This week, the Austrian National University in Canberra released details on 22,000 sites it had identified in Australia as suitable for pumped hydro.
The Coffs Coast and Bellingen Shire are surrounded by many sites. Following is an overview of the research, background on the technology and graphics.
What does it tell us? It tells us that 100 percent clean renewable energy is in reach within a generation. It also tells us that that the obsession of Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce, their parties and the government is nothing more than that crazy, lazy and short-termism at its worst.
Researchers at The Australian National University (ANU) have identified about 22,000 potential sites across Australia for pumped hydro energy storage, which can be used to support a secure and cheap national electricity grid with 100 per cent renewable energy.The zero-emissions grid would mainly rely on wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) technology, with support from pumped hydro storage, and would eliminate Australia's need for coal and gas-fired power.Lead researcher Professor Andrew Blakers said the short-term off-river pumped hydro energy storage (STORES) sites combined had a potential storage capacity of 67,000 Gigawatt-hours (GWh) – much more than the capacity required for a zero-emissions grid.Site searching and development of a PHES cost model are being explored as part of an ARENA funded project.
← Here's the truth about power prices – the more renewables, the lower the increase.


We shy away from introspection because, however fearful the surface seems, we fear the depths still more. And we are right. There is much to fear there. If there is terror about darkness because we cannot see, there is also terror about light because we can see. Would rather not see.
When your ship, long moored in harbor, gives you the illusion of being a house … put out to sea! Save your boat's journeying soul, and your own pilgrim soul, cost what it may.
We forget all too soon the things we thought we could never forget. We forget what we whispered and what we dreamed. We forget who we were.
The way we spend our days is the way we spend our lives.
Authoritarian socialism has failed almost everywhere, but you will not find a single Marxist who will say it has failed because it was wrong or impractical. He will say it has failed because nobody went far enough with it. So failure never proves a myth is wrong.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state is a complete failure of civilization, while a totally voluntary society is its ultimate success.
The successful artist is someone who continues to make art and isn't more than 50 percent bitter about the rest of life.
Artists are extremely lucky who are presented with the worst possible ordeal which will not actually kill them. Beethoven's deafness, Goya's deafness, Milton's blindness, that kind of thing. Among the greatest pieces of luck for high achievement is ordeal. I hope to be nearly crucified.
Fears about yourself dig into your ability to do your best work, while fears about what others will think of you compromise your ability to do your own work.
It may be that when we no longer know what to do, we have come to our real work, and when we no longer know which way to go, we have begun our real journey. The mind that is not baffled is not employed.
Probably the most significant and pervasive characteristic of the human pleasure machine is that people are much more sensitive to negative than to positive stimuli ... think about how well you feel today, and then try to imagine how much better you could feel ... there are a few things that would make you feel better, but the number of things that would make you feel worse is unbounded.
The major driving force is loss aversion. It is not so much that people hate uncertainty – but rather, they hate losing.
It is a part of the cure to wish to be cured.
A degree is not an education, and the confusion on this point is perhaps the gravest weakness in American thinking about education.
If you're going to write, don't pretend to write down. It's going to be the best thing you can do, and it's the fact that it's the best you can do that kills you.
To get back one's youth, one merely has to repeat one's follies.
100 Ways to Motivate Yourself: Change Your Life Forever. Steve Chandler. 2004.
When your life itself becomes the subject matter of the creative process, a very different experience of life opens to you – one in which you are involved with life at its very essence.
The great master key to riches is nothing more or less than the self-discipline necessary to help you take full and complete possession of your own mind. Remember, it is profoundly significant that the only thing over which you have complete control is your own mental attitude.
It's the same process I used in bodybuilding. What you do is create a vision of who you want to be, and then live into that picture as if it were already true.
When I open my eyes in the morning, I am not confronted by the world, but by a million possible worlds.
Freedom – a drunken whore sprawling in a power-maddened soldier's arms.


text:
Q: How long does a string constant live in c++? I've been wondering, how long does a string constant live in C++. For example, if I create some const char *str = "something" inside a function, would it be safe to return the value of str?
I wrote a sample program and was really surprised to see that such returned value still stored that string. Here is the code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

const char *func1()
{
    const char *c = "I am a string too";
    return c;
}

void func2(const char *c = "I'm a default string")
{
    cout << c << endl;
}

const int *func3()
{
    const int &b = 10;
    return &b;
}

int main()
{
    const char *c = "I'm a string";
    cout << c << endl;
    cout << func1() << endl;
    func2();
    func2("I'm not a default string");
    cout << *func3() << endl;
    return 0;
}

It gives me the following output:

I'm a string
I am a string too
I'm a default string
I'm not a default string
10

The func3 is there just to find out if the same works with other types.
So the question is: is it safe to return a pointer to a string constant created within that function (as in func1())?
Also, is it safe to use the default string value as in func2()?

A: A string literal has static storage duration and lasts the life of the program. From the draft C++ standard section 2.14.5 String literals paragraph 8 which says (emphasis mine going forward):

Ordinary string literals and UTF-8 string literals are also referred
  to as narrow string literals. A narrow string literal has type "array
  of n const char", where n is the size of the string as defined below,
  and has static storage duration (3.7).

and from section 3.7.1 Static storage duration paragraph 1:

All variables which do not have dynamic storage duration, do not have
  thread storage duration, and are not local have static storage
  duration. The storage for these entities shall last for the duration
  of the program (3.6.2, 3.6.3).

The second case in func3 on the other other hand is not valid. The lifetime of a temporary bound to a reference persists for the life of the reference, which in this case ends when the function returns. This is covered in section 12.2 which says:

The second context is when a reference is bound to a temporary.115 The
  temporary to which the reference is bound or the temporary that is the
  complete object of a subobject to which the reference is bound
  persists for the lifetime of the reference except:

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Karachi: The JS Bank Digital Banking Team marked another feather in its cap with the 'Best Digital Innovation Award' presented at the Pakistan Digi Awards 2018 in Karachi. Held on August 18th 2018 at Marriot Hotel, the Pakistan Digi Awards once again paid tribute to the most innovative and imaginative initiatives in the Digital Industry of Pakistan.
This year, JS Bank was honored to be the financial institution selected for its trailblazing mobile application, 'Apni Cricket League', a gamified user experience where banking was invisible, feasible yet entertaining. Based on Pakistan Super League – season 3, this Fantasy league celebrated our nation's passion for Cricket and the frenzy to win prizes; while banking was right there, successfully engaging hundreds of thousands of people across Pakistan.
13-day-long theatre festival begins At Alhamra Arts Center .


I received my driver's license mumble-mumble years ago in Maryland, back in the day when teen driving regulations were pretty light–no restrictions on number and age of passengers or driving at night.
stepbrother, stepsister of the junior driver and adopted or foster children living in the same household as the junior driver) in their vehicle unless they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. If they have not been convicted of a driving violation or been partially or fully responsible for a reportable crash after six months, they may have up to three passengers under age 18 who are not immediate family members without a parent or legal guardian present. If they have any convictions or are partially or fully responsible for a reportable crash while a junior driver, they are once again restricted to one passenger.
Other restrictions–such as not being able to drive late at night or not being able to drive late at night without a licensed driver over the age of 21 in the car–are part of some states' graduated license provisions.
So, what does this mean to an author?
Beware when crafting contemporary stories involving young drivers. Make sure you know the restrictions on young drivers in the state where your story is set. Don't have your underage driver tootling around the countryside with a car packed full of underage passengers after midnight unless you note he or she is flaunting the law.
Authors who learned to drive "back in the day" before graduated licenses and don't have any teen drivers in their households might not be aware of these licensing laws. As a copy editor who's flagged this issue a few times now, my helpful hint to writers of YA (or adult fiction featuring a young driver) is this: save yourself rewrites later and go to the transportation department website to look up the law on young drivers in the state where your story is set. You'll be glad you did!


