You make it sound like there will be a choice on Roe. An important political contingency is first to secure the right to choose in reasonable states. It appears Texas will be an experiment in what happens when the right gets its way. I can see two things happening there: 1) young educated women leave, and that should be encouraged, and 2) social services see an increased burden and observations of children in distress. The cases of 2) could be fed from, say, citizen review boards into activist groups to make clear what is happening during election periods. The bleeding-heart liberal skill set is good at emotional manipulation, and they should do what they are good at.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 7:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] oversight 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. 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 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 7:25 AM > To: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 7:03 AM >> To: [email protected] >> 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 <[email protected]> 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. >> >> > -- Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
