The subject has popped up in comments streams before, but I’d like to see something written that truly examines how the Second Amendment as interpreted by SCOTUS, has overwhelmed the First Amendment stifling protests and increasingly expression contrary to right wing dogma. It has also
Imposed on the Declaration of Independence assurance of the pursuit of happiness (I now have to check myself in the presence of legally carried guns, etc). I think the awareness is there but there is not enough in literature that discusses and defines Second Amendment oppression of freedoms.
I agree with Michale L. This article in yesterday's NY Times on the gun toters using intimidation against anyone who disagrees with them is truly frightening.
Carol Anderson's THE SECOND, about the history and uses of the 2nd Amendment, is worth seeking out if you haven't already read it. Her take on the whole "militia" thing, and how it got into the Constitution, is especially useful. Her take is that the militia were key to putting down and preventing slave revolts, and that the southerners, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, wouldn't sign on to the Constitution unless that 2nd Amendment was in it.
In one of my "Afro-American Studies History" courses I researched black slave revolts, there were many, and also other forms of resistance. Herbert Aptheker wrote a book well worth reading.
One phrase from Eugene Genovese still resonates: "the dirty paternalism" of the slave owners, i.e., the plantation owners realized the best (and most oppressive method) was to be just "fair" and parentally, superficially just enough, enough to get enough slaves to comply. Not Simon Legree style brutal beatings and whippings, no, still brutal but differently brutal, psychologically nasty. Black Americans also owened slaves, but it almost all cases, I THINK that was a legal fiction to allow them to buy family and friends out of chattel slavery.
Now I see the book won Mister G. ( A quasi-Marxist, btw, but Marx was right about all sorts of things) the Bancroft Prize --- as did Frances Fitzgerald for Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and Americans in Vietnam --- along with a Pultizer Prize and National Book Award:
Carol Anderson's book reminded me of just how frequent slave revolts were, and also of how mindful the slave-owning founders and their successors were of what was going on in Haiti and the rest of the Caribbean. It's not hard to imagine how vulnerable the slaveowners must have felt, especially in the Deep South, where the number of slaves required to operate a cotton plantation was huge -- and even a small-scale rebellion must have brought that vulnerability from half-conscious to front and center. (Both _Roll, Jordan, Roll_ and _Fire in the Lake_ made a big impression on me when I read them but, uh, it's been a while. ;-) )
Well, What's on my mind tonight is the Supreme Court. It is an anomaly among our otherwise democratic institutions: a presidential appointee to the Court needs only the approval of a Senate majority to begin a lifetime on the Court. That process is glaring anomaly among our otherwise democratic institutions. Presidents tend to appoint young ideologues to the Court rather than accomplished jurists. Learned Hand, perhaps our most renowned judge, was never appointed to the Court.
The Court sabotaged Reconstruction just a few short years after the Civil war ended. It took nearly a hundred years for us to partly unwind that travesty.
The court stepped in and declared George W Bush president even though subsequent forensic analysis proved that Bush did not win the election and should never have swerved as President.
The Court effectively granted personhood to corporations.
With its Citizen United and related Opinions the Court effectively legalized bribery of elected officials.
More recently the Court revoked women's right to decided for herself to continue a pregnancy.
I will stop there.
The Supreme Court is a dangerous anomaly in our democratic system of government. It is out of control, the justices have way too much power and are abusing it.
I would like to hear some ideas about how we fix this. Any suggestions ?
I just don't get why Democrats refuse to go apeshit crazy over, well, virtually anything. Right now they should be on the air all day every day about how pathetic and stupid Walker is and why in the world does the media treat this like it's just two opposing but equally valid politicians. Name names! Lindsey Graham for one. Here's an idea, Schumer should say Lindsey Graham is a horrible person whose only ambition is power to force women to have babies. And McConnell is just as horrible for the same reason. Then keep it going to every other Republican by name. Put them on defense for once! Democrats should be screaming from the rooftops about how Q Anon is totally insane, they're being accused of killing babies and drinking their blood fer chrissakes and the Republicans are encouraging the insanity! Aaaand crickets. Democrats should've been in full throated daily outrage over Dobbs from the day it was leaked to right now. They should call out any reporter by name who compares MTG to AOC as if both were opposite sides of the same coin. Biden should be demanding SCOTUS be expanded every. damn. day. Where is the outrage that the moment so plainly calls for? I'm not seeing it, am I missing something?
