I named Houston’s Alex Bregman as our 2016 Prospect of the Year, and listed a bunch of other worthy candidates and the 2016 draftees who had the top debuts as well, all for Insiders. I also held a Klawchat on Thursday.
My latest boardgame review for Paste covers the cute, fast-playing game New Bedford, where players build the town and send ships out on whaling expeditions to rack up points. I really loved everything about that game – it looks great, the play is simple, Within that review is a paragraph on its two-player spinoff, Nantucket.
You can pre-order my book, Smart Baseball, on amazon already; it’s due out in April. Also, sign up for my email newsletter to stay up to date on all the stuff I write in various places.
And now, the links…
- Terry Jones, one of the original members of Monty Python’s Flying Circus, has been diagnosed with dementia at age 74. He’s losing or has lost his ability to speak (aphasia), a shame for a great comic talent and the author of this delightful letter to then-President George W. Bush.
- Turmeric is being touted by all the woo-wielding nature-people for alleged health benefits … and that might be true, as long as you eat it as opposed to taking supplements. My guess is that it requires the presence of fats to work. Its main benefits appear to be anti-inflammatory, although too much turmeric can also give you heartburn so don’t go too nuts. I add a teaspoon of it when making homemade granola; it alters the color but not the flavor.
- “I’m a non-binary ten-year-old,” writes a child for the BBC’s magazine site. What bathroom would you suggest this child (who prefers ze or they) use? How about those with ambiguous genitalia, known as intersex? Why is this a fucking government issue at all?
- Speaking of which, North Carolina’s Hate Bill 2 has cost the state nearly $400 million already in lost business, according to an estimate from WIRED, all in the name of discriminating against LGBTQ people. If you live there, you get to vote in November and let your representatives know how you feel about this…
- Truthout looks at Penn State truthers who try to whitewash the tattered legacy of Joe Paterno. Not mentioned is the sick role Paterno’s adult children play in this, using semantics to argue that their father somehow wasn’t culpable in covering up for a sexual predator.
- Two interesting posts on attempts to save dying languages, one on a Native American woman trying to create the first Wukchumni dictionary, as she’s its last fluent speaker, and the effort to save the Chickasaw language with an app, part of a broader piece on language loss.
- Following up on the Derrick Rose story I posted last week, Julie DiCaro wrote about the importance of anonymity in rape cases after the judge in that civil suit ruled that Rose’s attorneys can name the victim (and smear her).
- A rare Hawai’ian crow showed the ability and knowledge to use “tools” to retrieve food placed out of their reach in a test run by the Hawaii Endangered Bird Conservation Program.
- Vox breaks down how rap lyrics and meter work with or against their underlying beats.
- A reader sent over this fantastic cognitive bias cheat sheet, that takes the 175 biases listed on Wikipedia’s page on the topic and organizes them into a much more manageable tree of major archetypes.
- The great J. Kenji Lopez-Alt made a lighter take on fettucine alfredo, although I think his version couldn’t properly be called “alfredo” given the modifications he makes. True pasta alfredo contains just pasta water, Parmiggiano-Reggiano, and butter, but of course the result is a rather stomach-unfriendly pile of carbs and fat, and many American restaurants compound the problem by adding cream. Lopez-Alt’s version uses science (of course) to lighten things up and give the dish more flavor.
- Another piece on Rob Daviau and how his idea of Legacy games has changed boardgaming. These games involve storylines and permanent alterations to the board and components as you follow the story across multiple plays. Daviau’s latest title, Seafall, is the first standalone Legacy title after Risk and Pandemic got the treatment.
- This week the United Nations held a summit to discuss antibiotic resistance, only its fourth summit ever to discuss a health-related topic.
- Growing vegetables instead of grass can help reduce greenhouse gases in the air. Also, you can’t eat grass, so there’s another benefit to switching to produce.
- Yet another massive price hike for an obscure pharmaceutical, although in this case, it’s not even clear how effective the skin gel is.
- The shift to the far right isn’t just happening here – it’s as bad or worse in Europe, with Austria set to elect a far-right President, and Islamophobia and xenophobia becoming major tenets in party platforms.
- Courage House, an organization that houses victims of sex trafficking, is being accused of violating the girls’ privacy rights and forcing them to attend Christian masses. I don’t agree with the article’s use of “exploiting” here – in this context, it sounds like they’re allowing the girls to be sexually violated again – but the allegations themselves are disturbing.
- The Guardian‘s superb writer Jessica Valenti argues that distrust of Hillary Clinton is a function of our distrust of women in general.
- Gary Johnson said in 2011 that fighting climate change is futile because the sun will eventually expand and swallow the earth. This is true, although there’s probably a 3 billion year gap that he might wish to consider. This goes along with an article I tweeted earlier this week, Slate‘s piece arguing that Johnson is not in any sense a “liberal” candidate, and liberals shouldn’t vote for him as a protest vote. I thought the article failed to fully make its case about young voters, but it is correct about Johnson, whose fiscal and regulatory policies would favor higher-income earners and large corporations at the expense of the lower-income strata, especially those with chronic illnesses, as well as the environment.
- Charles M. Blow writes in a NY Times op ed that Clinton and Trump are not equal and protest votes are folly. He articulates my own opinion on the subject better than I could.
- Joss Whedon’s celebrity-filled anti-Trump, get-out-the-vote ad was probably more funny than effective, but since I agree with the stance on Trump, I laughed quite a bit.
- Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle his own legal problems. The Washington Post‘s David Fahrentold has been all over Trump’s phony charity, calling hundreds of alleged beneficiaries to verify donations (with many saying they’d never received a dime). The New Yorker claims Trump’s charity duplicity has become a campaign issue.
- Trump may be looking at oil exec and anti-environmentalist Forrest Lucas for Secretary of the Interior. The article has quotes from leaders of the Sierra Club, the Oil Change USA, and the Humane Society. Trump’s ties to oil and gas industry people may mean he fills Cabinet posts typically aimed at balancing corporate needs with the public good of environmental stewardship.
- Speaking of which, Trump is a climate-change denier, which doesn’t jibe with rising sea levels on the east coast. The damning quote: “Donald Trump lives in a parallel universe where the facts established by the scientific community to him don’t exist.”
- Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials continue to investigate ties between Trump’s camp and the Kremlin. I can’t believe this hasn’t become a bigger issue. Russia is a dictatorship where dissent is quashed and journalists are killed for their work, and as their economy continues to shrink they’ll become more of a threat to global stability. Cozying up to Putin should be an automatic disqualifier.
- The Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police endorsed Trump, but black cops in Philly say the endorsement ignores their views. I have no idea if such endorsements matter at all, but it would seem that any group with a mixed membership will have a minority that feels marginalized by a single endorsement like this.
- Talking Points Memo describes the “fever inside” Donald Trump, his arbitrary, impulsive nature and outsized reactions to perceived slights.
- Drew Magary wants to say fuck you to Trump voters. Who am I to argue?
- I Just Wish NFL Players Could Find A Way To Protest Without Starting A National Dialogue. Yes, it’s from The Onion. Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own.
My favorite Onion article of the week: Rest Of Nation To Penn State: ‘Something Is Very Wrong With All Of You’
http://www.theonion.com/article/rest-nation-penn-state-something-very-wrong-all-yo-54010
How about they just get rid of men’s and women’s bathrooms and have every bathroom be for every sex or gender. This way every place would not be forced to make a new bathroom for intersex people.
Those language pieces are fascinating, especially the NatGeo video; it’s incredibly cool that Mrs. Wilcox has been able to not only work to save her language, but has involved her daughter and especially grandson in the process, which gives them ownership and a desire to work beyond simply what she has done.
The news about Terry Jones makes me immensely sad. At least we’ll always have spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam and spam. And Mr. Creosote, which Keith referenced in Thursday’s chat (and thanks for posting/answering my question where I mentioned in specifically!)
As for the Penn State stuff, I was very much against the tribute they did for Paterno last week. But I have a huge problem with this. My parents basically worshiped the man. They’ve had a hard time dealing with this scandal from the start. Every time some new revelation comes out, particularly the somewhat recent ones that he may have known about Sandusky’s actions as far back as the 70’s, I have to bring it up. My dad listens and kind of shakes his head. His issue is not knowing who to believe. My mother, on the other hand, pretty much buries her head in the sand. Her response is always, “I don’t want to hear it.” I then accuse her of being unable to separate her hero worship of Paterno from the obvious, disturbing facts. That doesn’t help, but, she needs to face facts, in my opinion.
And I’m very much looking forward to seeing what sets of the storm in the comments this week. (No I’m not.)
To add onto the Penn State issue, it’s been said that former coach Bill O’Brien left for the NFL not just because the NFL came calling, but because he was sick of dealing with “Paterno people” and their relentless opinions and interference.
Gary Johnson was on the Freakonomics podcast recently and said himself that he used to be a climate-change denier, but has now realized that he was wrong. I don’t know very much about the rest of his ideas (I’m Canadian and I’m not following every single detail of the election) and I’m certainly not trying to argue that Johnson is a worthy candidate or anything, but I do think there is an element of unfairness in criticizing him for something he has admitted he was wrong about 5 years ago. That being said, what he said was extremely stupid, so I guess I would hold that part against him.
That being said, what he said was extremely stupid, so I guess I would hold that part against him.
Yes, that’s the part I found most disturbing. It’s essentially an excuse for anything: We’re going extinct eventually anyway so why have any rules?
It’s pretty rough to see that no matter how much evidence of Trump being more qualified than maybe 10% of people eligible to be president, there will be millions of people turning out to vote for him. Just as shameful is how there will always be truthers smdh.
This.
I’ve had the unfortunate experience of watching a close college friend go falling down the right wing rabbit hole. In college, though we always disagreed on topics, we would still have interesting debates, and I could understand where he was coming from. Now, he’s fully embraced the anti-science (and anti-fact) version of conservatism, to the point that he told me he is unconcerned with global warming because Al Gore is not a scientist. (Yeah. That was his logic.) Hes even taken to posting “news” on social media (most recently how Democrats will steal the election by swearing in immigrants as US citizens…) that comes directly from right wing blogs.
I just don’t get it. I want my friend back.
Three of my HS classmates have gone off the deep end the same way. One is Jewish, and yet is posting pro-Trump memes regularly, which I find particularly puzzling given the open anti-Semitism of Trump himself and his supporters.
A legitimate reason to vote for Trump is the Supreme Court (and all federal courts). Eight years of Hillary, with Obama’s appointments already in place, ensures a liberal federal bench for a long, long time. With Trump, no one really knows, but at least he has put out a list of judges that have a track record of originalism and judicial restraint. I won’t be voting for either candidate, but I think voting for Trump is defensible in this regard. He’d be my second choice out of the top four ones for that reason. I’m in favor of gay marriage and against the death penalty; I just don’t want judges deciding those types of issues.
Those are Constitutional issues, though. The 14th Amendment covers gay marriage; the 8th covers the death penalty. Who other than SCOTUS can decide on laws that fall under those banners?
What evidence of anti-semitism is there from Trump? He bows to AIPAC and the Israel lobby which tries to whitewash the illegal occupation and racial colonization of Palestine just like everyone else in the two party sham.
I take an originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution, so for me, I strongly disagreed with the reasoning behind the Obergefell case and will disagree with the inevitable SCOTUS case abolishing the death penalty. Those issues should be handled by legislatures, not judges, and I want a president who will appoint judges who recognize that. Hillary, almost certainly, will nominate another Kagan or Sotomayor who makes things up as he or she goes. Again, I like the result in those cases. Just not the process taken to get there. It’s not the system we have.
Originalism. Or “originalism.” Heh
http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2_0.pdf
Turmeric has been used for over 5000 years for health benefits in India. I guess 5000 years of anecdotal success doesn’t qualify as science though… The only way it can be considered science is if the study was funded by a globalist corporation. Gotta be in the club to make it science right, I forgot…
I don’t know what “to be considered science” means. Science is a process. If you want to claim health benefits for ayurvedic medicine (traditional medicines of India, most of which is bullshit), then we have a means to test those benefits. The available research is limited and negative. So, no, 5000 years of “anecdotal success” doesn’t qualify as anything.
The plural of anecdote is not data. Alternative medicine that works is simply medicine (see willow bark extract aka aspirin). And there is a scientific process for determining if treatments work (e.g. randomized controlled trials). And while I believe it is fair to scrutinize the potential role of funders in experimental design and the choice of whether to publish, there are many academic labs with zero corporate affiliations working in this area.
Wow! What was that, 9(?!) links that are pure fear mongering over Trump? I can’t stand him either, but it’s absolutely gross of you to perpetuate this lesser of two evils nonsense. What will next weeks list have, 12 links about how much more dangerous Trump is than Killary?
That guardian article is a joke. Trump is an absolute idiot no doubt, but his true colors are out in the open for all to see. How many times has Clinton blatantly lied when there is video evidence to prove her dishonesty? Has she admitted that she wasn’t always for gay marriage yet? Don’t forget Clinton helped impose harsher punishment for nonviolent drug offenders and has called black youths “super predators”. You know her administration was behind the releasing of the Obama picture which started the whole “birther” nonsense too right? If she is so much less dangerous than Trump, why has he contributed to her campaign in the past, and how are the the Clinton’s such good friends with the Trump family?
You’re really grasping for straws with the Clinton promotion dude, it’s sad.
The only straw-grasping I see here is claiming that Hillary has ever hidden her evolution on gay marriage and the pathetic, discredited lie that her campaign was behind the birther issue.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton%3f0p19G=e
Right there in the guardian for you from 08′, before Trump was even on the scene. Nice try though 🙂
Killary…..right.
That’s very clever Mathew. But then so was repeating the Trump campaign lie that HRC started the birther movement. Who is grasping for straws now? Frankly dude, it’s sad.
Quite sad. Especially since Trump’s anti-Semitism is fairly well-documented, even before the Star of David tweet in July.
A) Not referencing Obama’s place of birth, but supposedly attempting to tie into his religious beliefs.
B) Claims that the photo was circulated by Clinton staffers came from Drudge, who COULDN’T POSSIBLY have any reason to try and sow dissent between the two Democratic candidates.
C) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/23/donald-trump/hillary-clinton-obama-birther-fact-check/
As you said, nice try though. 🙂
Mathew, I wish Keith, while making clear he was voting for Hillary, would post even one anti-Hillary or anti-Democrat article. (I don’t think there’s been one in months.) He has plenty to choose from and I’m not sure why he doesn’t present a more balanced look. But it’s his blog and he can do what he wants.
I also agree that the Guardian article is a joke. People don’t trust Hillary because she’s not trustworthy. She lies and changes her views on a whim to fit public opinion. I don’t think there’s any evidence it’s because she’s female.
Those two things being said, stick to legitimate criticisms of Hillary. Perpetuating the birther issue and questioning Trump’s racism/anti-Semitism only deflects from Hillary’s weaknesses. You’re doing her supporters a favor.
I posted a piece two weeks ago on Juanita Broaddrick, including Hillary’s failure to defend her.
Also, as you said, it’s my site, and I’m not interested in complaints about what you think is ‘bias.’
So we went from Mark to Matthew this week.
Who will it be next week, Luke or John?
I was thinking a dark horse, perhaps Peter, Paul, or Gary Johnson.
Comment of the week. Competition is now closed.
*Mathew. He has that issue that Latos’ parents had when naming him.
Also, legit lol
“Who will it be next week, Luke or John?”
Clever.
By the way, you probably won’t have to worry about me coming in here and digging in my heels again for a very long time, if ever.
I just don’t find there to be much intellectual depth at this blog to make it worth my time. But sure hope you guys have fun.
I’m sorry we couldn’t meet your standard for “intellectual depth.”
It’s rich that Mark is persuaded that HE was the smartest guy in the room, and by a large margin.
Never mind. I can see that I’m going to be “moderated out.”
That speaks volumes right there.
I put you in moderation because you kept insulting me and other readers. Spare me the martyr act.
I suppose this was the next step. Announce to everyone you are leaving, but still come back to respond to people that aren’t tearfully begging you to stay. Rather ironic that there is an example of how to debate in Keith’s comment section right in this very post. No condescension, no personal insults. Just a couple of people debating a subject. But this is, after all, just an echo chamber…
I’m now asking everyone to end this particular part of the discussion. It’s going absolutely nowhere and I dislike the idea of any particular commenter becoming the actual subject of the conversation.
