Whether current criminal sentences are too high in general is a separate issue from the right sentence for Stone. When Paul Manafort was given a four-year sentence, I told people I'd be happy to live in a world where that was the normal sentence for what he did. But we don't live in that world, and I don't see why Manafort -- or Stone -- should get there ahead of the rest of us.
I was in grade school in central New York when the practice of Government Prayer (TM) was shut down. Despite all the howls from outside, I distinctly remember how little we schoolkids cared. We didn't want to be in school, let alone pray in it, or listen (as a bunch of Italian, Irish, and Polish Catholics) to some teacher droning on from the King James Bible. There will be prayer in school as long as there is algebra. The government should stay out of it.
This may be right, it may be wrong. At least it's about the actual world. I don't think I have a basis for predictions, at least no basis warranting inflicting my predictions on others, so I will await events. For people who think they do have some basis for predictions, I promise not to point and laugh if they don't pan out.
African-Americans already know about this, and knew it back when. If they are, nevertheless, coming around on him, about which I have no basis yet for a view, that's a positive for Bloomberg. But the recycling of old news was played by the recycler as something negative, that needed to be broadcast, presumably because he thought it insufficiently known by people who might not like it.
What's the news here? This was exactly what Bloomberg was saying publicly back when. Everyone who was paying attention then knew about it. He has since had a Come To Jesus moment on stop and frisk, and I leave it to others whether they think he's sincere. I don't care that much about sincerity once you box yourself in and can't do it again.
Is there a recognizable political demographic that checks the first five boxes and also wants to cut Social Security? Maybe it's a logically-possible collection of political beliefs (or, if you prefer, irritable mental gestures), but I haven't seen many, or maybe any, examples in the wild.
Means-testing Social Security will make all too obvious that it is -- gasp -- WELFARE, something only Those People (TM) get. Its political invulnerability is precisely the result of its universal status and the comforting illusion so many recipients entertain that it is some kind of earned and paid-for benefit, not -- shudder -- WELFARE.
This looks perfectly sensible, almost obvious, to me. I've never been impressed by districts that swung red or blue. I always want to know who in those districts came out. To be sure, there are individual voters who swing red or blue, but I've never seen any evidence that this is a large group. And, to operationalize things, nobody knows what to do with them anyway. No one who could swing from Obama to Trump has any coherent sort of "politics" that most of us -- who lean whatever way we lean largely based on policy preferences that we think we've thought about -- here understand beyond the impulse to look at how their lives are going, throw whichever bastard is in out, and then throw that new bastard out when he doesn't deliver whatever it is they think they want. (Often, of course, because he can't and neither can anyone else. But try telling these voters that.) There is simply no systematic or issue-based way of appealing to them. If you have mad campaign skills and charisma, or are simply willing and able to tell outrageous but comforting lies without visible shame, you might peel some off of this mindless cycle, but you can't game that out by issue stances and the like.
I read it at the time. Nice piece, but nothing in it that isn't obvious. There are things you can't report for a variety of reasons. One of them, not really Jordan's point, is that you haven't run down the rumors and sourced a proper story. If you have any information on the Iowa rumors, feel free to share. Along with any reasons news organizations might have not to run this story if they had it nailed down.
Tucker Carlson himself made roughly the same point, and got booed for it, at a 2009 CPAC convention, urging the conservative media to go into the field and find things out, like the New York Times (his example), rather than just attitudinizing about information they get from, among other places, the New York Times. One of these missions, however, is hard work; the other is something any barstool blowhard or Twitteratus can pull off.
You picked the source, not me. I hadn't heard about this previously because I haven't been following the Iowa caucus. I have a life and it has been unusually busy lately, so I can't say from what little I've seen whether the guy who says they've "been noting all week" stuff about a f****d-up app was lying or not. You picked him, you vet him.
While I would crawl naked over broken glass to vote for either of them over Trump, I've never thought that either Sanders or Warren would be particularly good at the job of Presidenting, and would be more useful where they are. That said, they, particularly Warren, would put good people in the right spots and let them do their jobs honestly, and the things they want to do that I disagree with aren't going to happen, so I can live with what I perceive to be their shortcomings as administrators or wielders of executive power.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Very Stable Genius Predictions”
I disagree with this, but, then again, I've never been part of a brokered convention.
On “Roger Stone Sentencing Gets Suddenly Interesting”
Whether current criminal sentences are too high in general is a separate issue from the right sentence for Stone. When Paul Manafort was given a four-year sentence, I told people I'd be happy to live in a world where that was the normal sentence for what he did. But we don't live in that world, and I don't see why Manafort -- or Stone -- should get there ahead of the rest of us.
On “Wednesday Writs: SCOTUS and Almighty God Edition”
I was in grade school in central New York when the practice of Government Prayer (TM) was shut down. Despite all the howls from outside, I distinctly remember how little we schoolkids cared. We didn't want to be in school, let alone pray in it, or listen (as a bunch of Italian, Irish, and Polish Catholics) to some teacher droning on from the King James Bible. There will be prayer in school as long as there is algebra. The government should stay out of it.
