this week soon one of these days I shall be making adjustments to this site. It may be unavailable for a time. But, be assured (or be afraid), it will be back. (I must confess, sadly, that I am getting lazy in my old age.) I’m looking to implement SSL when I get a round tuit, not that this site needs it, as it handles no confidential or financial information, but it seems to be the in thing that all the cool sites are doing.
Badtux has a theory about the Supreme Court’s radical disregard of precedent in the two big decisions rendered last week.
Frankly, I don’t think that much planning went into those decisions. I think the
conservatives right-wing radicals on the Court were taking advantage of opportunities as they came along. But, as regard the long-term results, I think that Badtux may well be onto something.
We are a failing state.
Twits who rain on the parade.
Yes, indeedy-do. “social” media does contribute to dis coarse discourse, of coarse it does.
F. T. Rea points fingers. A snippet:
Moreover, two groups, in particular, must bear much of the responsibility for Trump’s 2016 win and thus today’s decision that struck down Roe vs. Wade: 1. Republicans who were semi-revolted by Trump. Still, by habit, just couldn’t vote for a Democrat. 2. Democrats, who, because they were bored with politics and/or they found Clinton too annoying, simply didn’t vote, again.
Methinks he has a point.
The lesser of two evils is always preferable to the evil of two lessers.
Sam and Emma talk with a caller, an architect, who discusses how architects feel about hardening schools from mass shootings.
At AL.com, Frances Coleman, who believes that abortion is wrong, struggles with why she finds the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade disturbing. It’s a powerful article worth your while. Here’s a bit (emphasis added):
This isn’t about morality. It’s about the power of the state to make you do things. Morality? There are a lot of things that are immoral, yet legal, just as there are a lot of things that are moral, yet illegal.
It may be immoral to gamble away your paycheck, but it’s not illegal. And it is, in my and many others’ view, immoral to strap a person to a gurney and kill him, but it’s perfectly legal.
There was a time when the members of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed above partisan politics. But that’s only a memory now, as this most recent decision clearly shows.
On a related issue, Badtux reports that one of his friends is fed up with the purists, those self-proclaimed “progressives” who refuse to vote if they don’t find a candidate perfect in every way. Here’s a snippet from that article:
Today’s Supreme Court is unprecedented. Except possibly by Justice Taney.
At the San Francisco Chronicle, Scott Wiener, a California state senator who recently received bomb threats about his sexual orientation, susses the strategy. Here’s a bit (emphasis added); follow the link for the rest.
This is a classic diversion tactic. Right-wing leaders are basically saying: See, it’s the queer people who are ruining everything. Not the wage stagnation we’ve created by gutting unions and keeping the minimum wage absurdly low. Not the pandemic, which we’ve all but ignored and told you was fake. Not the increasing temperatures and frequent natural disasters that we pretend aren’t related to climate change. This culture war is designed to avert attention away from the men behind the curtain who can’t govern.