socialists waiting to be activated as a political force is pure fantasy. You might as well argue that those nonvoters are secretly theocrats or monarchists or anarchists. You are correct about declines in union membership, of course. The incomprehensible leap of logic here is from there to the conclusion that the key to reinvigorating the labor movement lies with the large mass of nonvoters rather than with Democratic voters (or, for that matter, even with a certain number of Republican voters--Trump did at least OK with union rank-and-file).
  12. The constant churn of the digital revolution seems likely to be claiming another victim soon: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/01/frontier-an-isp-in-29-states-plans-to-file-for-bankruptcy/ Frontier, an ISP in 29 states, plans to file for bankruptcy ... Frontier has been losing customers and reducing its staff. Its residential-customer base dropped from 4.15 million to 3.81 million in the 12-month period ending September 30, 2019, including a loss of 90,000 customers in the most recent quarter. Also in that 12-month period, Frontier's business-customer base declined from 422,000 to 381,000. Meanwhile, Frontier had 19,132 employees as of September 30, 2019, down from 21,375 one year earlier. Frontier's financial performance last year was so bad that it refused to take any questions from investors during its quarterly earnings call in August. Frontier is in the process of selling its operations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana to WaveDivision Capital. ================================ Not sure whether to call this one of the largest casualties yet of cord-cutting or simply a casualty of outdated tech even for data delivery (as I understand it, a lot of Frontier data was still delivered over copper). That said, this does make me wonder how big the cable-cutting and/or alternative data solutions earthquake would have to be to bring down Comcast and Spectrum. Frontier is just a tremor even if it goes to liquidation (and the more likely scenario appears to be that they will strike a deal with creditors and reorganize, but they'll still be smaller). The real earth-shattering earthquake would be if one of the real titans of cord-based TV and data delivery gets swamped by the next phase of the digital revolution.
  13. Spoiler Alert: There Will Be No Impartial Justice for Donald Trump https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/spoiler-alert-there-will-be-no-impartial-justice-for-donald-trump-impeachment-trial Shortly after 2 p.m. on Thursday, ninety-nine of the hundred members of the United States Senate raised their hands and swore en masse to do “impartial justice” in the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump. That, of course, is an impossibility in the political world they inhabit. Neither impartiality nor justice is on offer in this proceeding. Three years into Trump’s tenure, there is precisely no one in the U.S. Capitol who is undecided about the President, on the subject of his impeachment or any other. And yet there is real suspense, in the way that the Trump Presidency has conditioned us to expect: Will there be wild new revelations? (There already have been in the past twenty-four hours.) Will there be inappropriate tweeting by the defendant in the White House? (A given.) Will even a single senator break from the calcified partisan battle lines? (Who knows?)
  14. Well, I guess to give some credit where it's due, Nate Silver at 538 says ... Election Update: Why Warren Needs To Play To Win — And That Includes Beating Sanders https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-the-warren-sanders-fight-may-help-warrens-chances-in-iowa/ If Silver is saying that about Warren against Sanders, I suppose it's not completely irrational for CA to say the same thing about Sanders against Warren. ====================== That said, this is more the kind of thing that I'm used to seeing: 'People will sit at home': Sanders supporters threaten to stay home if Democrats nominate a bland centrist https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/people-will-sit-at-home-sanders-supporters-threaten-to-stay-home-if-democrats-nominate-a-bland-centrist Well, I understand why that would apply when it comes to Buttigieg or Biden. I still do not understand why Sanders supporters would risk a protest abstention (deliberately staying at home) against a Warren candidacy. The tacit risk-reward calculation just makes no intuitive sense to me. ======================= CNN also published an article saying that Sanders needs more scrutiny, immediately after a CNN debate in which the CNN moderators apparently tried to do exactly that: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/opinions/bernie-sanders-2020-scrutiny-test-lockhart/index.html One might wonder if there's a hand behind the curtain at CNN pushing this narrative across multiple vectors. https://spectator.org/sanders-supporters-shocked-to-find-bias-at-cnn/
×
×
  • Create New...