Does Siri work for iPhone 4?
Discussion in 'Siri' started by V4L, Feb 7, 2013.
I have come upon what I believe to be an iPhone 4 which I can use Siri on. I have been told that Siri does not work on anything older than the 4S.
Just wondering if the iPhone 4 could actually use Siri without having to be jailbroken.
You've been informed correctly. Siri comes available stock on the iPhone 4S & iPhone 5.
Without Jailbreaking there's no way to have Siri (or what's actually a Siri port) on an iPhone 4.
Turns out the phone was jailbroken, and as you said, was using a port.
After jailbreak the iPhone to work with Siri,can the phone be updated with itunes?


text:
Senator Loren Legarda today renewed her call for Filipinos to join the Open Call for Curatorial Proposals for the Philippines' first national pavilion at the 15th Venice Architecture Biennale. Proposals can be submitted until October 30, 2015.
The open call for curatorial proposals for a Philippine Pavilion is open to Filipino architects, curators, practising artists from the different disciplines, urban planners, ecological activists, geographers, historians and critics of space, heritage workers, and others. Curators, as an individual or group, are urged to submit concepts, which will undergo a democratic selection process.
"The success of this endeavor will be achieved through significant support and participation by the community. I urge talented and brilliant Filipinos to join the open call process and become part of this historical undertaking in Philippine architecture," Legarda said.
The country's participation at the 15th Venice Architecture Biennale is a joint undertaking among the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Office of Senator Loren Legarda. The three agencies were also responsible for the successful return of the Philippines to the 56th Venice Art Biennale, after a 51-year absence.
Legarda, who pushed for the yearly participation of the Philippines in the Venice Biennale, said, "For me, architecture must not only reveal intellect or technical deftness; it should also be about spirit. I look forward to curatorial proposals that are able to communicate our realities as a nation. This platform will give voice to our people, how we overcome our struggles and use our distinctive resources through architecture."
All curatorial proposals should be emailed on or before October 30, 2015 to info@philarchvenicebiennale.net. Submitted proposals will be deliberated upon by a panel of jurors to assess the most suitable curatorial proposal.
The chosen proposal will be mounted at the Philippine Pavilion, the official national representation of the country at the 2016 Venice Architecture Biennale, which will run from May 28, 2016 to November 27, 2016. NCCA Chairperson Felipe De Leon, Jr. is the Commissioner of the Philippine Pavilion.
The Chilean architect Alejandro Aravena has been appointed as the Director of the 15th Venice Architecture Biennale. He has stated that "there are several battles that need to be won and several frontiers that need to be expanded in order to improve the quality of built environment and the people's quality of life." In the light of such vision and advocacy, he imagines the 2016 Exhibition to display "success stories worth to be told and exemplary cases worth to be shared where architecture did, is and will make a difference in those battles and frontiers."
Open call proposal forms and details can be accessed at thewww.philartvenicebiennale.com. For more information, the Coordinating Committee can be reached atinfo@philarchvenicebiennale.net or (632) 527-2175.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Shop with our upthemes.com coupon codes and offers. Last updated on Apr 24, 2019.
sashstudio.com offers a diverse selection of promo and deals for online shopping. Don't pay more than you have to with this amazing coupon code from upthemes.com, you can save up to 40% on thousands of products. All upthemes.com Coupons are 100% working. 81 discounts for you to choose from. It is a great time to buy, prices like this won't stay long!
What is the best upthemes.com Promo Code?
The best upthemes.com promo code right now is CYBER. This Code is for 'Redeem This Coupon to Activate FREE 1-Month Trial From UpThemes'. Copy it and apply it when you check out at upthemes.com.


text:
Rywalizacja kobiet w snowboardowym half-pipe'ie podczas mistrzostw świata w Kreischbergu została rozegrana 17 stycznia 2015 roku na obiekcie o nazwie Johnny. Tytułu sprzed dwóch lat nie obroniła Amerykanka Arielle Gold, która nie została zgłoszona do startu przez amerykański związek snowboardowy. Nową mistrzynią świata została Chinka Cai Xuetong. Wicemistrzynią świata została Queralt Castellet z Hiszpanii, natomiast na najniższym stopniu podium stanęła Francuzka Clémence Grimal.

Wyniki

Kwalifikacje

Finał

Przypisy

Mistrzostwa Świata w Narciarstwie Dowolnym i Snowboardingu 2015

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Bootcamp Microfellowships
Boot Camp Sessions
The Great PROV Data Challenge!
THATCamp Melbourne will be held at the University of Melbourne on March 25-26, 2011. It is organised and sponsored by the Victorian eResearch Strategic Initiative (VeRSI) and partners, the School of Culture and Communication, the University Library, and the eScholarship Research Centre (eSRC) at the University of Melbourne.
The Great PROV Data Challenge will be held at Public Record Office Victoria on Thursday 24 March.
Submissions for THATCamp Melbourne are now closed.
Applications for the Boot Camp Micro Fellowships are also closed.
Please join the Digital Humanities mailing list (Australia and New Zealand) for THATCamp Melbourne and other regional Digital Humanities Announcements (list)
All text and code on THATCamp Melbourne: is freely available for you to use, copy, adapt and distribute under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License as long as you link to THATCamp.org and the Center for History and New Media. The name "THATCamp" and the THATCamp logo are trademarks of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University.


text:
China's online retailers take the battle to the hinterlands
https://i-invdn-com.akamaized.net/trkd-images/LYNXMPEFA026B_L.jpg
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Delivery man of Alibaba's logistics unit Cainiao talks on a phone as he delivers a parcel in Lhasa
By Sophie Yu, Yingzhi Yang and Brenda Goh
BEIJING/SHANGHAI (Reuters) – Wu Weidong was never much of an online shopper.
The 47-year-old resident of Yanzhou, a small town in China's eastern Shandong province, typically bought groceries from local stores.
But messages from friends asking him to join their group purchases of fruits at bargain prices on the website Pinduoduo (N:) finally persuaded him to open an account there.
"It's mainly because my friends said the items there are cheap," he said. "So I've started using Pinduoduo more to buy fruits and snacks."
Started four years ago by a former Google (NASDAQ:) engineer, Pinduoduo has become one of China's biggest retail disruptors, breaking the dominance of Alibaba (N:) and JD.com by persuading users like Wu, who live in China's smaller cities, to start shopping online.
Alibaba and JD.com have for years tried to unleash rural China's spending power, teaching residents how to use their online platforms and using drones for deliveries to remote spots, with mixed results.
But the success of Pinduoduo's model, which offers users deeper discounts on mostly generic products if they buy in groups, and encourages them to share purchases through messaging app WeChat, is driving Alibaba and JD.com to make a fresh push into China's lower-tier cities.
Alibaba and JD.com now both have e-commerce apps similar to Pinduoduo's and say that they anticipate strong growth from rural consumers.
In September, Alibaba ran "Super Bargain Day," which took aim at such users with generous coupons and prices halved for 1 million items.
Pinduoduo is ranked second in the number of active buyers, analysts say. Pinduoduo reported 483.2 million active buyers at the end of June, versus Alibaba's 674 million. JD.com has 321.3 million annual active customer accounts.
However, Pinduoduo's annual spending per active buyer, at 1,467.50 yuan at the end of June, is lower than that of Alibaba, which said in September that users from less-developed areas who have been on its platforms for five years spent on average 10,600 yuan in the 12 months that ended in March. New users from those areas spent on average 2,300 yuan during that period, Alibaba said,
"China's e-commerce has been a duopoly market for years. Out of everyone's expectation there came Pinduoduo, emerging with a completely different set of practices to engage with users," said Keso Hong, a independent internet commentator in China.
OPPORTUNITIES AND THE ECONOMY
Analysts say Pinduoduo gained a foothold in the market thanks to the shortcomings in some of Alibaba and JD.com's models.
The two e-commerce giants built their businesses on the country's burgeoning middle class, competing intensely to woo big international brands like Burberry or Valentino to set up online stores. But it was hard to persuade residents in lower-tier cities that they needed to shop for luxury goods online.
Pinduoduo, in contrast, set its sights on bargain-hunters in lower-tier cities.
"Pinduoduo is similar to Facebook (NASDAQ:) that we designed our feed-based model to recommend products to users," Victor Tseng, vice president of corporate development at Pinduoduo, told Reuters.
Its model encourages users to recommend products to friends and family to gain discounts, and heavily leverages WeChat, China's dominant messaging service, which is owned by Pinduoduo-backer Tencent Holdings (HK:).
JD.com, also backed by Tencent, missed an opportunity to promote its WeChat option, Hong said.
"JD has enjoyed the advantage of being on WeChat for years, yet it failed to find the most efficient way to make use of this treasure," Hong said.
Other economic winds have also helped Pinduoduo.
A slowing economy has hurt Alibaba's purchasing power and JD's big-city core consumer base. Residents in lower-tier cities are starting to have higher disposable incomes compared with their first-tier city compatriots, whose living costs are higher, economists say.
CHASING AT THE HEELS
To be sure, Pinduoduo's user base remains much smaller than market leader Alibaba's, and its rise has not been without challenges.
Local media reports last month cited Pinduoduo's founder Huang Zheng as saying in an internal meeting that its gross merchandise volume, the value of goods sold on its websites within a certain time frame, had surpassed that of JD.com. The remarks drew a sharp response from the latter.
"Based on our internal analysis, we believe there is a significant gap between Pinduoduo and JD.com in terms of GMV (by any imaginable measures), basket size, return rate, and so on," a JD.com spokesman said.
Pinduoduo also remains dogged by accusations that its site hosts counterfeits. The company says it is cracking down on fakes.
Meanwhile, Alibaba and JD are trying to get a foothold in rural areas.
JD.com in September upgraded its group-buying platform, renaming it Jingxi, and is looking to improve logistics for users, saying that it wants to eventually fulfill deliveries to smaller cities within 24 hours.
Alibaba has announced a fresh focus on expanding in less-developed areas. Last year, it launched an mobile app called Taobao Tejia, or Taobao Discounts, which offers rock bottom bargain deals.
It also pushed its nearly decade-old group-buying and flash-sale service Juhuasuan to a more prominent position in its e-commerce ecosystem, where it will offer heavily subsidized selling campaigns, discounts, coupons and other perks.
Alibaba vice chairman Joe Tsai in August predicted that retail consumption from the lower-tier cities and townships would triple from $2.3 trillion to nearly $7 trillion by 2030, equivalent to compounded annual growth of 10%.
An Alibaba spokesman said that although 85% of Chinese residents in developed areas have used Alibaba's retail marketplace, the penetration was only 40% in less-developed places. That presents a "tremendous opportunity", he said.
"The growth of the country is slowing. But at the same time, the purchasing power of lower-tier cities are not fully released," said Liu Xingliang, an internet analyst at DCCI Data Center.
Asian stocks, Treasury yields fall as pandemic fears intensify
Stitch Fix Shares Plunge 15% on Q3 EPS Miss & 15% Salaried Workforce Reduction Announcement
U.S. stocks lower at close of trade; Dow Jones Industrial Average down 3.43%
Southwest Gas Jumps on Report Icahn Has Significant Stake
Asian Stocks Up, Regain Momentum Thanks to Positive U.S. Company Earnings
Soft Drinks, Live Events, Consumer Sentiment: 3 Things to Watch