I went on a kind of rant once, for at least a few minutes, in my Theories of Justice course., philosophy, reading "Rawls and his critics."
The rant: Basically that roughly half of the people on campus (women) should not be in a situation where they felt unsafe, and rightly so depending on the individuals involved.
The prof. (PhD from Harvard) just let the dust settle, then said, "Would anyone else like to express moral outrage?"
I only get that energy among elected Democrats from Bernie, AOC, a few others. Very few.
wow, yes, BP that is an excellent timely and very imortant topic to pursue.
many of the woes this country is struggling with can be laid at the feet of the SCOTUS. it truly is an anomalous branch responsible for, of all things, injustices with which we struggle, often on a daily basis.
I used to make a point of quoting Judge Hand as often as possible while in law classes, the profs recognized who it was sometimes before I had finished the quotation, he was that eloquent.
GIFT IDEA!! A subscription is the perfect Christmas/Hanukah/Kwanza gift for a high school or college student in your life. Actually, it is perfect for any of us with half a brain who would be enriched by having Lucian fill in the other half.
I'd be interested in knowing where all these young shooters are getting the money to buy all the guns and ammo they come to these public spaces just dripping with. I didn't have that kind of cash or access to credit cards when I was that age! Every time there's a news report on how many AR-15s and Glock pistols and hundreds of rounds of ammunition some bozo psycho kid brought to a school or store or club or wherever, I think, "How did he BUY all that?"
I have been assuming they used credit cards (some banks issue them like confetti), either their own or their parents make them available to their wretched offspring. Mundane answer, but worth exploring.
Those who are killed in the end, or kill themselves, I suppose leave someone else holding the bag for those debts.
With regards to the Second Amendment, I would like to know why the "Originalists" side step the phrase "A well Regulated militia." I think if you to have an assault weapon, join the National Guard.
I am not anti gun, but I think guns should be licensed similar to motor vehicles. There should be mandatory training, qualification and liability insurance requirements. Their should also be mandatory safe storage requirements to prevent children and anyone not "licensed" from gaining access to them.
I asked our good pal MTG what she'd ask for, and she wrote back in crayon: "What this country needs is a full reveal of the menace of the Jewish space lasers that are zapping us with Covid vaccines from the Moon -- and why the Commie Socialist Hippie Democrats from Mars are behind this so they can turn our babies into drag queens and then devour them."
I'm hearing that some republithugs think Donny shouldn't run again because he can't win. That's a start but I'd be much happier if they were saying he can't run again because he shouldn't win.
This is going to go back and forth like a tennis match in the coming months. I think Trump will be indicted and will face appearing in court during the primaries. That might give Republicans enough reason to go somewhere else...as the MAGA base screams.
I think he's going to continue to try to stymie any progress in the documents case, so a lot is riding on the 11th District Court decision pending. I don't think people are interested in Trump's tax returns anymore, not that there ever seemed to be a lot of it in the first place. And watch for Trump to try to change attorneys again. That's another one of his delaying tactics.
That's because Trump defied "the system" and Trumpies see him as a hero fighting against things like taxes. However, starving the government to death is not going to "make America great again," especially when tax cheats and crooks like Trump are in the WH. Can these idiots name just one thing Trump has done for them? No. Instead, Trump is only in it for himself, now more than ever. Ironically, they've made Hunter Biden their whipping boy instead.
I wouldn't know where to start getting the figures, but it's way worse than we think. Not that there's much to be said for an "education" as we used to think of it, at this point: Cruz, Hawley, DeSantis...the list goes on.
