To the extent I’ve thought about politics here, it’s mainly been in an effort to understand the other side (how could you vote for Trump, etc.) and I think the best thing you can say about that is that conservatives have mistakenly fought, with political means, against what is really a cultural change, which voting and governance don’t have much to do with. (The ultimate cause of this cultural change and political divisiveness, I’d argue, is rapid technological growth.)
A real disappointment has been the opinions of the Roberts Court that I’ve read, which, far from being above the politics of the day, seem to be playing a subtler game. Even the decisions with conclusions I’m glad of (Obergefell) seem loose, and Shelby seemed over the top. (Note: I don’t impute this to Roberts himself and don’t know what to impute it to.) If ever I’m called upon to recommend some Supreme Court Reading –which is never, but I sometimes imagine it’s happening and insert my view– I always recommend Stevens’ dissent in Citizens United, which is so sharp, though perhaps you need also to read the Majority opinion to get the full flavor.
Political Thinking
A Disinterested though Partisan Appeal to the Political Scientists of the Future; Obergefell: a “reverse Dred Scott”? reach of the Obstruction laws. Heller. Dylan’s Chronicles, Caesar’s Gallic Wars. The Problem that seems like a political problem but isn’t.
Film
Hannah and her sisters chart , Late Spring: direction’s scene; [all of Late Spring posts]; Pulp Fiction Notes; Deathproof, Red Beard, money in To Have and Have Not; Jackie Brown/ interracial relations; children and violence in kill bill vol.I;
.i`` * ^ / . . . . . ` `~ 