text:
Posted on July 8, 2022 December 14, 2022
Constitutional Deadlock Over Privacy: A Third Way?
Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, a great deal of media attention has been focused on what comes next. The right to an abortion, granted by the original landmark case, was founded on the basis of a constitutional right to privacy. But it has already been made clear that similar rulings regarding a constitutional right to privacy, such as Griswold v. Connecticut could be at risk of being overturned as well. In addition, the Supreme Court has attracted controversy for several other controversial decisions as well, prompting proposals for how to reform the Court or how to reverse these decisions. But with confidence in the courts falling to historic lows, many such proposals would likely only make the situation worse and undermine confidence in the courts even more.
Perhaps it is time to stop worrying about what policies we want courts to protect and to start thinking about finding broad support for changes in process in the form of constitutional amendments.
The recent decision from the Supreme Court regarding abortion combined with rulings on school prayer, concealed guns, voting rights, and worries about future rulings once again reignite debates about whether and how the Supreme Court should be reformed. The impeachment of justices who some feel misled Congress has been floated, and the topic of court-packing has resurfaced again. The constitution does not specify the number of judges on the Court, so Congress could simply pass legislation creating more positions and then have those positions be filled by left-leaning justices to re-balance the Court. Term limits for Supreme Court justices would mean that there would be more turn over, preventing the Court from becoming too ideologically lopsided.
In addition to proposing reforms to the Courts' makeup, some have proposed reforms to the powers of the Court. Some now propose that Congress strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction for hearing certain kinds of cases, or that legislation could be passed requiring a supermajority of justices to strike down federal laws. It has even been suggested that if a particularly controversial ruling comes from the Court that Congress or the President simply ignore it, under the constitutional theory known as departmentalism which holds that each branch of government may decide on its own how to interpret the Constitution. In addition, there are several proposals to create mechanisms for Congress to override the Court if it wanted to, not unlike Canada's notwithstanding clause.
While many of these proposals might appease in some areas, they all have problems when it comes to putting them into practice.
After all, abortion rights proponents now find themselves in the same position as anti-abortion advocates did in the 1970s, and it took almost 50 years for them to get what they wanted. Proposals like court-packing simply do not have enough support.
It is important to note that much of the Supreme Court's power is based on the confidence the public has in it. The Constitution does not prescribe many powers to the Supreme Court, and even its power of judicial review is based on the precedent Marbury v. Madison, and as it has become all too clear that precedents are not set in legal stone. If people do not feel like the Court is impartial, they will be less inclined to heed its pronouncements. While some would like to see justices impeached or the court packed, this would only serve to undermine the confidence in the Court from those on the right, likely prompting retaliatory measures. This would weaken perceptions of impartiality of the Court even more, effectively transforming the Supreme Court into a very exclusive legislature.
Meanwhile, having Congress override the Courts' decisions risks undermining the commitment to minority rights.
Fundamental protections would become a flimsy thing, being reversed whenever the opposing party comes to power. Limiting the High Court's jurisdiction risks similar problems, simply offloading the same basic problem to an alternative body that the parties will shape so as to achieve their preferred policy objectives. All these efforts to manipulate the judicial system in order to secure specific political outcomes will only undermine overall public confidence in the Court.
Perhaps an alternative to such a standoff is to stop thinking about desired result we wish courts to deliver and start thinking about broader legal principles to embed in the constitution that could appeal to people on all sides of the spectrum. The legal issue underlying so many contentious issues like Roe v. Wade is the issue of privacy. Abortion opponents charge that because privacy isn't explicitly established in the Constitution, it isn't protected. Rather than dealing with legal debates about implied rights, why not amend the Constitution to explicitly include privacy rights? Polls show that a vast majority of Americans are concerned about privacy issues. And with the rise of surveillance capitalism, and of AI accessing vast datasets, there may be room for broad support for proposals to embed some kind of privacy protections in the constitution.
While getting the support needed for constitutional amendments is difficult (the last amendment was ratified in 1992), the increasing importance of privacy to broad segments of American society may create room for bargaining and compromise on these issues by both the left and the right. Recently, constitutional-law David French opined that the Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade may actually help de-polarize America. Because the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate largely centered around Roe v. Wade, sides had to defend a precedent, not a specific policy. But as French observes,
Is there a hope that you would have something along the lines of a democratic settlement to the issue that makes abortion so much less polarizing in other countries around the world? Europe, for example has long had more restrictive abortion laws than the United States, but the United States couldn't move to a European settlement because Roe and Casey prohibited that.
Indeed, polls show that Americans have fairly nuanced views when it comes to abortion. Few people would favor an outright ban on the procedure, so it may not be so difficult to imagine a compromise proposal for adding privacy to the Constitution that would not only protect abortion rights, but other rights like access to contraception, gay marriage, and protections from online surveillance. Such a move would not only allow Americans to address newly emerging privacy issues but also settle old disputes. Abortion rights passed through constitutional amendment would also have a legitimacy that Roe never did amongst abortion opponents, preventing back-and-forth sniping at the Court for not upholding preferred policies.
While a constitutional amendment would take time and a lot of negotiation, it may yield a far more stable and broadly satisfying solution to the abortion debate compared to the previous alternatives while not undermining confidence in the Court system itself. So instead of looking to courts to reach specific policy outcomes, perhaps the attention should be focused on building coalitions of support for broad legal principles that people can agree on.
When Courts Change Their Minds
In late June the Supreme Court of the United States released a bevy of opinions. Most prominent perhaps is the 5-4 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health in which the court overturned the famous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The court also, in Kennedy v. Bremerton, has done away with the long used "Lemon test" concerning the separation of church and state.
Beyond questions of whether the decisions are ethically correct, these rulings are notable because they go against established precedent. In legal systems like the United States, courts generally adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis or "to stand by things decided." The Supreme Court has previously ruled – in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that there exists an implicit constitutional right to abortion. Changing its mind is then unusual, although hardly unique to the current court. The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education is famously seen to have overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine the court had previously held in Plessy v. Ferguson. (Although, technically, the Brown ruling is more narrow, only contending that separate but equal does not apply in public schools.) Evan Butts has previously discussed some of the practicalities of overturning precedent for The Prindle Post.
Recent additions to the Supreme Court, such as Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, are being criticized for implying (misleadingly) they would stick with precedent on rulings like Roe v. Wade.
But why should the Court be bound by past opinion at all? Imagine a scientist claiming that we should stick with Newtonian physics and not jump ship to general relativity because Newtonian physics is an established precedent – even though they agree Newtonianism is incorrect.
This would be preposterous. And yet stare decisis is often understood to imply such a burden, that, as Justice Brandeis wrote in 1932 "in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than it be settled right."
Following precedent in cases where the rightness of the initial ruling is not in question is straightforward – this is nothing more than a demand for courts to interpret the law correctly. Precedent as such is superfluous here, as consistency is being ensured purely by the court deciding correctly in each case. The doctrine of stare decisis only achieves importance when it comes to ambiguous or even wrongly decided cases, and whether they should nonetheless maintain some hold over future judicial decisions.
As Justice Brandeis suggested, defenders of stare decisis justify it by pointing to its role in settling matters of law – that is, making law fair, consistent, and predictable, as opposed to mercurial.
The claim is that absent this general principle of stability, the law could change drastically with the simple turnover of judges. More practically, precedent also provides courts the legal tools to decide cases efficiently.
The value of having settled law is especially clear in cases like Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which enshrined a constitutional right to the recognition of same-sex marriages. Agree or disagree ethically, it is clear same-sex couples can and have built their lives differently knowing that they have a right to marriage recognition. Likewise, agree or disagree ethically with abortion, confidence they have control of whether to go through with a pregnancy affects how women live their lives. These are referred to as reliance interests.
Notably, these defenses of precedent contain the seeds of their own limitation as ultimately the doctrine of stare decisis is justified on the basis of being a social good. Cases of pernicious and dubiously-decided law are weighed against the value of the law being settled. Justice Brandeis made a further point, distinguishing the weight of precedent in statutory law (made by the legislature) which can easily be overturned by later legislation, from precedent in matters of constitutional interpretation. According to Brandeis, precedent matters less when there are fewer forms of redress.
Overall, few if any defend an imperative to follow precedent for all cases – at least when it comes to rulings being made by a court of equal or lesser authority. Precedents can and do get overturned. That lower courts should follow upper courts can provide an alternative defense of following precedent even in wrongly decided cases (sometimes called vertical as opposed to horizontal precedent).
In the 2018 5-4 decision Janus v. AFSCME, the majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito indicated that the current Supreme Court is especially open to revisiting previously decided matters when it believes they were wrongly decided. Justice Clarence Thomas has claimed, most recently in his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, that the Court should correct "demonstrably erroneous" rulings.
Expanding Thomas's point, one could argue that the Supreme Court should have no special obligation to consider the social value of precedent and settled law at all, and simply always make the legally correct decision.
The chief challenge with this line of argument is on what basis should a case be considered "demonstrably erroneous"? Certainly, the current Supreme Court does not have consensus that the legal reasoning of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey was wrong. (Brown v. Board of Education incidentally was a unanimous decision.) Absent strong evidence, e.g., a unified court, that a decision was made wrongly on legal grounds, the "demonstrably erroneous" standard of overturning precedent can collapse into "I think this decision was decided wrongly, and therefore I am justified in overruling it." This reintroduces the dependence on the idiosyncrasies of specific justices that a principle like stare decisis is supposed to help limit.