I hear you Lucian. The three dudes you mention tell how educational attainment doesn’t guarantee discernment. But don’t the breakdowns of voters for Trump, and those three, indicate non-college voters are a higher percentage of their support than college educated? What does that mean? The three you mention were ambitious before they educated, it seems to this humble observer. I’m not talking about the politician’s educational levels. So what is the psychology and education of people who vote against their economic interest? If they were better educated, would they have the critical intelligence to evaluate the policy the politicians they vote for advocate? I don’t know. I’m just asking.
I have been asking that Lorraine for several years now, we just witnessed 75 million Americans voting against their own interests, they have gotten nothing for their support, the only people the repugnantkins actually do anything for are the ones with the most wealth who need it the least. It seems to me that our education system is failing to educate the people, if you are confused about what we have seen in the last 6+ years then our education system has failed you, if you think that the repugnantkins are going to make your life better and you are not wealthy, then our education system has failed you. I would add that more than the education system is failing to inform the citizenry, MSM as it has evolved has always had a responsibility to inform us and look at what a mess MSM is. Organized religion is as guilty as the repugnantkins and the media, they sold out everything in order to get power, they got a SC they could have only dreamt about. I write these words when it’s late and I’m tired, I hope this made sense.🙏
good question, LA. i feel you have pointed at the true base of the problem.
though it probably applies in some part to everyone, imo it isn't their extent in years of education but in the extent that they acquire/not acquire the ability to think for themselves, ie. critical reasoning ability.
i feel that republican voters are largely lazy thinkers, willing to go with their knee-jerk reaction to whatever is thrown to them. and gop politicians have finetuned their spiels to hit on their voters' kneejerks.
don't get me going on all the separate tribal camps to which gops will throw their red meat: guns, religion, class difference, sexual mores, and more.
the internet, or specifically social media, has enabled expat tribal members to find each other and mindlessly beat their wardrums and chant in unison.
I love all the political coverage and insights you supply. But to me, the massive elephant in the room is the climate crisis. Given that most of the world understands it's a crisis and requires immediate, BIG action, why for example did the U.S. representatives to COP 27 sign on only for another *voluntary* loss and damage fund to compensate developing countries for the extremely destructive climate-driven disasters they are now experiencing (such as massive floods of one third of Pakistan) BUT those U.S. representatives and other developed countries refused to tie it to a commitment to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Part of the answer is revealed in a recent New York Times article, "Inside the Saudi Strategy to Keep the World Hooked on Oil" (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/climate/saudi-arabia-aramco-oil-solar-climate.html) which details the comprehensive and relentless lobbying campaign by the Saudis to sabotage meaningful action on climate change. Because money. But what else is going on here? I want to see all the inside dirt on who exactly, in addition to the Saudis, is selling down the river our children, our descendants, all our coastal cities, our glaciers, our crops, our coral reefs, our peace, plenty, and water supplies, and all the species that have survived to the present and are barely hanging on, on this our one and only fragile blue-green home. Whoever it is, they are committing crimes against humanity and the planet, and they need to be outed by name, in full detail. Thanks!
This perhaps blindingly obvious fact just occurred to me. All people care most about their own survival and, perhaps, their own children's survival. And they care much more about whatever they perceive to be immediate threats than they care about threats to their survival that might come "later." The people in the world who make all their money from fossil fuels, like the Saudis with oil or Joe Manchin with coal, see any limitation on their ability to keep their status quo business going, making all their money from that fossil fuel, as a direct, immediate, and dire threat to their own personal survival. So for example, the Saudis probably have some idea that climate change will be a problem for their children, but they may think that means there is all the more reason for them to insist on making the maximum money from oil now, since they know that their children will no doubt be prohibited from doing so. The people with the tightest links to fossil fuels feel like they are literally in a life and death fight to protect themselves and what they think is the ost important legacy they can leave their children: monetary wealth. Those are my guesses, anyway. Upton Sinclair's observation is also operating here: "It's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it."