Morbid curiosity is creating a desire to know what new sources Mathew finds acceptable.
I’ll slightly revise “one” to “some,” but I think it’s fair to point out, not that you care or should care, that pieces bashing Trump and Republicans are regular features and ones the other way are few and far between. Both parties are a mess; maybe one is just more so depending on who you ask.
“Wow! What was that, 9(?!) links that are pure fear mongering over Trump? I can’t stand him either, but it’s absolutely gross of you to perpetuate this lesser of two evils nonsense. What will next weeks list have, 12 links about how much more dangerous Trump is than Killary?”
The lesser of two evil (Even assuming Hillary is evil) voting pattern isn’t nonsense. At absolute worse, Hillary more or less perpetuates the status quo. We know exactly who she is from her record in public service, which for the mot part is pretty darned good. Anyone with as much time in the public eye as Hillary has is going to have embarrassing blunders. But the thing is, Trump doesn’t have a history that has the occassional embarrassing blunder. He has a lifetime of bigotry, fraud and corruption, a history of treating people at all levels like crap, and a horrible tendency to fly off the handle over the slightest thing. He openly encourages thuggery and violence, has openly stated he wants to quash first ammendment rights, finds our worst international enemies to be praise worthy, and his speeches and public comments only don’t resemble Hitler because of the enemies they target, and the media of the day. While the worst hillary might do is perpetuate the status quo, the worst trump might do is start world war III, with the US in the role of germany. It is IMPOSSIBLE to overstate how awful Trump could be as president, because he’s using as his model the absolute worst head of state in modern history.
Comparing Trump to Hitler is no better than Mathew blaming Hillary for the birther controversy. It’s ridiculous to say that.
Also, I understand why liberals would be perfectly fine with another Clinton presidency–it probably will be the status quo–but is her record, particularly as senator and SOS, really “pretty darned good”? I think that’s an exaggeration. She was a terrible secretary and I can’t think of one noteworthy thing she accomplished in the Senate. Enlighten me.
Comparing Trump to Hitler is no better than Mathew blaming Hillary for the birther controversy. It’s ridiculous to say that.
Trump has:
* Proposed shutting down mosques and/or putting them under surveillance
* Proposed profiling Muslims
* Proposed a blanket ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S.
* Stoked fear and hatred of Muslims, possibly leading to a rise in crimes against them
* Said he’d look at deporting Muslims currently in the U.S.
If you substitute Jews and synagogues for Muslims and mosques in those comments, it ought to sound familiar. Remember that Hitler never publicly said anything about exterminating Jews – which allowed other countries, including the U.S., to pretend it wasn’t happening – but gradually decreased their rights while fanning the flames of anti-Semitism, encouraging violence against Jews (even by officers of the state), profiling them, numbering them, watching them, and eventually “deporting” them (to concentration camps).
Godwin’s Law proved true pretty early in this thread…
Not defending Trump’s rhetoric, but I must have missed:
The book he published blaming Muslims for all of the U.S.’ problems;
his attempted coup that resulted in the deaths of 20 people; and
the speech in which he called for a boycott of all Muslim businesses and a ban on Muslims holding positions in government and schools.
I think Trump is unfit for the presidency and his message is generally pretty disgusting, but comparing him to Hitler is dishonest and unfair–not to mention slightly offensive. I’m not an expert on Hitler or his rise to power, but my guess is that his early speeches contained more vitriol and that the vitriol was more consistent. It’s a matter of degree and Trump hasn’t gotten to that level.
Trump doesn’t have to imitate every single move Hitler made to merit the comparison – especially if we adjust for eras, the we way might do for baseball stats. Rhetoric as blatant as Hitler’s prior to his Chancellorship would not play as well in 2016, in the U.S., as it did in the Weimer Republic, where the country was suffering from hyperinflation and had suffered a humiliating defeat less than 15 years earlier in the world’s first Great War. Trump’s rhetoric against Muslims, immigrants, and other marginalized groups is as far from modern humanist thinking as Hitler’s was from his era’s.
“When Jews come to Germany, they’re people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people! But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Poland or France. It’s coming from all over Europe, and it’s coming probably from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast. The problem is, however, that their leaders are far smarter, more cunning, and better negotiators than ours.”
This is from an exercise I do in class. I took Donald Trump’s announcement of his candidacy and changed a grand total of seven words (most of them geographical references), and it sounds very much like Mein Kampf, indeed. Michael says, “I’m not an expert on Hitler or his rise to power, but my guess is that his early speeches contained more vitriol.” I would say that Trump’s speeches contain plenty of vitriol, condemning millions of people at a time, as they do. And If by “vitriol,” you mean calls to violence, then you are in error about Hitler. As noted elsewhere in this thread, he did not openly call for violence, particularly early in his career.
Also, let’s not forget that Trump, like Hitler, is a skilled user of the “big lie.” A lie, as Hitler wrote, so outrageous that people believe it because “no one would dare have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” See WaPo, who concurs with me on this point:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/birtherism-is-donald-trumps-big-lie/2016/09/19/8817cb12-7e99-11e6-9070-5c4905bf40dc_story.html
In short, just because many/most Hitler comparisons are bullshit (per Godwin’s Law) doesn’t mean they are all bullshit. Historians studying the Holocaust are very clear on this point; that not all comparisons to Hitler and Nazism are logical fallacies. If they all were, then there would be nothing to learn from the events that led to the Holocaust, which would undermine the entire significance of studying the Holocaust.