Law is complex and so is legal interpretation – we should expect obviously incorrect decisions to be the exception rather than the rule. In light of this, one approach to stare decisis would be to acknowledge precedent should not be binding, but that the force of its motivating reasons such as consistency and stability of law apply especially strongly in cases where legal correctness or the proper interpretive framework is under dispute. Nonetheless, the current Supreme Court has indicated a more revisionary stance. It will become clear over the next few years how this plays out with the broader legal understanding of stare decisis in the United States.
Constitutional Interpretation in the Roe Reversal
On May 2, Politico published a leaked draft opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The case concerns the constitutionality of Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, which would prohibit abortions in the state after fifteen weeks. The appearance in the press of a leaked draft opinion of the Court is a highly unusual event unto itself, the exact circumstances of which are not yet known by the public but are currently the subject of investigation and speculation. The draft opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, would not merely uphold Mississippi's restrictive abortion law. It would overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and thereby rescind the constitutional protection for the right to privacy with respect to abortion that has been in place for nearly half a century.
Much of the public discussion about legal challenges to the right to privacy with respect to abortion in the press and in the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominees has, rightly or wrongly, focused on the doctrine of stare decisis. From this perspective, since the Court had already recognized and reaffirmed the right to privacy with respect to abortion, the key question was whether the Court would abandon that precedent and under what conditions the Court had a legitimate basis to do so. These issues also came up in oral argument in Dobbs. In electing to overturn precedent, the leaked draft opinion provides the following rationale: Roe and Casey were "egregiously wrong" decisions that "must be overruled" because the recognition of the constitutional protection of the right to privacy with respect to abortion was an "abuse of judicial authority" wherein "the Court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people."Alito concludes that "the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives."
It is first worth noting what the draft opinion does not say. It does not address the issue of whether, as a matter of basic justice or as a matter of political legitimacy, the right to privacy with respect to abortion requires constitutional protection.
This is because, notwithstanding the abstract moral provisions of the constitution, the theory of constitutional interpretation espoused in the draft opinion presupposes that these are mostly irrelevant considerations with respect to determining whether an unenumerated right is a candidate for constitutional protection. While it is presumably the case that Alito thinks abortion is some kind of grievous moral wrong, the draft opinion does nothing to support that conclusion other than to indicate that some people hold that opinion. Its primary aim is to demonstrate that the right to privacy with respect to abortion does not satisfy two key criteria it claims are necessary for an unenumerated right to require constitutional protection: that the right is "deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition" and compatible with a scheme of "ordered liberty." According to Alito, the right to privacy with respect to abortion does not satisfy these criteria, and therefore the authority to regulate abortion must be left to the states.
It is worth contemplating just what the supposed restoration of the authority of the people to regulate abortion would constitute. This would grant states, in principle, broad police powers with respect to abortion. The people of the states could, of course, limit these powers by entrenching statutory or constitutional rights against their exercise, but they could also reserve such powers to the legislature. Some of these powers are the obvious ones that the opponents of safe and legal abortion desire: the authority to severely restrict or outright ban abortion within a state, including the authority to impose criminal penalties on women and their physicians if they are so inclined.
But it would also entail, as the late legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin pointed out, the authority to compel abortion so long as doing so promotes a legitimate state interest. This point was reiterated in Casey, which notes that but for the right protected by Roe, "the State might as readily restrict a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term as to terminate it, to further asserted state interests in population control, or eugenics, for example." A draft opinion which, if it does become the decision of the Court, would authorize state policy requiring compulsory abortion or would permit the institution of a scheme of licensure for the privilege of bearing children, including the imposition of fines or penalties for failure to make use of abortion services in the absence of such license is of great concern.
I mention this not because I think this is a likely prospect — I take no position on that question — but because it suggests that the draft opinion is prima facie defective.
And while jurists are generally less willing than philosophers to contemplate what they presume to be unlikely or fanciful consequences, or "hypotheticals," it does not require any imagination to realize that such policies are not unheard of. These were effectively part of China's One Child Policy, for instance. Once this dimension of the right to privacy with respect to abortion is acknowledged, it becomes clear that if the Court, in overturning Roe and Casey, primarily looks to a litany of 19th Century statutes restricting or prohibiting abortion as a basis for such a determination, it has not taken its analysis of "history and tradition" very seriously.
I have postulated that the same constitutional right to privacy that protects a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion also protects a woman's right to not be compelled to have an abortion. It might be claimed that this point is irrelevant because it is possible to have one without the other: it is possible to jettison the right to choose and retain the right not to be compelled. It is certainly possible to conceive of a legal regime that is barred from compelling a woman to have an abortion without that woman having an individual right against such compulsion. For instance, if the state restricts itself from exercising that prerogative, or because it would violate the rights of someone else, e.g., if an embryo or fetus is considered to be a rights-bearing person, or if a woman's body is considered the property of another person, and so on.
However, I would suggest that if a woman has an individual right not to be compelled to have an abortion, or, in other words, if such an invasion of her body by the state is an injury to her, as it plainly is, then, ex hypothesi, her right against such compulsion, whether described in terms of liberty, autonomy, privacy, or bodily integrity, also entails that she has the right to choose to have an abortion.
If this is the case, it follows that if the right to not be compelled to have an abortion meets the criteria for constitutional protection, then the Court is making a grave error in rescinding the right to privacy with respect to abortion.
The draft opinion is also concerning due to the precedent it sets for privacy rights in general. In a recent essay, the constitutional scholar Akhil Amar attempts to assuage these concerns. He aims to defend Alito's claim that "[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." According to Amar, overturning Roe and Casey would not imperil other privacy rights because, first, the public statements of sitting Justices indicate that they are not inclined to rescind other privacy rights, (e.g., the right to privacy with respect to contraception and the right privacy with respect to interracial marriage), and, second, because the recent legislative agendas of the states suggests that there is little to no public support for doing so.
The basic idea is that, unlike other privacy rights, the right to privacy with respect to abortion remains controversial, as evidenced by the persistence of legal challenges by various states. Therefore, other rights are unlikely targets for rescindment.
But this point is cold comfort for those who take the right to privacy with respect to abortion to have the same foundation as the other privacy rights. Perhaps the current composition of the Court can make peace with the apparent interpretive inconsistency of recognizing some privacy rights and not others, of declaring some privacy rights fundamental rights and treating the recognition of others as tantamount to judicial usurpation. But that does not prevent a future Court from using the reasoning in this draft opinion, if it does become the decision of the Court, as precedent for such judicial misadventure. (Of course, no precedent can prevent a majority of the Court that is willing to dispense with precedent altogether from imposing its interpretation of the Constitution on the nation.)
Presumably the reason Amar does not find the draft opinion to be concerning is because he does not see any such inconsistency. He agrees with Alito's assessment that "abortion is fundamentally different" from other privacy rights, a point on which he is cited as an authority in the draft opinion. One reason, put forth by Alito and Amar, for the supposed distinction between the right to privacy with respect to abortion and the other privacy rights is the presence of an interest in protecting "potential life."
The implication is that the right to privacy with respect to abortion entails unique conflicts that other privacy rights do not. But this is not plausible.
First, it is necessary to be clear about what the nature of the conflict is. The legitimate state interest, acknowledged in Roe and Casey, of protecting potential life, presents a conflict between individual liberty and public policy. When this is recognized, there is plainly no relevant difference between the right to privacy with respect to abortion and other privacy rights. All of these may be in conflict with various kinds of social policy, for instance, in regulating the "morals" of a community, as anti-miscegenation laws certainly purported to do.
The other reason, adduced by Alito and mentioned by Amar, states that the right to abortion with respect to privacy is distinct because abortion "destroys an 'unborn human being.'" But the Court has not dared to claim, even in this draft opinion, as it could not do without venturing into a constitutional quagmire, that an unborn human being is a constitutionally rights-bearing person. So it is not clear what the point of this claim is supposed to be or how it factors into constitutional interpretation.
It remains to be seen whether the official Dobbs decision will differ in any significant way from the draft opinion. What is clear is that the Court is on the verge of rescinding the right to privacy with respect to abortion.
Posted on March 29, 2022 December 14, 2022
On Judicial Philosophy: A Reflection on Judge Jackson's Hearing
Judge Jackson's recent confirmation hearing raises a variety of questions about the nature of judicial philosophy and what relationship it has with judicial "methodology." In her opening statement, Judge Jackson outlines a three-step methodology to how she approaches each case: to clear her head, to examine the data, and to apply the relevant laws if it is her job. When pressed and questioned about what her philosophy is, she candidly maintained her judicial philosophy is her judicial methodology.
This has received a variety of attention. Some think her response is indicative of her defying being labeled by others. Others think she is required to give us her judicial philosophy, that her methodology is the bare minimum of what to expect from a judge. Indeed, some were analyzing and predicting what the judicial philosophy would be based on her previous remarks and experience.
While Judge Jackson's response has been a highlight of Republican criticism, it would be rash to infer this question is pointless, a divisive tactic asked for the sake of moral grandstanding. It is worth addressing the nature of one's judicial philosophy, its importance, and asking whether it is equivalent to a methodology.
Let us presume that a judicial philosophy comprises the values and stance from which one sees and evaluates judicial cases. In this way, a judicial philosophy is value-laden and often prescriptive of how to interpret the law and act. In contrast, a methodology is often only descriptive. This gives the impression that a methodology is fair, insofar as it does not necessarily subscribe to values and prescribe responses.
This distinction maps onto our standard use of the terms and some intuitive examples. Consider how an ethical philosophy not only describes but evaluates as well as prescribes certain actions. For instance, deontology describes and evaluates actions according to the well-known categorical imperatives, the rule of universalization, and the intrinsic value of rational agents. When the deontologist maintains "Don't lie," it is based on a value of rational agency and is universal in its scope and demand.