You can always write about your early years in NYC. We are the same age & your stories are the stuff of my dreams at that time in my life. I even interviewed with the CIA as a senior at the U of Ala in 68. I ended up w/ great adventures in Europe & Saudi Arabia but NYC will always be the dream. Barefoot in the Park said it all.
I, too, interviewed with the Agency in '69 but had to do required military service first. Best decision for me was to go with Naval Intelligence which I ended up doing for 22 years. A great career and would do it all over again if I was 25 years younger.
Help us better understand how Christianity is being weaponized to further ultra right-wing causes. They pretend like their main issues are abortion and un-biblical issues like racial equality and gay marriage, lamenting the erosion of our “American religion”. They’re happy to turn a blind eye to pure-evil despots who claim to be Christian (some of their sheeple claim Trump is odious but sent by God!). But the real agenda is that Xtian Nationalists want to give rich white men total control, they have loads of $$$ to spend, and can easily dupe and milk their poorer followers for every penny they’ve got.
Several fine books have been documented this, most recently by Katherine Stewart (The Power Worshippers), but it’s not a connection that is being made in the media. Most people have no idea.
Lucian, I so appreciate your focus on the challenges we have ahead of ourselves to bring us together as a citizenry focused on caring for each other rather than trying to find ways to assault our differences. As I watch and read the comments on guns, I am also stunned by the report on how Chechs have decided to both agree that all citizens can own guns and still have an ability to oversee the responsible ownership of these. What do we do to try to change the conversation from taking away guns to owning them responsibly and assuring that individuals who are dealing with serious mental health challenges are protected from owning them? I am not a person who believes we should all own guns. On the contrary! I abhor guns. But given the politically charged discussions about guns, I wonder if we could find a way to talk about owning them and having a responsibility for having them safely. So maybe I am just deluded. So depressing to see the prevalence among folks who are clearly dealing with mental health problems that are not solved by having a gun. Have we lost our ability as a society to deal with broader issues of health and safety rather than positions on self centered rights of ownership?
To me the most under covered story about the Russia v Ukraine violence is the violence Russia is inflicting on its own soldiers. Their conscripts are so poorly equipped they are like zombies and dying of hypothermia. They send wave after wave of bodies against highly defended non strategic targets. The total contempt they have for their own soldiers is worse than what they are doing to Ukrainians. Injustice is injustice even against Russians
The history of every Russian campaign during WWII does not bode well for either their chances in Ukraine or for their soldiers. Although the presence of cell phones on the front lines might stir up some things back in Mother Russia...we'll have to see.
yes, LKTIV, that could be an interesting angle to pursue: how electronic technology has made this war so very different than past wars.
i'm ever intrigued by clips that show things like a view over the shoulder of a soldier watching his ATGM's path to its objective, or a view of a smartphone device controlling a drone dropping a hand grenade.
I agree. Similar phenomena regarding alleged police misconduct recorded by civilians has dramatically impacted law enforcement accountability as in George Floyd death while in police custody.
The subject has popped up in comments streams before, but I’d like to see something written that truly examines how the Second Amendment as interpreted by SCOTUS, has overwhelmed the First Amendment stifling protests and increasingly expression contrary to right wing dogma. It has also
Imposed on the Declaration of Independence assurance of the pursuit of happiness (I now have to check myself in the presence of legally carried guns, etc). I think the awareness is there but there is not enough in literature that discusses and defines Second Amendment oppression of freedoms.
I'm going to jump on this one with both feet.
I agree with Michale L. This article in yesterday's NY Times on the gun toters using intimidation against anyone who disagrees with them is truly frightening.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/26/us/guns-protests-open-carry.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20221126&instance_id=78601&nl=the-morning®i_id=58746018&segment_id=114270&te=1&user_id=dd842b49220ced4073ff83b3dcd862e2
Carol Anderson's THE SECOND, about the history and uses of the 2nd Amendment, is worth seeking out if you haven't already read it. Her take on the whole "militia" thing, and how it got into the Constitution, is especially useful. Her take is that the militia were key to putting down and preventing slave revolts, and that the southerners, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, wouldn't sign on to the Constitution unless that 2nd Amendment was in it.
