10. Can we put the polarization genie back in the bottle, on climate or anything else? I really don’t know. But I do wonder how those advocating further radicalization of climate advocacy imagine any of this ends.
11. Making ever more radical demands might be a fine strategy were there someone to negotiate with. But by the reckoning of most prominent climate hawks, there isn’t.
12. Nor does it appear that a more inclusive climate coalition is likely to bring larger congressional majorities. Any Democrat-only climate strategy has to be predicated on not only winning but holding purple/red districts over multiple elections.
13. These are precisely the districts that radicalized climate rhetoric alienates culturally and the green policy agenda punishes economically. Since the failure of cap and trade in 2010, climate activists have taken rhetoric to 11, and what it got them was Trump.
I remember waking up on a school day to hear that he’d been shot out in California. That was a rough couple months, between it and the earlier MLK assassination. Fifty years on, a useful reminder that much of the history has been rewritten, and that both he and JFK were highly overrated. Teddy was scum, but apparently some Americans have need for royalty.
I’ve never paid much attention to him, but he seems to have been quite a character. Here’s a foreword he wrote to a book in defense of a guileless restaurant reviewer in flyover country.
Ultimately, in this case, nobody really “won.” The baker “wins” because technically he “won.” But, all he “won” was the right to have the charges brought against him without the administrative panel making snarky comments about his religious beliefs.
The cause of gay rights was not advanced at all. And, the real issue here — the First Amendment issue, is not being addressed at all — except in a pretty damn good concurrence by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch. (Starts on Page 38 of 59) His concurrence is, of course, foreshadowing either the majority or the minority when this case finally comes to a head. Thomas (I believe correctly) says that designing a wedding cake is no mere act of throwing eggs and flour into a bowl – but is full of artistic creativity. Harnessing (or enslaving) an artist to create that which he does not wish to create is a travesty against the First Amendment.
Yes, that is the argument, despite the continuing nonsense about how it was “discriminating against gays” (I got into a Twitter discussion with an idiot about this yesterday). And SCOTUS punted on the underlying issue. It’s not just a travesty against the First Amendment, but tyrannical.
[Thursday-afternoon update]
One of the legal team who defended Phillips explains why it’s not as much of a nothingburger as some are saying.