A methodology, in contrast, is procedural. Much like the surgeon who must conduct several steps to perform surgery, a methodology describes the steps of parsing data and conducting certain actions. Moreover, while a methodology evaluates appropriate actions according to the issue at hand, a methodology does not have certain prescriptions built-in (aside from, perhaps, the general prescription to act in accord with the role one stands in; consider how the Hippocratic Oath is an imperative to do no harm). Where a scalpel is required in some situations, an IV is required in others — it depends on the patient's need.
If this distinction is plausible, then it follows that a judicial methodology and judicial philosophy are not equivalent. This is not to say, however, that the two cannot overlap. For every judicial philosophy can avail itself of a methodology, and vice versa. So, we need some clarity on what Judge Jackson means when she maintains her philosophy just is her methodology.
Would it be a problem to only maintain a judicial methodology without a judicial philosophy? At first blush, it would seem like a fortunate state of affairs if the judge were to be impartial like the surgeon with a methodology. One might argue by analogy that the judge collects the relevant data with a clear mind and applies the relevant tools according to the need. If the brain surgeon is not trained and equipped to conduct heart surgery, one would hope he denies the request to operate and calls his colleague! So too with the judge. Impartiality, after all, is necessary for a judge to be just.
Indeed, this cleanly depicts how Judge Jackson describes her own three-step judicial methodology in more detail:
Remain neutral: to proceed "without fear or favor." Before approaching any case, she clears her head of biases and prejudices.
Evaluate the data: to receive all of the appropriate inputs for the case (e.g., hearings, factual records, etc.)
Apply the law: to exercise the "Interpretation and application of the law to the facts in the case, and this is where I am really observing the constraints on my judicial authority."
Regarding this last step, she may look at her jurisdiction to see if it is her place to hear the case. Like the surgeon who coolly evaluates cases and responses, one might think Judge Jackson's methodology is sufficient for her role as a judge.
However, the surgical analogy fails on precisely the points it should help. On the one hand, it is questionable that both the surgeon and judge may coolly evaluate data. Does not collection of data require an evaluation of the case's salient features? It would seem so, though perhaps this is a common problem. If so, it would be what I like to call a 'work hazard' for simply engaging in this activity and thus not uniquely problematic to this particular issue. On the other hand, the respective standards which the surgeon and judge consult and the corpus to which they apply these decisions are different. For the Constitution is not self-interpreting and is far from clear at many points. For example, whose right is it to bear arms? Moreover, the application is also an issue. For example, does the prohibition of 'cruel and unusual' punishment preclude the death penalty today? Both of these issues of interpretation and application require values to guide the judge.
To illuminate how a judge might offer different sentences based on different judicial philosophies, consider two prominent philosophies:
Originalism: Interpreting the legal text(s) according to the words and original context, most prominently the original author's meaning and public understanding of the text.
Prudentialism (also known as pragmatism): Interpreting the legal text(s) according to the respective values and interests at play at the time of the case (Justice Breyer, whom Judge Jackson is to replace, exercised this methodology).
Based on the philosophy, one will have different answers to the above questions. According to originalism, "cruel and unusual" punishment might not preclude the death penalty. In other words, this could lead a judge be open to giving a sentence of the death penalty. Based on prudentialism, "cruel and unusual" may very well preclude the death penalty. Individuals' sensibilities of what counts as cruel may differ from the original authors (e.g. are there really any "humane" methods of executing a human?) In other words, this could lead a judge to avoid such a sentencing. Indeed, based on the sharp decrease in numbers of executions since '99, there is good reason to think that sentimentality has shifted for what classifies as "cruel."
I would suggest, then, that a judge not only ought to have a judicial philosophy but is required to have a judicial philosophy. A judge ought to have a judicial philosophy because it is both an obligation of the role and prudent to make explicit one's values and interpretive methodology. A judge is required to have a judicial philosophy if only out of operational necessity. The Constitution and law must be interpreted and applied, and to take a stance on 'no judicial philosophy' is perhaps to take a stance on a nascent philosophy.
We could, of course, attempt to deduce Judge Jackson's judicial philosophy. Some have pursued this route – she clearly maintains that "adherence to text is a constraint on my authority. I'm trying to figure out what those words mean as they were intended by the people who wrote them." While such comments as this may be indicative of an originalist position, I find it more helpful to see how Judge Jackson's minimal position is prudent and not unprecedented.
Judicial philosophies can unnecessarily be understood to signal a political philosophy. If offered in this forum, her position could very well be misunderstood and utilized to characterize her in different ways. This would not be unlikely, given some of the grandstanding and loaded questions from many senators. And Judge Jackson was admirably keen to avoid these issues and "stay in her lane." So, regardless of whether a candidate is obliged to inform the committee or public of her position, it seems to be cautious in some respects.
Such a brief response is also not unprecedented. Consider, for example, Justice Sotomayor's opening statement for her hearing before the Judicial Committee. When describing her judicial philosophy, Sotomayor stated that it's
Simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make law, it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms, interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress' intent, and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and by my Circuit Court.
Justice Sonya Sotomayor
It could very well be that this is a stock and trade answer for such a forum. Moreover, it is an intentionally minimal answer and thus, a cautious maneuver.
For all the prudence and precedence, however, the point stands: a judicial philosophy is distinct from methodology, and the former is necessary for a judge. While a judicial philosophy is perhaps part of a judicial methodology, it will not be the whole parcel.
"Politicians in Robes": Neutrality in the Supreme Court
As the Supreme Court decides which issues to take up on its docket — abortion, gun rights, and perhaps even affirmative action — legal seers are already tallying the expected results. Emphasizing the court's 6-3 conservative majority, many see these cases as having all but been decided; the writing is on the wall.
The political leanings of the Roberts Court have only grown more visible. While an air of secrecy often attends the justices' business and keeps the inner workings of the Court hidden from public view, any sense that the Court stands removed from the political fray is quickly disappearing. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor have increasingly called out Kavanaugh's inconsistent rulings, and he's been taken to task for his hollow virtue-signalling and performative hand-wringing. This isn't like when Justice Alito sparred with Gorsuch over his textualist read of Bostock. In Kagan's dissent in Edwards v. Vannoy just last week, she explicitly chastised Kavanaugh for his approach that "treats judging like scorekeeping … about how much our decisions, or the aggregate of them, benefit a particular kind of party." This, Kagan argues, is simply not how judges are supposed to approach their duties. Judging requires focusing on the legal merits of the case before you; it isn't about anticipating political fallout according to party affiliation or balancing "wins" and "losses."
The divisiveness seen in the Court mirrors the ugly politics in Congress that preceded its recent newcomers. All three justices, Ian Millhiser points out, were "nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half of the country." Given the hypocrisy surrounding Gorsuch and Barrett's appointments as well as the acrimony on both sides over Kavanaugh's confirmation, it will be hard to dispel the notion that the Supreme Court is just another battleground for political score-settling.
Add to this a common belief in the practice of strategic retirement – justices timing their departure to ensure the installation of like-minded predecessors – and it's hard to see the Court as anything other than an ideological land grab. The lottery appointment system, ensuring that justices are confirmed unevenly, erodes public trust and stretches the connection between the people's will and their rulers' authority to its breaking point.
Taken together, these considerations question the Court's ability to serve its necessary function as a check on power and legal backstop. Contrary to Justice Roberts's claim that the Court's job is merely to "call balls and strikes," the prevailing perception is that justices are overwhelmingly motivated by their personal political agendas and, thus, the Roberts Court stands committed to effecting the Right's political will.
So what do we stand to gain by maintaining the fiction that justices are nothing more than umpires? Why deny the Court is composed of "Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges"?
However well these cynical accounts reflect the reality, it does great and lasting damage to our legal system to reduce the High Court to just "another political institution" — a nine-member Congress replete with the familiar political hackery and partisan warfare. That damage can't be undone by simply expanding the bench to instill balance and force it to better reflect citizens' diverse viewpoints. Any politics-driven reform to the Court threatens to undermine whatever is left of the public's trust in the institution. The Court's role as guardian of individual rights, ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, and final arbiter of the law is very much at stake. Ultimately, the Court's decisions confer legitimacy only insofar as we believe in its singular ability to apply the law in neutral fashion, according to a standard we (perhaps naively) think insulated from political ideology.
These convictions have led Justice Breyer to claim that the "peril facing the Supreme Court comes less from partisan judges than from citizens who, encouraged by politicians, equate impartial justice with agreeable judicial outcomes." Rather than focusing on results, we should expect judges first and foremost to follow the law. Public trust comes from our faith that, in interpreting the law, justices rely on their legal ability and interpretative powers rather than fidelity to a particular political party. We call on the Court to deliver legal pronouncements rooted in a theory of constitutional interpretation rather than barefaced political morality. The Court stands apart from other political institutions because we see its members as possessing a specific kind of expertise and assessing cases according to a unique and independent metric. Judging is about applying neutral legal criteria, not about partisan policy preferences; it's about divining the meaning of words, the intentions of authors, and the implications of past precedents. It's an investigation rather than a contest, a deliberation rather than a quarrel, an art rather than a science.
Apart from this prioritizing of procedure over product, we also tend to think that the justice's lifetime tenure insulates them from political pressure. On the one hand, this makes the justices unaccountable to the people; these unelected officials exercise enormous power over the lives of citizens without fear of recall. On the other hand, this suggests that judges are freed from the rancor of party politics and are beholden to no one (including the person who appointed them).
But what do we do with the incongruity between this idealized fantasy and our political reality? How do we restore (or at least maintain) public trust in the institution? Expanding the bench threatens to burn whatever credibility the Court has left, but staying the course promises death by a thousand cuts. From regular appointments to term limits, perhaps President Biden's Supreme Court reform commission can show us the path forward, though no one seems to be holding their breath.
Justice and Climate Change
Letting the Poor Die
With Students Like These, Who Needs a Fatwa?
Why Bother with Political Arguments?
Is Academic Philosophy Pointless?
Indiana High School Ethics Bowl
8:00 am Hoover Hall
The Ethics of Giving: Courageous Conversations in Ethics
7:00 pm Thompson Recital Hall (GCPA), DePauw University


