Worse, it validates the precedent that non-U.S.-citizens can be prosecuted for breaking U.S. law over things they did outside of the U.S.
Really happy that Assange gets to go home, since he’s suffered enough personally, but I really don’t like the precedent that I can be prosecuted in, say, Israel under Israeli law for things that I did in Wisconsin (e.g. boycotting).
Not quite. The Santa Clara decision gave corporations equal protection under the 14th Amendment, is law in the same sense that Citizens United is, and has been applied many, many times. The 2010 decision held that 1st Amendment protections apply to corporations.
It’s a 19th century idea that appeared in the published decision of the Supreme Court in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.
Only—get this—it wasn’t even what the Court decided. Instead, it was the guy in charge of recording the decision for publication who declared “corporate personhood” in the headnote (summary) of the case. And would it surprise you to learn that the guy was the former president of a railroad company? We just sort of went along with this not-precedent until the Citizens United case.
None of these were serious policy proposals, but intentionally glib, tossed-off ideas. The idea is that most non-political-nerds (I am one, no insult intended) don’t pay attention to policy details. Tossing out hollow policy proposals that nevertheless excite people is only one possible tactic to address the important truth: Democrats need to get better at big-picture messaging, because they’re failing to inspire people.
I’ll note that in 2016 the U.S. elected a petulant 5-year-old pretending to have a magic wand, so…
Honesty, I don’t think that there is a Great Filter. The Fermi Paradox strikes me as not very well-reasoned. A whole hell of a lot of things would have to go exactly right for civilizations to make contact, rather than it being the default assumption. There are lots of filters, not just one Great one.
But the closest to a Great Filter is that space is really, really. stupendously big. The chances of even detecting each other across such distances is vanishingly small, much less traversing them. Add in the difficulty of jumping the metabolic energy gap to become complex life, and that could reduce the density of civilizations down to a level that they’re just not close enough to each other in spacetime to admit even the possibility of contact. And we’re hanging our hat on some highly-speculative concepts like alien mega-structures harnessing whole solar systems to allow detection.
I think a lot of persnickety, smaller filters combine to make interstellar contact between civilizations against long odds. Perhaps the best we’ll get is spectral signatures from distant planets that are almost-conclusive proof of some sort of life.
Details, schmetails. The post is a complaint by Robert Reich that voters aren’t paying attention to details. And ITT, plenty of Lemmings pointing out that Biden can’t pass very many policy proposals, anyway. The idea is to sell the perception that Democrats understand and care about issues facing Americans.
The big picture comes first to get Democrats elected, then get down to the details.
How? Or, why does it matter? It’s not going to pass the House.
This is why Democrats struggle so badly, so I’ll say it straight up: It’s about sales. Reich is complaining that the public doesn’t lose its shit over arcane policy details. Yeah, sit down for this truth bomb (/s): That’s human nature. It’s not fair. It’s not right. It’s not good. It’s just the way it is. Complaining about it won’t help, or change the content of headlines.
So somebody asks for examples of what can Biden do when he’s blocked by Congress? I say: Sell, sell, sell. Get in the PR game. Put on a show that the people in the cheap seats can enjoy. (That is a metaphor for a rhetorical spectacle that even politically unengaged citizens will hear about.) Show everybody that the problem is in Congress.
What do the details matter? The headline is all that people will hear, and Republicans will block it, anyway. He needs to sell the perception that Democrats are trying. The details can come later, after they get the votes.
No, it really doesn’t. I can think them up by the dozens. If they’re not going to pass, there’s no reason to lay all the groundwork. But they’re still good for rhetorical purposes.
He could get caught trying.
He could frame a big-picture vision of what he and Democrats value, expressed in terms that speak to Americans emotionally. He could push for policies that Republicans and the Supreme Kangaroo Court will shoot down, and then go to the American people and blame them for taking away good things that everybody wants.
The student-loan debt relief effort had about 1 1/2 of those things. The rest of the time he tends to talk about particular bills and policies. Republicans can stop those, and those things become dead letters, but dreams and hopes are evergreen.
It could be a word, like everybody or everything, perhaps a synonym for “24/7”.
When times is the diner open? Everytime!
I’m with you, but I’ve been reading online that “woman doctor” is now the preferred form.
That’s true, but the OP’s and my experience is that the adjectival use, like “woman doctor,” was pejorative. I associate it with Greatest and Silent Generation relatives. We changed to say “female doctor,” as it sounded more neutral.
Now, there’s a movement back, and lots of younger folks now say that the latter is demeaning, and that “woman doctor” is the respectful phrasing. I know it’s essentially arbitrary, and defined by usage, it’s just interesting to see the evolution.
Ah! Yes! I’m not the only one.
Sheer bloody-mindedness.
Thank you for this moment of Zen.
I don’t have much to contribute, except that I recently got to a see a friend’s backyard. The whole street is built in an old quarry, so the yard abuts a weathered rock wall, which makes it a quiet, secluded enclave. You’d never know that you were in the city if you woke up there, and you’d almost expect to see gnomes and fairies among the maze of trees.
As in my other reply, the Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or threats to public safety, and without that writ, charges and sentences are irrelevant.
I’m not sure if I’m joking. In any case, the writ of habeas corpus is the legal tool that a court can theoretically use to compel the appearance of a prisoner before it. It is the legal doctrine that underlies the right to trial, and I say “theoretically” because courts rarely need to issue one; it’s just standard procedure to bring people to court to face charges.
By suspending it, Abraham Lincoln could detain those people he deemed dangerous seditionists indefinitely, because the detainees would have to go to court to challenge their detention, and there was no way to get to court. The effect of suspending it again is that it wouldn’t matter that Baboon (autocorrect and I’m leaving it) and Stone were pardoned, or that there were even criminal charges.
Lincoln did it, George W. Bush did it. Barack Obama did it. The Constitution contains a clause which allows it to be suspended due to rebellion or threats to public safety. It’s a dangerous thing to allow a president to do, but the MAGA danger might be greater.
Wat? Are you thinking of Snowden?