In one of my "Afro-American Studies History" courses I researched black slave revolts, there were many, and also other forms of resistance. Herbert Aptheker wrote a book well worth reading.
One phrase from Eugene Genovese still resonates: "the dirty paternalism" of the slave owners, i.e., the plantation owners realized the best (and most oppressive method) was to be just "fair" and parentally, superficially just enough, enough to get enough slaves to comply. Not Simon Legree style brutal beatings and whippings, no, still brutal but differently brutal, psychologically nasty. Black Americans also owened slaves, but it almost all cases, I THINK that was a legal fiction to allow them to buy family and friends out of chattel slavery.
www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/59062/roll-jordan-roll-by-eugene-d-genovese/
Now I see the book won Mister G. ( A quasi-Marxist, btw, but Marx was right about all sorts of things) the Bancroft Prize --- as did Frances Fitzgerald for Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and Americans in Vietnam --- along with a Pultizer Prize and National Book Award:
www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/565319.Fire_in_the_Lake
Carol Anderson's book reminded me of just how frequent slave revolts were, and also of how mindful the slave-owning founders and their successors were of what was going on in Haiti and the rest of the Caribbean. It's not hard to imagine how vulnerable the slaveowners must have felt, especially in the Deep South, where the number of slaves required to operate a cotton plantation was huge -- and even a small-scale rebellion must have brought that vulnerability from half-conscious to front and center. (Both _Roll, Jordan, Roll_ and _Fire in the Lake_ made a big impression on me when I read them but, uh, it's been a while. ;-) )
Well, What's on my mind tonight is the Supreme Court. It is an anomaly among our otherwise democratic institutions: a presidential appointee to the Court needs only the approval of a Senate majority to begin a lifetime on the Court. That process is glaring anomaly among our otherwise democratic institutions. Presidents tend to appoint young ideologues to the Court rather than accomplished jurists. Learned Hand, perhaps our most renowned judge, was never appointed to the Court.
The Court sabotaged Reconstruction just a few short years after the Civil war ended. It took nearly a hundred years for us to partly unwind that travesty.
The court stepped in and declared George W Bush president even though subsequent forensic analysis proved that Bush did not win the election and should never have swerved as President.
The Court effectively granted personhood to corporations.
With its Citizen United and related Opinions the Court effectively legalized bribery of elected officials.
More recently the Court revoked women's right to decided for herself to continue a pregnancy.
I will stop there.
The Supreme Court is a dangerous anomaly in our democratic system of government. It is out of control, the justices have way too much power and are abusing it.
I would like to hear some ideas about how we fix this. Any suggestions ?
A bottomless pit. I've been on that story and will continue to be.
I just don't get why Democrats refuse to go apeshit crazy over, well, virtually anything. Right now they should be on the air all day every day about how pathetic and stupid Walker is and why in the world does the media treat this like it's just two opposing but equally valid politicians. Name names! Lindsey Graham for one. Here's an idea, Schumer should say Lindsey Graham is a horrible person whose only ambition is power to force women to have babies. And McConnell is just as horrible for the same reason. Then keep it going to every other Republican by name. Put them on defense for once! Democrats should be screaming from the rooftops about how Q Anon is totally insane, they're being accused of killing babies and drinking their blood fer chrissakes and the Republicans are encouraging the insanity! Aaaand crickets. Democrats should've been in full throated daily outrage over Dobbs from the day it was leaked to right now. They should call out any reporter by name who compares MTG to AOC as if both were opposite sides of the same coin. Biden should be demanding SCOTUS be expanded every. damn. day. Where is the outrage that the moment so plainly calls for? I'm not seeing it, am I missing something?
I went on a kind of rant once, for at least a few minutes, in my Theories of Justice course., philosophy, reading "Rawls and his critics."
The rant: Basically that roughly half of the people on campus (women) should not be in a situation where they felt unsafe, and rightly so depending on the individuals involved.