By “vitriol” I mean blame and the intensity of that blame. Trump has absolutely made comments disparaging all types of people, but I think he has focused on Muslims and Mexicans, the way Hitler focused on Jews. Specifically, he has focused on Mexicans who are undocumented. In other words, they technically have committed a crime entering this country and some commit violent crimes when they are here. With regards to Muslims, he has limited his criticism to terrorist acts. Islam has a radical sector and while it’s unfair to target all Muslims, Trump’s anti-Muslim policies, at least on paper, are not purely animus based. They have a national security motive. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Hitler did not limit his criticism of Jews in such a way. He blamed them for almost all of Germany’s post-war problems. Not saying Trump is right, but again, the degree is less.
I’ve played that word change game before. It’s fun, but usually pretty useless. For instance, in law school, we inserted “gay marriage” in the Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS case. Unfortunately, context matters and the 14th Amendment clearly deals with race, not other forms of discrimination. Again, Trump criticizes Muslims and Mexicans in the context of terrorism, crime, and illegal immigration. Not blame across the board.
Unfortunately, context matters and the 14th Amendment clearly deals with race, not other forms of discrimination.
The actual text of the 14th Amendment, section 1:
I don’t see the word race or a synonym thereof anywhere in there, much less any evidence it “clearly deals with race.”
It was passed during Reconstruction. I don’t believe in a living Constitution so I give it the meaning the ratifiers gave it. I can assure you they never thought they were legalizing gay marriage.
If the amendment covered all sorts of discrimination, why was the 20th Amendment necessary? Why was the ERA proposed? Because the 14th Amendment dealt with the rights of former slaves. It’s now been interpreted by activist judges beyond what was ever imagined.
I don’t believe in a living Constitution
What you believe in is irrelevant, since the Constitution is a living document, as shown by 200+ years of SCOTUS rulings.
Leaving questions of minority rights to legislatures, as you’ve said you desire, is how you get Mill’s tyranny of the majority. It’s how we get “bathroom bills” that also prohibit local governments from making sexual orientation a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. It’s how we get “voter fraud” bills that disenfranchise voters of color. It’s why Loving had to go to court in the first place – the overwhelmingly white, male legislature of Virginia had passed the Racial Integrity Act that banned mixed marriages in 1924. I have to question your sanity if you think we should let legislatures set the rights of minorities who are barely represented or unrepresented in their chambers.
Haha 19th Amendment
Sorry, but I could link to hundreds of law review articles arguing against a living Constitution, not to mention the writings and opinions of Bork, Scalia, Thomas, and other judges. It’s not a black-and-white debate, so don’t act like it is. Just because SCOTUS decides something doesn’t mean it’s right. Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade (and Casey v. Planned Parenthood), the gay marriage cases, and every recent death penalty case, among many others, have been wrongly decided in my opinion. They all could be fixed by legislatures–and were in plenty of states at the times of those cases. That’s the proper process, not an oligarchy of unelected judges.
Questioning my sanity? The U.S. is a democracy. Democracies are about majorities. That’s just the cold, hard truth. That’s the system we have. Any rights given to minorities are granted to them by the majority. The 14th Amendment was passed by the majority to protect the minority class of former slaves. It never, ever would have passed if the ratifiers thought it would be used to legalize abortion and gay marriage. SCOTUS giving the amendment that interpretation takes those issues out of the democratic process. It’s dangerous to democracy, except for the fact that most of us, including me, like the result. What would happen though if you didn’t like the result?
It seems like you’re advocating for an oligarchy that just happens to agree with your views. If you want to protect the rights of the LGBTQ community and other minorities, vote different people into Congress, your state legislature, the White House, etc. Use your voice to get enough support for new laws or a constitutional amendment. That’s the way to effect change.
Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade (and Casey v. Planned Parenthood), the gay marriage cases, and every recent death penalty case, among many others, have been wrongly decided in my opinion.
Again, this is conflating how you want things to be with how they are. We have 200 years of SCOTUS decisions that show the Constitution is a living document, and good thing, since the landed white men who wrote it thought blacks were property (and 3/5 of a person), women were inferior, homosexuality was deviant, “Indians” were savages, God created man and earth in seven days, and diseases were caused by “humors;” and had no conception of industrialization, internal combustion, electricity, modern medicine, weapons of mass destruction, and so on. But the salient point here is that you’re saying the Constitution isn’t a living document even as you cite multiple, famous court cases where the Court has said it is. You want it to be so? That’s a valid opinion, one we could certainly discuss, although I vehemently disagree because of the reasons I’ve mentioned so far. But you can’t claim it is so in the face of evidence that it’s not.
Well it’s good to know that Michael thinks people of Asian descent shouldn’t be protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Real lovely person you are, Mike
Native Americans too, for those that choose US citizenship.
Nice try, Aaron. And nice attack without understanding at all what I am saying. Just because the Constitution doesn’t protect something doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s worth protecting.
I said above that I think the 14th Amendment clearly deals with race. Asians and Native Americans would be included in race. Other forms of discrimination can be addressed with other laws or amendments.
If we are considering only the context in which the 14th Amendment was written and passed, then it “clearly” only deals with two races, white and black.
Keith, wait a second. I made it very clear above that I *believe* the Constitution isn’t a living document. I never once definitively said whether it is or not. I’m merely providing evidence. You’re the one drawing the definitive conclusion.
I should have said this before, but there really aren’t 200+ years of cases. Judicial activism started in earnest with the Warren Court in the 1950s. Saying that something is right because the Supreme Court says so is not fair at all either. Was Plessy the correct decision because the Court said so? The problem with a living Constitution is that eventually, judges will see an issue that way and you will be proven “correct.” It just takes one case and one panel of judges. Originalists, rather, have the discipline to refrain from imposing their views, leaving the issue open.
Originalism has limitations certainly, but I think it’s a far better way of interpreting the Constitution, rather than deciding rights willy nilly without any legal justification.
Honest questions. I am *not* comparing gay marriage to any of these, so please do not use that as a response. But does the 14th Amendment protect polygamous marriages? Incestuous marriages? Marriages to a pet? Does the 14th Amendment protect the right to commit suicide? The right of felons to vote? The right of people to use marijuana? The problem with the Obergefell case is that it arbitrarily, from a legal standpoint, protects gay marriage. SCOTUS is just randomly deciding which forms of discrimination are okay and which are not. The Founders and ratifiers of various amendments left those issues to the people through their representatives.
The problem with the Obergefell case is that it arbitrarily, from a legal standpoint, protects gay marriage.
The five justices in the majority disagreed with this at a fundamental level. They rejected the states’ complaint that this was about a “right to gay marriage,” and instead argued that the states had to show why gays should be “excluded” from the right to marriage. Incestuous marriages between adults are banned because their offspring can suffer horrible genetic consequences – as is incestuous intercourse itself. Polygamous marriages also have negative consequences, for the wives and for society as a whole. Pets aren’t citizens so I don’t know what rights you’re protecting there. And so on. The court wasn’t protecting gay marriage per se, but saying that if a state government is offering marriage as a status to its citizens, it could not exclude gay couples, because there was no justification for the exclusion. Since legalizing gay marriage doesn’t harm either of the participants (and confers essential legal and financial benefits on them), and has no negative externalities on the rest of society, the Court ruled against such exclusions. There’s nothing arbitrary about it: If a state can demonstrate a bona fide reason why a right offered to one demographic group can not be offered to another, then the exclusion can stand.
I could repeat what the dissents said in that case and if Kennedy had signed onto them, I’d be “right.” I’ve said it a few times: just because 5 justices say something doesn’t make it the right interpretation.
Based on precedent (cases I don’t necessarily agree with), the level of review should have been rational basis. So as long as the states could put forward a legitimate reason, the laws would stand. On a practical level, those laws very, very rarely get overturned. Because the states put forward reasons for excluding gay marriage (religious tradition, procreation, etc.), the laws should stand. Not saying I agree with those reasons, but it’s not for the courts to decide.
Not saying I agree with those reasons, but it’s not for the courts to decide.
Of course it is. Otherwise, any bullshit reason would do. And certainly “religious tradition” doesn’t qualify; there’s another Amendment that covers that, I believe.
Remember that homosexuality was characterized as a mental illness by the medical community until at least the 1970s. When that changed, any rational basis for exclusion died. You can add that to my prior list of things the authors of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment didn’t know, thus invalidating any argument of “originalism.”
By the way, thank you all for the mostly civil but fierce debate this week. This is what I hope the comment section will be.
I appreciate the kind words! I enjoy intellectual debate and am just trying to present a different viewpoint, one I obviously agree with, but can in no way guarantee is right. I like challenging others and having them challenge me, without resorting to insults and logical fallacies. I think it makes us all smarter. And I’ve had to think pretty hard a few times today. Haha
Same, I’m learning quite a bit as we go here. You got me to really read about Obergefell in more depth than I had when the ruling occurred.
My experience with legal opinions especially is that people only read the part (majority or dissent) they agree with beforehand and ignore the other half. Definitely a popular place for confirmation bias. SCOTUS justices are smart people. They can be very persuasive on both sides.
Or they look at the result and agree or disagree, without any idea how it was arrived at.
I think the death penalty is the easiest (and least political) issue to see where I’m coming from. The Constitution allows for the death penalty–pretty much anything as humane or more humane than hanging. I would rather have the people through their representatives outlaw the death penalty, rather than judges imposing their own views. Process matters. Plenty of states have outlawed it and more will in the future. That’s coming from a person who abhors the death penalty.
In terms of originalist intent, I disagree that the founding political philosophy of the USA was based on majority rule. There was a strong Lockean influence, including the idea that human rights were inherent to the human condition. These rights were not granted by the government, but were to be protected by it. The Bill of Rights largely concerns itself with protecting the rights of the minority. While our country has fallen short of that ideal many times in its history, those are ideals to strive for. “Activist” judges correcting these wrongs has a storied history well before the 1950’s.
I’m not talking about ideals. I’m talking about process. I agree that the Bill of Rights largely protects the rights of minorities. But there was a process for ratifying the Constitution (Article 7), and the Constitution itself included a process for amendments (Article 5). If you look at the requirements of both those articles, they require clear majorities. Any right in the Bill of Rights was granted by the majority.
Michael, almost everyone in Congress after the Civil War (with few exceptions like Charles Sumner) very clearly and actively did not want Chinese people (who were seen as the Asian foreign menace, not very many Asians besides them) included under the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor did they want to include Native Americans (who had not all been conquered yet too). This is clear from the congressional debates, especially the senate. So yes, you going by their original intent (although I suspect you’ve changed your mind in this instance) does mean that you don’t think Asians or Native Americans should be guaranteed protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Aaron, I would have to think and investigate a bit more about whether the 14th Amendment, taking an originalist approach, does in fact protect Asians and Native Americans. My hunch is that probably doesn’t, but race was the central motivating factor for the passage of the Reconstruction amendments. Not gender. Not sexual orientation. Race.
