The Supreme Court made three unremarkable, straight-forward rulings yesterday, and the Axis predictably acted as if the Court has banned kissing and ice cream:
A. Hawaii passed a law that a lawful gun owner would have to ask permission to carry a gun on privately owned property that is open to the public. The ruling was condemned by the Brady anti-gun groups, whose president wrote, “I will not mince words: This deeply dangerous majority opinion privileges guns over everything and all people in society.” That’s an interesting way to describe a civil right. The majority simply confirmed that the presumption on private property is that citizens have all their rights until the owner declares otherwise. An owner who doesn’t want guns on his property can prohibit them. Gavin Newsom’s tweet demonstrates his dishonesty: “Gun laws keep people safe. This ruling by Trump’s Supreme Court will only endanger people. If Justice Alito really thinks people need guns to go to the grocery store “for self-defense,” this country is truly broken.” All gun laws are good, so there! And once again, the government doesn’t get to decide when a citizen “needs” a gun.
B. The Court ruled that Temporary Protection Status is temporary. Seems reasonable to me! 350,000 Haitians have come here and stayed based on an earthquake that took place in 2010. The idea of TPR is to allow endangered foreign nationals to come here until a particular peril has passed, and then return home. If Congress wants a different system, it can change it. The Left’s whole case against Trump deciding not to permit TRP squatters to stay forever is to claim that the policy is based on racism. No, it’s based on the principle that a nation should control who it allows to come here, and letting the gate swing open for large numbers of people from cultures antithetical to ours is suicidal.
C. The third case held that non-US. citizens coming in from Mexico need to apply for asylum or start the legal immigration process before showing up at the border or crossing into the U.S. The way the system was administered by the Biden Administration let everyone in who claimed to be a refugee, whereupon they were able to scatter before any determination had been made. “Today Trump’s loyalists in the Supreme Court have joined forces with him to deny immigrants internationally recognized human rights and advance an authoritarian white supremacist agenda,” Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said. The United States of America is not bound by the “internationally recognized” right to ignore borders.
As always, those condemning the SCOTUS rulings won’t read the opinions, and the Axis media won’t explain them without spinning for the Left. Gee: the right to bear arms is a right, temporary doesn’t mean forever, and you have to get permission to get into the country before you get into the country. Stunning. Tyrannical.
But here you do have a recognized right to write about whatever you want…as long as it involves ethics.
Ethics Alarms 
A little over a year ago, I submitted the following column as a Guest Entry.
Fan Ethics: The Diane and Joe Saga [Corrected] | Ethics Alarms
In a nutshell, a fan I call “Diane” has developed a fixation that has now reached year six on an actor I call “Joe Darling”. After pestering him with emails and gifts to his home for three years, as well as comments on social media that pushed boundaries, she met him at a convention where he politely, but firmly, told her that her behavior bordered on stalking and he would take further action if she didn’t stop.
She stopped the gifts to his home, but sent a couple of more emails before stopping those, too. She resumed commenting on his social media after a couple of months, seemingly believing that it was only the gifts and the number of emails that were the problem. The next year, on Joe’s return to her city for a convention, she was informed by the event showrunner that she was permitted to attend the show only on the condition that she stay away from Joe Darling. It is not uncommon for celebrities attending public events to send lists of problem fans ahead of time to alert the show of who they do not wish to see. In this case, the showrunner almost certainly was following Joe’s instructions.
Upon her arrival, she tried to negotiate the guidelines with the showrunner only to leave with the impression that he was restricting her because of a personal grudge against her.
In the meantime, she continues to post on Mr. Darling’s social media every two to three months in a vain effort to get a reaction.
This past year alone, she has posted a birthday wish for Joe on his social media page, another message asking him to post more on said page and a Mother’s Day message to his wife and daughters-in-law, referencing them by name. All of these posts have been deleted within a day or two. She may be deleting them herself because she does have a history of deleting posts on her own page if she doesn’t get the reaction she wants. It’s also possible that Joe’s site administrator is deleting them. Joe Darling himself does not appear to spend much time on social media these days so he may not even be seeing them.
He is returning to a convention in her town soon. She has purchased tickets to the convention from another fan who cannot attend. This concerns me. Since her ticket purchase this year has not been made directly from the show itself, there will be no record of her name as a ticketholder when Joe inevitably sends them his list of problem fans.
I do not believe Diane is dangerous; however, she is both a resourceful and persistent pest. She will almost certainly attempt to attend Joe’s Q&A panel where she may or may not try to ask a question. She may also try to get into his autograph line in an effort to speak to him about clarifying the restrictions placed on her. She may also approach other guests, gauge their friendliness and drop hints about speaking to him on her behalf, something she has done in the past.
My question to the commentariat again concerns what my obligations are here. Should I inform the convention that she is planning to attend? If I do, the convention may restrict her access to Mr. Darling again or may even ban her from the show completely. These are not necessarily bad things; however, Mr. Golden believes that, should she be prevented access in any way, she will only rationalize again that the showrunner has it in for her. If that happens, she will continue to post on Joe’s social media and try to see him again the next time he makes an appearance in her hometown. For this reason, Mr. Golden argues that informing the convention will only delay the inevitable consequences that she seems determined to provoke.
What do you think I should do? Should I inform the convention? Should I leave it alone in the hope that, if she makes it to Joe’s autograph table, he will be more firm and less polite this time? Is there another alternative I’m overlooking? Is there such a thing as a duty to allow someone to face the consequences of their actions? If so, does that supersede the duty to confront or intervene? I have truly tried to encourage healthier fan behavior but I’ve only been successful at convincing her to edit one post and delete one other. At what point do I decide if my duty to intervene is over and allow the risk she is taking to come back and bite her?
This is clearly a continuous pattern of behavior. I am not sure what results you wish to achieve here by intervention, one more time. If you wish to maintain the status quo, then by all means, tell the team. If you think it’s time for it to stop for her mental health and his, maybe let it play out and have more serious consequences come into play. You have done what you could as far as I can tell. It’s not your fault what you can do hasn’t really worked. You only have a certain amount of tools at your disposal.
My position on intervening is for the sake of warning the convention ahead of time so they can be prepared to take whatever action they deem necessary to keep her away from Joe Darling. Admittedly, I’m also motivated by my own peace of mind.
I will not be able to convince her to skip the convention. I have been unable to convince her to just admire him from afar.
I am leaning toward letting her go without telling anyone so that she can experience the full weight of not following Joe’s instructions to her three years ago without being able to blame someone else for obstructing her.
I would first talk with Diane. She reminds me of some people I’ve known. As a child, I’ve gotten into similar situations a few times. Through naivete, Diane has turned someone away from trusting her. With no ill will, she crossed boundaries she didn’t realize were there, and now the person has imposed stricter boundaries on her than on other people. Now that she knows about the normal boundaries, she wants to go back to those, but there’s no way to request that without crossing the stricter boundaries (and probably the normal boundaries as well). Even if there were, she hasn’t proven she can abide by the normal boundaries. It’s a finger trap: the more effort she applies, the harder she fails.
As far as I can tell, the most effective path forward at this time is for Diane to a) abide by the stricter boundaries, at least long enough to prove she can do so by herself, b) find some other celebrities to get excited about and prove she can abide by the boundaries of a normal fan, and c) make actual friendships and community a larger part of her life.
After she goes enough time without making a nuisance of herself, and she may be able to contact the celebrity’s retinue and leave an apology. If she’s spent enough time developing other aspects of her life, she may be able to write a high enough level apology that it demonstrates she knows she understands the impact of her actions and doesn’t demand to be treated differently (without being so long that it’s a burden on the people reading it). Most importantly, if she’s spent enough time developing other aspects of her life, she won’t be overly concerned with the outcome either way.
If Diane cannot comprehend and practice this approach, then I’d say the restrictions on her are appropriate and should be enforced. Some people create downward spirals when things don’t go as they expect, and until they learn not to do that, I think it’s important that they don’t get the impression that a self-centered approach will get them what they want. That way lies sitcom wacky hijinks, and beyond that, suspense movie territory. (Probably not in this case, but the whole point of the boundary is because it’s dangerous to assume that.)
How does that sound?
Thank you, EC, and I agree with your assessment.
I believe that Diane knew or at least suspected that she was pestering Joe before she even met him. But she wanted so much to get a response from him that she was willing to risk getting a negative one. I think she overlooked or ignored warning signs that she was pushing boundaries.
And, yes, she absolutely would be thrilled to be allowed to operate under normal boundaries now that she’s violated them. She has no way to communicate with Joe to let him know she’s accepted normal boundaries because she’s not supposed to send him anything else. She has tried to get around that by sending a letter to him via a studio instead of to his home. She has tried giving letters to his former co-stars at conventions. Either he’s never seen them or he’s ignoring them. I doubt he thinks she’s dangerous either and, as legal action is time-consuming and not always necessary, he’s probably decided that ignoring her is better in the long run as she’s stopped the mail to his home. That may change if she shows up at his autograph table.
Although, she could accept the harsher restrictions and hope that someday Joe will see how many notches she’s taken her enthusiasm down, I doubt, at this point, she’s going to change his mind.
Your thoughtful response is appreciated.
Joe Celebrity is not going to relent. She needs to accept that.
Diane apologizing is not going to work. It will only make things worse.
No amount of “respecting boundaries” is going to convince Joe she has changed. Joe will never think of her as more than a potential threat to hold at bay.
For Diane to believe otherwise is delusional. A level one apology is impossible, here. She has proven herself unreliable, and any attempt slat further communication just reinforces Joe’s original reason for telling her to stay away. All she can do to improve the situation is to unilaterally comply.
The most you can do is warn her to stay a respectful distance and not directly engage. To do otherwise will risk getting her banned from the convention, and possibly blacklisted from others.
“The most you can do is warn her to stay a respectful distance and not directly engage.”
And that’s already been tried.
And you are absolutely right that she will not change his mind and will only make it worse by trying to negotiate her way out of it.
