[FRIAM] oversight

[Steve Smith]

On 5/20/22 3:45 PM, glen wrote:
> OK. So then you agree that perhaps overturning Roe is the best thing 
> to happen right now. It gives people an indication of where the right 
> will take us. Things like work for hire, Citizens United, rollbacks of 
> voting rights, immigrant othering, etc. are too abstract. The abortion 
> restrictions in the red states will give us more leverage in those 
> states. If places like TX and FL don't turn purple again, though, all 
> it's doing is damage. Engaging with "first principles" in those states 
> *is* helping people see what they have in mind.

Ah yes... a few decades in Gilead is what is needed.   Or for an 
alternative streaming-media dystopia, the Japanese/Nazi occupied Amerika 
of Dick's High Castle...

I don't disagree that "in the fullness of time" or the "full balance of 
everything" or DaveWs Indras-netesque "all contextualizes all" sense, 
the pendulum's swing will naturally swing as it will/must.   And more to 
the point of the larger metaphor/idiom,  Leon Foucault's pendulum will 
precess as it will as it must as it swings.   The shortest path lies in 
something more like SteveGs "least action" than any more conventionally 
"straight line" or even simple (to the habituated eye) "geodesic".


>
> On 5/20/22 07:30, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> I think people need to see what the right has in mind.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
>> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 7:25 AM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] oversight
>>
>> But what's the best way to a democratic majority that's *represented* 
>> in the actual cumulative structure that results in nation-wide 
>> rights? The only way I can see to do that is with a large value 
>> system. In the face of deep threats, the lefties need to stop 
>> berating Blue Dogs and pretending there's no shared value system.
>>
>> That shared value system operates a lot like first principles.
>>
>> On 5/20/22 07:17, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> As you admit there are no first principles to consider, so there is 
>>> nothing to put back together.    The other side is fully saturated 
>>> by prevaricators who can't be trusted to debate in a reasonable 
>>> way.  Polling indicates the preference is on the side of the 
>>> left.    This consensus needs to be converted, in the fullness of 
>>> time, into a usable democratic majority.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
>>> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 7:03 AM
>>> To: friam at redfish.com
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] oversight
>>>
>>> Yeah, I get that. But there's an inertia to consider. If we manage 
>>> to put the Right back into place tenuously, without convincing 
>>> enough of the other side to relax or compromise, then they'll dig in 
>>> even more. The tenuous installation feeds into their rhetoric. We 
>>> need at least a semblance of cooperative consensus.
>>>
>>> The Federalist Society (and orgs like The Fellowship 
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29>) 
>>> are not going to simply give up and go home. They've worked for 
>>> decades to overturn Roe and other tenuously established values could 
>>> soon topple, as well.
>>>
>>> There seems to be 2 options: 1) engage with their good arguments and 
>>> shelve their bad arguments, cafeteria style, or 2) come up with our 
>>> own Illuminati style insidious strategy. (2) requires discipline 
>>> lefties just don't have, in part because we criticize ourselves. (1) 
>>> is the practical path.
>>>
>>> On 5/19/22 12:14, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>>> This why I won’t be “pretending” to consider the other side of this 
>>>> issue.  It could cause harm for the sake of stupid people.
>>>>
>>>>> On May 19, 2022, at 11:47 AM, glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. But I don't think that's obvious to many people. I also 
>>>>> think the foundations of math are political (... or perhaps 
>>>>> ideological). And the understandable tendency to reduce sociology 
>>>>> to psychology to biology to chemistry to physics is also political 
>>>>> (or ideological). But there are plenty of people smarter and more 
>>>>> well-intentioned than me who disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> So for those people, whether originalists or evolutionists, who 
>>>>> believe in the Rule of Law, it's up to them (or us if we play 
>>>>> along with the pretense) to derive the right from the Constitution 
>>>>> ... and perhaps peri-Constitution precedent. And if the right 
>>>>> *can't* be so derived, then it has to be grafted on as an 
>>>>> additional axiom, either a federal amendment or a diversity of 
>>>>> state laws/amendments.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/19/22 11:35, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>>>>> What first principles?   The court is a political organization.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0xFD82820D1AAECDAE.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3122 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220521/0ed038a5/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220521/0ed038a5/attachment.sig>