The prof. (PhD from Harvard) just let the dust settle, then said, "Would anyone else like to express moral outrage?"
I only get that energy among elected Democrats from Bernie, AOC, a few others. Very few.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3qfTk730Cw
Muddy Waters, and as if that isn't enough, yes "Ladies and Gentlemen, the Rolling Stones," --- OH BABY!!!!
wow, yes, BP that is an excellent timely and very imortant topic to pursue.
many of the woes this country is struggling with can be laid at the feet of the SCOTUS. it truly is an anomalous branch responsible for, of all things, injustices with which we struggle, often on a daily basis.
I used to make a point of quoting Judge Hand as often as possible while in law classes, the profs recognized who it was sometimes before I had finished the quotation, he was that eloquent.
GIFT IDEA!! A subscription is the perfect Christmas/Hanukah/Kwanza gift for a high school or college student in your life. Actually, it is perfect for any of us with half a brain who would be enriched by having Lucian fill in the other half.
I'm up for this one, Joyce! Thanks for chiming in!
Second this !
I'd be interested in knowing where all these young shooters are getting the money to buy all the guns and ammo they come to these public spaces just dripping with. I didn't have that kind of cash or access to credit cards when I was that age! Every time there's a news report on how many AR-15s and Glock pistols and hundreds of rounds of ammunition some bozo psycho kid brought to a school or store or club or wherever, I think, "How did he BUY all that?"
Good point. A Glock costs $600 or more. 223 cal. costs maybe .70 each.
Who pays $600? Orginal buyer from whom you steal it, sure.
I have been assuming they used credit cards (some banks issue them like confetti), either their own or their parents make them available to their wretched offspring. Mundane answer, but worth exploring.
Those who are killed in the end, or kill themselves, I suppose leave someone else holding the bag for those debts.
They steal them or their nitwit "friends" loan them the shooting iron. No one on the street pays full retail, that's for sure.
Bad babysitters?
You are the point of our spear, Lucian; your deeper dives both supplement and complement.
With regards to the Second Amendment, I would like to know why the "Originalists" side step the phrase "A well Regulated militia." I think if you to have an assault weapon, join the National Guard.
I am not anti gun, but I think guns should be licensed similar to motor vehicles. There should be mandatory training, qualification and liability insurance requirements. Their should also be mandatory safe storage requirements to prevent children and anyone not "licensed" from gaining access to them.
I asked our good pal MTG what she'd ask for, and she wrote back in crayon: "What this country needs is a full reveal of the menace of the Jewish space lasers that are zapping us with Covid vaccines from the Moon -- and why the Commie Socialist Hippie Democrats from Mars are behind this so they can turn our babies into drag queens and then devour them."
"Drag queens bearing pizza!" she shrieked when I pressed her for more detail.
Always looking forward to your next report!
I'm hearing that some republithugs think Donny shouldn't run again because he can't win. That's a start but I'd be much happier if they were saying he can't run again because he shouldn't win.
This is going to go back and forth like a tennis match in the coming months. I think Trump will be indicted and will face appearing in court during the primaries. That might give Republicans enough reason to go somewhere else...as the MAGA base screams.
I think he's going to continue to try to stymie any progress in the documents case, so a lot is riding on the 11th District Court decision pending. I don't think people are interested in Trump's tax returns anymore, not that there ever seemed to be a lot of it in the first place. And watch for Trump to try to change attorneys again. That's another one of his delaying tactics.
In 2016 my trumptard neighbor, who incidentally is a lawyer, considered Don the Con a hero for cheating on his taxes. 🤦🤷
That's because Trump defied "the system" and Trumpies see him as a hero fighting against things like taxes. However, starving the government to death is not going to "make America great again," especially when tax cheats and crooks like Trump are in the WH. Can these idiots name just one thing Trump has done for them? No. Instead, Trump is only in it for himself, now more than ever. Ironically, they've made Hunter Biden their whipping boy instead.
🙏🤞👍
Just how poorly educated are white Republican voters?