Am I missing something here? Are you all trying to be nice to Diane, believing that she wants to behave responsibly? You are clearly much nicer than I … she is batshit crazy and should not be allowed anywhere near this guy.
Sorry – you can’t usually fix this kind of crazy, stupid, fangirl obsession.
More like we’re trying to understand why she can’t accept reality and what is the best way to mitigate the damage. In this case, the question is should I try to mitigate it by warning the convention ahead of time.
She is obtuse.
Yes – warn them.
Again, you are far kinder than I. You are trying to understand because you believe she is grounded in reality. She is probably not obtuse but mentally ill, and while she hasn’t been yet, her obsession may drive her to violence.
A M, she is dangerous. It isn’t exactly common, but frustrated fans have attacked sufficient numbers of the object of their obsessions that I don’t think you can say with sufficient certainty that Diane is not.
No, I cannot say that with certainty.
But she’s 67/68 years old and walks with the aid of a mobility device. True, that doesn’t make her helpless but she’s less likely to be violent than someone younger and at full strength.
I do, however, respect your opinion. Are you on the Warn Them side?
Was not aware of those additional limitations, which certainly reduce the likelihood. If I trusted AI, I’d ask the typical age of such lunatics. I’ve never heard of one who who wasn’t under 40. But it’s a Golden Rule question for you, straight up, right?
Mission Accomplished!
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/lavender-magazine-closes-lgbtq/
Kind of surprising for someone (especially advocates) to say, “our work here is done.” I think it is admirable in this case.
Though, I suppose it is also possible that: a) they don’t want to get dragged into the possibly never-ending “trans” debate; b) their “success” has resulted in lower revenues, forcing it out of business.
-Jut
Thanks for sharing this, Jut! I agree, it’s important to have criteria for the success of a project, institution, or movement so that the people in charge can wrap it up and decide where to move on to from there. By contrast, many movements seem to frame everything as a humanitarian crisis even as the remaining problems get smaller or are self-inflicted. It’s good to see people demonstrating acknowledgment of actual social progress.
Pronouns in e-mail signatures (especially in government jobs) are a violation of religious freedom. They also create a hostile work environment by sifting people who aren’t on the crazy train. No pronouns in bio means you don’t advance.
They are a form of compelled speech. I suppose private businesses are allowed some leeway to require it but it sets a terrible precedent and is not in the spirit of the American tradition of free speech.
Pronouns in the bio signal a direct hostility towards religious belief. They also signal someone is infected with far-left politics, which means they shouldn’t be in education because they are a large part of the problem in universities.
The first amendment is not a suicide pact to allow sexually deviant, gender confused communists to be in charge of educating the next generation. Someone might as well write they love orgies in their e-mail signature. The shoddy and grossly incompetent scholarship will generally follow. We have fallen into deep disorder when people actively advertise sexually immoral behavior in an e-mail signature in a “professional” setting. If you are a little less conservative, it’s still a sign of declining standards of decency in public spaces.
But even if you don’t agree with my more historical understanding (vs the 1960’s onward), pronouns in the bio still signal hostility towards sincere religious belief.
You could argue they aren’t compelled if they aren’t officially required, but the indirect message is pretty clear.
Alternatively, pronouns in an email signature signal that someone’s given name is gender-ambiguous or is a foreign name that many people would not recognize the gender of.
If you prefer, you could provide an honorific in the email signature to clarify your gender, but I think the United States is using those less often. The benefits and drawbacks of that trend are another can of worms.
Maybe it is just me but I can barely contain my elation at the level of success of our brilliant Presidento’s success in the Middle East. How could Iran be more on its knees before American might! What are the words to best describe the intensity of success?
What would you rather be done about Iran?
Presidento Trump promised and declared to focus on America. To have initiated this war, now, that resulted absolutely in America’s disfavor, was the stooooopidest blunder!
The answer is therefore: Nothing should have been done. Certainly not at this time.
Would it be fair to say we don’t know yet? Foreign policy has ripple effects that can be hard to predict. The Treaty of Versailles is an obvious example.
If Iran were to allow the U.S. military and the atomic energy agency in and we were able to get the enriched uranium, wouldn’t that be a potential win?
I’ve also wondered why Iran couldn’t just buy a nuke as well. I am as against them having a nuke as anyone, but what stops them from buying it?
Also, does a nation have a right to defend itself when it’s attacked by other nation, even through proxies?
To all appearances, the “win” that was and is established as the objective, and was promised with such ridiculous bluster, cannot be achieved. Not with the typical, old pkaybook strategy. The Neo-Con playbook is now outmoded. That would be my assessment, but I am aware that the perception and attitude of most who participate in this blog is quite standard Neo-Con political philosophy.
The view expressed by Mearsheimer (he seems the most coherent and he said this from the beginning) is simply that Iran has too many debilitating options available. And has (in fact) succeeded in delivering very costly blows, more by way of attacks on allies and US bases, not to mention the issue with the Straights, and of course the non- and under-reported success of attacks on Israel.
So (as Mearsheimer and others point out) effectively the US did not win, rather it lost. A whole group of consessions are being made; Iran’s core leadership is still in power (despite Presidento’s embarrassing and loud-mouthed declarations) and in fact Israel has not been served.
If I were an old Boomer Neo-Con whose personality is associated with a belligerent foreign policy more proper to an age that is no more, I guess I could invent some hallucinated “we won” dream, but since I am not, and since I am rational and objective, I think I will stick with what is pretty obvious. This was a truly stupid political blunder and did far more harm (to US interests) than good.
I’m with you on the bluster. Back in the day, we called it saber rattling when nations exaggerated their strengths, mostly for the domestic audience while real negotiations behind the scenes are fully grounded in reality.
I don’t know if we’ve “won” or lost. It will depend on your metric, but the whole charade isn’t over yet, which was my core point. Perhaps Trump thought Iran would be like Venezuela, or he thought he could scare them into negotiating by assassinating leaders with “coercive diplomacy.”
A lot seems to be based on the U.S. restraining itself though, and Iran knows that. I still don’t know what stops them from buying a nuke though.
I’ve just assumed every major power will have a nuke now and it’s pointless to try to stop it, but maybe there’s more to the story.
it’s pointless to try to stop it,
It’s pointless to try to stop a nation that has been calling for the destruction of the US and Israel for almost 50 years from getting the means to do it?
Wow.
Pointless to try to stop another nation from acquiring a nuke as a foreign policy position because it is ultimately a losing battle. Even if we stop them this time, the danger will come back again and again. There’s no clear end game to me unless the international community united against them, which isn’t going to happen.
It’s not pointless to try to stop a nation that has attacked you and continues to do so. I am 100% in favor of self-defense.
Alizia,
I was reading an article recently that said that many of Trump’s baffling moves (tariffs, the Panama Canal, Venezuela, Iran) can be explained by trying to position the United States more favorably against China. Making sure China did not have a stake in the Panama Canal stymied China; removing Maduro and making Venezuela orbit closer to the US sphere of influence; using economics to try to move more goods away from China and toward the US; and now Iran, have all been aimed at isolating China, strengthening US allies against China, depriving China of oil, and deterring China from aggression against Taiwan. What we’ve seen with Iran is long months of severely reduce oil exports, which not just hurt the Iranian bottom line, but strangled China. China in theory responded from withdrawing from the oil markets and tapping local reserves to avoid the shock of higher oil prices, but even that strategy led to drastic tightening of oil supply within China. Some speculate that China’s oil imports might take years to recover. All of this hamstrings China’s war effort. In addition, in order to get Iranian oil moving again, Trump was able to work with China to get Iran back to the table, and despite the IRGC’s bluster, it does seem that Iran caved on its nuclear enrichment programs and stockpiles. IAEA inspectors will be returning to Iran soon.
It seems to me that when we consider that Trump has long believed China to be America’s biggest threat, and that all his actions could be explained as a global strategy against China, then Trump is actually following through with his America-first ideas. We can certainly disagree as to whether his policies achieved what he thought they could achieve. So I’m curious. Does the China angle strike you as plausible?
I read all those arguments as well. I do not think they are without merit. You might be interested in George Friedman’s views. See: Geopolitical Futures, George Friedman, “The Illusion of peace”)(YouTube)
When would be the right time?
It is your determination — because you hold to a NeoCon political philosophy of the Old School, that something must be done. Perhaps this is true, or in any case to a degree. However, the strategic situation of the US is different now then at other times. The object of the US must be internal reconstruction, not absurd adventures that result in little or nothing gained and making the US look really bad. Trump makes terrible mistakes when he acts like Teddy Roosevelt: a narcissistic, loud-mouthed idiot whose plans constantly result in failure. And that is what this expedition sure looks like. Extremely divisive among factions in his base. Very bad during an time of economic struggle (inflation, etc).
AHA! Now I understand. You think everyone is bound to decisions based on some unifying philosophical construct, like you are. See, reasonable, ethical, experienced people don’t do that, because they know that those are just labels, and that good decisions come from analyzing problems independently and objectively without trying to make the solutions fit a pre-determined template. See, that’s why the topic here is ethics rather than morality!
What is my “unifying philosophical construct”?
Not my job to diagnose you, and off topic Your positions are predictable, doctrinaire and knee-jerk, and you always assume that another commenter is basing an opinion on one “philosophy” or another. Yes, a lot of people, a majority surely, accept templates as easier than thinking through each issue independently. It’s easier, and it masks ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills. It’s like OZ, where everyone wore green-tinted glasses so the city looked like it was made of emeralds. So you keep saying things “are” without demonstrating that they are as you say….yet use aan astounding number of words to do it, defaulting to authorities.
But you did diagnose. You used the phrase.
If you ever asked I would calmly and patiently explain my “ideology”.
But I think you’d rather label me as you wish. The Progressive Left does the same thing …
You label yourself. Those not enslaved by ideology have no need for labels.
How are you defining success or failure of this war? What metrics do you use? I like measurable metrics, and I prefer to use metrics that were predefined, so that we can compare the war to it’s goals, so that’s what I’m going to do below.
Going into this war, the administration stated four goals.
So let’s look at each of these. Because of the fog of war and the fact that we don’t trust all of the parties reporting this, we have a hard time with some of this, but I’ll get to what measurable data there is that I have found.
Partial achievement of goal
Achieved goal
Maybe achieved, but due to wide variety on reports, uncertain
Not achieved, but process in place to achieve it
Now, by my accounting, while I’m not sure I’d call the war a success, at least not yet, I sure as heck wouldn’t call it a failure either. As we are not done with the 60 day period during which we deal with the nukes, I cannot finish this analysis, and really, so much of this will depend on what we will see in the following many years. If, after a short period of time, Iran goes back to making nukes and paying for terrorism, then the war was a failure. If this actually stops them for a few years, preferably a decade or so, then it was a success.
An analysis reported by the Washington Post, of all members of the AUC:
Opinion | Is Iran ‘stronger’ now? A nuclear expert on what the war accomplished. – The Washington Post
Anyone saying Iran is stronger now is “delusional.”
If, after a short period of time, Iran goes back to making nukes and paying for terrorism, then the war was a failure. If this actually stops them for a few years, preferably a decade or so, then it was a success.
As you are aware, Iran has been said to be within days or weeks of making that bomb. I think that has been said since the 1990s, maybe earlier (?) I believe it was and perhaps is a false assertion. There are compilations of Netanyahu emphatically declaring this which are likely false. However, it is certainly true that Iran’s 90 millions are a threat to 7.2 millions Israeli Jews. And it is also true that Israel is in a deep crisis and (sone say) may not even survive. Why? The badly undertaken founding of the state apparently. Israel is ‘the problem’. If I succeed in even influencing the American NeoCon Christianesque Zionists to the slightest degree, it is in this.
You (a general you) have never really examined the situation with sober eyes. It is ALWAYS through versions that are in their essence propaganda-narratives.
This recent adventure is not helping anything or anyone. I predict we will all see and realize: it was ill-advised.
Iran seems to be more empowered then before. More troublesome. And the regime certainly did not fall.
Perhaps H. R. Clinton’s words ?
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaDYfvOE7P_/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
DOGS AND CATS, LIVING TOGETHER, MASS HYSTERIA!
GhostBusters?
Yep!
The last time we succeeded in getting an unconditional surrender from an enemy that was wiling to fight to the last man we had to destroy 2 cities and virtually every inhabitant. We did that with just two bombs. The other European enemy was too bombed into oblivion using conventional incendiary bombs that ultimately forced the dictator to commit suicide and his henchmen to either do the same or flee to South America. I can only hope that when the leftists find themselves on the losing side they behave as Magda Goebbels did with herself and her children.
You never offer any insight into potential solutions that are amenable to our side. The other side is fixated on the destruction of western civilization to impose its theocracy on the world. You always seem to suggest that our engagements in geopolitical conflicts is to advance an imperialistic agenda. Name one country that we have conquered and over taken political control.
At this point I really don’t care if Trump is forced to use a thermo-nuclear bomb just to shut his critics up because no matter what he does is grounds for espousing their hatred of him and those of us who simply want a stable global society that promotes mutually beneficial trade. .
At this point I really don’t care if Trump is forced to use a thermo-nuclear bomb
Based on an ethical assessment, or a moral one? 🙃
I’ve finally figured out a number of things. It’s been kind of a Eureka! moment for me.
I’ve never been able to figure out a number of things. Why do lefties want open borders and why are they so enamored of illegal aliens? Another one: why are there so many foreign born, mostly from shithole countries, people in Congress and other elective offices and also active in the media and the chattering classes? It’s all part of the same phenomenon.
They are all virulently anti-Western. Take Barack Obama (Please!) for example. Here’s a guy who was raised for a while in a shithole country and thinks of himself as being the son of a guy from a shithole country. The big intellectual thing that warped him is anti-colonialism, something he must have picked up in the few classes he actually attended as an undergrad. The belief is that the third world is victimized by the western powers. The thinking goes that the reason shithole countries are shitholes is that the western powers screwed them over. Of course, this is not the case. Shithole countries are what they are because they are dominated by bad, greedy, corrupt people who treat the general populous like slaves with no rights or prospects. So, in order to address the inequality evidenced by the western countries and cultures, they want to turn the western countries into shitholes. Once the whole world is a shithole, everything will be just and fair and equitable.
And these people from Indonesia or Somalia or Lebanon or Gaza or Turkey or Uganda or Iran or Puerto Rico or Haiti know how to turn the U.S. into a shithole because they are from those countries. They also know that life is good for the creeps who run shithole countries because they are the progeny of the families who run shithole countries. For example, once New York City has been turned into a shithole, who will run it? A princeling like Mamdani. And of course, Obama is the archetype. He might as well be an African potentate with all the money he’s made.
