you get fun pictures!
celebrated the fourth this year with a colonoscopy. felt about right. doesn’t look like i have colon cancer. maybe there’s hope for my country as well.
it’s hard to be an institutionalist when these are the institutions.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
i hate feeling this way. but my god, what those motherfuckers have done today. and the “supreme court”.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
no guard rails. www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
Supreme Court Clears Trump to Send Migrants to South Sudan
Link Preview: Supreme Court Clears Trump to Send Migrants to South Sudan: The US Supreme Court said the Trump administration is free to send eight migrants to South Sudan, rejecting a judge’s interpretation of a recent high court decision.because you can always rely on absolute power to keep what you take to be its word… sigh.
a thing i find weird is, was there even any meaningful debate on the whole new Gestapo thing? i know legislators talked about Medicaid, rural hospitals, deficits and baselines. but it seems like the new Gestapo was unproblematic, a shoo in, not any not even one of Republican legislators’ concerns.
the Republicans will, in this indirect, kind of confusing way, provoke a crisis in Medicare and then argue the program is inherently broken and only some further austerity can “strengthen” it by “putting it on a solid foundation”. govern badly as proof that the state can do nothing good well.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Resilience is a dimension of epistemology we (at least I) have too little considered. However we know what we know, how resilient is it to interests that seek to snow us, or leave us without what had once been our capacity to know?
i think i’m suggesting a somewhat stronger claim. for this Supreme Court, many of its decisions individually can be attributed to benign or at least defensible reasoning that fails to adequately address “unintended” consequences. so in that sense, ignorance and malice are hard to distinguish. 1/
but i’m claiming though Hanlon’s Razor suggests we stick with ignorance or incompetence, with this Court the parsimonious explanation must be malice, that the adverse (from most of our perspectives) unintended consequences are in fact intended. 2/
the Court has a longstanding (Citizen’s United, voting rights) pattern of provoking such consequences through means many contemporaries perceive. 3/
which form of facially benign or defensible reasoning they apply they vary willy nilly but not randomly. they choose one that predictably will cause what most of us would take to be adverse consequences, while unpersuasively and ultimately mistakenly pretending they’ve addressed the concern. 4/
individually, each decision might be attributed to good faith mistakes, reasonable disagreements, a kind of legalistic blindness that puts certain procedural principles before outcomes, but in a neutral way. 5/
in aggregate, however, all of that is untenable. their behavior is not indistinguishable form ignorance. it is driven by malice outright, or a set of ideological views that most of the public would characterize as malicious if plainly and candidly stated drafts.interfluidity.com/2024/11/19/p... /fin
what’s the inverse of Hanlon’s Razor? i think that’s what applies to the current Supreme Court.
@ryanlcooper.com on elite impunity: “any country that completely gives up on accountability for its political class will eventually produce someone like Trump. Open the door to criminals, and sooner or later one will walk through.” prospect.org/politics/202...
Turns Out Appeasing Trump Only Emboldened Him
Link Preview: Turns Out Appeasing Trump Only Emboldened Him: Having evaded accountability when he was out of power, he’s running amok today.plutocrats are the ultimate degrowthers, because serious growth requires unpredictable change, and plutocrats want to fix current hierarchies in amber. you see this now in the Trump Administration’s reinforcement of fossil fuels and suppression of solar / batteries / etc.
you’ll know evil when you see what people will do in the name of god.