I wouldn't know where to start getting the figures, but it's way worse than we think. Not that there's much to be said for an "education" as we used to think of it, at this point: Cruz, Hawley, DeSantis...the list goes on.
I hear you Lucian. The three dudes you mention tell how educational attainment doesn’t guarantee discernment. But don’t the breakdowns of voters for Trump, and those three, indicate non-college voters are a higher percentage of their support than college educated? What does that mean? The three you mention were ambitious before they educated, it seems to this humble observer. I’m not talking about the politician’s educational levels. So what is the psychology and education of people who vote against their economic interest? If they were better educated, would they have the critical intelligence to evaluate the policy the politicians they vote for advocate? I don’t know. I’m just asking.
I have been asking that Lorraine for several years now, we just witnessed 75 million Americans voting against their own interests, they have gotten nothing for their support, the only people the repugnantkins actually do anything for are the ones with the most wealth who need it the least. It seems to me that our education system is failing to educate the people, if you are confused about what we have seen in the last 6+ years then our education system has failed you, if you think that the repugnantkins are going to make your life better and you are not wealthy, then our education system has failed you. I would add that more than the education system is failing to inform the citizenry, MSM as it has evolved has always had a responsibility to inform us and look at what a mess MSM is. Organized religion is as guilty as the repugnantkins and the media, they sold out everything in order to get power, they got a SC they could have only dreamt about. I write these words when it’s late and I’m tired, I hope this made sense.🙏
No, this is misconceived from the jump: (Hypothetical) "I vote for Kari because she hates all the people my relatives hate."
"Appeal to emotion" is a fallacy with a long history because it works.
good question, LA. i feel you have pointed at the true base of the problem.
though it probably applies in some part to everyone, imo it isn't their extent in years of education but in the extent that they acquire/not acquire the ability to think for themselves, ie. critical reasoning ability.
i feel that republican voters are largely lazy thinkers, willing to go with their knee-jerk reaction to whatever is thrown to them. and gop politicians have finetuned their spiels to hit on their voters' kneejerks.
don't get me going on all the separate tribal camps to which gops will throw their red meat: guns, religion, class difference, sexual mores, and more.
the internet, or specifically social media, has enabled expat tribal members to find each other and mindlessly beat their wardrums and chant in unison.
.end of rant.
Well.
Put that question out here in writing!
Answer is a multilayered generationally and institutionally complex one. Where is the beginning?
White flight schools post Brown?
I love all the political coverage and insights you supply. But to me, the massive elephant in the room is the climate crisis. Given that most of the world understands it's a crisis and requires immediate, BIG action, why for example did the U.S. representatives to COP 27 sign on only for another *voluntary* loss and damage fund to compensate developing countries for the extremely destructive climate-driven disasters they are now experiencing (such as massive floods of one third of Pakistan) BUT those U.S. representatives and other developed countries refused to tie it to a commitment to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Part of the answer is revealed in a recent New York Times article, "Inside the Saudi Strategy to Keep the World Hooked on Oil" (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/climate/saudi-arabia-aramco-oil-solar-climate.html) which details the comprehensive and relentless lobbying campaign by the Saudis to sabotage meaningful action on climate change. Because money. But what else is going on here? I want to see all the inside dirt on who exactly, in addition to the Saudis, is selling down the river our children, our descendants, all our coastal cities, our glaciers, our crops, our coral reefs, our peace, plenty, and water supplies, and all the species that have survived to the present and are barely hanging on, on this our one and only fragile blue-green home. Whoever it is, they are committing crimes against humanity and the planet, and they need to be outed by name, in full detail. Thanks!
