Not sure what the purpose of highly regulated professional guilds - lawyers, doctors - are if the guilds don’t sanction their members’ abuse of their professional status and authority.
There are a bunch of doctors right now running around making money off of pushing deadly nonsense and the big debate is about how and if social media platforms should regulate them. What about their guild?
*is
To their credit, the American Board of Emergency Medicine put out this statement today.
The Simon Biles discourse yesterday was a perfect example of a phenomenon I encounter more and more, which is learning of a piece of news first via the “takes” on it and then having to backfill what the actual information is.
All I knew in the beginning was the Biles has withdrawn from the team competition citing her mental health and not a ton more *and* that there was a very intensely polarized discussion of this decision on social media. But I couldn’t actually understand what had happened!
And then there was a bunch of great context offered by ex-gymnasts and people who cover gymnastics and Biles herself and about 24 hours later I had actually learned a whole bunch of new stuff about the intense and harrowing mental precision the sport requires.
Purely on the politics, the big lesson of the last 12 years is: the faster you do things the better. The vote margin doesn't matter so much as 1) getting it done 2) the thing itself being popular. The *worst* thing for the politics of legislation is long drawn out process.
Now if the thing itself is bad, then obviously rushing is bad, but that's just downstream of it itself being bad! And if you have some quasi-religious belief in bi-partisanship in and of itself, then fine, but you can't say you're doing it for better politics or better outcomes.
Which is kind of where we are with, Manchin and Sinema. To them *the process is the point.* Not the outcome itself, nor the politics, but the act of bi-partisanship.
People that make their way to the highest levels of government in the broad center-left coalition tend to be, genuine institutionalists who truly do believe in their hearts that, for lack of a better phrase, The System Works.
In some ways, I think that's good! There's a kind of wariness of procedural maximalism and pure cynical will-to-power struggle among many (not all!) that can serve as a useful check on some of the worst impulses in politics and governance.
But I am a bit panicked that this ethos, which is the dominant ethos among most Democrats in government at the highest levels has what it takes to actually resist and defeat the forces gathering outside the castle walls.
Always important to remember how the American criminal justice system actually works. Depending on the jurisdiction somewhere between 90 to 97% of crimes are pleaded out. Law and Order-style trials are exceedingly rare. The exception, not the rule.
The entire system *can only function* with this being the case. As Michelle Alexander has pointed out, if every defendent got a trial the entire system would collapse under the weight. All parties to the system understand this.
Prosecutors use leverage, and the enticement of lighter sentences to induce please and defense lawyers and defendants make risk judgements. One binding constraint in all of this, of course, is that resources are limited. Everyone only has so many labor-hours to spend.
Never forget that a huge reason we’re having this war over voting access is that John Roberts invented a totally new constitutional principle out of whole cloth so he could kill the Voting Rights Act for no good reason.
Here’s Richard Posner on Shelby County back in 2013:
Turned these tweets into an A block. Who says Twitter is a waste of time!