text:
Weekly Hashkafa Shiur 55 - The End of Time is Now
Given: Jun 30, 2021
Death and Exile as Model
We are at the End.
Adam, the first man, was created to declare belief in one G-d and that there is nothing else but G-d. (As the rabbi has said many times, G-d doesn't "have" existence—He "is" existence). Primordial Adam's obedience to the command to abstain from eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil would have been tantamount to such a declaration thereby meriting the Future World for him and all of mankind.
Since he did not obey, the subsequent action by G-d was to subject him, his family, and all who were to come after, to mortality and eviction from Gan Eden. We look upon these as punishments but that is not so. Such recompense are the model of what mankind must do to rectify Creation; they are methods. As we see from the events in the Garden, the primary way to rectify Creation, to "bring G-d back," is to obey His commands, do the mitzvot—commandments.Failing that, death atones, and eviction, which is exile, does too. We can say that the first ones to be exiled were Adam and his wife, Chava.
In the beginning, there was no evil in the Creation itself. It existed in the form of a snake but it was external to Adam's near-perfect world. The snake, the Satan, became part of the fabric of Creation when Adam disobeyed. He failed to perfect Creation by exerting his free will to choose to carry out G-d's Will. Mankind's objective has been, since then, to contend with evil and eradicate it.
The climate of today, the deterioration of civilization, is a continuation of the saga of perfecting the world via contending with evil. After the expulsion, this mission continued, given to Avraham and his descendants to retrieve the sparks of holiness that the Satan gleaned from the sins of man. The task continued in the descent to Egypt, to live there as foreigners and resist assimilation and maintain the integrity of the mission. Were they to succumb and not do the commandments, they were given the option to suffer or repent.
How does suffering bring rectification? When a person sins, he's indulging his desire for pleasure, and declaring that his will is equal to, or greater than, G-d's. His indulgence testifies to his belief that, alongside G-d, he has independent existence. Those two elements, those two misguided beliefs are expunged through suffering. Suffering confiscates the pleasure derived from the sin and also demonstrates that the person is powerless to relieve his own suffering. Clearly, he would if he could. The illusion of omnipotence becomes evident when, for example, someone is suffering in a hospital bed unable to just get up and walk out. The realization that one is "nobody," is a form of repentance.
Ultimately, as formerly, the rectification is about declaring "Ain od milvado"—nothing exists besides G-d. Reaching this point, intellectually, and spiritually, annihilates evil.
The Gemara in "Maseches Brachos" brings an interesting story, Rav Yossi went into a ruin of Jerusalem to pray. While praying Eliyahu ha'Navi came to wait outside where he prayed. A discussion ensued in which Eliyahu asked him if he heard a bas kol—a Divine voice. Rav Yossi said he had which told him "Woe to the children due to whose sins I destroyed my House (the Temple on the Mount) and exiled them among the nations." Eliyahu explained that these ideas are repeated three times per day, meaning that they are constantly "on the mind" of G-d.
What does G-d mean? Until then, the method of tikkun--rectification was primarily, zechus—merit, keeping the commandments in the Land governed by Jewish kings with a Temple to enact the ritual sacrifices and to connect to the shechina--His presence. But sin became so pervasive that G-d had to enact that which brought about the "woe to the children," the suffering and exile. Method "B" is what G-d bemoans in this Gemara.
In this last stage, the suffering takes on the dimension of Darkness. They both accomplish what they must. These two methods have different levels. The more the Jews sin, the greater the Darkness and the inherent suffering. For example: when there is no Temple, that is one level. The Divine Presence is absent. A second example is that, despite being in the Holy Land, it is dominated by the Eirev Rav—the Mixed Multitude, an entity that endangers Judaism. Another level is the exile when the prevailing culture provides distractions and temptations. Worse is when the prevailing culture and government forbids or prevents service altogether. There can be an even worse level, persecution or murder for attempts to serve. Another deadly level is when the killing becomes a campaign. Such was the Holocaust.
We are now in the mem-tet sharei tumah—49th Gate of Defilement. We know that G-d will not tolerate that because to fall below this level renders the Jews, and the world, irredeemable. The "restart button" must be pressed but not as was done in the time of Noah. Utter destruction is not an option, as the covenant symbolized by the rainbow promises. Therefore, the level of Darkness is staggering. We have been seeing terrible strife among the Jewish people beset with calamities such as what happened in Meron, at the Stolin synagogue, and most recently in Miami.
There is a unique kind of Darkness at the End. When mashiach comes, the essential feature is the consciousness of ein od milvado. That is the essential revelation. Since that is the ultimate undoing of evil, the climate at the End is its antithesis—yesh od milvado—there is "other" besides G-d. Evil is so great that mankind is buttressed between feeling powerless and powerful, between sensing he is nothing and believing he is supreme. The illusion that man is independent of G-d is countered by an environment that demonstrates he is nothing. It is this staggering contrast which tells us we are at the End.
In such a climate of contrast, events shape themselves to remind man of his impotence even while events point to man's ability to do as he wishes. The principle is chillul ha'Shem—desecration of the G-d's Name. The more G-d appears powerless and man is supreme, the greater the test.
This deepening of the profundity of the test has been going on throughout history but has intensified since World War 1. Fifteen hundred Jewish communities were destroyed, Hence when Gentiles saw that the Jews were destructible, it was a desecration of G-d's Name, conveying He is not all-powerful.
The Holocaust was the second test and probably the greatest crime in all of history. The only competition could be the economic policies of Mao which hurt or killed a hundred million Chinese, and Stalin's reign over the Soviet. Despite the tragedy of six million Jews killed, a number overshadowed by Mao and Stalin, the desecration of G-d's name was the greater tragedy in which the means of slaughter conveyed to the non-Jewish world a message that G-d must be dead (G-d forbid). The reasoning was "Would a king allow his prince to be abused, be killed?" The answer being "no," implies that the king doesn't exist or is impotent. The world's awareness of the Jews being His people is what conveyed the message with such power. When Jews are slaughtered en masse, the Gentiles say "What G-d is that Who would allow His children to be slaughtered?" This is evident not only in the slaughter but in the manner of slaughter which included the use of the corpse for various purposes: gold extracted from teeth, skin used for lampshades, bone, hair, fat, flesh, all raw material as though the Jew were an animal to be used as a commercial item. G-d conveyed the illusion that the non-Jewish world could get away with it.
The climate of yesh od milvado continues with the excelling of science and technology. What really runs the universe are scientific laws. That there is a Creator behind it is obscured. Even thirty years ago, it was reported that 7,500 articles were published in scientific journals daily and that the sum total of human knowledge doubles every five years.
Another characteristic of this climate is the surge in immorality, particularly the "LGBTQ Plus," (as the rabbi calls it). Emerging as a mass movement with political and social implications around 1968, it is a threat to Creation and deemed by G-d as "abomination." The world has become immoral: gender distinction is dismissed, a slap in the face to the Torah. It is not only allowed or tolerated, it is preferred, even glamorized. Liberalism and progressivism are both advancements in the destructive philosophy advocating for prikas ohel—the overthrow of the yoke of G-d. America has become the embodiment of this thinking despite having been considered a beacon of justice at least until the first half of the 20th century. When Justice Kennedy made same-gender marriage constitutional, America became steeped in delusional thinking.
As mankind rebels against G-d, G-d shows them what will result, that civilization will be destroyed. It has gone beyond just immorality. Norms of civilization are being overthrown.
Defund the police? As it says in "Pirkei Avos," were it not for the fear of Heaven, everyone would swallow each other alive while still living!" The "No-bail" law means that a guy who commits a crime won't be held and is released to commit another crime. In San Francisco, if you steal less than $950-worth of merchandise, there is no consequence. Cities, run by Democrats, have seen destruction of property--private and commercial--with no consequences to the perpetrators. Crime is increasing, up by 100%! There are no borders. Criminals are let in. Stimulus checks have replaced employment. Inflation, homelessness is rampant.
We live in a time when it seems there is no judge and no judgement. G-d seems to have abandoned His desire for civilization. G-d, seemingly, has disappeared. In the past, there was some retribution, some stop-gap measures. Not anymore. This environment is akin to that of the pre-Flood. Those generations brought civilization to its knees and G-d said, "That's enough!" That final generation before the Flood was to have been the one redeemed, having done the rectification. But the restart button destroyed to start again and not Redemption. What should have been a "flood" of messianic Light took on the form of its analogue, water.
The good news is that this environment augurs Redemption. The bad news is that we are watching the deterioration of civilization getting worse by the day. Another example: a law was just passed in New York State that gender as recorded on birth certificates can be anything the parents want. This is what the 49th Gate looks like. Man operates with no deterrent. "U.S." is no longer "United States;" it is "United Sodom." It is an irrational world where the victim of a crime pays the perpetrator.
This level of decrepitude cannot go on for long. Aside from eleven million Jews being totally divorced from identifying with the Jewish people, the powers currently in control in Israel would destroy the remnant that exists. The Arabs would destroy the state and Jewish lives while the Eirev Rav seek to destroy Judaism. How long will G-d tolerate this so that we earn the Future World of bliss? How long the necessity of Darkness? The Darkness is that which blocks the Divine flow necessary to sustain Creation. Darkness increases because the Window is closing. But at some point, it closes. All holiness, all Divine energy, would be blocked and existence would cease. This is a world not just rife with sin but one in which G-d, if acknowledged at all, is severely desecrated and the Divine energies are almost totally arrested.
Participant: In the three recent events when Jews were killed, the common theme has been "collapse."
Rabbi: I believe the message is that there is an uncommon amount of sinas chinam—baseless hatred and loshon ha'ra—harmful speech among the Jewish people which caused them and I brought many proofs of this in a prior lecture.
Participant: Many people are failing to see the connection. Are more things going to have to happen to wake people out of their coma?
Rabbi: It could continue in other ways or somehow they will get the message. Somehow, G-d will enable them to get the message.
Participant: Someone said that the collapsing was for the sin of not keeping the Sabbath. But it's been said that there is the common theme of strangulation, not being able to breathe. In Miami, there was strangulation, falling, the finding of body parts and it seems like this latest had all in one, including Corona.
Rabbi: I look at strangulation as the foremost cause of death in all of them. The daily generation of loshon ha'ra is massive—the internet, the media, everyone killing everyone else. In the olden days, you spoke loshon ha'ra to one person but, with the internet, you can speak to millions in an instant. As I said at the start of the pandemic, this virus affects breath, the means to speak.
Participant: You said there is another way to wake people up other than suffering. What is that "other way"?
Rabbi: Somehow someone will get it out there. It could be mashiach disguised as a regular guy.
Participant: What do we take away from these events which make us lose hope and cause more confusion, especially given the questions about the cause of the collapse—was it government officials? Was it deliberate? All the things coming out little by little….
Rabbi: When Moses came to Egypt, he declared that he was mashiach. He said, "I'm the guy; pakod yifkod" (the code language of the mashiach) so what happened next? Pharoah sends them packing to gather their own straw to make the bricks. Can you imagine the confusion, the hopelessness, the desperation during those months? Same thing here. What G-d wants is for us to pass this ultimate test of bitachon—trust. No matter what you see, it is all part of the Divine Plan to bring the mashiach. Imagine being in the Holocaust. There are many stories of Jews who had tremendous bitachon at that time. The greater the trust in what appears a hopeless situation, the greater the reward. It says that no matter what the measure of suffering, of evil, the measure of good will be 500x the measure of suffering. We look around us and the evil is so pervasive, so imagine when mashiach comes, the measure of good being 500x greater? That will be the compensation for what G-d had to do. We have to say, "This too is for the good." That is what is required now as it was in Egypt when Moshe failed to deliver. Same at the splitting of the Reed Sea. The Egyptian army was in pursuit of the runaway slaves. G-d said, "You have to trust me." Nachson ben Aminadav jumped into the sea, went in up to his nose, and then the sea split. G-d needed someone to demonstrate unwavering trust. In that merit, the people were saved.
Participant: Tonight, U.S. forces in Syria were attacked by multiple rockets (ostensibly) by Iran.
Rabbi: Good. It might wake up the idiots in the State Department who imagine they can make a deal with Iran that allows Iran to build a bomb. How can they not see that Iran's only objective is to dominate the Middle East and create the ultimate caliphate? It would be easy to destroy Iran; just bomb the infrastructure, but nobody wants to do it. Amazing how Iran can hold the entire world hostage and nobody cares. They get away with everything they do, antagonize all the nations in the Middle East. But one day, justice will be done. G-d will judge the world.
Check out the haftorah (biblical portion from the book of Prophets or Kings read after the traditional Torah reading) of the portion "Nitzavim." It was read, interestingly, the same week the World Trade Center was brought down. Isaiah says of his vision that G-d was riding a horse, His clothing stained with blood. Isaiah took this to mean that G-d would punish the Jews but
G-d said that the cause of his blood-stained attire was because He had just crushed Edom just as a winemaker crushes his grapes. Guess what? That is exactly what will befall the Edomites of today, the Democrats, the liberals, the progressives, all those who try to destroy morality. Same with Iran. All will be crushed eventually when G-d ends the program of Darkness.
Participant: They say that 9/11 wasn't a terror attack, that it was done by political insiders. Will the truth about all that eventually be revealed? The Matrix that we are living in right now,…
Rabbi: Everything. The vengeance of G-d is not only punishment; it's revelation. It is both. G-d must reveal the nature of—the quality and quantity—of the sins of the nations of the world. Therein lies justice. He must reveal why He has done what He's done.
Participant: Will this revelation be like an epiphany or just what comes out like in the news, leaked….
Rabbi: We don't know exactly how, whether by prophecy, consciousness,…we don't know exactly.
Participant: These revelations occur once the Window closes and the Gate opens?
Rabbi: These revelations won't happen until the Gate opens, when all existence is sustained by the Gate opening. That is the pekida, when Mashiach ben Yosef is released from his prison. Once that happens, it is just a matter of time. Redemption begins and it is a process. Once it begins, like in Egypt, there is no back-tracking.
Participant: Where is this Gate and Window? In which olam—world (of the four: Asiyah, Bria, Yetzirah, and Atzilut)?
Rabbi: It's in malchus (a sefira, one of ten Divine energies which create realities.) The shefa-- flow of Divine energycomes from Yesod which "pours" into the others which, ultimately, flow into malchus—majesty, kingship, the domain of the world. But Yesod is blocked. That is the pekida, when the "water" from the reservoir –in this case like the clouds or even the seas from which the waters evaporate and become clouds--can flow out and finally into the pipes in your house. It ends at the faucet which is Yesod but the faucet is shut. The malchus is a kli--vessel underneath the faucet but nothing can fill malchus. But when the faucet opens, it will all pour forth.
Participant: We just fasted, beginning the "three weeks" (of mourning commemorating many catastrophic events in Jewish history). During this time, don't they say that there is a vast amount of good energy, joy, happiness, inherent in it but we can't tap into it. Just as it is a time of tragedy, it will become the happiest time. How can we connect to that potential?
Rabbi: The way to connect is to invest in your bitachon that G-d will reverse the evil. Look forward to the revelation. Looking forward isn't just because you want to have a good time. It is because the beauty of it will be your profound relationship with G-d, a closeness to Him. You can express your desire to establish a relationship with Him because that is how much you love Him.
Participant: It is said that there will be a major war to destroy Edom/Rome.
Rabbi: Yes, I believe there will be a major war between Iran and Israel. America too, but only if Trump is president. If Biden is president, he won't even know there is a war!
Participant: It says "On that day, everyone will know that G-d is One and His Name is One. Correct?....incoherent audio...
Rabbi: Correct! Edom is Russia, Europe and America. But Russia and Europe is the evil aspect of Edom whereas America has been the good part slowly transforming to evil. The Satan is trying to take away the tov she'b'Esav—the good aspect of Esav/Edom and replace it with the evil for his own preservation because he is dying. Eventually, the evil will be thrown out and the good aspect of Esav, restored. I believe this translates into the return of Trump who will not only restore America but will do tremendous good for the Jewish people and advance their entire hatzlacha—fortune.
Participant: You think Trump is coming back?
Rabbi: Yes.
Participant: It was found in the bible codes that Trump will win pamayim—twice.
Rabbi: We've been in a holding pattern—that's all. This was a shochad l'Satan—bribery to the Satan. G-d allowed Satan to survive, to re-emerge briefly because he had legitimate kitrugim—prosecutions against the Jews. But it's temporary. It is an interruption like what happened with Moses. When he went to Pharoah the first time, the plagues should have begun but they didn't. When you are the 49th Gate of defilement, many sins must be atoned for so the books can be balanced. Therefore, there is suffering and Darkness.
Participant: How long will the Arizona audit take?
Rabbi: I don't know but it is taking a long time because they are being very thorough. When is comes out there was fraud, there will be a constitutional crisis. The other states will be compelled to do an audit. When they too can determine fraud, Biden will be proven an illegitimate president. Any orders he signed into law will be deemed illegal. That will be a stunning defeat for the Democratic Party and the Left will go bananas. Trump was, in some respects, naïve. He underestimated the evil around him. When he returns, he will go after these people, as he should have done the first time, with an incredible vengeance. We don't realize the depth of evil of these people because we are good. Before the Holocaust, if someone had told you that they will be baking Jews in ovens, would you have believed it? That is what evil relies on, that you will not safeguard yourself because you don't believe such evil can exist. That's the problem. We think they just differ. Evil never hesitates to enact evil while good hesitates to counter it. Evil is absolutely ruthless! Trump is now "woke" to how bad they are. The Deep State must be stopped.
Participant: How does Trump fit into the scenario of the coming of mashiach? The nations are expected to be against mashiach but Trump would approve of him.
Rabbi: Trump is a major character in the messianic process, to bring Esav's teshuva to bear. He is a messianic figure. We don't know what G-d has done to the War of Gog u'Magog. He may have substituted it for another nation. Hezkiahu was to have been mashiach and Sancherev should have been Gog. I believe that Gog is the United Nations. They argue as to whether Israel has the right to defend itself against Iran. Are they crazy? They are always subjecting Israel to condemnation based on a double standard and are against Jerusalem. That qualifies them as Gog. It is a real possibility.