These are dangerously bad people engaged in a project to destroy the west. They have come to the United States and walked right through the open door of electoral politics and free speech to demolish the country and turn it into a shithole and thereby make everything equal in the world. And they have lots of standard issue native Americans foolishly or unwittingly enabling them and speeding them along their way. Call me a xenophobe if you like, but these people are coming for us. They are not irrational; they are pursuing a plan. They are not communists or Marxists, but they are acting with revolutionary fervor.
Anyway, problem solved, or at least, problem identified.
And the Democrats are either astoundingly naive about it or they are in on the plan. Who is going to devour whom when they get rid of the Republicans?
They’re already going after Democrats who are not sufficiently in on the shitholization project. The Dems think the DSA people are just lefties who will tone down their messaging over time and play nice. Ask Dan Goldman about that.
The article that got me going in my current blindness:
America’s Islam Paradox – by Reihan Salam – The Free Press
Problem somewhat identified. But the forces and powers within the ruling and determining factions of America have in no sense been understood or identified. So, your entire observation is rather a blind one. The Reagan class (snd the WSJ business class) were absolute advocates for cheap labor, and they did not (permit me a lovely Americanism!) give a rat’s ass what it did to the country. Then, who sent America’s industries to Asia and Latin America!? The American business class (the Reagan class for brief).
Your country is being remodeled and, it seems, you-plural are just now (sort of) waking up to that fact. How did it happen? Who did it? Why?
You.do.not.know. And you complain about it (endlessly!) without any possibility of countering the processes.
Alizia wrote, “Your country is being remodeled and, it seems, you-plural are just now (sort of) waking up to that fact.”, “And you complain about it (endlessly!) without any possibility of countering the processes.”
These are absurd moronic statements, “just now (sort of) waking up to that fact“, “without any possibility of countering the processes”.
You’re kidding, right?
Are you blind?
Was that your idea of trolling?
1. The remodeling by the political left is exactly what gave the political right the incentive to elect someone like Donald Trump to the office of President of the United States in 2016. The political right was awake and very aware of what was/is going on and Trump was the only real counter political mechanism that was offered to the voters.
2. The counter mechanism to the lefts remodeling process is a lot more of the brazen unapologetic outspokenness of the political right which has been put on steroids by the presence of President Trump in politics. There is evidence that some of the lefts remodeling attempts have been reversed.
I have an actualized Certificate of Sanity and if I could remember for the life of me how to upload an attachment I would present it to you!
For the meantime, and I say this in pretty good faith, take my word for it!
(I do understand The view that you have presented, Steve.)
You were wondering how to upload, well I just happen to have your “Certificate of Sanity” document so I to upload for you…
Give me an opportunity like that and I’ll likely take advantage of it in an unexpected way. 😉
Don’t take that personally, it was presented in jest.
AT, that there’s the coveted, many-splendoured Gotchie©™®.
You’re now one of the few…the proud…the…um……………
PWS
… the blessed!
What does what happened in the Reagan and Clinton eras have to do with the anti-colonialism phenomenon we’re dealing with currently? And isn’t Trump trying to repatriate a lot of manufacturing?
And what country are you from? A third world shithole?
Speaking of useful idiots in the Democratic Party, Seth Molton says, “Hold my beer!”:
Rep. Seth Moulton Welcomes DSA Into Democratic Party: “Gotta Have A Big Tent If We Want A Majority” | Video | RealClearPolitics
As completely obsessed as Joseph McCarthy was in the 1950’s because he thought there were a few communists around the USA, what do you think he would think of the rapid rise of hordes of 21st century anti-USA sociommunists?
Ironically, the Soviet Union had a great many spies in the U.S., even in government. The opening of the Soviet archives after the collapse of the U.S.S.R revealed all kinds of goodies. McCarthy’s methods were abhorrent but he wasn’t entirely wrong.
Regarding the topic from earlier on the ethics of alcoholic lawyers (and surgeons, and other professionals), here’s how I’d approach the topic to maximize the probability of people listening to Jack and taking the problem seriously:
First, privately identify one’s own values. I’ll use Jack’s here, since I’m less knowledgeable on the topic.
Jack’s values:
Costs: N/A.
Risks: A relapsed alcoholic is impaired and will make mistakes, sometimes catastrophic ones.
Habits: Alcoholism is an addiction that never goes away. Alcoholics who relapse will predictably become impaired while attempting to conceal their impairment.
Trust: Alcoholics unpredictably relapse, so they cannot be trusted to keep away from alcohol. Therefore, even for an alcoholic who hasn’t had a drink in years, hiding their condition from people who may rely on them is deceptive. Those people deserve to make an informed decision on whether to extend their trust.
(My own bias here is that I don’t see the benefits of drinking at all, because it impairs judgment and there are healthier ways to relax. That said, I have several intelligent and responsible friends who drink recreationally, some of whom are connoisseurs.)
Other people’s values (from the Listserv)–these are the tradeoffs and assumptions that people seem to be willing to accept, or impose upon others:
Costs: Alcoholics still need to make money and, like most people, may have limited skills outside of the professional skills they have specialized in.
Risks: Many alcoholics can do good work most of the time. A relapsed alcoholic can withdraw from representation and get a replacement for their client without excessive interruption.