That being said, not every single thing that’s fair and good is included in the Constitution. For instance, I hope we can all agree that private anti-discrimination laws are worthwhile pieces of legislation. But the Constitution says almost nothing about private parties. Just because the Constitution doesn’t protect something doesn’t mean it can’t be protected or isn’t worth protecting. The Constitution is a finite document. If the 14th Amendment doesn’t protect Asians and Native Americans, we have a solution. Have Congress and state legislatures pass laws to protect them or adopt a new amendment. Sometimes that’s easier said than done, but that’s the system the Framers set up.
Does originalism, in your view, mean “anything not explicitly prohibited is implicitly permitted?”
Keith, I hope this answers your question, but I think the Founders left a lot to the democratic process. They risked their lives and fortunes for a reason: they wanted to govern themselves, for good and for bad.
I don’t think originalism requires that definition though. For example, the Constitution doesn’t *explicitly* prohibit execution by being hanged, drawn, and quartered, but it’s safe to say the 8th Amendment does outlaw that because if you analyze texts and laws from 1789 they considered that “cruel and unusual punishment.” Basically, originalism requires you read a law or constitutional provision as a reasonable person would from the era in which that legislation was passed.
I think there’s a belief, probably exacerbated by the terrible civics education in this country, that the Constitution protects everything that’s good. It’s simply not true. The Constitution has plenty of gaps, but as I said above, the Framers provided a way to fill in those gaps: pass a law or an amendment.
To take a silly (somewhat macabre) example, if every state repealed their homicide laws tomorrow, there wouldn’t be any “natural” law or clause in the Constitution to prosecute a murderer.
Our democracy depends somewhat on the majority being reasonable. In some cases, it works. And in others (see North Carolina’s HB2 bill) maybe it doesn’t. But that’s a flaw inherent in a democracy like ours.
I think there’s a belief, probably exacerbated by the terrible civics education in this country, that the Constitution protects everything that’s good.
People in general tend to think the Constitution includes a lot of things it doesn’t (e.g., the phrase “separation of church and state”). But I think we’re all arguing here over what the words actually in the document entail (or exclude).
For example: the mere idea of a transgender person was science fiction (if that) when the Constitution and more than half of the Amendments were written and ratified. Does the Constitution not afford them the protections of, say, due process guaranteed to all citizens in 14A?
Any right in the Bill of Rights was granted by the majority.
Yes this is bordering on semantics, but there is a difference in rights being granted versus protected by majority decree. On the main point of original intent and process, we’re probably going to have to agree to disagree. Original intent is often in conflict with process (spirit of the law vs. letter of the law), with no easy solutions when conflict arises. I support the idea of a living Constitution because overall the SCOTUS has been (IMO) a positive force for expanding liberty. Often well before shifts in majority opinion (It wasn’t until 1997 that >50% of whites approved on mixed race marriages!).
Keith, due process has become a really amorphous concept over the last 75 years or so of SCOTUS jurisprudence. In the Obergefell case, I think there’s a case to be made for the Equal Protection Clause applying. I disagree, but I think it’s a legitimate argument. The due process argument makes no sense. And Justice Thomas’ dissent does a pretty good job explaining why. Substantive due process imo is complete BS. As is the incorporation doctrine.
Due process, for me, was meant to deal with procedural stuff. The rights listed in here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause#Civil_procedural_due_process
The Framers of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment were obviously aware of minorities–homosexuals, the mentally ill, religious dissenters, etc.–and I think the Due Process Clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendments would apply to them. But for deprivations related to crimes, taking of property, things like that. Not gay marriage or public bathrooms.
With Baylor fans applauding Briles last week during their game against Rice and today’s comment from Ken Starr that what happened to Briles was a “grave injustice”, is Baylor following the same same path as Penn State? For fuck’s sake.
As a Baylor alum (B.A. History, American Studies, 2008), I can say that does not surprise me in the slightest. What the Briles tenure did was shed a light on an already awful system of handling/not handling sexual assault cases.
Jessica Valenti? Of “bathing in male tears” fame? I… don’t think I’ll be giving that one a click.
I’m sad to hear about Terry Jones. The loss of physical and mental faculties to this extent is a pretty terrifying prospect. I can only imagine the frustration that he probably feels. As trite as it may sound, I can only hope for the best possible health and fulfillment in his remaining years.
I’m Jewish. I went through a long period of trying to figure out how the holocause happened, during which I read everything I could get my hands on about Germany 1920-1945. That includes reading most of Hitler’s speeches, and Mein Kampf. I’m not making the comparison between trump and hitler lightly. I think if you adjust for the available types of media, and substitute terrorism with communism, muslims with jews, and lgbqt for gays, put evangelicals in the place of catholics… you’ve got a comparison that tells us exactly what trump could become.
I assume in all these discussions we are only referring to Trump’s and Hitler’s rhetoric, not actions, because making any comparisons to the Holocaust or World War II is pretty lazy and irresponsible imo.
Yeah, I still don’t think it’s to the same degree. Trump never brings up LGBTQ issues and he blames Muslims for a very limited problem, terrorism, not all the ills of 21st-century America. For what it’s worth, even the very, very liberal Bill Maher has asked for raised scrutiny for Muslims. The radical part of their religion wants to kill us. I don’t remember any Jews actually doing harm to Imperial Germany or the Weimar Republic.