*Got cranberries and craisins at Cranberry Fest.
We got up to the cabin for one last weekend before the boys close her up for the winter. Nothing quite compares to a weekend in the woods. It does wondrous things for your mind and soul. Unfortunately this year it has made me way too relaxed, so much so that I haven't even taken the time to snap some pictures documenting our time up there. The pictures above were all taken when we were up over Labor Day. Now the trees are changing from green to yellows and brilliant reds. While I wouldn't say it was peak color, by the time we left on Sunday it was getting close. The air is cooler now, the wind a little brisker. You need sweatshirts and coats. But the sun was shining and it felt so good on your skin. It was a perfect fall weekend.
The Hodag is the symbol of Rhinelander and I had wanted to get a picture of us in front of the big statue when you come in to town each year. I didn't get that shot this year, but over Labor Day a kind stranger took these off the boys outside of a restaurant downtown. My phone (camera) had gone dead, so she took them and emailed them to me immediately. People are good.
The only pictures I did get this weekend were of our paddle boat ride. It's rare that we get a family picture, with all four of us, so though I didn't get out my camera as much as I should have, I am pleased with what I got.
May you rest well this winter and be ready for our return in May.
We know we'll be ready to see you.
Your life looks so glorious. I am happy you are happy. Your boys are So. Cute. Really they are. I love Hutt-Hutts bald little head. Adorable.
Just now catching up on blogs (again)...d'oh! I'm so glad you had one last weekend up at the cabin, and that it was low-key and relaxing. Love the pics you posted from Labor Day!
More important than the photos are the moments created in your hearts! I'm glad you had some fun and quiet family time!
I too am just trying to catch up on blogs! LOVE your pictures! It sounds like you had a fantastic weekend!