This perhaps blindingly obvious fact just occurred to me. All people care most about their own survival and, perhaps, their own children's survival. And they care much more about whatever they perceive to be immediate threats than they care about threats to their survival that might come "later." The people in the world who make all their money from fossil fuels, like the Saudis with oil or Joe Manchin with coal, see any limitation on their ability to keep their status quo business going, making all their money from that fossil fuel, as a direct, immediate, and dire threat to their own personal survival. So for example, the Saudis probably have some idea that climate change will be a problem for their children, but they may think that means there is all the more reason for them to insist on making the maximum money from oil now, since they know that their children will no doubt be prohibited from doing so. The people with the tightest links to fossil fuels feel like they are literally in a life and death fight to protect themselves and what they think is the ost important legacy they can leave their children: monetary wealth. Those are my guesses, anyway. Upton Sinclair's observation is also operating here: "It's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it."
We are approximaste co-evals (1947-48). I really enjoy your stuff. You inspire me to keep my mental edges sharp.
Keep mining that coal seam and enlighten us continually. Thanks for your efforts to build a decent world.
You can always write about your early years in NYC. We are the same age & your stories are the stuff of my dreams at that time in my life. I even interviewed with the CIA as a senior at the U of Ala in 68. I ended up w/ great adventures in Europe & Saudi Arabia but NYC will always be the dream. Barefoot in the Park said it all.
I, too, interviewed with the Agency in '69 but had to do required military service first. Best decision for me was to go with Naval Intelligence which I ended up doing for 22 years. A great career and would do it all over again if I was 25 years younger.
Help us better understand how Christianity is being weaponized to further ultra right-wing causes. They pretend like their main issues are abortion and un-biblical issues like racial equality and gay marriage, lamenting the erosion of our “American religion”. They’re happy to turn a blind eye to pure-evil despots who claim to be Christian (some of their sheeple claim Trump is odious but sent by God!). But the real agenda is that Xtian Nationalists want to give rich white men total control, they have loads of $$$ to spend, and can easily dupe and milk their poorer followers for every penny they’ve got.
Several fine books have been documented this, most recently by Katherine Stewart (The Power Worshippers), but it’s not a connection that is being made in the media. Most people have no idea.
You summed it up quite nicely. That's exactly what they're doing.
Lucian, I so appreciate your focus on the challenges we have ahead of ourselves to bring us together as a citizenry focused on caring for each other rather than trying to find ways to assault our differences. As I watch and read the comments on guns, I am also stunned by the report on how Chechs have decided to both agree that all citizens can own guns and still have an ability to oversee the responsible ownership of these. What do we do to try to change the conversation from taking away guns to owning them responsibly and assuring that individuals who are dealing with serious mental health challenges are protected from owning them? I am not a person who believes we should all own guns. On the contrary! I abhor guns. But given the politically charged discussions about guns, I wonder if we could find a way to talk about owning them and having a responsibility for having them safely. So maybe I am just deluded. So depressing to see the prevalence among folks who are clearly dealing with mental health problems that are not solved by having a gun. Have we lost our ability as a society to deal with broader issues of health and safety rather than positions on self centered rights of ownership?
There are so many good suggestions from subscribers above...I can’t think of anything to add at the moment. By the way, Ruby has my vote if she runs.
Ruby's campaign slogan might be:
THERE ARE MANY TRUTHS ON EARTH, AND DOGS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE!
To me the most under covered story about the Russia v Ukraine violence is the violence Russia is inflicting on its own soldiers. Their conscripts are so poorly equipped they are like zombies and dying of hypothermia. They send wave after wave of bodies against highly defended non strategic targets. The total contempt they have for their own soldiers is worse than what they are doing to Ukrainians. Injustice is injustice even against Russians
The history of every Russian campaign during WWII does not bode well for either their chances in Ukraine or for their soldiers. Although the presence of cell phones on the front lines might stir up some things back in Mother Russia...we'll have to see.
yes, LKTIV, that could be an interesting angle to pursue: how electronic technology has made this war so very different than past wars.
i'm ever intrigued by clips that show things like a view over the shoulder of a soldier watching his ATGM's path to its objective, or a view of a smartphone device controlling a drone dropping a hand grenade.
I agree. Similar phenomena regarding alleged police misconduct recorded by civilians has dramatically impacted law enforcement accountability as in George Floyd death while in police custody.