HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » marylandblue » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Nov 8, 2016, 03:02 PM
Number of posts: 6,687

Journal Archives

The October March - What a bunch of angry women can do


The Women's March on Versailles, also known as The October March, The October Days, or simply The March on Versailles, was one of the earliest and most significant events of the French Revolution. The march began among women in the marketplaces of Paris who, on the morning of 5 October 1789, were near rioting over the high price and scarcity of bread. Their demonstrations quickly became intertwined with the activities of revolutionaries, who were seeking liberal political reforms and a constitutional monarchy for France. The market women and their various allies grew into a mob of thousands. Encouraged by revolutionary agitators, they ransacked the city armory for weapons and marched to the Palace of Versailles. The crowd besieged the palace, and in a dramatic and violent confrontation, they successfully pressed their demands upon King Louis XVI. The next day, the crowd compelled the king, his family, and most of the French Assembly to return with them to Paris.

These events ended the king's independence and signified the change of power and reforms about to overtake France. The march symbolized a new balance of power that displaced the ancient privileged orders of the French nobility and favored the nation's common people, collectively termed the Third Estate. Bringing together people representing sources of the Revolution in their largest numbers yet, the march on Versailles proved to be a defining moment of that Revolution.

Posted by marylandblue | Sat Oct 6, 2018, 05:43 PM (2 replies)

Is "God and Man at Georgetown Prep" why Judge was hiding out at the beach?

He wrote the book about his time at Georgetown Prep. He was also the publisher of the schools underground newspaper, which would mean he has information on everything and everyone. Hmm.


"God and Man at Georgetown Prep: How I Became a Catholic Despite 20 Years of Catholic Schooling is a 2005 memoir about Catholic school, alcoholism, binge drinking and hookup culture at Georgetown Preparatory School, written by Mark Gauvreau Judge."

"The book recounts how the author published the school's underground newspaper which had information on wild parties.[7][8][13] The paper was distributed among students at Georgetown Preparatory School, and titled, The Unknown Hoya, also released under the title The Heretic.[13] In one periodical, the newspaper showed an image of a music teacher attending a bachelor party.[7][13] According to Judge, the music teacher was shown, "chugging a beer, surrounded by a group of us with raised mugs, sitting down while being entertained by the stripper."

New Yorker: 2nd Woman accuses Kavanaugh


Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of the Supreme Court nominee, has described a dormitory party gone awry and a drunken incident that she wants the F.B.I. to investigate.

I am sure they put something in his drink to keep him quiet this long

But everything wears off eventually.

On collective punishment of the RCC

Disbanding the church is unlikely to happen. There is no real mechanism to do it, and many people will still oppose it. But the church and every priest in it will suffer for the latest scandal if the RCC does not respond appropriately. Fewer people will go to church or donate money. There will be more lawsuits and more investigations. Priests will get less respect. Fewer people will want to become priests. The church's moral authority will be diminished for both Catholics and their non-Catholic sympathizers.

You can see how this type of collapse played out in Ireland, even though the worst abuses happened more than 50 years ago. The church has no moral legitimacy anymore.

This will all be through the actions of individual people. None of them will inquire of their local parish priest what his individual responsibility is. Each person will decide for themselves what the level of collective responsibility is and what punishment they will impose.

So whether you think 0.375% or 100% of priests are culpable, you have already been overruled. By the mystical body of Christ itself.

How arguments in DU Religion sound

Posted by marylandblue | Sun Sep 9, 2018, 09:09 AM (9 replies)

Is the President really the chief law enforcement officer of the United States?

I've seen this said from time to time, but it is not listed in the Constitution as one of the powers of the President. On the other hand, one of Congress' powers is

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

So what did Congress say about what is necessary and proper for carrying out law enforcement?

28 USC 516 Conduct of Litigation Reserved to the Department of Justice

"Except as otherwise authorized by law, the conduct of litigation in which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party, or is interested, and securing evidence therefor, is reserved to officers of the Department of Justice, under the direction of the Attorney General."

So the Attorney General, not the President is the chief law enforcement officer. At least that's what the law says. No doubt this will be litigated someday too, but it seems pretty plain to me.

Posted by marylandblue | Tue Sep 4, 2018, 09:23 PM (9 replies)

The myth of moral equivalence

There can be perverse attempts to "contextualize" human failings by decontextualizing. One version of this goes like this.
-People commit crimes.
-Institutions cover up criminal behavior.
-Therefore all people who commit crimes and all institutions who cover up crimes are all morally equivalent.