text:
Q: Why does a Silverlight application show a blank browser screen when created from exported template? I created a silverlight app (without website) named TestApp, with one TextBox:
<UserControl x:Class="TestApp.MainPage"
    xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
    xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
    xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/blend/2008" xmlns:mc="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006"
    mc:Ignorable="d" d:DesignWidth="640" d:DesignHeight="480">
  <Grid x:Name="LayoutRoot">
        <TextBlock Text="this is a test"/>
  </Grid>
</UserControl>

I press F5 and see "this is a test" in my browser (firefox).
I select File | Export Template | name it TestAppTemplate and save it.
I create a new silverlight app based on the above template.
The MainPage.xaml has the exact same XAML as above.
I press F5 and see a blank screen in my browser.
I look at the HTML source of both of these and they are identical.
Everything I have compared in both projects is identical.
What do I have to do so that a Silverlight application which is created from my exported template does not show a blank screen?
(creating a WPF application from an exported template like this works fine)

A: The Export Template tool does not understand the <XapFilename> and <SilverlightAppEntry> project properties.  Hence when creating a template it does not place a replacement marker in either of these properties.
If you look in the bin\debug folder of the project you created from the template you will see that the Xap file has the same name as the source project from which you created the template not the name of the new project you created.  That in itself isn't so much of a problem however inside you will find that the application entry point also uses the original namespace for the template source project.  Yet the actual app entry point is correctly placed in the namespace of the new project.  The entry point cannot be found when the test page loads the Xap into the plugin.  In IE with debugging turned on you get an error dialog, in Firefox I suspect there is something in the error console if you open it up.
How to fix
First of all when creating the template don't let VS automatically import it (its only only a file copy anyway).
Once the template is created find the template zip file in "Documents\Visual Studio 2008\My Exported Templates" folder.  Extract the .csproj file.
Modify the <XapFilename> property to:-
<XapFilename>$safeprojectname$.xap</XapFilename>

and the <SilverlightAppEntry> property to:-
<SilverlightAppEntry>$safeprojectname$.App</SilverlightAppEntry>

put the .csproj back in the Zip file.
Now you can copy the Zip file to a "Documents\Visual Studio 2008\Templates\Project Templates\Visual C#\Silverlight" folder.
The template should appear when you select Visual C#\Silverlight in the new project dialog.
Create a project and it should run correctly with F5.