How come when the US elects "actors" we end up with morons, and when the Ukraine elects an "actor" they get a leader with integrity?
- Part of the problem with saving democracy (and the irony of that publication's past is not entirely irrelevant) is that it rather begs the question of "For whom?" Do we want to fix, or save, democracy for the immensely-flawed ruling class? Do we want to ensure that future generations of those in power have advantaged original positions? Or do we want something else? (The elites certainly don't.)
I always thought that the entire point of U.S. Const. Art. I § 9 cl. 8 was to balance the prohibition on attainder and corruption of blood. That said, the specific examples cited in the preceding paragraph imply that blood is inherently corrupt… or at least inconsistent with democracy. Or maybe it's just a recognition of a flaw in That Book — one is not supposed to visit the sins of the fathers upon the sons, but there's silence as to presuming the merits of the fathers in the sons. Apparently, we haven't learned much about any of that (such as the previous administration's appointment of a princess and her consort to positions in government for which they were manifestly unqualified).
- On a simultaneously lighter and heavier note, the commission on renaming bases named after
traitorsconfederates has presented a preliminary list that ultimately has the same fundamental flaw. All it's going to take is for other aspects of these individuals to come to light that are considered "inappropriate in role models." Hypothetically — picking one I know to be untrue — let's say that a cache of letters reflecting virulent antisemitism by MSgt Roy Benavidez came to light five years after Fort Bragg was renamed after him. Would we rename it again?
The commission would be vastly better off focusing on specific events from other than Manifest Destiny-related conflicts… preferably that don't have inappropriate baggage of their own ("Fort San Juan Hill" would be unfortunate!). That said, I wouldn't have wanted to go through training at Fort Pork Chop Hill — so maybe just sticking to local-to-the-base geography would be a better bet. <SARCASM> None of those names ever have problems; who could possibly object to "Fort Little Big Horn"? </SARCASM>
- Copyright is again under scrutiny. Some "experts" profess a need for change, while others approach the matter rather sideways. The real weakness of these considerations, though, is that they don't engage with the product/process problem… which would also require engaging with the creator/copyright-holder problem, and that is not something that is going to avoid being drowned out by transferee money and egos. (Exhibit A: This guy, who had not a damned thing to do with the creative process and not more than 1% to do with the creative product, although he "won" six Oscars while being a thoroughly vile individual.)
The real problem with copyright law — and the general conception of "intellectual property" — is that it presumes the primacy of economic motives in everything related to the advancement of the useful arts and sciences. Ummm, not so much… as the very existence of the market for oligarchs (of all nationalities) to buy "the original" of works of fine art and then sequester them from view demonstrates rather well.