Habits: After enough time abstaining, alcoholics are more able to resist the temptation of an alcohol addiction.
Trust: Therefore, recovering alcoholics can be trusted to stay on the wagon if they’ve been on it for a long time.
The main tension here, I think, is between Jack’s concern about trust and the other lawyers’ concern about costs. That concern makes them afraid, impairing their ability to make an objective evaluation of the situation. To ensure that people take advice seriously, I find a form of bedside manner is essential. They have to believe that you care about their wellbeing and they have to have a line of retreat that doesn’t feel like doom. To quote an expert on persuasive discipline, “A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.”
Therefore, I’d first acknowledge other people’s values and affirm that I want alcoholics to be able to serve professionally to the extent that it is safe for them to do so, and to be rewarded for consistently exercising discipline in abstaining.
Then, I’d invite people to consider ways to address everyone’s concerns: Is there a way we can ensure that clients can make informed decisions about whether to trust an alcoholic lawyer while helping the alcoholic maintain a viable business? Are there additional opportunities for us to support people in staying sober? Do studies indicate that there may be a point in recovery past which we can say that the probability of a relapse is no different from the probability of the lawyer becoming incapacitated or unavailable for some other reason?
We’re looking for ways to ensure that people can have a reliable lawyer while supporting lawyers in their efforts to be reliable. The more absolutes you can turn into conditionals, the more successful you will be at finding people willing to support your concerns.
Thoughts?
I’ll post this as partly a Comment of the Day and as an intro to my experience with the listserv, which I’ve been debating whether to detail. The short version: the alleged “ethics lawyers” closed ranks, reported be for violating the listserv rules, and the organization President threatened me with ejection from the APRL. Then, after I had been censored, the members continued to attack me for two days. This was the third of recent interactions with the groups that exposed for me their hypocrisy. One of the offenses I was supposedly guilty of was telling a lawyer who was particularly insistent that she didn’t know what she was talking about when she in fact did not know what she was taking about. She kept saying she knew “recovered alcoholics.” There is no such thing. This was a lawyer citing imaginary evidence to rebut me, and nastily at that. I’ll include quotes in the post.
Unethical ethics lawyers. Is this a great profession or what. I guess “self-indicting” would be appropriate?
I am so sorry that your colleagues have closed ranks and impugned your integrity. I’m guessing every one of them is personally afflicted or knows someone who is, and they cannot overcome the emotional roller coaster that addiction drives.
My grandmother was upper management in the phone company (back when that was a really big deal). She was professional and great at her job. Not a great wife and mother at night when she drank, though. I was very close to her and used to hide the vodka bottles. She died at age 59 when I was only 13.
My son worked for us way back when, and took over management of the office when we retired. He did a really good job. But how much better would he have been, how much more successful if he hadn’t been drinking so heavily every night?
It really sucks that I am powerless to help him.
I have discovered that reason is behind a lot of their hypocrisies.
You never offer any insight into potential solutions that are amenable to our side. The other side is fixated on the destruction of western civilization to impose its theocracy on the world. You always seem to suggest that our engagements in geopolitical conflicts is to advance an imperialistic agenda. Name one country that we have conquered and over taken political control.
Well, I am not a geo-political strategist, just someone forming views on the basis of the information presented to me. The larger influence? John Mearsheimer. A political realist with a super-sober outlook. His perspective? Loss on all points. Loss all the way around. Personally, I cannot see the upside.
My summation: This is not the way to get ahead at this juncture in history. What is needed? Turning inward and developing a concerted, long-term plan for American industrial prosperity. This is what I thought DT would undertake. My impression so far? He has gone in the opposite direction.
The issue of the US having an empire, and the natural conflict between the ideals of a republic and that, is a complex topic. Part of the internal conflict in the US is as a result of the conflict I just presented.
At this point I really don’t care if Trump is forced to use a thermo-nuclear bomb just to shut his critics up because no matter what he does is grounds for espousing their hatred of him and those of us who simply want a stable global society that promotes mutually beneficial trade.
If you even say such a thing, I cannot take you seriously. If you are serious, it is a crazy idea.
Did you know?
Sophistry Has Roots in Greek Philosophy
The original Sophists were ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric and philosophy prominent in the 5th century B.C. In their heyday, these philosophers were considered adroit in their reasoning, but later philosophers (particularly Plato) described them as sham philosophers, out for money and willing to say anything to win an argument. Thus sophist (which comes from Greek sophistēs, meaning “wise man” or “expert”) earned a negative connotation as “a captious or fallacious reasoner.” Sophistry is reasoning that seems plausible on a superficial level but is actually unsound, or reasoning that is used to deceive.
From Merriam and Webster
Do you really want to hitch your wagon to a lefty University of Chicago professor. Maybe you do. Maybe you’re just a standard issue American lefty!
Do you really want to hitch your wagon to a lefty University of Chicago professor. Maybe you do. Maybe you’re just a standard issue American lefty!
