Q: Other than empirical facts, are there any concepts that are common in politics that are not themselves essentially contested concepts or that include an essentially contested concept(s) in how it is described or defined?A: In politics, it's challenging to find concepts that are entirely free from contestation or don't include essentially contested concepts in their definition. However, some concepts are less contested than others, particularly those that are more procedural or technical in nature. .... While some procedural and technical concepts in politics may be less contested, the field of politics is characterized by the prevalence of essentially contested concepts. As Connolly argues, "conceptual contests are central to politics," and engaging with these contested concepts is itself a dimension of politics
I like the emails I get from BigThink.com, one of my favorite online sites. They give you a lot to think about. Here’s a good one:
Everyday Philosophy: Are Stoicism and Buddhism unhealthy philosophies?
Great questions, IMO.
Have you ever gotten to the point where you think, “F it!”? That usually happens when we reach some “critical mass” moment, an inflection point, where we are exacerbated and no longer, well, give a “F”. We’ve been “pushed that far.” No longer giving a “F” also happens when people reach a point of “desperation.” Things/situations no longer matter, and you lose all sense of morality, fairness, reason. You’ve, at least temporarily, had it!
When does detachment cross the healthy border? People often say, “Don’t take things to heart.” “Accept without pride. “Let go.” But at some point, this becomes too much. But where? How do we know?
– Jiri, Czechia
Q1: What do you think? When does detachment cross the healthy border?
Religion is a great comfort to many people. In fact, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Friedreich Nietzsche, and B.F. Skinner all argued that it’s a defining characteristic of religion to act as a defense mechanism. It’s a balm to soothe our pains and a crutch to keep us from falling.
Q2: Do you have any kind of “spiritual crutch?” Is there some concept that provides you with a sense of spiritual understanding about your world that helps you cope?
Link to the full article here.
(by PrimalSoup)
No, not that. 😜 My husband and I voted for the first time today using in-person early voting. Other than in 2020, where we used mail-in ballots because of the pandemic, we’ve always gone to our assigned precinct to vote on actual Election Day.
It went well. There were a lot of people there at Board of Elections site, but we didn’t have to wait except for about 1-2 minutes to get checked in.
How about you? Have you early voted yet?
(by PrimalSoup)
As companies fall short on methane emission reductions, a top trade group has crafted a road map for dismantling key Biden administration rules. An influential oil and gas industry group whose members were aggressively pursued for campaign cash by Donald Trump has drafted detailed plans for dismantling landmark Biden administration climate rules after the presidential election, according to internal documents obtained by The Washington Post.The plans were drawn up by the American Exploration and Production Council, or AXPC, a group of 30 mostly independent oil and gas producers, including several major oil companies. They reveal a comprehensive industry effort to reverse climate initiatives advanced during nearly four years of Democratic leadership. At the same time, the documents contain confidential data showing that industry’s voluntary initiatives to cut emissions have fallen short.
I think the reason for all this is that political parties no longer serve the function they used to. In days gone by, parties were political organizations designed to win elections and gain power. Party leaders would expand their coalitions toward that end. Today, on the other hand, in an increasingly secular age, political parties are better seen as religious organizations that exist to provide believers with meaning, membership and moral sanctification. If that’s your purpose, of course you have to stick to the existing gospel. You have to focus your attention on affirming the creed of the current true believers. You get so buried within the walls of your own catechism, you can’t even imagine what it would be like to think outside it.
When parties were primarily political organizations, they were led by elected officials and party bosses. Now that parties are more like quasi-religions, power lies with priesthood — the dispersed array of media figures, podcast hosts and activists who run the conversation, define party orthodoxy and determine the boundaries of acceptable belief.
Defendant’s request does not engage with the six relevant factors for sealing. Instead, he argues that keeping the Appendix under seal for another month will serve other interests. Ultimately, none of those arguments are persuasive.Setting aside the oxymoronic proposition that the public’s understanding of this case will be enhanced by withholding information about it, any public debate about the issues in this case has no bearing on the court’s resolution of those issues.Finally, and relatedly, Defendant claims that the “asymmetric release of charged allegations and related documents during early voting creates a concerning appearance of election interference.” Motion at 5. There is undoubtedly a public interest in courts not inserting themselves into elections, or appearing to do so. See id. at 6. But litigation’s incidental effects on politics are not the same as a court’s intentional interference with them. As a result, it is in fact Defendant’s requested relief that risks undermining that public interest: If the court withheld information that the public otherwise had a right to access solely because of the potential political consequences of releasing it, that withholding could itself constitute—or appear to be— election interference. The court will therefore continue to keep political considerations out of its decision-making, rather than incorporating them as Defendant requests. Any argument about “what needs to happen before or shouldn’t happen before the election is not relevant here.” Tr. of Arraignment and Status Conference at 29, ECF No. 232.
Rather, his objection is to the Appendix’s release “during a highly contested political campaign.” Motion at 4. But a President’s “capacity . . . as a candidate for office” is “unofficial” and does not implicate the concerns animating his official immunity. Id. at 2340; see id. at 2332. Accordingly, the court has repeatedly stressed that “Defendant’s concern with the political consequences of these proceedings does not bear on the pretrial schedule.” Op. & Order at 3, ECF No. 243. (emphases added)
Peanut gallery denizen: This is a reasonable, just, and well thought out response by the judge. What scares me is that there are judges, I’m looking at you Texas and Florida, that are so deep into the cult that they’d do just the opposite.Peanut 2: Which is ultimately why Donald’s first presidency was so damaging. I think it’s possible his first presidency ended the Union and we’re just waiting for the right Supreme Court case. His second one, if it occurred, would finish the job.
Peanut 3: She put into words something which SHOULDN’T need to be said. But she had too, nonetheless, because of the numerous motions incorporating requests to withhold information from this case otherwise available in a normal case. Sealing prosecution and/or defendant arguments is the exception, not the norm.
