The exact same number of cases had all the liberals in the majority and only conservatives in the dissent... High-institutionalist justices...land in the majority far more often
These points don't imply what Isgur wants them to, as would be obvious to her if she weren't so pleased to have the court on the side of her politics.
Whatever the composition of the court, some Justices would be roughly at its ideological centre, and so would come out as "high-institutionalist" in Isgur's analysis. (Not that I would expect her to see things the same way if a centrist like Kagan were the swing vote.)
The extreme right is in the minority quite often because the court is hearing cases, to oblige Trump and his allies, where a reasonable court would quickly vote 9-0 (but with a reasonable court these cases would probably not be brought and heard).
There are (at least) two major problems with the current court. First, it's a powerful political body whose median member is far right, and therefore far to the right of the median voter. Second, two thirds of it have effectively abandoned any attempt at intellectual respectability. Now they simply decide what they want, the reasoning, such as it is, comes second.
Limited liability is a legal construction desirable for encouraging commercial enterprise.
There is absolutely no reason why it should be accompanied by first amendment rates. Honour your debts unconditionally, or give up your rights to unrestricted speech. Choose one.
Well, there is one reason, which is that it enables limited-liability corporations to advance the political interests of the rich. Five (now six) of the SC Justices were in favour of that.
Altruisme was possibly coined, and certainly popularized, by Auguste Comte, the French philosopher who was responsible also for our use of the term sociology. Which is to say that the technical meaning came first.
There's nothing wrong with technical jargon, but one should try not to invite confusion when communicating with a lay audience.
The description of reproductive fitness in terms of number of offspring is simplistic. What matters for the reproductive fitness of a gene is the number of copies over evolutionary timescales. So it's genetically advantageous to help anyone to the extent that they share one's genes and will propagate them.
Trivers' insight was that the possibility of reciprocity may make it advantageous to help someone, at some cost to oneself, even if you have no genes in common.
I think Trump has provoked a deep and lasting change in European attitudes to the USA. It's unprecedented in the last century for a British Prime Minister to invite the US President to foxtrot oscar, however politely. And there have been more robust rejections from France, Italy, etc. Almost every country is looking for a new world order, in both trade and defence, less dependent on the US.
There's a concurrent and welcome decline in the fortunes of far-right parties in Europe supported by Trump. There's a good chance that Orban will lose the forthcoming election in Hungary, despite his cheating. More parochially, the deeply unpleasant Reform party is now odds against to have the most seats after the next UK general election (a hung parliament is odds on).
Setting aside for a moment the fight against fascism, I read the Prospect article about the nature of conservatism which GftNC linked to. I'm reminded of a much-quoted passage from Michael Oakeshott's essay On Being Conservative:
To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss,
When I read that, I thought "that's me. Am I a conservative?". But, of course, the passage is about how to proceed, not where to proceed. A Fabian Gradualist can prefer all the same things. The difference is in where one wants to go to, not whether to walk or run. A conservative is willing to make slow changes when necessary to maintain social stability, but what they want is to maintain wealth and privilege for the few. Whereas a social liberal wants to reduce inequality, and, in so far as possible, to eliminate inherited privilege. That is why I am not a conservative.
bc: it's very welcome to have someone on here speaking for a Republican viewpoint. Two questions from me:
you partly endorse the MAGA viewpoint. Is there a previous time when you think America was Great? If so, when?
you write of "free markets". Where are they? What proportion of the wealth accumulated by the very rich comes from the exploitation of IP rights? Whatever you think of that, it's got nothing to do with free markets. And if Trump is a believer in free markets, why have so many techbros rushed to bribe him?
At some point, the risk posed by Iran is too great.
Let's talk about risk.
Undoubtedly, Iran wants to have the option to develop nuclear weapons - there's no other reason for its uranium enrichment programme. It's not at all clear that it wants to actually make them - there are religious objections - until it sees an existential threat against it.
The JCPOA eliminated the risk that Iran would develop nuclear weapons. Trump withdrew from it.
Nevertheless, IAEA inspections continued. There was only a tiny risk that Iran would develop nuclear weapons, until Israel and the USA attacked it in June 2025.
Iran then, understandably, ended co-operation with the IAEA. The risk that it would develop nuclear weapons become non-negligible. The risk that it would be able to develop nuclear-armed missiles remained remote. And even if it did, there would be the same deterrents to their use as faced by every other nuclear-armed country.
Trump then started a war which he cannot win by conventional means. The risk that he will use nuclear weapons to attack Iran became significant.
If your concern is the use of nuclear weapons, you oppose Trump at every step.
OK. The relevant question is how likely a given country with nuclear weapons is to use them. Currently the USA is at the top of the list, but Iran would not, in my estimation, be at the bottom.
Pardon? A dirty bomb is a bomb loaded with radioactive material, intended to contaminate the area. Uranium enrichment has nothing to do with it.
...would you wait until they have a bomb?
The fewer nuclear weapons there are, and the fewer countries with them, the better. That applies particularly to countries with governments given to attacking other countries, such as the USA, Russia, Israel, and Iran.
The question is, how to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Perhaps it could be done with a sufficiently disruptive bombing campaign, which goes on for ever. If you're not willing to do that - I'm not, nor apparently is Trump - the best I can think of is to get Iran to agree not to develop a bomb, and to allow a rigorous inspection programme, in return for not imposing economic sanctions. If only it were possible to negotiate such a deal.
“11 bombs”, for which Iran supposedly (reportedly? says who?) has enough “enhanced uranium”. Is that “weapons-grade” uranium, just waiting to be installed in warheads already sitting on ready-to-launch ICBMs, or what?
The IAEA's most recent report notes that Iran had 440.9kg of 60% U-235, in the form of uranium hexafluoride, in June last year: it doesn't know what Iran has done since.
The Hiroshima "Little Boy" bomb, a "target" design, contained 64kg of uranium, most of it enriched to 89%. Implosion designs need less.
My guess is that if Iran were determined to create a simple nuclear bomb, it could do it in months (and it may have done a fair bit of the work already).
If Iran wants to create a nuclear bomb deliverable by the missiles it's got, that would be much more difficult.
So far as I know, all existing missile warheads use Pu-239, bred in nuclear reactors from U-238. Iran hasn't got that capability. U-235 weapons are heavier.
It looks to me as if the writing on it is cast rather than engraved. Perhaps 'inscribed' as a term of art can be used in this sense, or perhaps I'm mistaken.
The suggestion that it's the bullet rather than the target being addressed doesn't appear in the paper, which speaks of "inscriptions...found on these projectiles, addressed to the enemy."
I'm far from expert in Greek, but I understand the use of the aorist here to suggest "understand" rather than "learn". I'd translate the writing as "get this".
__
Speaking of grammar, I would treat both 'graffiti' and 'themselves' as plural - I use 'themself' with singular they. Checking with the dictionary on my phone, I learn that singular 'graffiti' is "loosely" acceptable, whereas 'themself' is "unrecognized in standard English". Apparently my phone knows more about English than I do, as well as being able to beat me at chess.
I've said something like this before: referring to black politicians or judges as "house servants" is not acceptable to me. It doesn't make a difference if you put something in quotes, unless it's an actual quotation..
In British English, a "beamer" is usually a car made by Bayerische Motoren-Werke. It can also be a high full toss at cricket, or, but I've not heard this usage for some time, a big smile.
When Sánchez said "La posición del Gobierno de España se resume en cuatro palabras: 'No a la guerra'" he wasn't seeking to tell us how many words there are in 'No a la guerra'. He might have said "en pocas palabras" but decided, rightly, that giving the actual number of words is pithier.
If one translates it as "...in four words: 'no to war'" the thought induced in the reader is first that the count is wrong, second (in a reader with some familiarity with romance languages) that there must have been a definite article in the Spanish. That is not the message Sánchez intended.
One should translate to give the message, not literally word by word.
I've hesitated, as a man, to say anything about this...
I disagree with several things said or quoted on this thread:
of course men want to rape! It’s just most men can’t rape because...
I don't want to rape. Nothing to do with morality, or what I can get away with, or self respect. I just don't want to. I could be wrong, but I think most man are the same.
it’s not about sex...
It's not exclusively about sex. But it's a biological fact that, for a man, rape has to be partly about sex.
It occurs when someone (the rapist) feels the need to demonstrate his power and status.
I don't think that's true of Epstein's associates - those men had widely acknowledged power and status. Nor can it be true in the Pelicot case, where the rapes were largely secret, and the victim was unconscious. __
But I agree with a lot of the rest. It's an ugly fact that, as the Pelicot case shows, not a few men do want to rape. And yes, patriarchal attitudes to women make it much easier for those men to tell themselves that their rapes don't count as rape.
If that's right, the question addressed by this thread is how to stop those men who want to rape, but are not sociopathic, from feeling entitled to do what they want.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Your choice: an open thread”
My position is to be anti-killing. Hesgeth's "lethality" is a fancy word for killing people.
Don't have a war, because people will be killed. If you do have a war, conduct it such that as few people as possible are killed.
On “Imagining a mad king”
That's an AI summary of unattributed comment it's found on the internet? If so, I can't see what it adds.
"
The exact same number of cases had all the liberals in the majority and only conservatives in the dissent...
High-institutionalist justices...land in the majority far more often
These points don't imply what Isgur wants them to, as would be obvious to her if she weren't so pleased to have the court on the side of her politics.
Whatever the composition of the court, some Justices would be roughly at its ideological centre, and so would come out as "high-institutionalist" in Isgur's analysis. (Not that I would expect her to see things the same way if a centrist like Kagan were the swing vote.)
The extreme right is in the minority quite often because the court is hearing cases, to oblige Trump and his allies, where a reasonable court would quickly vote 9-0 (but with a reasonable court these cases would probably not be brought and heard).
There are (at least) two major problems with the current court. First, it's a powerful political body whose median member is far right, and therefore far to the right of the median voter. Second, two thirds of it have effectively abandoned any attempt at intellectual respectability. Now they simply decide what they want, the reasoning, such as it is, comes second.
On “Maybe time for an Open Thread”
In the interest of more or less re-framing this, I’d invite folks to consider the difference between free markets and capitalism.
I point out from time to time that we have an extensive system of IP monopolies.
"
Limited liability is a legal construction desirable for encouraging commercial enterprise.
There is absolutely no reason why it should be accompanied by first amendment rates. Honour your debts unconditionally, or give up your rights to unrestricted speech. Choose one.
Well, there is one reason, which is that it enables limited-liability corporations to advance the political interests of the rich. Five (now six) of the SC Justices were in favour of that.
"
Altruisme was possibly coined, and certainly popularized, by Auguste Comte, the French philosopher who was responsible also for our use of the term sociology. Which is to say that the technical meaning came first.
There's nothing wrong with technical jargon, but one should try not to invite confusion when communicating with a lay audience.
The description of reproductive fitness in terms of number of offspring is simplistic. What matters for the reproductive fitness of a gene is the number of copies over evolutionary timescales. So it's genetically advantageous to help anyone to the extent that they share one's genes and will propagate them.
Trivers' insight was that the possibility of reciprocity may make it advantageous to help someone, at some cost to oneself, even if you have no genes in common.
"
I think Trump has provoked a deep and lasting change in European attitudes to the USA. It's unprecedented in the last century for a British Prime Minister to invite the US President to foxtrot oscar, however politely. And there have been more robust rejections from France, Italy, etc. Almost every country is looking for a new world order, in both trade and defence, less dependent on the US.
There's a concurrent and welcome decline in the fortunes of far-right parties in Europe supported by Trump. There's a good chance that Orban will lose the forthcoming election in Hungary, despite his cheating. More parochially, the deeply unpleasant Reform party is now odds against to have the most seats after the next UK general election (a hung parliament is odds on).
"
Setting aside for a moment the fight against fascism, I read the Prospect article about the nature of conservatism which GftNC linked to. I'm reminded of a much-quoted passage from Michael Oakeshott's essay On Being Conservative:
When I read that, I thought "that's me. Am I a conservative?". But, of course, the passage is about how to proceed, not where to proceed. A Fabian Gradualist can prefer all the same things. The difference is in where one wants to go to, not whether to walk or run. A conservative is willing to make slow changes when necessary to maintain social stability, but what they want is to maintain wealth and privilege for the few. Whereas a social liberal wants to reduce inequality, and, in so far as possible, to eliminate inherited privilege. That is why I am not a conservative.
"
bc: it's very welcome to have someone on here speaking for a Republican viewpoint. Two questions from me:
"
At some point, the risk posed by Iran is too great.
Let's talk about risk.
Undoubtedly, Iran wants to have the option to develop nuclear weapons - there's no other reason for its uranium enrichment programme. It's not at all clear that it wants to actually make them - there are religious objections - until it sees an existential threat against it.
The JCPOA eliminated the risk that Iran would develop nuclear weapons. Trump withdrew from it.
Nevertheless, IAEA inspections continued. There was only a tiny risk that Iran would develop nuclear weapons, until Israel and the USA attacked it in June 2025.
Iran then, understandably, ended co-operation with the IAEA. The risk that it would develop nuclear weapons become non-negligible. The risk that it would be able to develop nuclear-armed missiles remained remote. And even if it did, there would be the same deterrents to their use as faced by every other nuclear-armed country.
Trump then started a war which he cannot win by conventional means. The risk that he will use nuclear weapons to attack Iran became significant.
If your concern is the use of nuclear weapons, you oppose Trump at every step.
"
OK. The relevant question is how likely a given country with nuclear weapons is to use them. Currently the USA is at the top of the list, but Iran would not, in my estimation, be at the bottom.
"
Iran attacks other countries by proxy.
"
And then you have a dirty bomb.
Pardon? A dirty bomb is a bomb loaded with radioactive material, intended to contaminate the area. Uranium enrichment has nothing to do with it.
...would you wait until they have a bomb?
The fewer nuclear weapons there are, and the fewer countries with them, the better. That applies particularly to countries with governments given to attacking other countries, such as the USA, Russia, Israel, and Iran.