…except Trump brings up LGBTQ* people regularly (although nowhere as often as Muslims or Mexicans), and has moved toward the current GOP consensus on marriage equality more recently while once in a while flopping back the other. And you don’t need to entirely mimic Nazis to still have fascist rhetoric. Trump’s not advocating for more lebensraum and shit like that, but any reasonable analysis of his rhetoric will show numerous characteristics that resemble the core of fascist ideologies.
Also, Bill Maher as very liberal? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
What’s Bill Maher then?
Bringing up fascist ideas doesn’t necessarily rise to the level of Hitler, nor does being against gay marriage. FWIW, even the Washington Post sees Trump as moderate on gay rights.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/how-donald-trump-is-slowly-teaching-republicans-to-embrace-gay-rights/
He really doesn’t discuss LGBTQ issues all that often.
The left-right liberal-conservative dichotomy doesn’t necessarily work for all people. If you insist on a quick and easy label for Maher, however, then he’s a libertarian much more than he is a liberal.
Yeah, what I called Maher is sort of missing the point. Regardless of his exact political persuasion, he’s the farthest thing from a Trump voter. That’s what I meant.
It’s not missing the point at all. You used Maher to illustrate that Trump’s ideas are mainstream enough that “even liberals” embrace them. But it’s simply not true. And he’s not “the farthest thing from a Trump voter.” Inasmuch as Maher has called himself a “9/11 liberal,” it wouldn’t have surprised me much if he’d come out in favor of Trump, deciding that his disdain for Muslims (and religion in general) took precedence over his other political concerns.
On most issues, in fact, Maher is in line with Dennis Miller. Who, of course, is a Trump voter.
Haha Maher is not supporting Trump. That’s absurd. Google all the videos and tweets about him poking fun at Trump.
Dennis Miller is buds with Bill O’Reilly. You really think he shares a lot of political beliefs with Maher?
Things Miller and Maher agree on: Pro-choice, legalization of drugs, Second Amendment rights, pro-Israel, racial profiling as a policing strategy, the death penalty, reduced taxes, moderate Islamophobia. It’s true that they disagree on some things (the environment and health care reform, perhaps most notably) but what I said is absolutely correct. Because they are both libertarian-leaning, they have a LOT in common.
I stand by what I said about voting for Trump, as well. I am well aware that he has been very critical of Trump during this cycle. And even if I had no knowledge of his intentions, I would assume he’s pro-Clinton. All I was saying was that I would not have been shocked if he came out pro-Trump five or six months ago because, again, it’s a question of what his priorities are.
You seem to think of Bill Maher as Michael Moore’s political twin, but he’s just not.
By the way: “Dennis Miller is buds with Bill O’Reilly.”
Is this REALLY how you evaluate people, politically? By whomever their friends are? Because Miller is also buds with Al Franken, notable liberal media presence and Democratic U.S. Senator.
I’m not interested in either Bill Maher or Dennis Miler enough to do an item-by-item comparison of their political views, but I’m pretty sure Maher has supported Obama, while trashing Bush, Trump and other Republicans, and Miller has basically done the opposite.
They both share liberal social views. But I think it’s wrong to group their views together. Maher is a left-leaning libertarian who wants the government to get involved in the environment and healthcare. Miller is more of a right-leaning libertarian at this point.
Maher joked that Trump is like an infection. And that he’d vote for a “dead Clinton” over Trump. Not sure he ever would have supported him.
Keith, is your granola recipe available anywhere? Thanks. I love granola but would love to try and make it a little less sweet than commercial varieties, and it seems like there are endless ways of experimenting with ingredients — nuts, seeds, grains, dried fruit.
It’s Alton Brown’s recipe, tweaked to my tastes. I only use 1/4 cup of each of the sweeteners, and use unsweetened coconut rather than sweetened.
I second the Alton Brown recipe. It’s a solid, basic recipe that’s easy to modify to suit your tastes. Like Keith, I also use unsweetened coconut. I also swap out raisins for other dried fruit, like cherries, because raisins are terrible.
raisins are terrible.
+1
Keith, do you fear any professional backlash from suggesting raisins are terrible?
You mean “dead grapes.”
I guess any backlash would come from sour grapes.
Keith, do you fear any professional backlash from calling Trump a Nazi/Hitler/etc?
Aside from that, it makes you sound incredibly stupid.
As someone who thought the comparison was outlandish at first, I think it’s a lot closer than I originally thought (after I reflected a little bit and listened to the points made above). I continue to disagree, for the reasons I stated, but Keith and the people here pretty effectively defended their position. They’re not just throwing out the comparison for a reaction. I can’t say the same necessarily for others, especially those in the media.
If you cannot see that there is ample reasons for such a comparison, perhaps you lack the ability to examine candidates in an objective and rational way. I am anti-Hillary, for a variety of reasons (some related to policy and some to character), but Trump is a deeply–flawed candidate. If you were going to compare him to current or historical candidate, can you think of any more accurate than Hitler? I encourage you to read “the rise and fall of the third reich”. The similarities between Hitler’s early years as a political figure and Trump are remarkable. In other words, I hardly think that Keith is in the wrong here. It’s not like he compared him to Pol Pot.
(deletes post comparing Pence to Pol Pot)
At what point should the fear of godwinning an argument stop us from pointing out genuine parallels? Is it because we think it can’t happen here? We have often abandoned our ideals in times of great fear.
Of course Trump is not literally Hitler, but he is extremely authoritarian. Whether you agree with the comparison or not, it’s not an inherently stupid case to make.
I think we can all agree that Pence is basically Stan Valchek.