No, that is obviously false. I am a “White advocate” and even have some notions (more about Europe) with roots in supremacism. One of my influences was Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard. I agree with people like Renaud Camus that “repkacement” (reverse colonization) must be stopped and reversed. I am opposed to Islamic penetration outside of their regions.
I am all about recovering, strengthening and empowering white European persons and culture. We (they if you wish) no longer properly, ethically and morally identify with ourselves and our lands and creations. We have turned against ourselves really at the spiritual level.
I really do, or did, identify with America First but not as a (typical) weak American Conservative. In this sense (apparently) I am rather antithetical to Jack’s vision of Americanism. That is why he see me as unethical.
However, I think Mearsheimer has coherent political analysis, and I don’t know about his Left-tending politics, if that is really true. The bigger U of C influence on me was Richard Weaver (and this comes out often in what I write). ✍️
One of my “didactic tools” has been this particular selection from a speech by Jonathan Bowden. This is not Lefty-Liberal ideology, but something very different and quite intense. It is what “real Conservatism” (not pseudo-Conservatism) must recover.
I would SO MUCH like to know your thoughts!
Warning: Bowden was an anti-democracy, anti-Christianity, admirer of Friedrich Nietzsche, among other toxic philosophers. An organization he co-founded stated that it opposed liberalism, democracy and egalitarianism.
My sock drawer can never be in good enough shape to reduce me to reading or listening to this fanatic.
Plato was (BTW) anti-democracy and in a very real way America (today) cannot in any sense be considered a democracy. Indeed, that is a huge part of the present problems in the US today: It is really a plutocracy and an oligarchy. These are facts, Jack, and in no sense leftist cant. And as I do not tire of saying, it is America’s business class that has sold out America’s working class. They thought it a pretty idea to ship the factories to Asia. They don’t — they cannot — have real concern for people in their higher sense, nor the Republic in anything like its original sense. Again, facts not fantasies. Just a few months ago they were all on board with DEI social engineering and if a dolar can be made perverting youths they do it inna heartbeat.
Yes, Bowden has definitely been influenced by Nietzsche (as has everyone really). I find it amazing that you bolded Warning. Like a warning label on a CD! The fact of the matter is that the Dissident Right has certainly read Nietzsche … and they have had, are having, a great deal of influence in the necessary confrontation with academic, political and business classes that have, and are, transvaluing values.
Should you listen to Bowden you’d no longer need a sock drawer. Nor would you ever desire to spend time organizing it! I am going to buy you a pair of Birkenstocks!
So much to absorb here.
I heard an interesting interview in the last day or two in which the political analyst noted that for years the democrat party has been encouraging the radical leftists because they gin up energy and enthusiasm, particularly with the terribly educated youth of our nation. The regular powers that be, like Adam Schiff and Hakeem Jeffries thought they could control the movement and the youthful, inexperienced candidates they were empowering. They have got to be shocked that the chant is now “you’re next!” The communists in the party are going to crush the traditional democrats. They are not grateful for the endorsements, they are not respectful of their political elders – they intend to steamroll the party. Republicans should not celebrate this …. these radicals will then steamroll elections and transform this country in unimaginable ways.
Jack – reference point A of the SCOTUS rulings:
Did I read correctly that Hawaii argued it should be exempt from strict Second Amendment interpretation because of their Aloha culture?
Did actual, real lawyers argue that point?
Or is that a rumor?
I may have missed that in the opinion: I didn’t read the briefs. But Hawaii has succeeded with that argument before.
Jack wrote: You label yourself. Those not enslaved by ideology have no need for labels.
????
Your statements get odder and odder. I do not perceive myself as “enslaved by ideology” …
A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
Yet ideology, in so many different ways, is part of the informing of all people, and certainly you!
It is relevant I am sure to point out that on the Right, and definitely in the European Right, and surely in the American Dissident Right, which ideas have DEFINITELY filtered into common American thinking, that many people ARE reading the Right-tending political theorists.
Try this: We are here, we have very different ideas because we perceive that a generation or two that should have stood up strongly for a set of values and ideals, failed to do so and — as I often have been saying — sold out the constituents if the country. This is what influences people like Bowden, and there is a filtering down in many different areas, and to people like Fuentes (I do not defend him, I try to explain him).
Watching Twisters again (the sequel to the 1990s Twister).
It’s a fun movie.
but maybe there’s an ethics discussion in there somewhere about the overbearing use of predictable and overly-done tropes that are antithetical to reality.
All stories rely on some level of suspension of disbelief but man…Twisters really dives in.
And it’s about the characters and their circumstances. Not the tornadoes.
I was disappointed in it. It wasn’t as much fun as “Twister” and I thought “Into the Storm” was better as well.
Truth.
I’ll take 1990s Twister any day.
I’ll have to watch Into The Storm.
As for Twisters, about 1/3 of the irritation I derive is actually from the casual but destructive trespassing on private private our “plucky ragtag team of lovable ragamuffin vagabonds” commits every time they see a dark gray cloud.
(The other 2/3rds of irritation is more egregious)
Kiernan Skipka’s character was smart getting killed off in the first 10 minutes of the movie.