The question is, how to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Perhaps it could be done with a sufficiently disruptive bombing campaign, which goes on for ever. If you're not willing to do that - I'm not, nor apparently is Trump - the best I can think of is to get Iran to agree not to develop a bomb, and to allow a rigorous inspection programme, in return for not imposing economic sanctions. If only it were possible to negotiate such a deal.
"
“11 bombs”, for which Iran supposedly (reportedly? says who?) has enough “enhanced uranium”. Is that “weapons-grade” uranium, just waiting to be installed in warheads already sitting on ready-to-launch ICBMs, or what?
The IAEA's most recent report notes that Iran had 440.9kg of 60% U-235, in the form of uranium hexafluoride, in June last year: it doesn't know what Iran has done since.
The Hiroshima "Little Boy" bomb, a "target" design, contained 64kg of uranium, most of it enriched to 89%. Implosion designs need less.
My guess is that if Iran were determined to create a simple nuclear bomb, it could do it in months (and it may have done a fair bit of the work already).
If Iran wants to create a nuclear bomb deliverable by the missiles it's got, that would be much more difficult.
So far as I know, all existing missile warheads use Pu-239, bred in nuclear reactors from U-238. Iran hasn't got that capability. U-235 weapons are heavier.
"
It is not possible for both sides in a war to win. But it is entirely possible for both sides to lose.
It's normal for both sides to lose. The only proper reason to have a war is that the alternative is worse.
Democracies get into wars much more often than they should, because their leaders suppose, with some reason, that it will boost their popularity.
On “A grammar lesson”
I read the paper: a few thoughts.
It looks to me as if the writing on it is cast rather than engraved. Perhaps 'inscribed' as a term of art can be used in this sense, or perhaps I'm mistaken.
The suggestion that it's the bullet rather than the target being addressed doesn't appear in the paper, which speaks of "inscriptions...found on these projectiles, addressed to the enemy."
I'm far from expert in Greek, but I understand the use of the aorist here to suggest "understand" rather than "learn". I'd translate the writing as "get this".
__
Speaking of grammar, I would treat both 'graffiti' and 'themselves' as plural - I use 'themself' with singular they. Checking with the dictionary on my phone, I learn that singular 'graffiti' is "loosely" acceptable, whereas 'themself' is "unrecognized in standard English". Apparently my phone knows more about English than I do, as well as being able to beat me at chess.
On “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”
I've said something like this before: referring to black politicians or judges as "house servants" is not acceptable to me. It doesn't make a difference if you put something in quotes, unless it's an actual quotation..
I am anti-fascist.
On “A little language practice”
In British English, a "beamer" is usually a car made by Bayerische Motoren-Werke. It can also be a high full toss at cricket, or, but I've not heard this usage for some time, a big smile.
"
Would anyone here argue for that?
Yes, I would.
I would have changed “four words” to “three words” in the translation.
"
Not right.
When Sánchez said "La posición del Gobierno de España se resume en cuatro palabras: 'No a la guerra'" he wasn't seeking to tell us how many words there are in 'No a la guerra'. He might have said "en pocas palabras" but decided, rightly, that giving the actual number of words is pithier.
If one translates it as "...in four words: 'no to war'" the thought induced in the reader is first that the count is wrong, second (in a reader with some familiarity with romance languages) that there must have been a definite article in the Spanish. That is not the message Sánchez intended.
One should translate to give the message, not literally word by word.
"
"Pro patria mori" (in Latin) is usually translated "To die for one's country".
"
In French, it's compulsory to use an article in that sort of construction - "non à la guerre". cf. "vive la France". I guess that Spanish is similar.
I would have changed "four words" to "three words" in the translation.
On “Yuja Wang, networking, transactionality and that guy”
Perhaps this post by Lebrecht has something to do with it.
On “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”
...just a few days after Jan 20 2017...
Prediction is easy, especially when it's about the past.
On “Perpwalk Imperial”
I've hesitated, as a man, to say anything about this...
I disagree with several things said or quoted on this thread:
of course men want to rape! It’s just most men can’t rape because...
I don't want to rape. Nothing to do with morality, or what I can get away with, or self respect. I just don't want to. I could be wrong, but I think most man are the same.
it’s not about sex...
It's not exclusively about sex. But it's a biological fact that, for a man, rape has to be partly about sex.
It occurs when someone (the rapist) feels the need to demonstrate his power and status.
I don't think that's true of Epstein's associates - those men had widely acknowledged power and status. Nor can it be true in the Pelicot case, where the rapes were largely secret, and the victim was unconscious.
__
But I agree with a lot of the rest. It's an ugly fact that, as the Pelicot case shows, not a few men do want to rape. And yes, patriarchal attitudes to women make it much easier for those men to tell themselves that their rapes don't count as rape.
If that's right, the question addressed by this thread is how to stop those men who want to rape, but are not sociopathic, from feeling entitled to do what they want.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.