To demonstrate the fallacy of this. I will compare two theoretical Catholic Diocese on opposite ends of an extremes.

In Diocese A, there is a network of janitors who steal cleaning supplies and sell them on Ebay. About 5% of the janitors are in this network. They assist each other in locating valuable supplies and removing them from church property. The bishop of this diocese is aware of the theft, but does nothing to stop it.

In Diocese B, there is a network of serial killer priests. About 5% of the priests are serial killers. They assist each other in locating victims, killing them and hiding the bodies. The Vatican is aware of the murders, but does nothing to stop it.

Are these two situations morally equivalent? Even though we know each component of each story happens individually, when we put them all together, do both shock the conscience equally? Do both have the same implications for the church as a whole? It's simply absurd to think they do. Yet that's what some argue.

DU's Absurd ad algorithms

Yesterday I googled for a doctor with the last name Brannan. Today I got an ad for a Brennan B2 music player. If I look for a music player, will I get doctors?

"What is Populism" by Jan-Werner Muller, explains how Trump keeps his base

This is a 2016 book that looks at the growning populist movements around the world and provides a simple explanation of why they work. There is no one definition of populism, which is part of the problem in understanding it. Muller's definition is that populism is the idea that the populists, they and they alone, represent the "true" will of the people.

Democracy is an inherently messy affair. It balances trade-offs between different groups to come to a compromise that can be implement. The balance is always shifting as social conditions shift. Democracy is inherently pluralistic. And the pluralists are always trying to bring new people into the bargain, to expand "the people" But some people feel that they have gotten a bad bargain. Pluralism isn't working for them. These people are fertile grounds for populist leaders. The populist leader is one who claims to represent the "authentic" will of the people. The populist leader gains followers that those who feel aggrieved by the current democratic bargain. They seek to get their way by excluding those who disagree, and so they represent the evil twin of democracy.

We can see how this all plays out with Trump. "Real" Americans have conservative morals, are white Christians, they live in the "heartland," and are "common people." Everyone else is excluded. Minorities are an easy target, so they are not "real" and are against the real Americans. Immigrants and LGBTs are also easy targets. Liberals, the media, and convervative non-Trumpists are enemies of the people because they disagree with will of the people as exclusively interpreted by the populist. There are also the "elites" the white people who are for themselves or have "bad" morals or want to include people who should be excluded. These are all themes Trump has activated, and rightwing populists in other countries do it too. Trump trolls his enemies and the "outsiders." His fans love it because he represents them, he is speaking for them when they feel others are ignoring them. Populist themes transcend party because the leaderships of both parties are part of the elite, unless they bow to the will of the populist (Ryan and McConnell we are looking at you).

I think one of Muller's crucial insights is that populism is not aberration, it is always a near and present danger in a democracy. Today we have Trump, but we've always had people who were aggrieved by the present democratic compromise, it's just a question of how many there are and how aggrieved they feel. The instinct is to push these people out of the bargain, saying "You can't say those things ,"you know which things) but this does not work. It just makes them feel under attack and more angry. The populist channels this. Direct attacks on Trump don't work either, because, as a populist leader, he just uses the attacks as proof that the elites and his enemies really are out to get him, to silence him for representing the "people." This how he is standing against Mueller's investigation. Mueller is one of the old elite who simply looking to attack him. It doesn't matter that he is a Republican. And even Trump's impeachment and conviction will not change his support much.

So what to do? This is the hard part. You can't beat the populist, you can't join them and you can't allow them to continue destroying the fabric of democracy. Muller's prescription is for the liberals is to humanize themselves in the eyes of the populist. To show they are not the enemy. To listen to their grievances and to the extent they do not compromise basic principles (ex, are racist), address them.

It's no accident that populism has grown since the 2008 financial crisis. People were really hurt, financial elites screwed up badly but were bailed out rather than punished while ordinary people suffered. Obama had the right idea, massive public works to create jobs and healthcare. But he didn't go far enough because he was too inclined to compromise. His public works package was too small (See Paul Krugman on this) and his healthcare system too complicated, and well, Republican. These needs are still unmet. Unemployment is low, but real wages are falling. Trump continues to draw attention to "enemies of the people" rather than real solutions. How do we know this will work? Because there were some Trumpists who's second choice, or even first choice was Bernie Sanders. It doesn't matter that he was a socialist, what mattered is that he was talking to the hurting people who felt unheard. It mattered that he took on the leader of the "elite," Hillary, when others were afraid to. That made him a hero for many.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »