There was much concern from progressives when Gorsuch and then Kavanaugh joined the U.S. Supreme Court. It was believed by myself and others that the court was going to vote 5-4 in lock step on every option, with the 5 conservative judges routinely beating the four liberal ones.
If you are progressive, it is still a concern. But as these two pieces show, the Supremes vote more independently than you or I might think:
- The Supreme Court’s Biggest Decisions in 2019 – The New York Times
- The Supreme Court Might Have Three Swing Justices Now | FiveThirtyEight
This is not to say it is entire unpredictable how they will vote on matters before them. The liberal and conservative labels are convenient and often useful, but there’s much more to consider than just that when trying to determine how they will vote. Read the two pieces and see if they change your mind.
(Photo by Claire Anderson via unsplash.com)
I see that leftists are calling for radical measures to fight climate change. I have a few issues with this:
- You have to be careful for what you wish for. When they talk about radical measures, they are likely thinking that the line of what is radical is where they get to draw it. I don’t think this is true. To me, radical is things like geoengineering. Or nuclear proliferation. Leftists should not assume they get to draw the line as to what radical is. And leftists should not be surprised if they don’t like what they ask for.
- Some of this seems to be a way to score points against centrists and rightists. It may be true that centrists and rightists have bad solutions. They are not bad solutions because they are associated with anyone of a certain political stripe. They are bad because they may not be enough.
Everyone involved with dealing with climate change should
- work very hard to promote new and better ideas and solutions for climate change
- be as persuasive as possible, especially for those more moderate than themselves
- be very humble when it comes to thinking you know what is right
Obviously this is not the easy a thing to solve by any stretch, and the tradeoffs are significant. Worse still, the solutions involve humans and all their flaws as well as science and technology still in development.
I personally believe it is too late already and that:
- there is going to be global devastation with many coastal cities being destroyed over the next 20 years, despite any advances in policies or technology.
- there is going to be such severe weather in the next two decades that global warming and climate change will be the main political topic affecting everything, and there will be a surge in advances in response to this.
- there will be feedback in terms of population decreases, new technologies, new policies, and planetary unknowns. This feedback will result in climate change stabilizing.
- there will be positive gains to be had from global warming and climate change but that they will not be known for sometime.
Thanks for reading this. Feel free to disagree. Just not on twitter, or I will block you.
If you are seriously considering Howard Schultz run for president, you should read this: How Howard Schultz Left a Bitter Taste in Seattle’s Mouth – POLITICO Magazine
I think he doesn’t have a chance, although he could help the current President get reelected. I thought that before, and I thought it even more after reading the piece in Politico. Here’s hoping he drops out.
A good book on something that people needs to be reminded of: The Disaster of Richard Nixon | by Robert G. Kaiser | The New York Review of Books.
No matter how bad the current president is, longing for bad former presidents is nostalgia at its worst. It’s good that works like this are frequently published to remind us and give us perspective.
It’s odd but this piece by Andrew Sullivan on Jeremy Corbyn, Face of the New New Left does a better job of explaining the current head of Labour in the U.K. than many other pieces I’ve read. Knowing Sullivan, you may be skeptical, but there is plenty of objective detail here.
Corbyn’s time is coming. Read this to better understand him.
The owner of left-wing magazine Jacobin stiffs his workers for his play to take over other property.
In his bid to take over the historic British left-wing magazine, The Tribune, Jacobin publisher Bhaskar Sunkara is being accused of reneging on wage deal by employees of the paper, who kept the publication alive during struggling times. Tribune was once the home of such greats as George Orwell and has since become the leading publication associated with the influential Momentum faction within the Labor Party.
For the details, see this: Jacobin Accused of Reneging on Wage Deal in British Takeover of Tribune Magazine – Payday Report