On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Martyrs, Saints, and Grifters Upon the Waves Edition”
Take that up with them. I stand by my promise not to point and laugh.
"
This may be right, it may be wrong. At least it's about the actual world. I don't think I have a basis for predictions, at least no basis warranting inflicting my predictions on others, so I will await events. For people who think they do have some basis for predictions, I promise not to point and laugh if they don't pan out.
"
I accept that as a statement about how you feel.
"
African-Americans already know about this, and knew it back when. If they are, nevertheless, coming around on him, about which I have no basis yet for a view, that's a positive for Bloomberg. But the recycling of old news was played by the recycler as something negative, that needed to be broadcast, presumably because he thought it insufficiently known by people who might not like it.
"
What's the news here? This was exactly what Bloomberg was saying publicly back when. Everyone who was paying attention then knew about it. He has since had a Come To Jesus moment on stop and frisk, and I leave it to others whether they think he's sincere. I don't care that much about sincerity once you box yourself in and can't do it again.
"
Is there a recognizable political demographic that checks the first five boxes and also wants to cut Social Security? Maybe it's a logically-possible collection of political beliefs (or, if you prefer, irritable mental gestures), but I haven't seen many, or maybe any, examples in the wild.
"
Means-testing Social Security will make all too obvious that it is -- gasp -- WELFARE, something only Those People (TM) get. Its political invulnerability is precisely the result of its universal status and the comforting illusion so many recipients entertain that it is some kind of earned and paid-for benefit, not -- shudder -- WELFARE.
On “The Last Day: Impeachment Endgame”
You won't find a prosecution. 44 U.S.C. 3106 is not a criminal statute. Just read the damn thing.
"
Go find a lawyer to read this to you slowly. I don't have the time.
"
(ripping up Trump’s SOTU speech was a federal criminal violation),
No, it wasn't.
On “Politico Reports “An Unsettling New Theory: There Is No Swing Voter””
This looks perfectly sensible, almost obvious, to me. I've never been impressed by districts that swung red or blue. I always want to know who in those districts came out. To be sure, there are individual voters who swing red or blue, but I've never seen any evidence that this is a large group. And, to operationalize things, nobody knows what to do with them anyway. No one who could swing from Obama to Trump has any coherent sort of "politics" that most of us -- who lean whatever way we lean largely based on policy preferences that we think we've thought about -- here understand beyond the impulse to look at how their lives are going, throw whichever bastard is in out, and then throw that new bastard out when he doesn't deliver whatever it is they think they want. (Often, of course, because he can't and neither can anyone else. But try telling these voters that.) There is simply no systematic or issue-based way of appealing to them. If you have mad campaign skills and charisma, or are simply willing and able to tell outrageous but comforting lies without visible shame, you might peel some off of this mindless cycle, but you can't game that out by issue stances and the like.
On “The Last Day: Impeachment Endgame”
Forget it, Chip; it's projection all the way down.
On “Two Great Cases: Of Wheat, Weed, and Wickard”
If the interstate commerce power allows everything to be regulated, explain Sebelius, the Obamacare case.
"
Ask Mr. Caminetti about that.
On “Chaos Isn’t a Ladder, It’s a Caucus in Iowa”
I read it at the time. Nice piece, but nothing in it that isn't obvious. There are things you can't report for a variety of reasons. One of them, not really Jordan's point, is that you haven't run down the rumors and sourced a proper story. If you have any information on the Iowa rumors, feel free to share. Along with any reasons news organizations might have not to run this story if they had it nailed down.
"
Tucker Carlson himself made roughly the same point, and got booed for it, at a 2009 CPAC convention, urging the conservative media to go into the field and find things out, like the New York Times (his example), rather than just attitudinizing about information they get from, among other places, the New York Times. One of these missions, however, is hard work; the other is something any barstool blowhard or Twitteratus can pull off.
"
You picked the source, not me. I hadn't heard about this previously because I haven't been following the Iowa caucus. I have a life and it has been unusually busy lately, so I can't say from what little I've seen whether the guy who says they've "been noting all week" stuff about a f****d-up app was lying or not. You picked him, you vet him.
"
You mean the part where they say "as our team has been noting all week"?
On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Landslides Are Best Left for Songs, and Other Fleeting Hopes”
Do people calling out hypocrisy believe it to be effective, or merely necessary?
"
I did in 2016.
On “Chief Justice John Roberts Does Nothing, Rand Paul Objects”
Did someone leave off the part of the video where Paul told us what the question was?
On “Poor Strategery: Elizabeth Warren Tilts at the Misinformation Windmill”
While I would crawl naked over broken glass to vote for either of them over Trump, I've never thought that either Sanders or Warren would be particularly good at the job of Presidenting, and would be more useful where they are. That said, they, particularly Warren, would put good people in the right spots and let them do their jobs honestly, and the things they want to do that I disagree with aren't going to happen, so I can live with what I perceive to be their shortcomings as administrators or wielders of executive power.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.